Podcasts about texas md anderson cancer center

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Jason Westin discuss the federal funding climate for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages, two of the major concerns facing the oncology community in 2026. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. There are always multiple challenges facing oncologists, and today, we discuss two of them that really stand out for 2026: threats to federal funding for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Jason Westin, who believes that one way to meet these challenges is to get oncologists more involved in advocacy, and he will share some strategies to help us meet this moment in oncology. Dr. Westin is a professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, but he actually wears a lot of hats within ASCO. He is a member of the Board of Directors and has also previously served as chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee. And he is also one of the inaugural members of ASCO's Political Action Committee, or PAC. He has testified before Congress about drug shortages and many other issues. Dr. Westin, I am really excited to have you on the podcast today and dive into some of these elements that will really impact our community in 2026. Thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you for having me. Dr. Monty Pal: You've had such a range of experience. I already alluded to you testifying before Congress. You've actually run for office before. You wear so many different hats. I'm used to checking my PubMed every other day and seeing a new paper out from you and your group, and you publish in the New England Journal [of Medicine] on practice-setting standards and the diseases that you treat. But you've also done all this work in the domain of advocacy. I can't imagine that balancing that is easy. What has sort of motivated you on the advocacy front? Dr. Jason Westin: Advocacy to me is another way to apply our skills and help more people than just those that you're sitting across from at the time. Clinical research, of course, is a tool to try and take what we know and apply it more broadly to people that you'll never meet. And advocacy, I think, can do the same thing, where you can have a conversation with a lawmaker, you can advocate for a position, and that hopefully will help thousands or maybe even more people down the road who you'd never get to directly interact with. And so, I think it's a force multiplier in the same way that research can be. And so, I think advocacy is a wonderful part of how doctors care for our patients. And it's something that is often difficult to know where to start, but once people get into advocacy, they can see that the power, the rewarding nature of it is attractive, and most people, once they get going, continue with that through the rest of their career. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'll ask you to expand on that a little bit. We have a lot of our younger ASCO members listening to this podcast, folks that are just starting out their careers in clinical practice or academia. Where does that journey begin? How do you get to the point that you're testifying in front of Congress and taking on these bigger sort of stances for the oncology community? Dr. Jason Westin: Yeah, with anything in medicine and in our careers, you have to start somewhere. And often you start with baby steps before you get in front of a panel of senators or other high-profile engagement opportunities. But often the first setting for junior colleagues to be engaged is doing things – we call them "Hill Days" – but basically being involved in kind of low-stakes meetings where you're with a group of peers, some of whom have done this multiple times before, and can get engaged talking to members of representatives' offices, and doing so in a way where it's a natural conversation that you're telling a story about a patient in your clinic, or that you're telling a personal experience from a policy that impacted your ability to deliver optimal care. It sounds stressful, but once you're doing it, it's not stressful. It's actually kind of fun. And it's a way that you can get comfort and skill with a group of peers who are there and able to help you. And ASCO has a number of ways to do that, both at the federal level, there's the Hill Day where we each April have several hundred ASCO members travel to Capitol Hill. There's also state engagement that can be done, so-called visiting at home, when representatives from the U.S. Congress or from state legislators are back in district. You can meet with your own representatives on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your organization, and advocate for policies in a way that can be beneficial to your patients. But those initial meetings that are in the office often they're low stakes because you could be meeting not with the representative but with their staff. And that staff sometimes is as young or even younger than our junior colleagues. These sometimes can be people in their 20s, but they're often extremely knowledgeable, extremely approachable, and are used to dealing with people who are new to advocacy. But they actually help make decisions within the office. So it's not a waste of time. It's actually a super useful way to engage. So, it's that first step of anything in life. The activation energy is always high to do something new. But I'd encourage people who are listening to this podcast already having some level of interest about it to explore ways that they could engage more. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, I have to tell you, I'm going to riff on what you just said for a second. ASCO couldn't make it any easier, I think, for folks to participate and get involved. So, if you're listening to this and scratching your head and thinking, "Well, where do I begin? How do I actually sign on for that meeting with a local representative?" Go to the ASCO ACT Network website. And I'll actually talk to our producer, Geraldine, to make sure we've got a link to that somewhere associated with this podcast after it's published, Jason, but I actually keep that on my browser and it's super easy. I check in there every now and then and see if there's any new policy or legislation that ASCO, you know, is sort of taking a stance on, and it gives me some fodder for conversation with my local representatives too. I mean, it's just an awesome, awesome vehicle. I'm going to segue right from there right to the issues. So, you and I are both at academic centers. You know, I think this is something that really pervades academia and enters into implications for general clinical practice. There's been this, you know, massive sort of proposal for decreased funding to the NCI and to the NIH and so forth. Tell us what ASCO is doing in that regard, and tell us perhaps how our community can help. Dr. Jason Westin: We live in interesting times, and I think that may be an understatement x 100. But obviously investments in research are things that when you're at an academic center, you see and feel that as part of your daily life. Members of Congress need to be reminded of that because there's a lot of other competing interests out there besides investing in the future through research. And being an elected representative is a hard job. That is something where you have to make difficult choices to support this, and that may mean not supporting that. And there's lots of good things where our tax dollars could be spent. And so, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not unlimited resources. However, ASCO has done an excellent job, and ASCO members have led the charge on this, of stating what research does, what is the benefit of research, and therefore why should this matter to elected representatives, to their staff, and to those people that they're elected to serve. And ASCO has led with a targeted campaign to basically have that message be conveyed at every opportunity to elected representatives. And each year on Hill Day, one of the asks that we have is to continue to support research: the NCI, NIH, ARPA-H, these are things that are always in the asks to make sure that there's appropriate funding. But effectively playing offense by saying, "It's not just a number on a sheet of paper, this is what it means to patients. This is what it means to potentially your loved ones in the future if you are in the opposite situation where you're not on the legislative side, but you're in the office receiving a diagnosis or receiving a difficult piece of news." We only have the tools we have now because of research, and each breakthrough has been years in the making and countless hours spent funded through the engine of innovation: clinical research and translational research. And so ASCO continues to beat that drum. You mentioned earlier the ACT Network. Just to bring that back again is a very useful, very easy tool to communicate to your elected representatives. When you sign up on the ASCO ACT website, you get emails periodically, not too much, but periodically get emails of, "This is a way you can engage with your lawmakers to speak up for this." And as you said, Monty, they make it as easy as possible. You click the button, you type in your address so that it figures out who your elected representatives are, and then it will send a letter on your behalf after like five clicks to say, "I want you to support research. I want you to vote for this particular thing which is of interest to ASCO and by definition to members of ASCO." And so the ACT Network is a way that people listening can engage without having to spend hours and significant time, but just a few clicks can send that letter to a representative in Congress. And the question could be: does that matter? Does contacting your senator or your elected representative do anything? If all they're hearing is somebody else making a different argument and they're hearing over and over again from people that want investments in AI or investments in something else besides cancer research, whatever it is, they may think that there's a ground shift that people want dollars to be spent over here as opposed to at the NIH or NCI or in federally funded research. It is important to continue to express the need for federal funding for our research. And so, it really is important for folks to engage. Dr. Monty Pal: 100%. One of the things that I think is not often obvious to a lot of our listeners is where the support for clinical trials comes from. You know, you've obviously run the whole gamut of studies as have I. You know, we have our pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies, which are in a particular bucket. But I would say that there's a very important and critical subset of studies that are actually government funded, right? NCI-funded clinical trials. If you don't mind, just explain to our audience the critical nature of the work that's being done in those types of studies and if you can, maybe compare and contrast the studies that are done in that bucket versus perhaps the pharmaceutical bucket. Dr. Jason Westin: Both are critical, and we're privileged that we have pharma studies that are sponsored and federally funded clinical research. And I think that part of a healthy ecosystem for us to develop new breakthroughs has a need for both. The pharma sponsored studies are done through the lens of trying to get an approval for an agent that's of interest so that the pharma company can then turn around and use that outside of a clinical trial after an FDA approval. And so those studies are often done through the lens of getting over the finish line by showing some superiority over an existing treatment or in a new patient population. But they're done through that lens of kind of the broadest population and sometimes relatively narrow endpoints, but to get the approval so that then the drug can be widely utilized. Clinical trials done through cooperative groups are sometimes done to try and optimize that or to try and look at comparative things that may not be as attractive to pharma studies, not necessarily going for that initial approval, but the fine tuning or the looking at health outcomes or looking at ensuring that we do studies in representative populations that may not be as well identified on the pharma sponsored trials, but basically filling out the gaps in the knowledge that we didn't gain from the initial phase 3 trial that led to the approval. And so both are critical. But if we only do pharma sponsored trials, if we don't fund federally supported research and that dries up, the fear I have, and many others have, is that we're going to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the best ways to use these great new therapies, these new immune therapies, or in my team, we do a lot of clinical trials on CAR T-cell therapies. If we don't have federally funded research to do the important clinical studies, we'll be in the dark about the best ways to use these drugs, and that's going to be a terrible shame. And so we really do need to continue to support federal research. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, there are no softball questions on this podcast, but I think everybody would be hard pressed to think that you and I would come on here and say, "Well, no, we don't need as much money for clinical trials and NCI funding" and so forth. But I think a really challenging issue to tackle, and this is something we thought to ask you ahead of the podcast, is what to do about the general climate of, you know, whether it's academic research or clinical practice here that seems to be getting some of our colleagues thinking about moving elsewhere. I've actually talked to a couple of folks who are picking up and moving to Europe for a variety of considerations, other continents, frankly. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to oncology research and, one might argue, research in general. Some have the mindset these days that we're losing that footing a little bit. What's your perspective? Are you concerned about some of the trends that you're seeing? What does your crystal ball tell you? Dr. Jason Westin: I am highly concerned about this. I think as you said, the U.S. has been a leader for a long time, but it wasn't always. This is not something that's preordained that the world-leading clinical research and translational research will always be done in the United States. That is something that has been developed as an ecosystem, as an engine for innovation and for job development, new technology development, since World War II. That's something that through intentional investments in research was developed that the best and brightest around the world, if they could choose to go anywhere, you wanted them to come to work at universities and academic places within the United States. And I think, as you said, that's at risk if you begin to dry up the investment in research or if you begin to have less focus on being engaged in research in a way that is forward thinking, not just kind of maintaining what we do now or only looking at having private, for profit sponsored research. But if you don't have the investment in the basic science research and the translational research and the forward-thinking part of it, the fear is that we lose the advantage and that other countries will say, "Thank you very much," and be happy to invest in ways to their advantage. And I think as you mentioned, there are people that are beginning to look elsewhere. I don't think that it's likely that a significant population of researchers in the U.S. who are established and have careers and families – I don't think that we're going to see a mass exodus of folks. I think the real risk to me is that the younger, up-and-coming people in undergraduate or in graduate school or in medical school and are the future superstars, that they could either choose to go into a different field, so they decide not to go into what could be the latest breakthroughs for cancer patients but could be doing something in AI or something in a different field that could be attractive to them because of less uncertainty about funding streams, or they could take that job offer if it's in a different country. And I think that's the concern is it may not be a 2026 problem, but it could be a 2036 or a 2046 problem that we reap what we sow if we don't invest in the future. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. You know, I've had the pleasure of reviewing abstracts for some of our big international meetings, as I'm sure you've done in the past too. I see this trend where, as before, we would see the preponderance of large phase 3 clinical trials and practice setting studies being done here in the U.S., I'm seeing this emergence of China, of other countries outside of the U.S. really taking lead on these things. And it certainly concerns me. If I had to sort of gauge this particular issue, it's at the top of my list in terms of what I'm concerned about. But I also wanted to ask you, Jason, in terms of the issues that are looming over oncology from an advocacy perspective, what else really sort of keeps you up at night? Dr. Jason Westin: I'm quite concerned about the drug shortages. I think that's something that is a surprisingly evergreen problem. This is something that is on its face illogical that we're talking about the greatest engine for research in the world being the United States and the investment that we've made in drug development and the breakthroughs that have happened for patients all around the world, many of them happen in the United States, and yet we don't necessarily have access to drugs from the 1970s or 1980s that are cheap, generic, sterile, injectable drugs. This is the cisplatins and the vincristines and the fludarabine type medications which are not the sexy ones that you see the ads in the magazine or on TV at night. These are the backbone drugs for many of our curative intent regimens for pediatrics and for heme malignancies and many solid tumors. And the fact that that's continuing to be an issue is, in my opinion, a failure to address the root causes, and those are going to require legislative solutions. The root causes here are basically a race to the bottom where the economics to invest in quality manufacturing really haven't been prioritized. And so it's a race to the cheapest price, which often means you undercut your competitor, and when you don't have the money to invest in good manufacturing processes, the factory breaks down, there's no alternative, you go into shortage. And this has been going on for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's an end in sight until we get a serious solution proposed by our elected officials. That is something that bothers me in the ways where we know what we should be doing for our patients, but if we don't have the drugs, we're left to be creative in ways we shouldn't have to do to figure out a plan B when we've got curative intent therapies. And I think that's a real shame.  There's obviously a lot of other things that are concerning related to oncology, but something that I have personally had experience with when I wanted to give a patient a CAR T-cell, and we don't have a supply of fludarabine, which is a trivial drug from decades ago in terms of the technology investments in genetically modified T-cells, to not then have access to a drug that should be pennies on the dollar and available at any time you want it is almost like the Air Force investing in building the latest stealth bomber, but then forgetting to get the jet fuel in a way that they can't use it because they don't have the tools that they need. And so I think that's something that we do need to have comprehensive solutions from our elected officials. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliantly stated. I like that analogy a lot. Let's get into the weeds for a second. What would that proposal to Congress look like? What are we trying to put in front of them to help alleviate the drug shortages? Dr. Jason Westin: We could spend a couple hours, and I know podcasts usually are not set up to do that. And so I won't go through every part. I will direct you that there have been a couple of recent publications from ASCO specifically detailing solutions, and there was a recent white paper from the Senate Finance Committee that went through some legislative solutions being explored. So Dr. Gralow, ASCO CMO, and I recently had a publication in JCO OP detailing some solutions, more in that white paper from the Senate Finance. And then there's a working group actually going through ASCO's Health Policy Committee putting together a more detailed proposal that will be published probably around the end of 2026. Very briefly, what needs to happen is for government contracts for purchasing these drugs, there needs to be an outlay for quality, meaning that if you have a manufacturing facility that is able to deliver product on time, reliably, you get a bonus in terms of your contract. And that changes the model to prioritize the quality component of manufacturing. Without that, there's no reason to invest in maintaining your machine or upgrading the technology you have in your manufacturing plant. And so you have bottlenecks emerge because these drugs are cheap, and there's not a profit margin. So you get one factory that makes this key drug, and if that factory hasn't had an upgrade in their machines in 20 years, and that machine conks out and it takes 6 months to repair or replacement, that is an opportunity for that drug to go into shortage and causes a mad dash for big hospitals to purchase the drug that's available, leaving disparities to get amplified. It's a nightmare when those things happen, and they happen all the time. There are usually dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs in shortage at any given time. And this has been going on for decades. This is something that we do need large, system-wide fixes and that investment in quality, I think, will be a key part. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, brilliantly said. And I'll make sure that we actually include those articles on the tagline for this podcast as well. I'll talk to our producer about that as well.  I'm really glad you mentioned the time in your last comment there because I felt like we just started, but in fact, I think we're right at our close here, Jason, unfortunately. So, I could have gone on for a couple more hours with you. I really want to thank you for these absolutely terrific insights and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of ASCO and oncologists at large. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you so much for having me. I have enjoyed it. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks a lot. And many thanks to our listeners too. You can find more information about ASCO's advocacy agenda and activities at asco.org. 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 so much. ASCO Advocacy Resources: Get involved in ASCO's Advocacy efforts: ASCO Advocacy Toolkit Crisis of Cancer Drug Shortages: Understanding the Causes and Proposing Sustainable Solutions, JCO Oncology Practice 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. Monty Pal   @montypal   Dr. Jason Westin @DrJasonWestin   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X     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. Jason Westin: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene/Juno, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, MorphoSys/Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Chugai Pharma, Regeneron, Nurix, Genmab, Allogene Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma Research Funding: Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys/Incyte, Genentech/Roche, Allogene Therapeutics

In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Shubham Pant, MD, MBBS, about the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Dr Pant is a professor in the Department of Gastrointestinal (GI) Medical Oncology of the Division of Cancer Medicine, director of Clinical Research, and a professor in the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. In our exclusive interview, Dr Pant discussed factors that drive frontline chemotherapy selection for metastatic pancreatic cancer, the role of NALIRIFOX (irinotecan liposome [Onivyde], oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) in this treatment setting, and how the first-line treatment paradigm may evolve and expand going forward.

Drs Kaniksha Desai and Mimi Hu discuss RET inhibitors for advanced medullary thyroid cancer on the Thyroid Stimulating Podcast. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/index/list_15483_0 Kaniksha Desai, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Endocrinology, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California Mimi I. Hu, MD, Professor, Department of Endocrine Neoplasia and Hormonal Disorders, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

Guest: Jun-ichi Abe, MD, PhD Cancer therapies can trigger both acute and chronic vascular effects, from treatment-induced hypertension to long-term atherosclerotic changes. Learn more as Dr. Jun-ichi Abe shares insights from his presentation at the 2025 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. Dr. Abe is a Professor in the Department of Cardiology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

A recent study found a link between mRNA vaccination and improved cancer immunotherapy response. The preclinical data demonstrated impressive results, leading to big questions. “We believe that [vaccination] actually does generate and even converts the cold tumors to hot tumors,” Steven H. Lin, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist and radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, tells Robert A. Figlin, MD, the interim director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer Center in Los Angeles and Steven Spielberg Family Chair in Hematology-Oncology.

Recognition is no longer just about t-shirts or medals - it's about meaning. Thoughtful, mission-driven recognition strategies can deepen fundraisers' emotional connection and inspire long-term loyalty.In this episode, Marcie Maxwell talks with Meredith Perkins, Director of Peer-to-Peer Fundraising at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Meredith shares how her team has evolved recognition from transactional to transformational, creating experiences that honor fundraisers' motivations and celebrate their impact.From weaving MD Anderson's mission to eliminate cancer into every recognition moment to reimagining branded products with purpose, Meredith offers practical ways to make participants feel valued and connected. She also dives into how feedback and metrics guide continuous improvement, ensuring each recognition effort aligns with participant expectations and program goals.Together, we'll explore:How to design recognition programs that strengthen mission connection and emotional engagementCreative ways to recognize and reward fundraisers across participation levels and yearsPractical methods for measuring impact and evolving recognition strategies for sustained success​Mentioned Linkswww.MDAnderson.org/Fundraisewww.MDAnderson.org/BootWalkwww.MDAnderson.org/DIYwww.MDAnderson.org/Remember​Stay Connected on LinkedInConnect with MeredithConnect with MarcieConnect with the Peer-to-Peer Professional Forum (00:00) - Welcome to The P2P Soap Box

Keratinocyte carcinomas, which include basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, are common forms of skin cancer. Approximately 5.4 million keratinocyte carcinomas are diagnosed in the US annually. Author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center joins JAMA Associate Editor David Simel, MD, MHS, to discuss treatment of these types of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Related Content: Keratinocyte Carcinoma ----------------------------------- JAMA Editors' Summary

In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Armeen Mahvash, MD, about the FDA approval of SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres for the treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Dr Mahvash is a professor in the Department of Interventional Radiology in the Division of Diagnostic Imaging at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, as well as an assistant professor in the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging at The University of Texas Medical School at Houston. In our exclusive interview, Dr Mahvash discussed the significance of this approval, key clinical findings that led to the approval, and how multidisciplinary collaboration is crucial for implementing radioembolization in practice.

As part of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of experts about key takeaways from different late-breaking abstracts, oral presentations, and other sessions focused on potential advancements across cancer care. Presenting investigators highlighted updated results from clinical trials evaluating novel therapeutic strategies across different cancer populations, including breast cancer and lung cancer.  Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 Trial Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, the Smith Family Endowed Chair in Women's Health and senior vice president and director of the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, and tumor chair in breast oncology for the ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board, first discussed findings from the phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 trial (NCT05501886). Her presentation highlighted how VIKTORIA-1 was “the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival [PFS] with PAM inhibition” for patients with PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer. Data from the trial showed that gedatolisib plus fulvestrant (Faslodex) and palbociclib (Ibrance) produced a median PFS of 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-16.6) vs 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) with fulvestrant alone (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35; P

Welcome to a special episode of the Bayou City Soccer Podcast! We're joined by David Wiese-Carl, Vice President of Communications & Corporate Affairs for the Houston Dynamo Football Club, to talk about Houston Soccer Celebration — a new series of fan-focused experiences at Shell Energy Stadium. The kickoff event, presented by The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, takes place Saturday, December 6, featuring free, family-friendly activities the day after the FIFA World Cup Draw. We also discuss what fans can expect when the World Cup comes to Houston next summer and more!-We invite you to follow us at Bayou City Soccer!-BayouCitySoccer.net-@BayouCitySoccer on Facebook, IG, and Twitter-Hit us up using our hashtag #AskBCS-Hosts: Dustyn Richardson-Again, BayouCitySoccer.net for everything.

Race-based spirometry adjustments have long influenced pulmonary risk assessments, often underestimating disease severity in Black patients. Hear from Dr. Ajay Sheshadri as he examines the historical misuse of race in lung function testing, explores race-neutral modeling in surgical risk prediction, and highlights the need for data-driven, continuous risk assessment tools in caring for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Dr. Sheshadri is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

As medicine shifts toward race-neutral lung function interpretation, new challenges emerge in ensuring equitable access to care. Dr. Ajay Sheshadri explores how race-neutral spirometry may impact patient selection for lung resection surgery and hematopoietic cell transplantation. Dr. Sheshadri is an Associate Professor in the Department of Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Dr Ghayas Issa from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discusses data guiding the use of menin inhibitors for patients with acute myeloid leukemia and select alterations. CME information and select publications here.

Surgical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is one of the highest-risk elective operations performed. The obstructive jaundice suffered by patients preoperatively, central location of the tumors, and extensive nature of the resection make pCCA one of the most challenging HPB disease processes. In this episode from the HPB team at Behind the Knife, listen in on the discussion about perioperative strategies to improve outcomes for surgical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hosts Anish J. Jain MD (@anishjayjain) is a current PGY4 General Surgery Resident at Stanford University and a former T32 Research Fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Timothy E. Newhook MD, FACS (@timnewhook19) is an Assistant Professor within the Department of Surgical Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. He is also the associate program director of the HPB fellowship.  Jean-Nicolas Vauthey MD, FACS (@VautheyMD) is Professor of Surgery and Chief of the HPB Section, as well as the Dallas/Fort Worth Living Legend Chair of Cancer Research in the Department of Surgical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Learning Objectives ·      Develop an understanding of the three treatment sequences for resection of disease in patients with synchronous liver metastasis from a primary rectal cancer (reverse, combined, and classic approach) ·      Develop an understanding of the benefits, risks, and nuances of each of the three treatment sequences ·      Develop an understanding of which patient cases each treatment sequence is ideal for as well as which cases they are not suitable for. Papers Referenced: 1)    Ribero D, Zimmitti G, Aloia TA, Shindoh J, Fabio F, Amisano M, Passot G, Ferrero A, Vauthey JN. Preoperative Cholangitis and Future Liver Remnant Volume Determine the Risk of Liver Failure in Patients Undergoing Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Jul;223(1):87-97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27049784/ 2)    Jain AJ, Lendoire M, Haddad A, Tzeng CD, Boyev A, Maki H, Chun YS, Arvide EM, Lee S, Hu I, Pant S, Javle M, Tran Cao HS, Vauthey JN, Newhook TE. Improved Outcomes Following Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A 27-Year Experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Jun;32(6):4352-4362. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40000564/ Additional Suggested Reading Olthof PB, Erdmann JI, Alikhanov R, Charco R, Guglielmi A, Hagendoorn J, Hakeem A, Hoogwater FJH, Jarnagin WR, Kazemier G, Lang H, Maithel SK, Malago M, Malik HZ, Nadalin S, Neumann U, Olde Damink SWM, Pratschke J, Ratti F, Ravaioli M, Roberts KJ, Schadde E, Schnitzbauer AA, Sparrelid E, Topal B, Troisi RI, Groot Koerkamp B; Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Collaboration Group. Higher Postoperative Mortality and Inferior Survival After Right-Sided Liver Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Left-Sided Resection is Preferred When Possible. Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Jul;31(7):4405-4412. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38472674/ Mueller M, Breuer E, Mizuno T, Bartsch F, et al. Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma - Novel Benchmark Values for Surgical and Oncological Outcomes From 24 Expert Centers. Ann Surg. 2021 Nov 1;274(5):780-788. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334638/ Ad Disclosures: Visit goremedical.com/btk to learn more about GORE® ENFORM Biomaterial. Refer to Instructions for Use at eifu.goremedical.com for a complete description of all applicable indications, warnings, precautions and contraindications for the markets where this product is available. Rx only Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://behindtheknife.org/listen Behind the Knife Premium: General Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/general-surgery-oral-board-review Trauma Surgery Video Atlas: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/trauma-surgery-video-atlas Dominate Surgery: A High-Yield Guide to Your Surgery Clerkship: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/dominate-surgery-a-high-yield-guide-to-your-surgery-clerkship Dominate Surgery for APPs: A High-Yield Guide to Your Surgery Rotation: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/dominate-surgery-for-apps-a-high-yield-guide-to-your-surgery-rotation Vascular Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/vascular-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Colorectal Surgery Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/colorectal-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Surgical Oncology Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/surgical-oncology-oral-board-audio-review Cardiothoracic Oral Board Review Course: https://behindtheknife.org/premium/cardiothoracic-surgery-oral-board-audio-review Download our App: Apple App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/behind-the-knife/id1672420049 Android/Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.btk.app&hl=en_US

In today's episode, we had the pleasure of speaking with Kanwal P. S. Raghav, MBBS, MD, about the role of fruquintinib (Fruzaqla) in the treatment of adult patients with pretreated, metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Dr Raghav is a professor in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology in the Division of Cancer Medicine, associate vice president of the Department of Ambulatory Medical Operations, and executive medical director of the Department of Ambulatory Treatment Centers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. In our exclusive interview, Dr Raghav discussed the mechanism of action of fruquintinib, key efficacy data from the phase 3 FRESCO (NCT02314819) and FRESCO-2 (NCT04322539) trials, the treatment settings where this agent is most frequently administered, and adverse effects to be aware of. He also noted how the role of fruquintinib in earlier lines of therapy has yet to be defined due to a lack of optimal predictive biomarkers. Dr Raghav concluded by emphasizing the importance of clinical trials for improving outcomes for patient with CRC.

In this episode of the Award-winning PRS Journal Club Podcast, 2025 Resident Ambassadors to the PRS Editorial Board – Christopher Kalmar, Ilana Margulies, and Amanda Sergesketter- and special guest, Jesse Selber, MD, discuss the following articles from the September 2025 issue: “Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction: The Laterothoracic Approach without Robotic Assistance” by Pozzo, Lhuaire, Mernier, et al. Read the article for FREE: https://bit.ly/NSM_IBR Special guest, Jesse Selber, MD, was most recently the Acting Chair, the Director of Clinical Research and Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Currently, he is a Physician Executive and the Surgery Service Line Chief of Beaumont, where he also serves as Professor of Plastic Surgery. In this role, Dr. Selber is responsible for all surgical activities within the Beaumont System, including 8 hospitals overseeing 2000 surgeons. Dr. Selber completed surgery residency at the University of Pennsylvania and fellowship in Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Selber's clinical practice is exclusively complex cancer reconstruction. He is a surgical innovator, developing numerous techniques, and author of the only robotic plastic surgery textbook.  READ the articles discussed in this podcast as well as free related content: https://bit.ly/JCSept25Collection The views expressed by hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of ASPS.

Prof Rebecca A Dent from National Cancer Centre Singapore, Dr Hans Lee from Sara Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr Neel Pasricha from the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr Tiffany A Richards from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, discuss strategies to manage ocular toxicities associated with antibody-drug conjugates and other cancer therapies. CME information and select publications here.

Prof Rebecca A Dent from National Cancer Centre Singapore, Dr Hans Lee from Sara Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr Neel Pasricha from the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr Tiffany A Richards from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, discuss strategies to manage ocular toxicities associated with antibody-drug conjugates and other cancer therapies. CME information and select publications here.

In this episode of the Award-winning PRS Journal Club Podcast, 2025 Resident Ambassadors to the PRS Editorial Board – Christopher Kalmar, Ilana Margulies, and Amanda Sergesketter- and special guest, Jesse Selber, MD, discuss the following articles from the September 2025 issue: “Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction with Profunda Artery Perforator Flaps” by Haddock, Teotia, and Farr. Read the article for FREE: https://bit.ly/SPrNSM_PAPflaps Special guest, Jesse Selber, MD, was most recently the Acting Chair, the Director of Clinical Research and Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Currently, he is a Physician Executive and the Surgery Service Line Chief of Beaumont, where he also serves as Professor of Plastic Surgery. In this role, Dr. Selber is responsible for all surgical activities within the Beaumont System, including 8 hospitals overseeing 2000 surgeons. Dr. Selber completed surgery residency at the University of Pennsylvania and fellowship in Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Selber's clinical practice is exclusively complex cancer reconstruction. He is a surgical innovator, developing numerous techniques, and author of the only robotic plastic surgery textbook.  READ the articles discussed in this podcast as well as free related content: https://bit.ly/JCSept25Collection The views expressed by hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of ASPS.

Guest: Ann Klopp, M.D., Ph.D. The recent NRG0238 trial evaluated whether adding chemotherapy to radiation improves outcomes in patients with localized endometrial cancer recurrences. Hear from Dr. Ann Klopp as she explains the findings and how they could shift practice patterns for patient care. Dr. Klopp is a Professor of Radiation Oncology, the Director of Brachytherapy, and the leader of the gynecologic section in the Department of Radiation Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Guest: Ann Klopp, M.D., Ph.D. Endometrial cancer treatment is continuing to evolve, with surgery guiding initial decisions and new evidence showing that adding immunotherapy significantly improves outcomes in advanced disease. But key questions remain around tailoring regimens to individual patients. Dr. Ann Klopp highlights the latest advances and challenges in management, particularly in patients with pelvic recurrences. Dr. Klopp is a Professor of Radiation Oncology, the Director of Brachytherapy, and the leader of the gynecologic section at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

In this episode of the Award-winning PRS Journal Club Podcast, 2025 Resident Ambassadors to the PRS Editorial Board – Christopher Kalmar, Ilana Margulies, and Amanda Sergesketter- and special guest, Jesse Selber, MD, discuss the following articles from the September 2025 issue: “Assessing the Shift: Increasing Rates of Immediate Breast Reconstruction by Nonplastic Surgeons: Insights from a Nationwide Analysis” by Kilmer, Pawly, Wehelie. Read the article for FREE: https://bit.ly/BreastReconShift Special guest, Jesse Selber, MD, was most recently the Acting Chair, the Director of Clinical Research and Professor in the Department of Plastic Surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Currently, he is a Physician Executive and the Surgery Service Line Chief of Beaumont, where he also serves as Professor of Plastic Surgery. In this role, Dr. Selber is responsible for all surgical activities within the Beaumont System, including 8 hospitals overseeing 2000 surgeons. Dr. Selber completed surgery residency at the University of Pennsylvania and fellowship in Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Selber's clinical practice is exclusively complex cancer reconstruction. He is a surgical innovator, developing numerous techniques, and author of the only robotic plastic surgery textbook.  READ the articles discussed in this podcast as well as free related content: https://bit.ly/JCSept25Collection The views expressed by hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of ASPS.

In today's episode, we spoke with Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, FACP, about the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Dr Kopetz is the deputy chair for Translational Research and a professor in the Department of Gastrointestinal (GI) Medical Oncology in the Division of Cancer Medicine, as well as the leader of the Department of Cancer Center Support Grant in the GI Program, the TRACTION medical director in the Division of Therapeutics Discovery, and the associate vice president for Translational Integration at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In our conversation, Dr Kopetz discussed the high positive predictive value of ctDNA assays, which indicate disease presence when positive. He emphasized  clinical trials that have shown strong prognostic implications with this type of assay, as well as study findings that demonstrated that ctDNA results could reduce chemotherapy use without compromising efficacy. Additionally, he noted the potential significance of ongoing trials that are exploring the use of ctDNA to guide therapy. Overall, he explained that ctDNA testing is becoming a standard in clinical practice for colorectal cancer. 

In this episode, host Jonathan Sackier is joined by Andrew Dunbar, Assistant Professor in the Department of Hematopoietic Biology and Malignancy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA. Dunbar discusses his research into myeloproliferative neoplasms, what drives disease progression and resistance, and promising targets for treatment, while reflecting on the mission of his lab and what lies ahead for the field.  Timestamps  00:00 – Introduction  02:29 – One thing people should know about myeloproliferative neoplasms  05:01 – Dunbar's background and research focus  08:00 – What would Dunbar do if not science and medicine?  10:24 – The basics of myeloproliferative neoplasms  14:30 – Myeloproliferative neoplasm diagnosis and treatment  16:49 – What drives disease progression and resistance?  18:30 – The mission of Dunbar's lab  21:23 – Development of AJ1-11095  22:54 – Balancing the complexity of disease modelling with urgent clinical needs  24:03 – Promising targets and pathways  26:35 – What's on the horizon?  28:40 – Three wishes 

Host Davide Soldato and guest Dr. John K. Lin discuss the JCO article "Racial and Ethnic Disparities Along the Treatment Cascade Among Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries with Metastatic Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer." TRANSCRIPT The guest on this podcast episode has no disclosures to declare. Dr. Davide Soldato: Hello, and welcome to JCO After Hours, the podcast where we sit down with authors of the latest articles published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host, Dr. Davide Soldato, a medical oncologist at Ospedale San Martino in Genoa, Italy. Today, we are joined by Dr. Lin, assistant professor in the Department of Health Services Research at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Dr. Lin and I will be discussing the article titled, "Racial and Ethnic Disparities Along the Treatment Cascade Among  Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Metastatic Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer." Thank you for speaking with us, Dr. Lin. Dr. Lin: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, just to start, to frame a little bit the study, I just wanted to ask you what prompted you and your team to look specifically at this question - so, racial and ethnic disparities within this specific population? And related to this question, I just wanted to ask how this work is different or builds on previous work that has been done on this research topic. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. Part of the impetus for this study was the observation that despite people who are black or Hispanic having equivalent health insurance status - they all have  Medicare Fee-for-Service - we've known that treatment and survival differences and disparities have persisted over time for patients with metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. And so, the question that we had was, "Why is this happening, and what can we do about it?" One of the reasons why eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in survival among Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic cancer has been elusive is because these disparities are occurring along a lot of dimensions. Whether or not it's because the patient presented late and has very extensive metastatic cancer; whether or not the patient has had a difficult time even seeing an oncologist; whether or not the patient has had a difficult time starting on any systemic therapy; or maybe it's because the patient has had a difficult time getting guideline-concordant systemic therapy because, more recently, these treatments have become so expensive. Disparities, we know, are occurring along all of these different facets and areas of the treatment cascade. Understanding which one of these is the most important is the key to helping us alleviate these disparities. And so, one of our goals was to evaluate disparities along the entire treatment cascade to try to identify which disparities are most important. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was very clear. So, basically, one of the most important parts of the research that you have performed is really focusing on the entire treatment cascade. So, basically, starting from the moment of diagnosis up to the moment where there was the first line of treatment, if this line of treatment was given to the patient. So, I was wondering a little bit, because for this type of analysis, you used the SEER-Medicare linked database. So, can you tell us a little bit which was the period of time that you selected for the analysis? Why do you think that that was the most appropriate time to look at this specific question? And whether you feel like there is any potential limitation in using this type of database and how you handled this type of limitations? Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And I want to back up a little bit because I want to talk about the entire treatment cascade because I think that this is really important for our research and for future research. We weren't the first people to look at along the treatment cascade for a disease. Actually, this idea of looking along the treatment cascade was pioneered by HIV researchers and has been used for over a decade by people who study HIV. And there are a lot of parallels between HIV and cancer. One of them is that with HIV, there are so many areas along that entire treatment cascade that have to go right for somebody's treatment to go well. Patients have to be diagnosed early, they have to be given the right type of antiretrovirals, they have to be adherent to those antiretrovirals. And if you have a breakdown in any one of those areas, you're going to have disparities in care for these HIV patients. And so, HIV researchers have known this for a long time, and this has been a big cornerstone in the success of getting people with HIV the treatment that they need. And I think that this has a lot of parallels with cancer as well. And so, I am hoping that this study can serve as a model for future research to look along the entire treatment cascade for cancer because cancer is, similarly, one of these areas that requires multidisciplinary, complex medical care. And understanding where it is breaking down, I think, is crucial to us figuring out how we can reduce disparities. But for your question about the SEER-Medicare linked database, so we looked between 2016 and 2019. That was the most recent data that was available to us. And one of the reasons why we were excited to look at this is because there were some new treatments that were just released and FDA-approved around 2018, which we were able to study. And this included immunotherapy for non–small cell lung cancer, and then it also included androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, the second-generation ones, for prostate cancer. And the reason why this is important is because for some time, as we have developed these new therapies, there's been a lot of concern that there have been disparities in access to these novel therapies because of how expensive they are, particularly for the Medicare population. And so one of the reasons why we looked specifically at this time period was to understand whether or not, in more recent years, these novel therapies, people are having increasing disparities in them and whether or not increasing disparities in these more expensive, newer therapies is contributing to disparities in mortality. That being said, obviously, we're in 2025 and these data are by now six years old, and so there are additional therapies that are now available that weren't available in the past. But I think that, that being said, at least it's sort of a starting point for some of the more important therapies that have been introduced, at least for non–small cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. And the database, SEER-Medicare, is helpful because it uses the population cancer registry, which is the SEER registry cancer registry, linked to Medicare claims. So, any type of medical care that's billed through Medicare, which is going to basically be all of the medical care that these patients receive, for the most part, we're going to be able to see it. And so, I think that this is a really powerful database which has been used in a lot of research to understand what kind of care is being received that has been billed through Medicare. So, one of the limitations with this database is if there is care that's received that was not billed through Medicare, we're not going to be able to see that. And this does not happen probably that frequently, particularly because most patients who have insurance are going to be receiving care through insurance. However, we may see it for some of the oral Part D drugs. Some of those drugs are so expensive that patients cannot pay for the coinsurance during that time. And it's possible that some of those drugs patients were getting for free through the manufacturer. We potentially missed some of that. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, going a little bit into the results, I think that these are very, very interesting. And probably the most striking one is that when we look at the receipt of any type of treatment for metastatic breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer - and specifically when we look at guideline-directed first-line treatments - you observed striking differences. So, I just wanted you to guide us a little bit through the results and tell us a little bit which of the numbers surprised you the most. Dr. Lin: So, what we were expecting is to see large disparities in receiving what we called guideline-directed systemic therapy. And guideline-directed systemic therapy during this time kind of depended on the cancer. So, we thought that we were going to see large disparities in guideline-directed therapy because these were the more novel therapies that were approved, and thus they were going to be the more expensive therapies. And so, what this meant was for colorectal cancer, this was going to be any 5-FU–based therapy. For lung cancer, this was going to be any checkpoint inhibitor–based therapy. For prostate cancer, this was going to be any ARPI, so this was going to be things like abiraterone or enzalutamide. And for breast cancer, this was going to be CDK4 and 6 TKIs plus any aromatase inhibitor. And so, for instance, for breast, prostate, and lung cancer, these were going to be including more expensive therapies. And so, what we expected to see was large disparities in receiving some of these more expensive, novel therapies. And we thought we were going to see fewer disparities in receiving some of the cheaper therapies, such as aromatase inhibitors, 5-FU, older platinum chemotherapies for lung cancer, and ADT for prostate cancer. We were shocked to find that we saw large racial and ethnic disparities in seeing some of the older, cheaper chemotherapies and hormonal therapies. So for instance, for breast cancer, 59% of black patients received systemic therapy, whereas 68% of white patients received systemic therapy. For colorectal, only 23% of black patients received any systemic therapy versus 34% of white patients. For lung, only 26% of black patients received any therapy, whereas 39% of white patients did. And for prostate, only 56% of black patients received any systemic therapy versus 77% of white patients. And so, we were pretty shocked by how large the disparities were in receiving these cheap, easy-to-access systemic therapies. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. So, I just wanted to go a little bit deeper in the results because, as you said, there were striking differences even when we looked at very old and also cheap treatments that, for the majority of the patients that were included inside of your study, were actually basically available for a very small price to these patients who had the eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid. And I think that one of the very interesting parts of the research was actually the attention that you had at looking how much of these disparities could be explained by several factors. And actually, one of the most interesting results is that you observed that low-income subsidy status was actually a big determinant of these disparities in terms of treatment. So, I just wanted to guide us a little bit through these results and then just your opinion about how these results should be interpreted by policymakers. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. I'm going to explain a little bit about what low-income subsidy status is and dual-eligibility status. Some of the listeners may not know what low-income subsidy status or dual-eligibility status is. Low-income subsidy status is part of Medicare Part D. Medicare Part D is an insurance benefit that allows patients to receive oral drugs. So these are drugs that are dispensed through the pharmacy, such as the CDK4/6 inhibitors, as well as second-generation ARPIs in our study. For patients who have Medicare Part D and whose income is low enough - falls below a certain federal poverty level threshold - those patients will receive their oral drugs for much cheaper. And this is really important for some of these more novel therapies because for some of these more novel therapies, if you don't have low-income subsidy status, you may be paying thousands of dollars for a single prescription of those drugs. Whereas if you have low-income subsidy status, you may be paying less than $10. And so that difference, greater than $1,000 or $2,000 versus less than $10, one would think that the patient who's paying less than $10 would be much more likely to receive those therapies. So that's low-income subsidy status. Low-income subsidy status, importantly, doesn't apply for infused medications like immunotherapy. But it's important to know that most people with low-income subsidy status - about 88% - are also dual-eligible. What dual-eligible means is that they have both Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare being the insurance that everybody has in our study who's greater than 65. And Medicaid is the state-run but federally subsidized insurance that patients with low incomes have. And so patients who are dual-eligible - and about 87% of those with low-income subsidy status are dual-eligible - those patients have both Medicaid and Medicare, and they basically pay next to nothing for any of their medical care. And that's because Medicare will reimburse most of the medical care and the copays or coinsurance are going to be covered by Medicaid. So Medicaid is going to pick up the rest of the bill. So, most of the patients who have low-income subsidy status who are dual-eligible, these patients pay almost nothing for their medical care - Part B or Part D, any of their drugs. And so, one would expect that if cost were the main determinant of disparities in cancer care, then one would expect that dual-eligibles, most of them would be receiving treatment because they're facing minimal to no costs. What we found is that when we broke down the racial and ethnic disparity by a number of factors - including LIS status/dual eligibility, age, the number of comorbidities, etcetera - what we found was that the LIS or dual-eligibility status explained about 20% to 45% of the disparities that we saw in receiving treatment. And what that means is despite these patients paying next to nothing for their drugs, these are the most likely patients to not be treated for their cancer at all. So they're most likely to basically be diagnosed, survive for two months, see an oncologist, and then never receive any systemic therapy for their cancer. And this is not just chemotherapies for colorectal or lung cancer. This includes cheaper, easier-to-tolerate hormonal therapies that you can just take at home for breast cancer, or you can get every six months for prostate cancer, that people who even have poorer functional status are able to take. However, for whatever reason, these dual-eligible or LIS patients are very unlikely to receive treatment compared to any other patient. The low likelihood of treating this group of patients, that explains a large portion of the racial and ethnic disparities that we see. Dr. Davide Soldato: And one thing that I think is very interesting and might be of potential interest to our listeners is, did you compare survival outcomes in these different settings? And did you observe any significant differences in terms of racial and ethnic disparities once you saw that there was a significant difference when looking at both receipt of any type of treatment and also guideline-directed treatments? Dr. Lin: We saw that there were large disparities in survival by race and ethnicity when you look overall. However, when you just account for the patients who received any systemic therapy at all - not just guideline-directed systemic therapy - those differences in survival essentially disappeared. And so, what that suggests is that if black patients were just as likely to receive any systemic therapy at all as white patients, we would expect that the survival differences that we were seeing would disappear. And this is not even just looking at guideline-directed systemic therapy. This was looking just at systemic therapy alone. And so, while guideline-directed systemic therapy should be a goal, our research suggests that if we are to close the gap in disparities in overall survival among black and white patients, we must first focus on patients just receiving any type of treatment at all. And that should be the very first focus that policymakers, that leaders in ASCO, that health system leaders, that physicians, that we should focus on: just trying to get any type of treatment to our patients who are poorer or black. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. And this was not directly related to the research that you performed, but going back to this very point - so, increasing the number of patients that receive any kind of systemic treatment before looking at guideline-directed treatments - what would you feel would be the best way to approach this in order to decrease the disparities? Would you look at interventions such as financial navigation or maybe improving referral pathways or providing maybe more culturally adapted information to the patients? Because in the end, what we see is disparities based on racial and ethnicity. We see that we can reduce these disparities if we get these patients to the treatment. But in the end, what would you feel is the best way to bring patients to these types of treatments? Dr. Lin: I think the most important thing is to understand that these disparities are not primarily happening because of the high cost of cancer treatment. These disparities are happening because of other social vulnerabilities that these patients are facing. And so these vulnerabilities could be a lot of things. It could be mistrust of the medical system. It could be fear of chemotherapy or other treatments. It could be difficulty taking time off of work. It could be any number of things. What we do know is when we've looked at the types of interventions that can help patients receive treatment, navigation is probably the most effective one. And the reason why I think that is because when patients don't receive treatment because of social vulnerability, I sort of look at social vulnerability like links in a chain. Any weakest link is going to result in the patient not receiving treatment. This may be because they have a hard time taking time off of work. This may be because they had a hard time getting transportation to their physician. It may be because they had an interaction with a physician, but that interaction was challenging for the patient. Maybe they mistrusted the physician. Maybe they're worried about the medical system. If any of these things goes wrong, the patient is not going to be treated. The patient navigator is the only person who can spot any of those weak links within the chain and address them. And so, I think that the first thing to do is to get patient navigation systems in place for our vulnerable patients throughout the United States. And this is incredibly important because in Medicare, patient navigation is reimbursable. And so this is not something that's ‘pie in the sky'. This is something that's achievable today. The second thing is that it's really important that we see these vulnerabilities happening for patients who are dual-eligible, who have both Medicare and Medicaid. One of the reasons why this is important is because there has been a lot of research outside of what we've done that has shown vulnerabilities for dual-eligible patients who have Medicare for a number of different diseases. And the reason why is because, although patients are supposed to have the benefits of both Medicare and Medicaid, usually these two insurances do not play nicely together. It creates a huge, bureaucratic, complex mess and maze that most of these patients are unable to navigate. And so many of these patients are unable to actually receive the full reimbursement from both Medicare and Medicaid that they should be getting because those two insurers are not communicating well. And so the second thing is that national cancer organizations need to be supporting policies and legislation that is already being discussed in Congress to revamp the dual-eligible system so that it facilitates these patients getting properly reimbursed for their care from both Medicare and Medicaid and these systems working together well. The third thing is that Medicaid itself has many benefits that can allow patients to receive care, like they have transportation benefits so that patients can get to and from their doctor's appointments with ease. And so I think this will be additionally very, very helpful for patients. The last thing is, you know, it's possible that future innovations such as telemedicine and tele-oncology and cancer care at home can also make it easier for some of these patients who may be working a lot to receive care. But what I would say is that our study should be a call for healthcare delivery researchers to start piloting interventions to be able to help these patients receive systemic therapy. And so what this could look like is trying to get that care navigation and implement that in clinics so that patients can be receiving the care that they need. Dr. Davide Soldato: Thank you very much. That was a very clear perspective on how we can tackle this issue. So, I just wanted to close with a sort of personal question. I was wondering what led you to work specifically in this research field that is very challenging, but I think it's particularly critical in healthcare systems like in the United States. Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. One of the most important things for me as an oncologist and a researcher is being able to know that all patients in the United States - and obviously abroad - who have cancer should be able to receive the kind of care that they deserve. I don't think that patients, because their incomes are lower or because their skin looks a certain color or because they live in rural areas, these shouldn't be determinants of whether or not cancer patients are receiving the care that they need. We can develop and pioneer the very best treatments and breakthroughs in oncology, but if our patients are not receiving them - if only 20% of our patients with colon cancer or lung cancer are receiving any type of systemic therapy, who are black - this is a big problem. But this is something that I think that our system can tackle. We need to get these breakthroughs that we have in oncology to every single cancer patient in America and every single cancer patient in the world. I think this is a goal that all oncologists should have, and I think that this is something that, honestly, is achievable. I think that research is a powerful tool to give us a lens into understanding exactly why it is that certain patients are not getting the care that they deserve. And my goal is to continue to use research to shed light on why our system is not performing the way that we all want it to be. Dr. Davide Soldato: Circling back to your research, actually the manuscript that was published was supported by a Young Investigator Award by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. So, was this the first step of a more broad research, or do you have any further plans to go deeper in this topic? Dr. Lin: Yeah, absolutely. First, I want to thank the ASCO Young Investigator Award for funding this research because I think it's fair to say that this research would not have happened at all without the support of the ASCO YIA. And the fact that ASCO is doing as much as it can to support the future generation of cancer researchers is incredible. And it's a huge resource, and having it come at the time that it did is critical for so many of us. So I think that this is an unbelievable thing that ASCO does and continues to do with all of its partners. For me, yeah, this is definitely a stepping stone to further research.  Medicare Fee-for-Service is only one part of the population. I want to spread this research and extend it to patients who have other types of insurances, look at other types of policies, and also try to conduct some of the cancer care delivery research that's needed to try to pilot some interventions that can resolve this problem. So hopefully this is the first step in a broader series of studies that we can all do collectively to try to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in cancer care and survival. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, I think that we've come at the end of this podcast. Thank you again, Dr. Lin, for joining us today. Dr. Lin: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure to be a part of this. Dr. Davide Soldato: So, we appreciate you sharing more on your JCO article, "Racial and Ethnic Disparities Along the Treatment Cascade Among Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Metastatic Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer." If you enjoy our show, please leave us a rating and review and be sure to come back for another 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.

//The Wire//2300Z August 26, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: TRUMP DOUBLES DOWN ON CHINESE STUDENT EXPANSION AS RESEARCHER IN TEXAS IS CHARGED WITH STEALING SECRETS FOR CHINA. WAVE OF FAKE ACTIVE SHOOTER REPORTS SWEEPS THROUGH AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. SYRIAN MIGRANT WHO ATTACKED AMERICAN IN DRESDEN RELEASED FROM CUSTODY, BUT RE-ARRESTED AFTER PUBLIC OUTRAGE.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Germany: Following Sunday's knife attack in Dresden, one of the individuals involved in the attack of an American tourist was released from jail. Sunday morning, two illegal immigrants from Syria were harassing two women on a tram in Dresden. John Rudat, an American tourist visiting the city intervened during the altercation, and was stabbed in the face by one of the assailants, resulting in extremely severe lacerations. The other assailant (not the man who stabbed Rudat, but a different attacker) was captured while trying to escape, but was released from custody yesterday, only to be re-arrested after public outrage pressured the prosecutor's office to act. The man who stabbed Rudat remains at large.-HomeFront-USA: Over the past few days, many different universities and institutions have been the victim of hoaxes which have taken the form of someone calling in a fake active shooter threat. What began as one or two reports has spread to about a dozen different institutions.Analyst Comment: Right now, it is not known who is calling in these fake reports, but extreme caution is warranted. The theories of why this is happening vary widely, but this could also be a desensitizing effort that precedes a legitimate attack at some other institution. As such, vigilance is recommended to avoid slipping into complacency, just in case this turns out to be a legitimate threat at some point.Washington D.C. - President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have doubled-down on statements supporting the import of 600,000 Chinese students, further reiterating the intent to stick to this policy at present, with President Trump stating multiple times that he is "honored" to have these students taking up seats at American universities.Texas: Yesterday afternoon Dr. Yunhai Li, a researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center was formally charged with stealing roughly 90gb of research material. Li was arrested on Friday before attempting to board a flight to China, after uploading the stolen research data to a Chinese government cloud storage platform. Li had personally been granted both NIH and Department of Defense grants to conduct undisclosed research.Maryland: The first human case of New World Screwworm was reported by the CDC yesterday afternoon, which was contracted by a person who traveled to El Salvador. The USDA has stated that this case doesn't pose any threat to livestock at present, however a 20-mile surveillance zone has been established around the individual's location as a precaution.California: More details have come to light regarding a car fire that was reported at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka over the weekend. Local authorities have stated that a man drove his vehicle onto the lawn of the courthouse, before setting the car on fire.Analyst Comment: So far, this incident appears to be an elaborate form of protest, though at present no clear ideology could be discerned from the evidence at the scene. Some people report that they saw various messages written in chalk on the sidewalk, and that hand-written papers were found scattered about the scene. All of this points to this being more of a mental health incident than anything else at this time.North Carolina: The victim of a murder on the Blue Line rail system in Charlotte has been identified as Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian refugee. Zarutska was stabbed to death on the train by Decarlos Brown Jr. on Friday night.Mi

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a relatively new type of medicine for breast cancer. Enhertu (chemical name: fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan-nxki) and Dato-DXd (brand name: Datroway) are two ADCs used to treat breast cancer. Dr Benjamin Schrank and colleagues have developed a new type of ADC that combines an antibody with a toxin — called an antibody-toxin conjugate — that teaches the immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Schrank explain: the antibody and the toxin component of the medicine how the new medicine works possible side effects next steps for the research Episode image photo credit: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr Shannon Westin from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discusses recent updates on available and novel treatment strategies for ovarian and endometrial cancer. CME information and select publications here.

This week on The Beat, CTSNet Editor-in-Chief Joel Dunning speaks with Dr. Mara Antonoff, Associate Professor of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery and Program Director for Education at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and President of Women in Thoracic Surgery, about chest tubes. Chapters 00:00 Intro 02:21 JANS 1, Ross Long-Term Outcomes 04:12 JANS 2, Valve Replacement Pregnancy 07:09 JANS 3, Bronchopleural Fistula 09:36 JANS 4, AUTHEARTVISIT Study 11:51 Career Center 13:56 Video 1, Bicuspid AVR & AAR 16:15 Video 2, Cold Head-Warm Body Perfusion 19:00 Video 3, Dr. Kappetein Podcast 20:23 Dr. Antonoff Interview, Chest Tube Management 38:45 Closing They discuss single chest tube vs double chest tube, the benefits of single chest tubes, and various chest tube sizes. They also explore reducing chest drain pain, stitching the chest tube, and chest tube output thresholds for removal. Additionally, they cover drain removal, air leaks, and clamping.   Joel also highlights recent JANS articles on whether the Ross procedure in young adults delivers favorable long-term clinical and QOL outcomes, a literature review including new data from the registry of pregnancy and cardiac disease III regarding valve replacement during pregnancy, a multi-institutional analysis of the treatment outcomes and prognostic factors in the ESSG-01 study, and the choice of surgical aortic valve replacement type and midterm outcomes in 50 to 65-year-olds.   In addition, Joel explores bicuspid aortic valve repair and ascending aorta replacement, a guide to isolated cerebral perfusion using two bypass circuits, and an episode of The Atrium podcast featuring host Dr. Alice Copperwheat speaking with Professor Pieter Kappetein about the future of revascularization. Before closing, Joel highlights upcoming events in CT surgery.    JANS Items Mentioned  1.) Ross Procedure in Young Adults Delivers Favorable Long-Term Clinical and QOL Outcomes  2.) Valve Replacement During Pregnancy: Literature Review Including New Data From the Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease III  3.) Bronchopleural Fistula: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of the Treatment Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in the ESSG-01 Study   4.) The Choice of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Type and Mid-Term Outcomes in 50 to 65-Year-Olds: Results of the AUTHEARTVISIT Study   CTSNET Content Mentioned  1.) Bicuspid Aortic Valve Repair and Ascending Aorta Replacement   2.) Cold Head-Warm Body Perfusion: A Guide to Isolated Cerebral Perfusion Using Two Bypass Circuits  3.) The Atrium: The Future of Revascularization   Other Items Mentioned  1.) Guest Editor Series: Insights Into Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support  2.) Cardiac Surgical Arrest—An International Conversation Series    3.) Career Center   4.) CTSNet Events Calendar  Disclaimer The information and views presented on CTSNet.org represent the views of the authors and contributors of the material and not of CTSNet. Please review our full disclaimer page here.

At the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit hosted by KidneyCAN, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of leading experts about key developments in the research and management of kidney cancer. Throughout the meeting, presenters shared their findings related to updated clinical trial results, personalized cancer vaccines, potential biomarkers of interest, and other advancements in the field. Thomas Powles, MBBS, MCRP, MD, discussed outcomes from a quality-adjusted survival time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of the phase 3 LITESPARK-005 trial (NCT04195750), in which investigators evaluated treatment with belzutifan (Welireg) vs everolimus (Afinitor) among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Powles, a professor of genitourinary oncology, lead for Solid Tumor Research, and director of Barts Cancer Institute at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, stated that these data demonstrate how belzutifan is more active and better tolerated than everolimus in this patient population. David A. Braun, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and member of the Center of Molecular and Cellular Oncology within the Yale Cancer Center, detailed his presentation on a personalized neoantigen cancer vaccine as a treatment for those with RCC. Based on his presentation, Braun highlighted how neoantigen vaccines may effectively yield T-cell responses in patients, illustrating a need for additional, larger studies to elucidate the clinical activity of this modality in an adjuvant setting. Additionally, Wenxin (Vincent) Xu, MD, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, spoke about his presentation on how kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) may serve as a prognostic biomarker of response to therapy in patients with RCC. His research posed questions on how KIM-1 can inform the use of adjuvant therapy or specific therapeutic combinations like nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) for this patient population. Eric Jonasch, MD, gave an overview of his presentation focused on the Kidney Cancer Research Consortium, a research partnership spanning 7 institutions dedicated to facilitating mechanistic, hypothesis-testing clinical trials in RCC. Jonasch, a professor in the Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology of the Division of Cancer Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, described how this collaboration aims to link identifiable biological characteristics of RCC subtypes to specific treatment strategies while developing predictive biomarkers. KidneyCAN is a nonprofit organization with a mission to accelerate cures for kidney cancer through education, advocacy, and research funding. You can learn more about KidneyCAN's work here: https://kidneycan.org/ References 1. Powles T, de Velasco G, Choueiri TK, et al. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of belzutifan versus everolimus in previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): LITESPARK-005 (LS-005). Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA. Abstract 13. 2. Braun DA. Personalized vaccines in kidney cancer: a journey from concept to clinic. Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA. 3. Xu W. From bench to bedside: advancing KIM-1 as a tool for clinical decision-making. Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA. 4. Jonasch E. Building the infrastructure for discovery: a clinical trial consortium to accelerate kidney cancer research. Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA.

Cancer, Character, and Calling: The Oncologist's Journey, hosted by Girindra Raval, MD, is a podcast highlighting how top oncologists have navigated the field over the course of their careers, the passion that drove them to enter the oncology space, and the ongoing work that will continue to transform cancer care. Each episode, Raval will welcome a top oncologist to dive into their background, highlight their career achievements, discuss key issues still being addressed in their fields, and explore their interests outside of the clinic and lab. In this episode, Raval welcomed Jorge Cortes, MD, who is director of the Georgia Cancer Center and a professor in the Department of Medicine at Augusta University. Raval is an associate professor in the Department of Medicine: Hematology and Oncology at the Medical College of Georgia of Augusta University. In their conversation, Raval and Cortes dived into Cortes' upbringing in Mexico, his family life, and his experience earning his medical degree from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico in Mexico City. They also spoke about Cortes' work during his 27-year tenure at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where he served as a professor of medicine, deputy department chair, chair of the acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myeloid leukemia sections, and deputy division chair, among other roles. Cortes detailed how that experience facilitated long-lasting collaborations and friendships. He then touched on his goals as director of the Georgia Cancer Center since taking over the role in 2019 and explained how it felt to leave MD Anderson after nearly 3 decades. Raval and Cortes also discussed how the hematologic oncology field has evolved during Cortes' career and how he expects the management of these malignancies as ongoing research continues. Cortes also highlighted his goals as director of the Georgia Cancer Center. 

In today's episode, we had the opportunity to speak with Henry M. Kuerer, MD, PhD, FACS, CMQ, about the potential to safely omit surgery in a subset of patients with early-stage HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer who achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Dr Kuerer is a professor of breast surgical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In our conversation, Dr Kuerer reviewed the rationale behind a prospective phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02945579) testing image-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy to identify patients with no residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy. He outlined the strict technical and eligibility criteria that enabled accurate detection of pCR—including tumors downsizing to less than 2 cm and biopsy of at least 12 cores from the tumor bed—and discussed why this biopsy-based approach may be more reliable than standard surgery in detecting residual disease. He also highlighted the broader clinical implications of the findings, noting that patients with biopsy-confirmed pCR may proceed directly to radiotherapy and avoid breast surgery altogether.

Dr Haley Ellis from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, Dr Sara Lonardi from the Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS in Padua, Italy, and Dr Kanwal Raghav from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discuss patient cases and provide their perspectives on clinical datasets informing the care of patients with HER2-positive gastrointestinal cancer.  CME information and select publications here.

Dr Haley Ellis from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Christopher Lieu from the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, Dr Sara Lonardi from the Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS in Padua, Italy, and Dr Kanwal Raghav from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discuss patient cases and provide their perspectives on clinical datasets informing the care of patients with HER2-positive gastrointestinal cancer.  CME information and select publications here.

Dr Jeremy Abramson from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr Joshua Brody from the Tisch Cancer Institute in New York, New York, Dr Christopher Flowers from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Ann LaCasce from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and Dr Tycel Phillips from City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California, discuss patient cases and provide their perspectives on clinical datasets informing the care of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. CME information and select publications here.

In the corner of the ICU, on multiple pressors, distended, oliguric, and intubated you'll find the necrotizing pancreatitis patient. Sounds intimidating, but with the persistence, patience, and the proper care these patients can make it! In this episode from the HPB team at Behind the Knife listen in as we discuss the Step-Up approach, when to surgically intervene, various approaches to pancreatic Necrosectomy, and additional aspects of the multidisciplinary care required for the successful treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis.  Hosts Anish J. Jain MD (@anishjayjain) is a current PGY3 General Surgery Resident at Stanford University and a former T32 Research Fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Jon M. Harrison is a 2nd year HPB Surgery Fellow at Stanford University. He will be joining as faculty at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA at the conclusion of his fellowship in July 2024.    Learning Objectives ·      Develop an understanding of the severity of necrotizing pancreatitis and the proper indications to surgical intervene on this often-tenuous patients.  ·      Develop an understanding of the Step-Up approach and key aspects (reimaging, clinical status, physiologic status, etc.) that determine when to “step-up” treatment for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. ·      Develop an understanding of long term sequalae and complications associated with necrotizing pancreatitis and operative management ·      Develop an understanding of multidisciplinary care and long-term follow-up necessary for adequate treatment of patients suffering from necrotizing pancreatitis. Suggested Reading Maurer LR, Fagenholz PJ. Contemporary Surgical Management of Pancreatic Necrosis. JAMA Surg. 2023;158(1):81–88. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2022.5695 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36383374/ Harrison JM, Day H, Arnow K, Ngongoni RF, Joseph A, Aldridge T, Wheeler KJ, DeLong JC, Bergquist JR, Worth PJ, Dua MM, Friedland S, Park W, Eldika S, Hwang JH, Visser BC. What's Behind it all: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Retrogastric Pancreatic Necrosis Management. Ann Surg. 2024 Sep 3. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006521. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39225420/ Harrison JM, Visser BC. Not Dead Yet: Managing the Abdominal Catastrophe in Necrotizing Pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2025 May 20. doi: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000002512. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40388698/ Harrison JM, Li AY, Sceats LA, Bergquist JR, Dua MM, Visser BC. Two-Port Minimally Invasive Nephrolaparoscopic Retroperitoneal Debridement for Pancreatic Necrosis. J Am Coll Surg. 2024 Dec 1;239(6):e7-e12. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000001152. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39051721/ van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, Hofker HS, Boermeester MA, Dejong CH, van Goor H, Schaapherder AF, van Eijck CH, Bollen TL, van Ramshorst B, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Timmer R, Laméris JS, Kruyt PM, Manusama ER, van der Harst E, van der Schelling GP, Karsten T, Hesselink EJ, van Laarhoven CJ, Rosman C, Bosscha K, de Wit RJ, Houdijk AP, van Leeuwen MS, Buskens E, Gooszen HG; Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 22;362(16):1491-502. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0908821. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20410514/ Bang JY, Arnoletti JP, Holt BA, Sutton B, Hasan MK, Navaneethan U, Feranec N, Wilcox CM, Tharian B, Hawes RH, Varadarajulu S. An Endoscopic Transluminal Approach, Compared With Minimally Invasive Surgery, Reduces Complications and Costs for Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 2019 Mar;156(4):1027-1040.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.11.031. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30452918/ Zyromski NJ, Nakeeb A, House MG, Jester AL. Transgastric Pancreatic Necrosectomy: How I Do It. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Feb;20(2):445-9. doi: 10.1007/s11605-015-3058-y. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26691148/ Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://app.behindtheknife.org/listen

The medical oncology board examinations are a pivotal time in a clinician's career. However, preparing for and taking this exam comes as a crucial moment when residents/fellows begin their transition to attending.  While in theory, the process of taking an exam and then beginning a new job sounds simple, it is quite complex. The hematology/oncology boards require rigorous preparation. The exam is followed by the new attending position, where clinicians, for the first time, are on their own, making treatment decisions and leading a team.  ONCOLOGY® spoke with leading clinicians as well as those who are just beginning their careers about this time, and how they handled studying while experiencing personal and professional changes. Eric K. Singhi, MD, assistant professor in the Department of General Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, and assistant professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, focused on: ·      His transition from fellow to attending (0:58) ·      Where students should focus their efforts on studying (2:11) ·      Advice he would give to those currently studying (2:47) Nicholas James Hornstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Northwell Health Cancer Institute, discussed:  ·      Studying for the boards while balancing a new career (3:18) ·      Specific study areas the exam focuses on (5:43) Marc J. Braunstein, MD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, fellowship program director in hematology/oncology at NYU Langone Health - Long Island, and codirector of the Hematology-Oncology System at NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, highlighted: ·      How to prepare fellows for the career transition (7:11) ·      Advice he gives about this transition (8:17) Nerea M. Lopetegui-Lia, MD, assistant professor in the College of Medicine at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-The James, spoke about: ·      Best review practices for the exam (9:01) ·      Advice she would give to those studying (10:15) MinhTri Nguyen, MD, a medical oncologist with Stanford Medicine, focused on:  ·      As a leadership coach, helping prepare residents/fellows for the career transition (11:36) ·      Advice he would give to those studying (14:34)

Dr Andrea Cercek from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, Dr Arvind Dasari from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Pashtoon Kasi from City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, Prof Eric Van Cutsem from University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, and Dr J Randolph Hecht from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in Santa Monica, California, discuss recent updates on available and novel treatment strategies for colorectal cancer. CME information and select publications here.

Dr Andrea Cercek from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, Dr Arvind Dasari from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Dr Pashtoon Kasi from City of Hope Orange County in Irvine, California, Prof Eric Van Cutsem from University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, and Dr J Randolph Hecht from the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine in Santa Monica, California, discuss recent updates on available and novel treatment strategies for colorectal cancer. CME information and select publications here.

Prof Meletios-Athanasios (Thanos) C Dimopoulos from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra Hospital in Athens, Greece, and Dr Robert Z Orlowski from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, provide their perspectives on relevant new clinical data in multiple myeloma and their application to disease treatment. CME information and select publications here.

In today's episode, we spoke with Naval Daver, MD, about the evolving role of menin inhibition in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and emerging data with revumenib (Revuforj) presented across ongoing clinical trials. Dr Daver is a professor in the Department of Leukemia and director of the Leukemia Research Alliance Program at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Sandberg is Professor of Pediatric Surgery and Neurosurgery and is the Dr. Marnie Rose Professor of Pediatric Neurosurgery at McGovern Medical School/UT Health. He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University and his medical degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He completed neurosurgery residency training at Weill Cornell Medical College at Cornell University and New York-Presbyterian Hospital. He was awarded the Resident Traveling Fellowship in Pediatric Neurosurgery by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. He completed this fellowship at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. After residency, he completed fellowship training in pediatric neurosurgery at the Children's Hospital Los Angeles. After 8 years on the faculty of the Miller School of Medicine of the University of Miami and Miami Children's Hospital, he moved to Houston to become the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at the McGovern School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. He holds a joint faculty appointment at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, where he is co-director of the Pediatric Brain Tumor Program. His major research interest involves novel delivery methods to treat malignant brain tumors in children.

Dr. Jennifer Wargo is an Associate Professor in the Department of Surgical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and a Stand Up To Cancer researcher. Jennifer is a physician scientist, and this means she splits her time between providing care to patients and doing research to find better ways of treating disease. Specifically, Jennifer performs surgeries and treats patients one day each week. She spends the rest of her week studying how to better treat patients with cancer and how cancer may ultimately be prevented. When she's not doing research or treating patients, Jennifer enjoys spending quality time with her family. Some of their favorite activities include going for walks, biking, hiking, and visiting the beach. Jennifer also likes to explore her creative side through art and photography, as well as to be active through running, biking, yoga, and surfing. She received her A.S. degree in nursing and B.S. degree in biology from Gwynedd-Mercy College. Afterwards, Jennifer attended the Medical College of Pennsylvania where she earned her M.D. Jennifer completed her Clinical Internship and Residency in General Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. Next, Jennifer was a Research Fellow in Surgical Oncology at the University of California, Los Angeles. She then accepted a Clinical Residency in General Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. From 2006-2008, Jennifer was a Clinical Fellow in Surgical Oncology at the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. She then served on the faculty at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University. In 2012, Jennifer received her MMSc. degree in Medical Science from Harvard University. Jennifer joined the faculty at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in 2013. She is Board Certified by the American Board of Surgery, and she has received numerous awards and honors throughout her career. These have included the R. Lee Clark Prize and Best Boss Award from the MD Anderson Cancer Center, the Rising STARS and The Regents' Health Research Scholars Awards from the University of Texas System, the Outstanding Young Investigator and Outstanding Investigator Awards from the Society for Melanoma Research, as well as a Stand Up To Cancer Innovative Research Grant for her microbiome work. She has also received other awards for excellence in teaching, research, and patient care. In our interview, Jennifer shares more about her life and science.

In today's episode, we spoke with Shubham Pant, MD, MBBS, and Professor Timothy Elliott, about ongoing research with cancer vaccines. Dr Pant is a professor in the Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology in the Division of Cancer Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Dr Elliott is the Kidani Professor of Immuno-oncology in the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. In our exclusive interview, Pant and Elliott discussed the current landscape of vaccines for cancer treatment, ongoing research seeking to extend the benefits of vaccines as cancer management and prevention strategies, and what the future may hold.

"Microbiome" is a buzzword these days--but many people don't know what it means. As we re-assess the lasting impact diet may have on our health, researchers are examining the role of gut health as possible causes for the dramatic uptick in colorectal cancer in young people. Katie Couric, founder of Katie Couric Media and Stand Up To Cancer, hosts an expert-led panel including Dr. Nancy You, a surgeon and director of the Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Program at MD Anderson, Dr. Susan Bullman–an Associate Professor of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Julie Smolyansky, CEO of Lifeway Foods, to discuss the impact of diet on the gut microbiome.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr Tiffany Richards from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston discusses the current and emerging role of bispecific antibodies in the treatment of multiple myeloma.NCPD information and select publications here.

Chronic myeloid leukemia is a myeloproliferative neoplasm that affects approximately 5 million people worldwide. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as imatinib, have substantially improved survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. In this podcast, author Elias J. Jabbour, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses diagnosis and treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia with JAMA Deputy Editor Mary McDermott, MD. Related Content: Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Send us a textWelcome to our Season 10 opening episode! Today we're discussing some of the big updates in metastatic breast cancer research from the 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS). Joining us today is Dr. Debu Tripathy, breast oncologist at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center who will break down into understandable terms some of the most impactful findings shared at SABCS, from advances in endocrine therapy and HER2-targeted treatments to exciting developments in PI3K inhibition and nausea control. 

Earlier this month, then U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for alcoholic beverages to feature cancer-warning labels similar to the ones on packs of cigarettes. Dr. Ernest Hawk is vice president and head of the division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and holds the T. Boone Pickens Distinguished Chair for Early Prevention of Cancer. He talks with host Krys Boyd about the ways alcohol causes cancer and what your risk might be. And later in the hour, Isabella Cueto, who covers chronic disease for Stat, talks about the fight the alcohol lobby is waging to stop this idea. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Among patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases, the subgroup with a primary cancer in the rectum is especially challenging. Compared with colon cancer, most patients with stage IV rectal cancer will have locally advanced primary tumors at increased risk for obstructive and/or post-operative complications resulting in delays in systemic therapy. In this episode from the HPB team at Behind the Knife, listen in on the discussion about treatment sequencing for synchronous liver metastasis from rectal cancer Hosts Anish J. Jain MD (@anishjayjain) is a current PGY3 General Surgery Resident at Stanford University and a former T32 Research Fellow at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Timothy E. Newhook MD, FACS (@timnewhook19) is an Assistant Professor within the Department of Surgical Oncology. He is also the associate program director of the HPB fellowship at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.  Jean-Nicolas Vauthey MD, FACS (@VautheyMD) is Professor of Surgery and Chief of the HPB Section, as well as the Dallas/Fort Worth Living Legend Chair of Cancer Research in the Department of Surgical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Learning Objectives ·      Develop an understanding of the three treatment sequences for resection of disease in patients with synchronous liver metastasis from a primary rectal cancer (reverse, combined, and classic approach) ·      Develop an understanding of the benefits, risks, and nuances of each of the three treatment sequences ·      Develop an understanding of which patient cases each treatment sequence is ideal for as well as which cases they are not suitable for. Papers Referenced (in the order they were mentioned in the episode): 1)    Conrad C, Vauthey JN, Masayuki O, et al. Individualized Treatment Sequencing Selection Contributes to Optimized Survival in Patients with Rectal Cancer and Synchronous Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;24(13):3857-3864.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28929463/ 2)    Maki H, Ayabe RI, Nishioka Y, et al. Hepatectomy Before Primary Tumor Resection as Preferred Approach for Synchronous Liver Metastases from Rectal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Sep;30(9):5390-5400. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13656-4. Epub 2023 Jun 7. Erratum in: Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Sep;30(9):5405. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37285096/ Additional Suggested Reading Mentha G, Majno PE, Andres A, Rubbia-Brandt L, Morel P, Roth AD. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection of advanced synchronous liver metastases before treatment of the colorectal primary. Br J Surg. 2006 Jul;93(7):872-8.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16671066/ Please visit https://behindtheknife.org to access other high-yield surgical education podcasts, videos and more.   If you liked this episode, check out our recent episodes here: https://app.behindtheknife.org/listen