Podcast appearances and mentions of umberto veronesi

MILANO (ITALPRESS) - Europa Donna Italia ha festeggiato a Milano i 30 anni dalla sua fondazione. Il movimento impegnato a fianco delle donne con tumore alla mammella e nato su impulso del professor Umberto Veronesi, si è riunito per celebrare. Durante la serata sono stati consegnati i premi Laudato Medico 2024 a quattro specialisti che si sono particolarmente distinti per empatia nei confronti delle pazienti.f03/fsc/sat

MILANO (ITALPRESS) - Europa Donna-European Breast Cancer Coalition, movimento che si impegna per aiutare le donne con tumore alla mammella, ha da poco pubblicato un white paper per sottoporre all'attenzione dei decisori politici la problematica della possibile perdita di fertilità per le donne sottoposte a trattamenti contro il cancro al seno: ne ha parlato Marzia Zambon, membro di Europa Donna, European Breast Cancer Coalition presente a Milano per festeggiare i trent'anni del movimento voluto da Umberto Veronesi.f03/fsc/sat/gtr

MILANO (ITALPRESS) - "I lasciti di mio papà sono davvero tanti". Ai festeggiamenti per i 30 anni di Europa Donna Italia movimento che si impegna per aiutare e stare al fianco alle donne con tumore alla mammella, voluto da Umberto Veronesi, il figlio Paolo, Direttore del Programma Senologia dell'Istituto europeo di oncologia, lo ha ricordato con affetto. "Europa Donna è una realtà cresciuta tantissimo in questi anni, porta la voce delle pazienti in sede istituzionale".f03/fsc/sat/gtr

Siamo portati a credere che, per un medico, accettare la morte di un paziente sia una sconfitta. Ma cosa significa, davvero, curare una persona? In occasione della nascita di Umberto Veronesi, vi raccontiamo la storia e il pensiero di un medico che ha sempre pensato che rispettare la vita significasse anche accogliere la scelta di morire.Questa puntata è stata realizzata in collaborazione con la Fondazione Umberto Veronesi.

Al via la seconda edizione de “La macedonia per la ricerca®”, il progetto di Fondazione Umberto Veronesi, realizzato in partnership esclusiva con Autogrill, per sostenere il lavoro di medici e ricercatori che dedicano la propria vita alla ricerca scientifica.Da oggi fino al 30 luglio 2023, in tutti i punti vendita Autogrill sul territorio, per ogni confezione di macedonia di frutta da 200 grammi venduta, Autogrill devolverà parte del ricavato a Fondazione Umberto Veronesi per finanziare eccellenti ricercatori e ricercatrici che lavorano nel campo della nutrigenomica, ossia la scienza che studia le relazioni tra patrimonio genetico e cibo; come le molecole che introduciamo con la dieta influenzano i nostri geni e quindi la nostra salute, sia positivamente che negativamente. La nutrigenomica va di pari passo quindi con la prevenzione, soprattutto delle malattie croniche cardiovascolari, cerebrovascolari e soprattutto dei tumori, responsabili dei tre quarti dei decessi nei paesi sviluppati.

L'Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, lo IEO, è un crocevia di storie e di vite. Ogni giorno, negli ambulatori, i medici accolgono le loro pazienti e spesso accade che questi incontri diventino dei punti di svolta.In questa prima puntata, la presentazione di questo luogo e dell'eredità di Umberto Veronesi è affidata alla voce narrante di Monica Guerritore, che ha vissuto di persona l'esperienza di un tumore del seno, e a due medici chirurghi, Paolo Veronesi e Mario Rietjens. Le loro voci raccontano come sono straordinariamente progrediti nel tempo la cura e il percorso di guarigione, e quali sono le prospettive nel vicino futuro.

Maria Giovanna Luini"Parla come ami"L'infallibile potere delle paroleMondadori Editorehttps://www.librimondadori.it/«Quelle parole mi hanno fatto bene, non so perché ma mi sono sentito subito meglio.» «Ciò che hai detto mi ha fatto male, lo ricorderò per tutta la vita.» Le parole riempiono i nostri discorsi, ma sono molto più di semplici elementi comunicativi: hanno un effetto immediato su chi le riceve e agiscono anche nel medio e lungo periodo. Diventano un balsamo per il cuore, un sostegno quando le si rievoca, una dimostrazione di affetto, amicizia, fiducia, oppure un veleno a lento rilascio, spesso fatale. È l'energia creativa dell'amore che è in ciascuno di noi a influenzare ogni aspetto di una relazione verbale, ce ne ci rendiamo conto osservando la mimica di un volto, il tono di un'esclamazione involontaria, il colorito della pelle, il ritmo nel respiro di chi parla. Noi stessi con le parole possiamo regalare o togliere energia a chi ci ascolta.In ogni ambito – lavorativo, medico, amoroso – le parole possono creare o rompere legami, provocare un pianto o una risata, esprimere emozioni e progetti, lasciarci indifferenti o tracciare un segno. Possono farci ammalare così come guarirci: il loro è un potere tangibile, in grado di interagire con la nostra energia per creare o modificare davvero il piano della realtà, ma anche per invitarci ad andare sempre oltre nel nostro cammino interiore.Partendo dalla sua esperienza di medico che ha maturato un approccio interiore e spirituale alla malattia, e corredando queste pagine con una serie di esercizi pratici, Maria Giovanna Luini descrive la potenza specifica e infallibile delle parole, per renderci più consapevoli e insegnarci a maneggiarle con cura nelle situazioni di ogni giorno.Perché senza l'amore le parole non saprebbero guarire, e la loro vibrazione non potrebbe trasformarsi in magia. Di magia, però, abbiamo bisogno: l'importante è credere, «aderire con il cuore e la mente a una visione che oltrepassi la materialità», per divenire finalmente coscienti di quanto potere risieda in ognuno di noi.Maria Giovanna Luini, chirurga senologa con due specializzazioni e un master universitario, da anni approfondisce la medicina orientale, il percorso intuitivo e spirituale, la terapia vibrazionale e gli approcci sciamanici. Dal 1994 è consulente all'Istituto Europeo di Oncologia (IEO) a Milano, dove è stata assistente medico personale di Umberto Veronesi alla Direzione Scientifica e con lui ha scritto alcuni libri. Tiene sessioni individuali e di gruppo, seminari di meditazione e guarigione spirituale. Nel suo ultimo libro, La via della cura (Mondadori, 2020), ha raccontato il proprio peculiare metodo terapeutico: grazie all'integrazione tra le diverse medicine e la psicoterapia psicosomatica, la cui specializzazione sta perfezionando a Riza a Milano, accompagna i pazienti su una strada che persegue la guarigione attraverso un approccio personalizzato centrato sul sé.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

“Per la civiltà e la giustizia sociale”. E' iniziata la raccolta di firme per il referendum abrogativo che vuole legalizzare l'eutanasia in Italia. Entro il 30 settembre dovranno essere raccolte 500 mila firme. Il referendum è stato promosso dall'associazione “Luca Coscioni” e dai Radicali italiani. Tra i promotori c'è Marco Cappato, l'esponente radicale e dell'associazione Coscioni che aiutò a realizzare la volontà di Fabiano Antoniani, dj Fabo, di mettere fine alla propria vita. Cappato, che è stato ospite oggi a Memos, ha raccontato che solo “una persona su mille può accedere all'aiuto alla morte volontaria in Svizzera. Sono pochi anche coloro che possono ottenere qualche cosa di simile a una eutanasia clandestina o di fatto. Invece, il diritto e le regole – secondo Cappato - sono quelle che devono valere per tutti e che danno in modo uguale a tutti la libertà di poter scegliere alla fine della propria vita. E' un fatto che in democrazia deve essere garantito indipendentemente dalle disponibilità economiche o dalle conoscenze del paziente”. Così conclude Marco Cappato: “non si tratta di essere a favore o contro l'eutanasia, ma di scegliere tra un'eutanasia clandestina che c'è già (come ricordava sempre il professor Umberto Veronesi), un'eutanasia fatta di disperazione, abbandono, solitudine; e un'eutanasia legale dove il compito delle istituzioni è quello di avere regole chiare, facilitare la conoscenza, la libertà e quindi la responsabilità individuale”.

“Per la civiltà e la giustizia sociale”. E' iniziata la raccolta di firme per il referendum abrogativo che vuole legalizzare l'eutanasia in Italia. Entro il 30 settembre dovranno essere raccolte 500 mila firme. Il referendum è stato promosso dall'associazione “Luca Coscioni” e dai Radicali italiani. Tra i promotori c'è Marco Cappato, l'esponente radicale e dell'associazione Coscioni che aiutò a realizzare la volontà di Fabiano Antoniani, dj Fabo, di mettere fine alla propria vita. Cappato, che è stato ospite oggi a Memos, ha raccontato che solo “una persona su mille può accedere all'aiuto alla morte volontaria in Svizzera. Sono pochi anche coloro che possono ottenere qualche cosa di simile a una eutanasia clandestina o di fatto. Invece, il diritto e le regole – secondo Cappato - sono quelle che devono valere per tutti e che danno in modo uguale a tutti la libertà di poter scegliere alla fine della propria vita. E' un fatto che in democrazia deve essere garantito indipendentemente dalle disponibilità economiche o dalle conoscenze del paziente”. Così conclude Marco Cappato: “non si tratta di essere a favore o contro l'eutanasia, ma di scegliere tra un'eutanasia clandestina che c'è già (come ricordava sempre il professor Umberto Veronesi), un'eutanasia fatta di disperazione, abbandono, solitudine; e un'eutanasia legale dove il compito delle istituzioni è quello di avere regole chiare, facilitare la conoscenza, la libertà e quindi la responsabilità individuale”.

Expert: Fatima Cardoso, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal Questions: 1- Why did you chose this topic for the Umberto Veronesi memorial award lecture? 2- Can you please give examples of deascalation or optimization for early breast cancer? 3- Can you now give examples of deascalation or optimization for advanced breast cancer? 4- And examples for drug development? 5- Would you like to add any final comments?

====> Read the text while you're listening! https://www.arkosacademy.com/podcast-umberto-veronesi/ ====> Join Arkos Academy Telegram to keep you updated! https://t.me/arkosacademy Umberto Veronesi was an Italian oncologist known and appreciated all over the world. His foundations have helped and still help the research for cancer care. Listen to the podcast to know more *** Please, spread the word and leave a feedback! It' s important for me and my Arkos Academy and it can help other students like you!***

Più di 10 anni d'esperienza nel nonprofit, si occupa di strategie di raccolta fondi, analisi di trend e brand awareness. È un professionista che desidera condividere le idee e la passione per il Fundraising.

Rosanna D'Antona"Il mio Professore"Come l'incontro con un grande uomo può salvarti e cambiarti la vitaEdizioni Piemmehttps://www.edizpiemme.it/Una diagnosi di cancro al seno a quarantotto anni, all'apice della carriera: l'annuncio, lo smarrimento, la caduta di tutte le certezze. E un incontro con un uomo speciale: il professor Umberto Veronesi che, oltre a salvargliela, la vita gliela cambierà. Lei è la paziente 0, la prima paziente dello IEO, operata mentre ancora fervono i lavori di completamento di quella struttura d'eccellenza nella cura dei tumori che sta sorgendo alla periferia sud di Milano. Rosanna guarisce e la riconoscenza, oltre alla vicinanza intellettuale con l'uomo che l'ha curata, la convince a farsi coinvolgere in molte delle campagne civili che in quegli anni il Professore intraprende.Ne nasce un rapporto solido di stima reciproca che non può prescindere però dal momento in cui tutto è cominciato, la circostanza del primo incontro. Chi meglio di lei allora può raccontare Veronesi dalla prospettiva delle pazienti? Ognuna di loro possiede un pezzo del Professore, ognuna di loro ne conserva un ricordo particolare e lo considera "suo" per ciò che le ha dato e lasciato durante la cura della malattia. E Rosanna si fa portavoce di tutte queste storie per ricostruire quella di un grande uomo, prima che un grande medico.Rosanna D'AntonaNata da genitori pugliesi ma milanese d'adozione, si è laureata in lingue a Milano e ha studiato comunicazione e relazioni pubbliche alla Boston University. Imprenditrice, ha fondato la sua prima società di consulenza di comunicazione nel 1975. Nel 1987 crea la sua seconda società, che ha venduto negli anni successivi a un gruppo americano. Nel 2003 nasce la sua terza agenzia di comunicazione corporate, che lascia a fine 2019 per dedicarsi a tempo pieno a Europa Donna Italia, il movimento di advocacy per la prevenzione e la cura del tumore al seno di cui è Presidente dal 2010. Vive a Milano, ha tre figli e quattro nipoti. Il mio Professore è il suo primo libro.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

Marianna Palella, classe 1993, Founder di un'azienda che fattura 6 milioni e che negli ultimi anni ha raccolto migliaia di euro per la ricerca su diverse patologie.I suoi genitori hanno un'azienda nel settore ortofrutticolo, che viene travolta dalla crisi del 2008: la famiglia perde tutto.Marianna, che studia all'università a Milano, capisce che sfruttando le sue competenze di marketing sarebbe possibile rilanciare l'azienda dei genitori.Insieme alla madre lavorano duramente e nel 2016 fondano così "Citrus - l'orto italiano".Da un lato rivedono il packaging: inseriscono nelle retine dei prodotti dei messaggi emozionali allo scopo di informare i clienti sui valori nutrizionali.Dall'altro lato decidono di sostenere la ricerca scientifica, finanziando la ricerca sul cancro tramite la fondazione Umberto Veronesi.Nascono così i «Limoni della ricerca»: per ogni retina venduta, una parte dell'incasso viene devoluta alla ricerca.Fonte: Federica Segato - Career Leaderhers

E’ possibile rallentare il processo di invecchiamento evitando di incappare in gravissime malattie? Un comportamento disequilibrato nella vita della persona ed un disturbo neurormonale possono manifestarsi come malattia sul piano fisico! Cosa possiamo fare allora per evitare di ammalarci e prevenire malattie gravissime come i tumori o alcuni processi degenerativi letali per l’essere umano? Lo scopriamo insieme nella puntata di oggi, con il dott. Gianluca Pazzaglia, medico chirurgo, specialista in diagnostica per Immagini che si occupa da più di 20 anni della diagnosi precoce delle malattie del seno.Il Prof.Umberto Veronesi lo ha definito uno dei più bravi diagnosti italiani sul tumore della mammella. Studiando le neoplasie ed il loro legame con l’invecchiamento cellulare il dr. Pazzaglia è diventato oggi uno dei massimi esperti di endocrino-senescenza e per questo viene regolarmente invitato a Convegni Nazionali ed Internazionali.
 Proseguendo questo cammino ha poi sviluppato il concetto di endocrino-prevenzione delle neoplasie. Secondo questa logica se il nostro sistema endocrino è bilanciato invecchiamo più lentamente e meglio, riducendo allo stesso tempo la probabilità di sviluppare una neoplasia. Ma ora ti lascio direttamente alle sue parole e alla sua interessantissima storia, alza il volume e buon ascolto!!--- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/paolo-bruniera/message

Dr. Hayes interviews Dr. Muggia about his time at NCI. TRANSCRIPT: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories, the Art of Oncology, brought to you by the ASCO Podcast Network-- a collection of nine programs carrying a range of educational and scientific content, and offering enriching insight into the role of cancer care. You can find all of the shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. [MUSIC PLAYING] Hi, and welcome to Cancer Stories. I'm Dr. Daniel Hayes. I'm the medical oncologist, and I'm also a researcher at the University of Michigan local cancer center. And I'm the past president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. I am truly privileged to be your host for a series of podcast interviews with the founders of our field. Over the last 40 years, I've really been fortunate. I've been trained, mentored, and I've been inspired by many of these pioneers. It's my hope that through these conversations, we can all be equally inspired and gain an appreciation of the courage and the vision, and frankly, the scientific understanding that led these men and women to establish the field of clinical cancer care over the last 70 years. I hope that by understanding how we got to the present and what we now consider normal in oncology, we can also imagine and work together towards a better future for our patients and their families during and after cancer treatment. Today, I'm pleased to have, as my guests on this podcast, Dr. Franco Muggia. He's generally considered one of the pioneers of new drug development oncology going all the way back to the 1960s. Dr. Muggia is currently a professor of medicine and co-chair of the GYN Cancer Working Group at NYU, and a member of their breast cancer program. He was born in Turin, Italy before the war. But when he was about three years old, his family fled to Ecuador to escape Mussolini's fascism. After growing up there at the age of 18, he moved to the United States in Danbury, Connecticut, to finish high school. And then he received his undergraduate degree in biophysics from Yale in 1957. In 1964, he became a US citizen. But he's remained true to his roots and has been very involved with both US/Italian cancer collaborations and mentorship, and also with South America for decades. He went to medical school at Cornell, followed by an internship at Bellevue in New York City, and a residency at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut. He completed a fellowship in medical oncology hospital in 1964-1967. And we're going to talk about that, Franco. And since he's had a number of important academic positions at Einstein, the NCI, University of Southern California, and New York University on two different occasions, and that's where he still practices. He's been involved in the development of clinical trials of hundreds of new drugs through the years, perhaps most notably, cisplatinum. In regards to ASCO, he served on our cancer education committee and on the editorial board of JCO. In fact, I understand you were the first editor of the Spanish edition of JCO. Correct. Correct. And perhaps more importantly, he's been a direct, and an indirect, mentor of hundreds of medical oncologists of the decades at that many institutions he's served, including myself, frankly, in my association with his good friend, George Canellos. Dr. Muggia, welcome to our program. Thank you very much, Dan. And I would just say, just a comment on the citizenship. So once I became a citizen, I actually became eligible for the draft. And that was the main reason why I ended up at the National Cancer Institute. So it had a-- it was a great effect on my career, that I actually volunteered for the Public Health Service in 1969. Because Lyndon Johnson changed the rules for physicians. And if you hadn't served, you had to serve up to age 35. So I decided I should join, not head to Vietnam like the rest of my classmates-- like many of my classmates from Cornell. And it really was a career change for me. Actually, that's a recurring theme in my podcast series. I have interviewed several people at the NCI in the mid to late '60s and early '70s sort of pejoratively, but actually not. You all became known-- as you've put in some of the things you've written-- as the yellow berets. Right. But in fact, it's really, I think, fundamentally changing-- NIH in general, and especially the NCI. We'll talk about that more later. I know your father was a pediatrician. Leaving Europe in the 1930s must have been extraordinarily painful for him and your family. Can you tell us more about that, and getting to Ecuador? Well, he was-- he never joined the fascist party. In fact, he was best friends with the socialists that remained at that time. Mussolini was brutal. He wanted everybody to become a fascist. And anybody who served at the University lost their jobs. He was in a bit of hot water as well. So that, plus the racial laws, which made Jews not be citizens, led to a big decision in the family. It was a phone call, whether we wanted to join an enterprise-- whether he wanted to join an enterprise in Quito, Ecuador in a pharmaceutical company. And my mother said, I don't know where the place is, but let's go. So that's how it happened. So in a matter of a few weeks, we were gone. And I was three years old. So how did you end up getting to Connecticut? Well, that was-- the American School of Quito, which I was a founding member in kindergarten. There was this person who became Ecuadorian, who was actually born in New York because his father was a consult here in the early 1900s, Galo Plaza Lasso. He decided, hey, we need a school-- a private school that-- non-religious, that competes with the German school that's there. We're going to call it the American School of Quito. So I was a founding kindergarten pupil, and ended up going right through to graduation with my class, except that the last year, I was an exchange student in Danbury, Connecticut. Because our principal, who was a champion swimmer-- Ashby Harper-- and John Verdery, who was at the Wooster School principal, they were together in Princeton. And they decided to make this exchange program, which ended when-- I was the last one, actually, of six years. My brother, he was there three years before. But they sent a person, or two people, to be there for their last year. And now I know you went on to Yale to study biophysics. I'm always fascinated by why people end up making decisions. So you were biophysics major. Why did you go into medicine? Was it your father? Well, my father and my two grandfathers were physicians, actually. So my brother was already-- he preceded me at the Wooster School, and then he went to Harvard College. I decided to go with some of the-- it was a small class. We had 16 people. Four of us went to Yale. So I decided to join the group that went to Yale. And my father thought that I should go into the sciences, but not medicine. One doctor was enough. So I started off, and I was actually doing very well in math and physics. And I was friends with a lot of premeds. But I didn't want to take any pre-medical-- the usual biochemical courses that were given at the medical school. So I decided to go with the head of biophysics major, and that suited me fine. So I started with that. And then I decided, well, you know, that's good. But let me head to medical school. So you had no choice. Actually, the really great story, I know you went to Cornell Medical School. Tell us about the lecture by Dr. Karnofsky, which I think has ended up changing oncology. Yeah, so-- yeah, actually, it was the first lectures we had in medical school as freshman. And we had-- in our 30th reunion a few years later, I talked about Karnofsky, how he inspired me to think about the clinical matters in cancer and his performance status evaluation. I remember that very well. Nobody else did. I have to tell you-- I guess it resonated with me, but not with my other mostly surgeons in my medical school. Well, this is, frankly, a recurring theme in these podcasts too, which is many of our pioneers hadn't thought about going into cancer. In fact, in those days, it almost didn't exist. And then one person made a light bulb come on. I have the same issue in my own career with Dr. Einhorn. So I think all of us need to keep in mind, you never know what influence you're going to have on a medical student. Yes, mentorship is extremely important. And going to class, face-to-face meetings are important. I know you've told me some of the stories too, but when you were at Cornell and located through Memorial, that you ran into some of the luminaries-- Joe Burchenal, Irwin Krakoff, Miriam Isaacs-- Well, I took-- well, that's partly mixed with my internship because I did my internship at Bellevue Cornell division. Yeah. And also, my clerkship. So yeah, that's when I took some electives, too, at Memorial as well. What did Miriam Isaac bring into this one? I think a lot of us know about-- Miriam Isaac was head of the metabolism group. Where did you know her from? I've just heard her name, yeah. Yeah, she was part-- Parker Vanamee and Miriam Isaac ran this physiology. It was called physiology elective. And it was ideal for a third year student. I learned everything, because you saw so many derangements that were concomitant with what was happening with the progression of cancer. But they examined all the issues regarding what led to hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, any electrolyte imbalance. So you really learned a lot. So that almost gets to the birth of translational medicine, in many respects. We think this is new. It's not. It goes way back. Right. It goes way back. I know then you went on and finished your residency. And most importantly, you are an alumnus of the Francis Delafield Hospital. And that spurred me. I've heard this hospital's reputation my entire career. But I never knew who he was, or what it's all about. Tell us about-- Well, so the city of New York, the city of New York, they really had very good outstanding commissioners of health who decided that cancer hospitals were important to take care of New Yorkers with cancer. And they set up one at Cornell, which was called James Ewing Hospital, which was right inside Memorial Hospital. So they were-- I mean, people don't really remember the James Ewing Hospital because it was annexed into Memorial Sloan Kettering. But the one at Columbia was a separate building. And it was Francis Delafield Hospital. And it had real luminaries from the Columbia faculty, including Alfred Gellhorn, who was a professor of medicine and very charismatic. It was an outstanding group of individuals. Gellhorn presided over a group of about 10-12 internists who were dedicated to cancer and also translational research, as you say. And one of my papers that I wrote to my fellows was on hypercalcemia malignancy with Henry Heinemann, who was one of the internists. He devoted all his effort into physiology, so to speak. So it was kind of the same segue to what we I had at Memorial as a student. But the Francis Delafield Hospital had problems. They had staffing problems because the head of medicine would not send their residents to-- stop sending their residents through the oncology services-- I guess that's what it would be, if you're taking care of medical oncology services. They were in all that way. But it was the Department of Medicine at Francis Delafield. And it was kind of a bit of envy, in part, as one interprets, that Gellhorn was so popular with the students. And so there was all this internal discord with these services at Columbia and Francis Delafield, although Francis Delafield was part of Columbia. So at one point, when the residency finally stopped including, the Bellevue first division residents did rotate through. The first division residents were Columbia service at Bellevue. And they rotated through. So when Gellhorn and another name, the president of ASCO later, Jon Altman-- who was a terrific teacher whom I worked with-- he then left and went to the University of Chicago. And Gellhorn left and became dean at the University of Pennsylvania. I was told to get another job. I was there, starting to be an attending physician. And I went to Albert Einstein. So as you see, I've moved around. I've moved around a lot, but I've moved around always twice to the same place, except the University of Southern California. And there, I go every year. I've maintained my ties with the Trojans. I know that Ezra Greenspan came out of there, and Jim Holland. Jim has told several of us this story, that he was in the military. And when it ended, he thought he was going to go back and be an internist with Dr. Loeb at Columbia at the main hospital. Dr. Loeb called him, and told him there was no space. And why don't you go work at Francis Delafield? And apparently, Dr. Loeb said because somebody always gets mental problems or tuberculosis. And we have to replace them anyway. And so Holland went to Francis Delafield and took care of a young girl with leukemia who sadly died. But it changed his life. That's what made him go into oncology. I deeply regret that I won't get the interview Jim Holland. Yeah, Jim Holland was the first alumnus of that program of the Francis Delafield Hospital. And, yeah, 10 years before I went there. And Jim and I remained friends for many years. We had that friendship in common. Jim gave a-- he was an extremely articulate individual. And when Alfred Gellhorn died in 2007, he gave one of the most touching memorials in his honor. We actually interacted recently through various collaborations here in New York, with first, Jim Holland set up this New York gynecology/oncology group. He was kind of the leader in that, even though he was not involved in gynecology. But he loved to host a group-wide effort. And it happened to coalesce first in gynecologic oncology, because everybody-- they all loved Jim Holland, teaching the gynecologists, but chemotherapy in general. And he's a great leader. So he became very active in the Chemotherapy Foundation, which is a New York foundation, and spoke at the meetings. And his wife, Jenny Holland, was on the board of the Chemotherapy Foundation. We gave them-- we gave Jim an award last year in November, of the Chemotherapy Foundation, for scientific excellence. And he gave one the most unbelievable talks there. Everybody who was there, which were fellows from the New York institutions and lay audience that was there at that event, they really learned a lot by Jim's presence. And unfortunately-- unfortunately, two months later, Jimmy Holland passed away-- less than two months. And of course, Jim passed away in March of 2018. We all miss him. And any of us who had been to the Chemotherapy Foundation, especially when Dr. Greenspan was running it, I always loved that meeting. Actually, when you were at Francis Delafield, what was giving chemotherapy like? It can't be as well-organized. Well-- [LAUGHS] Well, it was organized in the lymphoma service, which John Altman ran. And I was-- so my fellowship at Francis Delafield, it was a bit unusual. It was six months of hematology, six months chief resident, six months again hematology/general oncology, then six months chief residency. So we were involved during the fellowship in running some of the-- and orchestrating the work for the medical residents. In our spare time, we did work in the clinics. And in hematology, I worked with Jon Altman. Did you guys mix up your own chemotherapy in those days? Oh, sure. Yes. Well, that went on when-- actually, that went on when I became attending here at New York University. When I came back from the NCI, we mixed the chemotherapy. So yes. Our younger colleagues don't know this. Nowadays, it's all the pharmacists do it. And the nurses hang it up and start the IVs. And in those days, you guys were on the front lines doing the whole thing, right? Yeah. I mean, we gave vinblastine primarily, but the clinic stereo was vinblastine that we gave. Because the other drugs were procarbazine, nitrogen mustard, of course. There is Chuck Martel of Mayo Clinic fame and florouracil fame. He said he used to do morning rounds to give florouracil at the Mayo Clinic. I don't know who mixed the florouracil for him. I mean, it came in already mixed. But he used to deliver the drugs. Life was different then. Actually, I want to change tracks a little bit, and that is because I know you had a lot to do with the development of supplying them when you were at CTEP at the NCI. You and I were fortunate enough to get to attend the 40th anniversary of the approval of cisplatinum by the FDA. It was held in east Lansing. And that's because Professor Barnett Rosenberg discovered it at Michigan State. Can you give me just some history of that, of what your role was, and why Dr. Rosenberg thought that cisplatinum was a good idea in the first place? Well, I mean, it goes of the drug development program, which was one of the major efforts of the chemotherapy program that was the first program that had oncology involved in it. It was mostly the team in lymphoma, with Gordon Zubrod being the head. And he's the one who recruited Fry/Frederick, and then Carbonne/DeVita group. And they were doing the clinical oncology part. Drug development was a very much part of it. And of the drugs that-- they developed drugs for some of the pharmaceutical industries because pharmaceutical industries had no trials. They had their own pipeline. Now their own pipeline had drugs like nitrosoureas, which didn't go anywhere, and dacarbazine. They were not so robust related to the screens that they used for drug development. But they also had drugs from academia and from the Department of Agriculture. And from academia, they got cisplatin, which was isolated by Barnett Rosenberg at Michigan State, as you heard in that great event that they had, the 40th anniversary of its approval. And he was running electrical currents in bacterial cultures and found that the bacteria were developing-- stopped dividing and developing filamentous forms, which were very unusual. And then he thought it was electricity at first, but then only platinum electrodes had that property. And he and his co-workers made the right assumption that it was platinum. They isolated cisdichlorodiamine dichloroplatinum which was known from a century before to be an inorganic platinum salt. That drug, when I was first at the NCI, my first tour duty as a senior investigator, was broadcasted because it had tremendous anti-tumor activity in the screens. And so when there were press releases, like it often happens, lay people call in and they want the drug for their relatives, or for themselves. And I remember answering phones and saying, no. We don't have that drug. It hasn't been given to people. But the story in 1972, the phase I study was-- I attended the ACR, where they presented. Chuck [? Kerlia, ?] from the University of Illinois, he did the first study. And it had activity. But it bumped off some kidneys and some hearing. And I said, well, who needs a drug in head and neck cancer, or Hodgkin's, where you have such terrible toxicities? Well, guess what? I was wrong. First, you deal with the cancer, then you deal with the toxicity. But it was Jim Holland. Actually, Higby, Don Higby, who worked with Jim Holland at the Roswell Park in the Holland service, who identified remarkable activity in testicular cancer. And that's what carried it. And then Larry Einhorn, of course, carried the ball on that on the development of cisplatin in testicular cancer. The group in the [INAUDIBLE] showed tremendous activity. Eve Wilshaw showed tremendous activity in ovarian cancer, but not quite curative, which is an interesting facet. And then, well, the rest is history. The FDA, that was my second time at the NCI. I had the pleasure of sitting with Vince DeVita at the FDA with Bob Kraut, who said, no, this drug is too toxic. You've got to do some randomized studies. And that was 1978 then. Vince pounded the table and said, the best thing that's happened to oncology, you can't recognize it? You know, there's something wrong with your procedures. So that led to some rethinking. And sure enough, it was approved. No need for randomized studies, given that it was curing testis cancer, but a need for educating how to deal with and cope with the toxicities. Actually, I have-- So that's the story of cisplatin. And it was even further detailed by-- when you were there at that meeting-- by Larry Einhorn and his patient. Yeah. Actually, I have three remarks to this. One is that when I was a fellow, Dr. Fry used to teach us that if the drug works and is curing cancer, we'll figure out the toxicities later. That's a little ruthless, but it's always stuck with me. Yeah. Yeah, we don't want to say it too loudly because toxicities are very important in anything you do. But of course, if you are-- you know, if it's the last resort you're looking for, for something to help the patient-- and it is helping-- you kind of have to bite the bullet sometimes. Those were the days where we had many cures anyway. The other thing that struck me at that meeting is cisplatinum is now used in more than half of all cancers-- adult cancers. I didn't realize it was that common. But that's true. The other thing that I didn't realize, that the number of publications continued in research, continued to increase more than imatinib and trastuzumab. Yeah. And that's the other thing I heard. And the final thing, just, if there are any chemists listening, to get lucky from all this-- it turns out, that trans-diaminoplatinum doesn't work, and cisdiamine does-- dichloro, I'm sorry. And the reason why is entry into the cells, is that the trans doesn't get in the cells. And the cis does. And it just goes to show how important that clinical chemistry is in our drug development. I think a lot of us forget that in the pharmacology. Right. There are actually a lot more things to learn in how the platins interact with DNA. Yes. Actually, another layer I want to go into is your importance and the really remarkable growth in the cooperative groups in the late '90s. Can you kind of give us a brief history starting in 1955, when Drs. Fry and Frederick and Holland started? And then what your role was later on in making it really take off? You're talking about the chemotherapy program? Well, weren't you involved with the qualitative groups and-- With our comparative groups, yeah. Oh, yeah, they came together. Yes, no, for sure. I was there first as an intramural person. And I was briefly on loan to the solid tumor service with Vince DeVita and George Canellos. And then I was in their new-- Paul Carbone had put me in the lung cancer study group there, that led on. So I was strictly intramural. When I returned to Einstein after to doing my service, Vince DeVita became the director of the Division of Cancer Treatment, which is the evolution of the chemotherapy program. As director of the division, he gave me a choice of couple of positions. And I actually took the cancer therapy program position as his associate director for CTEP. His predecessor had been-- my predecessor in that position had been Steve Carter. I don't know if you know about Stephen Carter. No, I met Dr. Carter. He was encyclopedic in the knowledge of all the trials that were done in the-- sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and also abroad. So he became a great face of the NCI internationally. And he spurred the development of the EORTC as well. So that was developed initially through a grant of the National Cancer Institute. So he was involved in the EORTC. But the cooperative groups had started during the leukemia program with the acute leukemia group B, which was the counterpart of acute leukemia group A, which was the intramural program. Jim Holland became the chair of the group. He was such an inspiring leader of the cooperative group. His cooperative group was amazing, to go to one of his meetings, which lasted two afternoons. He really commanded-- it was like a plenary session, and doled out all the projects in one afternoon. And then, in the second day, they kind of review whatever had developed. But other groups started. And the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group became-- I had joined that when I had gone back to Einstein. It developed under founder Paul Carbone. He had assumed chairman-- no, Paul Carbone became the chairman later on. Initially, it was run by-- it'll come to me right now. I have a lapse on who was the group chair. But it was kind of Boston nurtured. And they were primarily devoted in solid tumors. And they started with making inroads into solid tumor beyond the acute leukemia. But in GI, for example, where I was in the GI committee, Chuck Martel did a number of studies. He ran those meetings, floated ideas. A week later-- we didn't have emails, but a week later, he had the protocol on your desk. Let me ask you a final question, to begin to tie it up here. When you were at the Delafield and then at the NCI, was there a sense that you guys were doing historic stuff? Or was it just day-to-day, same old, same old. Then you look back and say, boy, look what we did. Was there a sense that something big was happening in those days? Oh, no. There was always a sense. Well, when senior investigators, there was always a sense there are a lot of things here developing of interest, you know? And there was a full head of steam in part related to the combination chemotherapy. Now in acute leukemia, it was obvious. But the big thing about the solid tumor service since DeVita and Tom Fry, who started the work in lymphomas. Peter Wernick, George Canellos, they found that the combination chemotherapy did something in lymphomas, and also later on with, also, Jim Holland's work. And you've mentioned Ezra Greenspan. They had seen that combinations of drugs did help, to a large degree, breast cancer. Now the same drugs didn't tried to be extended-- the same principles-- to other solid tumors. It didn't work so well. But breast was somewhat sensitive to the drugs, the alkylating agents and the antimetabolites. So those were the first combinations, and the vinca alkaloids. Let me ask you this, my final question. But I've been a breast cancer guy all my life. And Cushman Haagensen, of course, is a giant. That's the name from the past. Yes. So when you were at Delafield, did he try to oppose the chemotherapy because he felt that a chance to cut is a chance to cure? I mean, he was one of the biggest knives of all time. Yes. Actually, no, he opposed it for different reasons. I never understood why. He didn't only oppose chemotherapy, he opposed hormone therapy, which was coming along. Because he thought that any sex hormones were detrimental to the course of disease. But it was also mostly rivalry with a medical service, I think. Because we saw responses. I did my first trial with progestational agents. So I did some clinical trials, actually, when I was a fellow. So we published an observational series of patients treated with medroxyprogesterone acetate, and presented at the American College of Physicians in '67. So you know, he opposed Gellhorn's intervention in breast cancer medical intervention. He liked to give steroids. And we used to see the patients because the patient developed diabetes. So that's how we got involved in some of the disseminate at the patients with metastatic breast cancer. He wouldn't refer them. So I got involved because I saw a lot of diabetes. And then we started our own treatments. We bonded with the patients and started our own treatments. Again, a recurring theme is how much courage it took for you and your predecessors to do what you do. And the confrontation, if not hostility, between the surgeons. I have to say, that what that really does is it brings up Bernie Fisher and Umberto Veronesi, and the courage they had to adopt systemic therapy as opposed to obstruct it. I don't think our younger colleagues are aware of the battle. Oh, yeah, no. Bernie deserves a lot of credit. And I can tell you of arguments he had with Jerry Urban and other surgeons when he came to a meeting in New York. And Sam Hellman was there. He said, Bernie, we agree with you. I think it's taken us some time to process what you just-- the great thing you have done, to rely on other than surgery. Because they came after him, even I'm talking early 1980. Oh, I was at a meeting. I was at a meeting maybe '83 or '4. It was the first time I'd ever met Dr. Fisher. And he and Urban were sharing a podium. I thought there was going to be a fistfight. Yes. I mean, it was really contentious. And that was an eye-opener for me, where I thought, there's a surgeon up there telling us we should do things that will put him out of business. That's a very interesting approach. Well, yes. And the one thing about Bernie Fisher, he understood trials. And I remember, they said-- Jerry Urban said, why do you think that that curve isn't just going to go down and plummet? He said, it's called probability, Doctor. [CHUCKLES] All right. Well, we've run out of time. I hate to say that because these are great stories. But I want to thank you for taking time. Thank you, Dan, for the interview, for sure. And we do share some common background. And we didn't get to talk about all the international things that came out of the National Cancer Institute. As Jim Holland said in that congressional hearing, the National Cancer Institute was the best international weapon we have had. Yeah, I think that's a great point. And I do regret we've run out of time here. Maybe we can do that in another interview. But I want to also thank you for all you've done for the field and the hundreds of people you've trained. I don't go anywhere where I don't bring up your name, and somebody goes, oh, yeah. I worked with that guy. Well, that's a motive a great satisfaction, I have to say, for sure. It takes just the ability to listen to what your fellows are saying and responding to them. Yeah. That's been my secret. And you're very good at that. I've seen you in action. So thanks again. I appreciate this, and look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you, Dan. I appreciate very much all your questions, and your interview, and your friendship. [MUSIC PLAYING] Until next time, thank you for listening to this JCO's Cancer Stories, the Art of Oncology podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or a review on Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. JCO's Cancer Stories, the Art of Oncology podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all the shows at podcast.asco.org. [MUSIC PLAYING]

The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Welcome to Cancer Stories. I'm Dr. Daniel Hayes. I'm a medical oncologist, and I'm a researcher at the University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center. And I'm also the past president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Over the last and now the next several podcasts, I've been really privileged to be your host for a series of interviews with the people I feel are the founders of our field. Over the last 40 years, I personally have been fortunate to have been trained and mentored and I've also been inspired by many of these pioneers. And it's my hope that through these conversations. We'll all be equally inspired by gaining an appreciation of the courage and the vision and the scientific understanding and the anecdotes that let these men and women to establish the field of clinical cancer care over the last 70 years. By understanding how we got to the present and what we now consider normal in oncology, I think we can also imagine and work together towards a better future for our patients and their families during and after cancer treatment. Today, I'm really pleased to have my guests on this podcast Dr. Norman Wolmark, who was his mentor and longtime colleague, Dr. Bernard or Bernie Fisher, was responsible for the unbelievable success of one of the most influential cancer cooperative groups in the world, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, or the NSABP, which of course, in recent years has now been merged with two other corporate groups to become the NRG. Doctor Wolmark as a professor of surgery at Drexel served as the executive medical officer from 1979 to 1994 during Dr. Fischer's leadership of the NSABP. And then he became the chairman and PI of the group until 2004 when he assumed the same role with the merger into the NRG. The NSABP is generally credited with what is now called de-acceleration of therapy, in particular of local therapy of breast cancer by applying the scientific method to compare a modified radical mastectomy to radical mastectomies and subsequent breast conserving treatment a modified radical mastectomy, as well as testing the concept of sentinel node mapping, which we now use routinely. NSABP was also one of the pioneer groups to test the value of adjuvant systemic therapy. They started with adjuvant chemotherapy, comparing L-phenylalanine mustard, or L-PAM to nothing in the 1970s, and later, tamoxifen versus nil. Other successes of the NSABP include one of the first trials or adjuvant trastuzumab. And further, NSABP was the first to report the prognostic value of the genomic test to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER-positive breast cancer. Incidentally, it also conducted the largest and the most definitive set of studies of chemo prevention, first with tamoxifen versus nil, and then later, comparing raloxifene to tamoxifen. Not just breast cancer-- in gastrointestinal malignancies, the NSABP made seminal observations regarding radiation for rectal cancer and adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancers. Dr. Wolmark himself has published over 300 peer reviewed papers, numerous other commentaries and reviews, and frankly, I started to list your honors, Dr. Wolmark, but I ran out of space. You've just had too many to count here. I think it is safe to say that the reduction of both mortality and toxicities related to breast and GI cancers over the last four decades, coupled with improvement on how we treat people, is in large part due to the brilliance and the courage and the hard work of doctors Wolmark and Fisher. Most importantly, I think they showed so many of us the importance of challenging dogma, for example, how study and thinking in breast cancer and applying the scientific method to clinical research and practice. [GASPING] I have to take a deep breath, Norm. Welcome to our program, and thank you for joining us. Well, thank you, Dan. I think after that glowing and complimentary introduction, which was far too generous, probably the most strategically sound decision that I could make is to thank you and to terminate this discussion, because I don't think that I can possibly improve on it. But I don't suppose that that's the purpose of this endeavor here. Yeah, no. People aren't tuning in to hear me. They're tuning in to hear you. And this is hero worship on my part. I want to start out with your background. I know you grew up in Montreal. You graduated from undergraduate, medical school, and later, you did your surgical training at McGill. What were the circumstances that your family was in Canada? And what got you interested in medicine and, specifically, surgery? Well, that's an interesting question. I did not grow up longing to become a physician. As a matter of fact, my interests at McGill, certainly during undergraduate school, included biochemistry. And I was in the honors biochemistry program and was going to pursue a career in nucleic acid research. And at the last moment, I had a change of heart and decided to go into medicine at McGill. And McGill was not an embracing environment for surgeons. I think surgery, certainly in our era, was regarded as a sub-medical species. And it wasn't until my internship and early residency that I embraced the possibility of developing and evolving a career in surgery. Was that attitude out of also having been at McGill-- long before you were there, I know, but most places were dominated by the surgeons. And then medicine came along after that-- Mayo Clinic, for example. Do you know? Was this an outgrowth of Osler's influence? Well, I don't know that it was an outgrowth of Osler's influence, but it was certainly difficult for us to escape Sir William Osler. I think at the graduation after our second year, we were provided with a leather bound copy of Aequanimitas, which of course, nobody read, because medical students are not interested in the history of medicine. It was only years later that I read most of Osler's non-scientific works. That's interesting. So then you went to Pittsburgh to do your surgical residency and then two years at the NCI and a year at Memorial. But then, you returned to Pittsburgh. Why Pittsburgh in those days? Well, what drew me to Pittsburgh in 1973 was my interest in clinical trials. And in 1973, there was a lot of excitement going on in clinical trials and breast cancer directed by Bernie Fisher and the NSABP. So that was something that attracted me, that one could apply the scientific method to evolve therapy. And this was something that I desperately wanted to participate in as a result of my background in basic research and biochemistry. So tell us about the heady days in the early '70s and even further back, if you'll recount sort of Dr. Fisher's history as well, of starting the NSABP. What was his vision? What was his plan? Why did he do that? How did you get involved? The whole evolution of cooperative groups and in particular, the NSABP, was an outgrowth of the initiative of the National Institutes of Health and more specifically, I think, to Bernie Fisher's mentor, IS Ravdin, at Penn. And that led to the creation by the NIH of the Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center. And this was started by three surgeons and Michael Shimkin at the NIH, who was a medical oncologist, or what was then called a chemotherapist. And from that grew a number of disease-oriented initiatives called the surgical adjuvant chemotherapy projects for specific diseases, breast being one of them. And this was 1957. And by 1958, the NSABP had randomized its first patient. And certainly, Bernie Fisher was amongst the founders of the NSABP and then, of course, became chairman of the group in 1967 and moved it to Pittsburgh in 1970. What did it take to get a bunch of surgeons to believe that more than just surgery was important? The group started in a modest fashion. There were 23 institutions. And I think it's certainly an enormous credit at Bernie Fisher for demonstrating that a cooperative group could indeed be cooperative, with multiple heterogeneous surgeons joining under the rubric of the NSABP to evolve the state of the art breast cancer and challenge existing dogma. One of my first meetings, Dr. Fisher and Dr. Irvin of New York City were in a debate that I thought was going to get into a fistfight, with Dr. Fisher trying to explain the systemic therapy of cancer and that it was more than just surgery, and Dr. Irvin believing if you did super-radical mastectomies, you could cure more. You must have been in the middle of some of those discussions as well. I was, and remember them, and remember the acrimony, the hostility that existed at that time. As a matter of fact, there were societies that were created to counter the influence of the NSABP. The retreat from radical mastectomy was highly contentious. And of course, the debate of the two mutually exclusive hypotheses was certainly extant in Halsted's era. But Bernie Fisher determined instead of debating the issue to test the two mutually exclusive hypotheses using the scientific method, namely the randomized prospective clinical trial, which convinced surgeons that variations on the theme of operative nuance were not going to increase survivorship, that breast cancer was a disease with systemic components at its initiation, and the retreat from a radical mastectomy and the ascent of systemic therapy are inextricably intertwined. And they are so largely because of the efforts of Bernie Fisher and the NSABP. This is an interview with you, except that you know Bernie Fisher better than any of us-- who, incidentally, turned 100 years old in August of this year. What were the driving forces for him to think this way? Do you know? Was there a sudden aha that systemic therapy ought to be as important as the surgery? I know he did some preclinical studies to suggest this. Can you give us more background of what he was thinking and how he got there? Well, when I first joined him in 1973, it was a unique environment. There was a continuum between the laboratory and the clinic. And hypotheses were generated in the lab from murine models and applied to clinical research, which we now call translational research. And certainly, I think he was influenced in many ways by the preclinical work that he did in murine models on metastases and multiple other observations to challenge the sanctity of the radical mastectomy, which was based on the belief that breast cancer was a local, regional disease and spread in a logical, predictable, stepwise manner, again, along fascial planes. This, of course, to scientists, was something that did not stand up to a solid review of the data. Through the years, I've picked up many pithy comments from Dr. Fisher. One of them is that-- what was it? In God we trust. And for everything else, we like data, which I always thought was a great statement, something to that effect. The other was, you may be logical, but breast cancer is not. That really has stuck with me through the years, which is, it doesn't follow a logical string of linear progression. But rather, it becomes systemic, or it doesn't, which I think changed the field. Well, Bernie always challenged existing dogma that was based on empiricism. I think Bernie taught us to challenge the individual who ascends to the professorial pulpit armed with a retrospective case series. And based on personal charisma or the institution that that individual represented, such an individual was able to influence the way a disease was treated for decades and then close to 3/4 of a century. Challenging that dogma, insisting that therapy be evolved based on data rather than retrospective case series, I think, is a lasting contribution. He blazed the trail for the rest of us. Since you were there for a lot of this, how about some of the other luminaries of the time? Dr. Crile had a lot to do with the early thoughts that maybe you didn't need to do mastectomy. Can you enlighten us on some of the other folks that were some of the early pioneers in the field? There were certainly proponents of lesser operative procedures starting with [INAUDIBLE] and in the UK, Vera Peters, in Canada, Barney Crile, or George Crile, Jr. at the Cleveland Clinic. But again, these were based on anecdotalism. There were very few randomized prospective trials challenging the sanctity of the radical mastectomy. There were some-- Sir Hedley Atkins, the Guy's Hospital trial comparing breast-preserving versus mastectomy, a trial that had few patients and was reported, I think, in 1971 was a case in point. And then Umberto Veronesi with the quadrantectomy study, which was reported in 1981, preceded B-06. But certainly, B-06 had an enormous impact in 1985. And I think to Bernie's credit, he was able to convince his colleagues, even his detractors and his coevals of the value of breast preservation. But more importantly, I think he was able to convince surgeons of the biologic behavior of breast cancer with its systemic components. Yeah, I agree. I remember that paper. Actually, I remember most your papers. B-04 for was the predecessor. And of course, if there is a Rosetta Stone for the NSABP, it was comparing radical mastectomy to total mastectomy, which was a heroic trial to have initiated in 1971. If there is a bellwether turning point, it was B-04. This was the trial that truly compared the two mutually exclusive hypotheses to enormous, enormous resistance by the surgical community. And the paradox was that the 23 institutions that participated in the NSABP were run by surgeons. I came into the field in 1982. I have seen maybe three radical mastectomies in my life based on the fact that B-04 was beginning to change that whole field. And the three or four patients I saw had horrendous qualities of life because of that radical mastectomy. So I think our listeners, the younger ones, need to understand how courageous this was. Let me ask another question. I don't think you were part of it then, but as Dr. Fisher began to, then, think about adjuvant chemotherapy, why L-PAM? Most of the people listening to this probably have never heard of L-PAM, let alone used it. Why was that chosen as the chemotherapy to use in the first trial? Well, that's an interesting question. CMF was being developed at the NCI-- Paul Carbone, Vince DeVita, George Canellos. And L-PAM was an oral agent. And we speculated, sotto voce, of course, Bernie and I, that the reason the NSABP got L-PAM was that it was oral and could be given by surgeons, whereas the CMF, which was more difficult to administer, went to Gianni Bonadonna, who reported on the CMF data in the adjuvant setting a year after the L-PAM data were reported in 1975. Ironically-- correct me if I'm wrong-- but I think the relative benefits of both were almost identical. And the reason L-PAM fell out of favor was the secondary leukemias. Is that your perception? Well, L-PAM fell out of favor, certainly. We did L-PAM, then L-PAM 5-FU, then L-PAM 5-FU plus doxorubicin in a stepwise, sequential manner. I think CMF was embraced. Had there been a direct comparison earlier on, perhaps L-PAM would have had a role. But I think it faded away. And it faded away for us largely because when we compared CMF to four cycles of AC, which could be given in a much shorter time, there was no difference. So AC became the standard, certainly for us. Moving on a bit, as I've already-- another of Dr. Fisher's statements that I've lived on is that the hallmark of a good clinical trial is that it raises more questions than it answers. I love that because it means you have to keep thinking. Can you give us examples how you and Dr. Fisher started designing the next trial as the first one was starting to finish, and how that led, one way to the other? I've always been struck by the fact that the NSABP has been more linear in its trial design than most of the other cooperative groups. Well, it was a continuum. The next trial was based on the results from the previous trial or the anticipated results from the previous trial. A case in point, B-04, total mastectomy, where lymph nodes are not fulgurated, left behind completely untreated, compared to radical mastectomy, where they were removed. 40%, it turned out, of the total mastectomy group had histologically positive nodes. And yet, the outcomes were the same, which supported the use of systemic therapy, that patients were failing not because inattention to operative detail, but because they had systemic metastases. Well, you can ask, how did you transpose this data or know about this data to start your next trial? Well, in that era, the results were available to us in real time. We had a magnetic board, for example, for B-04, where every patient that was entered into the study, of course, anonymized, was on that board, and we could see the treatment failures in real time. So we had a pretty good understanding of what the results were when B-06, for example, was started, and certainly when the L-PAM trial was initiated. To us, in that era, alpha-spending meant buying a suit at Bergdorf Goodman. It's only later that these restrictions, appropriately so, were initiated. So we were able to be very nimble in transposing the data from one trial to formulate the hypothesis for the next trial. And that led to, I think, a very elegant, sequential, logical, stepwise series of trials, which I think in this era, could not be conducted. Did you ever get concerned that you were jumping ahead to the next trial with insufficient follow-up with the last one, and you'd get ahead of yourself in terms of unexpected toxicity showing up or, for example, in the deacceleration of therapy, that in fact, you were wrong, and then you had a bunch of patients that you had given less than enough therapy? I can't think of the fact that you have. But was that a concern as you were designing these? Every clinical trial is a concern. And yes, there was a concern. But we believed that we were basing these trials on objective data, data that were generated through clinical trials and the scientific method. So let me ask another question, because I was never in the NSABP, but I was always struck by the fact that your statisticians sat at the table and thought as much about the biology as they did the p-values. Do you want to talk about some of the statisticians you've had the chance to work with? Absolutely. I think that's an accurate description. Carol Redmond was the first statistician with whom I came in contact and was an integral part of clinical trial development, discussing not only sample size, p-values, interim analyses, but also the biology of the disease and what the biologic end points were going to be, and what the ancillary end points ought to be, and calculate appropriate sample sizes to answer these questions. We were very fortunate to have outstanding biostatisticians who were giants. Sam Weiand, who followed Carol Redmond, who was at the University of Pittsburgh, went to the Mayo Clinic, and returned to us around 1994, '95, and John Bryant, who was absolutely instrumental in the joint analysis for the Herceptin trials, B-31 and N9831, who was a driving force, and was certainly a driving force behind the development of the Oncotype DX genomic profiling. These weren't simply numbers people. They were colleagues. They were part of the assault on the hill. I have to jump in for two reasons. One is I never worked directly with John Bryant, but I can't say how many times I called him and said, what do you think of this? because I knew he would understand the biology as well as the statistics. I miss him dearly. He sadly passed away about a decade ago. As do I. The other is, as you know, we lost Jim Holland this year. My first presentation at CALGB, Dr. Holland was sitting in the back of the room and yelled from the back of the room, because he never used a microphone, not unlike my colleague on the line right now, by the way. Dr. Holland yelled from the back of the room, Hayes, if you need a statistician, it's not worth doing. And I said, well with all due respect, Dr. Holland, and there's a lot of respect here, I have to disagree with you. Did Dr. Fisher get along with the statisticians the way you have? Did he feel that this was a two-way street? Or were there times he said, my way or the highway? There's always robust dialogue and discussion. I think that both Bernie and I embraced our statisticians as colleagues. I have to be very careful. This was not unwelcome embracing. But they were always an integral part of developing and analyzing the protocol. And they were colleagues. And certainly, Bernie had that approach and philosophy as well. So let me, perhaps, describe in 1973, when I first arrived, what struck me as extraordinary. There was passion, excitement, drama. We weren't sure where we were going. But we knew we were getting there fast. And we embraced the journey, the quest. And that was an extraordinary time where we knew that the standard of care was going to be changed. We couldn't predict the outcomes, but we knew that what we were doing at the time would have a lasting impact on the field. Actually, that was my question, which was, did you realize what you were doing in the late '60s and early '70s was as exciting as it was? Sometimes, I think we're in the middle of something, and we don't realize how it's going to turn out. And you've just answered my question, which was it must have been years-- It was challenging the basic sanctity of the dogma, the tyranny that existed at the time. And that, in itself, was a courageous and extraordinary thing to do. And I have to say because of that work, and others, but we've seen a remarkable reduction in mortality due to breast cancer over the last 30 years, probably by more than a third, not quite half. And it's because of these kinds of challenges of dogma and courage to move forward. So I think we all owe you and Dr. Fisher and those who were involved in the early days, then also in the other groups, just an enormous debt of gratitude. My final question to you, Norm, and everybody asks this where did you get your style of presentation? I've argued, although I know you're Jewish, you could have been a Baptist minister. Where did this come from? I have no idea. Everybody loves it. Well, that's certainly very gracious of you, Dan. I've certainly, in the era of protocol B-04 and B-06, I have been summarily booed by an audience in unison. So that may not be a uniform perception. Well, I hope that our listeners who are driving to work or having their morning cup of coffee and listening to this have enjoyed it. I certainly have. Thank you for being so gracious and taking the time to do this. Thank you for all your contributions to the field and for mentoring so many, including myself, frankly. And I consider you a great mentor and a great friend. So I appreciate it deeply. Thank you, Dan. It's been my privilege.

Dr Veronesi talks to ecancer at The Umberto Veronesi Milan Breast Cancer Conference about the conference aims to provide caregivers and scientists interested in breast cancer with results of current research and innovations that enhance patient care and understanding of the disease.

Nella sanità privata italiana si muovono pesci grandi e pesci piccoli. Il giro d'affari è di circa 4 miliardi di euro l'anno (2014, dati Mediobanca). L'offerta lanciata dai gruppi San Donato e Humanitas per acquisire l'Istituto europeo di oncologia (Ieo) fondato da Umberto Veronesi è un caso in cui a muoversi sono esclusivamente i pesci grandi. Il gruppo San Donato è la prima azienda sanitaria privata in Italia, con un fatturato 2014 di 1 miliardo e 872 milioni. Humanitas è la seconda azienda privata italiana delle cure e della ricerca: nel 2014 ha fatturato 548 milioni. Lo Ieo, la società preda, è la quinta in Italia (260 milioni nel 2014). ..L'offerta di acquisizione (di circa 300 milioni di euro) è un affare, se mai verrà concluso, di livello nazionale anche se gli attori e le loro strutture (ospedali, centri di ricerca, cliniche) sono tutti in Lombardia, eccetto un caso in Emilia Romagna. Allo Ieo il consiglio di amministrazione, insieme ai primari e ai dirigenti, hanno preso male l'offerta di San Donato e Humanitas, la considerano ostile. Una risposta ufficiale arriverà il prossimo 17 febbraio, quando si riunirà il cda Ieo. Si tratta di una vicenda che riguarda il cuore della sanità privata italiana, con risvolti anche europei. Inoltre si intreccia con altre partite aperte negli assetti della finanza italiana, con un filo che tiene insieme Intesa, Mediobanca e arriva fino al controllo delle Generali. Ospiti della puntata di Memos il giornalista Alessandro Da Rold, di Lettera 43, Valentina Cappelletti, della Cgil Lombardia e Francesco Longo, professor di management pubblico e sanitario all'università Bocconi.

Nella sanità privata italiana si muovono pesci grandi e pesci piccoli. Il giro d’affari è di circa 4 miliardi di euro l’anno (2014, dati Mediobanca). L’offerta lanciata dai gruppi San Donato e Humanitas per acquisire l’Istituto europeo di oncologia (Ieo) fondato da Umberto Veronesi è un caso in cui a muoversi sono esclusivamente i pesci grandi. Il gruppo San Donato è la prima azienda sanitaria privata in Italia, con un fatturato 2014 di 1 miliardo e 872 milioni. Humanitas è la seconda azienda privata italiana delle cure e della ricerca: nel 2014 ha fatturato 548 milioni. Lo Ieo, la società preda, è la quinta in Italia (260 milioni nel 2014). ..L’offerta di acquisizione (di circa 300 milioni di euro) è un affare, se mai verrà concluso, di livello nazionale anche se gli attori e le loro strutture (ospedali, centri di ricerca, cliniche) sono tutti in Lombardia, eccetto un caso in Emilia Romagna. Allo Ieo il consiglio di amministrazione, insieme ai primari e ai dirigenti, hanno preso male l’offerta di San Donato e Humanitas, la considerano ostile. Una risposta ufficiale arriverà il prossimo 17 febbraio, quando si riunirà il cda Ieo. Si tratta di una vicenda che riguarda il cuore della sanità privata italiana, con risvolti anche europei. Inoltre si intreccia con altre partite aperte negli assetti della finanza italiana, con un filo che tiene insieme Intesa, Mediobanca e arriva fino al controllo delle Generali. Ospiti della puntata di Memos il giornalista Alessandro Da Rold, di Lettera 43, Valentina Cappelletti, della Cgil Lombardia e Francesco Longo, professor di management pubblico e sanitario all’università Bocconi.

Nella sanità privata italiana si muovono pesci grandi e pesci piccoli. Il giro d’affari è di circa 4 miliardi di euro l’anno (2014, dati Mediobanca). L’offerta lanciata dai gruppi San Donato e Humanitas per acquisire l’Istituto europeo di oncologia (Ieo) fondato da Umberto Veronesi è un caso in cui a muoversi sono esclusivamente i pesci grandi. Il gruppo San Donato è la prima azienda sanitaria privata in Italia, con un fatturato 2014 di 1 miliardo e 872 milioni. Humanitas è la seconda azienda privata italiana delle cure e della ricerca: nel 2014 ha fatturato 548 milioni. Lo Ieo, la società preda, è la quinta in Italia (260 milioni nel 2014). ..L’offerta di acquisizione (di circa 300 milioni di euro) è un affare, se mai verrà concluso, di livello nazionale anche se gli attori e le loro strutture (ospedali, centri di ricerca, cliniche) sono tutti in Lombardia, eccetto un caso in Emilia Romagna. Allo Ieo il consiglio di amministrazione, insieme ai primari e ai dirigenti, hanno preso male l’offerta di San Donato e Humanitas, la considerano ostile. Una risposta ufficiale arriverà il prossimo 17 febbraio, quando si riunirà il cda Ieo. Si tratta di una vicenda che riguarda il cuore della sanità privata italiana, con risvolti anche europei. Inoltre si intreccia con altre partite aperte negli assetti della finanza italiana, con un filo che tiene insieme Intesa, Mediobanca e arriva fino al controllo delle Generali. Ospiti della puntata di Memos il giornalista Alessandro Da Rold, di Lettera 43, Valentina Cappelletti, della Cgil Lombardia e Francesco Longo, professor di management pubblico e sanitario all’università Bocconi.

Ospiti: Prof. Paolo Veronesi; Pier Giuseppe Torrani, ; Prof. Pier Paolo Di Fiore; Donata Francese; Prof. Robero Orecchia; dott.ssa Lucilla Titta; Mario Pappagallo.

Dove si parla proteste contro la corsa delle oche di Lacchiarella con ERMANNO GIUDICI dell'ENPA, con CLAUDIO POMO, della terza edizione del Festival Vegan all'idroscalo, di vegetarianismo, di Umberto Veronesi, cowspiracy, del macello di Ghedi, di Oche, di foie gras e scopriamo che Claudio avrebbe voluto essere un Cervo

Dove si parla proteste contro la corsa delle oche di Lacchiarella con ERMANNO GIUDICI dell'ENPA, con CLAUDIO POMO, della terza edizione del Festival Vegan all'idroscalo, di vegetarianismo, di Umberto Veronesi, cowspiracy, del macello di Ghedi, di Oche, di foie gras e scopriamo che Claudio avrebbe voluto essere un Cervo

Dove si parla proteste contro la corsa delle oche di Lacchiarella con ERMANNO GIUDICI dell'ENPA, con CLAUDIO POMO, della terza edizione del Festival Vegan all'idroscalo, di vegetarianismo, di Umberto Veronesi, cowspiracy, del macello di Ghedi, di Oche, di foie gras e scopriamo che Claudio avrebbe voluto essere un Cervo

Umberto Veronesi, oncologo, ha appena compiuto 89 anni. Da un paio di mesi ha lasciato la direzione scientifica della sua creatura, l'Istituto Europeo di Oncologia di Milano. Una struttura che ha fondato nel 1994 dopo aver lavorato per un quarto di secolo all'Istituto dei Tumori, sempre di Milano dove – in modo solitario – sperimentò la sua terapia contro il tumore al seno. E' lì, in quell'ospedale, che inizia la sua storia di oncologo. «La mia – dice Veronesi a Memos – è una storia complessa. Prima di essere chirurgo ero un anatomopatologo, facevo autopsie ed esami al microscopio. La mia passione per il mondo femminile nasce da giovanissimo quando ho perso mio padre e sono cresciuto con mia madre». Veronesi racconta l'inizio contrastato della sua sperimentazione per la cura del tumore al seno. «La presentai ad un congresso dell'OMS a Ginevra. Ricevetti fischi, ingiurie, fui trattato proprio male. Allora, oltre quarant'anni fa, la mastectomia era un dogma assoluto». Il professore ricorda come a quei tempi l'intervento chirurgico parziale che lui proponeva fosse considerato un'eresia. A Memos Veronesi ripercorre le tappe della sua autobiografia (“Il mestiere di uomo”, Einaudi) attraverso i suoi principi (pensiero scientifico autonomo e trasgressivo, etica laica, autodeterminazione) e i diritti che vorrebbe si affermassero nelle società contemporanee (il diritto di non soffrire, alla cura, il diritto all'amore universale, alla genitorialità - omo ed etero -, il diritto di scegliere il momento conclusivo della propria vita).

Umberto Veronesi, oncologo, ha appena compiuto 89 anni. Da un paio di mesi ha lasciato la direzione scientifica della sua creatura, l'Istituto Europeo di Oncologia di Milano. Una struttura che ha fondato nel 1994 dopo aver lavorato per un quarto di secolo all'Istituto dei Tumori, sempre di Milano dove – in modo solitario – sperimentò la sua terapia contro il tumore al seno. E' lì, in quell'ospedale, che inizia la sua storia di oncologo. «La mia – dice Veronesi a Memos – è una storia complessa. Prima di essere chirurgo ero un anatomopatologo, facevo autopsie ed esami al microscopio. La mia passione per il mondo femminile nasce da giovanissimo quando ho perso mio padre e sono cresciuto con mia madre». Veronesi racconta l'inizio contrastato della sua sperimentazione per la cura del tumore al seno. «La presentai ad un congresso dell'OMS a Ginevra. Ricevetti fischi, ingiurie, fui trattato proprio male. Allora, oltre quarant'anni fa, la mastectomia era un dogma assoluto». Il professore ricorda come a quei tempi l'intervento chirurgico parziale che lui proponeva fosse considerato un'eresia. A Memos Veronesi ripercorre le tappe della sua autobiografia (“Il mestiere di uomo”, Einaudi) attraverso i suoi principi (pensiero scientifico autonomo e trasgressivo, etica laica, autodeterminazione) e i diritti che vorrebbe si affermassero nelle società contemporanee (il diritto di non soffrire, alla cura, il diritto all'amore universale, alla genitorialità - omo ed etero -, il diritto di scegliere il momento conclusivo della propria vita).

Umberto Veronesi, oncologo, ha appena compiuto 89 anni. Da un paio di mesi ha lasciato la direzione scientifica della sua creatura, l'Istituto Europeo di Oncologia di Milano. Una struttura che ha fondato nel 1994 dopo aver lavorato per un quarto di secolo all'Istituto dei Tumori, sempre di Milano dove – in modo solitario – sperimentò la sua terapia contro il tumore al seno. E' lì, in quell'ospedale, che inizia la sua storia di oncologo. «La mia – dice Veronesi a Memos – è una storia complessa. Prima di essere chirurgo ero un anatomopatologo, facevo autopsie ed esami al microscopio. La mia passione per il mondo femminile nasce da giovanissimo quando ho perso mio padre e sono cresciuto con mia madre». Veronesi racconta l'inizio contrastato della sua sperimentazione per la cura del tumore al seno. «La presentai ad un congresso dell'OMS a Ginevra. Ricevetti fischi, ingiurie, fui trattato proprio male. Allora, oltre quarant'anni fa, la mastectomia era un dogma assoluto». Il professore ricorda come a quei tempi l'intervento chirurgico parziale che lui proponeva fosse considerato un'eresia. A Memos Veronesi ripercorre le tappe della sua autobiografia (“Il mestiere di uomo”, Einaudi) attraverso i suoi principi (pensiero scientifico autonomo e trasgressivo, etica laica, autodeterminazione) e i diritti che vorrebbe si affermassero nelle società contemporanee (il diritto di non soffrire, alla cura, il diritto all'amore universale, alla genitorialità - omo ed etero -, il diritto di scegliere il momento conclusivo della propria vita).

Conduce Giancarlo Loquenzi scheda di Daniela Mecenate. Ospiti: Prof. Umberto Veronesi (direttore scientifico Istituto europeo oncologia), Prof. Rosario Sorrentino (neurologo,divulgatore scientifico).

Conduce Giancarlo Loquenzi. Ospiti: Prof. Umberto Veronesi (direttore scientifico Istituto europeo oncologia), Prof. Rosario Sorrentino (neurologo,divulgatore scientifico),ascoltatori.

Jayant Vaidya and Umberto Veronesi discuss the TARGIT and ELIOT trials of intraoperative radiotherapy for early breast cancer.

Jayant Vaidya and Umberto Veronesi discuss the TARGIT and ELIOT trials of intraoperative radiotherapy for early breast cancer

Dopo due giornate di fuoco passate a fare live con la bava alla bocca durante le conferenze principali, è arrivato il momento di tirare le somme! Com'è stato questo E3? Meglio la conferenza Sony o quella Microsoft? Nintendo, non pervenuta? Tutto ciò e molto di meno in questo episodio del vostro podcast prelativo! Free Playing, per un recap senza fretta! [0:00:00] Intro [0:01:44] Umberto Veronesi: non mangiate carne, così non vi viene il cancro [0:02:43] L'E3 2013 [1:22:43] Il rape joke durante la conferenza Microsoft [1:26:53] Extra Credits [1:29:15] The Swapper e Remember Me [1:32:48] Psych [1:35:14] Arrested Development [1:39:43] Pokémon Nero 2 [1:41:14] After Earth [1:47:03] Animal Crossing: New Leaf e Kingdom of Amalur [1:50:28] MotorStorm: Apocalypse [1:51:58] Figli di una Dieta Minore [1:54:11] Costume Quest [1:55:35] Le ricerche su Panino al salame [1:56:10] The Good Wife [1:56:57] Rainbow Islands Revolution [1:58:40] The Killing [2:00:17] Marvel Heroes [2:01:44] Ghost Trick [2:02:56] L'uomo senza sonno [2:03:12] City of God [2:03:44] The Road [2:04:01] L'attacco dei giganti [2:06:13] Outro [2:09:42] Il concorsone di Free Playing [2:11:29] BONUS: Avere vent'anni (come da poco ce li ha il nostro #miticodavide!). Divagazioni più o meno degne di nota: [1:37:15] Davide vi troverà. Hanno partecipato Bruno #brunodinoi Barbera, Simone #ilsaggiosimone Andreozzi, Davide #miticodavide Alexandro Fiandra, Aurelio #auronemaglione Maglione, il manoscrivibile Fabio Di Felice, il grande fumettista Mirco Pierfederici, ed il superospitissimo Stefano "Nabucodorozor" Talarico. L'impattabile Gabbre era come sempre nei nostri cuori. Un saluto anche agli amici che ci hanno seguito in diretta: andmind, prtruz, Andrea "The Benso" Vena, coccolotto, Gianmarco, Babbre, DeVin, FrankieThor, Matteo Beconcini, ArcaComics, Stefano Biggio, Marco "Astro" Tassani, Littlexaus, Femto88, Urad, MDG, Dartagnan, IlGennaro, Ctekcop, Fapo8, Desmondu, CattivoJoker, e Casorzese77. Ricordate di scriverci numerosi in email (info@freeplaying.it): i vostri dubbi e le vostre domande troveranno saggia risposta nella posta del cuore di Simone. E non dimenticate di seguite il nostro nuovissimo fantasticissimo forum! Volete supportarci? Piaceteci e fateci piacere su Facebook, cerchiateci e fateci cerchiare su Google+, cinguettateci e fateci cinguettare su Twitter e, ovviamente, recensiteci, cinquestellateci e seguiteci su iTunes! E se siete ricchi sfondati, supportateci comprandovi il super libro di Fabio Di Felice su Amazon e le magliette fashion di The Indie Shelter!

-TUMORE: IEO MILANO LANCIA CURA 'EXPRESS' PER CANCRO PROSTATA Cinque giorni contro le canoniche 8 settimane. E' la cura 'express' contro il tumore alla prostata lanciata a Milano dall'Ieo (Istituto europeo di oncologia) di Umberto Veronesi. L'idea e' quella di 'bombardare' con armi intelligenti e super distruttive solo il tumore, scatenandogli contro un fuoco di fila con precisione da cecchino. L'arma intelligente, presentata nell'Irccs, è una radioterapia superconcentrata che esaurisce un intero ciclo di cura in 5 sedute, durante le quali si raggiunge una dose molto alta (pari a 7 Gy contro i 2 di una normale seduta). La cura vale in totale 35 Gy, potenza necessaria per eradicare il tumore, che equivale agli 84 Gy di un trattamento convenzionale dato in 6 settimane. La radioterapia express si somministrerà a pazienti selezionati in base alla tipologia di tumore da cui sono affetti, al centro Arc dell'Ieo che riunisce le apparecchiature più moderne per trattamenti radioterapici di alta precisione. -CANI AIUTO PER BIMBI AUTISTICI, STIMOLANO SOCIEVOLEZZA E LINGUAGGIO L'affetto dei cani puo' stimolare la socievolezza e l'uso del linguaggio nei bimbi autistici, diminuendone anche l'aggressivita', sia che si tratti di 'cani da assistenza' sia di 'cani co-terapeuti'. Entrambi possono infatti aiutare i ragazzi autistici a sviluppare le emozioni e i legami affettivi, stimolandone le capacita' comunicative e relazionali. A stabilirlo e' lo studio dell'Istituto superiore di sanita', coordinato da Francesca Cirulli ed Enrico Alleva, che ha monitorato sei pubblicazioni scientifiche dedicate a questa tematica. Lo studio e' pubblicato sulla rivista 'Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine'. -STUDIO USA, VINO ROSSO 'SCUDO' CONTRO PERDITA D'UDITO Il vino rosso non e' solo un 'elisir' per il cuore come da anni viene ripetuto, ma ora puo' aiutarea prevenire la perdita d'udito. Il segreto e' la presenza del resveratrolo, un fenolo non flavonoide presente nella buccia dell'acino d'uva, che ha proprieta' anti-invecchiamento e quindi puo' proteggere contro la perdita dell'udito in eta' senile. A stabilirlo e' uno studio del Henry Ford Hospital di Detroit (Usa) pubblicato sulla rivista 'Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery'. -DANNI A MUSCOLI E NERVI SCHIENA CON ZAINI TROPPO PESANTI Una zavorra appesa alla schiena che puo' danneggiare seriamente l'apparato muscolo-scheletrico e la risposta neurologica del corpo. La colpa e' degli enormi zaini, usati da studenti , lavoratori e soldati, che possono trasformarsi da oggetti d'uso quotidiano a pericolose insidie per la salute. A stabilirlo e' uno studio dell'universita' di Tel Aviv (Israele) pubblicato sulla rivista 'Journal of Applied Physiology'. Secondo i ricercatori a correre i maggiori rischi sono i nervi, in particolare quelli che attraversano la zona del collo e delle spalle che hanno un ruolo funzionale nell' animare le mani e le dita. Quindi indispensabili nelle attivita' lavorative e scolastiche.