Podcasts about PARP

Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:09 Hi there, how are you? Bob Miller 00:00:10 Excellent! Pedaling as fast as humanly possible, but doing okay. Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:14 Good, good. Well, I’m looking forward to our conversation today. This should be amazing. Bob Miller 00:00:20 Yeah, it should be a lot of fun. Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:22 Yeah, anything that’s off-limits for you in, our conversation? Bob Miller 00:00:28 No. Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:29 Okay, anything you want me to make sure we cover for you? Bob Miller 00:00:33 Well, I mean, is it okay if we put a little plug-in for our software? Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:35 Absolutely. Bob Miller 00:00:36 Yeah. Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:37 Absolutely. Bob Miller 00:00:36 Yeah. Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:37 Absolutely. Bob Miller 00:00:38 Hey, can we… can we do a screen share? Yes, we can. Yeah, because I want to show you some maps, and… Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:43 Okay. Things like that, yeah, so… Perfect. So just let me know when you want to do screen share. Bob Miller 00:00:48 Okay. Dr. Deb Muth 00:00:49 And yeah, feel free to plug your software wherever you want to. Bob Miller 00:00:53 Okay, well, good. Let me pull up a, a slide for that, and give me one second, I just want to shut the door to my office to get the noise down. Dr. Deb Muth 00:01:01 No worries. Bob Miller 00:01:16 And, how should I refer to you? Dr. Debb? Dr. Muth, what do you like? Dr. Deb Muth 00:01:18 Dr. Deb is great, or Deb, either way, I’m pretty informal, so… Bob Miller 00:01:22 Yeah, and… Bob is fine for me. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, there you go. Why people feel like they need this, son. Special name, it’s like, seriously. Dr. Deb Muth 00:01:33 Right? I agree. Bob Miller 00:01:35 When I work with my clients, it’s like, Dr. Millison, just, just bop, just, just bop. Dr. Deb Muth 00:01:41 Yep, that’s how I am, too. Just call me Deb, it’s good. Dr. Deb Muth 00:01:44 They feel a little awkward with that, you know? They’re not used to that, but… Bob Miller 00:01:48 Alright. And you’re a naturopath, medical doctor. Dr. Deb Muth 00:01:52 A nastropathic doctor and a nurse practitioner. Oh, nice. Yeah, so I got the best of both worlds, right? Bob Miller 00:01:58 Yeah, damn. Okay. Alright, so here we go… There we go. Alright, so I got that ready, and then I will do a, I will do a screen share. I think you’re gonna really, appreciate what we’ve come up with. We’ve come up with the concept of, Cellular CPR. Dr. Deb Muth 00:02:23 Oh, nice! Bob Miller 00:02:24 And that is, construct the cell membrane, Protect the cell membrane. And restore it if it’s damaged. Dr. Deb Muth 00:02:32 Love that. Bob Miller 00:02:34 I love that. Yeah, so that’s what we’re focusing on, and then how, You know, we want to get to the point that, you know, most people think of genetics, they think of, like, 23andMe or Ancestry. Dr. Deb Muth 00:02:44 Yeah. Bob Miller 00:02:45 And then you have the professional geneticists who are looking at, you know, odd things that could create a disease. We’re looking at functional genomics. Dr. Deb Muth 00:02:54 Which is so much better. Bob Miller 00:02:56 Yeah. Are you familiar with what we do here, or… Dr. Deb Muth 00:02:58 A little bit, a little bit. So, it’ll be new to me, too, so I’m excited. Bob Miller 00:03:03 And how much time do we have? Dr. Deb Muth 00:03:04 We have an hour, give or take a little bit on either side. Do you have a hard stop anywhere? Bob Miller 00:03:10 No, no, I put a, I moved my clients around, and I don’t have anybody till, 3.30, so we’re good. Okay. Dr. Deb Muth 00:03:16 Perfect. Alright. Bob Miller 00:03:18 It’s like we’re getting started early as well, so… Dr. Deb Muth 00:03:19 Yeah, we’re getting started a little bit early, so that’s good. Bob Miller 00:03:22 Yeah, I just got my office cleaned up, so… Dr. Deb Muth 00:03:23 Okay, good. All right, are you all set to get started? Bob Miller 00:03:28 I’m good to go, my friend. Dr. Deb Muth 00:03:29 I’m gonna just record a little intro and a little bit of a, hook for people, and then we’ll get started. I’ll ask you to kind of tell us a little bit about yourself, and then we’ll just take this conversation wherever it’s supposed to go. Bob Miller 00:03:39 Okay, you got it. Dr. Deb Muth 00:03:40 Alright, sounds good. So what if the reason you’re not healing isn’t your diet, your supplements, or your labs, but it’s actually your genes? Dr. Bob Miller is uncovering how genetic variants, when combined with modern toxins, explain why some of us stay sick no matter what we try. Today, we’re talking genetic pathways, detox blocks, and the new science every wellness warrior needs to know. Welcome back to Let’s Talk Wellness Now, the show where we uncover the root causes of chronic illness, exploring cutting-edge regenerative medicine, and empower you to heal from the inside out. I’m Dr. Deb, your medical detective, and today, our guest, Dr. Bob Miller, is a true pioneer in functional genomics. He’s a board-certified traditional naturopath and the founder of Neutrogenetic Research Institute. And he’s the leading groundbreaking research on how genetic variants influence chronic illness, inflammation, and detoxification. His work has been recognized on international stages, uncovering links between genetic expression and conditions like Lyme disease, mast cell activation, or MCAS, and mitochondrial dysfunction. I’m so excited to talk to Dr. Bob today. He is gonna reveal some things that even I don’t know about, so I’m excited to learn alongside of you guys. So… Dr. Bob, let’s get started. Tell us a little bit about yourself, and kind of how you got on this journey. Bob Miller 00:05:04 Well, that’s, that’s interesting. I was sort of like a mid-career coming to the natural health field, because in my early 30s, I found myself with a severe case of ulcerative colitis. Bob Miller 00:05:15 And I was in the hospital for 21 days. probably within hours of death, pleading to death. And they told me I’ve got one option, and that is cut out the colon and wear a bag. Didn’t sound like a lot of fun. Dr. Deb Muth 00:05:27 Not an option I would want. Bob Miller 00:05:29 So, you know, the medical folks wasn’t real happy with me, but I said, yeah, I’d like to explore some alternative things.Never thinking that I’d get into this field, and then I just, you know, worked with some herbalists and things that I found absolutely fascinating. So, that’s how I got into this around 30 years ago. And, haven’t looked back since, and just having a… having a blast as we now move into how our genetics impacts things. So, that’s what we’re gonna… that’s what we’re gonna talk about today. Dr. Deb Muth 00:05:58 I’m excited to talk about this genetic thing. When you started over 30 years ago, what kind of patience and problems first inspired you to dig deeper into that root cause healing and kind of get into the genetic piece of it? Bob Miller 00:06:10 Sure. Well, you know, as a… now, I’m in a part of the country called Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where there’s a lot of Amish and Mennonite, and they gravitate towards these things.So, this is their first thing to do, and that doesn’t work, then they’ll go other routes. So, you know, back then, we just saw typical, you know, a little tired, constipation. You know, a little bit of fatigue, arthritis, those kind of things. But things have changed dramatically over the years, as people are now getting more chronically sick. You know, it’s worse than it’s ever been. And what we’re finding is the, the culprits Primarily is mold exposure and Lyme disease. When people get those two together, they’re just… it’s an inflammatory cascade that nobody can seem to unravel. So that’s where we spend a lot of our time. And we’re also spending a lot of time looking at mental health, like ADD, ADHD. And, we give… this year I’ll be speaking at three autism conferences. And we can dig into that a little bit as to why we think we’re seeing such a dramatic increase. And aside from autism, that used to be 1 out of 1,000, now it’s 1 out of 33, or 23. You know, we’re also seeing dramatic increases in ADD, ADHD. People are stressed out. And today, I think we’ll have the time to actually go through and show how environmental factors combine with genetics to cause that to happen. So we’ll… we should have a fun visit here today. And today, I think we’ll have the time to actually go through and show how environmental factors combine with genetics to cause that to happen. So we’ll… we should have a fun visit here today. Dr. Deb Muth 00:07:37 This should be a fun visit. We can cover lots of topics. I am so excited. So, you founded Nutri Genetic Research Institute in 2015. What did you hope to accomplish, and what kind of surprised you in your findings so far about that? Bob Miller 00:07:51 Well, you know, let’s back up at what, you know, genetics is used for. Everybody’s familiar with 23andMe and Ancestry that, you know, tells you where your ancestors came from. Then you have your professional geneticists. I mean, these are people with a degree in genetics. And they’ll look for, you know, very odd sort of things that are prone to relate to a disease. So there are disease-related genetics. Well, in functional, we don’t look at either of those. We look at For example, how you’re breaking down your fats and utilizing them. How you’re recycling your glutathione. How you might be handling your iron. And none of those are disease-causing on their own.And none of those are disease-causing on their own. But when they pile up on you, and then combine that with environmental factors, that’s when things start to go south on us. So, that’s what we’re doing, we’re looking at patterns. And our first foray into this was, we did studies on Lyme disease. And our first foray into this was, we did studies on Lyme disease. So, we looked at, like, I think 50 people with Lyme disease. We looked at their genome. So, we looked at, like, I think 50 people with Lyme disease. We looked at their genome. And we found patterns that were more evident in those with Lyme. Now, this doesn’t… these genetics don’t mean you get Lyme, it just means if you get Lyme, you react worse to it. And we found patterns that were more evident in those with Lyme. Now, this doesn’t… these genetics don’t mean you get Lyme, it just means if you get Lyme, you react worse to it. So, as you know, some people get Lyme, they go on a round of antibiotics, and they’re done. So, as you know, some people get Lyme, they go on a round of antibiotics, and they’re done. Others have a little more struggle, and then others are struggling terribly for years. So there’s an old adage of genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger. Dr. Deb Muth 00:09:14 Yeah, that is so true, and I think when we’re talking about Lyme and mold and things like that, we forget sometimes that our genetics can predispose us to be more sensitive to those things, and if we have genetic pathways where we don’t clear things properly, it’s harder for us to get them out of the body. And then you add on that whole rain barrel effect that we’ve always used as a functional medicine term, right? If the barrel’s half full, you’re okay. If it’s full, and now it’s spilling over, it’s a bigger problem. Have you guys found, too, that some of these environmental things actually are changing the genetics of people, or how they’re processing their own genetics? Bob Miller 00:09:53 Well, let’s go back to, Genetics 101. But we’ll go back a little bit further. So, what an interesting mechanism, what a miracle the body is. Bob Miller 00:10:03 Fats, carbohydrates, proteins, drink water, breathe air, expose the sunlight, and somehow everything gets made. I mean, when you just step back and think about that, it’s like, It’s pretty darn amazing. Dr. Deb Muth 00:10:15 I always tell women, you know, the fact that we get pregnant and we have healthy pregnancies and births is a miracle, because if we had to try to control that, that wouldn’t work so well. Bob Miller 00:10:25 Right. Well, that’s another miracle. These microscopic sperm and egg, human being, 9 months later, it’s like. But even inside of us. We are making our hair, our skin, our nails, our blood vessels, our ATP, our energy, it’s all being created. Well, that gets created by enzymes. So, enzymes take one substance, combine it with something else, and make something new. Then another enzyme comes along and does the same thing. Your DNA is the instructions on how to make the enzymes. So, when we are conceived. If it’s a, if it’s a female, of course, it’s the XX, the two chromosomes. You know, we’ve… everybody’s seen those… the genetics that… Listed pair. So, if it’s a female, the father donated the X enzyme. And the mother has no choice but to give the eggs, so that’s female. If the father donates the Y, you have a male that’s in chromosome number 1. Then 2 through 23 is the rest of the instructions on how to make enzymes. So, what can happen? We can get what are called SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms. And SNPs just mean that the instructions to make the enzyme’s not quite as good. So, if one parent gives a SNP on the making of an enzyme, The enzyme’s fine. It works. But, general rule of thumb, It may only work at 70-80% of efficiency. Now, a good analogy is think of an 8-cylinder and a 6-cylinder car. If parents give you good information, that’s like having an 8-cylinder car. If one parent gives you that snip, it’s like having a 6-cylinder car. Now, is a 6-cylinder car a fine car? Sure. It’ll get you from point A to point B, but it’s just going to have the power of an 8-cylinder. Then if both parents give you a SNP on the same enzyme, it may be 30-40%, and that’s like having a 4-cylinder car. Sits in the driveway, looks the same, puts gas in it, everything. But if you’ve got a 4-cylinder car. Probably not a good idea to go cross-country pulling a trailer behind you up and down mountains. Dr. Deb Muth 00:12:29 This is true. Bob Miller 00:12:32 So… We can get an 8-cylinder, 6-cylinder, or 4-cylinder enzyme. Now, if it’s not under a lot of stress, if that 4-cylinder car is just taking you to the bank and the grocery store. It’s just as good as an 8-cylinder car. But if you gotta pull that trailer, and there’s a lot of stress on it, being mountains, it’s gonna struggle. Now, there’s one other little caveat to this, and that is some genetic mutations are gain-of-function. They actually work faster. Now, we have enzymes that do all kinds of things. We have enzymes that make and recycle our antioxidants, but we also have enzymes that make inflammation. No, that’s a good thing, because if we get a virus or bacteria, if you didn’t make inflammation to kill it, well, we’d all die of infection. So, you know, we tend to think of free radicals as bad, antioxidants as good. They both play an important role. But interestingly, some of the major enzymes that make inflammation, they can be overactive. They can be turbocharged. And when they’re stimulated by environmental toxins, they overreact. Bob Miller 00:13:40 And therein lies the problem. When they overreact, we have a problem. Bob Miller 00:13:46 So, if we have genes that overreact when stimulated. And then the enzymes that take care of inflammation are underactive. Then you’re gonna be more inflamed. You know, the majority of people that, you know, come for functional medicine Or naturopathic help, or… Inflammation that they can’t seem to get under control. Dr. Deb Muth 00:14:06 Right. Bob Miller 00:14:07 And we will be, you know, during this hour, we’re going to look at some of the pathways that make that happen. So, what we can do then, we can’t change our genetics. When you’re conceived, that’s the hand you’re dealt. When your life would be over, if someone would take some tissue and measure, it’d be exactly the same as conception. Does it change. Bob Miller 00:14:28 The enzyme’s ability to do its job may be compromised. Because remember I said there’s a, the enzyme takes a cofactor. So an enzyme takes substance A, cofactor, make substance B. Well, if that cofactor’s not there, the enzyme’s not going to work either. So, you could have an 8-cylinder car, and if there’s no gas in it, it’s not going anywhere. So… It’s the strength of the enzyme, it’s the cofactor to do the A to B conversion. And that’s what we’re going to get into. So, many people say, well, where did these SNPs come from? Nobody knows for sure. Sometimes they’re what’s just called de novo, when the sperm and egg go together, the instructions get mixed up a little bit. We do believe a lot of it came from a long time ago, when we were almost wiped out by sexually transmitted diseases. And those STDs were altering the genes when the conception, in other words, when the sperm went into the egg, the STDs were interfering. And causing the problem, so… I often joke, if you want to blame somebody. Blame your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents for, being a bit promiscuous, so… Dr. Deb Muth 00:15:31 Yeah, for being… having a little too much fun, right? Bob Miller 00:15:35 So, we don’t know for sure, but, you know, there are some that, But most of the SNPs that we get inherit from our parents. So, if you look at a child. And you look at the SNPs. 99.9% of the time, it came from one of the parents. Dr. Deb Muth 00:15:50 In identical twins, do they have the exact same identical makeup? Bob Miller 00:15:54 Yep, Dr. Deb Muth 00:15:56 But not in fraternal twins, correct? Bob Miller 00:15:59 No, no, those could be different, Jeff. Dr. Deb Muth 00:16:00 It could be different because they have different sacs, they’re not sharing that same genetic makeup. Bob Miller 00:16:04 Yeah, so keep in mind, both your mother and your father have, you know, the two And so you get one from one parent, one from another. Dr. Deb Muth 00:16:13 So… Bob Miller 00:16:14 Interesting situation. I had, 3, 3 boys. And, we were looking at an enzyme related to breaking down oxalates. Now, the mother and father each had one SNP, and that’s called heterozygous. Three boys, and they all come together, they’re Amish boys, they’re a lot of fun. And I looked at their genomes, and the one boy didn’t have any SNPs at all. And one had won. And the other one had two. Dr. Deb Muth 00:16:41 Interesting. Bob Miller 00:16:42 So, we don’t quite know how these things get handed off, but with the parents each having one, you could have a child with none, one, or two. So, the one, his ability to break down oxalates, which is fine. The other one was slightly impaired, and the other one was dramatically impaired. So, you can have 3 children, and it all depends what the parents have. Now, if a parent has a homozygous, or 2 copies. And the other parent has nothing. Every child will have one. Okay. If both parents are homozygous, that they both have two, Every child will have two. Dr. Deb Muth 00:17:19 too. Bob Miller 00:17:20 Yes, so that’s the way it works, but, you know, but it’s somewhat rare that both parents are homozygous on an enzyme, but it can happen. Dr. Deb Muth 00:17:27 Do we think that infections today, like Lyme disease or mold exposure, things like that, if the parent, the woman, primarily, I’m thinking, is pregnant, and she actively has these infections. Can those infections affect the genetics, kind of like a past sexual transmission did where we thought back in the day? Bob Miller 00:17:47 Yeah, I… I mean, I’m not that much of a geneticist to answer that for sure, but my thought would be no, that at conception, the pattern’s made. Dr. Deb Muth 00:17:55 Okay. And then that’s… that’s the hand you’re dealt. Bob Miller 00:17:58 Yeah. So, I tell people we have good news and bad news. The good news is we can compensate for the weakness. The bad news is we can compensate for the weakness. Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:09 That is so very true. Bob Miller 00:18:11 Yeah, we can’t, because I often get asked, so we’ll do some things now, and we’ll check my genes again, and they’ll be better. It’s like, nope. Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:18 Oh, – – Bob Miller 00:18:19 You gotta play the hands you’re dealt, so… Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:21 That’s right. Bob Miller 00:18:22 You can test your genetics… if you’re looking at the same enzyme, you can test it every year. It’s not gonna change. It’s like the blueprint. Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:30 It’s good and bad, right? It’s the one test you only have to do once in your lifetime. Bob Miller 00:18:34 No, unless, you know, like, our. Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:36 All the time. Bob Miller 00:18:37 Yeah, now our test looks at, called the Functional Genomic Analysis Test of your genomic Resource. We look at 220,000 steps. Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:46 Wow, that’s a lot. Bob Miller 00:18:47 That’s not all of them. Dr. Deb Muth 00:18:49 Right. Bob Miller 00:18:50 So, maybe in the next year, we’re gonna come out with our third version of the chip. And then, if someone wants to get those new things that weren’t on it, they’d have to repeat. But whatever we measured is gonna stay the same. Dr. Deb Muth 00:19:03 That’s a lot of SNPs to look at. Bob Miller 00:19:05 Keeps us busy. Dr. Deb Muth 00:19:06 But there’s still, but there’s still SNPs that we. Bob Miller 00:19:09 That we’d like to have that we don’t have, so… Bob Miller 00:19:11 We started out with version 1 on our genetic test, then we worked with version 2, and we’re already compiling a list of what version 3 would look like. So if somebody has our version 2, And we’re saying, you know what, it’d be nice if we could see these, well, then you’d repeat, but it won’t change what you already know, so… Dr. Deb Muth 00:19:29 Got it, got it. So, when you started out, and you started looking at the research of Lyme disease and chronic infections, which detox pathways are most important for people who struggle with those conditions? Bob Miller 00:19:43 Okay. You know what might make sense as we do a screen share, and I’ll actually show you the pathway. Does that make sense? Bob Miller 00:19:48 Alright, so… let’s see if I… let me just press the share… Dr. Deb Muth 00:19:52 Yep, you should just be able to press share. Bob Miller 00:19:54 And… number 2. Okay. Are we seeing the screen there? Bob Miller 00:20:01 Okay. Dr. Deb Muth 00:20:02 So, this is a map that we made. Bob Miller 00:20:05 And by the way, this is not… All-inclusive of all the things we look at, but we believe this is a core issue. So, where we’re going to start here, there’s something called the microglia. And the microglia are glial cells. They’re in the brain and the central nervous system. And they’re very interesting little creatures, because most of the time, and this is just a drawing of what they sort of look like. Most of the time, they’re in what’s called the M2 anti-inflammatory mood. What that means, these little guys pick up dirt, debris, Recycle them. Turns on an enzyme called interleukin-10 that’s anti-inflammatory. And just kind of does general housekeeping. And just kind of does general housekeeping. However, when a trigger comes along. However, when a trigger comes along. They… it’s the same glial cell, but it moves over to a very pro-inflammatory enzyme. A pro-inflammatory glial cell. And it triggers these 3 enzymes, Actually, these four. That are pro-inflammatory. Tumor necrosis vector alpha, Interleukin-6. NF Kappa B, Inos. Now, these create inflammation. So you might think, well, why is that good? Well, if you have some foreign invader, virus, bacteria coming in, parasite. If you didn’t have these guys coming to the rescue, you would just die of infection. So, these guys are your friend unless they’re your worst enemy. Because TNFA, and we’ll show you when we actually do a demo account, TNFA can be overactive. So, in other words, it over-responds. Interleukin-6 can be overactive. And if Kappa-B can be overactive. The INOS, and I’ll explain each of these as we go through a demo, can be overactive. Now, what that means is, you’re very good at killing virus and bacteria. But this is where autoimmune disease comes in, and just inflammatory conditions. Now, this is just speculation, but we think what happened is, as you know. Thousands of years ago, we didn’t have refrigeration, we didn’t have sewer, we didn’t have pure water, and we didn’t have antibiotics. So, if you made it to 40, you were an old-timer, because everybody was dying of infection. So, what we believe happened is, by what’s called natural selection, Having these overactive. A thousand years ago was to your advantage. Dr. Deb Muth 00:22:31 Hmm. Bob Miller 00:22:32 But now… We have pure water, we have refrigeration, we have sewers, we have antibiotics. But now we have environmental factors that are stimulating them. Now it’s to our disadvantage. And we’ll talk about that a little bit as it relates to the hemochromatosis genes and maybe the G6PD. Dr. Deb Muth 00:22:48 Yep. Bob Miller 00:22:49 Now, why are we becoming so inflamed? Let’s look at the triggers. Now, one of my, favorite expressions is. I was born all the way back in 1954. Dr. Deb Muth 00:23:01 And it was a different world back then. Bob Miller 00:23:05 These are some of the triggers. And we’ll get into these, but right now, high fructose corn syrup, And the high-fat diet. High fructose corn syrup only came about in 1968. So now we’re being exposed to high fructose corn syrup. Then… we didn’t have these, these viruses like COVID. Dr. Deb Muth 00:23:26 Yeah. Bob Miller 00:23:27 Now, there’s now pretty strong evidence that COVID Was actually, you know, made as a gain of function. It’s debated, and I’m not taking an opinion on it, but there’s some people who believe Lyme disease was also a part of experimentation. Dr. Deb Muth 00:23:40 Go. Bob Miller 00:23:41 Then we have molds, and it appears as though mold is getting stronger. you know, 20 years ago, when I was seeing folks, mold wasn’t on the radar. I would say 7 out of the 10 folks we speak to today have mold problems. Yeah, 20 years ago, we talked more about mold allergy being an issue versus mold toxicity being an issue. Right. So… I know some folks are, you know, speculating what’s happening, but one of the theories out there is that EMF is strengthening mold. I don’t know if you ever heard that theory, and I don’t… Dr. Deb Muth 00:24:13 I have. Bob Miller 00:24:14 I’m not claiming it’s true, but it’s an interesting theory. Then even, you know, your black mold from water-damaged buildings. Then our air pollution is getting worse. We’re getting more toxic metals. Dr. Deb Muth 00:24:26 You know, if we have a… Bob Miller 00:24:27 You know, we’re gonna look back someday and say, what were we thinking, smearing aluminum into our armpits? The, what were we doing putting mercury in our teeth? Then, you know, glyphosate. When I was a kid, there was no glyphosate. So, all of these herbicides and pesticides. Polychlorinated biphenols, And then EMF. So, we love our cell phones, you know, and I think unless you, or in the middle of the desert, or down in a cave, you’re being exposed to EMF somewhere. So, you know, we have our cell phones with us, we have, We have Wi-Fi, the towers are everywhere. And we don’t know long-term, but we may find that this can… this creates some inflammation. And I don’t know if you get any folks, but do you have any folks that have… are they EMF sensitive? Dr. Deb Muth 00:25:16 Oh yeah, we have a whole bunch of them. Bob Miller 00:25:18 Yeah, and then if you have any TBIs, So, plenty of things here. that will stimulate into the microglia, M1. Now, you could say, well. We’re all pretty much exposed to the same thing. Why do some people get hit harder than others? So here’s where we’re gonna start. There’s an enzyme called Nrf2 and RF2. And Nrf2 is the enzyme that senses when there’s inflammation. And turns on hundreds of anti-inflammatory enzymes. We’ll show when we do the demo, you can have genetic weakness on NERF2. And NERF2 inhibits and slows down microglia M1. supports M2. Now, if it’s not complicated enough, there’s an enzyme called KEEP1. And KEEP1 inhibits NRF2. And you can actually have gain of function on keep 1, that makes Keap 1 stronger. So… A lot of the people who land on my doorstep So… A lot of the people who land on my doorstep Both parents gave a mutation on KEEP1, making it overactive. Both parents gave a mutation on KEEP1, making it overactive. Dr. Deb Muth 00:26:31 Hmm. Dr. Deb Muth 00:26:31 Hmm. Bob Miller 00:26:32 Suppressing Nrf2, nerve 2 might be weak. So, nobody’s putting the brakes on, M1. And by the same token, Nerve 2 supports M2. Then there’s a process called mTOR and autophagy. mTOR stands for mammalian tard of rapamycin, the growth of new cells. And then autophagy, taking our dead cells and recycling them. We need a balance between the two of them. If we didn’t have mTOR, the sperm and the egg would never become the baby, the baby would never become the adult, we wouldn’t make new cells. But our cells are constantly, you know, the old cells dying off. Autophagy is where we take that debris from the cell and recycle it, just like a farmer Plows the crop under at the end of the year. The dead plant then becomes the fuel for the spring, your dead cell becomes the fuel for the spring, and that’s autophagy. So we’re gonna look back someday and say, what were we thinking? We give our animals growth hormones so they get fatter faster. Oh my. So, we consume those animals, and inventory runs faster. Now, for anybody who’s, You know, maybe above 40, 45 years old. Think back when you were 12, and what did girls look like? They were primarily flat-chested little girls. Now they look like 16-year-olds. Because environmentally, we’re jacking up mTOR. So, mTOR stimulates microglia M1, suppresses microglia M2. Probably 80% of the folks we visit with. This is the part of the problem. NRF2 is weak. mTOR is strong. Environmental factors come along. And this guy gets carried away. He doesn’t do that burst and move back. Stays here. We’re calling that How environmental factors create a locked-in, pro-inflammatory. and neurotoxic phenotype. In other words, once it starts, it just keeps… Feeding upon itself. Alright, so what happens now when microglia is overactive. it triggers these 3 enzymes, TNFA, N of kappa B, And interleukin-6. Each one of these can have genetics that make them run stronger. Then it stimulates an enzyme called NLRP3, Which makes what are called inflammasomes. Now, guess what inflammasomes can be? Your best friend or your worst enemy? Because they will, if you’ve got, again, a virus or bacteria, or possibly even some bad cells in the body. They will zap them. Well, that’s good. Unless it’s overactive. Unless it’s overactive. And then what it does, through interleukin-1 beta, makes excess glutamate. And then what it does, through interleukin-1 beta, makes excess glutamate. Anxiety, gut inflammation, OCD, ADD, autism. And, you know, glutamate, we’ll talk about that a little bit, but glutamate makes you intelligent, highly motivated go-getter. but can also be excitatory. And then, look what it does. Let’s see, do I have the drawing tool here? Yes, I do. Okay. So, it comes down through here, Makes the glutamate. Comes back up through here. through the ADORA 2A enzyme, Then we’ve got a feedback loop that feeds upon itself. Then, through interleukin-18, we make histamine. and mast cells. And then through histamine receptor site number 1, we come back and spin it. And now you’ve just got this spinning feedback loop. So, the glutamate will make you anxious, the histamine will give you allergies and make you anxious. And you’re allergic to everything, and you’re feeling horrible. Now, it doesn’t end there, Dr. Dad. It then goes on to make something called gast dermins that creates pyroptosis, where it actually starts punching a hole in the cell membrane. And you’re only going to be as healthy as your cells are. Just a little background. You know, we’re made up of trillions of cells, and each one of them has what’s called a lipid bilayer, made from lipids, which comes from fats. And you’re only going to be as healthy as those membranes are. So that’s why we coined an interesting phrase. Cellular CPR. Construct the cell. Protect the cell. And restore the cell membrane. And we believe that’s going to be revolutionary in the functional medicine world. So… It’s not hard to figure out that if you start punching holes in the cell membrane, that’s not a good thing, okay? Bob Miller 00:31:22 Now… There’s an interesting molecule called NAD. Thicotide adenoside dinucleotide. And anybody who’s in the, you know, listening to the health podcasts and things, they’re… They’re, they’re learning about NAD. And I’m going to show you a chart later, all the good things that NAD does, but For the most part, it helps what’s called sirtuins. And sirtuins are quite interesting. If anybody’s looking at longevity. The sirtuins is where they’re looking at.Because sirtuins turn on good things. Turn off bad things. And I’ll show some charts on that later. So for right here, this sirtuin uses NAD, to slow down NF-kappa-B. CERT 2 uses NAD to slow down an ORP3. So, if we’ve got genetic weakness on these, or we don’t have enough NAD, We don’t hold this pathway back. Make sense? Dr. Deb Muth 00:32:24 Yeah, makes perfect sense. Bob Miller 00:32:25 Now, I’ll show this a little bit later. So, people are like, oh, well, I’m gonna start taking some NAD. Dr. Deb Muth 00:32:31 Right. Bob Miller 00:32:32 And there’s functional doctors who give NAD intravenous. It was just this morning, I was talking to a woman who said, Oh my gosh. I went and got intravenous NAD, and it took me a month to recover from that. Dr. Deb Muth 00:32:45 Hmm. Bob Miller 00:32:46 what happens is, and I’ll show this in a little more detail, there’s an enzyme called CD38, that’s stimulated by NF-kappa-B. And it takes NAD, To make intracellular calcium. that stimulates NLRP3 and actually makes things worse. So, if we have this guy upregulated, and I’ll show a chart what does that. taking NAD will make you worse. Again, when I go into the software, I’ll show you that whole pathway, so… I would encourage people, you know, just don’t go out and start taking massive amounts of NAD, you know, stick your toe in the water, see how you do. Because everything you’ve heard about, how good it is, is true, unless this guy says, oh, thank you very much, let me make more inflammation. Now, this might be part of our innate immune system, that if we have some pathogen that’s gonna kill us. By golly, we want that to happen. But if this is happening by environmental factors, Then it’s detrimental. So the immune system that protected us a thousand years ago now might be turning on us because of the environmental factors that we showed earlier. All right. Then there’s an enzyme called PARP that’s NAD-dependent, and that actually repairs strain breaks in your DNA. Now, the next thing that happens… is there’s an enzyme called NADPH oxidase that gets stimulated. and something called INOS. Now, I’m sure most people know about nitric oxide. It’s a gas that dilates your blood vessels. That’s why sometimes they’ll even give people drugs, nitroglycerin, to boost their nitric oxide. That’s why people are doing beetroots and other things to boost their nitric oxide. But there’s an OS3 enzyme that makes the nitric oxide that’s good for blood flow. But there’s an INOS That makes nitric oxide to kill pathogens. probably might be the third or fourth time I’ve said this. That’s a good thing, unless it isn’t. So, if it’s killing some pathogen, great. It was just misfiring. it combines… With superoxide that’s made by this enzyme, and makes something called peroxynitrite, which is one nasty free radical that chews you up and spits you out. So, the NOx enzyme, NADPH oxidase, uses NADPH, To make this free radical called superoxide. If we have time, we’ll get into it. NADPH is what your body needs to recycle your antioxidants.So, I coined the phrase, the NADPH steel. Where the NOX enzyme takes this very important NADPH, And rather than being useful, makes superoxide. Now, again, is that fine if you’ve got some bacteria to kill? Of course. But if it’s just chronically running, it’s just making all this chronic inflammation. Then it makes something called hydrogen peroxide. And we need to clear hydrogen peroxide by 3 enzymes, catalase, thyroid reduction. And glutathione peroxidase. If we have genetic issues on here, or we don’t have the cofactors. There’s something called the Fenton reaction, discovered in 1895 by Dr. Fenton. Where hydrogen peroxide combines with iron to make what are called hydroxyl radicals. And guess what they do? They create lipid peroxides, That damages your cell membranes. Now, again, the body’s pretty darn amazing. We have glutathione, And here’s where your body’s taking glutathione and recycling it. But look who’s needed to recycle it. NADPH. So, if this guy up here is chewing it up, We don’t recycle our glutathione. And then an enzyme called glufon peroxidase 4, Takes this damaged lipid and repairs it. So, here we’ve got this protecting, we want to protect it by not having this happen. But then we also need this guy to do the restoration. So, there’s a lot that can go wrong in here, Dr. Deb. Dr. Deb Muth 00:37:07 There’s a lot that could go wrong. And I can imagine some of my listeners are thinking that lipid peroxidase, is that the same thing as what they’re thinking of when we talk about lipids and cholesterol? Is that the same process that’s happening there? Bob Miller 00:37:22 Well, no, no, the lipids can be used to make cholesterol, but here we’re talking about where they’re going to build the cell membrane. And they’re being… and they’re being, destroyed. If anybody would like to see a visual representation of this, just go on YouTube. And type in, ferrooptosis Animation. cool little video, it’s about 3 minutes long, and it shows the lipids coming over, being oxidized, and now GPX4 fixes them, so… YouTube, Pharaoptosis Animation, cute little video. It’s just that really… Shows vividly what we’re… what we’re talking about here. Now, this is… Dr. Deb Muth 00:37:59 And so this is very common, too. Like, a lot of people do hydrogen peroxide IVs. Dr. Deb Muth 00:38:04 And so, if somebody doesn’t know their genetics, they could have a problem with doing those, just like they could doing the NADHIVs, correct? Bob Miller 00:38:13 Sure, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, I’ve talked to so many, you know, of course, the hydrogen peroxide kills pathogens. I mean, that’s what it does. So… but I’ve spoken to so many people that said. I had one client that said they’ve never been the same after having one hydrogen peroxide infusion. Dr. Deb Muth 00:38:30 Interesting. Bob Miller 00:38:31 Yeah. So… it can be… I see why people use it, because it. Bob Miller 00:38:36 pathogens, But on the other hand. And now’s a good time to speak about… I don’t have it on here, but there’s a, there’s an enzyme called the HFE gene. And that is what causes you to absorb iron. And there’s mutations in it that cause something called hemochromatosis. Were you overabsorb iron? Now, true hemochromatosis is when both parents give you a mutation. But there’s now growing evidence even a heterozygous can cause a little bit more iron absorption, not to the human chromatosis point, but overabsorption. So, if you overabsorb iron, And you have too much hydrogen peroxide that’s not cleared, All kinds of inflammation. Now, what’s happened is sometimes this inflammation Will damage the red blood cells. And some well-meaning doctor says, oh, you need some iron. And they take iron and it makes it worse. So, can’t tell you how many people I’ve said, you’ve got the overabsorption of iron, and they say, well, that can’t be right, because I’m low in iron. Well, that could be because it’s being chewed up here. Dr. Deb Muth 00:39:40 Sure. GPX1 and TXN turn it into, to water. The, catalase turns it into water and oxygen. Dr. Deb Muth 00:39:58 Now, I see a lot of my clients who have mutations or SNPs on that GPX gene, on that glutathione gene. And they really struggle to clear a lot of their toxins. Bob Miller 00:40:12 Sure. Dr. Deb Muth 00:40:14 Yeah, absolutely. Well, GPX4. Bob Miller 00:40:18 is what, repairs, but you can see GPX1 Is what uses glutathione. To turn hydrogen peroxide. So, but it all depends upon having enough glutathione. Dr. Deb Muth 00:40:30 Yeah. Bob Miller 00:40:31 Well, guess who controls making a glutathione? Dr. Deb Muth 00:40:34 Nerf 2. Bob Miller 00:40:37 So, if you have a keep one weakness, or strength to two… I’m sorry, keep one is too strong. Nrf2 is too weak. You don’t make glutathione. So, when a lot of people do that, it’s like, well, I’m gonna take glutathione. Dr. Deb Muth 00:40:51 Right. Bob Miller 00:40:52 And some do great, and some do poorly. You know, because… and I’ll show this on one of the other charts. You can see here that the, The glutathione has to be recycled. And if we don’t recycle it, it actually turns into superoxide free radical. So… NADPH are the cofactors, For taking the oxidi… here’s oxidized glutathione, here’s reduced. So, this is a good glutathione. After it does its job, you can see it becomes oxidized.We need to recycle it. Well, if we have weakness on the enzyme that does that, or a weakness in Nrf2, or not enough NADPH. The oxidized glutathione never gets recycled. So, I’ve talked to a lot of people who said, oh, glutathione made me so sick, and say, well. Dr. Deb Muth 00:41:43 Yeah. Bob Miller 00:41:44 You need it, but you need to recycle it. Dr. Deb Muth 00:41:46 Can you speak for just a brief moment, too, about MTHFR? That is a very popular gene, it’s all over social media as the major gene, but can you speak to a little bit about that, and how that fits into this whole process of things? Because it is just such a small piece. Dr. Deb Muth 00:42:04 understanding genetics. Bob Miller 00:42:06 Yeah, to be honest, it drives me nuts. Dr. Deb Muth 00:42:08 Me too. Bob Miller 00:42:11 Alright, so… You know, there are people on social media I won’t say what I think, I’ll be kind. But… But the, And, you know, they might mean well. But they talk about, if you have MTHFR and COMT and PEMT, that’s… oh my goodness, that’s horrible, and we’ll fix that for you, and you’ll be fine. Bob Miller 00:42:36 it just irritates me to no end. And it really could get anybody who’s doing this legitimately in trouble. I mean, I’m afraid someday, you know, there might be some cracking down on this kind of nonsense. Now, to answer your question about MTHFR. Dr. Deb Muth 00:42:51 I mean, it really is, but I’ll tell you what, why don’t we hold that thought until I go to another map and I can actually… Okay. Bob Miller 00:42:56 But the real… the cliff notes is the MTHFR puts a methyl group on your folate, which is needed, but it has gotten way, way, way too much attention. And people learn they have MTHFR, and they start taking a multivitamin with methylfolate, then they take a B vitamin with methylfolate. Dr. Deb Muth 00:43:13 And they’re pushing it too hard. Bob Miller 00:43:15 Yeah. So I can’t tell you how many people I’ve helped by saying, stop it. Dr. Deb Muth 00:43:20 Yeah, take less of it. Bob Miller 00:43:21 Take less of it, yeah. So, yeah. Yeah, there’s a… If somebody, say, ranked the enzymes at their level of importance, MTHFR might be 40 or 50 on a scale of 100, you know. Keep one Nerf two. big deals. Dr. Deb Muth 00:43:40 deals. Bob Miller 00:43:41 NQO1 that I didn’t even talk about yet, NQO1, takes your, NA… your NAD goes into NADH, To make electrons for the electron transport chain. you need NQ01 to bring that back. If that’s not working, and I’ll show you on the NAD map how disastrous that can be. Now, the next piece is here, and I think You know, if you talk to any school teachers and say, if you’ve taught for more than 10 years, how are the kids today? Every one of them says, more ADD, ADHD, more autism. Just look at human beings, we’ve never been so agitated. You know, everybody, and it might be a social media thing, but people take a position on something, and if anybody doesn’t share that position, they view them as the enemy. Dr. Deb Muth 00:44:29 And it’s kind of scary what’s happening to us. Bob Miller 00:44:33 So, we can’t agree to disagree anymore. We see anybody who has a differing opinion as the enemy. And, you know, there was… there’s people that didn’t have Christmas dinners together, because they had political differences, like… Dr. Deb Muth 00:44:44 Excuse me. Bob Miller 00:44:45 can’t you put your political differences aside to have Christmas together, you know? Dr. Deb Muth 00:44:49 Right? Bob Miller 00:44:50 become that, you know, no matter what your position is, and I’m not saying anyone’s right or wrong, I’m just saying. You know, in the old days, they used to say that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress would argue policy and then go have dinner together. And now everybody’s all up in arms, angry. Dr. Deb Muth 00:45:05 Yeah. Bob Miller 00:45:06 So… There’s likely multiple reasons for that. But let me show you one of them. That, you know, to what degree this is… very important, we don’t know, but I think We’re beginning to believe this is very important. So, there’s something… there’s a neurotransmitter called GABA. And God buys the don’t worry, relax, be happy. Chill. Okay. Dr. Deb Muth 00:45:31 Nobody has enough of that anymore. Bob Miller 00:45:33 Well, yeah, you’ll be surprised what I’m gonna show you. So, let me see if I can find a, Let me see if I can find the right slide here. Let me look for it here. So, there’s something called a GABA receptor site. And here you can see… This is a neuron, and this is where you, The neuron normally is excitatory. However, there’s normally low chloride in the neuron. Dr. Deb Muth 00:46:09 Hmm. Bob Miller 00:46:10 So, GABA itself is neither relaxing. For excitatory, all GABA does, it opens up what’s called a chloride channel. And then chloride, which has a negative charge, will flow into the neuron. Follow me there? Dr. Deb Muth 00:46:26 Yep. Bob Miller 00:46:27 And as it does, it changes this from a positive charge to a negative charge, And it’s relaxing. and inhibitory. Dr. Deb Muth 00:46:34 Hmm. Bob Miller 00:46:36 Now, on the other hand, there’s enzymes called NKCC1, That will push chloride in. and KCC2 that will bring chlor… oops and bring chloride out. And then there’s a sodium channel. And, sodium has a positive charge. And glutamate will push that in. So, as long as this is happening. And GABA says, receptor sites, open, chloride goes in, Chill. However, If NKCC1 Pushes extra chloride in. KCC2 doesn’t pull it out. and GABA hits the receptor site, the GABA comes flowing out, Sodium comes in, And now it’s excitatory. So Gabba didn’t change. GABA just opened the receptor site, that’s all it does. Dr. Deb Muth 00:47:33 Yeah. Bob Miller 00:47:34 But it’s the chloride balance that’s going to determine whether this is relaxing or not. Now, these are the things that go along with when they lose that KCC2 or gain NKCC1. Pain and sensitivity, burning electrical, neuropathic pain. Normal touch hurts. Sound and light sensitivity. Tinnitus can flare. Headaches and migraines. Seizure tendency. Body jolts. Spasticity, cramps, stiffness, startle reflex. Trouble falling asleep, non-restorative sleep. Anxiety, stress, reactivity, that’s what we have now. Hyperarousal, panic-like surges, irritability, racing thoughts. Brain fog, slowed processing, working memory slip-ups. Mental fatigue. Episodes of racing hearts, sweaty palms, guts on edge. Those are all the things that happen when this GABA switch occurs. Now, here’s what happens, and this is what I’m going to be presenting at an autism conference. When you have a newborn, they need that NKCC dominant to develop. By early childhood, it should… or, sorry, early adulthood. we should move over to the KCC dominant, that’s the taking the chloride out. Nice-looking 25-year-old boys, functioning very well. However, when we get microglia M1 upregulated. Because of environmental toxins, processed foods, Tylenol, aluminum. they stay in NKCC1 dominant, and there’s ADD, ADHD, Autism, the whole spectrum. because… They’ve not moved over to the… They’ve not moved over to the KCC2. And again, this is caused by… Environmental factors. Stimulating the microglia. And then, interleukin-1, interleukin-18 weakens KCC2, interleukin-1 beta, Strengthens NKCC1. high chloride. We open up the chloride channel, In Rebell Excitatory. So, I think when, When the pediatricians get ahold of this, they’re going to be very excited to know that This could be why we’re seeing such a rise, and not just autism, but ADD, ADHD, anxiety, the whole shit mess. Dr. Deb Muth 00:49:58 thing. Bob Miller 00:49:59 Yeah, so… and you can see NF-kappa-B stimulates that. These stimulate it, and I think that’s why everyone’s getting so anxious. Now, there’s a little bit more to it, and we’ll get into this when we look at some of the maps, but… The, the glutamate, Which is excitatory. will stimulate the NMDA receptor, make more glutamate, And glutamate will inhibit KCC2. And then we also need an astrocyte To, take both ammonia And glutamate, and… Turn them back into glutamine. And I’m going to talk to you a little bit about arachidenic acid, and if we have too much arachidenic acid. or TNFA is upregulated, that doesn’t happen. Ammonia goes up, and there may be multiple reasons for this, but this is a reason why some of the autistic kids do flapping. Dr. Deb Muth 00:50:49 Hmm. Bob Miller 00:50:50 Because they’re not clearing their ammonia. And you can tell if somebody has high ammonia by… they get that old person smell, you know. Dr. Deb Muth 00:51:00 Yup. Bob Miller 00:51:01 your vehicle cycle’s not taking out the, the ammonia. Now, last pathway here. There’s growing interest in mast cell activation. So, back here, we talked about peroxynitride. And that will stimulate mast cells, and those are white blood cells that are your best friend, unless they’re your worst enemy. Then it’ll make histamine. And there’s enzymes called histidine decarboxylase that’ll make more. Dr. Deb Muth 00:51:28 I’m sure everybody’s heard of DAO, the enzyme that degrades histamine. Yep. Bob Miller 00:51:31 We can have genetic weakness, we don’t make that. There’s an enzyme called histamine and methyltransferase, That, That breaks down the histamine. Then if we don’t do that, it’ll get stuck in the histamine receptor site. And then it’ll make something called, renin. Which will cause angiotensinogen to turn into angiotensin. One, that turns into angiotensin II,And that’s where people make aldosterone, where they’ll get the, The swollen ankles and high blood pressure. But interestingly, there’s an enzyme called ACE2, that takes this guy and turns it into angiotensin 1-7, Which is anti-inflammatory and also inhibits… TNFA. Now, you can have weakness on ACE2, But… and anybody’s saying, that sounds familiar? Dr. Deb Muth 00:52:25 That’s where COVID comes in, using ACE2. Bob Miller 00:52:28 And now we just found there’s literature that if you get COVID long enough, it can actually make ACE2 not be able to work as well. So look what it does. It comes down here, stimulates the NADPH oxidase, More superoxide. More peroxynitrite. And we’re on a cycle here. We’ve actually named this the Home Cycle Hypothesis, the proposed feed-forward loop. That just keeps feeding on itself. All being caused by… Primarily, The environmental factors. But hitting those who have genetic weakness the hardest. That’s why. Dr. Deb Muth 00:53:08 To the people. Bob Miller 00:53:09 Don’t live in a moldy house. One person is sick as can be, and the other person says, well, you must be imagining things, because I don’t feel anything. Dr. Deb Muth Yeah. Same thing with long haul, right? Two people can both get sick, one gets sick and never seems to recover, and somebody else gets sick, and they have absolutely no problems with it at all. Bob Miller 00:53:30 Sure. Well, think about it, if you get COVID, and ACE2 is weak, and some of this other stuff is going on. This thing just starts feeding upon itself. Dr. Deb Muth 00:53:38 Keep creating more inflammation, more complications, nothing’s calming down. Bob Miller 00:53:43 Yeah. Now, you, you ask about, MTHFR. So, this is the, this is the, the software called Functional Genomic Analysis. There’s a demo report we have. So, let’s talk a little bit about, MTHFR. So, we actually have a map called a methylation map. Now, what happens is, when you do your saliva test, you, you know, you spit, you put some saliva. in a collection kit, goes to a lab, takes out the DNA data, sends it to the computer, and now you can actually see it visually. Okay. So, it’s gonna take a second for this, data to load up, it’s, and each of these Circles, each of these ovals, is an enzyme. And the data gets loaded up to see where it is. So, until it gets loaded up here, I didn’t preload this. There it goes. So… The primary thing about methylation is There’s a nasty substance called homocysteine that, if it’s too high, can really be detrimental. The body takes methylfolate, and combines with methyl B12, To bring this back up to methionine. And then through the MAT genes, we make SAMI, S-adml methionine. Which is involved in so many processes. Then after it does its thing, it turns back into homocysteine. And this thing needs to keep spinning around. That’s why, you know, it’s a good idea to keep homocysteine at, do you have a number that you’d like? 7, 8? What do you like for a number? Dr. Deb Muth 00:55:24 Yeah, I like mine below 7. Bob Miller 00:55:26 Yeah. So if the homocysteine goes too high. It, caused all kinds of problems. So, here’s where you ask about the MTHFR. So, here you can see on this individual. I click on MTHFR, and you can see it comes up here, here’s the C677. And you can see here where it says, variants. I’ll… I’ll draw in case somebody’s having a hard time seeing that. So, you can see there’s nothing in there. That means there’s no genetic mutations. If one parent would have given a mutation, there’d be a 1. If both parents did, there’d be a 2. Now, here’s why Yes, methylation is important, I’m not saying it isn’t important, but look at this MTHFRC677. In my software. Only 42.5% of the population does not have a mutation. 44.7% have won. 12.9 have 2. So, this isn’t some rare, oh my god, I’m gonna die… Kind of thing, yeah. Dr. Deb Muth 00:56:27 Right. Bob Miller 00:56:28 So, And then what happens is that, and again, I’m not dismissing methylation, I… we could do a whole show on methylation. Bob Miller 00:56:36 get it. But I think that what people are doing is they’re, they’re learning about MTHFR, they get it measured, they panic. They start taking massive amounts of methylfolate, which many times is to their detriment. Dr. Deb Muth 00:56:50 Well, it’s… and isn’t it true, too, with MTHFR, like, you have to also look at MTR, MTRR, and the more we stack up of those, the more complicated than MTHFR can be. It’s not… it’s not as simple as just saying MTHFR 677 versus 1298. It’s more complex than that, kind of like what you’ve already shown with some of the other things. There’s more to it than just that one little sliver. Bob Miller 00:57:17 Oh, sure, well, let’s take a look. So, remember I said there’s a cofactor? One of the cofactors is called FAD. Just a Bob Miller observation, that’s all. But when people have trouble with their riboflavin and they don’t have enough FAD, They’re doing much worse than people who have just a C677. So, right here, you could have perfect C677th. And if you don’t have the cofactor, it’s not gonna work, okay? Dr. Deb Muth 00:57:48 And as you said, there’s an MTR enzyme. Bob Miller 00:57:51 that takes methylfolate and methyl B12, to spin it around. So, here on this individual. here’s your… here’s your B vitamins, or I’m sorry, your B12s. There’s an enzyme called TCN1 that takes it from the stomach into the blood. Then there’s other enzymes that take it from the blood into the tissue. And if you’re having trouble here. Well, then you’re not going to have this working, so… Even if you don’t have MTHFR, And you have MTR, like this, no, I’m sorry, this person doesn’t. But they have the MTRR, and then they don’t have enough B12, this isn’t gonna work, aside from that. And then there’s a middle pathway. And then there’s enzymes called the MAT1. they take the methionine to the salmon. If that’s not working, we stick… we get stuck in methionine. So, it’s, it’s not just an MTHFR. And then, one of the things that people forget about. is through these CBS enzymes and CTH, We make cysteine, which is needed to make glutathione. The master antioxidant. So, it really is that… I call it the, The 3D chess game played underwater. Dr. Deb Muth 00:59:07 It really is. I mean, I see people who have CVS, COMT, glutathione, MGHFR genes. And some of them function just fine. Like, they have Like, I look at this person and I’m like, oh my gosh, I don’t know how they’re functioning because they’re double mutated on so many pathways, but yet they don’t have a lot of symptoms, they don’t have a lot of complications. Somehow their body has figured out a way to adapt to what it has so it can stay alive and it can function at a high functioning level. Bob Miller 00:59:36 Yeah, and they may be, you know, eating right? Yeah. Staying out of a moldy house. reducing stress. So, it’s diet, it’s stress, it’s genetics, environmental factors. So, yeah, we can’t just say somebody’s gonna be good or somebody’s gonna be bad. You know, some people get scared, oh, I got all these, it’s like, well… Bob Miller 00:59:56 Are you living in a moldy house? You know, and if you live in a moldy house and your glucuronidation pathway doesn’t do well, or if you’re, you know, a smoker, or you’re constantly eating junk food, I mean, all. Bob Miller 01:00:07 things come together. Although, you know, when we focus on genetics, we’re well aware that this is just a piece of it. You know, you could have identical twins, Genetically, and if one… Is exposed to mold and smokes and drinks and stressed out. They’re gonna be a whole lot sicker than their sibling. Bob Miller 01:00:28 Yep. Dr. Deb Muth 01:00:29 Yeah, it’s that concept of taking twins, and one gets raced with one family, and one gets raced with another family, and they don’t have the same… problems that… that each other have, you know? It’s a very unique situation, we don’t think about that enough. Bob Miller 01:00:44 Alright, so again, genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger. So, if you’ve got a loaded gun, but you don’t have the triggers, you’re okay. Dr. Deb Muth 01:00:53 Yeah. Bob Miller 01:00:54 Yeah. So, remember I said I was going to talk about NAD? So, here’s NAD, and what it does, it turns into NADH. And what NADH does, it, Comes down this pathway, what’s called the electron transport chain. And that makes your ATP, that’s your energy. So, if this wasn’t working, we wouldn’t be alive, because we wouldn’t have energy. So it donates an electron, that’s why it’s called electron transport chain. So, we need NAD, To make this, to make the energy. But remember I said that NQ01, this would probably be, like, on my top 10 list of… Bob Miller 01:01:36 Much more important than MTHFR. This one takes NADH back to NAD. If we’re stuck over here, We’re low in this NAD+, But what happens is, NQO1 also provides CoQ10. And CoQ10 Is what’s needed for the electron transport chain to flow. So if we get too many electrons up here. And they don’t turn them into energy. They make a nasty free radical called superoxide. Okay. Now, NAD plus also makes NADPH, And that is needed. Remember I said we need to recycle our antioxidants. So, if we have a problem with FAD from riboflavin. Yeah, we don’t have enough NADPH, Glutathione’s not getting recycled, and you’re gonna be inflamed. And you take glutathione, you’ll feel worse. There’s another enzyme called thimoredoxin. Same thing, needs NADPH and FAD. And same way with your nitric oxide, there’s an enzyme called NOS3, That makes the nitric oxide that dilates your blood vessels. And if we don’t have enough NADPH or fat, You’re gonna make superoxide. Rather than nitric oxide. Now, remember

Can you really treat prostate cancer effectively without knowing the genetics? In this episode of BackTable Urology, Dr. Evan Yu and Dr. Tanya Dorff join host Dr. Alan Tan to discuss why genetic testing is essential in personalized prostate cancer care. They discuss when and how to perform germline and somatic testing, address common barriers, and share best practices for counseling patients. --- Get the BackTable apphttps://www.backtable.com/app --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from Pfizer. --- Timestamps 00:00 - Introduction02:18 - Who Gets Somatic Testing?06:43 - Patient Barriers to Testing09:00 - Genetic Testing Workflow12:28 - Treating BRCA2 Alterations24:18 - Monitoring Progression: ctDNA vs. PSA vs. Imaging29:32 - Treating mCRPC with ATM Mutations34:39 - CDK12 Classification 37:43 - Closing Takeaways --- More about this episode The doctors explore how BRCA2 and other DNA repair alterations can directly shape treatment decisions, focusing on the roles of PARP inhibitors and platinum therapy in advanced cases. The discussion highlights why both germline and somatic testing are critical for identifying actionable mutations and discuss the nuances of interpreting test results, including current limitations and emerging biomarkers. They also examine challenges such as insurance coverage, patient misconceptions, and workflow integration, as well as the movement toward truly personalized, biology-driven approaches in prostate cancer care. --- Resources Niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone for HRR-deficient metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12705445/ Capivasertib plus abiraterone in PTEN-deficient metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: CAPItello-281 phase III study:https://www.annalsofoncology.org/article/S0923-7534(25)04936-1/fulltext Apalutamide for Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer:https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1903307 ARCHES 5-year Survival with Enzalutamide Plus Androgen-deprivation Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Patientshttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283825048766 First-Line Camizestrant for Emerging ESR1-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer:https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2502929 PROMISE Registry:https://www.prostatecancerpromise.org/ Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with HRR-deficient metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: final overall survival results from the randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trial:https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00683-X/abstract --- BackTable Urology is the go-to podcast for urologists, urologic oncologists, and urogynecologists. Download the free BackTable app to get early access to new episodes, cases, and courses curated by physicians in your specialty. ► https://www.backtable.com/app

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a range of fascinating advancements in the industry, each with significant implications for future patient care and drug development. At the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2026 conference, Akeso's ivonescimab, a pioneering PD-1xVEGF bispecific antibody, demonstrated a 34% reduction in death risk when combined with chemotherapy for first-line lung cancer treatment. This marks a pivotal moment in cancer therapeutics, illustrating how bispecific antibodies can enhance treatment efficacy. The evolving landscape of cancer treatment continues to highlight the importance of these innovative approaches. Johnson & Johnson's Erleada has shown promising results in prostate cancer, achieving positive outcomes in its Phase 3 Proteus study. The trial emphasized the efficacy of Erleada when administered perioperatively to prostate cancer patients, indicating a shift towards more personalized and comprehensive care that incorporates targeted therapies before and after surgery. In another significant breakthrough, Lilly's Retemvo exhibited dramatic results in early-stage lung cancer with RET fusion-positive markers, reducing disease progression or death by 83% as adjuvant therapy. This underscores the critical role of molecularly targeted therapies for patients with specific genetic profiles, offering hope for improved survival outcomes. On the frontlines of infectious diseases, Shionogi's COVID-19 antiviral Xocova has received FDA approval as a post-exposure prophylactic. This milestone highlights the challenging yet dynamic landscape of antiviral drug development, offering a new tool in managing COVID-19 exposures after previous challenges in demonstrating effectiveness as a treatment. MannKind's inhaled insulin, Afrezza, has been approved for pediatric use. This approval could rejuvenate its market presence by providing a more convenient insulin delivery system aimed at improving adherence and glycemic control among younger patients. In oncology news, Pfizer's Talzenna combination therapy received broader FDA approval for castration-sensitive prostate cancer. This positions it as a competitive option against Johnson & Johnson's PARP inhibitor combination therapy. Additionally, AstraZeneca's Imfinzi and Imjudo combination showed promise in early-stage liver cancer by reducing disease progression risks by 30%, broadening immunotherapy applications. The market dynamics are also shifting with significant strategic movements like Eli Lilly's acquisition of Kelonia Therapeutics for $3.2 billion. This decision is driven by promising in vivo CAR-T data demonstrating unprecedented response rates and reflects the increasing importance of innovative CAR-T therapies in oncology. Eli Lilly's Kelonia Therapeutics' cell therapy showcased an impressive 100% response rate in a Phase 1 trial for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. This CAR-T therapy targets the BCMA antigen and could revolutionize treatment paradigms by offering more effective responses. Meanwhile, Pfizer's transformative research on RAS inhibitors holds potential to redefine treatment paradigms in pancreatic cancer—a notoriously difficult-to-treat type due to its complex biology. Revolution Medicines aims to maintain its leadership within this space amidst growing competition. Revolution Medicines also reported compelling results with their KRAS inhibitor, which nearly doubles survival rates for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients harboring KRAS mutations. Given the historically poor prognosis associated with pancreatic cancer, these findings represent a significant advancement in managing this aggressive type. In ovarian cancer research, Gilead's TUB-040 demonstrated a 61% tumor response rate for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in a Phase 1 trial. This highlights the potential of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) to overcome resistance mechanisms and improve outcomes in difficult-to-treat cancers. Regulatory updates include Johnson & Johnson receiving FDA label expansion for Tremfya to inhibit structural joint damage in active psoriatic arthritis patients. This expansion provides broader treatment options for patients suffering from debilitating conditions by reinforcing the role of IL-23 inhibitors in autoimmune disease management. Strategic partnerships are also shaping drug development's future landscape. Notably, Servier's acquisition of Edgewise Therapeutics' muscular dystrophy unit underscores growing focus on rare diseases and neuromuscular disorders. Eli Lilly's agreements with Haisco Pharmaceutical and Hanmi Pharm reflect ongoing R&D investments aimed at expanding therapeutic portfolios across various indications. These developments illustrate a broader trend toward personalized medicine and targeted therapies that enhance treatment efficacy by leveraging specific genetic or molecular characteristics. Despite advancements, challenges remain as exemplified by Oculis' OCS-01 failing Phase 3 trials for diabetic macular edema—highlighting inherent risks in drug development. Overall, these updates underscore significant scientific progress and promise improvements in patient outcomes through novel therapeutic approaches and collaborative efforts within this vibrant industry landscape.Support the show

En este tercer RECAP de la Reunión Anual de la Sociedad Americana de Oncología Clínica, el Dr. Fabián Martínez conversa con el Dr. Salvador Víctor, oncólogo médico titular de la clínica de tumores urológicos del Hospital General de México y médico adscrito al Instituto Nacional de Perinatología. La sesión inicia con el abordaje del cáncer de próstata metastásico sensible a la castración a través del estudio TALAPRO-3, el cual propone la adición de un inhibidor de PARP (talazoparib) al esquema de enzalutamida y terapia de deprivación androgénica (TDA) en pacientes con alteraciones en genes de reparación de la recombinación homóloga (como ATM o CHEK2). Asimismo, en el escenario de la enfermedad localizada de alto riesgo, se evalúan los resultados del estudio PROTEUS. En este punto, se cuestiona el posicionamiento de la neoadyuvancia sistémica con apalutamida más TDA frente a la TDA aislada, considerando que el estándar actual no contempla el tratamiento neoadyuvante y que no existió una comparación directa con la radioterapia definitiva.Posteriormente, la conversación se extiende hacia el ensayo EMERALD-3 en hepatocarcinoma irresecable. Se analiza el rendimiento de combinar inmunoterapia (esquema STRIDE) y lenvatinib con quimioembolización transarterial (TACE) frente a la TACE sola. En el área de tejidos blandos, se evalúa el diseño metodológico del estudio fase III SARC-041 en liposarcoma desdiferenciado; los expertos debaten las implicaciones éticas y prácticas de emplear un brazo de control con placebo frente a abemaciclib, a pesar del impacto significativo que demostró este fármaco en la supervivencia libre de progresión. Finalmente, se revisa el estudio fase IIb TRITON en cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas avanzado sin alteraciones conductoras clásicas, evaluando cómo la intensificación del tratamiento con doble inmunoterapia y quimioterapia podría revertir la resistencia intrínseca en poblaciones con co-mutaciones en KRAS, STK11 y KEAP1, caracterizadas por un pronóstico adverso.Referencia:Este contenido se basa en la interpretación crítica de la evidencia científica disponible, así como en la experiencia clínica del o los ponentes como profesionales de la salud en instituciones de referencia.Para profundizar en los conceptos discutidos, se recomienda al profesional de la salud consultar literatura científica vigente, guías clínicas internacionales y la normatividad aplicable en su país.

How CD38, PARP, and Leaky Gut Are Destroying Your NAD Levels | Dr. Andrew Salzman Your NAD is being drained by two hidden enzymes, your gut may be the starting point of every aging process in your body, and creatine does something to your mitochondria that has nothing to do with muscle. This episode rewrites what you thought you knew about longevity, anti-aging biology, and how your body actually produces and delivers energy at the cellular level. -Watch this episode on YouTube for the full video experience: https://www.youtube.com/@DaveAspreyBPR -Explore all of Wonderfeel's products at: getwonderfeel.com/dave They are gifting a complimentary 7-day Youngr™ supply (mini pouch) with every order across any of their products. The code will be DAVE, and the campaign will be active through June 6th. Host Dave Asprey sits down with Dr. Andrew Salzman, a physician, inventor, and biomedical entrepreneur with more than 30 years of experience in drug discovery and development. An alumnus of Harvard Medical School, Yale University, and Columbia University, Dr. Salzman has authored more than 170 scientific publications and holds 50 patents. He invented the original clinical-stage PARP-1 inhibitor, leading to the world's first clinical treatment for raising NAD levels and fighting cancers caused by the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Genentech licensed his breakthrough technology for $600 million. His research into gastrointestinal microbiota, autoimmune disease, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial ATP production now forms the foundation of how millions of patients get treated worldwide. Dr. Salzman names the two biggest NAD drains in your body, CD38 and PARP, and explains why taking NMN or NR alone is like filling a bathtub with the drain wide open. He breaks down the formulation science behind pairing NAD precursors with CD38 blockers like hydroxytyrosol alongside PARP-reducing antioxidants like ergothioneine, and delivers a paradigm-shifting explanation of creatine as an energy distribution network inside your cells. Rather than a simple muscle supplement, creatine acts as a high-speed ATP shuttle that carries energy from your mitochondria to the precise location and moment your brain, gut, and heart need it most. You'll Learn: Why NAD declines with age and which two enzymes are primarily responsible for draining it How CD38 rises with inflammation rather than NAD levels, and what that means for your supplement strategy Why creatine is one of the most underrated anti-aging and brain optimization supplements available How creatine functions as a spatial and temporal energy delivery network for your brain, gut, and heart Why the gut may be the origin point of the entire aging process and how that cascade unfolds decade by decade How leaky gut drives systemic inflammation, crashes NAD, and accelerates biological aging throughout the body What controls tight junction integrity and how ATP, butyrate, creatine, and fasting all play a role Why most creatine supplements fail to absorb properly and what to look for in a high-quality source How to rebuild your microbiome in three to four weeks through diet alone, without antibiotics Why walking immediately after a meal may be doing more harm than good to your gut lining Thank you to our sponsors! - Screenfit | Get your at-home eye training program for 40% off using code DAVE at https://www.screenfit.com/dave. - KILLSwitch | If you're ready for the best sleep of your life, order now at https://www.switchsupplements.com/and use code DAVE for 20% off - Pique | Go to Piquelife.com/dave for 20% off. - iRestore | Reverse hair loss at www.irestore.com/DAVE and get exclusive savings on the iRestore Elite, use code DAVE Dave Asprey is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, founder of Bulletproof Coffee, and the father of biohacking. With over 1,000 interviews and 1 million monthly listeners, The Human Upgrade brings you the knowledge to take control of your biology, extend your longevity, and optimize every system in your body and mind. Each episode delivers cutting-edge insights inhealth, performance, neuroscience, supplements, nutrition, biohacking, emotional intelligence, and conscious living. New episodes are released every Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday (BONUS). Dave asks the questions no one else will and gives you real tools to become stronger, smarter, and more resilient. Keywords: Dr. Andrew Salzman, NAD depletion, CD38 inhibition, PARP inhibition, NMN supplements, creatine ATP shuttle, leaky gut aging, tight junction integrity, inflammaging, lipopolysaccharide gut, flagellin toxin, butyrate gut healing, ergothioneine, hydroxytyrosol, peroxynitrite, superoxide mitochondria, creatine energy distribution, gut origin of aging, NAD bathtub analogy, BRCA PARP inhibitor, Wonderfeel, creatine monohydrate, intestinal permeability, microbiome butyrate, selective digestive decontamination, TMAO nitric oxide Resources: • Explore all of Wonderfeel's products at: getwonderfeel.com/dave • Order Youngr™: getwonderfeel.com/dave• Order ChocoCreatin™: getwonderfeel.com/dave• Get My 2026 Clean Nicotine Roadmap | Enroll for free at https://daveasprey.com/2026-clean-nicotine-roadmap/ • Dave Asprey's Latest News | Go to https://daveasprey.com/ to join Inside Track today. • Danger Coffee: https://dangercoffee.com/discount/dave15 • My Daily Supplements: SuppGrade Labs (15% Off) • Favorite Blue Light Blocking Glasses: TrueDark (15% Off) • Dave Asprey's BEYOND Conference: https://beyondconference.com • Dave Asprey's New Book – Heavily Meditated: https://daveasprey.com/heavily-meditated • Join My Substack (Live Access To Podcast Recordings): https://substack.daveasprey.com/ • Upgrade Labs: https://upgradelabs.com Timestamps: 00:00 – Trailer 01:12 – Introduction & BRCA Background 02:19 – DNA Damage & PARP 04:38 – Free Radicals & Oxidative Stress 11:37 – NAD & Antioxidant Defense 12:34 – CD38 & NAD Depletion 23:31 – The Gut-Aging Hypothesis 30:05 – ATP, Creatine & Energy Distribution 36:41 – Creatine as Energy Shuttle 51:09 – Microbiome & Gut Repair 59:21 – TMAO & Nitric Oxide Interference 1:03:52 – Flagellin & Gut Inflammation Research 1:09:45 – FDA & Pharmaceutical Incentives 1:16:05 – Closing See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

AUA2026 Spotlight: PARP-Inhibitor Combination Treatments for the Urologic Care Team CME Available: https://cme.auanet.org/URL/PARP26ONL LEARNING OBJECTIVES: At the conclusion of this CME activity, participants will be able to: 1. Integrate biomarker and genetic testing principles into clinical workflows for patients with metastatic prostate cancer, including when to order testing, how to interpret HRR mutation results (inclusive of BRCA and non-BRCA), and how to address barriers to testing through multidisciplinary coordination. 2. Explain the mechanism of action of PARP inhibitors and the biological and clinical rationale for their use—both as monotherapy and in combination approaches—in the treatment of mPC. 3. Evaluate emerging efficacy and safety data on PARPi combinations, including patient subgroup analyses, sequencing strategies, and the role of combination therapy in different stages of mPC. 4. Apply best practices for side effect monitoring and mitigation in patients receiving PARP inhibitors alone or in combination, leveraging the multidisciplinary team for optimal therapy management and patient quality of life. 5. Implement guideline-concordant care strategies in practice, including genetic testing workflow implementation, coordination among care team members, and patient engagement in shared decision-making and clinical trial enrollment. 5. Utilize current evidence-based guidelines to select and sequence PARP inhibitor therapy for patients with mPC, optimizing oncologic outcomes while individualizing care based on molecular profile and patient-specific factors. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Support provided by independent educational grants from: Astrazeneca Merck & Co., Inc Pfizer, Inc.

Keeping patients on PARP inhibitors long enough to see real benefit often comes down to proactive side effect management. In this episode of BackTable Urology, Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Arun Azad join host Dr. Alan Tan to discuss practical, evidence-based strategies for managing hematologic and GI toxicities in advanced prostate cancer patients receiving PARP inhibitors. --- Get the BackTable apphttps://www.backtable.com/app --- This podcast is supported by an educational grant from Pfizer. --- Timestamps 00:00 - Introduction06:17 - Managing Anemia11:12 - Side Effect Profiles19:33 - Transfusions vs ESAs26:43 - Docetaxel vs PARP Inhibitors30:27 - Side Effect Management Pearls40:18 - Team Based Monitoring52:27 - Tissue Versus Liquid01:01:24 - Genetic Counseling Workflow01:07:07 - Trial Equity and Access --- More about this episode The doctors discuss the importance of close anemia monitoring during the critical first 3 to 4 months of therapy, maintaining dose intensity, proactive antiemetic use, and the role of exercise and resistance training in combating fatigue. The conversation also covers differences in toxicity profiles between PARP agents, the value of multidisciplinary care teams, molecular advances in molecular and germline testing, and the evolving landscape of emerging therapies in prostate care. --- Resources Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: final overall survival results from the randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 TALAPRO-2 trialhttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)00684-1/abstract BRCAAway: A randomized phase 2 trial of abiraterone, olaparib, or abiraterone + olaparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) bearing homologous recombination-repair mutations (HRRm).https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2024.42.4_suppl.19 --- BackTable Urology is the go-to podcast for urologists, urologic oncologists, and urogynecologists. Download the free BackTable app to get early access to new episodes, cases, and courses curated by physicians in your specialty. ► https://www.backtable.com/app

Dr. Stella Vnook, Co-Founder and Executive Chair of Kaida Biopharma, highlights the advantages for an early-stage biotech company to take a patient-centric perspective in drug development. She defines patient-centricity as focusing on whether a drug meaningfully improves a patient's life, which should influence decisions about trial design, endpoints, and side effects from the earliest stages. Kaida's work on a new treatment for ovarian cancer is designed to target tumor survival mechanisms and overcome treatment resistance, and has from the beginning taken into consideration the tolerability of treatments and the patient's quality of life. Stella explains, "We're so used to thinking drug-centric, and it's true that in the early stages of development, it's all about the molecule and the mechanism of action, and it's exciting to see how it works. But we really need to be thinking patient-centric because we will make decisions differently from the start. So it's not just about whether this drug works and how, but whether it meaningfully changes a patient's life. I think that's what patient-centric is or should be, because that would impact trial design, endpoints, and how we view tolerability or combination therapy."   "For ovarian cancer, women today may receive a variety of treatments. Now, let's talk about this for a second. It's the cancer that's usually diagnosed very late. That means the patient's tumor has already gone into the lymph nodes, and it's what we call a stage three PO4. The patients after surgery receive a variety of drugs such as platinum therapies or PARP, but they still may relapse, and they may become resistant to the therapy. Now, that initial therapy has probably had significant toxicity. Because they've become resistant to the therapy they received, now they have limited options. So fortunately, there are drugs that potentially could be eligible for FRA positive. There's been a lot of news about ELAHERE, which is great, but it's only 25% of the population, and many patients may never qualify for this treatment. So that's where Kaida comes in, because we're focusing on 80% of the population."  "Actually, the name Kaida is a dragon that eats its own tail. So that talks about the mechanism of action we've discussed: resistance. What we do is when the treatment has been given, it supports cell survival and actually eliminates the tumor's ability to replicate, which is called proliferation, causing it to destroy itself, which is called apoptosis. So in essence, the tumor disrupts itself because we're cutting off its support system." #Kaida #OvarianCancer #PatientCentric #OncologyInnovation #ProlactinReceptor #DrugDevelopment #AIinHealthcare #RealWorldEvidence #TolerabilityMatters #KaidaBiopharma #CancerCare Kaida-biopharma.com Download the transcript here

Dr. Stella Vnook, Co-Founder and Executive Chair of Kaida Biopharma, highlights the advantages for an early-stage biotech company to take a patient-centric perspective in drug development. She defines patient-centricity as focusing on whether a drug meaningfully improves a patient's life, which should influence decisions about trial design, endpoints, and side effects from the earliest stages. Kaida's work on a new treatment for ovarian cancer is designed to target tumor survival mechanisms and overcome treatment resistance, and has from the beginning taken into consideration the tolerability of treatments and the patient's quality of life. Stella explains, "We're so used to thinking drug-centric, and it's true that in the early stages of development, it's all about the molecule and the mechanism of action, and it's exciting to see how it works. But we really need to be thinking patient-centric because we will make decisions differently from the start. So it's not just about whether this drug works and how, but whether it meaningfully changes a patient's life. I think that's what patient-centric is or should be, because that would impact trial design, endpoints, and how we view tolerability or combination therapy."   "For ovarian cancer, women today may receive a variety of treatments. Now, let's talk about this for a second. It's the cancer that's usually diagnosed very late. That means the patient's tumor has already gone into the lymph nodes, and it's what we call a stage three PO4. The patients after surgery receive a variety of drugs such as platinum therapies or PARP, but they still may relapse, and they may become resistant to the therapy. Now, that initial therapy has probably had significant toxicity. Because they've become resistant to the therapy they received, now they have limited options. So fortunately, there are drugs that potentially could be eligible for FRA positive. There's been a lot of news about ELAHERE, which is great, but it's only 25% of the population, and many patients may never qualify for this treatment. So that's where Kaida comes in, because we're focusing on 80% of the population."  "Actually, the name Kaida is a dragon that eats its own tail. So that talks about the mechanism of action we've discussed: resistance. What we do is when the treatment has been given, it supports cell survival and actually eliminates the tumor's ability to replicate, which is called proliferation, causing it to destroy itself, which is called apoptosis. So in essence, the tumor disrupts itself because we're cutting off its support system." #Kaida #OvarianCancer #PatientCentric #OncologyInnovation #ProlactinReceptor #DrugDevelopment #AIinHealthcare #RealWorldEvidence #TolerabilityMatters #KaidaBiopharma #CancerCare Kaida-biopharma.com Listen to the podcast here

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Wassim Abida, including the following topics: Clinical implications of homologous recombination repair gene alterations and biological rationale for the use of PARP inhibitors (0:00) Key clinical studies leading to FDA approvals of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy (5:01) Biological rationale for combining PARP inhibitors with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and key findings from the Phase III PROpel study (11:03) Key findings from the Phase III MAGNITUDE and TALAPRO-2 studies (15:10) Summary of efficacy data with PARP inhibitors; toxicities (20:01) Key findings and conclusions from the Phase III AMPLITUDE study; future directions with PARP inhibitors (23:33) CME information and select publications

Featuring an interview with Dr Wassim Abida, including the following topics: Comparing the clinical relevance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in prostate cancer (0:00) Relevance and interpretation of LOH (loss of heterozygosity) scores (4:37) Incidence and clinical relevance of PALB2 mutations; role of genetic counseling in the care of patients with prostate cancer (9:33) Key considerations surrounding toxicities associated with PARP inhibitors (15:25) Potential role of saruparib; evolving nomenclature in prostate cancer (22:36) Approach to newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer (26:16) Clinical relevance of PSMA-targeted PET imaging results (29:49) Case: A man in his mid 70s with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious BRCA alteration receives olaparib/abiraterone/prednisone upon relapse (32:15) Combining PARP inhibitors with other DNA repair inhibitors; insights on the PSMAddition trial (37:14) Case: A man in his mid 60s with metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma and a BRCA germline mutation receives niraparib/abiraterone/prednisone (43:17) Case: A man in his early 60s with mCRPC and CDK12 mutations receives talazoparib/enzalutamide (45:54) CME information and select publications

Updates in US Food and Drug Administration approvals for poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: A society of gynecologic oncology clinical practice reviewModerator:Ursula A. Matulonis, MD; Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteSpeakers:Bhavana Pothuri, MD; Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone HealthRóisín E. O'Cearbhaill, MD; Gynecologic Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical CollegeYvette Drew, MBBS, PhD; BC Cancer Centre Vancouver and University of British ColumbiaChristina Washington, MD; Stephenson Cancer Center, University of OklahomaUrsula A. Matulonis, MD, is joined by Bhavana Pothuri, MD, Róisín O'Cearbhaill, MD, Yvette Drew, MBBS, PhD, and Christina Washington, MD, to discuss recent updates in US Food and Drug Administration approvals for poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in ovarian cancer. Based on the recent Society of Gynecologic Oncology clinical practice review published in Gynecologic Oncology, the speakers review the evolving role of PARP inhibitors and the clinical implications of updated regulatory approvals.The panel explores current evidence supporting PARP inhibitor use in ovarian cancer, including considerations for patient selection, biomarker testing, maintenance therapy, and safety considerations. The speakers also discuss how recent changes in FDA indications may affect clinical decision-making and treatment sequencing in practice.This podcast highlights practical clinical pearls to help guide practitioners in the appropriate integration of PARP inhibitors into the management of ovarian cancer patients.This podcast was developed by the Society of Gynecologic Oncology for Gynecologic Oncology.Check out more content on the journal's homepage  at https://www.gynecologiconcology-online.net

O episódio 40 do EVA CAST, o podcast do Grupo Brasileiro de Tumores Ginecológicos, aborda o câncer de ovário resistente ou refratário à quimioterapia baseada em platina, um dos cenários mais desafiadores da Oncologia ginecológica. Em um contexto de alta incidência e mortalidade no Brasil, o episódio discute por que muitas pacientes ainda são diagnosticadas em estágios avançados e como isso contribui para recorrência frequente e limitação das respostas terapêuticas. Participam da conversa Alexssandra Lima, oncologista clínica do Grupo Oncoclínicas e pesquisadora do INCA; Lygia Soares, oncologista clínica e professora da UFRN; e Maria Eduarda Meyer, oncologista clínica do Centro Especializado em Oncologia de Florianópolis. As especialistas exploram a heterogeneidade do câncer de ovário, os fatores associados à recorrência e os critérios que definem sensibilidade ou resistência à platina, fundamentais para a organização do tratamento. O episódio detalha os mecanismos biológicos de resistência, como alterações no reparo do DNA e evasão da morte celular, além de discutir como esses processos impactam terapias subsequentes, incluindo os inibidores de PARP. Também apresenta avanços recentes, como terapias-alvo, imunoterapia e o uso de biomarcadores — BRCA, HRD, PD-L1, HER2 e receptor de folato alfa — na personalização do tratamento. A discussão inclui ainda os desafios do manejo clínico em múltiplas linhas de tratamento, o equilíbrio entre eficácia e qualidade de vida e as barreiras estruturais no Brasil, como desigualdade de acesso a diagnóstico, cirurgia especializada e terapias inovadoras. Como mensagem final, o episódio destaca que, apesar das limitações, a medicina de precisão abre caminho para melhores desfechos e maior individualização do cuidado.

Cześć, dzień dobry!W dzisiejszym odcinku podcastu BSS bez tajemnic wchodzimy w obszar, który łączy świat akademicki z nowoczesnym biznesem. Moim gościem jest Mariola Biszczuk, Dyrektor do spraw komercjalizacji w Akademii Leona Koźmińskiego.Czy zastanawialiście się, jak uczelnie mogą wesprzeć rozwój Waszych firm? Rozmawiamy o tym, jak skutecznie wprowadzać innowacyjne odkrycia naukowe w realne procesy i rozwiązania biznesowe.Z tego odcinka dowiecie się między innymi:Jak wygląda model współpracy biznesu z uczelniami publicznymi i niepublicznymi.Gdzie szukać dofinansowania na badania i innowacje (NCBR, PARP, Horyzont Europa) oraz jak nie dać się biurokracji.Dlaczego przedstawiciele biznesu powinni częściej uczestniczyć w spotkaniach administracji publicznej i środowisk naukowych.Jak współpraca ze studentami i uczelnianymi kołami naukowymi może przynieść nieszablonowe rozwiązania i oszczędności dla biznesu.Współpraca nauki i biznesu to nie tylko domena wielkich korporacji – to także ogromna szansa dla mikro, małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw na bezpośredni dostęp do najnowszej metodologii badawczej i laboratoriów.Jeśli chcesz nawiązać współpracę, znajdziesz Mariolę Biszczuk na stronie Akademii Leona Koźmińskiego lub pod adresem e-mail: mbiszczuk@kozminski.edu.pl.  Linki:Mariola Biszczuk na Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariolabiszczuk/Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego - https://www.kozminski.edu.pl/plWydarzenie w Katowicach, na którym Mariola dzieliła się wiedzą - https://proprogressio.com/wydarzenia/2026-katowice-71  ****************************  Nazywam się Wiktor Doktór i na co dzień prowadzę Klub Pro Progressio https://proprogressio.com/pl/dzialalnosc/klub-pro-progressio/1 – to społeczność wielu firm prywatnych i organizacji sektora publicznego, którym zależy na rozwoju relacji biznesowych w modelu B2B. W podcaście BSS bez tajemnic poza odcinkami solowymi, zamieszczam rozmowy z ekspertami i specjalistami z różnych dziedzin przedsiębiorczości.Zapraszam do odwiedzin moich kanałów na:YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@wiktordoktor Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/wiktor.doktor LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/wiktordoktor/ Moja strona internetowa - https://wiktordoktor.pl/ Możesz też do mnie napisać. Mój adres email to - kontakt(@)wiktordoktor.pl   ****************************  Patronami Podcastu “BSS bez tajemnic” są: Marzena Sawicka https://www.linkedin.com/in/marzena-sawicka-hillway-training/Przemysław Sławiński https://www.linkedin.com/in/przemys%C5%82aw-s%C5%82awi%C5%84ski-155a4426/ Damian Ruciński - https://www.linkedin.com/in/damian-rucinski/ Szymon Kryczka https://www.linkedin.com/in/szymonkryczka/Grzegorz Ludwin https://www.linkedin.com/in/gludwin/ Adam Furmańczuk https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-agilino/ Igor Tkach - https://www.linkedin.com/in/igortkach/ Damian Wróblewski - https://www.linkedin.com/in/damianwroblewski/ Paweł Łopatka - https://www.linkedin.com/in/pawellopatka/ Ewelina Szindler - https://www.linkedin.com/in/ewelina-szindler-zarz%C4%85dzanie-mark%C4%85-osobist%C4%85-0497a0212/Wiktor Doktór Jr. - https://www.linkedin.com/in/wiktor-dokt%C3%B3r-jr-916297188/Agata Stolarz - https://www.linkedin.com/in/agata-stolarz/Hubert Antczak - https://www.linkedin.com/in/hubert-antczak/  Wspaniali ludzie, dzięki którym pojawiają się kolejne odcinki tego podcastu. Ty też możesz wesprzeć rozwój podcastu na: Patronite - https://patronite.pl/wiktordoktor Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/wiktordoktor Buy me a coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wiktordoktor Buycoffee.to - https://buycoffee.to/wiktordoktor Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/bss-bez-tajemnic--4069078/support.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into a series of transformative events that are shaping the industry and its trajectory.Novo Nordisk's Wegovy HD has successfully navigated the FDA's National Priority Voucher Program, strengthening its foothold in the obesity treatment market. This achievement follows the earlier success of its GLP-1 drug, Wegovy. As obesity rates rise globally, this approval underscores the vital role of innovative weight management therapies. It positions Novo Nordisk to better compete in this increasingly crowded field. In India, the expiration of patents for Novo Nordisk's semaglutide-based drugs paves the way for over 40 companies to introduce affordable generics of Ozempic and Wegovy. This is likely to reshape pricing dynamics and improve accessibility in diabetes and obesity management. Further highlighting the focus on obesity treatments, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals' Imcivree has received FDA approval for acquired hypothalamic obesity. This is significant as it addresses an unmet need for patients with brain-damage-related obesity, showcasing the potential of targeted therapies for complex neurological conditions.In other developments, CSL Behring has raised concerns about potential supply issues for Hemgenix, its gene therapy for hemophilia. As a one-time treatment option, Hemgenix represents a significant breakthrough; thus, ensuring a steady supply is essential to maintain patient trust and therapeutic efficacy.Turning to oncology, Novartis has made a strategic move with a $2 billion acquisition of Synnovation Therapeutics' pan-mutant-selective PI3Kα inhibitor program. This acquisition bolsters Novartis' breast cancer portfolio and provides a competitive edge against rivals like Eli Lilly. Such strategic acquisitions highlight efforts by major pharmaceutical companies to enhance their pipelines amidst intensifying competition.AstraZeneca's commitment to expanding its presence in China is evident with its investment in a cell therapy manufacturing hub and R&D center in Shanghai. This move aligns with their broader $15 billion investment strategy in China, reflecting the growing importance of cell therapies and the strategic role of the Chinese market in global biopharmaceutical innovation. Strategic investments continue transforming industry landscapes, with increased demand for cell therapies within oncology sectors.On another front, Verily is making strides with a $300 million fundraising round aimed at boosting its AI initiatives within precision health. This underscores a broader industry trend towards integrating AI technologies into drug development processes—a transition poised to enhance therapeutic outcomes through data-driven approaches. Additionally, Fauna Bio and Eli Lilly's collaboration using AI for obesity research exemplifies how technology accelerates innovation in complex conditions like obesity.Pfizer is streamlining its R&D focus by discontinuing an early-phase antibody-drug conjugate targeting solid tumors. This decision fits into Pfizer's strategy to allocate resources towards projects with higher clinical and commercial potential. In clinical trials, Pfizer's Talzenna combined with Xtandi shows promise for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer—demonstrating the potential of PARP inhibitors in enhancing therapeutic efficacy.Regulatory landscapes are also evolving, as seen with China's approval of its first commercial brain-computer interface—a groundbreaking advancement offering new possibilities for treating neurological disorders. Regulatory advancements also make headlines as GSK's Lynavoy receives FDA approval for treating cholestatic pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis patients.In governance-related news, recent confusion surrounding the CDC's vaccine advisory panel highlights Support the show

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. In the rapidly evolving landscape of biotech and pharmaceuticals, recent events have highlighted significant advancements in scientific research, regulatory landscapes, and strategic industry maneuvers. These stories illustrate a sector characterized by innovation, adaptability, and a relentless drive to improve patient care.One of the standout stories is AstraZeneca's bold move into the cell therapy arena, marked by a substantial $15 billion investment in China. The company is constructing a state-of-the-art cell therapy manufacturing hub and research and development center in Shanghai. This initiative underscores AstraZeneca's commitment to advancing cell therapy as a therapeutic modality. Such an investment could potentially revolutionize patient care, particularly in areas where conventional treatments have limited efficacy, offering new hope in regenerative medicine and personalized therapeutic approaches.Meanwhile, Pfizer is making strategic strides with its PARP inhibitor, Talzenna. Following successful Phase 3 trial results in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, Pfizer is advocating for its earlier use. After a previous setback with the FDA regarding broader indications, this development could significantly alter treatment landscapes by targeting earlier stages of the disease. This shift may herald improved patient outcomes and provide fresh hope for those battling this challenging cancer type.In regulatory news, the FDA has granted approval to Lynavoy for treating cholestatic pruritus in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. This marks a significant milestone as it is the first approved therapy for this rare liver disease. It highlights ongoing efforts to address unmet medical needs within niche patient populations and reflects a broader push to expand therapeutic options across rare diseases, reinforcing the importance of tailored therapies.Turning to financial maneuvers within the industry, Collegium Pharmaceutical's acquisition of ADHD drug Azstarys from Corium Therapeutics for $650 million illustrates strategies to bolster product portfolios amid increasing competition and pricing pressures. This acquisition is part of a broader trend where companies seek diversification to maintain their competitive edge in an ever-evolving market landscape.On the economic front, HSBC's recent downgrade of Eli Lilly over concerns about pricing pressures and competition in the obesity market provides insight into the financial challenges pharmaceutical companies face today. Despite Eli Lilly's impressive results with its triple agonist retatrutide, which significantly lowers blood sugar levels and induces weight loss in type 2 diabetes patients, market dynamics continue to exert pressure on pricing strategies across the sector.Eli Lilly's promising phase 3 trial results for retatrutide mark a significant milestone in diabetes care. The experimental triple agonist has shown remarkable efficacy in managing type 2 diabetes by significantly reducing blood sugar levels while inducing substantial weight loss among participants. Such dual-benefit approaches could revolutionize treatment options for these interrelated conditions, offering improved quality of life for millions affected by chronic ailments like diabetes and obesity.Legislative changes are also shaping industry practices. A Maryland bill calling for greater transparency in pharmaceutical disease awareness campaigns highlights growing scrutiny from regulators and policymakers regarding industry practices. This legislative push aims to ensure that campaigns are more informative about brand affiliations, promoting accountability and potentially reshaping how companies communicate with healthcare providers and patients.In manufacturing developments, Axplora's Support the show

En este episodio, Evan Yu analiza los datos más recientes sobre cáncer de próstata presentados en ASCO GU, centrándose en los resultados finales de SG del ensayo PEACE-3, las implicaciones del cruce en las curvas de supervivencia y el papel de la terapia con radioligandos e inhibidores de PARP en el tratamiento del cáncer de próstata. 

In this episode, Evan Yu discusses the latest prostate cancer data presented at ASCO GU, focusing on the final overall survival results of the PEACE 3 trial, the implications of crossing survival curves, and the evolving role of radioligand therapy and PARP inhibitors in prostate cancer treatment.

Rozmawiam z Anną Nadstawską z WARP o tym, czym naprawdę jest Baza Usług Rozwojowych w praktyce. W tym odcinku usłyszysz m.in.:- czym jest BUR i dlaczego to realna oszczędność czasu dla przedsiębiorcy?- kto może korzystać z BUR (osoby fizyczne, JDG, MŚP)?- jak zapisać się na szkoleniewygląda proces krok po kroku – od wyboru szkolenia do refundacji?- czy trzeba zapłacić z góry i jak działa mechanizm refundacji?- od czego zależy poziom dofinansowania (65% / 70%)?- dlaczego nowa działalność musi mieć min. 3 miesiące?- czy szkolenia mogą być online?- czy można korzystać więcej niż raz?- jakie są najczęstsze błędy we wnioskach?- jak firmy szkoleniowe mogą wejść do BUR i uzyskać akredytację PARP?- jak działa wyszukiwarka BUR i dlaczego warto pracować nad słowami kluczowymi?- gdzie szukać rzetelnych informacji i jak wybrać właściwego operatora? To rozmowa konkretna, praktyczna i oparta na realnych doświadczeniach operatora regionalnego.Jeśli prowadzisz firmę w Wielkopolsce, jesteś na JDG, chcesz wysłać pracowników na szkolenia albo planujesz zgłosić własne usługi do BUR, to ten odcinek pomoże Ci uporządkować temat.Jeśli po wysłuchaniu pojawią się kolejne pytania, to pisz. To właśnie Wasze pytania stworzyły ten materiał. #FEW #FunduszeEuropejskie #BUR #Wielkopolska#RozwójFirmy #Przedsiębiorczość #MŚP #JDG #Dofinansowanie

Inflacja w Polsce w styczniu 2026 roku wyniosła 2,2%. Sejm uchwalił ustawę wdrażającą unijny program SAFE, który oferuje Polsce 43,7 mld EUR niskooprocentowanych pożyczek. Akcjonariusz Bumechu oskarża związkowców z Silesii o próbę wrogiego przejęcia kopalni. PARP ruszyła z naborem do Ścieżki SMART z pulą 700 mln zł na prace B+R. Holenderski ForFarmers przejmuje KPS Food za 2,2 mld zł, tworząc grupę ForFarmers Polska. Prezydent podpisał nowelizację KSH, która wydłuża spółkom niepublicznym okres zachowania mocy dowodowej papierowych akcji w związku z dematerializacją. MKiŚ analizuje czy rozszerzyć system kaucyjny także na jednorazowe butelki szklane („małpki”) oraz opakowania wielomateriałowe.Zasubskrybuj prasówkę na ⁠⁠⁠⁠www.businessupdate.pl⁠⁠⁠.⁠Podcast powstał przy pomocy ElevenLabs.

Marcin Chludziński – były prezes KGHM, Gaz-Systemu i PARP, dziś prezes Fundacji Centrum Strategii Rozwojowych – komentował w Radiu Wnet decyzję Parlamentu Europejskiego o celu 90 proc. redukcji emisji CO2 do 2040 roku. Jego zdaniem to kierunek, który uderza w konkurencyjność europejskiej gospodarki, a szczególnie w Polskę, gdzie koszty energii są wysokie.„To rujnuje gospodarkꔄJest to rzecz, która absolutnie rujnuje europejską i polską gospodarkę. (…) Już w tej chwili redukcje emisji CO2 powodują, że w polskim modelu energetycznym energia dla przemysłu jest najdroższa w Europie.”

Broadcast from KSQD, Santa Cruz on 3-05-2026: >ul> Dr. Dawn presents a whimsical "theme park tour" of the upper gastrointestinal tract, from saliva production triggered by sight and smell of food, through the esophageal sphincter's iris-like opening, into the stomach's pH-1 acid bath where parietal cells produce 3,000 mg of hydrochloric acid per meal. She explains protective mechanisms including the bicarbonate layer beneath stomach mucus, H. pylori's role in ulcers, and how H2 blockers and proton pump inhibitors work—cautioning about long-term PPI effects on B12 and calcium absorption. The tour continues through the pylorus into the duodenum where pancreatic enzymes and bile converge, then along the 23-foot small intestine with its tennis-court surface area of villi absorbing nutrients, iron in the duodenum, most nutrients in the jejunum, and B12 requiring intrinsic factor in the ileum. Dr. Dawn explains why pancreatic cancer—projected to become the second leading cause of cancer death by 2030—is so deadly, using a medieval castle metaphor. The tumor microenvironment acts as an impenetrable moat of desmoplastic stroma made of fibroblasts, collagen, and hyaluronic acid that blocks drugs and immune cells. Over 90% of cases have K-RAS mutations acting as growth accelerators that also thicken this protective barrier and increase CD47 "don't eat me" signals. She discusses emerging treatments including K-RAS inhibitors, PARP inhibitors for BRCA mutations, and combination immunotherapies showing 67% response rates, while noting that CAR T-cell therapy and checkpoint inhibitors alone fail because they cannot penetrate the stroma. Dr. Dawn summarizes Duke researcher Herman Ponzer's work using doubly-labeled water to measure total energy expenditure, revealing that humans burn 20-60% more calories than other great apes when adjusted for body mass. His surprising finding: Hadza hunter-gatherers walking 8-14 kilometers daily burn the same calories as sedentary Americans—the body compensates by reducing energy spent on inflammation and stress responses. This "constrained energy expenditure" model explains why exercise alone doesn't cause weight loss, though it remains crucial for preventing weight gain, reducing disease risk, and potentially tamping down harmful stress responses.

This Biotech CEO Is Creating Advanced & Personalized Therapies To Fight Cancer.Full Name: Thomas JensenTitle: Chief Executive Officer, Allarity Therapeutics Ticker: $ALLRWebsite: https://www.allarity.com/Bio:Thomas Jensen is the Chief Executive Officer of Allarity Therapeutics (NASDAQ: ALLR), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company advancing personalized cancer therapies. He was appointed CEO in December 2023 after nearly a decade as Chief Technology Officer, during which he helped pioneer the company's proprietary Drug Response Predictor (DRP®) platform.With over 20 years in the biotech and precision medicine space, Thomas has led Allarity through a focused strategic transformation centered on stenoparib—a first-in-class dual PARP/tankyrase inhibitor currently in Phase 2 trials for advanced ovarian cancer. Under his leadership, Allarity has achieved FDA Fast Track designation, formed key research collaborations, and presented clinical data showing landmark median overall survival of ovarian cancer patients.Company Bio:Allarity Therapeutics (NASDAQ: ALLR) is a clinical-stage biopharma company developing personalized cancer treatments guided by its proprietary DRP® companion diagnostic platform. The company's lead asset, stenoparib, is a novel, orally available dual PARP and WNT pathway inhibitor being evaluated in Phase 2 trials for advanced ovarian cancer. With headquarters in the U.S. and a research facility in Denmark, Allarity is committed to improving patient outcomes through precision oncology. Learn more at www.allarity.com

In this podcast, experts Tiffany A. Traina, MD, FASCO, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, Mark E. Robson, MD, FASCO, and Rebecca Shatsky, MD discuss data for CDK4-6 inhibitors, PARP inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the management of early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer.

Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin joins the podcast to discuss the latest changes to the living guideline on metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). She reviews new treatment options for patients treated with ADT alone, ADT and an ARPI, ADT and docetaxel, and ADT, an ARPI, and docetaxel whose disease has progressed to mCRPC and the evidence that underpins these changes. Dr. Taplin highlights the updated algorithms within the guideline and the living format which will provide rapid, up-to-date, evidence-based information for clinicians and patients. Read the full living guideline update, "Systemic Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.1." at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines TRANSCRIPT This guideline, clinical tools and resources are available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. Read the full text of the guideline and review authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in the Journal of Clinical Oncology,  https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO-25-02693 Brittany Harvey: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Guidelines podcast, one of ASCO's podcasts delivering timely information to keep you up to date on the latest changes, challenges, and advances in oncology. You can find all the shows, including this one, at asco.org/podcasts. My name is Brittany Harvey, and today I am interviewing Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, lead author on "Systemic Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: ASCO Living Guideline, Version 2026.1." Thank you for being here today, Dr. Taplin. Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Thank you, Brittany. It is a pleasure. Brittany Harvey: Before we discuss this guideline, I would like to note that ASCO takes great care in the development of its guidelines and ensuring that the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy is followed for each guideline. The disclosures of potential conflicts of interest for the guideline panel, including Dr. Taplin who has joined us here today, are available online with the publication of the guideline in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, which is linked in the show notes. To dive into the content here and what we are here today to talk about, this living clinical practice guideline for systemic therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is updated on an ongoing basis. Dr. Taplin, what prompted this latest update to the recommendations? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Thank you, Brittany. Several things prompted the latest update. There have been several phase III trials that have been practice-changing that have resulted in the last several years that needed to be added to the guidelines to inform clinicians of comprehensive treatment options. Brittany Harvey: Great, and it is great to have this updated guideline for readers. I would like to review the changes to the recommendations in this latest iteration across the patient populations that are outlined in the guideline. So, starting with: What are the updated recommendations for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy alone whose disease has progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: A nice feature of this guideline is that in addition to the tables, which provide detailed options, is at the end of the guidelines, our readers will find very clear algorithms that describe past treatment scenarios that patients could have had and then outline their treatment options. So it is very clear. Our clinicians will love these algorithms. And one of the changes for the disease state that you mentioned, which is the least treated castration-resistant state of prostate cancer which is previously treated with ADT alone, is that we recommend testing for mutations in the HRR, homologous recombination repair, genes. And the ones that are specifically known and applicable to prostate cancer are the BRCA genes. So there is clear recommendation of testing to remind us, as treating physicians, that now is the time, if it hasn't been done before, to institute both germline and somatic testing. And somatic testing, if it can be done on tissue, is preferable, but if not, the liquid biopsy approaches, the ctDNA approaches, have now advanced to the point that most patients with metastatic prostate cancer will be able to successfully have testing on the liquid biopsies. So that is number one, testing. And then the new treatment options include, if a patient does have an HRR gene alteration, and maybe about 20-25 percent of patients will be in that category, the combinations of an androgen pathway inhibitor and a PARP inhibitor are now treatment options. So for instance, talazoparib and enzalutamide; olaparib and abiraterone; or niraparib and abiraterone are some of the newer treatment options if the patient is HRR-positive. So, Brittany, in regard to patients treated with ADT alone, another new treatment option is the combination of radium-223 with enzalutamide. This is data based on the PEACE-3 trial which did show both an rPFS and OS benefit. For the patient who is HRR-negative and has previously not had an ARPI, just ADT alone, the combination of radium and enzalutamide is a new recommendation added to the algorithm. Brittany Harvey: Great. Thank you for reviewing those options for that patient population. And as you mentioned, I think those algorithms are very helpful as figures in the document. They are clear and can be used as at-a-glance tools for clinicians in their busy clinics. So then the next patient population that the guideline addresses: What is new for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy and an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor whose disease has now progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Right, so there are several new treatment options. So one is lutetium-PSMA-617, the trade name of which is Pluvicto. So that has now been FDA approved to use after progression on an AR pathway inhibitor and prior to the use of docetaxel chemotherapy. Brittany Harvey: Thank you for reviewing that new option for patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy and an ARPI whose disease has progressed. So then moving into the next set of recommendations, what does the panel now recommend for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel whose disease has progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: The next group of patients is those treated with ADT and docetaxel but haven't had an AR pathway inhibitor. Treatment options, again the HRR testing is important. So all patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer should be considered for both germline and somatic testing. I will repeat that. And if they are BRCA mutation positive, then the option of talazoparib and enzalutamide; olaparib and abiraterone; and niraparib and abiraterone.  So the AR pathway inhibitors plus the PARPs. There are three choices, so that can be somewhat complicated to think through, but most practitioners will get familiar with one of those combinations and be their go-to. So those are for BRCA-positive or HRR-positive. The talazoparib/enzalutamide trial also included non-BRCA HRR-positive gene mutations. And if they are HRR-negative, the option that we discussed above of radium and enzalutamide is new to the guideline. Brittany Harvey: Great. And then the last category of patients that is addressed in this update: What has changed for patients previously treated with androgen deprivation therapy, an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, and docetaxel whose disease has now progressed to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Well, in this space, patients who are heavily pretreated with ADT and ARPI, one or even two, and chemotherapy, generally with docetaxel, the recommendations are not new within the last year or two. And they include Pluvicto; a PARP inhibitor if HRR-positive and they have not had one; second-line chemotherapy such as cabazitaxel. And if they are a very rare group and they have been sequenced and they are MSI-high, then considering a PD-1 inhibitor such as pembrolizumab can be considered. I will note that this is a very small percentage of mCRPC patients, probably in the order of 5 percent or less. Brittany Harvey: Understood. And I appreciate you reviewing the recommendations across all of these patient populations. It sounds like some of the key points is that HRR testing is very important for this patient population, and that the algorithms and the tables in the manuscript provide the full list of options that clinicians and patients can refer to. Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Those are the highlights. And I will note in the tables, all the sections have "Special Considerations" sections because patients never fall into the black and white of one category. And those practical information or special situations sections of each of the recommendations can also help clinicians think about the individual patient in front of them and how they might choose one therapy over another since there are generally choices in all of these treatment situations. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. That information for the individualized patient-clinician decision-making is really key when, as you said, there is a list of options to choose from. So in your view, what should clinicians know as they implement this living guideline update, and how do these changes impact patients? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: I am so excited about this living document. ASCO has invested to developing the software to, in real time and iteratively, assess the new data that is published in prostate cancer and other diseases. So now we don't have to wait many years for the next guideline to come out. The guidelines will be updated every six months in prostate cancer based on this automatic search of the literature and a standing panel of both academic and community experts in prostate cancer treatment. So we no longer have to wait. That is what makes this guideline stand out to other guidelines. And in the digestible format that we have made, a clinician can seek out the table and read some details, seek out practical information for the recommendations, or they can just go right to the clear figure algorithm and take a quick snapshot. "Yep, I need to do HR testing. Done. Oh, okay. HR-positive or negative, these are my options," and then think about the individual patient in front of them when there is more than one option. For instance, a patient with cardiovascular history, abiraterone might not be a good choice for them. Or a patient with neuropathy, docetaxel might not be a good choice for them. But, within this guideline, it really will be up to date and focused on the busy clinician and knowing what the options are for their patient. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. This new era of living guidelines is very exciting and can provide even more up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations to really support clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. So in that vein, finally, what is the panel examining, and what are you excited for for new data coming out for future updates to this living guideline? Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: The future updates will depend on the results of phase III clinical trials. You know, there are many phase III trials ongoing in advanced prostate cancer, some of which include targeted therapy, which has been long awaited in prostate cancer. So such compounds as antibody-drug conjugates that are targeting certain proteins in prostate cancer cells, such as STEAP1, KLK2, B7-H3. So I think we are entering a new era in prostate cancer where we will be targeting cells and delivering drugs and applying them to prostate cancer if the trials are positive. So I think with AI and a large investment in prostate cancer clinical drug development, I think the treatment options for our patients will be rapidly evolving in a manner not previously seen. So the guidelines need to follow along with these developments. Brittany Harvey: Definitely. It sounds like an exciting time for research in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. And we will await the result of those phase III trials to inform this guideline and lead to future updates. So I want to thank you so much for your work to rapidly and continuously update these guidelines and for your time today, Dr. Taplin. Dr. Mary-Ellen Taplin: Oh, it was my pleasure. ASCO has been a leader in this area, and as a practicing clinician, we are thankful for the investment and guidance that ASCO gives us. Brittany Harvey: Absolutely. And finally, thank you to all of our listeners for tuning in to the ASCO Guidelines podcast. To read the full guideline, go to www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines. You can also find many of our guidelines and interactive resources in the free ASCO Guidelines App, available in the  Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. If you have enjoyed what you have heard today, please rate and review the podcast, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast, we were joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky, a breast medical oncologist and director of the Inflammatory and Triple Negative Breast Cancer Program at UC San Diego. We dived into the latest findings from the SABCS 2025 conference, focusing on key studies related to triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Join us as we discussed: * The RJBC 1501 study, which explored the role of carboplatin in high-risk early-stage TNBC and its impact on disease-free survival. * Insights from the CITRIN study, which questions the carboplatin paradigm and highlights modern treatment approaches. * The TBCRC-056 and OlympiaN trials, investigating the combination of PARP inhibitors and immunotherapy in patients with germline BRCA and PALB2 mutations. We unpacked the implications of these studies for clinical practice, including the potential benefits and challenges of incorporating carboplatin and novel therapies into treatment regimens. Tune in for an informative discussion that aims to keep you updated on the evolving landscape of breast cancer treatment! Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out our other episodes for more insights from the world of oncology! #SABCS2025 #TNBC #PARPinhibitors #BRCAmutation #ChemoFree #OncologyBrothers #BreastCancer #SABCS25

Host: Pavani Chalasani, MD, MPH Guest: Timothy Yap, MBBS, PhD, FRCP Early findings from the PETRA study suggest that combining saruparib with camizestrant may offer added clinical benefit in ER+/HER2– advanced breast cancer, particularly in patients with BRCA or PALB2 mutations. Tune in to hear from Dr. Pavani Chalasani and Dr. Timothy Yap as they discuss this encouraging new data on tolerability and antitumor activity. Dr. Yap is the Ransom Horne, Jr. Endowed Professor for Cancer Research, Vice President and Head of Clinical Development in the Therapeutic Discovery Division, and a professor in the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He recently presented this research at the 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Olaf Falafel: The Seriously Silly Art of Being Stupid

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

In today's episode, filmed live at the 43rd Annual Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium, lung cancer expert Benjamin P. Levy, MD, hosted a cross-specialty discussion with genitourinary (GU) cancer expert Scott T. Tagawa, MD, MS, FACP, FASCO, about the rapidly evolving treatment paradigms for prostate and kidney cancer. Dr Levy is the clinical director of medical oncology at the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Sibley Memorial Hospital and an associate professor of oncology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr Tagawa is a professor of medicine and urology at Weill Cornell Medicine, as well as an attending physician at NewYork-Presbyterian – Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York, New York. Their conversation began with a focus on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive prostate cancer. Dr Tagawa explained that PSMA is a cell surface protein, and that PSMA imaging agents are commonly used to assess biochemical recurrence and perform initial disease staging. He noted that therapy-related adverse effects are often site-specific, including dry mouth/change in taste, and myelosuppression from the radiation payload. For monitoring long-term safety, Dr Tagawa emphasized that renal function must be tracked. Beyond PSMA, other prostate cancer targets include TROP-2, B7-H3, and markers specific to aggressive or neuroendocrine variants, such as DLL3, he reported. In advanced GU cancers, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing is increasingly important, Dr Tagawa highlighted. In prostate cancer, ctDNA testing is used to assess homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status and BRCA expression, he said, explaining that evidence for the use of ctDNA testing in GU cancers stems from findings with this type of assay to evaluate minimal residual disease levels in urothelial cancer. He noted that studies show that if patients with urothelial cancer become ctDNA positive within the first year of receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, they benefit from treatment with atezolizumab (Tecentriq). Similarly, he stated that patients with previously untreated HRD-positive metastatic prostate cancer also see a progression-free survival benefit when a PARP inhibitor is added to an androgen deprivation therapy/androgen receptor pathway inhibitor backbone. Shifting the conversation to the management of frontline advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the experts reviewed standard approaches, which involve an immune-oncology (IO) agent plus either a CTLA-4 inhibitor or a VEGF TKI. Tagawa noted that IO/VEGF TKI combinations may be preferred for symptomatic patients needing a rapid response, whereas IO/IO combinations may offer greater potential for treatment cessation. He brought up a key distinction in RCC, which is that re-instituting PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition upon progression in the metastatic setting has generally shown no benefit. Dr Levy brought a broad scope to the GU cancer discussion through his lung cancer expertise, introducing parallels between the treatment paradigms. The interview provided an opportunity to show the importance of creating connections across oncology specialties to bring nuanced perspectives to future advances in clinical research and patient care.

Osteosarcoma Webinar Series: Janeala Morsby, PhD, a postdoctoral associate at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, discusses her OutSmarting Osteosarcoma funded work focused on exploring the mechanism of synergy of the dual inhibition of ATM and PARP for the treatment of pediatric osteosarcoma.Janeala Morsby hails from the beautiful island of Jamaica, where she was born and raised in Port Antonio, Portland. Her journey to the United States began when she received a full honors scholarship to attend Claflin University, where she completed her Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry, summa cum laude. She then went on to complete her PhD at the University of Notre Dame under the supervision of Dr. Bradley Smith. At the University of Notre Dame, her work focused on the detection of hypoxia in cancer cell models, in addition to diagnostics and imaging. She is now a postdoctoral associate at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (SJCRH) in Dr. Lillian Guenther's lab. At SJCRH, her work focuses on exploring the mechanism of synergy of the dual inhibition of ATM and PARP for the treatment of pediatric osteosarcoma. She is very passionate about the proposed research project and hopes that the findings of the proposed work will be beneficial to pediatric osteosarcoma patients.

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, we are joined by Dr. Sharyn Lewin, the Director of Gynecology Oncology at Holy Name Medical Center, to explore the evolving treatment landscape of ovarian cancer. Join us as we discuss: • The importance of surgical staging and debulking surgery in ovarian cancer treatment. • The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the significance of germline testing. • Current systemic treatment paradigms, including the use of PARP inhibitors and Bevacizumab. • Insights into the management of refractory disease and the latest options available for patients. • The impact of biomarker testing and the importance of understanding HRD status. Dr. Lewin shared her expertise on the latest clinical data, treatment strategies, and the implications of testing for patients and their families. Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated on our upcoming episodes, including our next discussion on endometrial cancer! #OvarianCancer #PARPinhibitors #GermlineTesting #GynOnc #OncologyBrothers #MaintenanceTherapy #PersonalizedMedicine

Two Onc Docs, hosted by Samantha A. Armstrong, MD, and Karine Tawagi, MD, is a podcast dedicated to providing current and future oncologists and hematologists with the knowledge they need to ace their boards and deliver quality patient care. Dr Armstrong is a hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at Indiana University Health in Indianapolis. Dr Tawagi is a hematologist/oncologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago. In this episode, OncLive On Air® partnered with Two Onc Docs to feature a comprehensive review of the current management of metastatic breast cancer, emphasizing evidence-based treatment strategies across molecular subtypes, toxicity management, and patient-centered care. Drs Armstrong and Tawagi discussed that the primary goals of metastatic breast cancer therapy include prolonging survival, controlling symptoms, minimizing toxicity, improving quality of life, and incorporating patients' goals and preferences into care decisions. Their discussion also highlighted the importance of recognizing when transitioning to best supportive care is most appropriate. For estrogen receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer, they noted that first-line therapy includes an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant (Faslodex) combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, with ovarian function suppression for premenopausal patients. PARP inhibitors are recommended for patients with BRCA1/2-positive disease. In visceral crisis, chemotherapy remains the category 1 recommendation. Second-line treatment options include therapies guided by repeat molecular testing. fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) is approved for patients with HER2-low disease. For HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, first-line treatment consists of a taxane plus pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by T-DXd in the second-line setting. For triple-negative metastatic breast cancer, therapy depends on PD-L1 status. The episode concluded by underscoring the role of bone-protective agents such as zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or denosumab (with dental clearance to prevent osteonecrosis). Key takeaways emphasize tailoring therapy to molecular subtype, recognizing drug-specific toxicities, and prioritizing patient-centered decision-making in the management of metastatic breast cancer.

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

Osteosarcoma Webinar Series: Yanding Zhao, PhD to discuss how Distinct patterns of chromosomal instability fuel osteosarcoma progression and influence patient outcomes.Osteosarcoma (OS) is notable for extreme chromosomal instability (CIN) and molecular heterogeneity, which have hindered therapeutic progress. To address this, the lab performed longitudinal and multi-modal profiling of 91 tumors from 71 pediatric patients, integrating whole-genome and transcriptome sequencing with ATAC-seq and Hi-C in matched cell lines. Their analyses revealed that key driver mutations, including TP53, are fixed early and persist through progression. Over 80% of tumors exhibited complex structural alterations—such as chromothripsis, kataegis, loss of heterozygosity, and ecDNA amplification—with MYC enhancer hijacking linked to chemoresistance. They identified a high-risk evolutionary trajectory marked by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-like signatures in the absence of BRCA mutations. These tumors showed focal duplications at fragile sites, early whole-genome doubling, high TP53 mutation burden, and sensitivity to PARP inhibition—highlighting a potential therapeutic vulnerability. Together, these findings define a replication stress–driven model of OS evolution, shaped by early chromosomal remodeling and ecDNA-mediated oncogene activation, with implications for biomarker development and precision treatment strategies.Dr. Yanding Zhao is a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University in the lab of Dr. Christina Curtis. He earned his PhD in Genetics from Dartmouth College, where he began developing computational tools to understand how genome instability disrupts gene regulation in cancer. At Stanford, his research focuses on pediatric osteosarcoma. By combining genome sequencing, 3D chromatin mapping, and spatial transcriptomics, he studies how tumors evolve, resist treatment, and evade the immune system. Dr. Zhao works closely with clinicians and scientists to help turn these discoveries into potential new therapies. He is honored to be part of the MIB Agents community and looks forward to sharing his work in a way that resonates with patients, families, and advocates.

In this week's episode we'll learn about persistent changes in immune profiles in patients who have had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or DLBCL, and other cancers; that plasminogen activation and plasmin activity do not appear to play a role in routine physiological prevention of venous thromboembolism, or VTE; and about a novel mechanism that makes hematological malignancies carrying epigenetic mutations susceptible to PARP inhibitors.Featured Articles:Large B-cell lymphoma imprints a dysfunctional immune phenotype that persists years after treatmentPlasminogen activation and plasmin activity are not required to prevent venous thrombosis/thromboembolismTransposable elements as novel therapeutic targets for PARPi-induced synthetic lethality in PcG-mutated blood cancer

Love the episode? Send us a text!In this special episode of Breast Cancer Conversations, host Laura Carfang speaks with Dr. Troso  about the evolving role of DNA testing in breast cancer care. Together, they break down the three main types of testing:Hereditary genetic testing: Identifying inherited mutations such as BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 (among others) that increase cancer risk and influence prevention and treatment decisions.Somatic (tumor) testing: Analyzing mutations within the tumor itself—such as PIK3CA or ESR1 mutations—to guide targeted therapies and manage resistance in advanced disease.Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing: Also known as a liquid biopsy, this emerging tool uses blood tests to detect cancer DNA fragments. It holds promise for monitoring recurrence, guiding treatment earlier, and advancing clinical trials.Tune into this Special! 

Featuring an interview with Dr Shannon N Westin, including the following topics: Biomarker testing and utility in ovarian cancer (OC) (0:00) Selection of a PARP inhibitor for the treatment of OC (9:18) Addition of immunotherapy to up-front treatment of OC (15:50) Utility of minimal residual disease and circulating tumor DNA assays in OC (17:10) Selection of treatment for recurrent OC (21:46) Clinical decision-making involved with PARP inhibitors for endometrial cancer (EC) (28:22) Adjuvant therapy for EC (32:28) Utility of lenvatinib/pembrolizumab in EC (35:08) Clinical findings supporting the potential use of selinexor for EC (39:42) Key findings involving trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for HER2-positive gynecologic cancers (43:22) Management of adverse effects associated with T-DXd (49:49) CME information and select publications

JCO PO author Dr. Alison M. Schram at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center shares insights into her JCO PO article, “Retrospective Analysis of BRCA-Altered Uterine Sarcoma Treated With Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors.” Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Schram discuss relevant genomic and clinical features of patients with BRCA-altered uterine sarcoma and the efficacy of PARPis in this population. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and associate professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today, we are excited to be joined by Dr. Alison Schram, Associate Attending Physician and Section Head of Oral Therapeutics with Early Drug Development and Gynecologic Medical Oncology Services at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the senior author of the JCO Precision Oncology article titled, "Retrospective Analysis of BRCA-Altered Uterine Sarcoma Treated With Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Dr. Schram, thank you for joining us today. I am excited to be discussing this very interesting, unique topic based on what you published in JCO PO. Dr. Alison Schram: Thank you for having me. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: What we like to do for these podcasts is try to make them scientifically interesting but at the same time, keep them at a level where our trainees and other community oncology professionals understand the implications of what you've published. So I'd like to start by asking you, what is leiomyosarcoma for those of us who don't necessarily know a lot about leiomyosarcoma, and what are some of the treatment options for these uterine sarcomas? Dr. Alison Schram: Uterine leiomyosarcoma is a rare subtype of uterine cancer, and it represents about 1% of all female cancers in the reproductive tract. This is a rare malignancy that arises from the myometrial lining of the uterus, and it is generally pretty aggressive. In terms of the standard therapy, the standard therapy for uterine leiomyosarcoma includes chemotherapy, generally combination chemotherapy, but despite a few regimens that tend to be effective, the duration of effectiveness is relatively short-lived, and patients with advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma eventually progress and require additional therapy. I will say that localized uterine leiomyosarcoma can be treated with surgery as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that description. Now, there are two aspects to what you published. One is the sarcoma aspect, the leiomyosarcoma, and the second is the BRCA mutation. Since we are a precision medicine journal, although we've discussed BRCA a couple of times before, but again, for the sake of our listeners, could you highlight some of the aspects of BRCA and PARP sensitivity for us? Dr. Alison Schram: Yes. So BRCA is a gene that's important for DNA repair, and BRCA mutations can be either inherited as a germline mutation, so one of your parents likely had a BRCA mutation and you inherited one copy. In patients who have an inherited BRCA mutation, the normal cells tend to have one abnormal copy of BRCA, but if a second copy in the cell becomes altered, then that develops into cancer. And so these patients are at increased risk of developing cancers. Specifically, they are at an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, and a few others. These cancers are considered BRCA-associated tumors. Alternatively, some patients, more rarely, can develop BRCA-altered cancers completely sporadically. So it's a mutation that happens in the tumor itself, and that can lead to impaired DNA repair and promote cancer progression. And those patients are not, they don't have any inherited risk, but just a random event caused a BRCA mutation in the tumor. The reason this is important is because, in addition to it being potentially important for family members, there are certain treatments that are more effective in BRCA-altered cancers. And the main example is PARP inhibitors, which are small molecule inhibitors that inhibit the PARP enzyme, and there is what we call synthetic lethality. So PARP is important for DNA repair, for single-stranded DNA repair, BRCA is important for double-stranded DNA repair, and in a patient that has a cancer that has a BRCA mutation, that cancer becomes more reliant on single-stranded DNA repair. And if you inhibit it with a PARP inhibitor, the cancer cells are unable to repair DNA, and the cells die. So we call that synthetic lethality. PARP inhibitors are FDA approved in several diseases, predominantly the BRCA-associated diseases I mentioned: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That was very beautifully explained. Honestly, I've heard many people explain BRCA before, but you kind of put it in a very simple, easy to understand format. You mentioned this earlier describing germline or hereditary BRCA and somatic BRCA. And from what I gather, you had a predominant population of somatic BRCA, but a couple of germline BRCA as well in your patient population, which we'll go into details as we understand the study. You mentioned the second hit on the germline BRCA that is required for the other copy of the gene to be altered. In your clinical experience, have you seen outside of the study that you published, a difference in the sensitivity of PARP for germline BRCA versus a somatic BRCA that has loss of both alleles? Dr. Alison Schram: So we will get into what's unique about uterine sarcomas in just a minute. In uterine sarcomas, what we have found is that the BRCA mutations tend to be somatic and not germline, as you mentioned. That is in contrast to the other diseases we mentioned, where the vast majority of these tumors are in patients that have germline BRCA alterations. So one thing that's really unique about the uterine sarcoma population and our paper, I believe, is that it is demonstrating an indication for PARP inhibitors in a population that is not characterized by germline BRCA alterations, but truly these by somatic BRCA alterations. If you look at the diseases that PARP inhibitors are validated to be effective in, including the, you know, the ones I mentioned, the BRCA-associated tumors, there's some data in specific context that suggests that perhaps germline alterations are more sensitive to PARP inhibitors, but that's not universal, and it's really tricky to do because the genetic testing that we have doesn't always tell you if you have two hits or just one hit. So you need more complex genetic analysis to truly understand if there is what we call a biallelic loss. And sometimes it's not a second mutation in BRCA. Sometimes it's silencing of the gene by hypermethylation or epigenetics. Some of our clinical trials are now incorporating this data collection to really understand if biallelic loss that we can identify on more complex genetic testing predicts for better outcomes. And we think it's probably true that the patients that have biallelic loss, whether it be germline or somatic biallelic loss, are more likely to benefit from these treatments. That still needs to be tested in a larger cohort of patients prospectively. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: In your clinical experience, I know you predominantly use MSK-IMPACT, but maybe you've perhaps used some other NGS platforms, next-generation sequencing platforms. Have you noticed that these reports for BRCA alterations the report mentioning biallelic loss in certain cases? I personally don't- I do lung cancer, I do early-phase lung cancer as well, but I personally don't actually remember if I've seen a report that actually says biallelic loss. So after this podcast, I'm going to check some of those NGS reports and make sure I look at it. But have you seen it, or what would be a learning point for the listeners there? Dr. Alison Schram: Exactly. And they usually do not. They usually do not explicitly say, “This looks like biallelic loss,” on the reports. The exception would be if there's a deep deletion, then that implies both copies of the gene have been deleted, and so then you can assume that it's a biallelic loss. But oftentimes, when you see a frameshift alteration or a mutation, you don't know whether or not it's a biallelic loss. And you may be able to get some clues based on the variant allele frequencies, but due to things like whole genome duplication or more complex tumor genomics, it's not clear from these reports, and you really do need a more in-depth bioinformatic analysis to understand whether these are biallelic or not. So that is why I suggest that this really needs to be done in the context of a clinical trial, but there is definitely a theoretical rationale for reporting and treating patients with biallelic losses perhaps more so than someone who has a variant of unknown significance that seems to be monoallelic. The other tricky part, as I mentioned, is the fact that there could be epigenetic changes that silence the second copy, so that wouldn't be necessarily evident on a DNA report, and you would need more complex molecular testing to understand that as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. Now, going to your study, could you tell us what prompted the study, what was the patient population that you collected, and how did you go about this research study design? Dr. Alison Schram: It's actually a great story. I was the principal investigator for a clinical trial enrolling patients regardless of their tumor type to a combination of a PARP inhibitor and immunotherapy. And this was a large clinical trial that was being done as a basket study, as I mentioned, for patients that have either germline or somatic alterations with advanced solid tumors that had progressed on standard therapy. And the hypothesis was that the combination of a PARP inhibitor and immunotherapy would be synergistic and that there would be increased efficacy compared to either agent alone and that patients who had BRCA alterations were a sensitive population to test because of their inherent sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and perhaps their increased neoantigen burden from having loss of DNA repair. So this large study, it's been published, really did show that there was efficacy across several tumor types, but it didn't seem to clearly demonstrate synergy between the immunotherapy and the PARP inhibitor as compared to what you might expect from a PARP inhibitor alone, and in addition to a couple of cases, perhaps attributable to the immunotherapy. So maybe additive rather than synergistic efficacy. However, what really struck me looking at the data was that there were three patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma with BRCA deletions who had the best responses of anyone on the study. So incredible, durable responses. One of my patients with a complete response that continues to not have any evidence of cancer eight years after the initiation of this regimen. And for those of us that treat uterine leiomyosarcoma, this is unheard of. These patients generally, as I mentioned, respond, if they do respond to chemotherapy, it's generally short-lived and the cancer progresses. And so a complete response nearly a decade later turns heads in this field. The other interesting thing was that these uterine leiomyosarcoma patients had somatic alterations rather than a germline alteration with a second hit, and the diseases that are best validated for being responsive to PARP inhibitors include the BRCA-associated diseases, the ones that you're at increased risk for if you have a germline BRCA mutation, including breast, pancreas, prostate, and ovarian. And so it was very interesting that this disease type that seemed to be uniquely sensitive to PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy was also different in that patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma don't tend to have a high frequency of BRCA alterations, and in patients that are born with a BRCA alteration, there doesn't seem to be a clearly increased risk of uterine sarcomas. So this population really jumped out as a uniquely sensitive population that differed from the prior indications for PARP inhibitors. Given this patient and these couple of patients that we observed on the combination, in addition to some other case reports and case series that had started to come out in small numbers, we wanted to look back at our large cohort of patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering to see if we could really get a better sense of the numbers. How many patients at Sloan Kettering with uterine sarcomas have BRCA alterations? Are they generally somatic or germline? Are there unique features about these patients in terms of their clinical characteristics? How many of them have received PARP inhibitors, and if so, is this just luck that these three patients did so well, or is this really a good treatment option for patients with BRCA-altered uterine sarcomas? And so we did this retrospective analysis identifying the patients at Sloan Kettering who met these criteria. So in total, we found 35 patients with uterine sarcomas harboring BRCA alterations, and the majority were leiomyosarcoma, about 86% of them had leiomyosarcoma, which is interesting because there are other uterine sarcomas, but it does seem like BRCA alterations tend to be more often in the leiomyosarcomas. And 13 of these patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma were treated with PARP inhibitors in the recurrent or metastatic setting with about half of those patients having an overall response, so that's a significant tumor shrinkage that sustained, and a clinical benefit rate of 62%. And if we look at the patients that had these BRCA2 deep deletions, which was the patient I had that had this amazing response, the overall response rate jumped to 60% and the clinical benefit rate to 80%. And we defined clinical benefit rate as having maintained on the PARP inhibitor without evidence of progression at six months. So this is really impressive for patients with a difficult to treat disease. And we couldn't do a randomized controlled trial comparing it to chemotherapy, but looking retrospectively at outcomes on chemotherapy studies, this was very favorable, particularly because many of these patients were heavily pretreated. So to get a sense of, you know, how this might compare to chemotherapy, we tried to use patients as their own internal controls, and we looked at how long patients were maintained on the PARP inhibitor as compared to how long they were on the treatment just prior. And we used a ratio of 1.3 to say if they were on the PARP inhibitor for 1.3 times what their previous treatment was or longer, that is pretty clearly better, more of a benefit from that regimen. And the majority of patients did meet that bar. So 58% had a PFS ratio greater than 1.3, and the average PFS ratio was 1.9, suggesting, you know, you would expect the the later lines of therapy to actually not work as well, but this suggests that it's actually working better than the immediately prior line of therapy, to me, suggesting that this is truly a good treatment option for these patients. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Very interesting. And you mentioned that individuals with tumors having deep deletions were probably more responsive. How did you figure out that there was biallelic loss or deep deletions? Was that part of an extended analysis that was done subsequently? Dr. Alison Schram: So the deletions reported on our report, if it's a biallelic deletion, that is the one biallelic molecular alteration that would be reported. So those are, by definition, biallelic, and I think that that may be one of the reasons that's a good biomarker. But also, what's interesting is that if you have both copies deleted of BRCA, you can't develop reversion mutations. So one of the the known mechanisms of resistance to PARP inhibitors in patients who have BRCA alterations are something called a reversion mutation where, if you have a frameshift alteration, for example, in BRCA that makes BRCA protein nonfunctional, you can develop a second mutation that actually puts the DNA back in frame, and a functional protein is now made. And so a mechanism of resistance to PARP inhibitors is actually reverting BRCA to a wild-type protein, and then BRCA's synthetic lethality no longer makes sense and is no longer effective. But if you've deleted both copies of BRCA, you don't have the ability to restore the function, and you can't develop reversion mutations. And that's perhaps why, you know, my patient and others have had these prolonged responses to PARP inhibitors because you don't have the same ability to develop that mechanism of resistance. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I remember thinking a year and a half back, I had an individual with prostate cancer and with BRCA2, and using liquid biopsy, I had a reversion mutation that we caught. In your practice, have you seen the utility of doing the serial liquid biopsies in these individuals to catch these reversion mutations? Dr. Alison Schram: Yes, absolutely. And in patients that have the ability to develop a reversion mutation, serial cell-free DNA can catch it, but the caveat is that it doesn't always. So if you see an acquired reversion mutation in cell-free DNA, that can be helpful, particularly if you're planning on putting the patient on another line of therapy that might require a dysfunctional BRCA. So if you're putting them on a clinical trial with a PARP combination and the rationale is that they're sensitive because they don't have a functional BRCA, you would want to know if they developed a reversion mutation, and serial cell-free DNA can definitely identify these reversion mutations. Some of the major clinical trials in ovarian cancer have done serial cell-free DNA and have demonstrated the utility of that approach. The caveat is that some of these reversion mutations are not readily caught on cell-free DNA because they're more complex reversion mutations, or they're not, the part of the gene that develops the reversion mutation is not tiled on the panel. And so it doesn't always catch the reversion mutations. Also, depends on the cell-free DNA shedding, depends on the tumor volume and other factors. And we published a related paper of a patient, it was a really interesting case of a patient with prostate cancer who was on a PARP inhibitor and developed what appeared to be a single reversion mutation on one sample, had negative cell-free DNA, single reversion mutation in a tissue biopsy, and then developed disease progression. And we did an autopsy, and the patient kindly consented to an autopsy, and at the time of autopsy, there were 10 unique reversion mutations identified across 11 metastases. So almost each metastasis had a unique reversion mutation, and only one of them had been seen premortem on a tissue biopsy and not on a cell-free DNA. But that autopsy really drove home to me how much we're missing by doing clinical testing in real time and we really don't know the entire genomic complexity of our patients by doing single samples. And theoretically, cell-free DNA can catch DNA from all the metastases, so you might think that that would be a solution, and it definitely can catch reversion mutations that are not seen in a single biopsy, but you really need to do it all. I mean, you need to do the tissue biopsy sampling, you need to do cell-free DNA, and probably one cell-free DNA test is not enough. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you, again, for that very nice explanation. Now, one quick provocative question. I remember when I was training, the lab that I used to work in, they used to do a lot of phosphorylation markers for DNA damage response, like phospho NBS, RAD51. Have you seen anything of that sort on these biallelic BRCA mutations where tumors are responding, but they also have a very high signature on the phosphorylation side, and it may or may not necessarily correspond to HRD signatures, but have you noticed or done any of that analysis? Dr. Alison Schram: I think that it would be great to do that analysis. And some of the work we're doing now is actually trying to dig a little bit deeper in our cohort of patients to understand are these HRD-positive tumors? Does HRD positivity correlate with response to BRCA alterations? In terms of the functional assays, I would love to be able to do a functional assay in these samples. One of the challenges is that this was a retrospective study and many of the patients were previously treated as standard of care or off-label with these agents, and so we didn't have prospective tissue collection, and so we're really limited by the tissue that was collected as part of standard of care and the consent forms that the patient signed that allow us to do genomic and molecular testing on their samples. So, I think that is hopefully future work that we will do and others will do. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Sure. Shifting gears to your career trajectory, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes there before we end the podcast. So Dr. Schram, you've obviously been a trailblazer in this space of drug development, early-phase trials. Can you give us a brief synopsis of your journey and how you've successfully done what you're doing and what are some of the things that drive you? Dr. Alison Schram: Well, thank you for saying that. I don't know if that's true, but I'll take the bait. I've been interested in oncology since college and was always very interested in not only the science of oncology but of course, treating patients. And in medical school, I did basic science research in a laboratory and it was very inspiring and made me want to do research in oncology in addition to clinical care. When I became an oncology fellow, I was presented with a very difficult question, which is, “Do you want to be a lab PI and be in the lab, or do you want to do clinical care and clinical research?” And I couldn't choose. I found a mentor who thankfully really had this amazing vision of combining the two and doing very early drug development, taking the data that was being generated by labs and translating it into patients at the earliest stage. So, you know, phase one drug development in molecularly targeted therapies. And so I became very interested as a fellow in early drug development and this ability to translate brand new molecular insights into novel drugs. And I joined the- at Sloan Kettering, there was the Early Drug Development, it was actually a clinic, it was called something different, and it was very fortuitous. My last year of fellowship, the clinic became its own service with the ability to hire staff at Sloan Kettering, and I was the first ever hire to our Early Drug Development Service. And that really inspired me to try and bring these drugs to patients and to really translate the amazing molecular insights that my colleagues here at Sloan Kettering are discovering, and you know, of course, at other institutions and in pharma. And you know, there 's been an amazing revolution in in drug development over the last several years, and I feel very grateful that I've been here for it. You know, I've been able to take the brilliant insights from my colleagues and put these drugs in patients, and I have the amazing privilege of watching patients in many cases that benefit from these treatments. And so I do mostly phase one drug development and molecularly targeted therapies, and truthfully, I am just very fortunate to be around such brilliant people and to have both patients and labs trust me to be able to deliver these new drugs to patients and hopefully develop better drugs that move forward through FDA approval and reach patients across the country. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. That was very nicely put. And hopefully our trainees and junior faculty find that useful based on their own career trajectories. Thank you, Dr. Schram, for joining us today. Hopefully, we'll see more of your subsequent work in JCO PO. Thank you for giving us all these insights today. Dr. Alison Schram: Thank you for having me. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Dr. Alison Schram Disclosures Consulting or Advisory Role Company: Mersana, Merus NV, Relay Therapeutics, Schrodinger, PMV Pharma ,Blueprint Medicines, Flagship Pioneering, Redona Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, Endeavor BioMedicines Research Funding Company: Recipient: Your Institution  Merus, Kura, Surface Oncology, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer , Black Diamond Therapeutics, BeiGene, Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines,  Repare Therapeutics, PMV Pharma, Elevation Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim Travel, Accommodations, Expenses Company: PMV Pharma 

Welcome to another episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain, both practicing community oncologists, are joined by Dr. Tian Zhang from UT Southwestern to discuss key highlights from the ASCO 2025 annual meeting, focusing on genitourinary (GU) malignancies. Episode Highlights: • KEYNOTE-564: discussed 5 years OS data, reinforcing the role of adjuvant pembrolizumab in renal cell carcinoma • AMPLITUDE: combination of PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone improved progression-free survival in patients with homologous recombination repair mutations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer • ARANOTE: positive quality of life impact when using darolutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, which is also FDA approved now • NIAGARA: the prognostic value of ctDNA in muscle-invasive bladder cancer, emphasizing its implications for treatment strategies YouTube: https://youtu.be/Rt8HQpdyVY0 Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Join us as we break down these important studies and their potential to change clinical practice in oncology. Don't forget to check out our other episodes for more insights into cancer care!

UCSF oncologist Dr. Jonathan Chou discusses how genetics and genomics are transforming the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. He explains how inherited and acquired mutations—especially in DNA repair genes like BRCA2—can impact both cancer risk and treatment decisions. Dr. Chou outlines how UCSF researchers use tumor and blood-based biopsies to identify key mutations and genomic features that help tailor care for each patient. Examples include how genomic scores can predict response to radiation and how targeted therapies like PARP inhibitors benefit patients with specific mutations. The talk highlights the growing role of precision medicine in guiding individualized treatment plans based on the unique genetic profile of each patient's cancer. Series: "Prostate Cancer Patient Conference" [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 40798]

Dr. Neeraj Agarwal and Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching discuss important advances in the treatment of prostate, bladder, and kidney cancers that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am Dr. Neeraj Agarwal, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I am the director of the Genitourinary Oncology Program and a professor of medicine at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute and editor-in-chief of the ASCO Daily News.  I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching, a GU medical oncologist and the clinical program director of the GU Center at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia. Today, we will be discussing some key abstracts in GU oncology that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Jeanny, it is great to have you on the podcast. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Oh, thank you so much, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Jeanny, let's begin with some prostate cancer abstracts. Let's begin with Abstract 5017 titled, “Phase 1 study results of JNJ-78278343 (pasritamig) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.” Can you walk us through the design and the key findings of this first-in-human trial? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So this study, presented by Dr. Capucine Baldini, introduces pasritamig, a first-in-class T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody that simultaneously binds KLK2 on prostate cancer cells and CD3 receptor complexes on T cells. KLK2 is also known as human kallikrein 2, which is selectively expressed in prostate tissue. And for reference, KLK3 is what we now know as the PSA, prostate-specific antigen, therefore making it an attractive and specific target for therapeutic engagement. Now, while this was an early, first-in-human, phase 1 study, it enrolled 174 heavily pretreated metastatic CRPC patients. So many were previously treated with ARPIs, taxanes, and radioligand therapy. So given the phase 1 nature of this study, the primary objective was to determine the safety and the RP2D, which is the recommended phase 2 dose. Secondary objectives included preliminary assessment of antitumor activity. So, pasritamig was generally well tolerated. There were no treatment-related deaths. Serious adverse events were rare. And in the RP2D safety cohort, where patients received the step-up dosing up to 300 mg of IV every 6 weeks, the most common treatment-related adverse events were low-grade infusion reactions. There was fatigue and grade 1 cytokine release syndrome, what we call CRS. And no cases of neurotoxicity, or what we call ICANS, the immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, reported. Importantly, the CRS occurred in just about 8.9% of patients. All were grade 1. No patients required tocilizumab or discontinued treatment due to adverse events. So, this suggests a favorable safety profile, allowing hopefully for outpatient administration without hospitalization, which will be very important when we're thinking about bispecifics moving forward. In terms of efficacy, pasritamig showed promising activity. About 42.4% of evaluable patients achieved a PSA50 response. Radiographic PFS was about 6.8 months. And among patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was about 16.1% in those with lymph node or bone metastases, and about 3.7% in those with visceral disease, with a median duration of response of about 11.3 months. So, altogether, this data suggests that pasritamig may offer a well-tolerated and active new potential option for patients with metastatic CRPC.   Again, as a reminder, with the caveat that this is still an early phase 1 study. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. These are promising results for a bispecific T-cell engager, pasritamig, in prostate cancer. I agree, the safety and durability observed here stand out, and this opens the door for further development, possibly even in earlier disease settings.  So, shifting now from immunotherapy to the evolving role of genomics in prostate cancer. So let's discuss Abstract 5094, a real-world, retrospective analysis exploring the prognostic impact of homologous recombination repair gene mutations, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Jeanny? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So this study was presented by Dr. David Olmos, represents one of the largest real-world analyses we have evaluating the impact of homologous recombination repair, or what we would call HRR, alterations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. So, this cohort included 556 men who underwent paired germline and somatic testing. Now, about 30% of patients had HRR alterations, with about 12% harboring BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and 16% having alterations in other HRR genes. Importantly, patients were stratified via CHAARTED disease volume, and outcomes were examined across treatment approaches, including ADT alone, doublet therapy, and triplet therapy. The prevalence of BRCA and HRR alterations were about similar between the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, with no differences observed, actually, between the patients with high volume versus low volume disease.  So, the key finding was that BRCA and HRR alterations were associated with poor clinical outcomes in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. And notably, the impact of these alterations may actually be even greater in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer than previously reported in metastatic CRPC. So, the data showed that when BRCA mutations are present, the impact of the volume of disease is actually limited. So, poor outcomes were observed across the board for both high-volume and low-volume groups. So, the analysis showed that patients with HRR alterations had significantly worse outcomes compared to patients without HRR alterations. Median radiographic progression-free survival was about 20.5 months for the HRR-altered patients versus 30.6 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.6. Median overall survival was 39 months for HRR-altered patients compared to 55.7 months for the non-HRR patients, with a hazard ratio of 1.5. Similar significant differences were observed when BRCA-mutant patients were compared with patients harboring non-BRCA HRR mutations. Overall, poor outcomes were independent of treatment of ARPI or taxanes. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. So, these data reinforce homologous recombination repair mutations as both a predictive and prognostic biomarker, not only in the mCRPC, but also in the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting as well. It also makes a strong case for incorporating genomic testing early in the disease course and not waiting until our patients have castration-resistant disease. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. And I think this really brings home the point and the lead up to the AMPLITUDE trial, which is LBA5006, a phase 3 trial that builds on this very concept of testing with a PARP inhibitor, niraparib, in the hormone-sensitive space. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the AMPLITUDE trial, a phase 3 trial presented by Dr. Gerhardt Attard, enrolled 696 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and HRR gene alterations. 56% of these patients had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Patients were randomized to receive abiraterone with or without niraparib, a PARP inhibitor. The majority of patients, 78% of these patients, had high-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and 87% of these patients had de novo metastatic HSPC. And 16% of these patients received prior docetaxel, which was allowed in the clinical trial. So, with a median follow-up of nearly 31 months, radiographic progression-free survival was significantly prolonged with the niraparib plus abiraterone combination, and median was not reached in this arm, compared to abiraterone alone, which was 29.5 months, with a hazard ratio of 0.63, translating to a 37% reduction in risk of progression or death. This benefit was even more pronounced in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroup, with a 48% reduction in risk of progression, with a hazard ratio of 0.52. Time to symptomatic progression also improved significantly across all patients, including patients with BRCA1, BRCA2, and HRR mutations. Although overall survival data remain immature, early trends favored the niraparib plus abiraterone combination. The safety profile was consistent with prior PARP inhibitor studies, with grade 3 or higher anemia and hypertension were more common but manageable. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events remained low at 11%, suggesting that timely dose modifications when our patients experience grade 3 side effects may allow our patients to continue treatment without discontinuation. These findings support niraparib plus abiraterone as a potential new standard of care in our patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR alterations, and especially in those who had BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you, Neeraj. This trial is especially exciting because it brings PARP inhibitors earlier into the treatment paradigm. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Exactly. And it is exciting to see the effect of PARP inhibitors in the earlier setting.  So Jeanny, now let's switch gears a bit to bladder cancer, which also saw several impactful studies. Could you tell us about Abstract 4502, an exploratory analysis from the EV-302 trial, which led to approval of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab for our patients with newly diagnosed metastatic bladder cancer? So here, the authors looked at the outcomes in patients who achieved a confirmed complete response with EV plus pembrolizumab. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Sure, Neeraj. So, EV-302 demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free and overall survival for patients previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, I'll just call it metastatic UC, as a frontline strategy, establishing EV, which is enfortumab vedotin, plus pembro, with pembrolizumab as standard of care in this setting.  So, this year at ASCO, Dr Shilpa Gupta presented this exploratory responder analysis from the phase 3 EV-302 trial. Among 886 randomized patients, about 30.4% of patients, this is about 133, in the EV+P arm, and 14.5% of the patients in the chemotherapy arm, achieved a confirmed complete response. They call it the CCR rates. So for patients who achieved this, median PFS was not reached with EV+P compared to 26.9 months with chemotherapy, with a hazard ratio of 0.36, translating to a 64% reduction in the risk of progression. Overall survival was also improved. So the median OS was not reached in either arm, but the hazard ratio favored the EV+P at 0.37, translating to a 63% reduction in the risk of death. The median duration of complete response was not reached with EV+P compared to 15.2 months with chemotherapy. And among those patients who had confirmed CRs at 24 months, 78% of patients with the EV+P arm remained progression-free, and around 95% of the patients were alive, compared to 54% of patients who were progression-free and 86% alive of the patients in the chemotherapy arm. Safety among responders were also consistent with prior reports. Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 62% of EV+P responders and 72% of chemotherapy responders. Most adverse events were managed with dose modifications, and importantly, no treatment-related deaths were reported among those who were able to achieve complete response.  So these findings further reinforce EV and pembro as the preferred first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma, offering a higher likelihood of deep, durable responses with a fairly manageable safety profile. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you for the great summary, Jeanny. These findings underscore the depth and durability of responses achievable with this combination and also suggest that achieving a response may be a surrogate for long-term benefit in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.  So now, let's move to Abstract 4503, an exploratory ctDNA analysis from the NIAGARA trial, which evaluated perioperative durvalumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. So what can you tell us about this abstract? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely, Neeraj. So, in NIAGARA, presented by Dr. Tom Powles, the addition of perioperative durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, gem/cis, significantly improved event-free survival, overall survival, and pathologic complete response in patients with cisplatin-eligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Recall that this led to the U.S. FDA approval of this treatment regimen on March 28, 2025.  So, a planned exploratory analysis evaluated the ctDNA dynamics and their association with clinical outcomes, which was the one presented recently at ASCO. So, the study found that the incidence of finding ctDNA positivity in these patients was about 57%. Following neoadjuvant treatment, this dropped to about 22%, with ctDNA clearance being more common in the durvalumab arm, about 41%, compared to the chemotherapy control arm of 31%. Notably, 97% of patients who remained ctDNA positive prior to surgery failed to achieve a pathologic CR. So, this indicates a strong association between ctDNA persistence and lack of tumor eradication. So, postoperatively, only about 9% of patients were ctDNA positive. So, importantly, durvalumab conferred an event-free survival benefit regardless of ctDNA status at both baseline and post-surgery. Among patients who were ctDNA positive at baseline, durvalumab led to a hazard ratio of 0.73 for EFS. So, this translates to a 27% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence, progression, or death compared to the control arm. In the post-surgical ctDNA-positive group, the disease-free survival was also improved with a hazard ratio of 0.49, translating to a 51% reduction in the risk of recurrence.  So, these findings underscore the prognostic value of ctDNA and suggest that durvalumab provides clinical benefit irrespective of molecular residual disease status. So, the data also supports that ctDNA is a promising biomarker for future personalized strategies in the perioperative treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. It is great to see that durvalumab is improving outcomes in these patients regardless of ctDNA status. However, based on these data, presence of ctDNA in our patients warrants a closer follow-up with imaging studies, because these patients with positive ctDNA seem to have a higher risk of recurrence. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: I agree, Neeraj.  Let's round out the bladder cancer discussion with Abstract 4518, which reported the interim results of SURE-02, which is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Can you tell us more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure, Jeanny. So, Dr Andrea Necchi presented interim results from the SURE-02 trial. This is a phase 2 study evaluating neoadjuvant sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, followed by a response-adapted bladder-sparing treatment and adjuvant pembrolizumab in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.  So, in this interim analysis, 40 patients were treated and 31 patients were evaluable for efficacy. So, the clinical complete response rate was 38.7%. All patients achieving clinical complete response underwent bladder-sparing approach with a repeat TURBT instead of radical cystectomy. Additionally, 51.6% of patients achieved excellent pathologic response with a T stage of 1 or less after neoadjuvant therapy. The treatment was well tolerated, with only 12.9% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher adverse events without needing dose reduction of sacituzumab. Molecular profiling, interestingly, showed that clinical complete response correlated with luminal and genomically unstable subtypes, while high stromal gene expression was associated with lack of response.  These results suggest that sacituzumab plus pembrolizumab combination has promising activity in this setting, and tolerability, and along with other factors may potentially allow a bladder preservation approach in a substantial number of patients down the line. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, agree with you, Neeraj. And the findings are very provocative and support completing the full trial enrollment and further exploration of this strategy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer in order to improve and provide further bladder-sparing strategies. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Agree. So, let's now turn to the kidney cancer, starting with Abstract 4505, the final overall analysis from CheckMate-214 trial, which evaluated nivolumab plus ipilimumab, so dual checkpoint inhibition strategy, versus sunitinib in our patients with metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Yeah, absolutely, Neeraj. So, the final 9-year analysis of the phase 3 CheckMate-214 trial confirms the long-term superiority of nivolumab and ipilimumab over sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced metastatic renal cell carcinoma. So, this has a median follow-up of 9 years. Overall survival remains significantly improved with the combination. So, in the ITT patient population, the intention-to-treat, the hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.71. So, this translates to a 29% reduction in the risk of death. 31% of patients were alive at this 108-month follow-up compared to 20% only in those who got sunitinib. So, similar benefits were observed in the intermediate- and poor-risk groups with a hazard ratio of 0.69, and 30% versus 19% survival at 108 months.  Importantly, a delayed benefit was also seen in those favorable-risk patients. So, the hazard ratio for overall survival improved from 1.45 in the initial report and now at 0.8 at 9 years follow-up, with 35% of patients alive at 108 months compared to 22% in those who got sunitinib. Progression-free survival also favored the nivo-ipi arm across all risk groups. At 96 months, the probability of remaining progression-free was about 23% compared to 9% in the sunitinib arm in the ITT patient population, 25% versus 9% in the intermediate- and poor-risk patients, and 13% compared to 11% in the favorable-risk patients. Importantly, at 96 months, 48% of patients in the nivo-ipi responders remained in response compared to just 19% in those who got sunitinib. And in the favorable-risk group, 36% of patients who responded remained in response, although data were not available for sunitinib in this subgroup.  So, this data reinforces the use of nivolumab and ipilimumab as a durable and effective first-line effective strategy for standard of care across all risk groups for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Thank you, Jeanny. And of course, since ipi-nivo data were presented, several other novel ICI-TKI combinations have emerged. And I'm really hoping to see very similar data with TKI-ICI combinations down the line. It is really important to note that we are not seeing any new safety signals with the ICI combinations or ICI-based therapies, which is very reassuring given the extended exposure. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Absolutely agree with you there, Neeraj.  Now, going on and moving on to Abstract 4514, which is the KEYNOTE-564 trial, and they reported on the 5-year outcomes of adjuvant pembrolizumab in clear cell RCC in patients who are at high risk for recurrence. Can you tell us a little bit more about this abstract, Neeraj? Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: Sure. So, the KEYNOTE-564 trial established pembrolizumab monotherapy as the first adjuvant regimen to significantly improve both disease-free survival and overall survival compared to placebo after surgery for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. So, Dr Naomi Haas presented the 5-year update from this landmark trial.  A total of 994 patients were randomized to receive either pembrolizumab or placebo. The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was approximately 70 months. Disease-free survival remained significantly improved with pembrolizumab. The median DFS was not reached with pembrolizumab compared to 68.3 months with placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.71, translating to a 29% reduction in risk of recurrence. At 5 years, 60.9% of patients receiving pembrolizumab remained disease-free compared to 52.2% with placebo. Overall survival also favored pembrolizumab. The hazard ratio for OS was 0.66, translating to a 34% reduction in risk of death, with an estimated 5-year overall survival rate of 87.7% with pembrolizumab compared to 82.3% for placebo. Importantly, these benefits were consistent across all key subgroups, including patients with sarcomatoid features. In addition, no new serious treatment-related adverse events have been reported in the 3 years since treatment completion.  So, these long-term data confirm pembrolizumab as a durable and effective standard adjuvant therapy for patients with resected, high-risk clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: Thank you for that wonderful summary, Neeraj. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: That wraps up our kidney cancer highlights. Any closing thoughts, Jeanny, before we conclude? Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching: It's been so wonderful reviewing these abstracts with you, Neeraj. So, the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting showcased a lot of transformative data across GU cancers, from first-in-class bispecifics to long-term survival in RCC. And these findings are already shaping our clinical practices. Dr. Neeraj Agarwal: I agree. And we have covered a broad spectrum of innovations in GU cancers with strong clinical relevance.  So, thank you, Jeanny, for joining me today and sharing your insights.  And thank you to our listeners for joining us. You will find links to the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. If you find these conversations valuable, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe to the ASCO Daily News Podcast wherever you listen. Thank you so much. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Neeraj Agarwal     @neerajaiims     Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching   Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on Twitter       ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:   Dr. Neeraj Agarwal:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Lilly, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI Pharma, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Foundation Medicine, and Gilead Sciences  Research Funding (Institution): Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Pfizer, Exelixis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Crispr Therapeutics, Arvinas  Dr. Jeanny Aragon-Ching:   Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs Inc., Pfizer/EMD Serono   Consulting or Advisory Role: Algeta/Bayer, Dendreon, AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Bayer, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Amgen, AVEO, Pfizer/Myovant, Exelixis,    Speakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Ortho, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas/Seattle Genetics

Episode 367: Pharmacology 101: PARP Inhibitors “We know that in cells that are proliferating very quickly, including cancer cells, single-strand DNA breaks are very common. When that happens, these breaks are often repaired by the PARP enzyme, and the cells can continue their replication process. If we block PARP, that repair cannot happen. So in blocking that, these single-strand breaks then lead to double-strand breaks, which ultimately is leading to cell apoptosis,” Danielle Roman, PharmD, BCOP, manager of clinical pharmacy services at the Allegheny Health Network Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, PA, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about the PARP inhibitor drug class. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  Earn 0.5 contact hours of nursing continuing professional development (NCPD) by listening to the full recording and completing an evaluation at courses.ons.org by June 13, 2026. The planners and faculty for this episode have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. ONS is accredited as a provider of nursing continuing professional development by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. Learning outcome: Learners will report an increase in knowledge related to the use of PARP inhibitors in cancer care. Episode Notes  Complete this evaluation for free NCPD.  ONS Podcast™ episodes: Pharmacology 101 series Episode 330: Stay Up to Date on Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs Episode 232: Managing Fatigue During PARP Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy Episode 227: Biomarker Testing, PARP Inhibitors, and Oral Adherence During Ovarian Cancer Maintenance Therapy ONS Voice articles: PARP Inhibitors and Ovarian Cancer Genomics May Trick PARP Inhibitors to Treat More Cancers Oncology Drug Reference Sheet: Niraparib ONS books: Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Guidelines and Recommendations for Practice (second edition) Clinical Guide to Antineoplastic Therapy: A Chemotherapy Handbook (fourth edition) Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs (fourth edition) ONS courses: Safe Handling Basics Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing articles: PARP Inhibition: Genomics-Informed Care for Patients With Malignancies Driven by BRCA1/BRCA2 Pathogenic Variants Talazoparib Plus Enzalutamide in Patients With HRR-Deficient mCRPC: Practical Implementation Steps for Oncology Nurses and Advanced Practice Providers Oncology Nursing Forum article: Familiarity and Perceptions of Ovarian Cancer Biomarker Testing and Targeted Therapy: A Survey of Oncology Nurses in the United States Oral Anticancer Medication Care Compass: Resources for Interprofessional Navigation ONS Biomarker Database ONS Oral Anticancer Medication Learning Library ONS Oral Anticancer Medication Toolkit Oral Chemotherapy Education Sheets To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities. To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast Club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode “The big toxicities here to watch for are primarily hematologic toxicities. It is one of those targeted therapies that does affect blood cell counts. So I'd say the blood cell count that is most commonly affected here is the hemoglobin. So, anemia very frequent complication that we see, probably a little bit more with olaparib compared with other drugs, but we see it as a class side effect. And we can also see neutropenia and thrombocytopenia with these agents, probably a little bit more with niraparib versus the others, but again, you can see it across all of these drugs.” TS 8:16 “We mentioned that rare risk of MDS and AML. This isn't a particularly scary thing if you talk to patients about it. Because of the rarity that we see this, it isn't something that we need to overemphasize, but I think careful monitoring of blood counts in is stressing the importance of that and early intervention here is very important.” TS 16:55 “This is a collaborative effort. And because of the home administration here, these patients do need to be followed very closely. So we are not laying eyes on them usually with the frequency that we do when we have patients actually coming into our infusion centers for treatments—so making sure that there is a plan for regular follow-up with these patients to ensure that they're getting that lab work done, that that's being looked at closely, that we're adjusting the dose if we need to based on that lab work, that we are managing the patient's fatigue. Again, that potentially dose reductions may be needed if patients are having that extreme fatigue.” TS 19:34 “I think one of those [misconceptions] could be that they're only effective in patients that have that BRCA1/2 mutation. And again, remember here that there is some data in particular disease states that we can use them and that they work in the absence of those mutations.” TS 25:12

 In this episode, we dive into the tiny but powerful molecule called NAD+ — the fuel your cells need to create energy, repair damage, and keep you feeling young and strong. As we age, NAD+ levels drop, and that can lead to low energy, slower healing, and more health problems. But here's the exciting part: science is showing that we can boost NAD+ through smart lifestyle habits and supplements — helping improve energy, brainpower, heart health, and even slow down aging. We'll break it all down in simple terms:  ✅ What NAD+ does in your body  ✅ Why it matters for your health and aging  ✅ How to naturally boost your NAD+ levels  ✅ What new research is saying about its future If you want to unlock more energy, sharper thinking, and better long-term health, this episode is for you! Tune in and learn how to help your body thrive — from the inside out.

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

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new research on maintenance therapy in small cell lung cancer and a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Transcript Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, the host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, with my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 4 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Today's selection features reports of 3 randomized trials in very different clinical settings: maintenance therapy in extensive small cell lung cancer (SCLC), upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, and a supportive care intervention for patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The first of these studies, Abstract 8006, was presented by Dr. Luis Paz-Ares from the University Hospital [October 12] in Madrid, Spain, and reports the primary results of the IMforte trial. This was a phase 3 trial evaluating the combination of lurbinectedin and atezolizumab as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with extensive small cell lung cancer. Despite some improvements in the first-line treatment of extensive small cell lung cancer with the use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, most of the patients experience early disease progression and long-term survival remains very limited. This provides a rationale for considering a maintenance intervention. Lurbinectedin is an alkylating agent and transcription inhibitor [that is] already approved in the United States for patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic SCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy. It has been shown to synergize with immune checkpoint inhibitors in pre-clinical studies and has also been evaluated in early-phase clinical trials. The IMforte trial is a global, randomized trial in which patients are initially treated with atezolizumab, and those patients who do not progress on induction therapy are then randomized to maintenance therapy with atezolizumab alone or atezolizumab with lurbinectedin. The primary endpoints of the study were progression-free and overall survival. Four hundred and eighty-three patients were randomized and at a median follow-up of 15 months, the median progression-free survival for patients who received the combination was 5.4 months and the median overall survival was 13.2 months. This compares with 2.1 and 10.6 months, respectively, in patients who received atezolizumab only. The lurbinectedin and atezolizumab combination was generally well-tolerated, with no new or unexpected safety signals. The benefit was consistent in magnitude across all the relevant patient subgroups. This is the first phase 3 study to show a progression-free and overall survivial improvement with first-line maintenance in extensive stage SCLC and the result is likely to be practice-changing, establishing a new standard of care in this tough-to-treat disease. Next up is LBA5500, presented by Dr. Sven Mahner from LMU University in Munich, Germany. This describes the results of the TRUST study, a randomized trial of upfront surgical therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. As background, total macroscopic tumor resection with maximal effort cytoreductive surgery is the cornerstone of treatment in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The optimal timing of such surgery remains controversial, whether it's more beneficial as a primary cytoreductive surgery before chemotherapy or in the form of interval cytoreductive surgery after 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Previous studies have addressed this issue, but results have been confounded by issues of patient and center selection. The TRUST study is a randomized, international, multicenter phase 3 trial that compares the outcomes of the timing of surgery in surgically fit patients with seemingly resectable FIGO stage IIIB/IVB ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal carcinoma. To ensure consistent and adequate surgical quality, participating centers in the trial were required to obtain accreditation and undergo an onsite quality assurance review. This included assessment of infrastructure, surgical proficiency, complete resection rates, and surgical volume. Seven hundred and ninety-seven patients with advanced ovarian cancer were randomized to undergo surgery prior to therapy with 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel along with bevacizumab and a PARP inhibitor, or to have the surgery between the third and fourth cycle of the same systemic therapy. Of the initial 797 patients, 688 comprised the intent-to-treat population, of whom 345 received primary cytoreductive surgery and 343 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery.  The results show that patients undergoing primary surgery had significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who had interval cytoreductive surgery (median progression-free survival was 22.1 months versus 19.7 months). No difference in overall survival was observed between the 2 arms of the study.  This is the first study to show a benefit for primary cytoreductive surgery, although the progression-free survival improvement was not reflected in an overall survival difference. A subgroup analysis for patients who underwent complete cytoreduction suggests a progression-free survival and survival benefit, although it isn't clear to me that the study was powered for this endpoint. Nevertheless, these are very difficult studies to perform, and the investigators should be congratulated for this robustly conducted clinical trial. Today's final abstract is 1504, presented by Dr. Hermioni Amonoo from Harvard Medical School. The trial evaluated BMT-VR, a virtual reality psychosocial intervention for patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. This randomized trial included adult patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation. The BMT-VR platform included, among others, modules addressing psychoeducation, coping, acceptance, and gratitude. BMT-VR patients were provided with VR headsets and completed all modules during their hospitalization. Patient-reported outcomes were then assessed at 2, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-BMT. Use of the VR tool was tracked during hospitalization. Control patients received usual care during their hospital stay and were then assessed at the same intervals post-BMT.  Eighty evaluable patients were randomized, 39 to BMT-VR and 41 to usual care. Completion rates for the BMT-VR modules were high [at] around 70-75%.  Patients who received the BMT-VR intervention experienced significantly improved anxiety, quality of life, and coping at 4 weeks post-BMT. In the longer term, sustained benefits were seen at 24 weeks for some endpoints including quality of life, with some benefits, including for depression and PTSD symptoms, improving longitudinally over the study period. These data are preliminary and will need to be confirmed in larger multicenter studies, but this trial demonstrates the feasibility of using virtual interventions in our patients and also provides intriguing preliminary data that they may be effective. Thanks for listening to today's report and I hope you will join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from the final day of ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.   Disclaimer:   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.     Find out more about today's speaker:     Dr. John Sweetenham       Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on Twitter     @ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:    Dr. John Sweetenham:     No relationships to disclose 

BRCA revision mutations may explain some of the limited benefit seen in long-term follow-up studies with PARP inhibitors. Bibliography: 1: BRCA reversion mutations predict resistance. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0715 2: SOLO3 Final OS Data. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00933 3: Elucidating acquired PARP inhibitor resistance in advanced prostate cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2024.10.015

How can we conserve NAD+ by preventing overactivation of the enzymes PARP-1 and CD38, which guzzle NAD+?

Could a single molecule be the difference between vibrant longevity and early decline? Dr. Andy Salzman—Harvard-trained physician, scientist, and creator of the first PARP1 inhibitor—joins Dave to reveal the real key to living longer, fighting disease, and maximizing your energy: NAD. This master molecule fuels your mitochondria, DNA repair, and cellular resilience, but here's the catch—it plummets as you age. That means more fatigue, brain fog, inflammation, and higher risks of disease. But what if you could stop the decline and even reverse it? Dr. Salzman breaks down the game-changing science behind NAD, CD38, and cellular repair—and the fastest, most effective ways to optimize your levels for peak performance, health, and longevity. Get ready to rethink everything you thought you knew about aging, pharmaceuticals vs. supplements, and the radical new approach to living better, longer. What You'll Learn: • The #1 reason your NAD is disappearing—and how to fix it • Why NAD is the missing link in energy, DNA repair, and disease prevention • The hidden enzyme (CD38) that's sabotaging your longevity • How to supercharge mitochondria, optimize blood flow, and fight aging at the source • Why the supplement industry has it wrong—and the best way to boost NAD naturally • The shocking truth about the FDA, pharmaceuticals, and the future of anti-aging medicine Resources: • Dave Asprey's New Book - Heavily Meditated: https://daveasprey.com/heavily-meditated/ • Andrew Salzman's Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/andrew_salzman/?hl=en • 2025 Biohacking Conference: https://biohackingconference.com/2025 • Danger Coffee: https://dangercoffee.com • Dave Asprey's Website: https://daveasprey.com • Dave Asprey's Linktree: https://linktr.ee/daveasprey • Upgrade Collective – Join The Human Upgrade Podcast Live: https://www.ourupgradecollective.com • Own an Upgrade Labs: https://ownanupgradelabs.com • Upgrade Labs: https://upgradelabs.com • 40 Years of Zen – Neurofeedback Training for Advanced Cognitive Enhancement: https://40yearsofzen.com Timestamps: 00:00 Trailer 01:07 Introduction and Episode Overview 02:29 Meet Dr. Andy Salzman 02:36 From Physician to Researcher 03:39 Pharmaceuticals vs. Nutritionals 04:17 The Role of NAD in Longevity 06:32 Challenges in Longevity Research 12:58 Understanding NAD and PARP 14:34 NAD's Impact on Health 23:19 Gut Health and Longevity 27:43 Innovations in NAD Supplementation 41:27 Customer Feedback and Product Effectiveness 42:41 Surprising Benefits of NAD for Sexual Health 44:47 NAD and Vascular Health 48:46 NAD's Role in Aging and Longevity 54:03 NAD and Lifestyle Choices 01:03:02 NAD and Cognitive Function 01:06:18 NAD and Exercise 01:13:42 NAD and Sleep 01:21:54 Final Thoughts on NAD and Longevity See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.