Podcasts about uicc

Podcast “Let's Talk Cancer” – People-centred are and the power of the patient voiceKaren Nakawala speaks of her experience with cervical cancer, the foundation of Teal Sisters, a UICC member organisation, and the benefits of a people-centred approach to healthcare delivery. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ahead of World Cancer Day on 4 February and the new campaign, ‘United by Unique,' focusing on people-centred care, this episode of Let's Talk Cancer highlights "Rewriting Cancer," a series of short films produced by BBC StoryWorks Commercial Productions for UICC. These films feature the experiences of people with cancer, their loved ones, caregivers, medical professionals, and volunteers worldwide. The series aims to dispel myths and highlight advancements in cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care. With Gemma Jennings, Vice President at BBC StoryWorks, and James Waddington from the American Cancer Society, a prostate cancer survivor and advocate for early screening. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The past few decades have witnessed significant strides in how cancer is detected, diagnosed and treated, leading to a noticeable decrease in mortality rates in many countries.These improvements are largely due to new discoveries about why and how cancer develops, generating new ways of treating cancer to help people live longer, healthier lives.From immunotherapy and AI to cancer vaccines - Cary Adams, CEO of UICC speaks with Dr Laszlo Radvanyi, President and Scientific Director of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, an internationally renowned research institute located in Toronto, Canada, who is at the forefront of some of the most ground-breaking work in cancer research. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Around 8 million people die because of tobacco consumption every single year, leading the tobacco industry to search for new users. Increasingly, it is targeting youth in the hope of hooking a new generation to tobacco products and creating lifelong consumers. To protect youth from tobacco industry interference, we must ensure that their perspectives are heard.In this episode of Let's Talk Cancer, Cary Adams, CEO of UICC speaks with Agamroop Kaur, National Youth Advocate of the Year of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and​​​​​​ David Planas Maluenda, global health policymaker at the Spanish Association Against Cancer in Zaragoza and Youth Ambassador Against Cancer at the European Cancer Leagues. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Drug resistance is one of the most serious health threats facing humanity. Bacteria, fungi, viruses, and parasites are learning more and more to resist the medicines that are meant to kill them. These 'superbugs' can spread easily, increasing the risk of prolonged illness, or even death, from common infections. And the danger for cancer patients is particularly high. One of the reasons is the overuse and misuse of antimicrobial medicines. By 2050, Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) could cause 10 million deaths per year and cost more than USD 100 trillion to public health - if no action is taken.On the occasion of World Antimicrobial Awareness Week from 18-23 November, Cary Adams, UICC's CEO speaks with Professor Dame Sally Davies, UK Special Envoy on Antimicrobial Resistance and former Chief Medical Officer for England.Cary Adams, UICC's CEO speaks with Professor Dame Sally Davies, UK Special Envoy on Antimicrobial Resistance and former Chief Medical Officer for England. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Attempts to cure cancer have spanned centuries and been influenced by culture, region and religion. Those working to understand and treat cancer have faced similar problems throughout history.Thanks to modern medicine, we are constantly seeing better survival rates. Yet cancer remains a leading cause of death worldwide. Looking at the past can provide valuable lessons in understanding cancer and managing innovation.In this episode, Cary Adams, CEO of UICC, speaks with Professor Yolanda Eraso, from London Metropolitan University, and with Carsten Timmermann, from the University of Manchester. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Drs. Lillian Siu and Melvin Chua discuss scientific innovations, disruptive technologies, and novel ways to practice oncology that were featured at the 2023 ASCO Breakthrough meeting in Yokohama, Japan, including CRISPR and gene editing, CAR T-cell and adoptive cell therapies, as well as emerging AI applications that are poised to revolutionize cancer care.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Melvin Chua: Hello, I'm Dr. Melvin Chua, your guest host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. I'm a radiation oncologist and I currently practice in the Division of Radiation Oncology at the National Cancer Center in Singapore. I also served as the chair-elect of the ASCO Breakthrough Program Committee, and, on today's episode, we'll be discussing key takeaways from this year's Breakthrough meeting. The global meeting in Yokohama, Japan, brought together world-renowned experts, clinicians, med-tech, pioneers, and novel drug developers to discuss scientific innovations and disruptive technologies that are transforming cancer care today. I'm joined by Dr. Lillian Siu, the chair of the Breakthrough Program Committee. Dr. Siu is a senior medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.     You'll find our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode, and disclosures of all guests on the podcast are available at asco.org/DNpod.    Lillian, it's great to be speaking with you today.    Dr. Lillian Siu: Thanks, Dr. Chua. I'm happy to be here.    Dr. Melvin Chua: We were just at ASCO Breakthrough, and it showcased some incredible scientific innovations, and really showed us how technology innovations in precision oncology, biotech, and artificial intelligence are transforming cancer care. What are your thoughts?    Dr. Lillian Siu: Yeah, it was a really exciting meeting, Melvin. The theme of this year's Breakthrough meeting was “Shining a Light on Advances in Cancer Care.” And our Opening Session featured an illuminating keynote address by the renowned thought leader and tech trailblazer, Dr. Hiroshi or “Mickey” Mikitani, the founder and CEO of Rakuten and Rakuten Medical. In his address that was titled, “Innovative Technology and Oncology,” he spoke so passionately about innovation and really seeing around the corner to predict what is coming and taking risks. And I think that's what medicine is about, not just what we have in front of us, but to predict and forecast what's coming. I totally was inspired by his address, and I think a lot of the audience felt the same way. He also spoke to us a bit about his company's development in photoimmunotherapy using novel technology and light therapy in head and neck cancer. And I think that's also an area of new technology that we should watch in the next few years.    Dr. Melvin Chua: I totally agree with you, Lillian. And one of the quotes that he spoke about really spoke to my heart. He spoke about the 2 choices: whether to do or not to do and not to do is not an option. So, I think that was a very compelling message to a lot of our audience at the meeting.    So, on this same note, innovation is a driving force in oncology, and we saw countless examples of this throughout the Breakthrough meeting. Were there any sessions that really stood out for you?    Dr. Lillian Siu: There were so many exciting sessions. First of all, there is the “Drugging the Undruggable” session. This is a really important session because in the past we felt that certain cancer targets such as KRAS, MYC, etc., are not druggable. KRAS G12C is the poster child in this area. So, during this session we heard about many ways that we are now looking to target these so-called undruggable molecules in the cancer cell. And we talked about molecular glues, we talked about degraders, and really novel ways that are not yet reaching the clinic, called “cyclic peptides” were discussed by one of the speakers.     The other session that is very interesting also is CRISPR and gene editing. Obviously, we all know a little bit about gene editing, really trying to change or knock in some genes that are important perhaps to change the function. And one of the sessions talked about trail targeted induced mesenchymal stem cells, and perhaps this is a way to, again, deliver novel therapies and novel treatments to our patients. There were many examples of how CRISPR and gene editing can be ultimately going to the clinic to benefit our patients in terms of therapeutics.     I want to highlight another session, which is the CAR T-cell and Adoptive Cell Therapies. I think everybody knows about CAR T-cells, but in this session we talk about non CAR T-cells or newer things such as off the shelf NK cells, Natural Killer cells from cord blood. So, this way it is allogeneics, in other words, we don't have to rely on only a patient's donation of their samples, but actually get it from off the shelf from other donors. There are other ways to really use human induced pluripotent stem cells that we can armor them by transgenes and also CRISPR out any unwanted genes, for example, to enhance an effective function of T-cells. So many, many exciting ways to bring these cell therapies to the patients.     And last but not least, I want to highlight Dr. Chris Abbosh, who is one of our keynote speakers, talking about molecular and minimal residual disease and early cancer detection using circulating tumor DNA or liquid biopsy. He talked passionately about the TRACERx study, which he is instrumental in terms of leading together with Charlie Swanson in the UK. This is a study that really has uncovered a lot of science about cancer heterogeneity. And in that study, he also studied circulating tumor DNA and really shed a lot of light about clonal and subclonal dynamics over time that changes.     Dr. Melvin Chua: And just to touch on that point about innovation and how that translates to cancer care, I think it was great that we had those case-based applications in lung cancer, in breast cancer, and the virus-associated cancers. And I like how the speakers were able to bring in the Ying and the Yang, bring the West and the Eastern perspectives in these interactive sessions. I particularly enjoyed all of them. But the session on the lung case discussion where we know that there were this EGFR mutant lung cancers that are prevalent in this part of the world in Asia. I thought the interaction between the speakers was fantastic.     On the same note about therapies and we heard about novel therapeutics at this meeting as well. I wonder what your thoughts are about some of the sessions, and do you think some of these technologies were able to be brought into practice? And your thoughts on the novel therapeutic session that happened at Breakthrough, do you think this will actually impact clinical care?    Dr. Lillian Siu: Oh, for sure, Melvin. The 5 areas that were covered during the Novel Therapeutics session are really drugs already in the clinic. And for example, the first one was about antibody drug conjugates. We know there are now at least 12 antibody drug conjugates already approved by the FDA and many more likely to be approved in the near future. And the session really talked about what's next, how to improve upon ADC, for example, using better drug antibody ratio, talking about new payloads and really new formats that make perhaps ADCs even more potent in the future.     There was a session on oral immunotherapeutics. It was really how to target the innate immunity. And I think novel oral immunotherapeutics is very important because we all know PD-1, PD-L1 inhibitors have been the backbone, but we need another Breakthrough. And having oral immunotherapeutics will make it very attractive for patients because they don't have to come to the cancer center to receive the drugs.     Another part of that session was about T-cell engagers and bispecifics, really how to bring molecules to the T-cell, to the effective cells so that they are able to be phytotoxic to the tumor. We talked about also oncolytic viruses, how are the new ways to utilize this kind of natural agent to target the cancer cells. And lastly, we also talked about personalized cancer vaccine, which is obviously very timely. We all know a lot about vaccine now after the COVID pandemic and how do we use cancer vaccines to be a good therapeutic drug? I think especially important in the earlier disease stages as adjuvant therapy. Some exciting data, for example, in pancreatic cancer, as adjuvant really is groundbreaking for this whole topic of cancer vaccination.    Dr. Melvin Chua: That's great. And for me as a radiation oncologist who's not so deep in drug development, hearing all the talks at ASCO Breakthrough was really informative for me and I learned a lot. In particular, you spoke about the whole session there was oncolytic therapy and the results in glioblastoma multiforme, we know it's a deadly disease, was certainly very impressive. And so, it speaks to the whole notion that in fact, some of this stuff is in fact reaching the clinic and making a difference in deadly diseases. I think there's a lot to take in from there.    Dr. Lillian Siu: Melvin, you're so humble. I know you're a big expert in artificial intelligence and I think the whole session about AI applications in precision medicine really was not just in that session, but a whole theme that went throughout the entire meeting. So, I'm very interested to know what you think about some of the presentations around AI and disruptive technologies in precision medicine, such as next-generation multiomics, etc. What are your thoughts?    Dr. Melvin Chua: Absolutely, I agree with you. And there was so much material within the AI session, the multiomic session, as well as the keynote [address] by Dr. Maryellen Giger, which basically speaks about some of the pre-existing or historical work on artificial intelligence in radiology. And I'd like to first talk about the keynote by Dr. Maryellen Giger. It was very nice that she elegantly showed how AI was in fact already in practice in radiology, where it helped to fulfill or address a need for radiologists. Almost 20 years ago, they were able to show that using computer vision, you were able to basically facilitate the calling of abnormal mammograms. And it was inspiring to see how these early thoughts have now basically accelerated a lot of the advances that we see that are in practice today.     The other thing that was also was to see this global collaboration, the need for global collaboration in the artificial intelligence space and the radiologists are clearly leading the way. And I think part of the impetus for this effort came from an opportunity that arose during the COVID pandemic that clearly affected all facets of healthcare. That was a nice segue to the very sort of dense 1 hour session we had on precision oncology care with artificial intelligence. I think when we designed this session, we were very deliberate that we wanted to address all aspects of how AI could be applied. From real-world clinical data, we saw examples of how having good, well-annotated data sets could actually help to accelerate and facilitate liver cancer screening in Hong Kong. Then we also saw a very simple, practical application of AI in pathology, where apart from just having this tool to be able to extract features that could potentially predict outcomes of patients and predict drug responses, we saw a very practical example that applying AI in digital pathology could actually homogenize or harmonize the ways the pathologists review their cases. And so, I thought that was very neat and could speak to all our clinicians across both developed and developing countries.     We also saw very exciting stuff on the use of AI in terms of calling out mutations because we know that next-generation sequencing is pretty much a cornerstone of how we practice in oncology today. And yet we know that there are prohibitive costs that preclude this technology in certain parts of the world. And it was nice to see how AI could actually lower the cost of some of these sequencing technologies like being used in liquid biopsy.     And then finally, there was some fancy science as well that was showcased in the spectrum when we saw how industry as well as academics are thinking about integrating multiomic data sets to then be able to accelerate drug discovery, help define patients better, and so that we can think about how to look at precision oncology using targeted treatments for specific patient phenotypes. So I think this was a very nice transition to the Next-Generation Multiomic Technology session, where, again, some of these topics were touched on, ranging from liquid biopsies, and this was already covered in Dr. Abbosh's talk, which you spoke about, and as well as the preceding day session where we heard snippets of it. And it was again reinforced by the speakers when it showcased liquid biopsies. We have heard so much about it in the last decade and we see it made approved now for use in the clinic, but yet so much remains unknown, like the discrepancies between assays, addressing the cost of assays and, importantly, how we deal with the information. So, I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg here. A lot of the clinical evidence needs to be generated in due course to address some of these questions.     At the same time, it was also nice to see some of the new technologies being applied in discovery science. So, we know that immunotherapy is a major player in oncology today, and the Breakthrough represents a forum whereby we're able to bring translational scientists to showcase their work. And we saw examples of that at this meeting where single cell technology, digital spatial technology, being able to apply that in pathology specimens and how the two are integrated to be able to review more novel science to us, to show us how immunotherapy works or doesn't work in some patients. Both of us have touched on so much content that was showcased at the Breakthrough, and I think this speaks to the impact, the learning experience we've had from Breakthrough and I think that's the intended purpose of this meeting.    Dr. Lillian Siu: Yeah, I agree. It truly was a very exciting 3 days. And I particularly like the multiomics session where we see that the technology is so advanced just in a really short period of time. Over the last few years, we've been now able to go into single cell resolution where in the past I don't think we would ever dream of being able to do that. In fact, I recall in the single cell session, we can even see messenger RNA on the slide, which I thought was fascinating, something that I cannot imagine we can see by the naked eye. It really is an exciting time in oncology, Melvin, and the field is advancing with these new innovations and therapies, but at the same time, I think it's important that we do live globally and we need to work really also to help improve access to quality-assured cancer medicines and diagnostics in the low and middle income countries. What do you think about that part? Did we do a good job in addressing that in the meeting?    Dr. Melvin Chua: Absolutely, Lillian. We had a special session that was chaired by Dr. Peter Yu and the lecture was delivered by Dr. Gilberto Lopes from the University of Miami. And we know that he's a strong advocate for this. And the session title spoke to this topic very pointedly, “How Science, Technology, and Practice Can Be Enabled in Lower- and Middle-Resource Settings.” And I thought that the work that he highlighted, the whole ATOM coalition, was important. ATOM basically stands for Access to Oncology Medicines, and it was established last year by the UICC, the Union for International Cancer Control, along with global partners to improve access to anti-cancer drugs and to develop processes for ensuring quality delivery, as well as the optimal utilization of medicines in middle- and low-resource settings. And I think there's a lot more work to be done.     Some of the information they showed was very compelling to me from this part of the world. But we know that Asia isn't very heterogeneous in terms of the resources, in terms of the culture. And I thought that the drug pricing, for example, how that should be addressed across the different countries is an important topic to pick up. And I hope his lecture only invigorates this conversation going forward.     Dr. Lillian Siu: Yeah. Thanks, Melvin. I totally agree. That was very inspiring. Breakthrough is such a one of a kind, international gathering that we are not only able to network while we're there; we also have a session to really allow attendees to leverage international cancer networks, to learn a bit about them, all the way from, for example, some of the North American groups to Asia Pacific groups to even global groups, and how we interact between pharma and academia, really transcending boundaries. And I think it is really, really important for us to now have these networks address issues such as equity and cancer care innovation, novel approaches and so much more. And I think, I am sure you're going to do a good job in making sure that gets into the agenda in our next year's meeting in 2024. Ultimately, we hope that these collaborations in cancer research will help to improve the outcomes for our patients with cancer.    Dr. Melvin Chua: Thank you again for sharing the great highlights of ASCO Breakthrough, and I'm really appreciative of your work, and your commitment to build a really robust program for this year. So, thank you.    Dr. Lillian Siu: And thank you, Dr. Chua. And you can bet that I will not miss Breakthrough 2024 in Yokohama in August next year. I will be there.    Dr. Melvin Chua: Okay, I'll hold you to that.     And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You'll find links to all of the sessions discussed today in the transcript of this episode. And finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the podcast, please take a moment to rate, review and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you again.    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. Lilian Siu  @lillian_siu  Dr. Melvin Chua  @DrMLChua    Follow ASCO on social media:   @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Facebook    ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:   Dr. Lillian Siu:  Leadership (Immediate family member): Treadwell Therapeutics  Stock and Other Ownership Interests (Immediate family member): Agios    Consulting or Advisory Role: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Roche, Voronoi Inc., Oncorus, GSK, Seattle Genetics, Arvinas, Navire, Janpix, Relay Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, Janssen, Research Funding (Institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Shattuck Labs, Symphogen, Avid, Mirati Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Amgen    Dr. Melvin Chua:  Leadership, Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Digital Life Line  Honoraria: Janssen Oncology, Varian  Consulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ImmunoSCAPE, Telix Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, BeiGene  Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen   Research Funding: PVmed, Decipher Biosciences, EVYD Technology, MVision, BeiGene, EVYD Technology, MVision, BeiGene  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: High Sensitivity Lateral Flow Immunoassay for Detection of Analyte in Samples (10202107837T), Singapore. (Danny Jian Hang Tng, Chua Lee Kiang Melvin, Zhang Yong, Jenny Low, Ooi Eng Eong, Soo Khee Chee)       

Fake science, front groups and the promise of happiness: uncover the tactics used by the tobacco and alcohol industries to market their products, particularly to vulnerable populations, as well as ways to counter them.In this podcast, Cary Adams, CEO of UICC, is joined by Dr Adriana Blanco Marquizo, Head of the Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and Maik Dunnbier, Director of Strategy and Advocacy at Movendi International. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Around 13% of adults are considered obese and 40% overweight. Once a concern only for high-income countries, excess body weight now affects people across different regions and income levels and has become one of the world's biggest public health concerns. Excess body weight is a risk factor for many diseases including more than a dozen types of cancer. But too often, individuals are seen as solely responsible for their weight, and people who “obese” or “overweight” – who have a high body mass index – are stigmatised if not discriminated against. They are told to simply “eat less” and “exercise more”, and made to feel responsible for their poor health, when in truth, the reasons are complex and numerous, ranging from genetics to a low socioeconomic background and a lack of opportunity to make informed choices about their health. Many people also live in environments where healthy foods and the ability to exercise are less available, accessible or affordable. In this podcast, Cary Adams, CEO of UICC, speaks with Fiona Bull, Head of Physical Activity at the Department of Health Promotion, at the World Health Organization, and Kendra Chow, Policy and Public Affairs Manager at the World Cancer Research Fund International, and a registered dietician, about the world's obesity and nutrition problem. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr Cary Adams, CEO of UICC speaks with Deputy Commissioner Johanne Morne, who leads the newly formed Office of Health Equity and Human Rights at the New York State Department of Health in the US, about these barriers to accessing health services and cancer care and how they can be addressed. #WorldCancerDay #CloseTheCareGap Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A new research paper was published in Oncotarget's Volume 13 on October 19, 2022, entitled, “Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) cross-signaling via non-corresponding receptors indicates bypassed signaling in colorectal cancer.” Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) signaling, besides other growth factor-mediated signaling pathways like vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor (EGF), seems to play a crucial role in tumor development and progression. Previously, researchers Romana Moench, Martin Gasser, Karol Nawalaniec, Tanja Grimmig, Amrendra K. Ajay, Larissa Camila Ribeiro de Souza, Minghua Cao, Yueming Luo, Petra Hoegger, Carmen M. Ribas, Jurandir M. Ribas-Filho, Osvaldo Malafaia, Reinhard Lissner, Li-Li Hsiao, and Ana Maria Waaga-Gasser, from Harvard Medical School, Shenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, University of Wuerzburg, and Mackenzie Evangelical Faculty of Paraná, recently provided evidence for upregulation of PDGF expression in UICC stage I–IV primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and demonstrated PDGF-mediated induction of PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling in CRC cell lines. In their new study, the researchers sought to follow up on our previous findings and explore the alternative receptor cross-binding potential of PDGF in CRC. “Our analysis of primary human colon tumor samples demonstrated upregulation of the PDGFRβ, VEGFR1, and VEGFR2 genes in UICC stage I-III tumors.” Immunohistological analysis revealed co-expression of PDGF and its putative cross-binding partners, VEGFR2 and EGFR. The team then analyzed several CRC cell lines for PDGFRα, PDGFRβ, VEGFR1, and VEGFR2 protein expression. They found these receptors to be variably expressed amongst the investigated cell lines. Interestingly, whereas Caco-2 and SW480 cells showed expression of all analyzed receptors, HT29 cells expressed only VEGFR1 and VEGFR2. However, stimulation of HT29 cells with PDGF resulted in upregulation of VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 expression despite the absence of PDGFR expression and mimicked the effect of VEGF stimulation. Moreover, PDGF recovered HT29 cell proliferation under simultaneous treatment with a VEGFR or EGFR inhibitor. “Our results provide some of the first evidence for PDGF cross-signaling through alternative receptors in colorectal cancer and support anti-PDGF therapy as a combination strategy alongside VEGF and EGF targeting even in tumors lacking PDGFR expression.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28281 Correspondence to: Ana Maria Waaga-Gasser - awaaga@bwh.harvard.edu Keywords: PDGF, VEGFR, EGFR, bypassed signaling, colorectal cancer About Oncotarget: Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science. To learn more about Oncotarget, visit Oncotarget.com and connect with us on social media: Twitter - https://twitter.com/Oncotarget Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/Oncotarget YouTube – www.youtube.com/c/OncotargetYouTube Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/oncotargetjrnl/ LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/oncotarget/ Pinterest - https://www.pinterest.com/oncotarget/ LabTube - https://www.labtube.tv/channel/MTY5OA SoundCloud - https://soundcloud.com/oncotarget For media inquiries, please contact: media@impactjournals.com. Oncotarget Journal Office 6666 East Quaker Str., Suite 1A Orchard Park, NY 14127 Phone: 1-800-922-0957 (option 2)

More than half of people with cancer are 65 or older. And yet, the quality of care given to them often doesn't meet their specific needs and can be inferior to younger adults. Why is this?Dr Cary Adams, CEO of UICC, speaks with Dr Enrique Soto, from the National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition in Mexico, about the need for more patient-centred care and geriatric oncology expertise in caring for older adults with cancer. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Die TNM Klassifikation nach UICC.   Kritik/Anregungen: sven.perner@uksh.de christiane.kuempers@uksh.de  

En el día contra el cáncer hemos contado con Carlos Buesa, CEO de #Oryzon, Ion Arocena, Director General de #AseBio en una interesante tertulia sobre la #biotecnología. El 4 de febrero de cada año se celebra el Día Mundial contra el Cáncer. Una fecha donde la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), el Centro Internacional de Investigaciones sobre el Cáncer (CIIC) y la Unión Internacional Contra el Cáncer (UICC) se unen para tratar de concienciar acerca de esta enfermedad que sigue siendo una de las principales causas de mortalidad en el mundo.

Com Maisa Vasconcelos (Host) e Dra. Ana Cristina Pinho | Anualmente, temos o Dia Mundial do Câncer, a data é coordenada pela União Internacional para o Controle do Câncer (UICC) buscando dar mais visibilidade para a campanha que intensifica a conscientização e a educação sobre o câncer. De acordo com o Instituto Nacional de Câncer (INCA), o Brasil deve registrar cerca de 625 mil novos casos de câncer em 2021. O câncer de pele não melanoma é o mais frequente no Brasil com uma média de 177 mil casos, seguido pelos cânceres de mama e próstata. Trazendo o Desafio 21 dias para sua saúde, do Instituto Nacional de Câncer (INCA), o episódio tem o objetivo de promover acesso a informações e a conscientização sobre a prevenção da doença através de mudanças de hábitos. Além de incentivar positivamente o público a viver uma vida em equilíbrio.

As the world battles against the worst pandemic in a hundred years, cancer didn't just go away. In 2020, over 19 million people worldwide were affected by cancer, and almost ten million people died.Cancer doesn't wait for anyone. Not even a pandemic.  Where early detection had to be delayed... where medical care was affected or simply overwhelmed in it's struggle to cope with rising Covid-19 numbers... or continuing treatment became more remote and more difficult, cancer carried on regardless and unperturbed.  According to the World Health Organization, over 50 percent of all countries partially or totally interrupted cancer care services to respond to the Covid-19 emergency.Welcome to a new episode of Voices for Health. In acknowledgement of World Cancer Day, we spoke with Gilberto Lopes about the initiatives of the Union for International Cancer Control, UICC, to provide continuity of care for cancer during this pandemic. We discussed the importance of promoting cancer prevention, detection, and treatment as a public health priority, facing the growth of Non-Communicable-Diseases and their impact on health systems.

Kenji perdió a su mamá a causa de cáncer y esto lo llevó a fundar Cancer Warriors de México, fundación que se enfoca en generar iniciativas, propuestas y políticas públicas inteligentes para mejorar la vida de los pacientes de cáncer y sus familiares. Kenji es una persona dedicada y enfocada en hacer un cambio en el mundo y nos comparte sus hábitos, retos y experiencias que lo han ayudado a ser quien es. Kenji es abogado y maestro en Políticas Públicas del Tecnológico de Monterrey y actualmente es candidato a la Junta Directiva 2020- 2022 de la Unión Internacional contra el Cáncer (UICC), con sede en Ginebra, Suiza. También es profesor de Derechos Humanos en la Universidad Iberoamericana. Si puedes, apreciamos si nos escribes una reseña donde sea que escuches tus podcasts o en https://apple.co/317Xgrm

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

В этом эпизоде мы поговорим с преподавателем биологии в Назарбаев Университете -  Зариной Саутбаевой. Магистр биомедицины из Манчестерского Университета, стажер научных институтов США и Швейцарии, член UICC, победитель проекта «100 Новых Лиц Казахстана», Зарина расскажет каким был ее путь к науке, и что заставляло ее двигаться вперед, несмотря на сложности и разочарования.  Мы узнаем, какие есть возможности для молодых казахстанцев, мечтающих о научной деятельности, а также что находит Зарина для себя в многочисленных путешествиях в самые непредсказуемые точки планеты.   Интервьюер: Асем К. Дизайн: Мариям Токанова Music: Dln Звук: Руслан Куанышбаев   Поддержать подкаст Findyourb в Patreon Обсудить эпизод в чате

This #WorldCancerDay Podcast features a panel of experts: Thuy Khuc-Bilon from UICC; Dr Natthaya Triphuridet, lung cancer expert and post-doctoral fellow, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA, and faculty, HRH Princess Chulabhorn College of Medical Science, Thailand; Dr Pooja Ramakant, breast cancer expert; Additional Professor, Department of Endocrine Surgery, King George's Medical University (KGMU) and Vice Dean, Innovation and Intellectual Property Cell, KGMU; Dr Tara Singh Bam, Deputy Regional Director (Asia Pacific), International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) and secretariat of APCAT (Asia Pacific Cities' Alliance for Tobacco Control and NCDs Prevention); and Dr Anwar Hussain, Director, Institute of Palliative Medicine.This conversation is moderated by Shobha Shukla, founding Managing Editor, CNS; and Coordinator, APCAT Media (Asia Pacific Media Network to end TB & tobacco, and prevent NCDs); and Ashok Ramsarup, senior award-winning journalist and former Senior Producer, South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) Lotus FM, Durban, South AfricaThanksCNS team

Dr. Jim Cleary talks with Dr. Pennell about this new resource-stratified guideline, which provides guidance to clinicians and policymakers on implementing palliative care in resource-constrained settings.   Welcome back, everyone, to the ASCO Journal of Oncology Practice podcast. This is Dr. Nate Pennell, medical oncologist at the Cleveland Clinic and consultant editor for the JOP. Now over the last decade or so, there has been a major change in our approach to the care of advanced cancer patients with the recognition of the importance of palliative care. There have been a number of trials now showing that integrating palliative care into cancer patients' care can make a major impact on their quality of life and possibly even their survival. And as a result, the involvement of palliative medicine has become part of treatment guidelines. However, much like cutting edge biomarker testing or expensive drugs, specialist-driven palliative care also takes a fair amount of resources that are not available everywhere. So joining me today to talk about this is Dr. Jim Cleary, who just moved from the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, where he started the palliative care program in 1996 and for the last seven years, has led the Pain and Policy Studies Group, a WHO collaborating center for pain policy and palliative care. He's now been recruited to the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, where he'll be the professor of medicine and Walther's senior chair in support of oncology and director of the supportive oncology program at the IU Simon Cancer Center. He's going to focus on building a program focusing on global supportive care and palliative care, which makes him the perfect person today for us to talk to about the recommendations of an expert panel that's going to be published this month in the JOP titled, Palliative Care in the Global Setting ASCO Resource-Stratified Practice Guideline Summary. Jim, thanks so much for joining us. Why, thank you very much for having me-- a real honor. So can you start out a little bit by telling us about the progression of the role of palliative care in oncology, and what has led to the impetus for forming the panel that you were a part of? So if we look back historically to the introduction of palliative care throughout medicine, it's actually been primarily in cancer care. If we go back to the original WHO guidelines in the 80s, it was all focused on cancer patients. And it's interesting if one looks at the very definition of palliative care from the word go, they said all the principles of palliative care can be applied upstream, earlier in the course of patients' illnesses from the-- even from the 80s. But as we look at it historically, and particularly in the US, with the introduction of the Hospice Benefit, palliative care really became brink of death care. So that you didn't get hospice or pallative care involved until someone was actively dying. So we were missing out on that very principle of-- let's address all the issues, the skills that palliative care provides early on. Let's address these earlier on in the course of people's illness, particularly when it comes to people with advanced disease. And it doesn't just have to be advanced disease to be including the skill set. So people who are getting chemotherapy, some may support it or call it supportive oncology, but really, it's the same principle-- supportive oncology, palliative care. It's total person care of patients with cancer and dealing with cancer. So as we look at those, the studies have been coming out saying it improves quality of life. You mentioned the survival benefit that's been suggested or hypothesized. And while that may be there, for me, that's not the primary reason for doing this. It's the right thing to be doing-- to be addressing quality of life. And even trying to get us to move beyond what seems to be that magic mark of survival-- length of survival or time of survival may not be the only important thing. Quality of life is becoming increasingly important as we address many of these issues. ASCO has recognized this, and in 2016, they actually published a paper-- again, a guideline-- the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care. And that was released in 2016, and it was based on what we would call research that was done in maximal resource institutions, largely in the high income countries. The United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia-- those sorts of countries. What the situation is in the world is that probably 80% of the cancers are now being diagnosed in low and middle income countries. And in those countries, most people are actually being diagnosed with advanced disease. And this comes from the paucity of person power in terms of diagnosis, the lack of surgeons, the remoteness that these people-- where they live. They're really presenting in different ways. So as ASCO looked at this, and they've done this as well with cervical cancer, they said, let's get a guideline that is resource-stratified. So let's look at the issues that low and middle income countries face in getting this integration of palliative care and supportive oncology across the board. And that's what we aim to do in this setting. No, that sounds like a very important intervention. I have a soft spot in my heart for this topic. Because when I was a fellow at Mass General Hospital, that was when Jennifer Temel was running her initial trial of head of care that led to this possible survival benefit, which was just suggested retrospectively, or at least post hoc, in that analysis, but I remember when this was greeted with a lot of skepticism-- that palliative care was that important in cancer care. And of course, now people broadly accept how important it is. So I'm great to see that this is going to be extended outside of just academic centers in the United States. So one of the questions I have for you before we kind of delve into your paper, and this is a conversation I've had with Dr. Temel, as well. Most of the data is not just in maximized resource centers and countries, but also seems to focus on specialists trained in palliative medicine. Do we understand the aspects of palliative medicine, and what leads to quality of life benefits, enough to be able to extract those different pieces out and then extend them out beyond palliative care trained physicians? I don't think we do yet. And we need to do more research on this. And I know that Jennifer currently has a query study that is looking at the role of telemedicine. At about the same time that Jennifer was doing the study in Boston, we actually did a similar study out of the University of Wisconsin, which looked at an internet intervention through CHESS-- Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System-- and the service was integrating palliative care information, internet support for both patient and caregiver. And we actually found a survival benefit that mirrored this-- the Temel effect-- for people who use the internet system. So I don't think we have a very good start understanding at all. I think Charles von Gunten has equally identified that there is this difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary palliative care. And primary palliative care is what all clinicians should be able to do. In Charles' papers that he's written on this, he's talked about oncologists should have a secondary level of palliative care knowledge and experience and be able to do this. And then really you need the tertiary level, or the specialty team, involved in palliative care for the difficult cases. I'm not convinced, still to this day, that I need to see every cancer patient with advanced disease. What we need to do in palliative care teams is actually fill in the holes when the current treating oncology team is not able to provide them. And if you have an oncologist who is excellently trained in symptom management, communication-- together with good nurses and social workers, pastoral care, spiritual care, who can come in and help with this-- the role of the palliative care physician may actually go on the palliative care team. Maybe a little moot in most settings, but really, it's filling in the holes and coming in and making sure that patients are getting the appropriate level of care. That appropriate level of care really does become tough in resource poor-- resource challenged settings. And that's probably true even in the United States, as well as in low and middle income countries. If the only health care center within 100 miles is actually with a primary health worker with minimal training, how do you get appropriate oncology care, let alone an appropriate palliative care integrated into that? And I think one of the challenges that some of our panelists from low and middle income countries had was, well, how do you actually define good cancer care in our country? And that continues to be a country many people-- and I'll come back to remind listeners that hepatocellular cancer is actually one of the most common cancers in the world. And many of these people who have, and end up dying of, hepatocellular cancer never actually see an oncologist. Now I agree that that makes sense in so many places-- just even in our own country here, patients struggle to reach specialist oncology care. And so I think the idea of Jennifer's, of trying to be able to do palliative medicine consults with telemedicine, is certainly an interesting potential solution for that. So let's just dig into the panel's recommendations here, shall we? The guidelines are divided into different sections. And each section is very nicely broken down into what you term as basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal sections, depending on the available resources. So maybe we could go through them one at a time, and you can talk a little bit about them. So I think the first section is called, "Palliative Care Models." Can you talk a little bit about that? So what we were doing with the palliative care model with the [? gain, ?] if you think about some of these basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal, we were saying, hey, basic is the primary health care center which I mentioned. It may be a community health worker, or a clinical officer as they are commonly called. It may not be a physician. There may be a nurse, but they may not even be a nurse in some of those settings. So the recommendation is that we should be training and addressing these people to actually even start thinking about palliative care needs in this setting. So it's saying throughout the whole system, we need to be building in palliative care needs. Particularly in advanced cancer, one of the issues that comes up significantly, and is under Item 7, is ensuring that we have access to opioids for pain relief. And this becomes very difficult if you're talking about a rural community-- no one with a physician license or a nurse license. How do we actually get appropriate pain relief to these people, who may never see an oncologist, as they're dealing with advanced cancer needs? So we've gone through and actually looking at the strength of evidence saying, yes, this has to be integrated throughout the whole health care system. And there are evidence from different models as we look at places like Kenya and Malawi as they've introduced palliative care throughout these settings. It's quite possible. Uganda actually has nurses out in many of the districts in Uganda, who are now licensed because of their special training, to actually dispense morphine. And that's a real change. We go to other countries, which have a shortage of physicians interested in palliative care and doing this, and there are physician groups who actually say, there's no way nurses are ever going to be able to do that. Professional protectivism, if you want to look at it-- boundary protecting. No right answers, but I think these need to be considered. And we need to think outside the box with the models of care that we're providing to ensure the appropriate people are getting them. I visited a hospital in Zambia-- the Children's Hospital in Lusaka-- where each child with leukemia had a small bottle of morphine on the top of their locker, which the parents were administering to the children for appropriate pain relief because of their leukemia. Really quite incredible to watch this going on in a resource poor setting, and this was entrusted to the parents to do with appropriate education. Because they're the ones who are most concerned and available to do this sort of work. I've actually been to hospitals in other parts of Africa where the drug cupboard has actually been empty and the lock broken, and it takes 15 to 20 minutes to go to central pharmacy to actually get some morphine. So when someone is complaining of pain, that's not a good situation. So we need to make sure that all of these things actually fall into place and develop good care models. And that's really what recommendation number one does. Recommendation number two goes to look and talks about timing. And this comes up as a critical-- when should you get palliative care needs addressed? And as I said with the primary, secondary, and tertiary, really, they should be addressed from the point of diagnosis, if not even before diagnosis if you suspect someone has advanced disease. And so you're really saying, hey, let's consider this from the word go with everyone in the course of the illness-- a palliative care team, not just the needs of the patient. But a team, in the basic and limited settings, should probably get involved with overwhelming symptoms, particularly metastatic disease. And if a decision not to go for life prolonging therapy is made, that's when I think we need to be engaging teams at that stage. And really, it's coming in with the maximal. And if you've got the appropriate resources, it's saying everyone. And this comes from the 2016 guidelines as well. We should have this integration early in the diagnosis and ideally within eight weeks of diagnosis. The palliative care team should actually be involved at that stage. Oh, that makes perfect sense. I certainly remember when this idea of early palliative care started coming out. And it's so much easier for the patients when they are plugged in and connected with the palliative medicine team earlier in their disease, rather than trying to call them in late. And it's much more jarring and disturbing to them, and they don't get nearly as much of the benefit of the care, I think, at that point. And often pain control is a way I get involved early on. Other symptom management-- how can we help you through chemotherapy? Some of the issues go on. It does actually open up opportunities. Yes, I can maybe spend some more time there than the oncologist. Many nurse practitioners-- advanced practice nurses-- are actually doing this on their own. But it's coming in and helping the oncologist. It's building up that team. And as the disease transitions, that jarring nature of all this-- this guy who's now coming to meet you because I've run out of options. No, you're part of the team from the word go and will continue to stay involved. Yeah, absolutely. I think that has been my experience, that that makes the best sense. So the third section of the guideline addresses the workforce knowledge and skills. And how does that vary from the various resource levels. So this comes up, the resource levels and if you even go back to the WHO definitions of palliative care, we use the term interdisciplinary. It's very hard to be interdisciplinary when you're a single person. Although I often joke that Dame Cecily Saunders, who started the modern hospice movement, was trained as a nurse, a social worker, and a physician. So she could have a multidisciplinary team all by herself. So it's the basic level. If you're a single clinical officer, that may be very difficult. A single nurse-- that interdisciplinary team is really something that may be hard to come by. But having those basic skills is something that we need to teach. But as we move up into the limited or district level facilities, working on building teams together, and teams in some cultures-- and particularly with the nurse-physician relationship not being as strong as I think we see in most places in the United States, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand-- often these are real issues of hierarchy between the physicians and nurses. But we need to be ensuring that they do function as a team to maintain and provide the best level of care. So that's one of the things that we're looking at, recognizing that we are a team that does this. And that team continues to grow, particularly, we hope, with regional facilities or the enhanced level with the introduction of a counselor into that level. Again, if you look at the resource poor areas when you start talking counselors, one statistic I've heard is that there are three psychiatrists for the Horn of Africa, which is Ethiopia, Somalia, and those areas. And you think of only three. So the ability to train-- or having trained counselors around-- is something that is not common. So it's really integrating across the board, particularly as we move up to higher levels-- regional facilities and then to maximal, national cancer centers-- making sure that we have appropriately trained social workers and counselors available to join this team. So addressing all of the members of the team-- you know, the nursing roles, the spiritual care, the counseling-- and then just the recognition that in some places it may end up being the caregiver, or the physician, or whoever they are dealing with, that has to assume many of these roles, I think, is a nice recognition. Ideally, you'd love to have a large interdisciplinary team. But it's having the available resource, rather than who does it, that is important. Exactly right, and in many cases, it may actually be the nurse who is doing most of this work. And we even find that in our own situations here, it's often the nurses giving chemotherapy who may be doing a lot of the counseling with patients while they're administering the chemotherapy. I even make the comment to our own folks in in-patients, it may actually be the person who's working on housekeeping who is actually doing a lot of interaction and hearing of the needs of the patient, just because they feel comfortable talking to them, whereas they don't share that with others. So we don't exclude any member of this team across the board. That's really interesting. I don't know if you read Bloom County, the comic strip, but there is a storyline over the last couple of years of a sick child in the hospital. And it's the maintenance man who ends up providing most of the support to the child in this family and it's a really touching storyline. It reminds me of that a little bit. So I hope that's not because we weren't providing it, which is often something that can happen. But I think it reflects some of the comfort that people do have in dealing with like people. White coat syndrome, I think, applies as much to adults as it does to children. We need to look at those issues, that talking to that man-- that person in the white coat who stands at the end of the bed with 15 other people. That's not really a situation where you can share your inner thoughts and feelings. No, I think that's true. And then you touched on this a little bit earlier, but the seventh and certainly a very critical component of this, is the availability of opioids to help deal with pain. I guess it hadn't really occurred to me that this was a major problem, because drugs like morphine should be relatively inexpensive. But this is I'm guessing a major issue throughout the world. So 80% of the world's population lack access to appropriate pain control. And it's even made worse by the current dilemmas that we're facing, the unbalanced situation that we have in the United States with the current heroin and fentanyl crises. And I say that, because I think we've moved somewhat beyond most of the deaths being caused by prescription opioids. There's increasing evidence that people in the United States are getting first access through heroin and illicit fentanyl. So that these people are lacking access to the basic essential pain medicines, both postoperatively and as they deal with advanced cancer. And so we're even seeing some of that now reported in the United States, that people are actually being denied access to opioids, because of shortages in this country, as they deal with cancer. So it's a critical issue. We need to make sure these are all available. We saw even back in the 90s-- we saw some pharmaceutical companies in China saying, you guys don't need an immediate release morphine. Just use sustained release morphine. The reality is that immediate release morphine, even a morphine solution, together with injectable morphine, is something that should be available at the most basic settings for pain control of cancer patients. And then we can move up oral morphine together with sustained release, if you need to, in different forms. The costs can change. We see some countries in the world with fentanyl patches as the primary medicine used. But the cost of these is dramatically much greater than, in fact, it is for immediate release morphine. People say that levels are steadier, it's better pain control, and things with fentanyl patches, but the evidence doesn't necessarily support that overall. And so we will come back to the gold standard being very much based on oral morphine and making sure that's available in different formulations. And I will stress while this guideline was for adults, one of the advantages of a morphine solution does allow you to titrate and dilute the morphine appropriately for children across the board. You can't do that necessarily with tablets. So I think there are absolutely access to medicines-- and not just the opioids, but particularly the opioids-- is something that's being addressed with a number of levels and making sure that the current situation in the United States doesn't come back and not only rebound here for cancer patients, but really impact cancer patients around the world. Yeah, that's certainly a major topic in the United States, and I'm sure that's true elsewhere, as well. Well, so that brings me to my next question, which is-- while these recommendations make wonderful sense, and in many ways it's kind of reassuring. Because in some places when I talk about palliative care, and they say, well, you know, we don't really have access to specialist palliative care, a lot of this can be done just about anywhere as long as there are recognized the aspects of palliative medicine that are available and necessary. So what are the next steps to this? So the guideline is going to be published. How is ASCO going to work to try to make some of this more available? So I think it reflects the impact of ASCO around the world. ASCO is-- while it's the American Society of Clinical Oncology, it actually has very, very real impact. We're starting to see research take place. So the African Palliative Care Association is already beginning to use a palliative care outcomes scale, together with King's College in London to bring about this. So it's actually-- we're seeing a push. I think we're going to see some of the QOPI measures come out and be part of this international work. So for instance, as you mentioned, getting chemotherapy in the last two weeks of life is a negative QOPI indices. Getting people into hospice, we're seeing as a positive as we move forward. So I think that we're going to see this overall from ASCO coming out and saying, this is absolutely critical. ASCO is a player on the international scene. Works with a number of international organizations-- the NCI, Global Health Institute, the NCCN, and others are looking at the-- the Breast Health, Global Initiative. So this is all moving forward together with the World Health Organization, the Union for International Cancer Control, UICC. Many people are targeting this, and I think it's actually going to be the overall recognition of the importance of this. Many people have followed for years, saying we will do what ASCO does. ASCO is now saying, this is important. And I think we're going to see this change in low and middle income countries because of ASCO's leadership, and that's going to be critical. Well, I certainly hope that's the case. Because this really does sound like an incredibly important initiative. So Jim, do you have any take home points you'd like to give to our listeners as we wrap up the podcast? So take home points are to realize, within your own practice, that palliative care is important to integrate. But I think at this stage, it's an awareness of the importance of palliative care in cancer care around the world. We don't often think of that outside of our own settings. But it's absolutely important. Become involved in advocacy as you move forward. And promote this, both regionally within the United States, and for those listeners who are listening outside of the United States, work with your oncology organizations to say, what are we doing with palliative care and cancer care across the board? And I think it's those sorts of things where we're actually going to be seeing those changes as we move forward. Well, Jim, thank you so much for joining me today on this podcast. I'm sure our listeners are really going to appreciate this. Thank you very much, Nate. And I also want to thank the listeners who joined us for the podcast. The full text of the paper is available at ASCOpubs.org/journal/JOP published online in July of 2018. This is Dr. Nate Pennell for the Journal of Oncology Practice signing off.

Kara Alikpala speaks with ecancertv at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about how UICC membership is informing the practice of her organisation, ICanServe, in regional cancer control in the Philippines.

Charles Butcher speaks with ecancertv at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about the CEO programme, which links the heads of patient groups in low-income countries to organisational and advocacy guidance through the UICC. This was first year for the programme, which aimed to combine networking opportunities, peer-to-peer learning, and training opportunities for senior executives across the UICC membership.

Charles-Antoine de Beaumont speaks with ecancertv at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about The Faraday Project, a clothing line based around insulating sources of electromagnetic radiation worn close to the body, such as mobile phones, and donates a portion of their proceeds to the UICC. He describes the founding of the company, plans for expanding their range to include, and how the insulating properties can help prevent data theft as well as lower risks of cancer.

Dr Shulman speaks with ecancertv at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about how ASCO and UICC are working together. ASCO typically represents clinical advances, where UICC is often more policy focused, and he considers how the two have worked together in bringing cancer care and control plans to a global community. Dr Shulman also discusses the 'essential medicines list', a collection of the most effective and available treatments for cancer, and how the cost of these proves a barrier to access in low income countries.

Prof Aranda speaks with ecancertv at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about her hopes for the development of the UICC. She highlights global equity in cancer care and recognition of nurses as personal priorities.

Lynda Thomas speaks with ecancer at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about collaboration between Macmillan and the UICC. Considering the national and international aspects of cancer care discussed at the congress, she considers the room for growth in involving patients with their care, illustrated by worldwide engagement with the Macmillan Cancer Support online material.

Katie Dain speaks with ecancertv at the 2016 World Cancer Congress about the NCD alliance. Formed by the UICC, International diabetes federation , world heart federation and the International Union Against TB, she describes how the alliances shared experience with a breadth of non-communicable diseases informs their work, advocating against shared risk factors and towards common goals. Katie Dain describes the history and successes of the alliance, including campaigning to include cancer in Sustainable Development Goals, with goals in reducing mortality.

Prof Kutluk talks to ecancertv at the World Cancer Leaders Summit in Istanbul, Turkey, about why collaboration is needed in cancer care and how to implement cancer plans. Prof Kutluk also suggests some sustainable development goals.

Dr Bogler talks to ecancertv at AORTIC 2015 about the work of the Global Academic Program (GAP) at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. The programme helps train healthcare providers globally. He says that although there have been many gains in cancer research, the benefits are unevenly distributed. In Africa, the focus of GAP has been on capacity building and they have partnered with various organisations and institutions such as the UICC. Efforts in Africa should be focussed on tobacco controls, screening for HPV and breast cancer, the HPV vaccine, and better access to radiotherapy. He explains how through on-site workshops, collaboratively produced educational materials, treatment guidelines and telementoring, GAP has been able to help.

Pastor Alan R. Knapp discusses the topic of UICC and the Cosmic New Creation in his series entitled Rev The Book. This is lesson number 400 and it focuses on the following verses: Rev 21:1 among others.

ecancer's Prof McVie (ecancer and European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy) provides an overview of the topics and debates arising from the UICC World Cancer Congress 2014.

Dr Ullrich (Medical Officer for Cancer Control, World Health Organization) talks to ecancertv at the UICC World Cancer Congress 2014 about the relationship between the World Health Organisation and the UICC, and his hopes for future collaboration in cancer control. In particular, vaccination against cancer is a key method of cancer control, which requires collaboration at multiple levels.

Prof Gospodarowicz (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada) talks to ecancertv at the UICC World Cancer Congress 2014 about the purposes and ambitions of UICC and cancer stakeholders more generally. She outlines the broad ambitions of lowering the global burden of cancer, providing healthcare equity, and ensuring the place of cancer on the global health agenda, and describes how to inspire movement towards these goals.

Introduction: Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaws is defined as exposed irradiated bone that fails to heal over a period of 3 months without the evidence of a persisting or recurrent tumor. In the previous decades, numerous factors were associated with the risk of ORN development and severity. Aims: The purposes of this study were to present the data of the patients that were treated for ORN in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Munich (LMU), to detect factors that contributed to the onset of ORN, to identify risk factors associated with the severity of ORN and finally, to delineate and correlate these factors with the personal, health and treatment characteristics of the patients. Material and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted during the period from January 2003 until December 2012 that included all ORN cases having been treated in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in Munich (LMU). The total sample was categorized in three groups according to stage and several variables were evaluated in an attempt to identify possible correlations between them and the necrosis severity. Results: One hundred and fifty three cases of ORN were documented. Among them, 23 (15.1%) cases were stage I, 31 (20.2%) were stage II and 99 (64.7%) were stage III and all localised in the mandible. There was a predominance of the disease in the posterior region when compared to the anterior region. The majority of cases was addicted to alcohol and tobacco abuse and was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus (DM). All cases were treated with RT and 80.4% of them with concomitant chemotherapy. The initial tumor was predominantly located in the floor of the mouth, the tongue and the pharynx. Αpproximately two thirds of the cases occured either after dental treatment or due to a local pathological condition. Logistic regression analysis identified Diabetes Mellitus (OR: 4.955, 95% Cl: 1.965-12.495), active smoking (OR: 13.542, 95% Cl: 2.085-87.947), excessive alcohol consumption (OR: 5.428, 95% Cl: 1.622-18.171) and dental treatment/ local pathological condition (OR: 0.237, 95% Cl: 0.086-0.655) as significant predictors for stage III necrosis. Tumor size (T) (p

Exponent is doing something a little different than the other pilot winners for the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace. The company's pilot has a significant hardware component to its test and will look at using different secure elements in the identity ecosystem. “We will demonstrate two form factors,” says said Brad McGoran, a principal engineer at Exponent. “One will leverage the UICC in a phone, and the other's going to leverage a secure element that's embedded in a wearable device, and we've called that wearable device a PAD – or a Personal Authentication Device.”

Background and objectives: Treatment options for oesophageal cancer have changed considerably over the last decades with the introduction of multimodal treatment concepts dominating the progress in the field. However, it remains unclear in how far the documented scientific progress influenced and changed the daily routine practice. Since most patients with oesophageal cancer generally suffer from reduced overall health conditions it is uncertain how high the proportion of aggressive treatments is and whether outcomes are improved substantially. In order to gain insight into this we performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated at a larger tertiary referral centre over time course of 25 years. Patients and methods: Data of all patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) of the oesophagus, treated between 1983 and 2007 in the department of radiation oncology of the LMU, were obtained. The primary endpoint of the data collection was overall survival (calculated from the date of diagnosis until death or last follow up). Changes in basic clinical characteristics, treatment approach and the effect on survival were analysed after dividing the cohort into five subsequent time periods (I-V) with 5 years each. In a second analysis any pattern of change regarding the use of radio(chemo) therapy (R(C) T) with and without surgery was determined. Results: In total, 503 patients with SCC (78.5%) and AC (18.9%) of the oesophagus were identified. The average age was 60 years (range 35-91 years). 56.5% of the patients were diagnose with advanced UICC stages III-IV. R(C) T was applied to 353 (70.2%) patients; R(C)T+ surgery was performed in 134 (26.6%) patients, 63.8% of all received chemotherapy (platinum-based 5.8%, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 12.1%, 42.3% 5-FU and mitomycin C (MMC)). The median follow-up period was 4.3 years. The median overall survival was 21.4 months. Over the time, patients were older, the formal tumour stage was more advanced, the incidence of AC was higher and the intensified treatment had a higher prevalence. However there was only a trend for an improved OS over the years with no difference between RCT with or without surgery (p = 0.09). The use of radiation doses over 54 Gy and the addition of chemotherapy (p = 0.002) were associated with improved OS. Conclusion: Although more complex treatment protocols were introduced into clinical routine, only a minor progress in OS rates was detectable. Main predictors of outcome in this cohort was the addition of chemotherapy. The addition of surgery to radio-chemotherapy may only be of value for very limited patient groups.

In einer retrospektiven Studie wurde bei 65 Patienten mit nicht-kleinzelligem Bronchialkarzinom, die sich 1998 in den Asklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting einer operativen Therapie unterzogen, die Kosten für den stationären Aufenthalt ermittelt. Ziel der Arbeit war es, die tatsächlichen Kosten der chirurgischen Behandlung und deren Verteilung auf die verschiedenen Abteilungen so genau wie möglich zu ermitteln. Dabei sollte die postoperative Lebensqualität Berücksichtigung finden. Die Behandlung dieser Patienten verursachte im klinischen Bereich Kosten von 7169,93 € mit einer durchschnittlichen Behandlungsdauer von 23,11 Tagen. Mit 38 % der Gesamtkosten verbrauchte die Operationsabteilung die meisten Ressourcen, gefolgt von der Normalstation präoperativ mit 32 %, der Intensivstation mit 19 % und der Normalstation postoperativ mit 11 %. Personalkosten (47,17 %), Materialkosten (12,76 %) und Untersuchungen der Pathologie (12,27 %) wurden als größte Einzelposten identifiziert. Medikamente (1,34 %), Blutprodukte (0,23 %) und Antibiotika (0,21 %) spielten mit einem Anteil von unter 2 % der Gesamtkosten eine geringfügige Rolle. Im Vergleich zwischen Patienten der verschiedenen Tumorstadien der UICC 1997 sowie Patienten verschiedener Altersgruppen zeigten sich bezüglich der Kosten keine signifikanten Unterschiede. Bei der Analyse verschiedener Resektionsverfahren zeigten sich erweiterte Resektionen (N = 22) mit mittleren Gesamtkosten von 8366,64 € am kostenintensivsten. Dies lag an einer prolongierten Verweildauer von durchschnittlich 28,18 Tagen, kostenintensiverer Diagnostik, sowie längeren Operationszeiten (212,50 Minuten) mit erhöhten Materialkosten von 819,52 €. Die erbrachten Dienstleistungen wurden ohne Berücksichtigung der „Overheadkosten“ von den Versicherungsträgern vergütet. Unter näherungsweiser Berücksichtigung der „Overheadkosten“ wäre der Klinik ein durchschnittlicher Verlust von 1261,92 € entstanden. Gleiches hätte sich bei Patienten, die sich einem „einfachen“ Resektionsverfahren oder einem Resektionsverfahren nach Sonderentgeltklassifikation (SE) 8.03 unterzogen, bei derzeitig geltendem Vergütungssystem nach DRGs gezeigt. Die Verluste wären jedoch mit 368,40 € deutlich geringer ausgefallen. Bei Patienten, die sich anderen „erweiterten“ Resektionsverfahren (SE 8.04, 8.05 und 8.07) unterzogen, hätte die Klinik im Mittel Gewinne von 2420,44 € erwirtschaftet. Es ist jedoch hervorzuheben, dass es sich hierbei um einen Vergleich zwischen Kosten des Jahres 1998 und Erlösen des Jahres 2005 handelt, der nur beschränkt interpretierbar sein dürfte. Die ein Jahr postoperativ ermittelte Lebensqualität war im Vergleich zur altersentsprechenden Normalpopulation oder zu Patienten mit chronischen Erkrankungen deutlich schlechter. Hierbei wurde von den meisten Patienten die physische Subskala des SF-36 schlechter beurteilt, was auf eine stärkere Beeinträchtigung des köperlichen Befindens schließen läßt. Im Durchschnitt lag die postoperative Lebenserwartung bei 7,18 Jahren. Patienten in höheren Tumorstadien hatten mit 3,4 Jahren (Stadium III a) oder 1,67 Jahren (Stadium III b) jedoch eine deutlich kürzere Lebenserwartung. Der SF-36-Single-Index lag mit einem Wert von 0,64 zwischen den Indizes von Patienten mit schwerer Angina pectoris (0,5) und Herzinsuffizienz NYHA Grad III/IV (0,7), was die Schwere der Erkrankung verdeutlicht. Im Mittel wurden mit der Behandlung 4,62 qualitätsadjustierte Lebensjahre (QALYs) erzielt. Die Mittel, die zum Erreichen eines QALYs aufgewendet werden mussten („cost per QALY“), lagen durchschnittlich bei 1970,33 €. Bei den erweiterten Resektionen oder Patienten höherer Tumorstadien lagen die „costs per QALY“ mit 3192,99 € (erweiterte Resektion) und 7075,89 € (Stadium III b) wegen der kürzeren Lebenserwartung und bei den erweiterten Resektionen zusätzlich auch signifikant höheren Kosten deutlich höher. Im Vergleich mit anderen gängigen operativen Therapien (wie z. B. Hüftendoprothese mit 1813,55 - 4360,30 €/QALY) jedoch liegen die durchschnittlichen „costs per QALY“ im mittleren Bereich, sodass die operative Therapie des Bronchialkarzinoms als kosteneffektiv zu beurteilen ist. Zwischen den verschiedenen Stadien der UICC zeigten sich sowohl bezüglich der Kosten als auch bezüglich der postoperativen Lebensqualität keine signifikanten Unterschiede, was aus medizinischer und ökonomischer Sicht die operative Therapie bis in hohe Tumorstadien unter kurativer Zielsetzung rechtfertigt.

The concentration of nucleosomes is elevated in blood of patients with diseases which are associated with enhanced cell death. In order to detect these circulating nucleosomes, we used the Cell Death Detection-ELISA(Plus) (CDDE) from Roche Diagnostics (Mannheim, Germany) (details at http:textbackslash{}textbackslash{}biochem.roche.com). For its application in liquid materials we performed various modifications: we introduced a standard curve with nucleosome-rich material, which enabled direct quantification and improved comparability of the values within (CVinterassay:3.0-4.1%) and between several runs (CVinterassay:8.6-13.5%), and tested the analytical specificity of the ELISA. Because of the fast elimination of nucleosomes from circulation and their limited stability, we compared plasma and serum matrix and investigated in detail the pre-analytical handling of serum samples which can considerably influence the test results. Careless venipuncture producing hemolysis, delayed centrifugation and bacterial contamination of the blood samples led to false-positive results; delayed stabilization with EDTA and insufficient storage conditions resulted in false-negative values. At temperatures of -20 degreesC, serum samples which were treated with 10 mM EDTA were stable for at least 6 months. In order to avoid possible interfering factors, we recommend a schedule for the pre-analytical handling of the samples. As the first stage, the possible clinical application was investigated in the sera of 310 persons. Patients with solid tumors (n = 220; mean = 361 Arbitrary Units (AU)) had considerably higher values than healthy persons (n = 50; mean = 30 AU; P = 0.0001) and patients with inflammatory diseases (n = 40; mean = 296 AU; p = 0.096). Within the group of patients with tumors, those in advanced stages (UICC 4) showed significantly higher values than those in early stages (UICC 1-3) (P = 0.0004).