Podcasts about Oncology

Dr. Nikki Maphis didn't just lose a grant. She lost a lifeline. An early-career Alzheimer's researcher driven by her grandmother's diagnosis, Nikki poured years into her work—only to watch it vanish when the NIH's MOSAIC program got axed overnight. Her application wasn't rejected. It was deleted. No feedback. No score. Just gone.In this episode, Oliver Bogler pulls back the curtain on what happens when politics and science collide and promising scientists get crushed in the crossfire. Nikki shares how she's fighting to stay in the field, teaching the next generation, and rewriting her grant for a world where even the word “diversity” can get you blacklisted. The conversation is raw, human, and maddening—a reminder that the real “war on science” doesn't happen in labs. It happens in inboxes.RELATED LINKS:• Dr. Nikki Maphis LinkedIn page• Dr. Nikki Maphis' page at the University of New Mexico• Vanguard News Group coverage• Nature article• PNAS: Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016FEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, visit outofpatients.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Live this week from the ACCC's 42nd National Oncology Conference (NOC), CANCER BUZZ speaks with ACCC Board of Trustees member Jennifer Bires, who details the highlights from the Wednesday panel discussion she led, “POPS: Navigating Quality Integrative Cancer Support Resources.” Guest:  Jennifer Bires, MSW, LCSW, OSW-C, FACCC Executive Director, Life with Cancer and Patient Experience Inova Health System, Fairfax Hospital Inova Schar Cancer Institute Fairfax, VA   Resources:  ACCC 42nd National Oncology Conference Agenda  

Live this week from the ACCC's 42nd National Oncology Conference (NOC), CANCER BUZZ speaks with ACCC Executive Director Meagan O'Neill, MS, who previews the week.  Guest:  Meagan O'Neill, MS Executive Director, Association of Cancer Care Centers   Resources:  ACCC 42nd National Oncology Conference Agenda  

In this episode of The Authority Company Podcast, host Joe Pardavila sits down with Dr. Ramin Farhood and Dr. Kirk Shepard, co-authors of Voices of Oncology and co-founders of the Medical Affairs Professional Society (MAPS). Together, they share how breaking down silos, fostering collaboration, and elevating the patient voice are reshaping the future of oncology drug development. Farhood and Shepard reflect on their decade-long partnership in oncology, the lessons learned from working across functions, and why they believe true progress depends on bringing every perspective to the table—from scientists and regulators to patients and advocates. They discuss the “moonshot” mindset, the surprising insights from more than 30 contributors to their book, and how advances in AI and real-time FDA review processes are accelerating the path from research to treatment. This conversation highlights the optimism, challenges, and collaborative breakthroughs driving innovation in cancer care—and why building a global community of experts is essential to finding cures.

Carla Tardiff has spent 17 years as the CEO of Family Reach, a nonprofit that shouldn't have to exist but absolutely does—because in America, cancer comes with a price tag your insurance doesn't cover.We talk about shame, fear, burnout, Wegmans, Syracuse, celebrity telethons, and the godforsaken reality of choosing between food and treatment. Carla's a lifer in this fight, holding the line between humanity and bureaucracy, between data and decency. She's also sharp as hell, deeply funny, and more purpose-driven than half of Congress on a good day.This episode is about the work no one wants to do, the stuff no one wants to say, and why staying angry might be the only way to stay sane.Come for the laughs. Stay for the rage. And find out why Family Reach is the only adult in the room.RELATED LINKSFamily ReachFinancial Resource CenterCarla on LinkedInMorgridge Foundation ProfileAuthority Magazine InterviewSyracuse University FeatureFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Nurse Converse, host Rebeca Leon partners with Vot-ER to explore how civic health is public health. She's joined by Marcos Damian-Noyola, Deputy Director of Partnerships at Vot-ER, and Gilanie De Castro, RN, MSN, OCN, NE-BC, a nurse leader and former Civic Health Fellow.Together, they discuss how voting, policy, and advocacy shape patient care and community well-being. From telehealth and nurse staffing laws to lessons from the pandemic, the conversation highlights how nurses can use their voices beyond the bedside to drive meaningful change. Tune in to learn:Why civic engagement is essential to public healthHow Vot-ER empowers healthcare professionals to promote voter participationPersonal stories connecting nursing, policy, and patient outcomesWays to get involved using Vot-ER's free, nonpartisan tools and fellowshipsListen, be inspired, and join the movement to build a healthier democracy — one nurse, one vote, one community at a time.>>Vote in Scrubs: Why Civic Health Is Public HealthJump Ahead to Listen:[00:01:19] Civic health awareness in nursing.[00:04:14] Civic health and public health.[00:08:13] Voting access and health outcomes.[00:12:52] Civic engagement in nursing.[00:16:06] Impact of policies on health.[00:19:49] Voting and healthcare access.[00:25:05] Nurses and voting advocacy.[00:27:25] Time off to vote policy.[00:31:32] Civic engagement for nurses.Connect with Rebeca on Social Media:Instagram: @EnfermeraMami.RNConnect with Gilanie on Social Media:Instagram:  @CitizenNurseWebsite:  www.citizennurse.comFollow Vot-ER on their official channels:Website:  vot-er.orgInstagram:  @vot_er_orgThreads:  @vot_er_orgLinkedIn:  Vot-ERFor more information, full transcript and videos visit Nurse.org/podcastJoin our newsletter at nurse.org/joinInstagram: @nurse_orgTikTok: @nurse.orgFacebook: @nurse.orgYouTube: Nurse.org

Since 2010, the Association of Cancer Care Centers (ACCC) has produced an annual Trending Now in Cancer Care report, highlighting the biggest challenges, solutions, and opportunities in oncology. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Lindsey Causey, DNP, APRN, ANP-BC, AOCNP, nurse practitioner at Cone Health Cancer Center, about part 2 of the 2025 trend report. She shares takeaways from the in-person discussions at the ACCC Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit (AMCCBS) that informed this report, as well as how she uses the information from ACCC's trend reports at her own cancer center. Part 2 of the 2025 Trending Now in Cancer Care report focuses on payer-driven challenges and solutions, comprehensive cancer care services, research and clinical trials, and mobile screening to engage communities in cancer prevention and education. The full article can be found in Oncology Issues, the official journal of ACCC. Lindsey Causey, DNP, APRN, ANP-BC, AOCNP Nurse Practitioner Cone Health Cancer Center Greensboro, NC “Many patients come into my clinic and they say, I just feel like a piece of me goes to one office, a piece of me goes to another office. I don't want to be seen as pieces of a whole person. I want to be seen as the whole person and know what to do and feel like I have all my answers in one place. “ “[The trend report] really allows you to reflect on what the current state is first and then understand what might need to happen to be able to bring some of these things to fruition.” “Early palliative care is essential, not just because it helps with patients and improving their symptoms and wellbeing, it also increases their survival, but it can also help reduce provider burnout by partnering with palliative care.” Resources: 2025 Trending Now in Cancer Care: Part 1 2025 Trending Now in Cancer Care: Part 2 Archived Reports CANCERBUZZ episode: 2025 Trending Now in Cancer Care: Part 1  

This is a bonus episode of the audio of a Breastcancer.org ⁠⁠⁠⁠webinar⁠⁠⁠⁠. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an invasive subtype of breast cancer that can be harder to treat and is more likely to come back. But new research into understanding TNBC is helping some patients find more precise treatment options.  Learn about innovations in immunotherapy, genetic testing, and targeted therapies, why TNBC is different compared to other types of breast cancer, and what gives doctors hope about the future of care for people with TNBC. You'll also hear from two inspiring breast cancer advocates who created TNBC resources for patients after their own diagnosis. Read more about triple-negative breast cancer. Featured Speakers: Maimah KarmoBreast Cancer Advocate and Founder, Tigerlily Roberto Leon-Ferre, MDCo-Leader of the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Working Group and Associate Professor at Mayo Clinic Evelyn Taiwo, MDHematology and Oncology at New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and Associate Professor at Cornell University Kelly ThomasBreast Cancer Advocate and Founder, TNBC Thrivers Marisa Weiss, MDChief Medical Officer, Breastcancer.org

During National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, breast cancer gets more attention and that is a great thing for fundraising, awareness and early detection. However, for those living with Metastatic Breast Cancer, this month can be hard – and sometimes feel triggering and isolating. The widespread focus is often on screenings and celebrating survivors living a life free from cancer, which is not the reality for those with metastatic disease. Today, on MBC Awareness Day, we are excited to welcome Ashley Fernendez back to the show to talk about her lived experiences, how she seeks support and what she wants people to know about living with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

The advent of artificial light is obliterating women's moon-driven menstrual cycle rhythms; When the triple whammy of cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration strikes; Why can systolic blood pressure spike erratically? Are wrist and finger wearables for blood pressure ready for prime time? Nearly half of drivers killed in crashes have THC in their blood; Drinking bottled water causes surge in plastic micro-particle intake; The common supplement that can supercharge cancer immunotherapy.

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano discuss recent developments in the field of bispecific antibodies for hematologic and solid tumors, including strategies to optimize the design and delivery of the immunotherapy. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: 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 am your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I am the director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center. I am also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Bispecific antibodies represent an innovative and advanced therapeutic platform in hematologic and solid tumors. And today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano to discuss the current landscape of bispecific antibodies and their potential to reshape the future of precision oncology. Dr. Curigliano was the last author of an ASCO Educational Book piece for 2025 titled, "Bispecific Antibodies in Hematologic and Solid Tumors: Current Landscape and Therapeutic Advances." Dr. Curigliano is a breast medical oncologist and the director of the Early Drug Development Division and chair of the Experimental Therapeutics Program at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. He is also a full professor of medical oncology at the University of Milan. You can find our disclosures in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Curigliano, Giuseppe, welcome and thanks for being here. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Thanks a lot for the invitation. Dr. Hope Rugo: Giuseppe, I would like to first ask you to provide some context for our listeners on how these novel therapeutics work. And then perhaps you could tell us about recent developments in the field of bispecific antibodies for oncology. We are at a time when antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are all the rage and, trying to improve on the targeting of specific antigens, proteins, receptors in the field of oncology is certainly a hot and emerging topic. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: So, thanks a lot. I believe really it was very challenging to try to summarize all the bispecific antibodies that are under development in multiple solid tumors. So, the first thing that I would like to highlight is the context and the mechanism of action of bispecific antibodies. Bispecific antibodies represent a groundbreaking advancement in cancer immunotherapy, because these engineered molecules have the unique ability to target and simultaneously bind to two distinct antigens. That is why we call them bispecific. So typically, one antigen is expressed on the tumor cell and the other one is expressed on the immune effectors, like T-cell or natural killer cells. So this dual targeting mechanism offers several key advantages over conventional monoclonal antibodies because you can target at the same time the tumor antigen, downregulating the pathway of proliferation, and you can activate the immune system. So the primary mechanism through which bispecific antibodies exert their therapeutic effects are: First, T-cell redirecting. I mean, many bispecific antibodies are designed to engage tumor-associated antigens like epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, on the cancer cell and a costimulatory molecule on the surface of T-cell. A typical target antigen on T-cell is CD3. So what does it mean? That you activate the immune system, immune cells will reach the tumor bed, and you have a dual effect. One is downregulating cell proliferation, the other one is activation of the immune system. This is really important in hematological malignancies, where we have a lot of bispecifics already approved, like acute lymphoblastic leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  The second, in fact, is the engagement of the tumor microenvironment. So, if you engage immune effector cells like NK cells or macrophages, usually the bispecific antibodies can exploit the immune system's ability to recognize and kill the immune cells, even if there is a lack of optimal antigen presentation.  And finally, the last mechanism of action, this may have a role in the future, maybe in the early cancer setting, is overcoming immune evasion. So bispecific antibodies can overcome some of the immune evasion mechanisms that we see in cancer. For example, bispecific antibodies can target immune checkpoint receptors, like PD-L1 and CTLA-4. Actually, there is a bispecific under development in breast cancer that has a dual targeting on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and on PD-L1. So you have a dual effect at the same time. So, what is really important, as a comment, is we need to focus first on the optimal format of the bispecific, the optimal half-life, the stability, because of course even if they are very efficient in inducing a response, they may give also a lot of toxicities. So in clinical trials already, we have several bispecifics approved. In solid tumors, very few, specifically amivantamab for non-small cell lung cancer, but we have a pipeline of almost 40 to 50 bispecifics under development in multiple solid tumors, and some of them are in the context of prospective randomized trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: So this is really a fascinating area and it's really exciting to see the expansion of the different targets for bispecific antibodies. One area that has intrigued me also is that some of the bispecifics actually will target different parts of the same receptor or the same protein, but presumably those will be used as a different strategy. It's interesting because we have seen that, for example, in targeting HER2. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Oh, yes, of course. You may consider some bispecifics like margetuximab, I suppose, in which you can target specifically two different epitopes of the same antigen. This is really an example of how a bispecific can potentially be more active and downregulating, let us say, a pathway, by targeting two different domains of a specific target antigen. This is an important point.  Of course, not all the bispecifics work this way, because some of the target antigen may dimerize, and so you have a family of target antigen; an example is epidermal growth factor receptor, in which you have HER1, HER2, HER3, and HER4. So some of them can inhibit the dimerization between one target antigen and the other one, in order to exert a more antiproliferative effect. But to be honest, the new generation of them are more targeting two different antigens, one on the tumor and one on the microenvironment, because according to the clinical data, this is a more efficient way to reduce proliferation and to activate the immune system. Dr. Hope Rugo: Really interesting, and I think it brings us to the next topic, which is really where bispecific antibodies have already shown success, and that is in hematologic malignancies where we have seen very interesting efficacy and these are being used in the clinic already. But the expansion of bispecific antibodies into solid tumors faces some key challenges. It's interesting because the challenges come in different shapes and forms. Tell us about some of those challenges and strategies to optimize bispecific antibody design, delivery, patient selection, and how we are going to use these agents in the right kind of clinical trials. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: This is really an excellent question because despite bispecific antibodies having shown a remarkable efficacy in hematological malignancies, their application in solid tumors may have some challenges. The first one is tumor heterogeneity. In hematological malignancy, you have a clear oncogene addiction. Let us say that 90% of the cells may express the same antigen. In solid tumors, it is not the same. Tumor heterogeneity is a typical characteristic of solid tumors, and you have high heterogeneity at the genetic, molecular, and phenotypic levels. So tumor cells can differ significantly from one another, even if within the same tumor. And this heterogeneity sometimes makes it difficult to identify a single target antigen that is universally expressed in an hematological malignancy. So furthermore, sometimes the antigen expressed on a tumor cell can be also present on the normal tissue. And so you may have a cross-targeting. So let's say, if you have a bispecific against epidermal growth factor receptor, this will target the tumor but will target also the skin with a lot of toxicity. The second challenge is the tumor microenvironment. The solid tumor microenvironment is really complex and often immunosuppressive. It is characterized by the presence of immunosuppressor cells like the T regulators, myeloid derived suppressor cells, and of course the extracellular matrix. All these factors hinder immune cell infiltration and also may reduce dramatically the effectiveness of bispecific antibodies. And as you know, there is also an hypoxic condition in the tumor. The other challenge is related to the poor tumor penetration. As you know also with antibody-drug conjugate, only 1 to 3% of the drug will arrive in the tumor bed. Unlike hematological malignancies where tumor cells are dispersed in the blood and easily accessible, the solid tumors have a lot of barriers, and so it means that tumor penetration can be very low. Finally, the vascularity also of the tumor can be different across solid tumors. That is why some bispecifics have a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor or vascular endothelial growth factor as a target. Of course, what do we have to do to overcome these challenges? First, we have to select the optimal antigen. So knowing very well the biology of cancer and the tumor-associated antigens can really select a subgroup of epitopes that are specifically overexpressed in cancer cells. And so we need to design bispecifics according to the tumor type. Second, optimize the antibody format. So there are numerous bispecific antibody formats. We can consider the dual variable domain immunoglobulin, we specified this in our paper. The single chain variable fragments, so FC variable fragments, and the diabodies that can enhance both binding affinity and stability. And finally, the last point, combination therapies. Because bispecific antibodies targeting immune checkpoint, we have many targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 or CTLA-4, combined eventually with other immune checkpoint inhibitors. And so you may have more immunostimulating effect. Dr. Hope Rugo: This is a fascinating field and it is certainly going to go far in the treatment of solid tumors. You know, I think there is some competition with what we have now for antibody-drug conjugates. Do you see that bispecifics will eventually become bispecific ADCs? Are we going to combine these bispecific antibodies with ADCs, with chemotherapy? What is the best combination strategy do you think looking forward? Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: So, yes, we have a bispecific ADC. We have actually some bispecifics that are conjugated with a payload of chemotherapy. Some others are conjugated with immunoactivation agents like IL-2. One of the most effective strategies for enhancing bispecific activity is the combination therapy. So which type of combination can we do? First, bispecific antibodies plus checkpoint inhibitors. If you combine a bispecific with an immune checkpoint, like anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, or anti-CTLA-4, you have more activity because you have activation of T-cells, reduction of immunosuppressive effect, and of course, the capability of this bispecific to potentiate the activity of the immune checkpoint inhibitor. So, in my opinion, in a non-small cell lung cancer with an expression of PD-L1 more than 50%, if you give pembrolizumab plus a bispecific targeting PD-L1, you can really improve both response rate and median progression-free survival.  Another combination is chemotherapy plus bispecific antibodies. Combining chemotherapy with bispecific can enhance the cytotoxic effect because chemotherapy induces immunogenic cell death, and then you boost with a bispecific in order to activate the immune system. Bispecific and CAR T-cells, until now, we believe that these are in competition, but this is not correct. Because CAR T-cells are designed to deliver an activation of the immune system with the same lymphocytes engineered of the patients, with a long-term effect. So I really do not believe that bispecifics are in competition with CAR T-cells because when you have a complete remission induced by CAR T-cell, the effect of this complete remission can last for years. The activity of a bispecific is a little bit different. So there are some studies actually combining CAR T-cells with bispecifics. For example, bispecific antibodies can direct CAR T-cells in the tumor microenvironment, improving their specificity and enhancing their therapeutic effect.  And finally, monoclonal antibody plus bispecific is another next generation activity. Because if you use bispecific antibodies in combination with existing monoclonal antibodies like anti-HER2, you can potentially increase the immune response and enhance tumor cell targeting. In hematological malignancies, this has been already demonstrated and this approach has been particularly effective. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just so fascinating, the whole idea that we have these monoclonal antibodies and now we are going to add them to bispecifics that we could maybe attach on different toxins to try and improve this, or even give them with different approaches. I suppose giving an ADC with a bispecific would sort of be similar to that idea of giving a monoclonal antibody with the bispecific. So it is certainly intriguing. We also will need to understand the toxicity and cost overall and how we are going to use these, the duration of treatment, the assessment of biomarkers. There are just so many different aspects that still need to be explored.  And then with that idea, can you look ahead five or ten years from now, and tell us how you think bispecific antibodies will shape our next generation cancer therapies, how they will be incorporated into precision oncology, and the new combinations and approaches as we move forward that will help us tailor treatment for patients both with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies? Are we going to be giving these in early-stage disease in solid tumors? So far, the studies are primarily focusing on the metastatic setting, but obviously one of the goals when we have successful treatments is to move them into the early stage setting as quickly as possible. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Let us try to look ahead five years rather than ten years, to be more realistic. So, personally I believe some bispecifics can potentially replace current approaches in specifically T-cell selected population. As we gather more data from ongoing clinical trials and we adopt a deeper understanding of the tumor immuno microenvironment, of course we may have potentially new achievement. A few days ago, we heard that bispecifics in triple negative breast cancer targeting VEGF and PD-L1 demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival.  So, how to improve and to impact on clinical practice both in the metastatic and in the early breast cancer setting or solid tumor setting? First, personalized antigen selection. So we need to have the ability to tailor bispecific antibody therapy to the unique tumor profile of individual patients. So the more we understand the biology of cancers, the more we will be able to better target. Second, bispecific antibodies should be combined. I can see in the future a potential trial in which you combine a bispecific anti-PD-L1 and VEGF with immune checkpoint inhibitor selected also to the level of expression of PD-L1, because integration of antibody bispecific with a range of immunotherapies, and this cannot be only immune checkpoint inhibitors, but can be CAR T-cells, oncolytic viruses, also targeted therapy, will likely be a dominant theme in the coming years. This combination will be based on the specific molecular and immuno feature of the cancer of the patient.  Then we need an enhanced delivery system. This is really important because you know now we have a next generation antibody. An example are the bicyclic. So you use FC fragment that are very short, with a low molecular weight, and this short fragment can be bispecific, so can target at the same time a target antigen and improving the immune system. And so the development of this novel delivery system, including also nanoparticles or engineered viral vectors, can enhance the penetration in the tumor bed and the bioavailability of bispecific antibodies. Importantly, we need to reduce toxicity. Until now, bispecifics are very toxic. So the more we are efficient in delivering in the tumor bed, the more we will reduce the risk of toxicity. So it will be mandatory to reduce off-target effects and to minimize toxicity.  And finally, the expansion in new indication. So I really believe you raised an excellent point. We need to design studies in the neoadjuvant setting in order to better understand with multiple biopsies which is the effect on the tumor microenvironment and the tumor itself, and to generate hypotheses for potential trials or in the neoadjuvant setting or in those patients with residual disease.  So, in my opinion, as we refine design, optimize patient selection, and explore new combination, in the future we will have more opportunity to integrate bispecifics in the standard of care. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is particularly helpful to hear what we are going to be looking for as we move forward to try and improve efficacy and reduce toxicity. And the ability to engineer these new antibodies and to more specifically target the right proteins and immune effectors is going to be critical, of course, moving forward, as well as individualizing therapy based on a specific tumor biology.  Hearing your insights has been great, and it really has opened up a whole area of insight into the field of bispecifics, together with your excellent contribution to the ASCO Educational Book. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and background, as well as what we might see in the future on this podcast today. Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Thank you very much for the invitation and for this excellent interview. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. You will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. It is also, of course, on the ASCO website, as well as on PubMed. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on the key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. 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. Hope Rugo  @hope.rugo  Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano @curijoey Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)       ASCO on Bluesky      ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:      Dr. Hope Rugo:   Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma  Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer  Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx  Dr. Giuseppe Curigliano: Leadership: European Society for Medical Oncology, European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, ESMO Open, European Society for Medical Oncology Honoraria: Ellipses Pharma Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Samsung, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boerigher, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Guardant Health, Veracyte, Celcuity, Hengrui Therapeutics, Menarini, Merck, Exact Sciences, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead Sciences Speakers' Bureau: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Samsung, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Menarini, Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences Research Funding: Merck Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca      

Jeff Glazier, CEO of General Oncology, is taking a unique approach to treating cancer by using older chemotherapy drugs with broad action but in novel combinations designed to avoid the incidental toxicity.  Their primary drug in trials is GO-4 which is focused on shutting down DNA repair in cancer cells to overcome drug resistance.  While testing in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, this approach was designed to combat tumor heterogeneity by targeting fundamental processes like proliferation that are common to all cancer cells within a tumor. Jeff explains, "We're actually taking a different approach than a lot of companies are. And I would say there are really two approaches because we have two different things on, we have a clinical trial right now where we're using old chemotherapy drugs in a new way, and when you combine them together, you really get just a different result. We're trying to shut down DNA repair and kill cancer cells. But the other really interesting thing, and I think it's underlying general vision, is chemotherapy drugs long ago had very broad action, and with broad action comes unwanted incidental toxicity. And over the years, it's been huge in the industry, or moving towards specific drugs that target specific things and have less incidental toxicity. The unfortunate side effect is that cancer cells can evolve around a drug if there's too much specificity. So we're taking a pretty novel approach with our business of going after drugs that have broad action, but we found a way, we believe, to do it in a way that doesn't have incidental toxicity." "I certainly feel that you want to have more than one attack. If you only do one, the cancer cells can evolve around it. The drug resistance approach I was referring to was what we call GO-4 in our clinical trial, and we're altering part of the cancer cells' fundamental biology that is involved in DNA repair and shutting it down. But we're doing it in more than one way."   #GeneralOncology #PancreaticCancer #CancerAwareness #MetastaticCancer #GO4Therapy #CancerResearch #InnovativeTherapies #DrugDevelopment generaloncology.com Download the transcript here

Jeff Glazier, CEO of General Oncology, is taking a unique approach to treating cancer by using older chemotherapy drugs with broad action but in novel combinations designed to avoid the incidental toxicity.  Their primary drug in trials is GO-4 which is focused on shutting down DNA repair in cancer cells to overcome drug resistance.  While testing in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer, this approach was designed to combat tumor heterogeneity by targeting fundamental processes like proliferation that are common to all cancer cells within a tumor. Jeff explains, "We're actually taking a different approach than a lot of companies are. And I would say there are really two approaches because we have two different things on, we have a clinical trial right now where we're using old chemotherapy drugs in a new way, and when you combine them together, you really get just a different result. We're trying to shut down DNA repair and kill cancer cells. But the other really interesting thing, and I think it's underlying general vision, is chemotherapy drugs long ago had very broad action, and with broad action comes unwanted incidental toxicity. And over the years, it's been huge in the industry, or moving towards specific drugs that target specific things and have less incidental toxicity. The unfortunate side effect is that cancer cells can evolve around a drug if there's too much specificity. So we're taking a pretty novel approach with our business of going after drugs that have broad action, but we found a way, we believe, to do it in a way that doesn't have incidental toxicity." "I certainly feel that you want to have more than one attack. If you only do one, the cancer cells can evolve around it. The drug resistance approach I was referring to was what we call GO-4 in our clinical trial, and we're altering part of the cancer cells' fundamental biology that is involved in DNA repair and shutting it down. But we're doing it in more than one way."   #GeneralOncology #PancreaticCancer #CancerAwareness #MetastaticCancer #GO4Therapy #CancerResearch #InnovativeTherapies #DrugDevelopment generaloncology.com  Listen to the podcast here

This session focuses on various pharmacogenomics implementation models in oncology. Presenters discuss how pharmacogenomics was implemented at their respective institution, how each addressed unique barriers to implementation, and considerations for scalability, sustainability, and expansion of pharmacogenomics testing in oncology over the next 5+ years. CE for this episode expires two years after publication. The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

Featuring perspectives from Dr Jeremy S Abramson, Dr Jennifer Crombie and Dr Laurie H Sehn, moderated by Dr Abramson, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) Integrating Bispecific Antibodies into the Management of Follicular Lymphoma (FL) — Dr Crombie (2:08) ICurrent Role of CD19-Directed Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for FL — Dr Abramson (21:01) Other Recently Approved and Emerging Novel Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory FL — Dr Sehn (40:52) CE information and select publications

Dr Jeremy S Abramson from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Jennifer Crombie from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute also in Boston and Dr Laurie H Sehn from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, discuss recent updates on available and novel treatment strategies for follicular lymphoma.  CE information and select publications here.

Medical disinformation is a growing concern for doctors and scientists, but what happens when it comes from people in the highest authority who are shaping health policy? Recently US President Trump claimed a link between austism and the pain killer tylenol, or paracetamol as it is known here. The US Health Secretary, Robert F Kennedy Junior has also blamed vaccines for autism when there is no evidence to support his claims. Dr Ashani Weeraratna is a leading cancer researcher and was a guest speaker at this week's New Zealand Society for Oncology annual meeting. She spoke to Lisa Owen.

In this episode of Disruption/Interruption, host KJ sits down with Jim Foote, CEO and founder of First Ascent Biomedical. Jim shares his personal journey from technology executive to cancer care innovator, after his son’s diagnosis changed his life. Discover how he’s disrupting the status quo in oncology with AI-driven, personalized medicine that’s giving new hope to patients and families. Key Takeaways: The Problem with Standard Cancer Care [3:53]The standard of care treats patients as if they are the same, but everyone is unique. This approach works two-thirds of the time, but leaves one-third of patients with few options. Functional Precision Medicine [13:04]Jim’s company tests up to 152 FDA-approved drugs on a patient’s biopsy to find the most effective treatment, providing doctors with data-driven options tailored to each individual. AI and Technology are Transforming Oncology [28:05]Advances in AI, robotics, and cloud computing have converged, making personalized cancer treatment faster, more affordable, and more effective than ever before. Impact and Future Vision [26:51]Jim’s goal is for every cancer patient to receive individualized treatment from the moment of diagnosis, improving outcomes and reducing unnecessary side effects. Quote of the Show (14:40):“I literally have gone from trying and hoping to testing and choosing.” — Jim Foote Join our Anti-PR newsletter where we’re keeping a watchful and clever eye on PR trends, PR fails, and interesting news in tech so you don't have to. You're welcome. Want PR that actually matters? Get 30 minutes of expert advice in a fast-paced, zero-nonsense session from Karla Jo Helms, a veteran Crisis PR and Anti-PR Strategist who knows how to tell your story in the best possible light and get the exposure you need to disrupt your industry. Click here to book your call: https://info.jotopr.com/free-anti-pr-eval Ways to connect with Jim Foote: LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-foote Company Website: https://firstascentbiomedical.com/ How to get more Disruption/Interruption: Amazon Music - https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/eccda84d-4d5b-4c52-ba54-7fd8af3cbe87/disruption-interruption Apple Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disruption-interruption/id1581985755 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6yGSwcSp8J354awJkCmJlDSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen to JCO Global Oncology's Art of Global Oncology article, "Whispers After the Cure: Reflections on Marriage and Malignancy in India” by Dr. Vangipuram Harshil Sai, who is a fourth semester medical student at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The article is followed by an interview with Harshil Sai and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Sai shares his personal reflection of a visit which transformed into an education in silence, stigma, and the unseen aftermath of survivorship for young women in India. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: Whispers After the Cure: Reflections on Marriage and Malignancy in India, Vangipuram, Harshil Sai   A Summer Afternoon and A Story That Stayed The summer break of my fourth semester of medical school offered a fleeting reprieve from the relentless immersion in textbooks and caffeine-fueled study sessions. I had envisioned a few weeks of rest—a pause from the algorithms of diagnosis and the grind of multiple-choice questions that had become my daily rhythm. But one humid afternoon altered that plan. I accompanied my mother—a senior medical oncologist—to her clinic in a Tier 2 city in Southern India. Over the years, I had seen her not just as a clinician but as a quiet force of empathy. She was one of those remarkable physicians who listened not just to symptoms but also to stories. Her practice was rooted in presence, and her calm resilience often made my academic anxieties seem trivial. I settled into a corner chair in the waiting area, where the air was tinged with antiseptic and that uncomfortable waiting room stillness—an alert hush between uncertainty and news. Patients waited in quiet constellations: a man turning the same page of a newspaper, a teenage girl watching her intravenous drip as if it held answers, and a couple clasping hands without meeting eyes. It was in this atmosphere of suspended quiet that Aarthi entered. She was a young woman whose presence was composed yet tentative. Her story would become a quiet inflection point in my understanding of medicine. She was 24 years old, embodying the aspirations tied to a recent engagement. A postgraduate in English literature and a practicing psychologist; she carried herself with a rare blend of intellect, poise, and cultural grace that, in the eyes of many families, made her a deeply desirable bride. Her sari was immaculately draped, her posture measured and calm, yet in the way her fingers intertwined and her eyes briefly lowered, there was a trace of vulnerability—a shadow of the turmoil she carried within. She came alone that day, stepping into the waiting room with a composed demeanor that only hinted at the weight she bore in silence. What began as a day to observe became the beginning of something far more enduring: a glimpse into how healing extends beyond treatment—and how survival, though silent, often speaks the loudest. The Diagnosis That Changed the Wedding The consultation was precipitated by a clinical presentation of persistent neck fullness, low-grade fevers, and drenching night sweats, which had prompted a fine-needle aspiration before her visit. The atmosphere in the room held an implicit gravity, suggesting a moment of significant change. My mother, with her characteristic composure, initiated a diagnostic process with a positron emission tomography-computed tomography and biopsy. As usual, her steady presence provided reassurance amid the uncertainty. A week later, the diagnosis of classic Hodgkin lymphoma, stage IIB, was confirmed. Rapid initiation of ABVD chemotherapy would provide an almost certain pathway to remission and an excellent prognosis. Yet, this clinical assurance did not extend to personal tranquility. Aarthi made a deliberate choice to share the diagnosis with her fiancé—a considerate and empathetic individual from a well-regarded family. Their wedding preparations were already underway with gold reserves secured and a vibrant WhatsApp group of 83 members chronicling the countdown to their big day. Shortly thereafter, a prolonged silence settled, eventually broken by a call from a family member—not the fiancé—indicating that the family had decided to terminate the engagement because of apprehensions about future stability. The union dissolved without public discord, leaving Aarthi to navigate the subsequent journey independently. As expected, 6 months of chemotherapy culminated in a clean scan. Her physical health was restored, but an emotional chasm remained, unrecorded by clinical metrics. Yet beneath that silence was a quiet resilience—a strength that carried her through each cycle of treatment with a resolve as steady as any celebrated elsewhere. The regrowth of her hair prompted a conscious decision to trim it shorter, seemingly an assertion of autonomy. Her discourse on the illness shifted to the third person, suggesting a psychological distancing. Her reactions to inquiries about the terminated engagement were guarded. She would yield only a restrained smile, which intimated a multifaceted emotional response. Her remission was certain, yet the world she stepped back into was layered with quiet hurdles—social, cultural, and unseen—barriers far more intricate than the disease itself. Survivorship Without A Map In the weeks that followed Aarthi's diagnosis, I began to notice a quiet but consistent pattern in the oncology clinic—one that extended beyond medical recovery into the unspoken social aftermath. Among young, unmarried women in India, survivorship often came with a parallel challenge of navigating shifts in how they were perceived, particularly as marriage prospects. In Indian families where marital status is closely tied to stability and future security, a woman with a cancer history, even after complete remission, somehow came to be quietly perceived as less suitable. Proposals that had once moved forward with confidence were paused or reconsidered after disclosure. In some cases, financial discussions came with requests for additional support framed as reassurance rather than rejection. These changes were seldom explicit. Yet, across time, they pointed to a deeper uncertainty—about how survivorship fits into the expectations of traditional life scripts. For women like Aarthi, the narrative shifted toward caution. There were subtle inquiries about reproductive potential or disease recurrence and private deliberations over disclosure during matrimonial discussions, even within educated circles. Meanwhile, my observation of the disparity in how survivorship was interpreted across genders in our country left a profound mark on me. A 31-year-old male investment banker who had recovered from testicular cancer was hailed in local media as a testament to fortitude. Male patients seemed to gain social capital from their cancer journeys. This suggested a cultural framework where female value was quietly reassessed, influencing their post-treatment identity through unstated societal perceptions. Digital Ghosting and the New Untouchability Within the digital landscape of curated profiles and algorithmic matchmaking, the reassessment of female survivorship acquired a new dimension. In one instance, a sustained exchange of text messages ended abruptly following the mention of cancer remission. The final message remained unanswered. This form of silent disengagement—subtle, unspoken, and devoid of confrontation—highlighted how virtual spaces can compound post-treatment vulnerability. Designed to foster connection, these platforms sometimes amplified social distance, introducing a modern form of invisibility. Similar to employment status or religion, a cancer history has become another addition to a checklist used to evaluate compatibility. When Medicine Ends, but Society Does Not Begin As a medical student, I felt a growing discomfort. Our curriculum equips us to manage treatment protocols and survival metrics but rarely prepares us for the intangible burdens that persist after cure. What captures the weight of a canceled engagement? What framework supports the quiet reconstruction of identity after remission? Aarthi's path, echoed by many others, revealed a dissonance that medicine alone could not resolve. The challenge was not solely the illness but the reality that she was now unqualified to return to her normal life. Medicine delivers clean scans and structured follow-up, but social reintegration is less defined. In that space between biological recovery and social acceptance, cancer survivors often stand at the edge of wholeness—clinically well but navigating a quieter uncertainty. A Different Ending Two years later, Aarthi's journey took a quiet turn. At a spiritual retreat in Bengaluru, she met an ear, nose, and throat resident who had lost his father to lung cancer. Their connection, shaped by shared experiences, evolved into a partnership grounded in empathy and mutual respect. They married the following year. Their invitation carried a brief but powerful line: “Cancer Survivor. Love Thriver. Come celebrate both.” Today, they comanage a private hospital in Hyderabad. Aarthi leads psycho-oncology services, whereas her partner performs surgeries. He often notes that her presence brings a calm to the clinic that no medication can replicate. Aarthi's journey continues to guide me as I progress through my medical training, reminding me that cure and closure often follow separate paths. Healing, I have come to understand, extends beyond the clinic. It often unfolds in quieter spaces where scans no longer guide us. The real curriculum in oncology lies not only in staging and response rates but in recognizing the many transitions—social, emotional, and cultural—that survivors must navigate long after treatment has concluded. Social stigma is often a second metastasis—undetectable by imaging but present in tone, hesitation, and traditions that quietly redefine survivorship. For many women of marriageable age, treatment marks not the end of struggle but the start of another kind of uncertainty. These survivors carry wounds that do not bleed. Yet, they persist, navigate, and redefine strength on their own terms. Aarthi's quiet resilience became a point of reckoning for me, not as a medical case, but as a guide. Her story is not one of illness alone, but of dignity quietly reclaimed. “Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars.”—Khalil Gibran.   Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. In oncology, we often focus on treatment and a way to find a cure. But what about the expectations and challenges a patient may face from their diagnosis, and even discrimination, especially in different cultures? Today, we're going to examine that space with Harshil Vangipuram, a medical student from India whose JCO Global Oncology article, "Whispers After the Cure: Reflections on Marriage and Malignancy in India," touches on this complexity after treatment. Harshil, thank you for contributing to JCO Global Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Harshil Vangipuram: Thank you for having me, Dr. Sekeres. I was raised by a family of oncologists, my mother being a senior medical oncologist and father a senior radiation oncologist. I had exposure to contrasting worlds, which were resource constrained and a cutting edge technology world. And I have unfulfilled curiosity, and I'm still learning, forming ideals. I also see patients as my teachers, so I think that might be helpful. Mikkael Sekeres: Thank you so much for a little bit of that background. So, tell us a little bit about your journey through life so far. Where were you born and where did you do your education? Harshil Vangipuram: I was born in a state called Gujarat in the western part of India. My father got transferred to the southern part of India, so I did my education there. That's it, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: Okay. That's enough. You're not that old. You haven't had the sort of training and final job that a lot of us have gone through. So, what about your story as a writer? How did you first get interested in writing, and how long have you been writing reflective or narrative pieces? Harshil Vangipuram: I read some books from Indian authors and from foreign, too. And they actually inspired me how patient care was being seen around globally. I always used to carry a hand note. I used to write what I used to see in the clinical postings here at AIIMS. And actually, journaling started as a stress relief for me, and slowly, after hearing patients' stories, it almost became an obligation to write about them. Mikkael Sekeres: Obligation, you use that word, which is such an interesting one. How did writing become an obligation? What did you feel obliged to do when writing about some of the patients you were seeing for the first time? Harshil Vangipuram: Many of them were having struggles which were not seen by everybody. And I got astonished by their confidence and resilience in those situations. So, I thought that I should write about them so that everybody knows about it. And these social stigmas were never talked by anyone around them. So, I felt that if I could voice them, others might eventually know about them. So, that's pretty much the reason I wrote. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting. The people we meet every single day, particularly in hematology oncology, bring such fascinating backgrounds to us, and they're backgrounds that may be unfamiliar to us. And I think that as doctors and writers, we do often feel obliged to tell their stories from the mountaintops, to let other people in on some of the aspects of life and medical care that they're going through and just how inspiring some of these patients can be. Harshil Vangipuram: Yeah, yeah, very true. Very true. Mikkael Sekeres: You mentioned that your mom is a medical oncologist. What kind of influence did she have on your decision to enter medicine and perhaps your own specialty one day? Harshil Vangipuram: Observing my mother practice influenced a lot, and she taught me that medicine is not only about treating a patient, but also listening to their problems. It may be more present in the room. The textbooks I read didn't capture live experiences. I always thought that stories will stay with people longer than actual survival curves. Writing filled that gap between what I studied and what I felt in the OPD. Mikkael Sekeres: It's a great phrase you just whipped out. Patients' stories will stay with us longer than survival curves. Can you tell us a little bit about where her clinic is located? You said in southern India. Can you describe the types of patients she sees? Harshil Vangipuram: It's a small town called Nellore in Andhra Pradesh state. The patients are, most of the time, from a rural population where decisions are mostly family-driven and there's a tight community surveillance and the stigmas are more overt, too. A few of them can be from urban population also, but they have subtler discriminations towards stigmas. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you explain a little further what you mean by decisions are often family-driven? Harshil Vangipuram: If we take marriage, it is often seen as an alliance between two families that are trying to increase their social value, their economic status, and respect in the society. In arranged marriages, for suppose, it's basically driven between these concepts. Mikkael Sekeres: I don't know if it's too personal to ask, but are your parents in an arranged marriage? Harshil Vangipuram: No, not at all. Mikkael Sekeres: So not all the marriages in the clinic are arranged marriages. Harshil Vangipuram: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, when you said that decisions are family-driven, you mentioned that people are in arranged marriages. And I wanted to talk a little bit about the stigma you highlight in your essay. I'll talk about that in a second. I thought you were going to go down a route about medical decisions being family-driven, meaning people have to support their families, and getting medical care is costly and takes time away from work, and that sometimes influences decisions about treating cancer. What examples have you seen of that in shadowing your mom? Harshil Vangipuram: I have seen patients who have Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer, who were in the age of 25 to 35, who were getting married. Many of them actually got their engagements broken. And many of them got rejected at matrimonial apps. Many of them also had been told to increase the dowry that is given actually in the form of financial security. Mikkael Sekeres: In your essay, you describe a woman who is engaged and who has a new diagnosis of Hodgkin lymphoma. Can you talk a little bit about the process of getting engaged and marrying in southern India? Harshil Vangipuram: We have the arranged marriage, love marriage, and hybrid, which is kind of arranged and kind of in love. Mostly, these problems really occur in arranged marriages. In love marriages, we don't see that that often because both are understanding about themselves and their families. And both families actually accept them both. Mikkael Sekeres: What's the process of going through an arranged marriage? What happens? Harshil Vangipuram: It can be through parents, relatives, or any known ones or through peers. We just find a man or woman who has a similar caste, who has a good financial income, and people who are respected by the society. And obviously, both the families should have aligned interests for them to accept the marriage. Mikkael Sekeres: About how often are marriages arranged and how often are they love marriages in southern India where you live? Harshil Vangipuram: Almost 90% of the marriages are arranged here. Mikkael Sekeres: Wow. So, your parents were unusual then for having a love marriage. Harshil Vangipuram: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: In your essay, you write, and I'm going to quote you now, "Among young, unmarried women in India, survivorship often came with a parallel challenge of navigating shifts in how they were perceived, particularly as marriage prospects. In Indian families where marital status is closely tied to stability and future security, a woman with a cancer history, even after complete remission, somehow came to be quietly perceived as less suitable." Wow, that's a really moving statement. I'm curious, what stories have you seen where, in your words, women became less suitable as a marriage prospect? Harshil Vangipuram: For women, the most important thing in a marriage is, what do you call, a family honor, fertility, and economic status in the community. So, after a long dose of chemo, many people think that people become infertile. In India, basically, we have many misconceptions and stigmas. So, people obviously think that people who have got cancer can spread it to their children or are infertile and are often excluded out of the society as a marriage prospect. Mikkael Sekeres: Gosh, that must be devastating. Harshil Vangipuram: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: Does the same occur for men? So, is it also true that if a man has cancer, that he is perceived as less fertile, or it may be perceived that he can pass the cancer on to children? Harshil Vangipuram: Here, after a man beats cancer, they start to celebrate it, like they have achieved something, and it's not like that for a woman. Mikkael Sekeres: In your essay, you do write about a happy ending for one woman. Can you tell us about that? Harshil Vangipuram: Yeah, a cancer survivor obviously met her true love of life in Bengaluru, who was an ENT resident then. And his father died from lung cancer. So obviously, he knew what it felt to beat cancer. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, he'd been through it himself. And the irony, of course, is that most cancer treatments that we give do not lead to infertility, so it's a complete misperception. Harshil Vangipuram: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: Tell us about your future. What are the next steps for you in your training and what do you hope to specialize in and practice? Harshil Vangipuram: Actually, I'm working on another paper which involves financial toxicity after treatment and post treatment depression. I think it would be completed in another year. And after that, after my med school is completed, I think I'm going to pursue oncology or hematology as my branch of interest. Mikkael Sekeres: Wonderful. It's thrilling to hear that somebody who is as sensitive to his patients and both their medical needs and their needs outside of medicine will be entering our field. It'll be great to know that you'll be taking care of our future patients. Harshil Vangipuram: The pleasure is all mine, sir. Mikkael Sekeres: Harshil Vangipuram, I want to thank you for choosing JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology and for submitting your great piece, "Whispers After the Cure: Reflections on Marriage and Malignancy in India" to JCO Global Oncology. To our listeners, if you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres from the Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami. Have a good day. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio:Dr Vangipuram Harshil Sai is a fourth semester medical student at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Additional Reading Impact of Gender of the Child on Health Care–Seeking Behavior of Caregivers of Childhood Patients With Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study | JCO Global Oncology

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "A Fight Bigger Than Myeloma” by Dr. Adeel Khan, an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UT Southwestern. The article is followed by an interview with Dr. Adeel Khan and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Khan shares the story of a patient whose multiple myeloma diagnosis and treatment serves as a reminder of the civil liberties progress we've made and that we have more to go. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: A Fighter Bigger Than Myeloma, by Adeel M. Khan, MD, MPH, MS  I met her during the early part of my clinical training in hematology/oncology. She was in her late 70s, dressed in a rust-colored cardigan and a headwrap with patterns that reminded me of Ghanaian kente cloth. Her eyes were sharp, her tone polite but direct. You could tell from the moment she spoke that she had lived a life where she had to advocate—for herself, for her family, for her place in rooms that were not always welcoming.  Her chart said “multiple myeloma, R-ISS II,” but it did not say that she had first come to an emergency room at least a year earlier complaining of back pain and fatigue and had been told it was probably arthritis or old age. It did not mention that she had seen three different doctors before someone ordered the laboratory tests that finally began to work up her anemia and increasingly compromised kidney function. It would take another trio of doctors to eventually order a magnetic resonance imaging whose ghostly lytic lesions led down the path to a bone marrow biopsy and her cancer diagnosis. When I brought this up gently during one of our early appointments, she looked at me and said, “They don't hear pain the same when it comes from someone like me.” As a Black woman from the Deep South, she had grown up learning how to navigate a health care system that did not always believe her. She told me stories about being dismissed, misdiagnosed, and interrupted. She was born into an era of structural violence where she would be ignored at best and mistreated at worst. She carried the weight of those moments, but she also carried strength, and clarity, and the kind of dignity that made people sit up straighter in their leather chairs when she entered the room. She was one of the most quietly revolutionary people I have ever known, having grown up during a time of civil rights activism. She had even taken part in bending Dr King's long arc of the moral universe toward justice and could share story upon story from her glory days. Her myeloma treatments were not easy. Chemotherapy rarely is. She shared that there were days when her body was tired of fighting, when her bones ached, her blood counts dropped, and her neuropathic pain throbbed. In the back of my mind, I thought how tragic it was that her delayed diagnosis added unnecessary complications and whether she too thought of that. She was fully mindful of the issues people with her skin color faced in our American healthcare system and society as a whole and revealed how that motivated her to carry forward. “If I don't take up space here,” she told me once, “then someone else like me won't either.” Over the course of our visits, I came to understand that she did not see her myeloma as the hardest fight of her life. Not by a long shot. Her primary struggle was centered on life in Birmingham in the 1950s where separate but equal was still the law of the land; her mother cleaned houses, her father worked odd jobs, and her own prospects were uncertain. She admired the writings of Richard Wright and Jean Toomer and was not shy in sharing her passions. One day, during a particularly tough visit—her disease had progressed and we were down to limited options—I found myself meandering. We went through the usual workup and discussions: laboratory test results, symptoms, and treatment options. I offered the prospect of clinical trials, but she shook her head gently and said, “I've done my time in experiments—I can't give myself to a system that gave my people so little.” I paused. It was the first hint of what would become a larger conversation—not just about medicine, but about history. She was well aware of the atrocities of the Tuskegee syphilis trials in her home state, the Kligman experiments on incarcerated Black men, and the forced sterilization of women of color. As dependent upon medicine as she was in her old age, it carried a bloody stain of dehumanizing racism that soured her against it. Outwardly, I had little in common with her. As a young South Asian man growing up in times more conscious of racial injustice, I was far removed from these historical crimes. Although I learned of them during my education, I did not internalize their impact on the patients in front of me in clinic. But through her I came to comprehend just how scarring and enduring these events can be and how they can rob someone of trust. And the truth is the health care system had not treated her well. She had personal stories of doctors who did not believe her pain, nurses who assumed she was uneducated,  and being passed over for better options, better care, and better answers. “But I kept showing up,” she said. “Because that's what we do. We show up even when we're not wanted.” Her stories to me were revelations. In her younger years, she had helped organize teachers at her school when they tried to fire a fellow Black teacher who seemingly spoke too loud in a meeting. She had lived through redlining, through the crack epidemic, through watching young Black men vanish into prisons, and still she rose every day and worked as a public school teacher for decades. She worked for a system that largely did not work for her. I came to admire that about her—that in simply living day-to-day life with plain dignity and acute awareness of society's issues, she promoted change by living it. “You want to talk about cancer?” she once said, half laughing. “Try walking into a bank in 1972 with a good credit score and a Black face. That's a disease this country still hasn't cured.” Curiously, she did not say these things with bitterness. Not even anger, really. Just clarity. Like someone who had long ago made peace with the truth, even if it was sharp. In clinic, she challenged my every assumption—about treatment tolerance, about compliance, about who is difficult, and who is “advocating.” And she taught me to look differently at the ways bias lingers in medicine. Not just in data or policies, but in subtle moments: the tone we use when explaining options, the hesitations in our tests and referrals, and the assumptions we may not even realize we are making. And she did not just expect good care—she demanded it. She told me early on, “Don't you treat me like I'm anything other than your mother.” That landed. And in seeing patients before me now, I remind myself to wonder who they were in their past lives, what baggage burdens them, and how it all shapes their perspectives. So from my view, she fought multiple myeloma with everything she had, but from hers, she fought something bigger: an entire system shaped by inequality. And ultimately, she made me better to realize that, not just as a doctor, but as a human being. In my years since knowing her, completing my training, and beginning my practice, I reflect on her grace. I think not just about her life, but what it means to practice medicine in a world that often forgets what patients carry with them into the clinic—generations of weight, of injustice, of strength. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories, The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. I am so happy that today we are joined by Adeel Khan, who's Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UT Southwestern in Dallas to talk about his Journal of Clinical Oncology article, “A Fight Bigger than Myeloma.” Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Adeel, thank you so much for contributing to JCO and for joining us to discuss your article. Adeel Khan: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: Adeel, I don't want to be disingenuous to our readers by acting as if we've just met. You and I have known each other for a decade since you were still in your training. I wonder if for our listeners you can tell us a little bit about yourself, where are you from and and walk us through your career so far. Adeel Khan: More than happy to. So, I grew up mostly in Oklahoma, but I've sort of lived around in the Northeast and here in the Southwest where I am currently. I did college at the University of Oklahoma. I did medical school at the University of Michigan. I did residency with good fortune at the Cleveland Clinic where I happened to get to know you and have continued to know you since. I did my fellowship then in hematology oncology at Beth Israel Deaconess in the Harvard system and along the way of all that I did a Masters of Public Health at Harvard and a Masters of Science and Epidemiology at Columbia, and that pinball finally settled here to UT Southwestern here in Dallas which I am very happy to make my second home. Mikkael Sekeres: That's great. I will say just for our listeners you've been a superstar since the moment you were a resident. It's been a real treat for me to get to know you over the years. Adeel Khan: Thank you so much. Mikkael Sekeres: Can you tell us a little bit about your own story as a writer? You're a good writer. We get submissions from some really good writers every single week. It's a real privilege to be an editor for the Art of Oncology section and it's always reinvigorating to me to see how many good writers there are in medicine. How did you start your journey as a writer and how long have you been writing reflective narrative pieces? Adeel Khan: I would say if I went back to let's say high school, you know, people tend to be divided into kind of like the sciency types versus the literary arts types and you're kind of an either/or, you know, you didn't really have as much crossover then. But you know, I actually didn't mind when we had an essay due and I liked writing back then, and when I entered college I did a minor in English because I actually did enjoy that and I just liked the idea of being able to put your thoughts on paper in a way immortalizing them. Adeel Khan: And then as I sort of pursuing medicine more and more, publishing is really- it has all kinds of flavors to it and scientific publishing is obviously what has been emphasized, but you know, there's so many things to talk about within medicine. There's the science and the art of the field, and as I've moved along, I've written different pieces focusing really on patient stories and interactions. And I think my motivation has always been that as I have gotten particularly nowadays increasingly busy, I've had the fortune and misfortune of becoming more and more busy, it's easy to lose the opportunity to really connect with people that makes what we do meaningful. And so in those times when you know, and they can be rare, but when you really get to connect with someone in front of you who you're helping to care for, it's really refreshing and it's rejuvenating and I've tried to keep that with me as long as I can as I've gone through my journey. Mikkael Sekeres: There's a lot of jumping off points from what you just said, Adeel. I wonder if I can start with do you consider yourself an English major who's good at science or do you consider yourself a scientist who's a good writer? Adeel Khan: I think I'm too humble to say either. I think I was really a science major who just happened to like writing and reading and kept that as a part of myself. Mikkael Sekeres: Because I think there are a cadre of doctors who are actually English majors and have learned to turn science into storytelling and that's their entrée into science and medicine. I remember I talked for a while with David Scadden about this. He's a brilliant translational scientist who's based at Mass General who also teaches a writing course to the Harvard undergrads and who was an English major when he was an undergrad at Case Western. We've talked about this, about how there are people, I'll include myself in this, who just think different, who probably have these liberal arts brains and they figured out a way to convert science into a way a liberal arts person can understand it. Adeel Khan: Yeah, I mean narrative medicine has been I think around all along and it has only kind of been recently named as a field, but I mean it very much speaks to that that there's so much more than just G proteins in medicine. Mikkael Sekeres: I'm thrilled to hear that by the way. You mentioned you were an English minor. Are there particular writers who are an influence on you or can you talk about what's the most recent book or article you've read? Adeel Khan: Oh, that is a great question. Paulo Coelho is someone I've liked for a long time, The Alchemist. I really liked it because I read it after I had lived in Egypt. I lived in Egypt between college and med school as a study abroad program, and I had actually been to the Faiyum Oasis where the protagonist in that story ends up. And so it was just a fascinating story to me that I could trace some of the steps that are discussed in the book and it's so much- it's a story about self discovery which at that phase of life that I was in was you know, very much a theme of my own life. And so that's one that definitely stands out in my head. Mikkael Sekeres: Do you think reading pieces outside of medicine makes you a better scientist? Adeel Khan: I think absolutely. I think it makes you a better human being. In some ways I lament that so much of what I do reading now is so much just about what's in the field, what's new in myeloma, what's new in hematology oncology and I sort of miss the escape to reading other things and being able to pursue it. And even broader than just what a novel really offers. I mean, I grew up reading comic books too and I've always loved superheroes and fiction whether it's Star Wars and other things. And really they're just stories and the medium- there might be connotations whether it's a comic book or a or a novel, but they're just different mediums, but the fact that they're just stories is fundamental. I actually think to myself that it's so fascinating that the earliest piece of writing that we've really retained as human beings is we believe, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is really a story of a superhero when you think about it, you know, and it's it's fiction, it's phantasmic in so many ways. But it speaks to how stories are just vital as people. Mikkael Sekeres: And what is it about graphic novels or my kids now of course call them graphic novels. We're not allowed to call them comic books. Adeel Khan: As they've been renamed, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: What is it about graphic novels or comic books or the story of a hero that appeals to us in medicine? Adeel Khan: I think it's in some ways a parable of what we're doing. There's something so powerful and fundamental about this idea of good-evil and we can rename it in different ways, but that you're trying to overcome something that's an issue, an obstacle. And when you think about what we do in- particularly in oncology, that's very much what we're trying to do. We're trying to overcome an illness, a disease, to try to help the person in front of us. And it has different aspects to it. It could be someone pursuing something in a lab, it can be treating someone in front of you in clinic, but that simple dichotomy of there's something good about what you're doing because there's something bad in front of you is just the fundamental that runs through it all. Mikkael Sekeres: It's fascinating. I wonder if 30, 40, 50 years ago people would have said, “Oh, it's because the doctor is the hero,” but we don't view ourselves that way anymore. The patient is the hero. I love how you posit this as a good versus evil, the evil of course being cancer and the good everything that our patients do and that we try to to help to do to overcome that. Adeel Khan: For sure. Mikkael Sekeres: You wrote a really great essay about a woman who was a patient of yours. Can you tell me a little bit about what inspired you this time to make this connection and to write about this woman? Adeel Khan: Within the past year or so as I had been just really- the fortune and misfortune of getting busier, I lamented that I just wasn't able to spend as much time with patients in the way that I used to. One of the beauties of medical school and you know, to some degree residency and certainly fellowship is that you just have a little bit more time as a trainee, student and trainee where you can really bond with your patients I think a little bit more. And so in trying to kind of refresh my motivation, I was thinking about just kind of randomly some stories that I've kept in the back of my mind and this patient's story is one that stood out to me as I was recalling things. It was so fascinating to me because she had the disease which I now focus on. And the way that she viewed it and the way that she viewed it as a part of her life was just so different than what I think most people think of. And in that way it was very revitalizing that her focus in her life was part of a broader theme of the way that I think she viewed society. And this was just one piece of her own part of that much, much larger puzzle. Mikkael Sekeres: You really write lovingly about her and about how meaningful her context was in how you cared for her and what her experience was in the medical system. I wonder if I can read a little bit of what you wrote because it really did grab me as well. I'm going to start out by quoting you where you say, “Outwardly, I had little in common with her. As a young South Asian man growing up in times more conscious of racial injustice, I was far removed from these historical crimes. Though I learned of them during my education, I did not internalize their impact on the patients in front of me in clinic. But through her, I came to comprehend just how scarring and enduring these events can be and how they can rob someone of trust.” Wow, there's a lot there. Could you start with what was your perspective as a young South Asian man growing up in Oklahoma and what your view was of racial injustice compared to what her experience was of racial injustice? Adeel Khan: Yeah, I have to admit I don't know that I thought that much of it back then and I think that that's part of what it is. You know, being someone who was South Asian, I'm Pakistani, I have Indian roots, and coming into American history and as we learned about it there's so much about slavery and the theme of slavery unfortunately and and the struggles that enslaved peoples have. And you know, as a relatively recent immigrant, I didn't see myself in that narrative. I didn't see myself in that historical reality. But I knew about it intellectually, you know, I knew about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, you know, I learned about all these things and and you learned about how atrocious so much of it is. But again, not being so directly connected, I did not put myself in that same role as someone to view it so close to myself. I will say it hit a little bit more after 9/11 when you know, I was randomly stopped at airport security a little bit more often in those days and again, I think that speaks to racial injustices, you know, I was certainly profiled looking back then, I've been held by TSA in the past, but even that is very minor compared to what African Americans have dealt with here. And this patient in just kind of sharing her tidbits during our time together, I was not directly asking her so much of this. She was really offering a lot of it to me as we would talk and she would be very generous in sharing parts of her story. And over time I kind of understood the broader narrative of her life. You know, it was clear how much of all that was actually in the forefront of her head. Adeel Khan: And I think she might have been a little bit more unique in the way that she kept it there, but she was hyper vigilant of issues of society and the roots that brought a given society to where it is here. I kind of got to know her, this is during the COVID pandemic and this was after the injustice of what happened to George Floyd and so it was a theme that I think people were talking about more and so I think she felt comfortable in saying really what was quite a bit that was stewing in the back of her head seemingly at all times. Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting you talk about what you endured after 9/11 as being, I'm going to quote you now, “minor” compared to what she's been through, but even a minor affront like that can really compromise your trust. You write about her, “As a Black woman from the deep South, she had grown up learning how to navigate a healthcare system that did not always believe her.” Can you expand on that a little bit? How is it that the healthcare system didn't believe her and what can we do going into interactions with patients from different backgrounds where we're incorporating that there's a compromise of trust and we have to make up for that? Adeel Khan: Yeah, and I think you know, it's so unfortunate that so many people have stories like this where, in her case really it was back pain that was her presenting symptom. This is long before she knew me. And she'd had the back pain for quite some time, but being an older woman, she was in her 70s at that time, she was not in phenomenal health for other reasons. It sounds like she was just kind of ignored, told that it was old age, tendon changes, she did not have meaningful imaging for some time. When she finally did after seeing a slew of different providers, that's when it was revealed like there's something more significant here. And then when you kind of piece that a little bit retrospectively and I think she certainly sensed this and I did when I- hindsight's always 20/20, when I looked through things, it's like, well, this probably could have been caught much earlier. It's just that no one really I think listened to what she was speaking to with her pain and the gravity that was actually behind it. And it just speaks to the fact that I think we have to be more thoughtful in what we take away from patients and not to ignore even small comments because they might be revealing of something much bigger behind them. Mikkael Sekeres: You quote her, you have some really great quotes in your essay where you just listen to what she says and transcribe it because what she says is very meaningful. And one of the quotes you provide from her is, “They don't hear pain the same when it comes from someone like me.” Wow. “When it comes from someone like me,” someone like her, how was it that people weren't hearing her description of pain, something that was different that was going on in her body and how can we be more attentive to people when they complain about things like pain? Adeel Khan: It's unfortunate that there's even known data to show how depending upon a patient's melanin content in their skin, how likely they are to get pain medications and what happens to them is different and this is an unfortunate example of that where I think she just wasn't heard properly. And so it wasn't addressed properly and she was not shy about saying that. I mean I think she sensed that. She was very clear in feeling that herself and in wanting to have better care, she was still prevented and hence why she had to go from provider to provider. Mikkael Sekeres: You've lived in a bunch of different places in the country. I mean, following your path, you've been in Oklahoma, you've been in Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, and now Texas. Do you think that we as providers have to have different levels of sensitivity depending on where in the country we're practicing and how some of our patients' trust in healthcare may have been compromised in those different parts of the country? Adeel Khan: I think absolutely. I mean this particular patient was from Alabama which has a heavy history that she was again very aware of and for those of us reading history books are also very aware of too. And it's interesting how, while the U.S. is in some ways- has some aspects that are monolithic, but it's very much not so. It's very patchy and people are different, you know, if I take one theme that we're talking about here is obviously racial injustice, but if you take something like obesity, you know, prevalence rates are very different throughout the country and attitudes surrounding it are also very different. And I think we do- ought to be mindful that in treating the patient in front of us, it's not done without context. And so how they view their illness and their situation is going to be different depending upon the state, depending upon the city, depending upon actually even the era that they grew up in. So I would say now, if you took actually a similar patient, but you put her in a very modern context post-year 2000, she's likely to have different feelings of the situation around her than someone who was born in this case in the 1940s. And that just speaks to the fact that circumstances change and we should be recognizing that as providers, even though it's not always easy to. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it just emphasizes how very important it is to know the history of the place where we practice and how it's affected our patients' perceptions of healthcare and trust and being cared for, particularly now as there's such a movement to whitewash that history and eliminate it from major institutions like the Smithsonian. It has been such a pleasure to have Adeel Khan here. He is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Public Health at UT Southwestern in Dallas and wrote just a great JCO article called “A Fight Bigger Than Myeloma.” Adeel, thank you so much for submitting your article and for joining us today. Dr. Adeel Khan: Thank you so much for having me. It's been a pleasure. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen and explore more from ASCO at ASCO.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for JCO Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.   Show Notes Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr Adeel Khan is an Assistant Professor of Medicine and Public Health at UT Southwestern.

People under 50 are experiencing higher risk of some cancers. While overall cancer rates are declining, the incidence of 14 cancer types have increased in younger people. Why? It could be related to lifestyle choices, environmental factors, or an individual's genetics. In this episode, host Samantha Laine Perfas speaks with global cancer trend expert Tim Rebbeck, oncologist Kimmie Ng, and epidemiologist Tomotaka Ugai about how people under 50 can best mitigate their cancer risk.

Jennifer J. Brown is a scientist, a writer, and a mother who never got the luxury of separating those roles. Her memoir When the Baby Is Not OK: Hopes & Genes is a punch to the gut of polite society and a medical system that expects parents to smile through trauma. She wrote it because she had to. Because the people who gave her the diagnosis didn't give her the truth. Because a Harvard-educated geneticist with two daughters born with PKU still couldn't get a straight answer from the very system she trained in.We sat down in the studio to talk about the unbearable loneliness of rare disease parenting, the disconnect between medical knowledge and human connection, and what it means to weaponize science against silence. She talks about bias in the NICU, the failure of healthcare communication, and why “resilience” is a lazy word. Her daughters are grown now. One's a playwright. One's an artist. And Jennifer is still raising hell.This is a conversation about control, trauma, survival, and rewriting the script when the world hands you someone else's lines.Bring tissues. Then bring receipts.RELATED LINKS• When the Baby Is Not OK (Book)• Jennifer's Website• Jennifer on LinkedInFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, visit outofpatients.show.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Each year, Advisory Board delivers an update on the most significant trends shaping service line strategy – identifying exactly what service line and strategy leaders should prioritize in the year ahead. In this episode, host Rae Woods is joined by Advisory Board experts Lindsey Paul, Kristin Strubel, Gabriela Marmolejos, and Ellie Wiles to unpack the universal challenges specialties are facing as we head into 2026. Throughout the conversation, you'll hear how access constraints, workforce pressures, policy changes, and innovative payment models are influencing key service lines—including oncology, cardiovascular, women's health, and neurology. Looking for insights on a specific service line? Jump ahead using the timestamps below: 1:26 – 6:50: Lindsay Paul on oncology 6:51 – 12:14: Kristen Strubel on cardiovascular 14:08 – 22:29: Gabriela Marmolejos on women's health 22:30 – 27:58: Ellie Wiles on neurology We're here to help: Oncology service line outlook – 2025 Cardiovascular service line outlook – 2025 Women's health service line outlook – 2025 Neurosciences service line outlook – 2025 Orthopedics service line outlook – 2025 Watch our member testimonials and learn about upcoming Advisory Board events Blood-based colorectal screening: A closer look for health plans A transcript of this episode as well as more information and resources can be found on RadioAdvisory.advisory.com.

Read the full article at: https://oncdata.com/travis-osterman-ai-informatics In this episode of Exploring AI in Oncology, Dr. Waqas Haque speaks with Dr. Travis Osterman, Director of Cancer Clinical Informatics at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, about the evolving role of health informatics in oncology. Their conversation spans training pathways, precision oncology, data standards, AI integrations, and the strategies to promote adoption in both academic and community practices.

This podcast is brought to you by Nature's Bounty. With a long-standing commitment to supporting women's health and wellness, Nature's Bounty is proud to partner with Susan G. Komen in the fight to end breast cancer. As we kick off National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, with eyes and ears on the breast cancer community, we are highlighting one of our passionate Komen donors to talk about why she chooses to support Susan G. Komen. Robin Eggert Elm is a long time 3-day supporter. She first started walking with her mom and sister in 2002 and now walks yearly with an ever-growing team of family and friends. Robin has spent more than 20 years in the health care industry and has worked with more than 100 mission-driven, not-for-profit organizations, including health systems,and service providers, senior housing and Catholic women religious congregations. Robin is truly passionate about walking as long as she can to continue fighting for a cure. Today, she's here to tell us about why she chooses to partner with Komen in this fight.

Prof Meletios-Athanasios (Thanos) C Dimopoulos from Alexandra Hospital in Athens, Greece, Dr Hans Lee from Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr Joseph Mikhael from City of Hope Cancer Center in Phoenix, Arizona, and Dr Noopur Raje from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston discuss recent updates on available and novel treatment strategies for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.  CE information and select publications here.

This episode of Standard Deviation features Oliver Bogler in conversation with Dr Na Zhao, a cancer biologist caught in the crossfire of science, politics, and survival. Na's life reads like a brutal lab experiment in persistence.She grew up in China, lost her mother and aunt to breast cancer before she turned twelve, then came to the United States to chase science as both an immigrant and a survivor's daughter. She worked two decades to reach the brink of independence as a cancer researcher, only to watch offers and grants vanish in the political chaos of 2025.Oliver brings her story into sharp focus, tracing the impossible climb toward a tenure-track position and the human cost of a system that pulls the ladder up just as people like Na reach for it. This conversation pulls back the curtain on the NIH funding crisis, the toll on early-career scientists, and what happens when personal tragedy fuels professional ambition.Listeners will walk away with a raw sense of how fragile the future of cancer research really is, and why people like Na refuse to stop climbing.RELATED LINKSDr Zhao at Baylor College of MedicineDr Zhao on LinkedInDr Zhao's Science articleIndirect Costs explained by US CongressFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It is essential for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) to have a foundation of care prior to discharge after their cancer treatment, and the multidisciplinary care team, including primary care providers (PCPs), must be equipped to support these patients. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Scott J. Capozza, PT, MSPT, on his journey navigating care after cancer treatment as a young adult and his ASCO JCO Oncology Practice article, “Patient is Otherwise Healthy.” CANCER BUZZ then speaks with Melody Griffith, MSW, LMSW, Outpatient Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology social worker at Mayo Clinic Arizona, on her role in patient navigation and how her department supports AYAs through their entire cancer continuum. CANCER BUZZ concludes with Cathy Lee-Miller, MD, director of AYA Oncology Clinic at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, on their cohort training program preparing PCPs for managing AYA survivorship care.    “The late effects for young adults are very real and a lot of times they are not recognized because we look otherwise healthy on the outside, but that belies what's going on internally.” - Scott J. Capozza, PT, MSPT   “We talk about post-traumatic stress, but also post-traumatic growth and what they bring with them and what they've learned through their process. It's not just the treatment, right? After treatment, there's a lot of years left to live.” - Melody Griffith, MSW, LMSW   “We really try and help empower these patients, particularly AYAs who maybe relied on their parents for their medical care before... We really try to spell that out for people so they can take responsibility and take charge of their own long-term health.” - Cathy Lee-Miller, MD   Scott J. Capozza, PT, MSPT Board Certified Clinical Specialist in Oncologic Physical Therapy  YNHH Outpatient Oncology Rehabilitation Services Smilow Cancer Hospital Adult Cancer Survivorship Clinic New Haven, CT   Melody Griffith, MSW, LMSW Outpatient Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Oncology Social Worker Mayo Clinic Arizona Phoenix, AZ   Cathy Lee-Miller, MD Director, AYA Oncology Clinic Associate Professor, Pediatric Hematology/Oncology/Transplant & Cellular Therapy University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Madison, WI    This podcast is part of the AYA Oncology Screening and Survivorship Services program, made possible through the support from The Arizona Clinical Oncology Society, Indiana Oncology Society, and Wisconsin Association of Hematology and Oncology. Resources: The Arizona Clinical Oncology Society: https://tacos.accc-cancer.org/resources/adolescent-and-young-adult-cancer-resources Indiana Oncology Society: https://inos.accc-cancer.org/resources/aya-cancer-resources Wisconsin Association of Hematology and Oncology: https://waho.accc-cancer.org/resources/adolescent-and-young-adult-cancer-resources

Featuring perspectives from Prof Meletios-Athanasios (Thanos) C Dimopoulos, Dr Hans Lee, and Dr Noopur Raje, moderated by Dr Joseph Mikhael, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Multiple Myeloma (MM) — Dr Raje (3:17) Integrating Bispecific Antibodies into the Management of R/R MM — Dr Lee (20:38) Potential Role of Antibody-Drug Conjugates and Cereblon E3 Ligase Modulators in Therapy for MM — Prof Dimopoulos (40:37) CE information and select publications

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Matteo Lambertini discuss a compelling global study on the clinical behavior of breast cancer in young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis, and the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Well, hello everyone, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist, professor, and vice chair of medical oncology at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. Now, when we think about genetic testing, whether for patients diagnosed with breast cancer or for other family members of them, it seems to be widely underutilized. Today, we're going to be discussing a recently published study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that reported on the clinical behavior of breast cancer and specifically young BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and the association of pre-diagnostic awareness of BRCA status with prognosis. I thought this was just a fascinating piece, and I honestly couldn't wait to have this conversation. It's a really compelling paper that highlights the importance of identifying healthy people who are at risk of carrying the BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants, and really the need for genetic counseling and testing to inform people about early detection that could lead to a better prognosis. I'm really delighted to welcome the study's lead author, Dr. Matteo Lambertini. He really needs no introduction. He's very well known in the breast cancer world for his amazing contributions to fertility in the context of breast cancer, to pregnancy in the context of breast cancer, and genetic testing. He's an associate professor at the University of Genova, and a breast cancer medical oncologist at the San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genova, Italy.  Dr. Lambertini, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a great pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, thanks. And just FYI, if you're listening in and you want to hear our disclosures, they're all listed at the transcript of this podcast.  So, I poured through this paper [Clinical Behavior of Breast Cancer in Young BRCA Carriers and Prediagnostic Awareness of Germline BRCA Status] yesterday, Dr. Lambertini, and first of all, congratulations on this study. This was a huge international multicenter effort, 4,752 patients. How did you pool all these patients with young breast cancer? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thanks a lot for the question. Yes, this was an effort made by several centers all over the world. The main idea behind the creation of this network that we have named as BRCA BCY Collaboration, was to get as many data as possible in a sort of niche patient population in the breast cancer field, meaning women diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 40 years or younger, and all of them being BRCA carriers. We know that around, in the Western world, around 5% of breast cancer cases are being diagnosed under the age of 40 years, and among them around 10-15% are BRCA carriers. So, I would say it's a relatively rare patient population where we did not have a lot of evidence to support our choices in terms of counseling on treatment, prevention, and oncofertility as well. That was the idea behind the creation of this network that includes many centers. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. You know, what's so interesting about this is that you sort of draw this line between patients who have BRCA testing at the time of diagnosis and then BRCA testing earlier in their course and then leading to a diagnosis perhaps. And I think that's where really sort of the dichotomy in outcome sits. Can you maybe elaborate on this and tell us about timing of genetic testing in this study and what that meant ultimately in terms of prognosis? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: In this specific analysis from this large network, including almost 5,000 women with breast cancer diagnosed at the age of 40 years or younger and being a BRCA carrier, we looked specifically into the timing of genetic testing because this is a retrospective study and the criteria for inclusion are those that I have just mentioned, so diagnosis at a young age plus carrying germline BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. In this analysis, we have looked into the time the patient has got the genetic testing and particular we focused on two populations: those that were diagnosed, knowing already to be a BRCA carrier, and those that got tested after being diagnosed with breast cancer. And the main findings from this analysis have been that knowing to be a BRCA carrier was associated with a lower stage at the time of diagnosis, meaning more T1 tumors, so a tumor less than 2 cm, more node-negative disease, and this translated into less aggressive treatment, so less often axillary dissection, less often use of chemotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy. And even more importantly, we have seen a better overall survival for those patients that were diagnosed already knowing to be BRCA carriers as compared to those tested after breast cancer diagnosis. These results after adjusting for all the confounding, stage, treatment and so on, there was not significant anymore, meaning that it's not the timing of test per se that is probably leading to a better survival, but it is the fact that knowing to be a BRCA carrier would likely translate into having access to all the preventive measures that we have in this setting and this will translate into an overall survival benefit, so in terms of saving more lives in young BRCA carriers. Dr. Monty Pal: I think it's such an important point, and it's one that I think might sound implicit, right, but it needs to be proven, I think, through a study like this. You know, the fact that finding this early, identifying the mutation, doing enhanced screening, and so forth, is really going to lead to superior clinical outcomes. One of the things that I think many people puzzle over, including myself, is what to do? I personally occasionally will see BRCA altered patients in the context of prostate cancer. But that's a very different population of individuals, right? Typically older men. In young females with BRCA mutation, I guess there's a specific set of considerations around reproductive health. You'd already highlighted preventive strategies, but what sorts of things should we be talking about in the clinics once a patient's diagnosed and once perhaps their breast cancer diagnosis is established? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, exactly. Knowing to be a BRCA carrier has a lot of implications from prevention to treatment to survivorship issues including reproductive counseling. And this is important not only for the patient that has been diagnosed with breast cancer but also for all the family members that will get tested and maybe identify with this sort of genetic alteration before diagnosis of cancer. Why this is important is because we have access to very effective preventive measures, a few examples: MRI screening, which starts at a very young age and normally young women don't have an effective screening strategy outside the BRCA field. Also, primary preventive measures, for example, risk-reducing surgery. These women are known to have a high risk of breast cancer and high risk of ovarian cancer. So the guidelines are suggesting to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy at a young age, so 35 to 40 years in BRCA1 carrier, 40 to 45 years in BRCA2 carrier. And also risk-reducing mastectomy should be discussed because it is a very effective way to prevent the occurrence of breast cancer. And in some situations, including the setting that we are talking about, so young women with breast cancer, BRCA carrier, also risk-reducing mastectomy has shown to improve overall survival.  On the other side, once diagnosed with breast cancer, nowadays knowing to be or not a BRCA carrier can make a difference in terms of treatment. We have PARP inhibitors in the early setting, in the adjuvant setting as well as in the metastatic setting. And in terms of survivorship implication, one of the critical aspects for young women is the oncofertility care which is even more complicated when we talk about BRCA carriers that are women candidates for gynecological surgery at a very young age. So this sort of counseling is even more complicated. Dr. Monty Pal: One of the other things, and this is subtle in your paper and I hope you don't mind me bringing it up, is the difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2. It really got me thinking about that because there are differences in phenotype and manifestation. Do you mind just expanding on that a little bit for the audience because I think that's a really important reminder that you brought up in the discussion? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: The difference between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers has been known that there are different phenotypes of breast cancer that are more often diagnosed in these two different populations. Normally BRCA1 carriers have a higher likelihood to develop a triple negative breast cancer as compared to BRCA2 carriers, more likely to develop a hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative disease. In this study, again, a specific population of young women with breast cancer, we have seen the same findings, mostly triple negative disease in BRCA1 carrier, mostly luminal-like disease in BRCA2 carrier. But what's novel or interesting from this study is to look also at the age at the time of diagnosis of this disease. And particularly in BRCA1 carriers, we should be sort of more careful about diagnosis of breast cancer and also other primary tumors including ovarian cancer because the risk of developing these malignancies is higher even at a younger age as compared to BRCA2 carriers. And this has implications also in the primary and secondary prevention that we were talking about earlier. Dr. Monty Pal: Oh, interesting. I guess the fundamental question then from your paper becomes, how do we get at the right patients for screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2? And I realize our audience here is largely oncologists who are going to be listening to this podcast, oncology providers, MDs, nurses, etc. But maybe speak for a moment to the general practitioner. Are there things that, for instance, a general practitioner should be looking for to say, “Wait a minute, this patient's high risk, we should consider BRCA1, BRCA2 testing or germline screening”? Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yes, it's a very important question for the breast cancer community. After the updated ASCO guideline, the counseling is way easier because right now the age cutoff goes up to 65 years, meaning that all the patients diagnosed with breast cancer below the age of 65 years should be tested these days. And then above the age of 65, there are different criteria like triple-negative disease or family history. From a general practitioner standpoint, it's of course a bit more difficult, but knowing particularly the family history of the person that they have in front will be crucial to know if there are cases of breast cancer diagnosed at a young age, maybe triple-negative cases, knowing cases of ovarian cancer in first-degree relatives or pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives, and of course cases of prostate cancer as well. So, I would say probably mostly the family side will be important from a general practitioner perspective.  From an oncology one, the other point that I think is important to stress also based on the data that we have shown in this publication is that having a case of breast cancer known to carry a BRCA pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. It means that all the people around this case should get tested and if found to be BRCA carrier and healthy carrier, these people should also undergo the primary and secondary prevention strategies because this is very critical also to improve their outcomes and try to avoid the developing of breast or ovarian cancer, but also in the case of diagnosis of this disease, a diagnosis at an earlier stage, as we have seen in this paper. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. I'm going to diverge from our list of questions here and close by asking a question that I have at the top of my mind. You're very young. I know our podcast listeners can't see you, but you're very, very young. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you. Thank you for that. Not so young but yeah. Dr. Monty Pal: You have nearly 300 papers. Your H-index is 67. You've already made these seminal contributions, as I outlined it from the outset, regarding fertility, regarding use of GnRH analogs, regarding pregnancy and breast cancer. What are you studying now? What are you really excited about right now that you're doing that you think might potentially be practice changing? Give us a little teaser. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Dr. Pal. Receiving this compliment from you is fantastic. So, thanks a lot for that. From my side, in terms of my research, I've been interested in the field of breast cancer in young women since the start of my training. I've had very good mentors from Italy, from Europe, from the U.S. I'm still interested in this field, so I think we still have a lot to learn to try to improve the care of young women with breast cancer. For example, the oncofertility care, which is something I worked a lot over the past years. Now with all the new treatment options, there's a sort of new chapter of oncofertility counseling. So, what's the impact of immunotherapy? What's the impact of the new targeted agents?  More on the genetic aspects, now we know that there's not only BRCA1 or BRCA2. There are a lot of other different genes that may increase the risk of breast cancer and other malignancies. And also for these genes, we really don't have a lot of evidence to counsel women on prognosis, treatment, prevention strategy. So we need to learn way more for this special patient population that are quite rare, and so we really need a multicenter academic effort to try to give some evidence in this field. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah. It's tough because these are rare circumstances, but, you know, I think that you've done really well to sort of define some collective experiences that I think really define therapy. I mean, I just remember when I was in training 25 years ago, just reading through textbooks where all the experience around breast cancer and pregnancy was really just very sort of anecdotal almost, you know? And so it's great to see that the state of the science has moved forward.  Well, gosh, I really enjoyed our conversation today. I think your study really reminds us how powerful genetic information is in terms of improving outcomes. And, you know, hopefully this will lead some individuals to perhaps test more broadly in appropriate settings. So, thank you so much, Matteo, for joining us today with your fantastic insights on the ASCO Daily News Podcast. Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Thank you very much, Dr. Pal. It's a real pleasure. Dr. Monty Pal: And thanks to our listeners too. You'll find a link to Dr. Lambertini's study in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks a ton. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal  @montypal  Dr. Matteo Lambertini @matteolambe   Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Monty Pal:   Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis  Dr. Matteo Lambertini: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Seagen, Menarini, Nordic Pharma Speakers' Bureau: Takeda, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Ipsen, Knight Therapeutics, Libbs, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Menarini, AstraZeneca, Menarini Research Funding (Inst.): Gilead Sciences Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Roche

In this How I Treat podcast episode, Laura Michaelis, MD interviews Sung-Yun Pai, MD about their recently published article in Blood journal "How I treat Wiskott-Alrich syndrome". They highlight recent updates in treatment, including new risk-benefit calculations due to safer treatments and longer follow-ups. Challenges include late diagnosis, lack of well-matched donors, and limited gene therapy availability. They emphasize the importance of early referral to specialized centers and the need for discussions about curative intent therapies, including transplant and gene therapy. The conversation also covers the complexities of gene therapy, such as the need for better conditioning agents and the challenges of achieving full correction in all cell types.

In this week's episode we'll learn about targeting the tissue factor pathway inhibitor with a monoclonal antibody to rebalance HEMOSTASIS in hemophilia A and B. In the phase 3 BASIS trial, the monoclonal antibody marstacimab reduced bleeding events, and was generally well tolerated, with no unanticipated side effects. After that: matched-donor allogeneic CD19 CAR-T for adult B-ALL. Given after allogeneic transplantation, CAR-donor lymphocyte infusion after lymphodepleting chemotherapy was associated with favorable efficacy and a tolerable safety profile. Finally: a new prognostic index for mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome. Comprised of four prognostic factors, the “CLIPI” could enable more personalized treatment of cutaneous lymphomas, identifying patients who may benefit from intensified treatment.Featured ArticlesMarstacimab prophylaxis in hemophilia A/B without inhibitors: results from the phase 3 BASIS trialMatched donor allogeneic CAR-T for adult B-ALL: toxicity, efficacy, repeat dosing, and the importance of lymphodepletionA new prognostic index (CLIPI) for advanced cutaneous lymphoma enables precise patient risk stratification

BUFFALO, NY - October 1, 2025 – Oncotarget is proud to announce that its Editor-in-Chief, Wafik S. El-Deiry, MD, PhD, FACP, will chair the WIN Symposium as the Oncology Track of the Advancing Precision Medicine (APM) Annual Conference held October 3–4, 2025, at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia. The WIN Consortium annual symposium featured as the Oncology Track of the APM Annual Conference 2025 unites global leaders in oncology, translational science, and precision medicine. This year's program features keynote lectures, multi-track sessions– WIN Symposium, Multi-Omics Integration and Precision Medicine Outside of Oncology– and networking opportunities designed to accelerate the translation of research into clinical practice. Highlights include: --A keynote at opening of the WIN Symposium in Philadelphia by William G. Kaelin, Jr., MD — 2019 Nobel Laureate. --Other luminaries in Oncology are speaking, including AACR President Lillian Siu, MD and AACR President-Elect Keith Flaherty, MD along with internationally recognized leaders in precision oncology. --A world-class precision oncology molecular tumor board and oral presentations from the most competitive abstracts are part of the program. --Multi-omics and disease-specific tracks spanning oncology, neurology, cardiovascular disease, rare disease, and infectious disease. --Opportunities for collaboration among scientists, clinicians, industry innovators, and policymakers. Registration is still open. Attendance is free for students, academic/government/non-profit participants, healthcare providers, and investors. The event provides CME credits. For full program details, visit the APM Annual Conference website. About WIN Consortium: WIN Consortium is a non-profit association headquartered in France. WIN was the first consortium that assembled all stakeholders of cancer care, from academia, industry, and patient advocates to work together across the globe. The WIN network assembles 34 world-class academic medical centers, industries, research organizations and patient advocates spanning 18 countries and 5 continents, aligned to launch trials to bolster Precision Oncology across the world. It was also the first organization to launch a N-of-One study using transcriptomics in addition to genomics to inform therapeutic choice in the WINTHER study. WIN is the organizer of the WIN symposia in Precision Oncology. To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh

In episode 94 of the Summits Podcast, co-hosts Vince Todd, Jr. and Daniel Abdallah are joined by osteosarcoma survivor Will DesJean. Tune in as Will shares his cancer story, the setback he experienced this past year, and how he's getting back to what he loves most – friends, fun, and most of all – swimming. For more of Will's story, tune in to episode 32 with his parents, Chris and Stacy DesJean: https://youtu.be/400NoR1ogVM

Katie Henry has seen some things. From nonprofit bootstraps to Big Pharma boardrooms, she's been inside the machine—and still believes we can fix it. We go deep on her winding road from folding sweaters at J.Crew to launching a vibrator-based advocacy campaign that accidentally changed the sexual health narrative in breast cancer.Katie doesn't pull punches. She's a born problem solver with zero tolerance for pink fluff and performative empathy. We talk survivor semantics, band camp trauma, nonprofit burnout, and why “Didi” is the grandparent alter ego you never saw coming.She's Murphy Brown with a marimba. Veronica Sawyer in pharma. Carla Tortelli with an oncology Rolodex. And she still calls herself a learner.This is one of the most honest, hilarious, and refreshingly real conversations I've had. Period.RELATED LINKS:Katie Henry on LinkedInKatie Henry on ResearchGateLiving Beyond Breast CancerNational Breast Cancer CoalitionFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.Genmab has acquired Merus, a rising star in the field of oncology, for $8 billion. The acquisition includes Merus' bispecific antibody, petosemtamab, which targets EGFR and LGR5 and has shown potential for head-and-neck cancer. In other news, GSK CEO Emma Walmsley is stepping down after nine years, with Chief Commercial Officer Luke Miels set to replace her next year. The FDA's decision to disclose complete response letters in real-time has raised questions about transparency and the agency's role. Additionally, Biogen has shuffled staff after ending work on AAV, while Heidelberg has cut 75% of its staff after missed royalty payments.The FDA's real-time disclosure of complete response letters benefits investors by providing greater visibility into regulatory decisions. In September, the FDA's actions included boosting Keytruda while rejecting two spinal muscular atrophy therapies due to manufacturing issues. A judge's ruling on the FDA's authority over laboratory-developed tests reflects the impact of a recent Supreme Court decision. Six FDA decisions to watch for in Q4 could have significant implications for the biopharma industry and patients. Recent developments include positive results for an immuneering asset in pancreatic cancer, FDA approval for Lilly's oral SERD for breast cancer, and positive outcomes for uniQure's Huntington's therapy. Additionally, the FDA is streamlining development of cell, gene, and regenerative therapies. Other news includes the revival of a dormant drug as a potential autism treatment, setbacks in obesity studies, and unexpected rejections for certain therapies. Upcoming webinars and job opportunities are also highlighted.Listeners are encouraged to provide feedback on topics they would like to see covered in future episodes.

Matthew L. Goodwin, MD, PhD, FACSMSheng-fu Larry Lo, MD, MHSDaniel M. Sciubba, MD

Breast cancer affects everyone differently. African American and Black women are 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Biology and genes are driving factors, but we cannot overlook the fears and concerns women in these communities have when it comes to seeking medical care. Mistrust, bad experiences and deep-rooted bias are all standing in the way of saving more lives from breast cancer. Today, we're joined by Jessica Williams, a leading and powerful voice in the Black community in South Florida. And Gil Zepeda, the Development Manager of Susan G. Komen in Florida. Jessica and Gil just took part in an event that brough mobile mammography to an underserved neighborhood in South Florida.

Cancer care in the U.S. costs over $250 billion each year, and nearly 2 million Americans receive a new diagnosis annually, yet too often the journey begins with silence: no call, no plan, no guide.In this episode, a16z's Vineeta Agarwala and Jay Rughani talk with Thyme Care leaders Robin Shah (cofounder and CEO), Bobby Green, MD (president and CMO), and Brad Diephuis, MD (president and COO) about rebuilding oncology around the patient. They cover where the system breaks, how navigation plus value-based contracts align incentives, how AI can extend clinicians, and what scale looks like today, more than 83,000 active patients. A concise blueprint for truly patient-centered cancer care. Timecodes: 0:00  Introduction 1:47 Personal Stories & Early Days of Time Care5:27 Building the Team & Mission7:07 The Patient Journey: Where the System Fails9:58 Why Tech Hasn't Solved Cancer Care (Yet)15:45 Scaling Impact: Growth & Partnerships17:45 How Time Care Works: Value-Based Care Explained23:15 Technology, AI, and the Human Touch37:06 Building for the Future: Generational Impact Resources: Find Robin on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robin-shah-8072bb35Find Bobby on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drbobbygreen/FInd Brad on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bdiephuis/Find Vineeta on X: https://x.com/vintweetaFind Jay on X: https://x.com/JayRughani Stay Updated: If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the Raising Health on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4fjb8YTzHDuPBgDXc3ElkRListen to Raising Health on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/raising-health/id1529318900Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us a textWhat if cancer could be detected years before symptoms ever appear? In this episode of Causes or Cures, Dr. Eeks sits down with Dr. Yuxuan Wang, cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins, to discuss her team's promising work on multicancer early detection (MCED) blood tests.These ultra-sensitive sequencing tests can spot tiny fragments of tumor DNA circulating in the blood. In their recent study, the MCED test flagged early cancer signs in 8 out of 26 participants who were later diagnosed — half of them more than three years before their cancer was picked up clinically. While still experimental and not FDA-approved, this research points to a future where cancer screening might extend well beyond mammograms and colonoscopies.In this episode, we cover:Dr. Wang's journey into cancer research and what inspired her focus.What multicancer early detection (MCED) blood tests are and how they work.How the Johns Hopkins study was designed and what the key results showed.Which cancer types were detected and what limitations still exist.Challenges such as false positives, incidental findings, and overtreatment risks.The ethical and practical questions of telling patients they may have cancer years before symptoms.Cost and accessibility concerns: how to make such tests affordable if approved.Next steps toward larger trials, FDA approval, and clinical use.How MCED could change the landscape of cancer screening and prevention in the future.Balancing public enthusiasm, media attention, and scientific caution.This is a fascinating and nuanced conversation about the possibilities, and challenges, of catching cancer earlier than ever before.You can contact Dr. Eeks at bloomingwellness.com.Follow Eeks on Instagram here.Or Facebook here.Or X.On Youtube.Or TikTok.SUBSCRIBE to her monthly newsletter here! (Now featuring interviews with top experts on health you care about!)Support the show

"When my oncologist looked me in the eye and said there's nothing I could do for myself, I knew I had to find another way."In this episode I'm sharing Heather's incredible story of refusing conventional cancer treatment and choosing the metabolic approach instead. At 37, facing vulvar cancer, she declined surgery and radiation, implementing therapeutic ketogenic diet, high-dose IVs, and complete lifestyle transformation. Now cancer-free and helping others, she reveals why blood sugar dysfunction drives both autoimmunity and cancer, and the one test that shows metabolic health in 94% of people. We dive deep into how our biography influences our biology and practical steps you can take today to assess your own metabolic health.For the complete show notes, links and transcript visit inspiredliving.show/211

In this week's episode, we'll learn more about relationships between Epstein-Barr virus genomic variants and human diseases, including hematological malignancies; the presence and timing of somatic GATA1 mutations and their relationship to a Down syndrome-specific form of leukemia; and new definitions for high-risk multiple myeloma that emphasize the presence of two or more high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.Featured Articles:Association of Epstein-Barr virus genomic alterations with human pathologiesClinical significance of preleukemic somatic GATA1 mutations in children with Down syndromeBiallelic antigen escape is a mechanism of resistance to anti-CD38 antibodies in multiple myeloma

In this episode of Blood Cancer Talks, hosts Eddie, Ashwin, and Raj welcome two distinguished experts to explore the cutting-edge field of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in B-cell lymphomas. Dr. David Russler-Germain, a lymphoma clinician from Siteman Cancer Centre at Washington University in St. Louis, returns as a familiar voice to the podcast audience. Joining him is Dr. Ash Alizadeh, the Moghadam Family Professor of Medicine, Oncology, and Hematology at Stanford University and leader of the Cancer Genomics Program at Stanford Cancer Institute. Dr. Alizadeh has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of lymphomagenesis and lymphoma genetics over the past two decades, pioneering multiple ctDNA techniques that are revolutionizing cancer care. Together, they discuss the transformative potential of ctDNA technology in B-cell lymphomas, particularly DLBCL, covering everything from the technical evolution of biomarker detection to groundbreaking clinical data that may reshape how we monitor and treat these aggressive cancers. Key Discussion Topics1. Genetic Heterogeneity in B-Cell LymphomasComplex genetic landscape of DLBCLImplications for treatment strategiesNeed for personalized approaches 2. Clinical Need for ctDNA in LymphomaWhy ctDNA is needed in aggressive lymphomas:Curative vs. non-curative treatment settingsLimitations of current PET imagingAdditional prognostic information beyond imagingRisk stratification capabilitiesPotential to avoid overtreatmentTherapy adaptation opportunities 3. Challenges in Lymphoma MRD AssessmentWhy lymphoma MRD is more complex than other hematologic malignancies:Differences from acute leukemias, CLL, and myelomaTechnical challenges specific to lymphoid tumorsLower circulating tumor burden compared to liquid tumors 4. ClonoSEQ TechnologyMechanism: Immunoglobulin sequencing approachAdvantages: Established platform with regulatory approvalDisadvantages: Limited sensitivity in peripheral blood, requires adequate tumor sample 5. CAPP-Seq TechnologyFull Name: Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep SequencingInnovation: Developed ~10 years ago by Dr. Alizadeh's groupMechanism: Targeted sequencing of cancer-specific mutationsAdvantages: High sensitivity, personalized approach 6. PhasED-Seq TechnologyEvolution: Next-generation advancement of CAPP-SeqKey Improvements: Enhanced sensitivity and specificityTechnical Advances: Phased variant detection Clinical Data Highlights1. Remission Assessment by ctDNA in LBCL on 5 prospective studies of frontline anthracycline-based chemo-immunotherapy: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40802906/2. Prospective validation of end of treatment ctDNA-MRD by PhasED-Seq in DLBCL patients from HOVON-902 clinical trial: https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.70003. Korean data on prognostic utility of ctDNA: https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/142/Supplement%201/69/501573 

In this episode, Talaya sits down with Dr. Fazlur Rahman, a retired oncologist with a remarkable 35-year career spent serving communities in San Angelo, Texas. An author and advocate for patient-centered medicine, Dr. Rahman shares his invaluable insights on what's missing in modern healthcare and how we can bring it back.This is more than a medical conversation; it's a deep exploration of the human side of oncology for anyone navigating cancer, from patients and caregivers to future oncologists. Dr. Rahman shares powerful stories and lessons from a career dedicated to compassionate care.In this episode, we dive into:The Power of Empathy: Why Dr. Rahman believes a compassionate "bedside manner" is as critical as any treatment.Rural Health Barriers: Navigating the unique logistical, cultural, and financial challenges of cancer care in underserved areas.The Patient's Struggle: An honest discussion on the human and financial toll of a cancer diagnosis.Ethical Decisions: Dr. Rahman's perspective on the difficult choices patients and doctors face in modern healthcare.✨Timestamp Highlights:04:34 The Importance of Empathy in Medicine08:05 Dr. Rahman's Books and Writing11:36 Challenges in Cancer Care19:23 Barriers in Rural Cancer Care25:29 Financial and Ethical Struggles42:57 Advice for Future OncologistsTranscript: https://bit.ly/podscript172Connect & Engage with Dr. Rahman:Website: https://fazlurrahmanmd.com/

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common—and deadliest—cancers worldwide. Once it spreads and reaches the metastatic stage, treatment becomes far more difficult. Tumors can also behave very differently from one patient to another, especially after multiple rounds of therapy. Precision oncology is helping to overcome these challenges by enabling clinicians to analyze each tumor's unique genetic profile and tailor treatment accordingly. This approach was recently highlighted in a case study published in Volume 16 of Oncotarget. The report detailed how a 62-year-old man with advanced colorectal cancer received a highly personalized treatment plan, developed by an international panel of experts, after completing all standard treatment options. Full blog - https://www.oncotarget.org/2025/09/24/precision-oncology-in-metastatic-colorectal-cancer-a-real-world-case-study/ Paper DOI - https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28744 Correspondence to - Shai Magidi - shai.magidi@winconsortium.org Abstract video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWDtWNgpK7A Sign up for free Altmetric alerts about this article - https://oncotarget.altmetric.com/details/email_updates?id=10.18632%2Foncotarget.28744 Subscribe for free publication alerts from Oncotarget - https://www.oncotarget.com/subscribe/ Keywords - cancer, precision oncology, molecular tumor board, colorectal carcinoma, cancer management To learn more about Oncotarget, please visit https://www.oncotarget.com and connect with us: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget/ X - https://twitter.com/oncotarget Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OncotargetJournal LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/user/Oncotarget/ Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/0gRwT6BqYWJzxzmjPJwtVh MEDIA@IMPACTJOURNALS.COM

Liquid biopsy is breaking speed and access barriers in precision oncology. In this episode of the Precision Medicine Podcast, part of our series Bringing Precision Medicine to Everyone and the first in a two-part focus, founder and host Karan Cushman speaks with Dr. Kashyap Patel, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care Associates, author, and national leader in value-based oncology.Together, they explore how liquid biopsy is changing the diagnostic and treatment landscape. This blood-based test can deliver results in days, be repeated as needed, and reduce the need for invasive procedures. Tissue biopsy remains important, but when the samples are too small or unsuitable for testing, liquid biopsy provides a valuable alternative in guiding treatment decisions and monitoring disease.For patients with aggressive “turbo cancers” such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or small cell lung cancer, the time saved can be lifesaving. Karan shares her own experience with DLBCL, while Dr. Patel highlights real-world cases where liquid biopsy revealed actionable mutations, informed therapy, or enabled minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring.Finally, Dr. Patel underscores the need for standardization and payer alignment to move liquid biopsy from innovation to everyday practice. This candid discussion frames liquid biopsy not as a futuristic idea, but as a clinically powerful and scalable tool that is closing gaps in precision oncology today.

During Hispanic Heritage Month, we reflect not only on cultural pride but also on the urgent health challenges facing the Latino community. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Latinas, and yet barriers such as language, limited access to care and cultural stigma often prevent women from receiving the support they need. In this episode of Real Pink, we're joined by Dr. Laura Logie of Nueva Vida, a trusted partner of Susan G. Komen® and a member of the ShareForCures® Alliance. Together, we'll explore how culturally responsive care can transform the breast cancer experience, break down barriers and ensure that Latinas feel seen, heard and supported every step of the way.

“As ONS continues to look ahead, its commitment to shaping the future of oncology nursing remains unwavering. ONS is proactively developing the tools, capabilities, and strategies needed to support oncology nurses in a rapidly evolving healthcare landscape. ONS will continue to set the standard, ensuring that oncology nurses are equipped with clinical expertise, collaborative skills, technology proficiency, and mentorship necessary to thrive,” Diane Barber, PhD, APRN, ANP-BC, AOCNP®, FAANP, FAAN, member of the ONS 50th anniversary committee, said regarding the continuously changing roles of oncology nurses. Barber spoke with ONS members Danelle Johnston, MSN, RN, HON-ONN-CG, OCN®, RuthAnn Gordon, MSN, RN, FNP-BC, OCN®, Tamika Turner, DNP, NP-C, AOCNP®, and Bertie Fields, MS, RN, about their experience in nursing roles in navigation, clinical trials, advanced practice, and the pharmaceutical industry and how these roles have evolved and may change in the future. The advertising messages in this episode are paid for by Natera. ONS is solely responsible for the criteria, objectives, content, quality, and scientific integrity of its programs and publications. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Episode Notes  This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: ONS 50th anniversary series Episode 331: DNP and PhD Collaboration Strategies to Help Advance Oncology Care Episode 312: Virtual Nursing in Health Care Episode 304: Nursing Roles in FDA: The Drug Labeling and Package Insert Process Episode 302: Patient Navigation Eliminates Disparities in Cancer Care Episode 284: How AI Is Influencing Cancer Care and Oncology Nursing Episode 119: What Will the Future of Cancer Care Look Like in 2029? ONS Voice articles: Leadership Is the Foundational Competency for Oncology Nursing in 2029 New Technology Tools Help Oncology APRNs Improve Patient Outcomes Oncology Nurses Drive Discovery in Cancer Clinical Research The Oncology Nurse's Role in Interprofessional Collaboration in Clinical Research What the New CMS Reimbursement for Principal Illness Navigation Means for Oncology Nurses ONS books: Manual for Clinical Trials Nursing (third edition) Oncology Nurse Navigation: Delivering Patient-Centered Care Across the Continuum (third edition) ONS competencies: Oncology Clinical Nurse Specialist Competencies Oncology Clinical Research Nurse Competencies Oncology Nurse Generalist Competencies Oncology Nurse Navigator Competencies Oncology Nurse Practitioner Competencies ONS course: Professional Practice for the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing articles: How Do I Evolve as a Research Nurse Practitioner? Incorporating Nurse Navigation to Improve Cancer Survivorship Care Plan Delivery Oncology Nurse Practitioner Competencies: Defining Best Practices in the Oncology Setting ONS Learning Libraries: Clinical Trials Nurse Navigation Connie Henke Yarbro Oncology Nursing History Center American Cancer Society National Navigation Roundtable To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities. To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode Johnston: “In the early years, navigation programs varied widely. We had minimal technology, no standardized training, and often tracked our work on spreadsheets and narrative notes. The broader healthcare team didn't always understand navigation, so educating colleagues in defining our role was essential. Today, navigation is becoming a well-established specialty. It's recognized by the Commission on Cancer, supported by [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] reimbursement codes, and integrated across diverse care settings. It's backed by evidence, standardized training, and emerging technologies that improve both patient care and program sustainability. I'm proud to have witnessed and contributed to the incredible evolution, and I'm excited for what's next in advancing navigation to better support patients and families.” TS 6:20 Gordon: “When I was first introduced to the [clinical trial nurse] role, there weren't published competencies in order to learn the role or any real standardization of the role. And so when you worked in clinical trials, you kind of picked up things from the providers, from the other investigators on how you should operationalize the role. We've seen that evolve. We've seen ONS develop competencies, ONS come out with the clinical trial nursing manual. And our organization has been able to use those tools to standardize the practice of the clinical trial nurse across our institution. So we take those competencies, and they are the foundation of our program. And we've been able to build our program over the last decade, mostly by the use of the tools that ONS has and the ability to share knowledge.” TS 14:22 Fields: “For nurses, many of my colleagues are going on to get master's in things other than nursing. They're getting master's in public health. They're getting master's in business. I have a colleague who is in [information technology], and so we should not limit ourselves. We should expand ourselves. And the more varied degrees that we have, we are more viable candidates for positions. I was never a clinical nurse specialist, even though that was my goal, but I have done above and beyond what I ever anticipated that I would do. And there are so many more new degrees for us to make us viable in this changing environment.” TS 28:30 Turner: “It is vital that the current generation of oncology nurse practitioners take the lead to mentor the next generation. The next generation needs to be educated regarding the importance of oncology nurse practitioners, filling those critical gaps in health care by caring for patients in rural areas and those areas where healthcare resources are scarce. Technology should be utilized to bring oncology care—for example, office visits, imaging, and treatments—closer to those areas where patients live further away or have difficulty accessing transportation and health care. This will provide continuity of care.” TS 32:42

Guest: Emma Justice, MS, CCC-SLP, CLC, NTMTCEarn 0.1 ASHA CEU for this episode with Speech Therapy PD: https://www.speechtherapypd.com/courses/pfd-problem-solvingTune in as we welcome one of our favorite humans, Emily Justice, a dedicated speech language pathologist with a wealth of experience working in the NICU and public schools in Boston. Join us for an engaging discussion about her path into speech therapy, her passion for supporting minority recruitment in the field, and her advocacy for accessible feeding therapy. We delve into important topics such as the necessity of instrumental swallow studies, the power of family and caregiver involvement in therapy, and the importance of interprofessional collaboration. This episode is packed with practical insights for therapists, caregivers, and anyone invested in improving pediatric feeding practices.About the Guest: Emma Justice, MS, CCC-SLP, CLC, NTMTC, works full-time for Boston Public Schools and is the owner of Justice for Infant Feeding Therapy and Lactation. She specializes in pediatric feeding and swallowing, with a focus on medical complexities and culturally diverse populations. Emma is certified in lactation counseling as well as neonatal touch and massage. She received her master's degree in Speech-Language Pathology from Northeastern University and completed her clinical fellowship at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. Emma has experience across several settings, including pediatric acute care, encompassing a Level III NICU, PICU, Oncology, Cleft and Craniofacial team, Aerodigestive team, and the well-baby Mother-Infant Unit. Additionally, Emma has experience in pediatric outpatient rehab, home health, and public school settings. She is a guest lecturer and the primary pediatric consultant for the Swallowing Wellness Center, where she teaches a course on pediatric swallow studies. Emma co-created BABY S.T.E.P. with Dr. Ianessa Humbert, an infant and pediatric adaptation of Humbert's S.T.E.P. (Swallowing Training Educational Portal), designed to provide accessible, affordable, and evidence-based swallowing education. She currently serves on ASHA's topic committee for Pediatric Feeding Disorders and has presented nationally on topics related to pediatric dysphagia and cultural disparities.

What happens when you hand a mic to the most extroverted, uncensored Gen Z career coach in New York? You get Olivia Battinelli—adjunct professor, student advisor, mentor, speaker, and unfiltered truth-teller on everything from invisible illness to resume crimes.We talked about growing up Jewish-Italian in Westchester, surviving the Big Four's corporate Kool-Aid, and quitting a job after 7 months because the shower goals weren't working out. She runs NYU Steinhardt's internship program by day, roasts Takis and “rate my professor” trolls by night, and somehow makes room for maple syrup takes, career coaching, and a boyfriend named Dom who sounds like a supporting character from The Sopranos.She teaches kids how to talk to humans. She's allergic to BS. And she might be the most Alexis Rose-meets-Maeve Wiley-mashup ever dropped into your feed. Welcome to her first podcast interview. It's pure gold.RELATED LINKS:Olivia Battinelli on LinkedInOlivia's Liv It Up Coaching WebsiteOlivia on InstagramNYU Steinhardt Faculty PageFEEDBACK:Like this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship inquiries, email podcast@matthewzachary.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.