Podcasts about supportive oncology

This week, Jonathan Sackier is joined by Janet Abrahm, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Institute Physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, to break stigmas around palliative care and explore the evolution of supportive oncology.  Timestamps:  (00:00)-Introduction  (03:55)-Abrahm's journey into palliative care   (09:10)-A perspective on cannabinoids  (12:21)-The evolution of palliative oncology  (16:39)-Breaking stigma around palliative care  (20:20)- Differences in global approaches to palliative care  (25:43)-Medical aid in dying   (35:08)-Advice to young doctors  (37:03)-Abrahm's three wishes for healthcare  

What is supportive care or supportive oncology? What is cancer-related distress? How might NET patients benefit from supportive care? Yale oncologist Dr. Maryam Lustberg suggests strategies to manage cancer-related fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, mouth sores, peripheral neuropathy, distress, anxiety, and anxiety. She also addresses considerations for fertility and sexual health.MEET DR. MARYAM LUSTBERGDr. Maryam Lustberg is an American breast oncologist. She is the Director of The Breast Center at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Chief ofBreast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center. Dr. Lustberg previously served as the Medical Director of Cancer Supportive Care Services atOhio State's Comprehensive Cancer Center. She is the Immediate Past President of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. She is also an Associate Editor for the Journal of Cancer Survivorship.TOP TEN QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPPORTIVE CARE: What is supportive care in cancer (or supportive oncology)? What is survivorship? How do these concepts apply to the NET community?What is the 1st step for patients to get supportive care?What are the most common treated-related adverse events or side effects? What are risk factors for them? (Will all patients experience all potential side effects?)What causes cancer-related fatigue (CRF)? What are some strategies to manage cancer-related fatigue?What are some strategies to manage diarrhea?What are some strategies to manage nausea?What are some strategies to manage mouth sores?What is peripheral neuropathy? When do patients experience it and what can be done to prevent it?What should patients understand about sexual health and fertility?How can psychosocial needs such as distress, anxiety, and depression be addressed and supported?For more information, please visit https://www.lacnets.org/podcast/37. For more information, visit LACNETS.org.

Beat Cancer hosts Chris Joyce and Stephanie Winn sit down with, Jenifer Cooreman, L.C.S.W. and Certified Sex Therapist to discuss sexual wellness and cancer. Jena has specialty certification in oncology social work with 20 years of experience in mental health and medical social work. She has worked with children, adolescents, and adults in a variety of settings, including our topic for today, sexual wellness and cancer. You can find out more about our social workers and our Supportive Oncology and Survivorship Services here. To learn more about the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, visit https://health.ucdavis.edu/cancer/

Dr Gregory Garber, Administrative Director for the Division of Supportive Oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson Health, discusses mental health, yours and your care circle's, at and after a cancer diagnosis.  Dr. Garber talks about how you cope with cancer, during and after treatment, has a big impact on your mental health, and should be part of your overall care plan.  He discussed the National Institute of Health 2007 mandate adding the psycho-social aspects of a cancer diagnosis within their proscribed treatment.   We discussed ‘attitude' and patient outcomes and that, generally speaking, your personality and coping ability will not change with a diagnosis of cancer.  Can your attitude affect your outcome?  He notes, despite popular belief, research has been inconclusive. “There is really no good evidence that one's attitude impacts how long they're going to live after a cancer diagnosis or what their response to treatment will be.”  If you were a gloomy person before your illness, you'll come through just as morose.  If you are perpetually perky with a sunny disposition, you'll take your bad news and treatment with the same cheerful outlook. “There are entirely miserable people who go through breast cancer or any kind of cancer treatment, and they do fine,” he continued.  “And, there are wonderful Pollyanna folk who go through it and do fine.”    What IS affected by attitude is your quality of life during the treatment.  That's where your personality and coping skills can make a difference in how you do.  Learn to recognize your ‘triggers' – the situations that cause you stress, then experiment and combine coping methods to find what works best for you.  Prioritizing your needs and time by making a schedule can help you feel less overwhelmed by the demands on your limited energy.  Take a break for deep breathing, meditation and gradual muscle relaxation.  Get back to daily exercise, as soon as you can, doing what you can.  Eating well and getting enough sleep have a huge impact on your mental well-being.  While it can be rough during cancer therapy, making the effort then will make it easier to follow good habits after treatment has ended.   Finally, talk to someone. If it's affecting your relationships or your ability to work or parent, your ability to sleep or enjoy your daily activities, call your healthcare provider, or reach out to the America Cancer Society, they offer free online groups for patients with different diagnosis and at different points of treatment. The National Institute of Health, NAMI and Living Beyond Breast Cancer also offer peer-based support.  

“You don't have to have any musical background to benefit from musical therapy,” ONS member Susan Yaguda, MSN, RN, manager of integrative oncology and survivorship in the Department of Supportive Oncology at the Levine Cancer Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a discussion about how music therapists and oncology nurses collaborate to offer music therapy's benefits to patients with cancer.   You can earn free NCPD contact hours after listening to this episode and completing the evaluation linked below.   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), which may be applied to the Symptom Management, Palliative Care, and Supportive Care ILNA categories, by listening to the full recording and completing an evaluation at myoutcomes.ons.org http://myoutcomes.ons.org/by August 25, 2025. The planners and faculty for this episode have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose. ONS is accredited as a provider of NCPD by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.  Learning outcome: The learner will report an increase in knowledge related to the use of music therapy.  Episode Notes  Complete this evaluation for free NCPD.  ONS Voice articles:  What the Evidence Says About Music Therapy for Cancer-Related Fatigue  Music Therapy May Bridge Race-Related Gaps in Cancer Pain Management  Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing article: Mindful Awareness of Music: A Modality for Symptom Management  Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy  American Music Therapy Association  Association for Music and Imagery  Certification Board of Music Therapists  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 Today's Episode  “A lot of people have their workout playlist or something that kind of pumps them up before they're going to go play a tennis match or something like that. But in using music in this way, there isn't really a specific therapeutic goal and the relationship in these situations. And while any of us can provide recorded music or live music to patients, certainly our care partners, if we're not trained as music therapists, it just should not be considered or referred to as music therapy.” TS 3:56  “It might be using music to help regulate breath work, to reduce stress and anxiety associated with whatever they're having done in the suite. It can also be used as a distraction.” TS 6:19  “Oftentimes after that point, our patients may be starting to experience some other troubling side effects or symptoms from their treatment or their cancer. The music therapist can help them with better manage those in a supportive way. And this can be done in things like techniques to help them manage pain, techniques to help them maybe destress and get more restful, sleep even.” TS 7:00  “Sometimes using music as that tool helps create the space that does feel even more safe. It's not necessarily having to talk to someone directly, but music is the vehicle for doing that processing work.” TS 15:01  “There is receptive music therapy. So that is basically where the person receiving music therapy is not co-creating music, or writing lyrics, or anything like that, they're just listening. There might just be some paced breathing exercises that are incorporated into this. It tends to be a more repetitive type of cadence to the music that can help create just being in a better zone if they're trying to and bring the anxiety level down.” TS 16:16 

Dr. Timothy Pearman, director of supportive oncology at Northwestern University's Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, joins Lisa Dent to talk about supportive oncology and talk about the 2023 Cancer Survivors’ Celebration Walk & 5K happening June 4. “Better knowledge means better health for you and your family. Turn to Northwestern Medicine at nm.org/healthbeatnews for health tips, […]

Dr. Derek Raghavan, president of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health, and host Dr. John Sweetenham, of the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, predict the challenges oncologists will grapple with in 2023, including the cost-benefit of new treatments, how to retain the best talent, prioritizing health equity, and the future of home infusion for patients with cancer.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm John Sweetenham, the associate director for Clinical Affairs at UT Southwestern's Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, and host of the ASCO Daily News podcast. Today, I'm excited to welcome back Dr. Derek Raghavan, President of the Levine Cancer Institute at Atrium Health. And we'll be discussing some of the challenges that we anticipate are going to lie ahead for the oncology community in 2023. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures relating to all episodes of the ASCO Daily News podcast are available on our transcripts at: asco.org/podcasts. Derek, great to have you back on the podcast again today. Dr. Derek Raghavan: Thanks, John. Great to be back with you. Dr. John Sweetenham:  One of the issues that we believe is going to be a challenge for us in the oncology world during the coming year that you and I have discussed on a previous podcast is this issue of cost benefits of new therapies in oncology, and the need to compare new treatments against old established standard of care treatments, rather than against the most recent new treatment preceding the one that we have now if you see what I'm saying. This is clearly going to be an ongoing concern. Why do you think we should be thinking about cost benefits of new treatments? And clearly, I think we'd all agree that this matters, but I think maybe you could expand a little on why you think it is truly important that we kind of go back and make sure we're comparing these drugs with the more established standards of care. Dr. Derek Raghavan: You know, I think this is sort of a metaphor of modern oncology, John, because it brings in so many elements. As you've implied, the cost of cancer care and not just cancer care, I mean it's all medical care just going through the roof, and unfortunately, it's happening most particularly in the United States. And whether that's just because here the pharmaceutical industry and government seem to have a very tight relationship, or whether there's some other explanation that is not clear, but I would make the comment that a lot of the newer treatments that are horrendously expensive in the United States, may be purchased for half the cost or less in other OECD countries. And that suggests that at some regulatory level, one of the parameters is a little off in the United States. And the reason that this is such a big deal is that it ultimately is hitting patients very hard. I think everyone has agreed, and we've discussed it in some detail in the past, everyone is identifying financial toxicity as becoming one of the governing toxicities of cancer care, and we've talked about strategies of dealing with that. As you implied, you know, we have this sort of tendency to think that anything new is wonderful, and anything old is terrible. And often, that's true. But I think the problem is that often, we will test the brand new agent of today with last year's brand new agent, which hasn't necessarily been fully tested at the time. So, if you think about prostate cancer, you know, the Michael Hofman group tested against cabazitaxel, and I'm not quite sure why cabazitaxel suddenly became the only drug to use second-line in prostate cancer. You know, doxorubicin has been there for a long time. Mitoxantrone has activity, even the old chestnut oral cytoxan has some activity there. And each of the drugs I've just mentioned is way cheaper than cabazitaxel. I'm not implying cabazitaxel is a bad drug, I'm simply saying it's more expensive. And I think as patients are really being harmed by the cost of care, I think one of the things that's kind of a shame, and it goes to the way we were trained, is oncologists have been trained not to think about the costs of what they're doing because the thought is that if we're thinking costs, we will withhold the best treatment because of cost considerations. I think the other side of that coin is we need to be thinking about what is the damage to patients that the cost is doing, and if there is substantial damage, is the patient getting that much bang for the buck? In other words, say an old cheap drug gives you three months extra survival, and a brand-new, very expensive drug gives you four months extra survival, do we really want to be thinking that that somehow is a wash and we should use the newer drug? At the very least, physicians should now be trained to have that discussion with patients and raise the issues so that patients aren't embarrassed by their inability to pay. We do know the two areas that are really hard to get patients to confess about, as it were, financial toxicity, and sexual dysfunction. And if we as physicians don't address that, we are going to be complicit in making these sorts of problems worse. So, one of the things is the costs of care. I think one of the other issues that is a little troubling is how we're thinking about new standards of care. There is a growth industry of consensus guidelines, and the reality is that some of the consensus guidelines, I think particularly, ASCO's, are very meticulously done. I've had the privilege of being part of a couple of the panels, and they were very rigorously driven, and they were trying to identify level-1 data and trying to be honest about outcomes. But some of the consensus guidelines are basically a bunch of good old boys getting together, and just chatting about what they do, and if they all do the same thing, then that becomes a guideline. And that can be a flawed approach, so that we've got consensus guidelines that are terrific, and some consensus guidelines that might be terrific, but may not be predicated on the best evidence. And then finally, one of my bugaboos is this sudden emphasis on real-world data. And I tend to worry about the concept of 'garbage in, garbage out'. A lot of the real-world analyses are either looking at databases that weren't designed for the way they're being implemented, or there are very practical reports of stuff that has happened, but without the necessary scientific rigor, such as considering what are the case selection biases that have led to those sets of real-world data being produced? So, that sort of compounds the problem of the fact that we need to be focusing a little more on, "What are we doing? Why are we doing it, and how robust are the data that support our patterns of practice?" One of the real leaders in this space is Mark Ratain, who's gone right back to torts and has started to ask questions about the pharmacology of drugs. There are dosing schedules that come out of phase I and phase II trials. There are often schedules that will be of benefit to the pharmaceutical industry but may not be fully evidence-based. So, you know, with a drug like Radium-223, which is for prostate cancer, it is said that you should give 6 doses. I'm unaware of any robust data that say that 6 is better than 5 is better than 4. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. Thanks, Derek. Great responses. And I particularly like your insight into real-world evidence. I know that there have been attempts by ASCO, and by FDA, to put some parameters around real-world evidence, and get some, I guess you'd call it quality assurance into this, but I do agree with you that it's a little bit uncontrolled at the moment, and I think if we are going to continue to use these very, very large real-world datasets as a comparator, particularly, for drug approval, as well for studies, then there's probably still significant amount of work to be done to make sure that those data are collected in a consistent and rigorous fashion. Dr. John Sweetenham: I'm going to change gear now and talk, for just a little while, it's a huge subject and the time constraints will prevent us from saying too much about this, but of course, you know, health equity continues to be a major concern across healthcare in general, and in oncology specifically. We've now seen, for example, the replacement for the Oncology Care Model, The Enhancing Oncology Model, which has been proposed by CMMI. And not surprisingly, I think they recognize the need for addressing health equity and are introducing some health equity components into that in the next phase of Oncology Care Models from that group. But I guess my question at this point is, do you think that this kind of approach whereby health equity is at least to some extent addressed in the context of, for example, an alternative payment model, is the way ahead in terms of actually bringing about effective change, rather than just recording that there are indeed disparities? Dr. Derek Raghavan: So, that's a complex question, and I think there are several strands to the answer. I think the first thing I would say is, it really is time for us to recognize that we are at an inflection point. And we need to move from analysis paralysis to a new paradigm, which I would call, equity of survival. I have to say, I'm really over the multiple meetings that most of the professional societies have where people seem to feel good about saying, "Yep, we've come together and we've decided there really are disparities." We've known that there were disparities of care for probably 20 years, and some of us have done something about it and others haven't. But I think it's time to define equity of survival, and you can certainly do it. And what I mean by that is as follows: so, if I could use an example of a study from our place at the Levine Cancer Institute, Dr. Bei Hu, who is a very talented young lymphoma specialist, analyzed our outcomes for poorly insured, or uninsured, predominantly black American populations versus wealthy whites. And she published in Cancer and also presented prior to that at ASH, the fact that we had identical outcomes for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; our hypothesis is that we were able to improve the results by using nurse navigation to help the underprivileged patients be able to adhere to the rigorous constraints of cuff management of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. But you know, the fact is we are able to show that survival is the same in those two population groups. So, it isn't a question of, "Did you do more? Did you spend more time?" At the end of the day, the parameter is, they lived the same, and the quality of their lives, as we've measured, it was the same. So, I think that's one piece. I'm a bit negative about the government's new EOM. I've kept my institute out of the first OCM model because I thought that they were going to waste our time, and they played with it, and they learned very little, and then they generated a new model. I am very happy that there are health equity components in it, but of course, what we already know is government doesn't enforce those very well. If you look at the National Cancer Institute, and from my time on the parent committee and doing reviews, I was constantly saying, "But we aren't seeing the appropriate representation of minorities." Journal editors are still allowing the NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers to publish papers with less than 5% Black Americans. And the argument is, "Oh, that's not in our demographic." But that's nonsense because the demographic of Black Americans and Hispanics in most parts of the United States are pretty well known, and the centers that I'm thinking about have perfectly large numbers of Black American, and Hispanic, and Native American patients. You know, I think there are two dimensions; one is government actually has to mean that they want to see things happen and enforce it appropriately, but at the same time, the idea that we're checking a box by doing yet another study of underserved populations where we're looking at demography, and their eating habits, and so on, when we're not concentrating on treatment-based survival. And the journal editors are turning down papers as being too descriptive when they report smaller studies of African American or Native American patients. All of those things have to be fixed, in my opinion. Dr. John Sweetenham: Great, thanks. And I'm going to change gear again to another issue, which, certainly, at our center is becoming more prominent for us, and that's an issue of sites of care. So, we are increasingly becoming aware that reimbursement issues are driving where our patients receive certain components of their care, particularly their chemotherapy. At the same time, we're also seeing increasing interest, I think partly fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic towards home treatment, and specifically, home infusion. So, I'd be interested to know where you think the future lies in terms of; number one, how you think this dynamic is going to play out around payers to some extent driving sites of care. And then secondly, what you see as the future of home infusion for cancer patients and potentially the use of home chemotherapy. Dr. Derek Raghavan: Well, you know, I tend, as you know well, to be one of your more cynical friends. I have real trouble with the insurance companies declaring publicly that they're struggling to keep up with the cost of treatment, and therefore they need to influence treatment when despite this incredibly difficult situation in which they find themselves, they're able to give seven and eight-figure bonuses to their Chief Executives every year. So, they're not doing poorly, they're just crying poor. And so, when they claim that they're doing things for the benefit of patients, I just don't believe that. So, the first thing is, the imperative to move care from point A to point B is driven by people with self-interest rather than necessarily trying to do it for patients. Now, having said that, I actually think COVID has taught us a lot. We can do many things very effectively through telemedicine, and for example, at the Levine Cancer Institute, we surveyed our patients who are dealing with the Supportive Oncology teams, Psycho-Behavioral Medicine, and Complementary Integrative Medicine. And so, they've actually shown us that they would prefer to have video consultation, which saves them having to get dressed, jump in the car, drive into the city, or to their local branch of LCI and so on. And so, there are demands where it's quite clear that patients like telemedicine and home care, and we know that because the cancellation rate of these appointments has gone way down with the introduction of telemedicine. So, for certain things, it's really good. You mentioned the concept of home infusion, and I think that's a terrific idea, provided that you have the necessary checks and balances. You and I both know that patients will suddenly crash with an allergic reaction in response to a drug like taxol and taxotere, or even sometimes, cisplatin, so, you don't want to have the situation where the nurse is infusing at home by herself, and trying to manage someone who's just shut down with an allergic reaction without any help. So, you need to have standard operating procedures that maximize life safety. Having said that, the idea of making it easier for patients to have their treatment and having it close to home is really, I think something that I really support. Where I'm less enthusiastic is something that the insurance companies have started to play with, and I believe ASCO is opposing this, at an organizational level, and that's the concept of white-bagging and brown-bagging. The idea that the insurance companies will somehow supervise the preparation and distribution of drugs to their satisfaction, and then expect oncologists or hospitals to take those drugs and administer them on their behalf. There is no clear evidence of quality control; it's absolutely clear that this is being done in a fashion that will allow them to control costs, and maybe not in an appropriate fashion. And I think that should be really strenuously opposed. Now, they're not the only culprits. What we have found is many of the largest centers declining to use biosimilars, for no particularly good reason, other than the fact that they're not that familiar with them. Well, there are good data to suggest that many of the biosimilars have equal efficacy and equal toxicity to the parent compounds, and they're way less costly. And so, we need to be thinking through a whole paradigm of, where are biosimilars available, what is the track record for their safety and utility, and so on. So, I think there are a number of steps that we can actually be involved in that will improve the cost of care. But doing it just because the insurance companies are trying to save themselves money may not be the primary driver that would influence my thinking. Dr. John Sweetenham: Yeah. Thanks, Derek. I'm interested in your comments on biosimilars because, you know, at our center, at UT Southwestern, we have certainly embraced biosimilar usage. And one of the points of care challenges in that regard is knowing which biosimilar is covered by an individual patient's insurance. And I know at a number of centers, that's been a challenge, and it's something that our pharmacy team has worked on in order to find a more facile way for our clinicians to be able to understand coverage. And there are significant cost savings associated with that. So, I agree 100% And talking of costs, the final issue which we wanted to talk with you about briefly today is the issue of prior authorization. Many ASCO members in the United States spend a very large amount of time dealing with this, and in the community oncology practice, it's estimated as much as 25% of an oncologist's time is now spent dealing with these issues, and obviously is very negative in terms of job satisfaction, physician burnouts, and so on, as well as just making things very, very difficult for our patients. Do you see a resolution to this? Do you think it will continue to be a big challenge, or do you think there are solutions available to us which will make this much easier for physicians, and save them some time as well as money? Dr. Derek Raghavan: No, I think it's here to stay. I mean, I think it's honestly multifactorial. I think it begins with government in the sense that we've just, once again, declared war on cancer. It's the third or fourth war that's been declared during my career, and that's all well and good. But you know, the reality is that that sets expectations in the community that can often be unrealistic. And so, that puts the unfortunate community, or academic oncologist in the situation of really struggling to say to a patient, "We've done what we can, and it's time to bring in supportive oncology or hospice." So, there are unrealistic expectations in the community. I think the second piece that relates to this is, the purveyors of computerized record systems are actually contributing more to burnout than probably anything else in the land. We've got unregulated industry where the service delivery for most of these companies is poor. And I think it all connects really with a broader issue, which is, for whatever reason, post-COVID, there is this phenomenon internationally of the so-called Great Resignation. It's partly burnout, it's partly anger about the world, I guess, at large. But what we are finding is, one of the pivotal areas for the Great Resignation is medical and nursing staff. I've never seen as many physicians retiring early, as many nurses getting out of oncology, and either going into the pharmaceutical industry or into data management or just going into simpler types of nursing. And that reflects the resistance of the healthcare industry to recognize that there are different stresses in different types and parts of the healthcare industry, and not compensating appropriately, and putting in safety valves to help these people get off the line. And you know, your question was, "Do I think it's here to stay?" I really do. I think the younger generation has, in many ways, a much more sensible approach to work-life balance than we did. They also have less experience. So, every time a crusty old veteran doctor, or nurse goes, they're replaced by someone with two decades less experience, and somewhat a different work ethic. I'm not saying it's a bad work ethic, but it's changing the way healthcare is delivered. So, I think this is going to be a real issue. And then finally, you know, in terms of the actual business of prior authorization, which I view largely as a tool that the health insurance companies use to avoid payment, I think we mentioned in a previous discussion on our financial toxicity tumor board, we have a pretty standard algorithm where we call the insurance companies before starting chemotherapy or radiotherapy; check in with them that their reading of their rules allows approval, and then we document who we spoke to, and what time. That seems to be quite a good way of stopping the insurance companies denying payment at a later time based on the technicality on page 253, line 27. While we're talking, John, what's happening at the Simmons Center and UT Southwestern? Are you seeing a change in the pattern of resignation of nurses and physicians, or have you managed to figure out strategies to avoid that? Dr. John Sweetenham: At UT Southwestern and Simmons Cancer Center, in particular, what we've seen is very similar, I think, to the national trends. And so, I think what we've seen is three main groups affected; our nursing staff, and as you say, I think there are various reasons why that's happened, our clinical trials staff, in particular, we've had an increasing problem in hiring and have lost many to industry actually. And then, on the physician front as well, we have seen a number of our physicians move to industry, both in terms of drug companies, and also some data companies where, you know, I think there is clearly an interest in having physician leadership. And, you know, I do agree with you, and I think part of the challenge, and there's been quite a lot of literature about this, as you'll know, is, what are we going to do, particularly in the academic oncology community, what are we going to do for our younger faculty in terms of growth opportunities for them that keep them within academic medicine? And I think we probably really have to rethink the way academic oncology is running at the moment if we're going to retain the best people within our field. So, a short answer to your question is, yeah, we're seeing very similar trends to those that are reported nationally. We're planning interventions, but obviously, all of these things take quite a long time. It's been great talking to you as always, Derek. I think it's good to hear your insights on the podcast, particularly, with respect to what might happen in 2023. I think as always, it's important to remember that despite the challenges, I think if you look back year-on-year, there is for sure, going to be a lot to be excited about this year. And our patients, I think, can anticipate to see continued improvements in what we do, and hopefully improvements in their lives and the lives of the caregivers who take care of them. So, despite the challenges, I think we need to just remember that it's not all bad, and there are a lot of good things going on out there. Dr. Derek Raghavan: Yeah, I agree with that, John. One of the things we always forget, despite the fact that you and I were tasked with talking about the problems emerging, is, the most rapidly growing patient population in oncology is the long-term survivors, and we can both be justifiably proud of all the good things that have happened to create that scenario. Dr. John Sweetenham: Absolutely. So, thanks, once again. Always a pleasure to talk with you. And to you, our listeners, thank you for your time today. 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. Find out more about today's speakers: Dr. John Sweetenham Dr. Derek Raghavan Follow ASCO on social media: @ASCO on Twitter ASCO on Facebook ASCO on LinkedIn Disclosures: Dr. John Sweetenham: Consulting or Advisory Role: EMA Wellness Dr. Derek Raghavan: Consulting or Advisory Role: Gerson Lehrman Group, Caris

Danielle Nelson is the Director of Supportive Oncology at Henry Ford Health and Meghan Winkel is the Healing Arts Program Manager and Lindsay Anderson Curator of Art for the health system. On this podcast, we speak with them both about the transformative work they are doing at Henry Ford Health to integrate art into their brand new cancer center, and now, other facilities on the Henry Ford Health campus. This Podcast was made possible through the generous support of the Cultural Advocacy Network of Michigan, the Michigan Arts & Culture Council and the National Endowment for the Arts. We're bringing you the latest stories and headlines on arts and culture here in the Fresh Coast State, our beautiful home in Michigan.

"It was always from the beginning about making sure ensuring no one had to go through cancer alone."- Stephanie Lieber, Executive Director, Imerman's AngelsThrough a very specific and unique matching process, Imerman Angels connect people who have lived with cancer at some point in their life to a newly diagnosed cancer patient.These “Mentor Angels” are cancer survivors and caregivers who have faced the same type of cancer and therefore can help guide a person through one of the scariest points of his or her life.Founded by Jonny Imerman in 2006, the organization has made sure that tens of thousands of people haven't had to face cancer alone.In This Episode:Stephanie Lieber, Executive Director, Imerman AngelsDave Louthan, Team Imerman Angels DirectorLiz Ladewig, Team Imerman Angels Runner & Professional Board MemberTim Pearman, Director, Supportive Oncology, Northwestern Medical GroupNicole Schroeder, Survivor & Team Imerman Angels Runner This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit milesforchange.substack.com

In this episode of the Psychedelic Therapy Frontiers podcast, Dr. Steve Thayer and Dr. Reid Robison joined by Dr. Eric Garland. Dr. Garland is the Distinguished Endowed Chair in Research, Distinguished Professor, and Associate Dean for Research in the University of Utah College of Social Work, Director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development (C-MIIND), Associate Director of Integrative Medicine in Supportive Oncology and Survivorship at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, and Research Health Scientist in Whole Health at the Salt Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. Dr. Garland the most prolific author of mindfulness research in the world.  We had him on the podcast today to talk about the mindfulness-based therapy intervention he created called Mindfulness Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). Learn more about Dr. Garland here: https://drericgarland.com/ (1:57) Dr. Garland introduces himself(2:39) What is bio-behavioral clinical research (5:11) The mechanisms of addiction and how Mindfulness Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) was designed to treat them(9:44) Compassion for those who struggle with addiction(13:58) The critical importance of savoring(20:37) Technique for helping people savor healthy pleasure (29:28) MORE's affect on neurotransmitters (34:12) MORE increasing feelings of self-transcendence(43:32) Nondual Awareness Dimensional Assessment (45:51) The scientific rigor of the psychedelic renaissance and caution agains the hype(55:00) How to get trained in MOREEmail us questions and feedback at psychfrontiers@novamind.ca Learn more about our podcast at https://www.psychedelictherapyfrontiers.com/Learn more about Novamind at https://www.novamind.ca/Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drstevethayer/https://www.instagram.com/innerspacedoctor/https://www.instagram.com/novamind_inc/Disclaimer: The content of this podcast does not constitute medical advice or mental health treatment. Consult with a medical/mental health professional if you believe you are in need of mental health treatment.

A conversation about the emerging field of Supportive Oncology with one of the pioneers: The focus of this podcast will be on the intersection integrative oncology and supportive care .The reality: many centres, ours included are seeing integrative oncology/integrative medicine as part of supportive care . As Dr Berman and colleagues lead the way in the UK with the UKASCC and BSIO ( British Society for Integrative oncology) it is of interest to explore these developments and how we build supportive oncology services that seamlessly include integrative medicine and its principles as part of the offerings. Dr Berman is founder and director of supportive care UK Ltd and supportive and palliative care physician at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester. He specialises in the prevention and management of the adverse effects of cancer and cancer treatments, including care for those reaching the last days of their lives. He is also NHS England's National Clinical Lead for Enhanced Supportive Care – this is a new initiative being rolled out across England, to improve access to supportive care for patients going through cancer treatment at any stage.

Dr. Eric Garland, PhD, LCSW is Distinguished Endowed Chair in Research, Distinguished Professor, and Associate Dean for Research in the University of Utah College of Social Work, Director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development (C-MIIND), and Associate Director of Integrative Medicine in Supportive Oncology and Survivorship at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Drawing from more than 15 years of clinical experience as a psychotherapist, Dr. Garland is the developer of an innovative mindfulness-based therapy founded on insights derived from cognitive neuroscience, called Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE). As Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator, he has received more than $60 million in research grants from a variety of prestigious entities including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct clinical trials to develop and test novel integrative health interventions, including trials of MORE as a treatment for addiction and chronic pain.  Dr. Garland is arguably the world's leading expert on the use of mind-body therapies to address opioid misuse and addiction among people with chronic pain. In a recent bibliometric analysis of mindfulness research published over the past 55 years, Dr. Garland was found to be the most prolific author of mindfulness research in the world. Visit www.drericgarland.com Link to clinical training in Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement: https://drericgarland.com/training-in-more/

In this episode, Carly chats with Naturopathic Oncologist, Dr. Sonia Malani, currently working at the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle, WA. We discuss her personal experience with cancer through her father's diagnoses, and how she was inspired to become a naturopathic physician beginning at the age of 19. This episode covers: - What is Hippocrates Health Institute + why did Dr. Malani's family choose it for treatment - How + why did Dr. Malani choose Bastyr University - What is integrative oncology - How is integrative oncology different from conventional oncology - Where + how do we see the integrative and conventional approaches successfully coming together in healing cancer - What is the role of IV therapy when it comes to healing cancer - The role of an integrative oncologist in a patient's healing journey - What is the therapeutic alliance + how does a collaborative medical team work together - The correlation between cancer and trauma: adverse childhood experiences can increase your risk of cancer as an adult - How resilience works as an antidote to trauma Resources: Fellow of the American Board Naturopathic Oncology Hippocrates Health Institute Bastyr University AIMS Institute (To Schedule an Appt with Dr. Malani) Find a Naturopathic Oncologist HERE The Daily Detox Connect: IG: @drsoniamalani Twitter: @drsoniamalani IG: @carlyloveskale web: carlybrownwellness.com Dr. Sonia Malani is a physician, author, and researcher. She is currently working at the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle, WA. Dr. Malani joined AIMS in 2018 as part of its inaugural residency class, with a clinical focus in Integrative Oncology and Palliative Medicine. During her residency, Dr. Malani helped build the intravenous (IV) therapy clinic at AIMS, and developed formulas for pain, hydration, cachexia and energy. She is a contributing author to Ann Berger's 5th Edition of Principles and Practice of Palliative Care and Supportive Oncology. Dr. Malani is also a principal investigator of the AIMS Cancer Outcomes Study (ACOS) and is currently collaborating with George Washington's Center for Integrative Medicine on a study assessing mercury levels in cancer patients.

You can't have the mush, without the push.

About Dr. Timothy Pearman Dr. Timothy Pearman is a Psychologist at Lurie Cancer Center at Northwestern Medicine. He is a board-certified clinical health psychologist, a Fellow of the American Academy of Clinical Health Psychology (ACHP) and Director of the Supportive Oncology program at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Pearman has served […] The post TMBS E176: Dr Pearman – Psychologist appeared first on Business RadioX ®.

About Dr. Timothy Pearman Dr. Timothy Pearman is a Psychologist at Lurie Cancer Center at Northwestern Medicine. He is a board-certified clinical health psychologist, a Fellow of the American Academy of Clinical Health Psychology (ACHP) and Director of the Supportive Oncology program at the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center. Dr. Pearman has served […]

Dr. Garland is the Distinguished Endowed Chair in Research, Professor, and Associate Dean for Research in the University of Utah College of Social Work, and also the Director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development and Associate Director of Integrative Medicine in Supportive Oncology and Survivorship at Huntsman Cancer Institute. Dr. Garland also was appointed in 2019 by NIH director Dr. Francis Collins to the NIH Heal Multi-Disciplinary Working Group to work on strategies for pain management and reduce opioid addiction. In this podcast, we discuss his mindfulness research using Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE), and work he is doing in Mindfulness to reduce Cancer-related pain and opioid use at the VA.

Eric Garland, PhD, LCSW, is a rare combination of rigorous researcher and compassionate clinician. His unique integration of CBT and mindfulness led him to create Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE), an integrative group intervention for treating chronic pain, stress, and opioid misuse. His attention to detail and methodology has made him a trusted researcher. In 2019 he was appointed to the NIH HEAL Multi-Disciplinary Working Group to help guide the HEAL initiative on pain and addiction. Our dialogue was exciting for both of us. We share a sense that helping patients attend to savoring and insight is key to moving beyond the murky grasp of addiction.Eric Garland, PhD, LCSW,  is Distinguished Endowed Chair in Research, Professor, and Associate Dean for Research  in the University of Utah College of Social Work, Director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development (C-MIIND) and, Associate Director of Integrative Medicine in Supportive Oncology and Survivorship at the Hunstman Cancer Institute. Dr. Garland has had over 150 scientific articles and book chapters published in respected, peer-reviewed outlets, and he currently serves as Associate Editor for the journal Mindfulness.

Linda Penwarden, MN, RN, AOCN®, clinical nurse specialist, joins ONS staff writer, Chris Pirschel, to discuss the importance of supportive oncology programs for patients with cancer. Learn more about the ways patients can benefit from supportive care, how providers can address the individual needs of their patients, and how oncology nurses can make a difference for patients and their families. Be sure to check out the ONS Voice feature article “Supportive Care Programs for Patients With Cancer” featuring Penwarden.   Music Credit: "Fireflies and Stardust" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0  Episode Notes Supportive Care Programs for Patients With Cancer Supportive Oncology at St. Luke's Complementary Therapy

In this interview, Dr David Henry, the Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, and Dr Daniel Haller of the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, discuss recent breakthrough studies in gastrointestinal cancers.

In this interview, Dr David Henry, the Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, and Dr Ken Anderson, the Kraft Family Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and an international thought leader and investigator in myeloma, discuss three cases of patients with myeloma that are indicative of the remarkable therapeutic advances in oncology in general, and in myeloma in particular. In the last 10-15 years, numerous approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration have transformed the treatment landscape for multiple myeloma by providing patients and oncologists with many new options and combination possibilities for treating the disease. And since many of the agents have been tested in advanced myeloma, their use has edged the disease toward initial management. The encouraging news is that in the new classes of drugs, and especially the second-generation drugs, response rates, progression-free disease, and overall survival are significantly better, with some combinations yielding response rates of up to 70%-80%, and overall and progression-free survival of up to 10 years.

For the July-August issue of the Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, the Editor-in-Chief, Dr David Henry, discusses a recap by Howard Burris, MD, of the top presentations at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and a selection of articles on some of the key findings reported at the meeting. A number of articles, in keeping with the journal mission of delivering content that can inform or change daily practice in the community setting, provide ‘how-to’ clinical and supportive advice. They include an outline by Thomas J Smith of Johns Hopkins University of how to initiate goals-of-care conversations with patients and their family members; a review of managing polycythemia vera in the community oncology setting; a New Therapies feature on how immunotherapies are shaping the treatment of hematologic malignancies; and research articles on using Onodera’s Prognostic Nutritional Index to predict wound complications in patients with soft tissue sarcoma, and bone remodeling associated with CTLA-4 inhibition. A third research article assesses a multidisciplinary survivorship program in a group of predominantly Hispanic women with breast cancer. Also in the line-up for discussion are Case Reports, one on managing high-grade pleomorphic sarcoma in a patient with colon metastasis and another on intramedullary spinal cord and leptomeningeal metastases presenting as cauda equina syndrome in a patient with melanoma.

For the May-June issue of the Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, the Editor in Chief, Dr David Henry, discusses an editorial by Kevin Knopf, a JCSO editor, about drawing on modern portfolio theory to improve cancer care. Side effects come under scrutiny this issue, with a How We Do It article on prehabilitation for lymphedema in head and neck cancer patients, a Review article that examines pancreatitis associated with newer classes of antineoplastic therapies, and a research article that looks at prescriber adherence to antiemetic guidelines with trifluridine-tipiracil. In other research articles, investigators report on physician attitudes and prevalence of molecular testing in lung cancer; a comprehensive assessment of cancer survivors’ concerns to inform program development; and perceived financial hardship among patients with advanced cancer. Two Case Reports address the treatment of Kaposi sarcoma in patients with AIDS, and a third describes a rare case of hypoglycemia induced by a classic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Finally, Dr Henry summarizes an in-depth interview on cardiotoxicity, which he did with his colleague, Dr Joseph Carver.

For the March-April issue of the Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, the Editor in Chief, Dr David Henry, discusses two informative “how-to” articles, one on the implementation of a distress management program at an oncology hospital in Puerto Rico, the other on the prevention and treatment options for mTOR inhibitor-associated stomatitis. Dr Henry also shares his preferences for addressing health care reform, and he highlights a letter to the journal in response to the January-February issue Commentary on physician-assisted dying. Immunotherapies are at the fore again, this time with an insightful essay by Jane de Lartigue who writes that combination therapy is likely to be key in expanding the scope of immunotherapy into currently unresponsive patient populations, which raises questions about the optimal combinations and the timing and sequencing of combination immunotherapy. Three Original Reports span the clinical, supportive, and quality- and value-based care components of cancer care, with their respective foci on APF530 for nausea and vomiting prevention after cisplatin; patterns of care in whole-brain radiotherapy technique and delivery; and emergency department use by newly diagnosed cancer patients. As usual, there is a line-up of rare and challenging presentations in Case Reports on pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma presenting as a necrotizing cavitary lung lesions, palmoplantar exacerbation of psoriasis after nivolumab for lung cancer, primary cardiac prosthetic valve-associated lymphoma; and atraumatic splenic rupture as an initial presentation of chronic myelogenous leukemia.

End-of-life care is a difficult topic to discuss—not only for patients and loved ones but also for the physicians who treat them. It’s an important conversation for a doctor to have with their terminal patient, but how can you, as a physician, approach the topic without taking away hope? On this episode of Health Care Insider, Dr. Anna Beck, director of Huntsman Cancer Institute department of Supportive Oncology and Survivorship, discusses the best practices for having end-of-life care and how it can bring a sense of peace and closure to your patients.

In his April podcast for The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, Editor-in-Chief Dr David Henry discusses Original Reports on olanzapine compared with fosaprepitant for the prevention of concurrent chemotherapy radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and an analysis of patient-reported outcomes in prostate cancer after treatment with abiraterone acetate. Also among the line-up of Original Reports are studies looking at the diagnostic work-up for the detection of malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients and at the use of video-conferencing to deliver cancer genetic counseling to high-risk underserved individuals. The Case Reports include an unusual case of non-small-cell lung cancer presenting as spontaneous cardiac tamponade, another of severe eosinophilia associated with cholangiocarcinoma, and a third on acute benzodiazepine toxicity exacerbated by concomitant oral olanzapine. The Community Translations column features approvals of nivolumab approval for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Dr Henry also discusses a feature article on new therapies for multiple myeloma that are redefining the condition as a chronic disease.

In David Henry’s March podcast for The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, he discusses a number of articles that center on patient quality of life and overall quality of care, among them, an article on opioid risk assessment in palliative care and three Original Reports, one on the impact of trimodality treatment on arm function and QoL in patients with superior sulcus tumors, a second on patient perceptions and the challenges of oral anticancer therapy, and a third on the use of voluntary reporting to assess symptom burden in cancer patients. A Review article by Jose de Souza and colleagues on financial toxicity in cancer care spans the QoL and quality of care spectrum as it details the implications of the increasing cost of cancer care for the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered care and discusses potential predictors of financial toxicity and instruments that could help quantify financial burden. Also in the line-up are articles on encapsulated irinotecan for hard-to-treat cancer and Case Reports on an uncommon presentation of lung cancer and on acute promyelocytic leukemia presenting as a paraspinal mass.

For the February podcast for The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, Editor-in-Chief Dr David Henry examines two Original Reports, one on a collaborative investigation by scientists and members of a social network into fluoroquinolone-related neuropsychiatric and mitochondrial toxicity and another on the prognostic value of complete remission with superior platelet counts in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The Case Reports this month focus on rare tumors: in one case, it is a metastatic primary bladder adenocarcinoma for which a novel treatment approach prolonged survival; and in a second, an 18-year follow-up on a rare, indolent form of T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia. The Community Translations column features the novel MEK inhibitor, cobimetinib, which was approved last year in combination with the BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, for metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. Dr Henry also discusses articles on new therapies for gastrointestinal cancers and on selected practice-changing presentations from the 2015 annual meeting of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in Orlando last year.

In his January podcast for The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology, Editor-in-Chief Dr David Henry discusses a Commentary by Dr Thomas Strouse on the use on cannabinoids in the cancer treatment setting and a Community Translations article on the recent approval of idarucizumab as the first specific oral anticoagulant reversal agent. Also included in the line-up are two Review articles, one on new therapies for antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and another on the management of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-associated rash; and Original Reports on cyclical hypofractionated radiotherapy for palliative treatment in locally advanced head and neck cancer and on the impact of surgery for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer on patient quality of life.

1) Measures of health-related quality of life and 2) Topic of the month: Memory. This podcast for the Neurology Journal begins and closes with Dr. Robert Gross, Editor-in-Chief, briefly discussing highlighted articles from the print issue of Neurology. In the second segment Dr. Ted Burns interviews Dr. David Cella about his paper on measures of health-related quality of life. Dr. Stacey Clardy is reading our e-Pearl of the week about frontotemporal dementia. In the next part of the podcast Dr. Ted Burns interviews Dr. Dean Buonomano about major categories of memory. Next week they will discuss bedside testing of memory. All participants have disclosures.Dr. Burns serves as Podcast Editor for Neurology®; performs EMG studies in his neuromuscular practice (30% effort); and has received research support from the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America and Knopp Neurosciences Inc..Dr. Cella serves on the scientific advisory boards of the Moffitt Cancer Center, NCI Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life (SxQOL) Steering Committee, serves as Associate Editor of The Journal of Supportive Oncology; is a consultant for Pfizer Inc, Genetech, Inc., Novartis, Bayer Schering Pharma, and GlaxoSmithKline; receives royalties from Up-to-Date annual review of Quality of life measures; receives research support from Pfizer Inc, Genetech, Inc., Novartis, Bayer Schering Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline and AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and is funded by the NIH.Dr. Clardy serves on the editorial team for the Neurology® Resident and Fellow Section. Dr. Buonomano receives royalties from the publication of the book Brain Bugs: How the brain's flaws shape our lives.