Podcasts about oncology research

Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, James Lawless TD, has today announced a €17.7 million investment in nine research infrastructure projects through Research Ireland's Research Infrastructure Programme. The awards will contribute to the advancement of high-quality and high-impact research activities across Ireland. Announcing the funding, Minister Lawless commented: "This targeted investment in research infrastructure will help to future-proof the conducting of high-quality research endeavours across our higher education institutions and in a wide range of disciplines. It is important for researchers to be equipped with the innovative tools and the conducive environments that can help deliver research excellence and impact." In welcoming the announcement, Celine Fitzgerald, Interim Chief Executive of Research Ireland, said: "The Research Infrastructure Programme supports the research community in building and sustaining cutting-edge infrastructure to accomplish high-quality, impactful, and innovative research. The programme encourages partnerships and collaboration between different cohorts of researchers in Ireland, across academia and enterprise." Nine Irish research infrastructure projects The nine funded projects are: Coastal & Offshore ASV (Autonomous Surface Vehicle), University of Limerick, led by Prof. Gerard Dooly, aims to acquire a coastal and offshore autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) with a length of 9 meters and a range of 2500 nautical miles. This will enhance Ireland's marine science capabilities, bridge data gaps, and improve our understanding of ocean habitats. (€1,851,784) Cryo Electron Microscopy Unit National Platform, University College Dublin, led by Prof. Oliver Blacque, will establish a cryo-EM unit for high-resolution 3D visualisation of biological structures, aiding various biomedical research applications. (€3,749,322) NMR Centre of Expertise, Trinity College Dublin, led by Prof. Mathias Senge, will provide advanced NMR techniques for chemistry research, including a multi-channel 600MHz NMR and a 400MHz instrument for high-throughput analyses. (€2,649,497) Photon Counting CT for Cardiovascular and Oncology Research, Trinity College Dublin, led by Prof. James Meaney, will expand imaging capabilities with a Photon-counting CT scanner for advanced medical imaging in oncology and cardiovascular research. (€2,721,339) National Enteric Methane Mitigation Testbed, Teagasc, led by Dr Stephen Butler, will develop strategies to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals, contributing to climate change mitigation. (€1,983,502) Characterising Earth Materials using Multi-Sensor Core Logger Analysis (Earth SCAn), University College Dublin, led by Prof. Peter Haughton, will advance the characterisation of Earth materials for interdisciplinary research into climate change, energy, and geohazards. (€600,113) Advanced Material Characterisation and Imaging Platform, Dublin City University, led by Dr Karsten Fleischer, will enhance material analysis capabilities with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) for various applications in ICT, energy, and medical devices. (€2,251,897) C-Trap: A Dynamic Single Molecule Platform for Chemical Biology and Biophysics, Dublin City University, led by Prof. Andrew Kellett, will enable single-molecule analysis for understanding molecular mechanisms of diseases, aiding biopharmaceutical and therapeutic research. (€948,901) Automated X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), University College Dublin, led by Prof. Eoin Casey, will replace aging XPS equipment to enhance surface analysis capabilities for various research and industry applications. (€986,952) The awardees are from the following research bodies: University of Limerick (UL), University College Dublin (UCD), Trinity College Dublin (TCD), Teagasc, and Dublin City University (DCU). See more breaking stories here.

Physician Ash Alizadeh has seen the future of disease diagnosis and monitoring. It is coursing through every patient's veins. Traditionally, biopsies have required invasively gathering tissue – from a lung, a liver, or a fetus. Now it's possible to look for disease without surgery. The DNA is sitting there in the bloodstream, Alizadeh tells host Russ Altman, as they preview the age of liquid biopsies on this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcast.Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your quest. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu.Episode Reference Links:Stanford Profile: Ash A. Alizadeh, MD/PhDConnect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / FacebookChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionRuss Altman introduces guest Ash Alizadeh, a faculty member at Stanford University in Oncology and Medicine.(00:03:39) What is a Liquid Biopsy?Accessing tissues non-invasively using bodily fluids.(00:04:31) Detecting Cancer with Liquid BiopsiesHow localized cancers can be detected through blood samples.(00:06:32) The Science Behind Cancer DNA DetectionThe differences between normal and cancer DNA(00:09:51) How Liquid Biopsy Technology WorksThe technologies behind detecting cancer-related DNA differences.(00:12:36) Advances in Liquid BiopsyNew detection approaches using non-mutant molecules and RNA.(00:14:10) RNA as a Real-Time Tumor MarkerHow RNA reveals active tumor processes and drug resistance.(00:15:55) Tracking Cancer ReccurenceUsing tumor-informed panels to monitor cancer recurrence.(00:16:28)  Adapting to Tumor EvolutionWhy core mutations remain detectable despite cancer changes.(00:17:57) Stability of DNA, RNA, and MethylationComparing durability and reliability of different biomarkers.(00:20:49) Listener Question: Early Cancer DetectionDaniel Kim asks about pre-cancer detection and its potential impact.(00:24:44) Liquid Biopsy in ImmunotherapyUsing liquid biopsy to track and improve immune-based treatments.(00:27:35) Monitoring CAR T-Cell TherapyHow liquid biopsy helps assess immune cell expansion.(00:32:02) EPIC-Seq: Inferring RNA from DNAUsing DNA fragmentation to predict gene expression in tumors.(00:34:49) Targeting Tumor Support SystemsTreatment strategies disrupting the tumor microenvironment.(00:35:52) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook

Drs Camidge and Eisen discussed Dr Eisen's dual career in academia and industry. Growing up in London, he pursued medicine, excelling in cell pathology at University College London, and later specialized in oncology at Cambridge. He joined Roche in 2020. Dr Eisen emphasized the importance of aligning academic and clinical strengths, advocating for industry experience to enhance drug development. He aims to foster interfaces between academia and industry, ensuring sustainable health research and training the next generation of drug developers.

Drs Camidge and Eisen discussed Dr Eisen's dual career in academia and industry. Growing up in London, he pursued medicine, excelling in cell pathology at University College London, and later specialized in oncology at Cambridge. He joined Roche in 2020. Dr Eisen emphasized the importance of aligning academic and clinical strengths, advocating for industry experience to enhance drug development. He aims to foster interfaces between academia and industry, ensuring sustainable health research and training the next generation of drug developers.

Today we are bringing you a conversation on treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Ryan Haumschild, PharmD, MS, MBA, CPEL, vice president of ambulatory pharmacy at Emory Healthcare and Winship Cancer Institute, spoke with 3 experts: Tara Graff, DO, medical oncologist, Mission Cancer and Blood; Jacqueline Barrientos, MD, MS, chief, Hematologic Malignancies, and director, Oncology Research at Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Matthew Davids, MD, MMSc, director of Clinical Research, Division of Lymphoma, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and associate professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School. They covered a wide range of topics including the data on treatment regimens for both CLL and MCL, the cost of treatment, patient-specific considerations during treatment decision making, and the future of treatment.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world.Biopharma company ArsenalBio recently raised $325 million in funding, marking one of the largest biotech funding rounds of the year. This news comes as Biomarin focuses on growth plans centered around their drug for skeletal disorders. However, the gene and cell therapy investment market is currently experiencing a slowdown, with fewer funding rounds closed compared to previous years. On a positive note, a high-dose study of Biogen's spinal muscular atrophy drug showed promising results, while Denali Therapeutics and Regenxbio are moving forward with drug approval applications. In the oncology research sector, advancements in treatments, particularly in cancer immunotherapy and personalized medicine based on genetics, continue to be made. Despite these successes, there are reports of challenges faced by gene therapy companies, such as the closure of Astellas Gene Therapies' manufacturing facility affecting 100 employees and employers hesitant to cover the costs of rare disease treatments.The EU GMP Annex 1 revision has significant impacts on drug manufacturers, as non-compliance puts their ability to create and sell products in impacted markets at risk. Manufacturers must assess components for readiness to comply with the new regulations to avoid manufacturing non-compliance, potential product recalls, and market exclusions. To maintain compliance, staying informed about key considerations and taking steps to mitigate risks is crucial.Mississippi has awarded medicaid contracts to Centene, Molina, and TrueCare. Steward Health Care faced financial challenges with unprofitable deals in Massachusetts, while CEO Ralph de la Torre snubbed a Senate subpoena. Molina appointed its CFO to oversee its medicaid and ACA marketplace businesses. Healthcare providers are addressing burnout among staff, trends in telehealth and provider-payer relationships are being discussed. In California, the Senate passed a bill to regulate private-equity healthcare deals while a judge blocked Ohio from enforcing laws restricting medication abortions.Edwards recently laid off more than 500 employees after selling its critical care division to BD. The FDA has issued warning letters to four companies regarding ozone cleaners for CPAP machines. Abbott has partnered with Beta Bionics to integrate its glucose sensor with an automated insulin delivery system. The European Heart Group recommends renal denervation for some patients with uncontrolled high blood pressure.Biopharma Dive's newsletter on September 5, 2024, highlighted various key topics in the biopharma industry focusing on industry trends and developments. Additionally, it featured sponsored content on AI's role in life sciences and white papers on process analytical technology in the biopharma industry.The pharmaceutical industry faces challenges in reputation and communication with the media despite recent successes such as the development of COVID-19 vaccines. Merck & Co.'s Chief Communications and Public Affairs Officer is promoting openness and transparency in communication to improve the industry's reputation.Cell and gene therapy research is gaining interest from investors and innovators despite facing challenges in keeping up with industry growth. The latest developments focus on overcoming barriers with outside support and potential advancements in CAR-T cell therapy options.Payers can strategically use technology to build a solid data foundation by improving provider data quality through new technology tools.Researchers need to effectively collect social determinants of health (SDoH) data while ensuring privacy and security. A playbook provides insights on utilizing SDoH data effectively for health economics & outcomes research.Industry professionals are invited to join Snowflake Industry Day, a virtual event focusing on how technology leaders use

Dr. Arturo LoAIza-Bonilla, Co-Founder of Massive Bio and Medical Director of Oncology Research & Systemwide Chair of Medical Research at Capital Health, discusses the innovative use of AI and strategies for its implementation in healthcare to better assist patients. He also explores the importance of finding a balance between technological advancements and hands-on patient care.

Dr. Arturo LoAIza-Bonilla, Co-Founder of Massive Bio and Medical Director of Oncology Research & Systemwide Chair of Medical Research at Capital Health, discusses the innovative use of AI and strategies for its implementation in healthcare to better assist patients. He also explores the importance of finding a balance between technological advancements and hands-on patient care.

Send us a Text Message.Joseph Ferra is CEO of Elevation Oncology ( https://elevationoncology.com/ ), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of precision oncology products, specifically antibody-drug-conjugates (ADCs), for patients with genomically defined cancers, where he brings over 20 years of financial, strategic and leadership experience in the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry. Prior to becoming CEO, he served Elevation as Chief Financial Officer and Interim CEO. Before joining Elevation, Joseph was Chief Financial Officer of Syros Pharmaceuticals where he led the development and implementation of key financial and capital strategies and contributed to corporate initiatives. Previously, he spent over a decade as an investment banker in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, where he established a strong track record of advising on equity and M&A transactions. This included serving as Managing Director and Co-Head of Healthcare Investment Banking at JMP Securities and being a member of the investment banking groups at JP Morgan and UBS. Earlier in his career, Joe served in sales and engineering roles in the life science tools industry. He earned his MBA from The Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. He obtained a B.S. in Chemistry with Distinction from Purdue University, where he contributed to published papers and conducted research at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. David Dornan is Chief Scientific Officer of Elevation Oncology where he brings over two decades of industry and academic oncology drug discovery and development experience. His research spans across multiple therapeutic modalities targeting cancer susceptibilities and modulating the immune system to translate into meaningful therapeutic interventions for patients. He joins Elevation Oncology from Bolt Biotherapeutics. As Chief Scientific Officer, he was responsible for the scientific strategy and building of the company's portfolio in targeted immunotherapies. Prior to this, Dr. Dornan was the head of Oncology Research at Gilead, identifying, validating, and translating oncogenic targets into actionable entities with biologic and small molecule therapeutics and oversaw the integrated oncology strategy team. He began his career at Genentech, where he spent 10 years serving in positions of increasing responsibility and played key roles in target discovery and validation, as well as translational research programs. Dr. Dornan received his Ph.D. from the University of Dundee in Molecular Oncology and Biochemistry and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Genentech. Support the Show.

Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Research: Elaine Novakovich and Theresa Yu by i3 Health

This playlist features live interviews recorded by Oncology Data Advisor at the 49th Annual Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Congress in Washington, DC. For more information, visit OncData.com.

On this episode of “Moving Medicine Forward” - The Podcast, we delve into groundbreaking research with Dr. Richard Curry, Medical Director at CTI. Dr. Curry offers an in-depth look at the ongoing Bexion BXQ350 study, shedding light on the significant advancements and the journey of the trials over recent months. This innovative therapy holds promise for revolutionizing cancer treatment, and Dr. Curry's insights provide a glimpse into the future of medical science.  In the episode's second segment, we're joined by therapeutic leads Chad Jones and Katie Westerkamp, who bring their expertise in hematology and oncology research to the forefront. They discuss the cutting-edge approaches being explored in their fields, emphasizing the importance of innovative therapies in battling cancer. Chad and Katie share their experiences from clinical trials, offering listeners a rare peek into the challenges and triumphs of oncology research.  Listeners will leave this episode with a deeper understanding of the complexities of cancer research, the importance of ongoing clinical trials, and the collaborative effort required to move medicine forward. This episode not only informs but also inspires, showcasing the tireless work of individuals like Dr. Curry, Chad, and Katie, who are at the forefront of transforming patient care through scientific discovery.  [1:05] Dive into the origins of the pivotal Bexion BXQ350 study: Discover the compelling history and purpose behind its inception, providing hope and new directions in cancer research.  [2:25] The pivotal moment neuropathy became a focus: Learn how this challenging condition spurred the initiation of a crucial trial, aiming to bring relief to many.  [2:56] Explaining neuropathy: An introduction to neuropathy is followed by the announcement of an innovative clinical study aimed at finding effective treatments.  [4:38] The ongoing search for a cure: A candid discussion on the current state of neuropathy treatment and the relentless pursuit of a cure.  [5:23] The collaboration that could change the future: Discover how CTI and Bexion joined forces, marking a significant milestone in the journey towards groundbreaking therapies.  [6:08] From inception to impact: A chronological exploration of the trial's evolution, showcasing the milestones achieved through years of dedicated research.  [7:28] Breaking new ground with a Phase I trial: An in-depth explanation of the trial's expansion, illustrating the critical steps forward in the fight against cancer.  [9:04] The expansive network driving the study: An overview of the numerous sites involved in the study, highlighting the collaborative effort across the globe.  [9:29] A focused approach: Insight into why the trial is uniquely dedicated to cancer patients, underscoring the targeted efforts to combat the disease.  [14:06] The science behind BXQ350: Delve into the structure and mechanism of the drug, understanding its potential to make a significant impact in cancer treatment.  [16:18] The critical role of cancer research: Reflect on why pursuing oncology research is not just important but imperative for medical advancement.  [17:58] Dr. Curry's journey to oncology: Discover the inspiring path Dr. Richard Curry took to become a leading figure in oncology research and his vision for the future.    [20:07] Embarking on a New Perspective: The episode transitions, bringing into focus Chad Jones and Katie Westerkamp, who offer a fresh perspective on the relentless pursuit of breakthroughs in cancer treatment.  [20:31] Facing the Challenges Head-On: Delve into the unique obstacles encountered in hematology and oncology research. [21:28] Accelerating Treatment Delivery: Learn how research sites become pivotal in fast-tracking treatments to patients. [21:59] Integrating Diverse Therapeutic Approaches: Unpack the roles of cell therapy and small molecule research within the trials.

In this podcast episode, Dr. Rachel Venable interviews renowned veterinary medical oncologist Dr. Craig Clifford. Dr. Clifford discusses his hybrid approach of combining clinical practice with academic pursuits. He emphasizes the importance of teamwork in clinical trials, highlighting their role in advancing veterinary medicine and providing opportunities for staff development. Dr. Clifford also discusses the challenges and ethical considerations in conducting clinical trials, including the need for alignment with practice principles and providing benefits to participants. He addresses the evolution of oncology treatments, like checkpoint inhibitors, and the significance of collaboration among veterinarians. Transcripts are available at https://www.imprimedicine.com/podcast. To learn more about ImpriMed Personalized Prediction Profile, please visit https://www.imprimedicine.com/personalized-prediction-profile. Music Credit: Hazy by Beat Mekanik

Good day to our listeners! In today's episode, we're bringing you several exciting updates from the world of pharma and biotech. Let's dive right in.First up, we're talking about a game-changing webinar hosted by Cytiva. They're discussing a revolutionary, scalable process for producing clinical-grade plasmid DNA. This method is not only efficient but also reduces the purification steps significantly. If you're interested in the intricacies of genomic medicines, this is something you won't want to miss.In the world of health insurance, there's a buzz about Cigna and Humana potentially merging. This could be a major shake-up for the industry, but it's not without its challenges, especially on the regulatory front. Speaking of challenges, UnitedHealth's Medicare Advantage growth for 2024 could hit a snag, and Providence is still grappling with losses despite their recovery efforts. On a brighter note, Highmark Health's insurance business is making waves with boosted earnings, though Allegheny Health's operational losses are a concern. And in a concerning update, an additional 330,000 Medicare beneficiaries might have been affected by a data breach at a federal contractor. Definitely something to keep an eye on.Now, let's shift gears to A/B testing and experimentation programs. A new report, which analyzed data from over 127,000 experiments, sheds light on why many tests don't hit statistical significance and how we can look beyond revenue to other impactful metrics. If you're into data and analytics, this report is a treasure trove of insights.Patient retention in clinical trials is another hot topic we're covering. It's becoming increasingly clear that a patient-centered approach is key to not just getting patients into trials but keeping them there. The challenges range from the impact of trial locations to the feasibility of travel for patients. It's a complex issue, but solutions like telemedicine and local trial centers could be game-changers.For those interested in oncology, there's an upcoming webinar you won't want to miss. It focuses on making cancer studies more efficient and inclusive. The talk will cover innovative strategies, including the use of real-world data and technology, to improve outcomes in oncology research.Shifting our focus to retail health, we're seeing how on-premise digital screens are transforming patient care and driving revenue growth. These screens aren't just about display; they're a strategic tool for enhancing patient experiences and boosting business performance.And lastly, let's touch on some key developments in the pharmaceutical industry. We're looking at an international tax effort impacting big pharma, the potential Cigna-Humana merger, and some exciting updates from Novartis, BioMarin, Novo Nordisk, GSK, and Regeneron and Sanofi. There's a lot happening, and it's all pointing towards an exciting future for the industry.That's all for today's episode. Thanks for joining us on Pharma and Biotech Daily. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest news and updates in the industry. Have a fantastic day!

Supportive Care Matters: A Podcast by Dr. Bogda KoczwaraWelcome to the fifth episode of Supportive Care Matters, a podcast Hosted by Medical Oncologist, Professor Bogda Koczwara from Adelaide, Australia.Professor Bogda Koczwara AM is chatting to Professor Doan Ngo and Professor Aaron Sverdlov, a married couple who have successfully collaborated on cardio-oncology research.Together they founded the first-in-Australia bench-to-bedside "Cancer and the Heart" cardio-oncology program combining basic and clinical research into cancer therapy-related cardiotoxicity with Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital-based clinical outpatient service.This conversation is sponsored by Canteen and produced by The Oncology Network.TO VIEW SHOW NOTES AND MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SUPPORTIVE CARE MATTERS, HEAD TO WWW.ONCOLOGYNEWS.COM.AU

About this episode: David Dornan is the Chief Scientific Officer of Elevation Oncology, a clinical-stage biotech company developing targeted cancer therapeutics, with a focus on antibody drug conjugates. David brings to Elevation over two decades of industry and academic oncology drug discovery and development experience. His research spans multiple therapeutic modalities targeting cancer susceptibilities and modulating the immune system to translate into meaningful therapeutic interventions for patients. As Chief Scientific Officer, he is responsible for scientific strategy and building of the company's portfolio in targeted immunotherapies. Before leading these efforts at Elevation Oncology, David was the CSO at Bolt Biotherapeutics. Prior to this, he was the head of Oncology Research at Gilead. David began his career at Genentech, where he spent 10 years serving in positions of increasing responsibility and played key roles in target discovery and validation, as well as translational research programs.David received his Ph.D. from the University of Dundee in Molecular Oncology and Biochemistry and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at Genentech. In this episode, we discuss Elevation's ongoing clinical development of antibody-drug conjugate molecules to treat cancer and David's wealth of experience in biotech and pharma.Hosted by Joe Varriale.

Welcome to Episode 20 in our Experts On Point podcast series brought to you by The Oncology Podcast. How often do men with localised prostate cancer regret their treatment decisions? What practical support can be offered to men facing a prostate cancer diagnosis to help them navigate all available treatment options? How can we encourage patients to ask more questions about their cancer?Join our host Rachael Babin once again in conversation with Dr Ben Smith as they discuss a question prompt list that supports shared decision-making in localised prostate cancer. We hope you enjoy listening.For news and podcast updates subscribe to The Oncology Newsletter,  a free weekly publication for healthcare professionals with an interest in oncology. Click here to subscribe.PART OF THE ONCOLOGY NETWORK... Join Us

Cancer is not one disease, which means it cannot be addressed by one type of treatment or research. In this episode, Chris Learn, Vice President of Cell and Gene Therapy at Parexel, talks about oncology research, cell and gene therapies, and the patients' journey navigating this space. Chris discusses next-generation therapies and the challenges common sites may face in adopting them. Tune in to learn more about cancer research and treatment developments from Chris! Click this link to the show notes, transcript, and resources: outcomesrocket.health

ASCO: You're listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the voice of the world's oncology professionals. 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. Guests' statements on this 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. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so data described here may change as research progresses. In this podcast, Dr. Allison Magnuson talks to Beverly Canin, a cancer survivor and patient advocate, about the importance of specialized cancer care for people over 65. They discuss how the health care team can assess and provide specific support for people over 65, why people over 65 should be included in cancer research, and tips for people with cancer in this age group. Dr. Magnuson is an associate professor of medicine and a board-certified medical oncologist and geriatrician at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Ms. Canin is a patient advocate, research partner, and the co-chair of the Cancer and Aging Research Group's Stakeholders for Care in Oncology & Research for Our Elders Board, or SCOREboard. Dr. Magnuson is the Cancer.Net Associate Editor for Geriatric Oncology, and Ms. Canin is an advisory panelist on the Cancer.Net Editorial Board. You can view their disclosures at Cancer.Net.    Dr. Magnuson: Hi, I'm Dr. Allison Magnuson. I'm a geriatric oncologist from the University of Rochester, and I'm here with a good colleague and friend of mine, Ms. Beverly Canin, who is a patient advocate that I work closely with in geriatric oncology. And we're here today to have a conversation about why geriatric oncology is important, and what advice Beverly would have for older adults with cancer as they're navigating the cancer care process. Beverly and I do not have any relevant relationships to disclose. Good morning, Beverly, how are you?   Beverly Canin: Good morning. I'm very happy to be here. I'm well, thank you. And looking forward to our conversation. Dr. Magnuson: Me too. Beverly, I thought maybe we could start by you just sharing your story about how you became involved as an advocate in geriatric oncology. I think it's such an interesting story. So I'd love the listeners to hear about that. Beverly Canin: I'm very happy to do that. I was originally diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. And for over 10 years, I was a very active advocate for breast cancer doing support for individuals of all ages and also peer review in the California Breast Cancer Research Program, the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. I worked in NCI, National Cancer Institute, committees and with the FDA. And in all those years of doing both personal support for breast cancer patients and committee work at national, state, and local levels, I was never made aware of special issues for older adults with cancer until I heard a session at the Annual Meeting of ASCO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology. I had been attending that Annual Meeting, but had never noticed that there was a session on cancer and aging. I was attending sessions that pertained to breast cancer only. And I was kind of blown away at what I heard and the fact that I had been an advocate for so long and didn't understand that there was such severe issues pertaining to cancer care for older adults. And it seemed to be based on 2 basic concepts or realities. In simplistic terms, it was that older adults were systematically ineligible for clinical trials, which meant that the results of clinical trials didn't necessarily apply to older adults. So treatments were being recommended that were based on a different population. And the other thing that struck me was that oncologists didn't have any training or minimum training in geriatrics, and geriatricians had little or no training in oncology. So that's what really caused me to see what I could do as an advocate to address these issues. Dr. Magnuson: That's great. And you know those are some of the reasons why I am so passionate about geriatric oncology and really trying to move forward research about how to best care for older adults with cancer and ensure that older adults are included on clinical trials. I think delving into that piece a little bit more, Beverly, thinking about members of our audience that might be older adults who are talking with their oncologists about treatment options, knowing that some treatment options might be less studied in older adults or there may be less data. Do you have advice for your patients when they're talking with the oncologists about kind of how to talk about this and how to ask questions about how they might tolerate treatment or respond to treatment in that regard? Beverly Canin: Well, of course, the first thing is to know what studies they're basing their recommendations on. And whether they included older adults in the results of the study. And unfortunately, all too often, we're going to find that the answer is going to be no. So, unfortunately, it really is incumbent upon patients to advocate for themselves and to do some research. And there are places, of course, here at Cancer.Net, and it is a very good resource. We also have the Cancer and Aging Research Group, which I have worked with now for over 10 years. And on their website, there is help and suggestions for older adults with cancer. The basic idea, I think, no matter who the patient is, is to have someone with you to make notes so that you can look back and study later. And to also understand that in most cases, there is time to make decisions. We tend to get very panicked about any kind of cancer and some, obviously, are much more aggressive, much more quickly than others. But for the most part, there is time to do a little bit of research and not make decisions hastily. Dr. Magnuson: I think that is such important advice. Yeah, always bringing extra supports to help kind of absorb the information too is so key and really being able to have somebody to talk to about kind of that information in the context of your own personal goals and preferences is so important. And I agree also that patients and their support system can be such an advocate about aging-related issues or concerns that they might have that kind of interface with their cancer treatment plan. And I know ASCO and also the ACCC [Association of Community Cancer Centers] are really working hard to kind of disseminate information into academic and community oncology practices about caring for older adults with cancer. So I think we're all working hard to kind of spread that knowledge and patients can help us in that too. Beverly Canin: It just occurred to me, it's really important also to understand that one of the primary issues and the thing that really needs to be explored with older adults with cancer is what are their goals? What's their hope for their life? Are they more interested in prolonging their life no matter what that means or in the quality of their life? And we have to remember with older adults or with anybody, we actually have 3 ages. We have a chronological age, we have a biological age, and we have a functional age. And those vary with every individual. I mean, the chronological age is fixed. That we know. But what that means for your biology or for your function is not relevant at all. And that is something that has to be explored and that patients need to be thinking about themselves because some patients are willing to tolerate toxicity for a short term in order to extend their life for varying periods of time. To me, a 2-month extension of my life might be very valuable because there may be something that I wanted. I may want to go to a wedding or see my granddaughter graduate or whatever it is. There may be a specific goal that I would like to live to see, but for someone else, that may not be important. They don't want to undergo that kind of toxicity because it may also impair your function or probably will impair the function. Dr. Magnuson: I think that's so well said. Yes. And I think it's important for us to kind of comment on how doctors do have ways to talk with patients to assess their functional age and really kind of help understand where patients are coming at in relation to their chronological age. And how that might relate to kind of treatment and also supports that we might put in place to try to optimize that treatment experience. But your advice on the goals and values and talking about what your values are with your oncologist, I think, is so important. And really, no matter what your age is. Beverly Canin: Right. And be honest. Be honest. Sometimes we are reluctant to discuss these things, and that can be a real impediment to the right choices for treatment. And it's not always easy to be honest with yourself. You have to really think of yourself, and your family, those who are also affected by what happens to you. And so it is complicated. It isn't easy. It takes determination. And it's good to be fearless as a patient and not be intimidated by your physicians, by your doctors. Dr. Magnuson: Yeah, I heard a colleague once say that really, patients are the experts on their own bodies, right? And their own goals and preferences. So really, they are the experts there, right? And so kind of having that knowledge really makes patients such an important, that perspective is so important in the conversation. So making sure there's time and space to talk about that is really important. Beverly Canin: I also appreciate the clinician who admits that they learn from their patients and that it's impossible to keep up with everything on their own and that they really need to learn from their patients so they appreciate what patients can bring to them. Dr. Magnuson: Absolutely. Yeah. Beverly, we talk a lot about what we refer to as supportive care during treatment, meaning kind of aside from just the cancer treatment, all the extra things that we might put in place for patients to try to help them through their cancer treatment journey as well as survivorship journey. And sometimes, as a geriatric oncologist, I'm really using information about aging-related things. Maybe physical function or cognitive status. I wonder if just from a patient standpoint, you might comment on kind of why some of those aging-related aspects might be important in our cancer care and how doctors might create a supportive care strategy for patients. Beverly Canin: I think we're beginning to learn how to do this. I think that's an aspect that has been missing for a long time in intensive care, not just for older patients, but especially for older patients where there are all kinds of issues. And we have not mentioned specifically the geriatric assessment. But this is an important way of getting to these issues. And unfortunately, again, it's something that may be used in academic centers, but you're not finding that this is happening throughout the health care system. And it's very, very important that you use some kind of tool to assess these different ages that we refer to on each patient. And we know that there are several. We know one that is used quite frequently is the one that is found on the Cancer and Aging Research Group site, or CARG site, and which has been validated and used widely. But again, not widely enough, but it is a good way to get to these different issues that are not strictly medical. Dr. Magnuson: I always use an example of if we have an older patient come in and we assess how their balance is and how quickly they're able to walk, that helps us estimate, are they at an increased risk of falling at home? Because we know a fall can really be a life-changing event. And starting on cancer treatment or chemotherapy might increase our risk for falls. So we really want to be aware of kind of all of those other aspects that might interplay with the cancer treatment so that we can try to head those off and mitigate them. So sometimes we might refer patients to physical therapy to try to improve their balance and strength as we're starting on that cancer treatment journey to try to lower that chance of falling. And I think the most important step is kind of assessing that, as you said, and figuring out where are those vulnerabilities and how can we intervene to try to help support patients in those spaces better? Beverly Canin: The other thing patients can do is to connect with other patients who are going through what they're going through. And there don't seem to be specific support groups for cancer and aging or organizations that are focused on older adults with cancer. I'd like to see that happen so that we do have that resource available. But for the moment, I think, for the most part, it's a matter of through whatever organizations there are, if they have support groups, to join the support groups and try to meet other patients who are older adults. Dr. Magnuson: Excellent. I would love to hear your thoughts on research, Beverly. You've been so active as a research advocate and we've worked together, collaborated in that space. But I'd love to hear your advice for patients, older patients who are considering clinical trials, or supportive care research studies. What recommendations you have to them about participating in research and why that might be important. Beverly Canin: Oh, it's very important as I mentioned early on. One of the issues that is still prevalent is that the eligibility criteria for participation in clinical trials traditionally excluded older adults for reasons that didn't really make any sense. It was fear of comorbidities. Older adults are likely to have other illnesses as well. So they were feeling it might confound the results to have this mix, which didn't make any sense at all. And so now we don't have upper age limits on most clinical trials. But there is a need for patients to engage in clinical trials. And I think there are a lot of misconceptions about participation in clinical trials. And particularly, any of those that have to deal with medical treatment, that patients feel like, “I want to know what I'm getting. I don't want to go into a clinical trial that is having some people on a drug and some people are not on a drug, and I don't know which group I'll be in.” But what I think is behind that concern is that you might not be getting the best care that's available at the time. And that's not true because any clinical trials you have to be assured that the participants have at least existing standard of care. And so I think dispelling myths such as that. The other thing, which you're bringing up, is that there are many, many, many trials that are so important about supportive care for older adults with cancer. And because these are the issues that fall by the wayside, but really, really influence how patients are going to respond to treatments. And so I think it's really, really important for older adults to ask their doctors about clinical trials, if they're eligible for clinical trials, and really consider participating in clinical trials. Many older adults will do so not for themselves, not expecting of results to be helpful to them, but for the future generations, to help future generations. And it's very, very important to think in that way, think in those terms. It's also important to find out, if you do start investigating any clinical trial, to find out what the costs might be to you. The ideal situation is that the patient will incur no cost at all, but we have found that that is not always true. And so it's really, really important to investigate that and understand if there is a risk of incurring any expense, which most patients can't do. And understandably. Dr. Magnuson: Thanks, Beverly. We've talked a little bit about where patients might be able to go for more resources about cancer and aging information, but I'd love to highlight that. So if you have some just suggestions for patients where they might be able to access that information? Beverly Canin: We don't have cancer support organizations the way we do for breast cancer or lung cancer and of the association that supports that. We don't have one that does that, but the best sources, I think ASCO here in Cancer.Net is providing information for patients. The Cancer and Aging Research Group website also has a page with information. The SIOG, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology, also has a page for patients. So it's really a matter of addressing the organizations that are focused on cancer and aging, for mostly focus for the research, for the scientists, but many of them also have pages that help patients. And ACCC I believe as well is a source for that. Dr. Magnuson: Absolutely. Great advice. Lots of resources out there for patients. Beverly Canin: Yeah, I mean, I wish it were easier than that. It's what we need to develop. We really do need to develop that. But we do have a group, we're engaging patients more and more in research, not as participants in the research but as partners with the researchers. This has been a very, very important development in advancing the issues and improving the research that is being done about cancer and aging. Dr. Magnuson: Absolutely. As a researcher myself, who's worked with patient advocates and what I refer to as research collaborators, my partners on research, I can't emphasize that statement enough. It has been a critical part of my learning as a researcher and I think really strengthened all of our studies here at Rochester, for sure. Beverly Canin: We have formed a research group called SCOREboard, Stakeholders For Care and Oncology and Research for our Elders, which is composed of older adults who are in treatment or were treated for cancer as older adults. And caregivers of such patients as well as advocates. And it has been very, very effective. We've been in existence now for over 10 years, about 12 years. And work very closely with the CARG researchers. Dr. Magnuson: Well, thank you so much, Beverly, for chatting today about this. I hope there were some pearls of wisdom that our listeners were able to take away from you, and I always enjoy talking to you so much. I feel like I learn more every time, Beverly. So thank you for making the time today. Beverly Canin: Well, I thank you for having me and giving me this opportunity to share my story. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Magnuson and Ms. Canin. Learn more about cancer care for adults over 65 at www.cancer.net/olderadults. Cancer.Net Podcasts feature trusted, timely, and compassionate information for people with cancer, survivors, and their families and loved ones. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts for expert information and tips on coping with cancer, recaps of the latest research advances, and thoughtful discussions on cancer care. And check out other ASCO Podcasts to hear the latest interviews and insights from thought leaders, innovators, experts, and pioneers in oncology. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds lifesaving research for every type of cancer, helping people with cancer everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at CONQUER.ORG/Donate.

On today's episode, meet Renee Iacona. Renee is Vice President, Oncology Biometrics, Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca. In her current role, Renee oversees biometrics for the entire Oncology portfolio, across early and late development stages, encompassing statistics, programming, statistical innovation, data science, and information science teams. Another amazing human.

⚡ Cryo-EM is a powerful tool that helps look at cancer molecules differently. Penn State University uses the cryo-EM technique to understand and outsmart cancer. Professor Kelly explains, "Our lab uses a very high-tech imaging approach. It's called cryo-electron microscopy or cryo-EM, which pioneers in our field actually won the Nobel Prize for just a few years ago. And what we'd like to do is dive deep into cancer cells, understand what molecules look like using these instruments, take pictures and snapshots of them — what you would do with your iPhone but in portrait mode — so we can really focus very deeply on the nuances of these molecules. Then we use these molecules to try and better understand what goes wrong in cancer, how these molecules are to cancer, and what we might do to better inform treatments based on differences in molecules from cancer cells versus normal cells."⚡ Cryo-electron microscopy allows us to image things at the level of atoms. So what makes cryo-EM technology so useful in cancer research? Professor Kelly says, "What cryo-EM does is it allows us to see all the molecules that constitute cells, their different placements within cells, as well as their over architecture down at the level of atoms. So going even deeper beyond just the level of cells, we can get down and understand the level of which proteins are with DNA, how these proteins don't interact with DNA properly to protect cells from diseases, or how things might work against us when cells become cancerous and how molecules go awry and don't perform their job properly."⚡ What makes Penn State unique in cryo-EM? Professor Kelly explains what makes her lab's cryo-EM one of a kind. She says, "Cryo-electron microscopes that are installed and operational at Penn State are uniquely built to service the life science community as well as the material science community. And some of these instruments have different analytical tools and cameras integrated in them that you wouldn't find in any other cryo-EM instrument. We're looking to screen and look at proteins differently."

Dr. Robert Hollingsworth is the current Chief Scientific Officer of Shoreline Biosciences, a biopharmaceutical company developing next-generation cellular immunotherapies based on induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)- utilizing its proprietary platforms. Dr. Hollingsworth joins Shoreline from Pfizer, where he served as Chief Scientific Officer and Vice President of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics. Prior to Pfizer, he was Senior Director of Oncology Research at MedImmune where he led and advanced a large portfolio of more than twenty programs, including CAR-T programs, and contributed to the approval of durvalumab.  Before that, he held several R&D positions at GSK, Pharmacia, and Upjohn.In this episode, we discuss Robert's long career in biopharma, the platform technology being developed at Shoreline, and the role of strategic partnerships in early-stage development.Hosted by Gustavo Carrizo and Joe Varriale.

Chadi hosts Dr. Neal Shore, a urologic oncologist who became heavily involved in GU oncology research – including trials that incorporate systemic chemotherapy. Dr. Shore has a unique practice where he and his staff deliver chemotherapy when appropriate. Chadi was intrigued by this setting as medical oncologists are the ones customarily delivering chemotherapy, and invited him to the show to share how this all started, its pros and cons, and the impact on patients. Dr. Shore explains how the field has seen drastic changes since the early 1990's, why he decided to spearhead bringing clinical research into his community clinic, and how his clinic is staffed and structured to support a functioning and successful research hub. Then, the discussion pivots to his recently published clinical trial, ENACT, and the controversy surrounding use of enzalutamide monotherapy in low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. There's been so much controversy and backlash about the ENACT trial that Chadi had to ask him about it and his reaction to what happened when the article was published. View Dr. Shore's recently published ENACT study in JAMA Oncology. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2793567 Check out Chadi's website for all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes and other content. www.chadinabhan.com/ Watch all Healthcare Unfiltered episodes on Youtube. www.youtube.com/channel/UCjiJPTpIJdIiukcq0UaMFsA

Integrative oncology has made great strides over the past decade, but does it help to increase five-year survival odds? In this interview, Karolyn talks with Terri Crudup who is an integrative oncology researcher, patient advocate, and breast cancer survivor. Terri was a part of the research team that recently published a study on the efficacy of integrative oncology for breast cancer patients in the Journal of Oncology.Natural Medicine Journal Podcast is brought to you by Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com/) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com).

The average person doesn't have time to read the 100s of articles coming out each year about cancer rehab.  So how are we supposed to keep up with the latest info? Lauren Miller, Cynthia Barbie and Steve Morris, join TheOncoPT podcast today to provide a rundown of what happened last year in cancer rehab oncology research.  We discussed both the exciting and disappointing findings with our guests. But more importantly, what those results mean for us and the future of cancer rehab and our patients.

This episode is also available as a blog post: https://mdforlives.blog/2021/12/08/how-oncology-research-in-2021-shed-light-on-therapy-area/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/mdforlives/message

Christian Schnell, Associate Director of Oncology at Novartis in Basel, answers questions on PK-PD assessment and corresponding antitumor activity in pharmacology studies for oncology research.

Christian Schnell, Associate Director of Oncology at Novartis in Basel, answers questions on PK-PD assessment and corresponding antitumor activity in pharmacology studies for oncology research.

Jaroslaw Maciejewski, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Translational Hematology and Oncology Research and Co-Director of the Bone Marrow Failure and Cytopenias Program, joins the Cancer Advances podcast to discuss these rare conditions. Listen as Dr. Maciejewski highlights how the Bone Marrow Failure and Cytopenias program initially started, what patients might benefit and how physicians can make referrals.

Expert: Oriana Ciani, Associate Professor of practice SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy Questions: 1- What is a surrogate endpoint? 2- What are the advantages of using surrogate endpoints? 3- What are the pitfalls, instead? 4- How do we appropriately validate and apply surrogate-based evidence? 5- How do present surrogate measures in oncology measure up?

As we support National Cancer Prevention Month, I am so excited to welcome back, Wendy Garvin Mayo, APRN, ANP-BC.   Wendy Garvin Mayo is an Oncology Nurse Practitioner, Cancer Caregiver Consultant, Author and Speaker. She is also the Founder of SHAPE Partners, a collective resource with the mission of empowering current and former cancer caregivers, family members, and friends in optimizing their health and wellness. Wendy has clinical experience in caring for patients with solid tumors and hematology malignancies in both the outpatient and inpatient settings. She also has experience in Oncology Research and Development.   Listen in as Wendy shares the Three Levels of Cancer Prevention.   Thanks for listening in : www.onairadvocate.com

This is the first episode in a series of podcasts following the 62nd American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition, on the topic of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the management of lymphoma. The Lymphoma hub asked Davide Rossi, Institute of Oncology Research, Bellinzona, CH, Why should we use ctDNA assessments in lymphoma diagnostics in the future?In this podcast, Rossi talks about the clinical applications of liquid biopsy in lymphoma. He mentions three specific scenarios where ctDNA can be used for diagnosis. In addition, ctDNA can be used as a potential biomarker to guide treatment, and to monitor response to therapy and remission status after the end of therapy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As we turn our focus back to National Family Caregivers Month, I am so excited to welcome to tomorrows show, Wendy Garvin Mayo, Nurse Practitioner, Cancer Caregiver Coach, Consultant & Advocate.   Wendy Garvin Mayo is a Nurse Practitioner, Cancer Caregiver Coach, Consultant & Advocate, Author, Speaker. She is also the Founder of SHAPE Partners, a collective resource with the mission of empowering current and former cancer caregivers, family members, and friends in optimizing their mental and physical health.   Wendy has clinical experience in caring for patients with solid tumors and hematology malignancies in both the outpatient and inpatient settings. She also has experience in Oncology Research and Development. She has a natural passion to help cancer patients and caregivers thrive in difficult situations. Wendy's nursing practice and personal experience have provided her with a firm understanding of the difficulty cancer diagnoses has on caregivers.   A few years ago Wendy's aunt was diagnosed with glioblastoma and passed away in 2014. Wendy observed her aunts' transition from sisters to caregivers as they struggled through the initial diagnosis to treatment to hospice and untimely beyond her aunt's death. Wendy's professional and personal experiences with cancer caregivers motivated her to found SHAPE Partners and its four pillars – Partnership, Advocacy, Coaching, and Education.   Listen in as Wendy shares the great need for cancer caregiver community's and strategies to empower cancer caregivers to optimize their mental and physical health through partnership, advocacy, coaching and education. Resource: SHAPE Partners

Dr Kristi Milley spoke to Saskia Maass and Dr Annette Berendsen from the University of Groningen in The Netherlands. Saskia is both a researcher and GP in training. Annette was the Program Leader of Oncology Research in Primary Care at the Department of General Practice at the University of Groningen.  They recently published a paper in the journal “The Breast” entitled “Symptoms in long-term breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study in primary care” Annette and Saskia highlight that GPs must realise that survivors of breast cancer may experience various long-term symptoms even 10 years after diagnosis. Some symptoms, such as concentration difficultly, forgetfulness and dizziness are significantly increased with a history of breast cancer therapy and while the reason behind these symptoms is not explicitly known – positive assurance and awareness that these symptoms are common among breast cancer survivors is beneficial.  They went on to suggest that for some patients cognitive training for the GP and a symptom-specific approach may be more appropriate.

Dr. Parkinson has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of ESSA Pharma Inc. since January 2016, and as a Director of the company since June 2015. Prior to joining ESSA he had been a Venture Partner at New Enterprise Associates, Inc. From 2007 until 2012, Dr. Parkinson served as President and CEO of Nodality, Inc., a biotechnology company focused on the biological characterization of signaling pathways in patients with malignancy. Until October 2007 he was SVP, Oncology Research and Development at Biogen Idec, where he oversaw all oncology discovery research efforts and the development of the oncology pipeline. Previously he had served as VP, Oncology Development, at Amgen and VP, Global Clinical Oncology Development, at Novartis. In those roles he oversaw the successful clinical development of a series of cancer therapeutics, including Gleevec, Zometa, Femara, and Vectibix. Dr. Parkinson worked at the National Cancer Institute from 1990 to 1997, serving as Chief of the Investigational Drug Branch and then as Acting Associate Director of the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP). He is a past Chairman of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Biologics Advisory Committee, a past member of the FDA Science Board, and is a recipient of the FDA’s Cody Medal. He is a past editor of the Journal of Immunotherapy and past president of the Society of Biological Therapy. He has served on the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine and is a past co-chair of the Cancer Steering Committee of the NIH Foundation Biomarkers Consortium. A past Board Director of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, he currently serves as a Board Director for the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. He served as Chairperson of the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) Finance and Audit Committee for 15 years and is a previous elected Board Director of AACR. Dr. Parkinson was a Director of Facet Biotech, Inc., until the acquisition by Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and was a Director of Ambit Biosciences until the acquisition by Daiichi Sankyo. He was also previously a Director at Threshold Pharmaceuticals and Cerulean Pharmaceuticals. He currently serves as Director on the Boards of CTI Biopharma, Inc (CTIC), 3SBio Inc (1530.HK) and is a Co-Founder and Director of Refuge Biotech, Inc. He has held academic positions both at Tufts and at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and has authored over 100 peer-reviewed publications.

Throwback - Oncology Research Pharmacy feat. Dr. David Chu Intended Audience: Everyone Today's throwback episode is actually a rebroadcast of the Orange County Pharmacists Association podcast where Dr. David Chu was interviewed about his role as a clinical research pharmacist. Dr. Chu also had informatics rotations during his residency. In addition to his journey to become a clinical research pharmacist, he discusses how he learned that pharmacy informatics impacts his practice. Though not an informatics pharmacist, the concepts of data analytics and order set builds continue to be part of his role in clinical research. Follow us on social media! Twitter: @pharmacyitme Instagram: @pharmacyinformatics LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pharmacyitme/ Website: Pharmacy IT & Me Email: tony@pharmacyitme.com Follow Tony's personal Twitter account at @tonydaopharmd Network with other pharmacists at Pharmacists Connect!http://pharmacistsconnect.com For more information on pharmacy informatics, check out some of the following useful links: ASHP's Section of Pharmacy Informatics and Technology: https://www.ashp.org/Pharmacy-Informaticist/Section-of-Pharmacy-Informatics-and-Technology/ HIMSS Pharmacy Informatics Community: https://www.himss.org/library/pharmacy-informatics Disclaimer: Views expressed are my own and do not reflect thoughts and opinions of any entity with which I have been, am now, or will be affiliated. This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer along with the International Union for Cancer Care have long supported the use of a standard language to define patients with cancer. The 7th and 8th editions of the AJCC-UICC staging systems have now been adopted and function to improve eye cancer research and clinical care. The major ophthalmic journals now require its use for research publications as to allow them to be compared and or combined in multivariate analysis. The largest ophthalmic societies now expect both tumor and patient staging in presentation. Clearly, the use of AJCC-UICC tumor staging has brought ophthalmic oncology into the mainstream of world-wide cancer care.

How did you end up in patient advocacy?At the time of her first diagnosis, Deb was a computer company executive. Along with her husband (also a cancer survivor), she got involved with an oncology patient advocacy group. This was in the early 1990s when very little was known about effective cancer treatments, and she felt that this was important to changeCan you explain the role of a patient advocate?A patient advocate contributes in a dramatic way to improve the experience of patients they don’t know through direct patient support, political advocacy, fundraising, and watchdog advocacy. A research advocate takes a long-term partnership approach. They focus on improving and speeding research results and ensure patient results and things that are important to the patient community, not just the scientific community, are a major focus.Why do you believe it’s so important to speak up for the patient in clinical research?Typically research has been all about science, product development, and regulatory compliance. No one has truly focused on the patient experience or the fact that the patient is the true end-user. This needs to change, and clinical research should set goals for finding better treatments, not just more, that give patients the improvements they’re looking for.Do you find there’s usually a difference between the answers patients are looking for vs. answers sponsors are looking for?While they are different, they can be considered together so we can get to the answer we’re all looking for. Companies may be focused on getting label approval from regulatory agencies, rather than the usefulness of this product and how it can fit into the rest of a patient’s life. This is where the patient voice is crucial, because it helps us complete the picture and cover aspects that are actually important to the patient community.What are the risks of a lack of patient focus in clinical trial design, or in the industry at large?Not recognizing the patient as the end-user can negatively impact the results patients get from a treatment. By involving patient advocates in the trial design process, sponsors can avoid or eliminate barriers that prevent individuals from enrolling in a clinical trial. Sponsors can also turn to adaptive trial design, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2019, as a potential way to improve the patient experience.Does the method of incorporating patient centricity vary based on therapeutic area or indication?It does vary. In oncology, for example, cancer is very multi-faceted; it can be chronic, life-threatening, acute, and so on). The type of cancer or patient situation can make a big difference in terms of what will be effective.Currently, the industry approach to “patient centricity” still views the patient as a target to get data from. To address this, we need to start thinking “what’s in it for patients?” instead of “what’s in it for me (as a sponsor)?” Focus on patient needs ensures that regulatory and product concerns will also naturally be addressed.Are there any advancements that you’ve seen improve the patient experience in the last few years, or any you anticipate to come? How can the industry implement these changes?Things are definitely improving, and more people are understanding the difference in perspectives among trial stakeholders. However, the scientific and medical communities need to be more in line with the patient perspective of a “cure”. There also needs to be an increased recognition of the fact that clinical research is often an endurance test for patients, particularly when sponsors are looking to address retention or compliance issues.Can you share an example of a sponsor who experienced some benefit after proactively choosing to keep the patient at the center of their trial?A breast cancer study funded in part by the National Cancer Institute was the first trial that explored neoadjuvant therapy. Patient advocates were involved in the trial development process from the beginning. As a result, the study recruited patients quicker, required fewer amendments, cost less, and was completed faster. Bringing in patient advocates early was crucial to the trial’s success..Do you have any final thoughts you’d like to share?We’ve all heard the terms “real-world data” and “real-world evidence.” The concept is important and has a lot of promise, but we have to think about what’s in it for patients. A shift from real-world data (raw material), to real-world evidence (analytics) to real-world answers is key to addressing what patients, families, and doctors really need and want.

As we have learned in the classroom, one size does not fit all. Unfortunately, many of us spend a lifetime trying to fit into someone else’s idea of health. I am so happy to share yet another way to choose health. Mark Simon is the founder and director of Nutritional Oncology Research Institute (NORI). He has made it his mission to look for alternative ways to return the body to optimum health. They say that it sometimes takes a tragedy to reveal our purpose and Mark is not an exception to this rule. I look forward to sharing Mark’s story and mission. I am grateful to Mark for becoming a sponsor in the classroom!

As we have learned in the classroom, one size does not fit all. Unfortunately, many of us spend a lifetime trying to fit into someone else’s idea of health. I am so happy to share yet another way to choose health. Mark Simon is the founder and The post Introducing Nutritional Oncology Research Institute & Mark Simon appeared first on LillianMcDermott.com.

In this episode of the IJGC podcast, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Pedro Ramirez is joined by Dr. Koji Matsuo to discuss cesarean radical hysterectomy outcomes. Cesarean radical hysterectomy is a rare surgical procedure and associated with increased risk of perioperative complication compared to open radical hysterectomy, particularly for hemorrhage. Dr. Koji Matsuo is Associate Professor and Chief of the Oncology Research in the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at University of Southern California. Koji Matsuo, MD, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Division of Gynecologic Oncology in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Southern California. Dr. Matsuo’s research focuses on outcomes research in gynecologic malignancies.

In this episode of the IJGC podcast, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Pedro Ramirez, is joined by Dr. Koji Matsuo to discuss chemotherapy and radiation vs. radiation alone after radical hysterectomy. Dr. Matsuo is Associate Professor and Chief of the Oncology Research in the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at University of Southern California. Dr. Matsuo’s research focuses on outcomes research in gynecologic malignancies.

Host Jack West chats with Dr. Marina Garassino, lung cancer specialist in Milan, about how she developed her interest in lung cancer and clinical research as a single mother of two daughters, as well as how she prioritizes mentorship of women trainees.

Dr. Jack West chats with breast cancer specialist & ASCO Annual Meeting Education Committee chair Dr. Tatiana Prowell about how she engages oncologists & patients alike through live teaching, longitudinal mentoring, & social media.

1.) What was your journey like to get where you are today? The journey was fun for the most part but challenging at times. We recently opened our second location in Rancho Cucamonga, with the first pharmacy in Yucaipa, so things are going very well now, but as I look back, I’m amazed by the twists and turns in my adventure. I graduated from Loma Linda University School of Pharmacy 2010. Thinking that I really wanted to go into residency to specialize in transplant, I interned at the university medical center throughout pharmacy school. During my internship, I realized that I actually enjoy working more in a social environment, which doesn’t necessary happen in a hospital setting. Up to that point, community practice had not crossed my mind, so I went on to select clinical rotations that I felt focused more on interactions with people. I selected the pharmaceutical Industry rotation with Allergan and Oncology Research at the NIH in particular, because I saw myself interacting with many other healthcare professionals on a regular basis. In the end, I did not go into either of those fields for various reasons. While I like to interact with people, it’s difficult for me to engage when I feel the interaction is tainted. I am not saying there is anything immoral or inappropriate, but if my purpose is to promote a certain product or to push a certain agenda I do not believe in, it’s very difficult for me. Read the rest of the interview by going to: https://joinappa.com/green-valley-pharmacy-interview/

2019 got off to a fast start for oncology drug discovery, with numerous mergers, acquisitions and collaborations announced in quick succession. These ventures provide a window into key trends in oncology research, where investigators are likely to focus their efforts, and the tools and technologies that will enable pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to turn promise into efficacious therapies. While the pace of innovation is accelerating, the challenges of increasing competition, pricing pressures and regulatory complexity are squeezing ROI. In this environment, collaborative efforts will play a pivotal role in advancing oncology drug discovery effectively and efficiently. Original article by Dr Michael Seiler If you'd like to view the original article then follow the link below: https://www.ddw-online.com/business/p322915-how-mergers-and-acquisitions-will-drive-oncology-research-in-2019.html You can also download the original article pdf here: https://www.ddw-online.com/media/32/136061/(1)-the-cure-for-going-it-alone.pdf For more information on Drug Discovery World, head to: https://www.ddw-online.com

Lora Black, RN, MPH, OCN, CCRP, Senior Director of Clinical Research at Sanford Health highlights two key points for building a sustainable oncology research program in an oncology-based setting.

Dr. Shaheenah Dawood is the Head of Medical Oncology and the Head of the Breast Cancer Program at Dubai Hospital in the United Arab Emirates. Dr. Dawood completed her M.B.B.Ch at Dubai Medical College in 1998 and a Master of Public Health degree at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA in 2008. Her postgraduate medical training programs include a Fellowship at McGill University in Canada in 2006, and the Susan Komen Breast Cancer Fellowship at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in 2007. Dr. Dawood is a member of various professional organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR), the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists, the Emirates Medical Association, and the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Research Group. She is also the co-director of the Middle East Research Network. If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure to subscribe for more weekly education content from ASCO University. We truly value your feedback and suggestions, so please take a minute to leave a review. If you are an oncology professional and interested in contributing to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast, email ascou@asco.org for more information. TRANSCRIPT [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome to the self-evaluation episode of the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. My name is Shaheena Dawood, and I am a consulting medical oncologist and lead of the Oncology Research program at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Mediclinic City Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Today, we feature a self-evaluation question looking at the predictive and prognostic role of pathological complete response attained in the treatment of breast cancer. Let us begin by reading the question stem. Here, we have a 55-year-old woman who presents with a 4 centimeter right breast mass and palpable right axillary lymph nodes. A needle biopsy of the breast mass and a lymph node are both positive for infiltrating ductal carcinoma negative for hormone receptors and negative for HER2/neu expression. The patient is interested in breast-conserving therapy, and she is referred to you for consideration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Which of the following do you tell her? Your choices are, A-- patients having a complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy have lower local and regional recurrence rates, B-- mastectomy will be required regardless of clinical response to chemotherapy, C-- chemotherapy will be administered before and after surgery, or D-- randomized trials have shown that radiotherapy is not necessary following surgery and chemotherapy if she has a complete response. At this point, please feel free to pause the recording before we discuss the correct answer. [MUSIC PLAYING] The correct answer to this question is A. Pathological complete response in the breast and lymph nodes is associated with lower local and regional recurrence rates. A combined analysis of the NSABP B18 and B27, two large trials that evaluated the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, revealed that the rate of local regional recurrence decreased amongst patients who initially presented with positive lymph nodes prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who become pathologically node negative after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially if they also achieved a pathological complete response in the breast. Briefly, the other choices presented in this question do not represent the most appropriate answer for the following reasons. The decision regarding type of surgery in the form of mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery is dependent on multiple factors. One of the early established benefits of neoadjuvant therapy is that it increases the probability of breast-conserving surgery, making more women candidates for lumpectomy and breast radiotherapy, who otherwise would have been treated with mastectomy. Studies have shown that chemotherapy before surgery in the neoadjuvant setting versus chemotherapy after surgery in the adjuvant setting is associated with similar outcomes. And finally, attaining a pathological complete response currently does not preclude the need for adjuvant radiation therapy, the decision of which would be made on clinical stage of disease at presentation. The NSABP51 RTOG phase III trial is ongoing to evaluate the role of regional radiotherapy in women presenting with clinical N1 axillary node disease before neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who become pathologically node negative at the time of surgery. Thank you for listening to this week's episode of the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. For more information on the treatment of breast cancer, including opportunities for self-evaluation and board review, please visit the comprehensive e-learning center at university.asco.org. [MUSIC PLAYING] 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. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In this interview, Natural Medicine Journal Publisher Karolyn Gazella discusses the challenges and solutions associated with enhanced integrative care for cancer survivors with integrative oncologist Dr. Matt Mumber. More than 15.5 million cancer survivors are currently living in the United States, with more than two-thirds alive five years after their diagnosis. And yet, most survivors report side effects long after treatment and many experience significant distress and fear of recurrence. Mumber describes how an integrative approach can help all practitioners serve the special needs of cancer survivors in their practice. About the Expert Matt Mumber, MD, is a board certified radiation oncologist with the Harbin Clinic in Rome, Georgia. He received his medical doctorate from the University of Virginia and he also did a fellowship in integrative medicine with the University of Arizona. He is the coauthor of the book Sustainable Wellnessand the editor of the textbook Integrative Oncology: Principles and Practice. Mumber is the director of medical affairs of the iTHRIVE Plan. About the Sponsor iTHRIVE is an online web application that creates personalized wellness plans for cancer survivors that focuses on five key areas: diet, movement, environment, rejuvenation, and spirit. Cancer centers, hospitals, and clinics can license the iTHRIVE Plan to help meet the special needs of their cancer survivors. iTHRIVE also helps cancer centers meet the Commission on Cancer Mandate. For more information, visit iTHRIVEplan.com. Transcript Karolyn Gazella: Hello, I'm Karolyn Gazella, the publisher of the Natural Medicine Journal. Today our topic is cancer survivorship. My guest is radiation oncologist, Dr. Matt Mumber, who's also the editor of the textbook, Integrative Oncology. Before we begin, I'd like to thank the sponsor of this podcast, who is iTHRIVE Plan. That's ithriveplan.com. Dr. Mumber, thank you so much joining me. Matt Mumber: Oh, thanks for having me. It's always good talking with you. Gazella: Yeah, well, you know I've been reading research clearly showing that cancer survivors say they have unmet needs and they have special needs. Take us through what some of those needs are, specific to cancer survivors. Mumber: The diagnosis of cancer is really a whole-person diagnosis. People wonder about, first thing they wonder, "Gosh, am I to somehow blame for this diagnosis?" I think people think about that. Of course, various levels of lifestyle and choices they've made throughout their life. Whether they're smokers, how they've generally eaten, what environment they live in. What their family history is, so they think about all of that, obviously. Then stress weighs in on it. When people get the diagnosis, they have a lot of stress. Then people maybe even think about compounding the fact their lives are stressful, well maybe my stress caused the cancer. That type of thing. That all impacts them and then the physical aspect of it. Of course, we're all, as whole people, we have a physical body that we inhabit. We have our minds and our spirits, our heart, our emotions, and pretty much all of those are impacted by cancer diagnosis. The physical aspects, people can feel different, they can have symptoms related to the cancer or actual problems. Bleeding, pain and other issues that are outside of normal function. Then, for example, just the fatigue that comes along with having a cancer diagnosis, because fatigue is multifactorial, too, and tends to weigh on people emotionally. Then that has a physical ramification. The stress and so forth can cause problems with how we eat, drink, move. How we sleep at night. How we relate to others. Different things like sexuality and other aspects that we take for granted as just people walking around being healthy. One of my teachers says that he really enjoys, every now and then, takes time to enjoy the fact that he doesn't have a toothache, because when he has a toothache, it's kind of all-encompassing, so we can be happy our non-toothacheness. I think people with cancer often feel that way. "Gosh, if I could just get a break from having cancer," because once you have cancer you're kind of a cancer patient and you're a cancer survivor, so it really does define who you are. It's a very much of whole person oriented type of thing. Of course there's all the practical matters, financial, social, and so forth. It really does affect people in a multifactorial way. Perhaps because of the general stigma that's associated with a diagnosis of cancer, for then has been for decades, perhaps more than most of other types of chronic illnesses. Gazella: I think you may be right, and then there's this issue of fear of reoccurrence. I read in one study saying that upwards of 90% of cancer patients, even if it's not valid, they're afraid. They're so afraid of a reoccurrence of getting cancer again. Mumber: That's right. No doubt. Gazella: You've just mentioned a lot of factors. Is this the reason why the American College of Surgeon created the Commission on Cancer Mandate, and you can talk to us a little bout about that Commission on Cancer Mandate? Mumber: The Commission on Cancer is a wonderful organization, their real mission is to make all of the hospitals that participate in their system as good as they can be. First things they start with were very conventional, let's make sure we have accurate data. Let's make sure people are being treated in facilities that have up-to-date conventional types of processes and that they're recorded and they're followed over time so we can then get feedback and learn and grow with regards to how we're doing in the conventional care of cancer patients. Then about the time that the Institute of Medicine started to branch out and look at things like cancer survivorship and psycho-social screening, and integrative approaches ... what I would call integrative approaches. They started saying, "Gosh, this is just as important as the conventional. We've got that under control. We've got that to the point where we have standards, we really need to create some standards that affect more of this whole person, outside of the what we do to people," type of scenario. That's really when they started to build these criteria, starting with patient navigation, trying to identify access to caring disparities that people face. Then moving on to actual distress screening, so that we can find a way to identify the stress, almost like another vital sign. Recognize distress and then intervene early before it becomes a problem. Then moving past when we've gone through active treatment and people that have been treated definitely and curatively and they've done active treatment. Like I said, they're always cancer patients. Cancer survivors now. How do we address that survivorship such that we can make sure they're getting appropriate screenings, that they understand what's been done to them and ultimately what they need to do in order to stay connected, to try to decrease recurrence rates and to function in a way that gives them the best chance of surviving long term. Gazella: Speaking of these special needs, it certainly seems that because of the sheer number of cancer survivors, pretty soon there's going to be 20 million cancer survivors alive in the United States alone. It certainly seems like their care is spilling out into other medical disciplines, well beyond oncology. I'm wondering what role can general practitioners or integrative practitioners play when it comes to meeting the special needs. Physical, mental, emotional, special needs of cancer survivors. Mumber: Medicine, I think is evolving. Medicine has evolved from being purely focused on the downhill, what we do to somebody, and has really become more of a partnership where we are able to focus on the commonalities that make us all human and to do so in a way that is therapeutic. For the physician, the physician can bring the power of themselves as they are, what they do to help stay healthy. They can bring in a compassionate way to the doctor patient interaction. Primary care has led the way in this, with the primary care patient center medical home concept. That's now actually something that's billable and is paid for through Medicare, where you can get a group of people together and you can give them ideas and ways to help prevent certain illnesses, for example diabetes, heart disease. Haven't done it so much with cancer yet, because that hasn't filtered into the primary care mechanism, but it's happening and it's a good way for that to happen, because there's only so many oncologists available and there's a much larger pool of primary care doctors. Prevention has really been in the purview of primary care physicians. There's really 3 types of prevention. Primary prevention in order to try to prevent diseases before they come up. Secondary prevention to prevent disease when people are high risk group, for example prevent heart disease or lung disease from people that are already smokers. Then finally tertiary prevention, which means when people already have an illness or have a diagnosis, for example, cancer, we try to decrease the chance of that recurring or having it again. The primary care center medical home is mainly focused on the primary prevention, somewhat in the secondary prevention and then it also filters over into the tertiary prevention. In each of those groups, one of the foundational principles that I found to be true in my life is that there's tremendous power in getting groups of people together with similar experience. It's kind of like if I went, no matter how compassionate I am, if I went and tried to sit down with a group of pregnant women and talk with them about what it's like to be pregnant and to be able to have a baby and so forth, I would just be ... There's no way I would add anything that would mean anything to anybody, but if you get a group of pregnant women together, they're going to be able to speak a language that women who have gone through that experience will have. I think that's a very powerful thing and that's filtering into medicine more and more, it's getting reimbursed by Medicare through the primary care patient center medical home. It's filtering into oncology care. Certainly there are specialty oncology medical homes, as well. However they tend to focus more on what to do during therapy, how to support patients during therapy and it really hasn't filtered over into the tertiary prevention model. I think as a field, medicine in general is evolving a very positive way, mainly it costs so much to have illness, right? If we can prevent it, the ounce of prevention, right? I think that's a good thing. I do think that's the wave of the future. How it's going to filter into oncology versus primary care, with regards to that tertiary prevention piece, I think that's still to be worked out. Gazella: Yeah, I would agree. We're making progress though. It is all about serving these special needs of cancer survivors. Now you are the lead investigator on a study that combined patient navigators with an online tool. Can you tell us a little bit about that research and what the outcomes were? Mumber: Yeah, yeah, so my research is mainly focused on the application and implementation of integrative approaches, especially those that focus on people being able to make and embrace long-term change, kind of what I think of as the difference between translation, which is just giving people information and hoping that they'll understand it. Maybe apply it, versus transformation, which is being able to actually apply information in one's life and make a major change in life. Initially, we started looking at, can we approach this with physicians, for example with integrative medicine approach. We did a study about a dozen or so years ago that was a computer-based educational program, did it in conjunction with the University of Arizona and the Georgia Center of Oncology Research and Education and GSSACO, Georgia's State Society of the American Society for Clinical Oncology. Basically, we did a prostate cancer where they did integrative medicine, educational module, to educate physicians and provides, nurses, other providers associated with prostate cancer about different complementary alternative methods associated with prostate cancer. We found that that web based educational intervention was very successful. Kind of fast forward to this most recent study, the next logical step would be is there anything we can do to improve upon the ability of this translational information delivery to move more towards a transformational approach. Or what people think of is generally a transformational approach. The study that we did was, basically, a randomized trial, a small pilot trial. We had 24 people, 24 patient navigators in the state of Georgia that were randomized in this trial to give 1 of either 2 arms. One was an educational, web-based modality that looked at educating about integrative oncology for a patient navigators. We had a bunch of didactic presentation. We had a weekly video presentation that people could watch with regards to how they eat, drink, move, manage their stress, based upon our sustainable wellness book that we had ... Heather Reed and I had written. Then there were a variety of materials that were present. There was the ability to chat online. That was one arm of the study. The other arm of the study was to do all that, but to also to have the opportunity to do a residential retreat, which I've been facilitating those types of educational types of retreats for years. Focusing more on a variety of contemplative practices and a personal experience and providing those contemplative practices with people that have similar experience. In this case, patient navigators. The word contemplative is often kind of confusing. It sounds kind of mysterious and mystical. Contemplative is a good way of thinking about, contemplative practice when we can be in a position in which our body and our mind and our heart are in the same place at the same time. That's likely a contemplative practice. One of the features of it are that the result of that is that it brings about a certain level of awareness. It brings about a sense of communion and it brings about a sense of connection. We would sit with people. We had a three day residential retreat that Heather and I facilitated and basically just experienced a variety of things, like yoga, meditation, massages. Everybody loves massage. We did some creative art therapy, like picture drawing and interpretation of those things. We randomized the trial and the outcome measure was do people learn better when they have this in person interaction, then they do when they have more of an online interaction. It was a very small study. The numbers hint that there's a slight increase in educational benefit with the in person interaction, in addition to the online interaction. However both interactions resulted in, just like our previous study, significant learning and ability to actually apply these integrative modalities. It was the next step in research with a more focused group. I do think that's it a pretty exciting trial, because it does show the value of somehow having that link to that group of similars. Now whether or not that needs to be based in person or whether it could be based online, with like an online chat that's real active, that's kind of another question, research question, but it was an interesting study. Gazella: Yeah, sounds very interesting. You know the point with some of the emerging research is to reduce the burden of care. It reminds me of research that was presented at this year's ASCO [American Society of Clinical Oncology] with Dr. Hess from Switzerland, who used the web-based modification tool for cancer survivors and she demonstrated that distress was significantly reduced and quality of life significantly enhanced without a face to face visit. I'm just curious, is this in part the way of the future? Mumber: I think it could be. I think, of course, that intervention what they did was really more of a psychologist or psychiatrist doing counseling with the individual. They did a good bit of that. They tried to, instead of having to take the patient's time because there's some access to care and disparity issues, in that study, 70% of the patients had an online presence. They were open to using that modality. The counselors would basically do counseling with the patient, instead of them being in a room, basically do it online. I think as time goes on and as people have more penetrance and more of an online life, I do think that that's going to become more applicable. The current ... It depends on where you are, I guess. It depends on the age of your population and penetrance of internet use and so forth, but I do think that's a positive study. I do think it addresses some of the barriers that can occur, relative to actual time for both the therapist and for the patient, to actually sit down and do it, it's a heck of a lot easier than if you have to travel. Let's say you had to travel 45 minutes. There's also a stigma, I think, to especially the psychological counseling piece where people say, "Gosh, I've got to go to a counselor." It's almost like they're admitting some kind of a weakness. That gets over that barrier as well. I do think it's going to have applicability in multiple methods. Just in the research that we did, relative to the many uses of the internet and how they pertain to educating people and bringing along. There's absolutely no doubt that the internet has revolutionized the ability to educate people, there's no doubt about it. It makes perfect sense that it would have the ability to be applied in this specific situation, to reduce the stress, to do things with cancer patients that require, in the past, that required face to face interactions, but to do so in a way that's much more practical and less costly, ultimately, than actually having to take the time to do that. Yeah, I think it has significant potential benefit. Gazella: Yeah, I would agree. I'd like to talk briefly about the iTHRIVE Plan, which is an online tool. Now you in your clinic, the Harbin Clinic in Georgia, you're using the iTHRIVE plan in conjunction with a nonprofit called Cancer Navigators. I'm wondering what your experience has been with the patients who are using the iTHRIVE plan, in particular. Mumber: Yeah, I think the folks that are using it really enjoy it. Basically, it's a plan that when we set them up, we just basically say, "Look, this is a plan that's written by cancer survivors for cancer survivors." What it does is it evaluates you in 5 different domains of your health, how you eat, how you drink, how you move your body, your spirituality and then how your environment affects you and what things in your environment may be lurking that you're not even aware of that could potentially influence you. Basically, it's written in a way that there's a nice melding of really good, hard science that each one of the little action steps that are given, are discrete action steps. It's really hard for a patient, when they sit in a room for 15 minutes at a follow up visit where we're talking about, "Well, gosh, you got to do your screening here. You've got to come back for this appointment. Got any questions? Okay, hey, by the way, make sure to eat better, drink pretty of fluids. Exercise. Manage your …" It's such a big elephant, it's hard to bite off. What you do is you start off with one discrete action step. Each of those steps, to the extent people happen to have like a little scientific citation with them. It's very, very valuable. The people that have been involved in it, they may not like every one of the steps, because everybody's different. Everybody has their own way of doing things. People have different expertise and so forth, but what I tell them is, "Gosh, if you have a set of action steps and one or two really hit home, that's a big deal," because just think about the difference between saying, "Oh, go ahead, eat better, drink better, move better, etc. Handle your stress," and then giving people an option of let's say 30 different steps that pertain to one of those topics. They can go around, in their own time, on their phone and look at each one of those steps and say, "I'm going to try that." It might really hit home and it might stick with them for the rest of their life. It's a really beneficial thing. The feedback we've gotten has been very good. It has helped us, as well, in identifying people that are in distress that we wouldn't have known otherwise. As a part of that, they'll take a 15-minute survey that evaluates them in those 5 domains. Then one of the domains ... Then it has different symptom complexes like fatigue and pain and so forth. If they reach a certain threshold, then our nurse is identified. Our nurse calls them up and what that's done is it's allowed us to get them to specific services they would not have gotten to otherwise. It's a very beneficial thing on multiple levels. On the patient navigation level, to go back to the COC, well, what a great tool for being able to intervene and educate and identify access to care and disparities issue. Some of those could be a person can't travel to do various things, so this is a great way of addressing that. The second piece, distress screening, we can identify distress, and appropriately manage it. The third thing, of course, this is a survivorship piece. Really the weakest part of survivorship, in the COC platform, has been that tertiary prevention piece. How you take care of yourself in order to decrease the chances of them coming back. Gazella: Right, and I'd like to talk a little bit about that, because you and I and Dr. Lise Alschuler wrote a paper that was published in the Natural Medicine Journal that shined a light on emerging research that's showing that survivorship care plans that only focus on the treatment summary and the follow up care are actually causing more distress, because they're not focusing on proactive prevention strategies that can empower the patient. What do you think is the solution to that, because that's kind of troubling, that even after the mandate, these SCPs are causing more distress? Mumber: I think what's happened is that they've followed the general history of the medical model, ultimately. That is that we figure out what needs to be done and in our infinite wisdom, we then deliver it. We deliver it in the best way that we can, unfortunately the initial way we deliver almost everything in medicine is from the top down. From somebody who knows something better to somebody that doesn't know anything. Somebody who needs help to somebody's who's going to be stronger and has the ability to get the help. Somebody who's broken to somebody who's going to get fixed. It's not unusual, it's a normal part of the evolutionary process of the way medicine is delivered over time. In the initial part of this, it's very important for us to get the conventional part right. It is very important that people get to their screenings, to make sure that people understand how important it is to eat well, to drink well, to manage your stress, to understand what radiation and chemo they got. How that might place them at greater risk, etc. those are all very important pieces of the puzzle. However, if all we do is try to deliver information downhill and to a person that literally, all they know is what we're telling them, for the most part, it's going to create distress. It's going to create more distress than if we didn't tell them anything. It's almost like ignorance is bliss to a certain extent. When we overload people with information, without any real applicability of how it means something in their life, it tends to cause more distress. I think it's very important and over time, I think what we'll see is a progression for engaging the patient, engaging the patient in their own care. Engaging the whole person in their own care. That's where I think that it's going to evolve over time, naturally. Gazella: I would agree with that. What would you like to see happen in the future, when it comes to getting these special needs met? Physical, mental, emotional needs met for cancer survivors in the future? Mumber: Well, I think from a standpoint of Medicine. Medicine with a big 'M'. Not just medicine that we use to fix people, but medicine that serves the needs of all the participants that are involved. Not just the patient, doctor, community member, all aspects of the community in general. All people involved in it at all levels of their being. Physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and all levels at which they experience life. As an individual person, as a family member, as a community member, etc. That's an integrative approach, a whole approach that addresses everyone at all levels of their being and experience. That, again, that's a huge elephant. What we're starting with is the ground foundational stuff of what's the science of all these things. What do we need to make sure people have done in order to have just a basement, foundational understanding of what's required for basic science survivorship. Basic science 101. That's the level we're at right now. Going from not doing that at all to doing that is a big step. That's a big step. We don't want to minimize that. It's going to take time. However, ultimately, what's going to happen is that it's going to evolve over time and it's going to progress to the point where we look at the person not just as a patient and as a body, but we look at the patient as somebody who's a responsible participant in their care. We take therapeutic advantage of their physical presence. Their emotional presence. Their mental and spiritual presence. We optimize their environmental existence such that it impacts everybody in the system. That is where medicine, that's what I'd like to see. I guess to say I'd like to see that is maybe a little self-centered. I think everybody would like to see that, right? It's just a matter of patiently, one step at a time, applying tools that we have that are capable of making incremental change at each of those areas. For me, I have a lot of people, a lot of colleagues say, "Gosh, I'd look to do some kind of integrative approach." I think starting small and then growing organically with it makes sense and using tools that apply to yourself as an individual, as well as the patient, is a good place to start. Using systems that are in place that can increase communication, break down some of those access to care disparity barriers and move things forward in a way of increasing patient responsibility and participation in their health. Gazella: I think that's great advice to practitioners who are looking to have a more integrative approach. Well, once again, I would like to thank the sponsor of this interview, which is iTHRIVE Plan. That's ithriveplan.com. Dr. Mumber, I'd like to thank you for joining me today. Mumber: Happy to be here. Thanks a lot. Gazella: Have a great day. Mumber: Alright, you too.

Dr. Lewis Cantley is the Director of the Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell Medical College as well as the Stanton Clinical Cancer Program at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. He is also Professor of Cancer Biology in Medicine and Professor in Oncology Research at Weill Cornell Medical College. In addition, Lewis is Co-Founder of Petra Pharma and Agios Pharmaceuticals. He received his B.S. in Chemistry from West Virginia Wesleyan College and his Ph.D. in Biophysical Chemistry from Cornell University. Lewis conducted postdoctoral research at Harvard University, and served on the faculty at Harvard University, as well as Tufts University before joining the faculty at Cornell. Lewis has received many awards and honors during his career, including the 2005 Pezcoller Foundation-American Association for Cancer Research International Award for Cancer Research, the 2013 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, the 2015 Ross Prize in Molecular Medicine, the 2015 Wolf Prize, the 2015 Association of American Cancer Institutes Distinguished Scientist Award, the 2015 Canada Cairdner award, and he was named one of “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” in 2015 by Thomson Reuter. Lewis is also a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, as well as a Member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, and the European Life Sciences Academy. Lewis is here with us today to tell us all about his journey through life and science.

Tripawds Podcast Episode #41: November is canine cancer awareness month and on the November 2nd edition of Tripawd Talk Radio you'll learn how advances in comparative oncology research is uncovering new ways to diagnosis, treat and ultimately cure cancers in both people and pets. This fascinating discussion will be led by veterinary onocologist Dr. Avenelle Turner, DVM Diplomate ACVIM (Oncology) from the Veterinary Cancer Center in Southern California (http://vetcancergroup.com/about-us/our-doctors.html) and Dr. Kristy Richards, MD, PhD at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Department of Genetics (http://www.med.unc.edu/genetics/faculty/Kristy%20Richards,%20MD,%20PhD). Drs. Turner and Richards will discuss how cancer in animals mimics the same disease in people and you'll learn how cancer similarities between humans and dogs are identified and lead to new treatments for both species. For example, over 30 years ago bone marrow transplants were first developed for dogs, then subsequently done in people with lymphoma. As comparative oncology research awareness grows and more study collaborations occur between academic researchers and pharmaceutical companies, more treatments will be found for pets and people alike. For more information about comparative oncology research, please visit: National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research: Comparative Oncology Program https://ccr.cancer.gov/ Puppy Up / 2 Million Dogs http://www.2milliondogs.org/canine-cancer/about-cancer/ Support the show (https://tripawds.com/support)

Welcome to another podcast brought to you by the AKC Canine Health Foundation. In this podcast we hear from Dr. Kerstin Lindblad-Toh and Dr. Elinor Karsson, two of our most prominent oncology genetics researchers. Dr. Lindblad-Toh is a professor in comparative genomics at Uppsala University and the Scientific Director of Vertebrate Genome Biology at the Broad Institute. Dr. Karlsson is a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University and was recently awarded the Charles A. King Trust Postdoctoral Fellowship. In this podcast we learn about the research that is refining the genes and gene signatures associated with osteosarcoma and how this may lead to better treatments. Initial findings have been published in the open access journal Genome Biology, entitled "Genome-wide analyses implicate 33 loci in heritable dog osteosarcoma, including regulatory variants near CDKN2A/B."  For information on how to participate in this research study, visit the CHF website.  This podcast was made possible thanks to the generous support of the Kenneth A. Scott Charitable Trust, A KeyBank Trust.        

Oncology, December 13th, 2007 Reporting from: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 13-16 December, 2007 Early Breast Cancer: Survival Benefit For Adjuvant Docetaxel/Cyclophosphamide STEPHEN JONES, US Oncology Research, Houston REFERENCE: ABSTRACT 12 Long term data from an early breast cancer trial involving cyclophosphamide combined with docetaxel or doxorubicin have shown a survival advantage for the taxane. As Stephen Jones of US Oncology Research explained to Derek Thorne, this advantage was also seen in patients over 65.