There are many treatments available for cancer  but how do you make csre delivery equitable? Given the various types of cancers how can you allocate the right resources to create equal outcomes? Dr. Lori Pierce has made equity a primary focus of her career. She describes how physics and radiology inspired her to be an engineer (6:06), and the moment she decided to transition from engineer to oncologist (12;54) and achieving the position of Vice-provost at the University of Michigan (23:01). Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Lori Pierce:    Stock and Other Ownership Interests Company - PFS Genomics;  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property Company - UpToDate, PFS Genomics; Uncompensated Relationships - Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exact Sciences Resources  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.   Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: Hi, I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. I'm a Medical Oncologist. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of the program is to introduce listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of oncology; hence the ‘et cetera’ in our name. Pat, we've got a great guest today. And we’ve got a great guest today. Pat Loehrer: Our next guest was able to do this despite living at a time when in the United States, certain groups of people faced tremendous barriers to achieve even the basic hint of equality. Our next guest is Lori Pierce. Dr. Pierce attended Duke University School of Medicine and completed a radiation oncology residency and chief residency at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. She was then appointed as a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, from 1990 to 1992. And in 1992, she joined the faculty at the University of Michigan, where she currently is a professor with tenure in Radiation Oncology.  Since coming to Michigan, she has served as Residency Director and Clinical Director in the Department of Radiation Oncology. In August of 2005, she was appointed by the University Board of Regents to be the Vice-Provost for Academic and Faculty Affairs, a position she still holds. In 2020, she was ASCO President, and while she ascended to the ASCO Presidency, that year COVID descended upon the Earth, and we may hear some stories about that. She's dedicated her career to the treatment of breast cancer patients. She's published over 200 manuscripts and book chapters and has received numerous teaching awards from the University of Michigan, multiple national organizations, and many national awards.  Dr. Pierce, thank you so much for joining us today.  Dr. Lori Pierce: I am so happy to join you both today. What an incredibly nice introduction. Thank you so much.  Pat Loehrer: You were born and raised in Washington, DC. And the family eventually moved to Philadelphia when I think you were in junior high school. Can you paint a picture of what schooling was like for you growing up? Dr. Lori Pierce: Well, schooling, education was just so important to my family and myself. And so, as you said, I was born and raised in DC. Moved to Philadelphia when I was just entering high school. And my parents, who are just the best people on the planet, didn't have an opportunity to go to college. At that point, a lot of people of color didn't really have that opportunity. So education was so important in my family. So if you think about the important issues in my life, there was our faith, our family, and education. And so my sister, who is four years older, she went to college first. After about two years, I transferred and actually graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, and I did that. It was my idea.  My parents at that point were living in Philadelphia. My mother was working at Penn, and so I would have free tuition if I went to Penn. And Penn is a great place as is Brown. My parents didn't ask me to transfer, but I did. And I received, obviously, an excellent education at both institutions. I majored in biomedical engineering and I minored in chemical engineering and was pre-med. I had to be strategic in how I was going to pay for my education because my parents and they took out loans, they covered everything, almost everything. My sister and I had some loans, but they took out most of the loans.  But they always had an agreement. And the agreement was that both my sister and I would have our college education covered by them. But anything in the graduate arena, we had to cover. So I had to be kind of strategic about that. So I actually applied to medical school and, as you know, got in, and deferred my admission so I could work and earn some money so I could pay for medical school. And I tell you, I did that specifically for the reason, for financial issues. But now this kind of thing is called a gap year. And in retrospect, it was the smartest thing I could have ever done because I took some time away, and during that time away, it made me even more motivated to apply my full attention to medicine.  And so education was very important. But I think sometimes you have to kind of step away to then regain the commitment that you need to move forward. And so by the time I started Duke, I was more than ready to be in medical school. Pat Loehrer: I know we talk about underrepresented minorities. I was a mechanical engineer at Purdue. And I can tell you, I don't think there was a single woman in engineering in most of my classes. There were just a few. So to be a woman in engineering is extraordinarily unique. So tell me a little bit about that decision-making and how you got into that. It may have been different in 10 or 15 years later, but were there a lot of women in engineering? Dr. Lori Pierce: No, not at all. And while there may have been two or three in biomedical engineering, there were hardly any in chemical engineering, and as you said, very few in mechanical engineering. So no. But I always was interested in physics. I liked those kinds of things, and hence I went into radiation oncology. It was a perfect blend of my studies and my interest. But no, I often was the only woman, or maybe one of two or three women in my classes, and I was certainly the only person of color in my classes. It taught you things though. It taught you to be comfortable being in that position and to know that you could do it just like anyone else could, and to know that probably a lot of eyes were on you to succeed. Some of that was self-imposed, but some of that was real. But I think learning those lessons then certainly came in handy when I went into medicine because while there are more women in medicine, especially now, compared to what it was when I came through, still, at that point, we were in the minority. And there were very few people of color in medical school where I went to. I was at Duke, and very few people there. You learned lessons early on, right?  Dave Johnson: Where did this interest in engineering originate? Dr. Lori Pierce: So it was really more of physics and radiology. So I, as a kid was a really thin kid, and I broke a couple of bones, and I ended up going to get X-rays. And I was fascinated by the X-rays. I was fascinated by this physics. I was fascinated by how you could push this button and these images would appear and I could see my broken bone. So that was really where it came from.  So I was pre-med. I did a lot of my pre-med work at Brown, and during the summers I was working in an industry. I was actually in Scott Paper Products industry outside of Philadelphia. And a couple of the other people there who I worked with closely were engineers. And I was just fascinated by it and seemed to be a good way of moving forward my own interest in the physics and the machinery and how it all worked. So I actually switched into engineering. So I switched from Brown to Penn. And being an engineer, it was a great way to make a good living for a year and a half. And I think as an engineer, and Pat, you can probably attest to this, you think in a certain way; you become very methodical in how you approach things. And while I'm sure there are a lot of other disciplines that will give you a similar type of approach, engineering really does—you're very objective in how you make decisions, and I think that serves well. And then, as I said, going into radiation oncology it was just a match made in heaven, so it all worked out great, I think. Pat Loehrer: I think I read that your sister was also into math, is that right?  Dr. Lori Pierce: My sister's a systems engineer with IBM. Incredibly gifted. Pat Loehrer: Yeah. Tell me about your parents. How did they guide you? What were your role models in terms of both you and your sister, in terms of math, physics, engineering? Dr. Lori Pierce: I already said my parents were incredibly hardworking and good people. They both had high school graduation education. My mother went straight through, but my father had to get an equivalency for his high school diploma because he was born and raised in North Carolina, had to work on the farm, and didn't get a chance to stay in school. But he got the equivalency of his high school degree.  It was interesting, my dad was just incredibly gifted for math. My father was just amazing in math. And my father and I always hung out. He was like my best friend and so I think my emphasis on math in part came from my dad. And I’ll say that both my parents didn't, weren’t able to get a college education, but they were two of the smartest people I ever knew. My father and my mother, but I just hang out more with my dad, had amazing common sense and whipsmart math. I'm sure that a lot of where I ended up is because of my dad.  Dave Johnson: You mentioned that you had family in North Carolina. I remember reading that you were influenced by some of the people you met in North Carolina with respect to your medical career. Can you tell us a little bit about that? I think a Dr. Weaver, was it?  Dr. Lori Pierce: That's right. Doc Weaver. That’s right. So I used to spend a lot of my summers in North Carolina with my father's family. And Dr. Weaver was an African American family medicine doctor who took care of the vast majority of people of color in the town of where my father's family is from. Whenever anyone had issues and needed medical care, he came to the house. He was the doctor for people of color. I sat back- and take it in a lot when you’re young - people never really know how much you're listening and seeing, but you take in a lot. And you see just how revered he was, and he should have been, because he was largely the face of medicine that a large part of that town saw. And that stuck with me. A couple of times, I went with him when he would see patients. Without a doubt, this factored into my wanting to go into medicine. I think that coupled with my interest in those x-rays and the physics of the x-rays, I think that's how it all came together, but Doc Weaver. Pat Loehrer: So you mentioned you did a gap year, which was somewhat unusual at that point. I did a gap year as well for the exact same reason - I wanted to not incur a lot of debt or at least try to defer the debt as much as possible. What did you do in your gap year, and how did that impact your medical training or did it?  Dr. Lori Pierce: It definitely did. My gap year was actually 18 months. I moved to Austin, Texas, and I worked in Round Rock, Texas, that was at a time when Round Rock was just a sleepy little town just north of Austin. I haven’t been back since. I know Dell computers is now there and now it’s almost you can’t see a difference between Austin and ROund rock, but that was not the way it was on those days. And I worked in Round Rock because McNeil Consumer Products was there.  I worked at McNeil Consumer Products, they make Tylenol. I was the second-shift Glatt supervisor for Tylenol. So Glatt is the machine that mixes up all of the ingredients for Tylenol and it was something that I knew going in that it was only going to be short-lived so I could probably live almost anywhere. And I thought, okay, I’d been on the east coast all my life, let me see what the rest of, another part of the country is like.  It was an amazing experience. To go from Brown to the University of Pennsylvania, DC, and Philadelphia, to Round Rock, Texas. In retrospect, I couldn’t have picked a better place. I mean I soaked up a little local color, went to some things that the Texans do, and rodeo, that kind of thing. But more importantly, I met people who I would’ve never met on the east coast. These were people who largely had not been outside of the Austin area. One person said she’d never seen a black person before. That kind of surprised me.  So it was a swath of America that I had not been exposed to. It was not easy. But in the end, it was the best thing, because you realize, people are people. And while you might be put off at first because they’re put off with you and you put off with them, at the end of the day, it was a great experience of getting to know people who can further enrich your life. And I think that has helped me in medicine in terms of interacting with patients no matter where they’re from, no matter what their background, what their financial situation is, people are people.     I was on my own. I was truly on my own. And that gap year was invaluable far more than helping me pay off medical school loans.  Pat Loehrer: You've focused into radiology and obviously there's diagnostic radiology and therapeutic radiology. How did you end up choosing the career that you eventually championed so well?  Dr. Lori Pierce: At the time I went to medical school at Duke, at Duke, radiation oncology was a division of radiology so they had not separated yet. While I was at Duke, they recruited in their first chair of radiation oncology into separation. So long story short, when you’re at Duke in medical school, your third year is all research. You could go into a lab and do research. And so when I met with my radiology advisor and looked at the list of options of projects I could sign on to, the one that happened to be most interesting was being done by a radiation oncology researcher in radiology. And I thought, well, it looks interesting, but I don’t want to do that because I want to go in radiology so I need to have a radiology project. And my advisor said, “No, it’s okay. Radiology programs, they’ll take radiation experiments. You can still use that and apply to radiology.” So I said “Okay, that looks really interesting.” So I opted to go with that choice and it was during that year that radiation oncology separated. A chair came in, Dr. Lenny Prosnitz from Yale, and he said, “Why don't you just come down and see what it is that we do?” So when my experiments were set up, I would run down into the basement because we’re always in the basement, and I would follow him around and I just loved it because it gave me the physics that I wanted, I got really interested in cancer biology. And I think with my personality, I work well with patients. I love patients. That patient interaction is when I’m at my best. And I wouldn’t have had that in radiology. With all due respect, radiology is so important, but you have to do what you gravitate toward, and those interactions when I was following him around with patients. So I never looked back, I changed at that point and decided to go into radiation technology.   So I was at Penn for residency and chief residency. When I was getting ready to leave to go to the NCI, the person, Barbara Fowble, who was a well-known breast radiation oncologist, took a sabbatical and asked if would I stay the year she was taking sabbatical to run the breast service. So I deferred going to the NCI to stay at Penn for an additional year as an attending and then went to the NCI when she came back from her sabbatical. I worked with Eli when I got to the NCI.  Pat Loehrer: And Norm Coleman, too? Dr. Lori Pierce: And Norm from a distance. He’s great. He came in for comedic relief. It was in a while, but he and Eli and Tom Delaney. It was a great time to be at the NCI. It was shortly after that, about a year or so into that when things started changing, Eli left to go to UT Southwestern. But it was a great time to be at the NCI. Dave Johnson: So you've worked with some of the giants of radiation oncology for sure?  Dr. Lori Pierce: I did. And the NCI was known as the places where the giants launched. So the Allen Lichters, the Joel Teppers. I mean, I could go through a list. They all had worked with Eli, and Allen was no longer there. Allen had already gone to the University of Michigan. He subsequently recruited me to Michigan. But the radiation oncology branch, the Marc Lippmans of the world, it was a magic time. Even though some of them weren't there, their footprint, their stamp was on the program, and it was really good. And working with Eli was just great. Dave Johnson: So is that where you're working with Barbara where your interest in breast cancer or was it that you mentioned you had an interest in the biology? Where did that interest in breast cancer originate?  Dr. Lori Pierce: It came from working with Barbara. So it was a combination. Barbara, who is one of the most amazing people to this day, that I've ever worked with, her command of the data, her synthesis of the data, her interaction with patients. Most people don't appreciate of just how great a clinician Barbara Fowble was. And so it was admiration for that. So she was a part of it, but John Glick was the other part.  So John, of course, who everyone knows, the giant in the field, and I think at the time, not sure if when I was a resident, he was the president of ASCO. Even if he wasn't the president at that point, he was certainly highly integrated with ASCO, and he kind of took me under his wing. I'm not sure why, but I was very interested in breast cancer. So he would like bring me over to the Med On clinic and teach me more about chemotherapy. So I had John and I had Barbara, and then also the mammography group was very supportive of me. I would come in literally on weekends and meet with the head of mammography, who would test me on mammograms, reading mammograms. So it was just a very supportive environment. And certainly, breast cancer was the area that I wanted to focus on. It was a great group to train under. Pat Loehrer: Dave and I had the opportunity a short time ago to interview John Glick. And as you're talking, one of the wonderful things about our field of oncology is how it's a close-knit network and there's so much mentoring. And John took both Dave and I underneath his wings, and he had no really rationale for doing that. But Eli, I mean, there are so many wonderful people that we've had the opportunity of meeting. And you yourself have mentored so many other people in another generation. It's hard to explain to people outside of oncology about how special this field is, I think. Dr. Lori Pierce: It absolutely is. And it's an honor for me to serve as a mentor because once you're a mentor, you always mentor. I mean, John, I'll run things by John to this day. Once you develop that closeness and you know them and they know you, you savor that, it never goes away. Dave Johnson: What would you tell a junior faculty or fellow are the characteristics of a great leader? What do you think makes for great leadership?  Dr. Lori Pierce: That's a great question. First and foremost, you listen. You need to listen and understand what your mentee, what it is they're seeking, what it is that they want to study, where they feel they are somewhat inadequate, and they want to improve. What is it that they want to accomplish with that relationship? Because as you and Pat both know, mentors come in all shapes and sizes. Mentors come in all locations. You may have someone who is at your institution where they're coming to you to help to shepherd through your institution and the policies and understand the practice of your institution. You may have those that are mentoring you from afar, or perhaps in addition to content, but also getting a sense of what the outside environment is like. So I think first rule of mentorship is to really understand why that mentee has sought you out and whether you are the right person to fill that void, whatever void that they think that they have.  I think another part of mentorship is making the time for that individual. We're all very busy people. Most people aren't looking at you to mentor them two hours a day. They are going to be very judicious in what they ask, and you should make sure that what they need, you can accommodate that, and if you can't, perhaps arrange for someone else who can. But in most cases, there's a lot that we all can do for people who approach us.  And then I think really understanding, kind of putting yourself in their position, where are they in their trajectory toward greatness, and how can you work with that. And I think most of us have a lot that we can share, and a lot of times we may be sharing things, we don't even realize that what we're saying is impactful to those individuals. But I really think it's starting out by listening and being honored that you are actually asked to be a mentor. Dave Johnson: You've also received numerous teaching awards. You obviously have a gift for that. Tell us, what's the secret to being a good teacher? What are the characteristics of a really great teacher, different than mentoring? Dr. Lori Pierce: Yeah. You have straightforward conversations with your residents and your fellows. I'll give you an example. We have teaching conferences. And teaching conferences have evolved over the years. I've been at Michigan for a long time, since ‘92. And in the old days, the morning conference, you discussed the literature and you had a discussion, and now it's evolved to slides. The residents give the slides and I'm old school. I like to go back to the old school. Some people call that the Socratic method. I think the Socratic method has gotten a bad rap because you can do the Socratic method in not a threatening way, and you can ask questions to residents and expect for them to give an answer. And it was interesting, long story short, when I few years into becoming Vice-Provost here, I'm not able to come to morning conferences very often. And I got a knock on my door here in the cancer center, and I opened up and it was the three chief residents. And I said, “Okay. Hi. Come in. What can I do for you?” And so all male, and they said, essentially, “We miss you. Our residents, we all prepare more for your conferences than anyone else. And even though you ask us questions, we don't feel threatened by your questions. We want that type of style of learning.” And I was bowled over by that because I'm just a simple person, and I don't beat around the bush. I ask questions because these are the kind of questions that you have to know when you manage patients. These are the kind of questions that you have to know when you're in a tumor board and you interact with medical oncologists and surgical oncologists. You have to know the literature, and you have to be able to state it in a clear way that, obviously, physicians get it, but patients get it, and you have to be aware of your audience.   And so that little vignette of when those three knocked at my door told me that, clearly, going back to the basics and just asking questions is well received.  Pat Loehrer: I'm thinking about your parents who did not go to college, and here you are now a Vice-Provost at one of the most prestigious universities in the country. It's got to be, if you reflect on that really cool. Tell us a little bit about that journey and what it takes. Or was that accidental journey or was this a purposeful journey of leadership that you wanted to go to?  Dr. Lori Pierce: It was absolutely not purposeful, for sure. So I can thank my dear Dr. Lichter for that. So, Allen Lichter, after he was chair of radiation oncology, as you probably know became the dean of the medical school. Well, Allen, who had brought me to Michigan, got to know me pretty well. And so, when he became dean, Allen's so strategic. He realized that it would be important to have someone from the medical school to work in the provost's office because the medical school is the largest school on campus, and we're the different ones. We approach life somewhat differently.   And so to have that perspective in the provost's office would be very helpful. So he came to me and said, “Would you be interested in doing it?” I didn't know what a provost was. I'd heard about it when I was at Brown, but I was like, “No, I'm not interested.” And he said, “Well, just go and talk with them. Meet with the provost of Central Campus and just see.” So I went and decided not to do it. But they did ask, would you just be a special counselor to the provost? If we have questions, we can call on you. So I said, sure. So I did that for a year, and then by the end of the year, had a much better awareness, understanding of what they did in that office, and a much better understanding of who they were, and they me. So I said, “Okay, if I decide to do this, I want it so that you can fire me at any time, and I can fire you at any time, but I'm never giving up my day job in terms of seeing patients. This is always my night and weekend job.” And so that's how we did it.  And so I've been doing it now for a long time—since 2005, 2006. The reason I've done it so long is we do work with amazing people across campus. We have 19 schools and colleges, and I now am the Vice-Provost for Faculty Affairs for the Health Science Schools. And it allows you to not only look at the university as a whole—we tend to have silos, we tend to live in silos. And when you're the Vice-Provost, you can look beyond those silos and you can bring together people and schools for common threads of work. If I see the nursing school is focusing on certain aspects of cancer treatment XYZ, I can bring together people from the medical school, I can bring together the school of public health and put some funding to it to give them seed funds, to then synthesize something which hopefully will then translate into a larger grant.  So it is very rewarding in that regard. You oversee promotions, the hiring, and promotions of the faculty, and it further opens your eyes to what can be. And so much of what we do, obviously, in cancer is multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary. We're not just radiation oncology, medical oncology surgeons. So much of what we do in medicine, we interact with public health, we interact with dentistry, we interact with the other health science schools. It has been a very interesting ride in terms of what can happen when you bring like-minded people from different disciplines and you concentrate on a certain topic. And we've started some seed funding. We've had efforts where it really has grown into very significant NIH funding.  Pat Loehrer: What are you most proud of as a Vice-Provost or your leadership at the university that we wouldn't know about necessarily? Dr. Lori Pierce: Two things. One, I was one of the key worker bees in changing our policy for time to tenure. We used to have an eight-year tenure clock. And in medicine, we need longer. It's more difficult to get funding, it's more difficult to manage all of the missions that we do and still end up right where you want to be. And so we now have a tenure clock. And so I helped to make that possible.  In more recent years, probably the jewel for my provost time is getting maternity leave and parental leave. Many academic institutions don't have maternity leave. Women have to take sick leave. I'm sorry, being pregnant is not sick. That's not a sickness. If you're a dad, you want to have time for bonding, you want to have time to be there when your child is born or adopted. And so I and two other people established a policy of maternity leave and parental leave that was wildly accepted. The leadership of the university could not agree more readily. And now we have a very robust policy, and this is not just for faculty, it's for staff. And I get people who thank me all the time, whether they're staff or faculty, especially the dads, for giving them the time to be with their child. So that's an easy question to answer. I think that has been a change that has been received positively throughout.   And even if it's a case where when a person is gone for their parental leave or maternity leave, other people have to step up to cover for them. But people don't complain because everyone knows that that is the way it should be and that people should be given that time. So it's been one of those win-wins. You don't get win-wins very often, and that's been a win-win. Dave Johnson: Kudos to you and your colleagues for pushing that through and making that happen. That's got to be a huge recruitment advantage for Michigan.  Dr. Lori Pierce: It absolutely is. And this is something where industry has done a long time ago. But academia, we have been much slower to adopt those family-friendly policies. And obviously, we are well compensated in our careers. People don't leave usually for the money. It's usually the other pieces. And it's pieces like this where people are recognized and rewarded for being a whole person. And that isn't just bringing in grants, it's also respecting their family lives and their family time. Dave Johnson: For sure. That was certainly my experience serving as chairman of a

People who live in major cities in the US and abroad tend to benefit from better cancer care due to having access to more doctors, facilities and equipment. In contrast, those who live in rural areas face many challenges accessing consistent and quality care.  In Part One of this ASCO Education Podcast Dr. Jack Hensold, a hematologist/oncologist in Bozeman, Montana and Chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force, Dr. Chris Prakash, Medical Oncologist in Paris, Texas and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, and Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in Townsville, Australia and the President-Elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia will examine the realties practicing oncology in rural areas.  They discuss the difficulties of having to travel long distances for treatment (5:30), the effectiveness of telehealth (8:07) and solutions to recruiting a supportive care workforce in rural areas  and facilitating access to imaging facilities and specialized treatment (18:12). Speaker Disclosures Sabe Sabesan: Speakers Bureau - Merck Sucharu Prakash: Speakers Bureau - Myriad Genetics   Jack Hensold:  Consulting or Advisory Role Company - Vibliome Therapeutics Resources  Policy Recommendations for Improving Rural Cancer Services in the United States  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Hello and welcome to this two-part episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today we will explore some real-time and real-world issues that oncologists face while practicing in rural areas in the US and abroad. Cities tend to benefit from having more doctors, facilities, and equipment to address the health needs of the population. In contrast, people who live in rural areas – estimated to be about 25% of the US population – face various challenges to obtaining consistent health care, including scarce medical personnel and infrastructure. Transportation of that care may involve considerable time and financial expense.  I'm Dr. Jack Hensold, the Hematologist/Oncologist in Bozeman, Montana, and Chair of the ASCO Rural Cancer Care Task Force. I also serve as Medical Director of Regional Outreach at Bozeman Health. Joining me is Chris Prakash, Oncologist and Medical Director of Texas Oncology and President of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology. Chris is also the Director of Quality Services for the statewide group and leads Texas Oncologist's Precision Medicine Initiative.  Also joining me is Professor Sabe Sabesan, a Medical Oncologist in regional Australia. He is the President-Elect of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and Clinical Director of the Australian Teledyne Health Program, led by the Queensland State Department of Health. Professor Sabesan is an internationally recognized expert in the area of tele-oncology. He has developed and evaluated various oncology models to deliver cancer care closer to home.  Providing healthcare is a very involved career, more so in rural areas. Dr. Prakash, you finished your oncology training in Detroit, yet you practice primarily in rural Texas. Can you detail the factors that led to your decision in practicing oncology in a rural setting?  Dr. Chris Prakash: Thank you, Jack, for having me as part of this podcast. I finished my fellowship at Wayne State in Detroit, Michigan, and we were looking for a place to raise our kids and family and to find a good practice for myself. My daughter was two years old at that time. We were looking for a quiet, safe place with a laidback lifestyle, but at the same time a dynamic oncology practice. That's how I found East Texas, which is primarily a rural area. The small community here, good schools, and nice, accepting people really appealed to us. So we decided to give it a chance. We are still here almost 23 years later. My daughter has grown up and is in medical school. My son, who was born in Paris, Texas, is planning to go to med school next year.  Over the last couple of decades, I've found that practicing oncology in a rural setting is indeed very rewarding. You can make a difference in people's lives here. People are simple. They have faith and respect and follow doctors' advice. Practicing here, I've had a real chance to make a difference in not only people's lives but also in the overall healthcare system and in health policy. As you know, Jack, about 18% to 20% of the population lives in rural areas in the US. But only 3% of oncologists are available to provide care for them. So I'm not only fulfilling a need but also satisfying a desire to contribute.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Chris, could you clarify the nature of your practice? Are you a solo oncologist within a much larger group spread out over the state, or is there more than one oncologist on your site? Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, so I'm part of Texas Oncology, which is a statewide large group with multiple sites of service. In my location, there are three medical oncologists and one radiation oncologist. So we serve the catchment area of Northeast Texas and Southeast Oklahoma. But within Texas Oncology, we have locations spread out all over the state. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you for that clarity. Professor Sabesan, you started in Sri Lanka and are now in a rural area of Australia. How did that happen?  Professor Sabe Sabesan: I grew up in northern Sri Lanka in a village but moved to Australia because of the war in Sri Lanka in ‘90. So I did my med school in Adelaide, Australia. During my med school, we had to do a lot of rural clinical placements. And also as a result of that, I did my internship in a central Australian town called Alice Springs. Throughout that journey, I saw firsthand the difficulties these communities face in accessing healthcare, basic healthcare. So when I finished my training in medical oncology, I was looking for a place where I could contribute to minimizing these difficulties, but also taking an academic angle to this. So I chose a regional center called Townsville in North Queensland as our home that actually serves a large rural and indigenous population, but also it is an academic hub for rural medicine. So it kind of served my clinical and academic needs, and we've been there last 20 years now. Dr. Jack Hensold: A significant hurdle for patients in rural areas is transportation. Patients sometimes travel an entire day or stay overnight near the clinic, where they will be examined or treated. What resources have been developed to assist with transportation to help patients come back for test results, appointments, and treatments? Chris?  Dr. Chris Prakash: Transportation, that's a big hurdle for many patients across the country, but mainly for the rural population. So, as I just said, my practice is in Paris, Texas, but the draw is about a quarter of a million. So patients come to see us here to receive their medical care from all over Northeast Texas as well as Southeast Oklahoma, and there is no public transportation in many of these areas. The average time to commute for many of my patients is in excess of an hour and a half each way. Patients do travel sometimes an entire day. They sometimes have to stay overnight to receive their treatments the next day.  I recall a patient with tonsillar cancer last year who was receiving concurrent chemotherapy and radiation. So he lived almost three hours away. This was too cost prohibitive for him to travel back and forth on a daily basis for radiation therapy. So what he did was set up his camper right behind the cancer center, which certainly made it a lot easier for him to get his treatments that way. I would not recommend that as a routine practice for everybody, but it did work out for him   Close by there is a community of Choctaw Indians here in Southeast Oklahoma also, and they do have some options for transportation for just their citizens. And locally, some local church groups and volunteer organizations provide assistance with transportation for some patients as well. But that is a problem. Transportation is a big access issue for my population. Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you. And just to make a comment, there's actually a fair amount of literature regarding what we refer to as financial toxicity associated with the need to travel. Sabe, do you have some transportation problems in your area? I would assume… Professor Sabe Sabesan: This is similar to what Chris and you are describing, Jack. Our area is 2000 by 1000 kilometers with about 650,000 population. There are scattered rural hospitals, but really there's no consistent public transport. But the government does pay for transport and accommodation. I heard that it doesn't fully cover it. But one of the disappointing things is that if you're traveling for clinical trials, that subsidy is not there for them. So that's probably one of the reasons why the governments have gone for the telehealth investment.   Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you. Telehealth is a critical tool for providing healthcare in many areas, including rural areas. How do you manage the health literacy problems of ethnically, educationally, and socioeconomically diverse populations using telehealth? Chris? Dr. Chris Prakash: Telehealth has been around for a long time, but during the pandemic, that’s when we needed to keep our patients safe and away in their homes and still continue to give healthcare to them. So we conducted many visits through telemedicine at that time. Telehealth is especially used for many patients in rural areas because they have problems with access. But there are many challenges. As you know there is a broadband divide in the US. About 1 in 4 Americans do not have a good broadband connection so it is very difficult for them to perform a video telehealth visit. Audio works out okay a lot of times, but to do a good video telehealth visit, that’s a difficulty.   Also, as you know, many of the flexibilities that we were afforded during the pandemic regarding telemedicine, they are slowly going away. So that’s making telemedicine even more difficult to do. But telemedicine is a boon for many of the patients who live in rural areas. I remember just the other day I saw an elderly couple, the man had just been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. In the room, he requested that his children join the conversation via FaceTime on his phone so that they can listen in to what I had to say and what I had to tell them. This was indeed very helpful for them. I was able to explain to the patient, his wife, as well as his children who joined via FaceTime about the diagnosis, which was new, the treatment plan, expectations moving forward, and all of that.   So even though this was not a true televisit, it really demonstrates how technology can help us deliver good communication and good oncology care in many situations. But still, I would say that for many patients, telemedicine is not ideal. It’s especially true given the devastating diagnosis of cancer. Patients want to see their doctors face-to-face. As a doctor, I want to examine them. And also, body language is very important. It is important for my patients to trust me as a physician, and that’s hard to do sometimes via video chat.  So right now my nurse practitioners do a lot of chemo teaching through telemedicine. Now that is really helpful for them because this can be done over multiple teaching sessions, it makes it a lot easier for the patient. Because rather than coming into the clinic for all these visits, they can learn from the comfort of their homes before they really start the toxic chemotherapy.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Chris, thank you for that. I think that you make a very valid point and one that I've made, which is that telehealth is a great tool for overcoming geographic barriers in rural areas. But I think we just simply have to accept the fact that it's not as good as a face-to-face visit. So how we blend the use of telehealth with face-to-face visits I think is going to be a challenge moving forward. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I totally agree. I think toxicity management is great. I mean, it's a great tool to call and see how patients are doing after treatment. But that initial visit, there's something to be said about establishing a rapport and faith and trust in your doctor when you're treating cancer. Dr. Jack Hensold: I completely agree. Sabe, you sound like you're one of the experts in Australia regarding telehealth. I wonder if you have some comments about your experience. Professor Sabe Sabesan: Yeah, I would say it's an evolving experience which has evolved over 15 years. So in terms of the health literacy needs, my observation is actually the same whether it's in person or in telehealth. What we observed is that we just need to tailor to the patient's needs. When we first developed the telemedicine, we had the same issues, developing rapport and seeing first consultations in person. But what we did, we started doing a lot of shared care models and tele supervision models with rural facilities rather than directly into homes. So what that meant, we had patients' families can attend, especially the primary care physicians, and the rural nurses were able to sit in with the patients. So that means if there were any communication issues or any translation aspects, language-wise or explaining medical lingo, there was a system in place in the rural sector that is close to home that was provided by the primary care physicians and the families.  And also then from that experience, we did some research and the patients actually said they were happy to continue initial consultations on the telehealth consultation, provided there were families involved, the primary care physicians were in there, and also the aboriginal health workers. So for some regions now we do the initial consultation purely on telehealth because what also what telehealth does for the first consultation, if we need to then bring them to our center, then we would be able to coordinate the whole trip rather than coming back and forth. So that's actually probably the difference in a couple of the larger centers. But the other main benefit I actually found for indigenous patients is that we can involve the whole family in the patient care and normally that means they are able to ensure compliance and compliance with clinic visits. So it's been evolving but really it is what our models, some of them are tele-oncology replacing face-to-face, some of them are hybrid, some of them are treatment-related. So it's really based on the needs of that little communities. That's what we've been doing. Dr. Chris Prakash: If I can ask you a question Sabe, on that, do you experience barriers to practice across state boundaries in Australia? Because I know in the US that's a big issue, that's a hurdle. Licensing is an issue across state boundaries and also broadband issue because a lot of my patients, they simply don't have the broadband width to get on a video chat. Do you experience that in Australia as well? Professor Sabe Sabesan: So we definitely have the broadband divide in Australia, but luckily the state governments have actually invested heavily on fiber. So all the health facilities, whether they are small or large, they are all connected on fiber. So if you do video calls or telehealth within that system, it is pretty good. But as soon as you go outside to a primary care facility that is not part of a state facility or home, you run into trouble with broadband. But in terms of the state boundaries, I think it is a bit loose. I don't know whether there's actually a strict monitoring of the systems, but because the whole Australian system is funded by Medicare, it really doesn't matter where the patient lives as long as you bill the patient based on the consultation. Dr. Jack Hensold: And I'd like to just respond to something you said, Sabe, too, which is the involvement of primary care doctors and local healthcare workers in the care of patients, is something I will return to later in this conversation. But I think it's important that we consider when we're keeping patients out of our larger centers and treating them in their own home areas, that we are relying on supportive care by those primary care providers. Any other comments regarding the telehealth issue?   Professor Sabe Sabesan: In terms of the primary care shared care models and collaborations, that is actually one of the important aspects of telehealth because we have in the rural sector, the turnover of the staff is pretty high. So then what happens if we want to provide consistent medical service on telehealth? Something needs to be consistent so we become the consistent aspect of the partnership. So then that gives us bit more safety that there's a shared care model, but also what we found now that in terms of educating on oncology topics, the shared care models actually give you an opportunity for case-based discussion. I think there is a benefit for workforce development as well, as well as connecting the rural workforce with a network of workforce. Dr. Chris Prakash: Involving primary care physicians in the total care of the patient is vital, especially in rural areas because they really depend upon their PCPs and often these are APPs providing their primary care. You’ve got to manage their diabetes and hypertension and go through all their medications, antiemetics pain medications, work with the local pharmacy. There are so many issues that go into treating a patient with cancer and as an oncologist sitting 100 miles away, I'm not going to be able to take care of every detailed aspect of their care. So what I do is involve their primary physician from the very beginning. So when the patient first comes to me, it could be via telemedicine or not, I'm calling them back and saying, “Hey, I saw so and so. This is my diagnosis, this is my plan. I'm going to do all the treatments here at my center. But whatever's possible you can do locally, I would appreciate that.” If there's labs that can be drawn, imaging that can be done locally, any testing that can be done locally, patients really value that because they don't want to travel 2 hours just for a CT scan if they can avoid it. That's my practice.   Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you. You mentioned something that we're going to touch on next, which is that in rural areas it is often difficult to access labs, imaging facilities, and other specialized treatments, certainly CAR T therapy and other highly technical therapies. There are other services that may be limited in a rural area such as mental health, fertility preservation, palliative care, access to social workers. Do you have solutions to address that really supportive care and those needs? Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I think, Jack, you touched on a very, very critical challenge right now. It's a workforce issue. It's very hard to hire and keep good support staff not only in rural areas but all over the country right now. So you mentioned social workers, nurses, nutrition specialists, mental health providers, even fertility services. They're very hard to find in rural areas. There's a big workforce problem, right, all over the country. But the pandemic really exacerbated that. I mean, it's hard to find good staff anywhere and there's no easy solution to fix this problem. So what we need to look for is maybe provide incentives such as loan forgiveness programs or tuition payment programs, or repayment. Really anything that keeps professionals in rural settings. And we need to find people who like working in these areas because that's a very difficult problem as well.  And as you know, many specialized treatments, stem cell transplants, CAR T cell therapy, specialized neurosurgeries or cardiothoracic surgeries, or many oncologic surgeries, they can only be done at big tertiary centers in big cities often. So patients have got to travel a few hours to go there. So what we can do to make it easier on them is provide the first consultations with those specialists via telemedicine. And if they're thought to be good candidates for the procedures, then they can make a trip that's necessary to the city, let's say. But also you mentioned consistency, that is the key. It's very important to be consistent if you want to provide quality cancer care. It could be imaging, it could be diagnostics, molecular testing, or any kind of therapy that you deliver. They should all be consistent no matter where a patient is being treated. So that brings into question provider education. Many oncologists in rural areas, they're generalists, they treat all cancers. They do not specialize in one area. It's really hard to keep up with all the latest information that's coming out. So it's important that we provide all educational tools possible to keep them up to date.  I just moderated a meeting called Oncology Congress. So this is geared towards cancer care providers in rural areas. It's a free CME webcast, various topics on cancer, excellent faculty, and the main thing is that the discussion is geared towards improving multidisciplinary care in those rural settings. So I think another thing that we could think of as a solution to this problem is virtual tumor boards. I mean, they're very helpful where somebody can get on and get an opinion regarding a difficult case. But I think most helpful is if you have a network of doctors or specialists that you can rely on, you can call somebody, a quick consult or say, “Hey, I have a problem, a challenging case, what would you recommend?” Because sometimes we just don't have time to wait for that tumor board or wait for an official consultation. So, yeah, it's a difficult challenge. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes. And again, a point that you made that I'd like to respond to is the virtual tumor boards and basically shared education with maybe a larger group. As we've kind of in Montana looked at a development of hub and spoke models, we've realized it may make sense to consider a hub and spoke communicating with a spoke and hub. In other words, a larger center with what becomes the hub for a smaller community, and then that reaches out. So there's a series of educational connections that need to be made. Dr. Chris Prakash: Yeah, I think you almost need multiple hubs. One central big hub in this day and age is probably not going to help solve that problem. So you got to have a big hub and then maybe a series of regional hubs where patients can easily access and doctors can access information. Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes, I think that's absolutely correct. The education piece, too, is, I think, something that keeps oncology practitioners out of smaller communities where they may be practicing by themselves. Because it's difficult, as you know, as an oncologist, to feel like you're staying current with everything you need to stay up to date with, and therefore practicing in a larger group where you can turn to someone else for some immediate education.  Dr. Chris Prakash: That's very true. And if you really look at what these CME programs or educational programs are geared to, none of them are geared towards rural practice. They talk about big clinical trials. And those populations are really not my patient population, for sure. So you really need a program where people who know rural medicine, who have experienced it firsthand, like you, me, and Sabe, and say, “Okay, this is what really happens. You cannot give CAR T therapy to every Lymphoma that walks in.” I think those are the kind of educations we are talking about. There's so many educational programs that are available, but not many for rural practitioners. Dr. Jack Hensold: Right. And it does speak to whether or not we need to be thinking about developing some type of education that's easily accessible to those very busy practitioners who may be a solo practitioner with no one around for hundreds of miles, I guess.  Dr. Chris Prakash: And not to throw in a plug for my conference, but the Oncology Congress that I do twice a year, that's the sole purpose. We will have faculty from big centers. But I make sure that the conversation moves towards rural settings where we do not have all the latest technologies and the therapies available. And we had a really good turnout this past weekend, so I'm happy to share information if anybody's interested.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Yes, that would be great. Again, I think this conversation has been terrific because I've really become focused on the issue of the inadequate education we have not only for our oncologists who are out in practice in smaller areas but also for the primary care providers who need a better understanding of what's required for supportive care of oncology patients. And there's very limited material that focuses on that as well.  Dr. Chris Prakash: Totally agree. Just one last point I want to make is with the checkpoint inhibitors. That's a perfect example. Many of these toxicities are multi-organ, and the patients in the community, the docs in the community sometimes are not aware of the skin rash or lung symptoms, or pneumonia is really related to the therapy. So very important to involve the whole team in their care. Dr. Jack Hensold: Completely agree. Sabe, what about your experience in this regard? Professor Sabe Sabesan: Exactly the similar experience Chris has been describing. Another group of rural people, there are actually smaller rural communities. Sometimes they are like 500 or 1000 population maximum. So those kinds of places, they completely miss out because they are too small even for standard general medicine specialties. What we've been observing over time or focusing on is really how do we build those capabilities at rural sites because if they keep doing the same stuff, then they are not going to grow or build. So what we've been doing is let's build some rural capabilities and let's also focus on expanding the scope of practice. So to do that, we actually have to start shifting specialist services like chemotherapy administration or rheumatology infusions back to those smaller towns. And then we have to utilize tele-supervision and share care models with allied health and the rural health workforce. So when that happens, we need more staff because there are more activities happening.  And what we found in the western Queensland town of Mount Isa before 2007, maybe a few chemotherapy patients had to travel for everything. Over time we shifted all the chemotherapy and biotherapy to that 20,000 population town. That meant that over that ten years they had more resources from the government, more staff like registrars and residents, and also needed infrastructure. So that gave us some confidence that maybe we have to leverage the telemedicine technologies to build rural systems, not just seeing patients.  Dr. Jack Hensold: Thank you Dr. Prakash, for your insight into this topic and also to Professor Sabesan for his perspective from his practice in Australia. In part two of this podcast, we will explore how the difference between American and Australian healthcare systems impact care for rural patients, the need for advocacy from doctors in a pilot project in Montana I'm working on with ASCO.  I'm Dr. Hensold and I would like to thank all of our listeners of the Cancer Topics ASCO Education Podcast. This is where we explore topics ranging from implementing

Age is a main factor when determining cancer care. In this ASCO Education podcast we speak to one of the top leaders in treatment for older patients who has also credited mentorship as a foundation for his career. Dr. Hyman Muss describes his childhood in Brooklyn, serving as a general physician for troops in Vietnam (6:18), the doctor who influenced his choice of hematology and oncology (7:48) and creating one of the first geriatric oncology fellowships in the country (21:58).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Hyman Muss: None More Podcasts with Oncology Leaders  Oncology, Etc. – Devising Medical Standards and Training Master Clinicians with Dr. John Glick Oncology, Etc. – Rediscovering the Joy in Medicine with Dr. Deborah Schrag (Part 1) Oncology, Etc. – In Conversation with Dr. Richard Pazdur (Part 1) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University.  Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson of Medical Oncology at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of our podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting and inspirational people and topics in and outside the world of Oncology. We have an inspirational guest today. Pat?  Pat Loehrer: If you ask anyone who's achieved any level of success and how they've achieved it, most likely they'll mention a number of people who've influenced them along the way. Quite often, these people reflect on their mentors, and after a certain time of accomplishment and reflection, they begin to mentor others. This is very much what our next guest has done. Dr. Hyman Muss has been a mentor to me and to Dave, and he's one of the most outstanding, wonderful people in the world, and we're so excited to have him today.   Dr. Hyman Muss served in the US Army in Vietnam, where he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal. He's an experienced Clinician Scientist, the Mary Jones Hudson Distinguished Professor of Geriatric Oncology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and the Director of Geriatric Oncology Program at the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Program. His interest in education and research is focused on cancer and older patients, and he is internationally recognized in this area. He's been the co-chair of the Alliance Committee on Cancer and Older Adults and won the BJ Kennedy Award from ASCO in Geriatric Care. His particular interest in research expertise is in the care of breast cancer patients, with a focus on the management of women who are of older ages. He's had a major interest in breast cancer survivorship and long-term toxicity of treatment and also served as the co-chair of the Breast Committee for the Alliance Group. He serves as a mentor for medical students, medical residents, junior faculty, and more recently, his Geriatric Oncology fellows. He served on the Board of Directors of the ASCO Foundation and on the ABIM, the American Board of Internal Medicine, where both Dave and I were privileged to work with him and witness his leadership and his deep breadth of knowledge.  Dr. Muss, thanks for joining us today. Dr. Hyman Muss: What a pleasure to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me. My mother would have loved the introduction.  Pat Loehrer: Well, speaking of that, tell us a little bit. You grew up in Brooklyn, so tell us a little bit about your parents. Your father was a dentist, I think, and your uncle was a general practitioner. So give us a little bit of the early life of Hy Muss. Dr. Hyman Muss: So I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I was born and bred there. I went to Brooklyn Technical High School. I almost went to Brooklyn College, but I came back and went to Downstate Medical Center, which was just terrific. My tuition was $600 a year, but that's another story. My parents lived in the same neighborhood. My dad was a dentist, so we knew all the people. My uncle was the GP. You came into their office, sat down, and they saw you anytime, day or night, almost 24/7, something we're probably not going back to, but they had a profound influence on me. My uncle, as a GP, used to take me on house calls in Brooklyn when they were done, and he had an old Buick with MD plates. And I would go into these families, and they loved him, and they would give me ice cream and things. Maybe that's what made me a doctor. But it was a terrific and indelible experience. I had terrific parents. In those days, doctors and medical people usually lived in the same neighborhoods as their patients, so they really knew their people well. It was a terrific upbringing. I got to love medicine and have never had a look back. Dave Johnson: So your inspiration for a career in medicine obviously started at home. Tell us more about your formal education. You mentioned your high school education. What about college? And shortly thereafter?  Dr. Hyman Muss: Yeah, well, I went to Lafayette College. I was not the best high school student, but I had good college board scores or whatever they called them then. And I went to Lafayette and I thought I was going to be a chemist, a chemistry major. But I took enough premed courses and I spent a summer in a lab building cyclic ketones. And everybody was outside sitting on the lawn of the campus. And I was in there with all these distillation apparatus, and I said, “I don't think I can do this the rest of my life.” So I applied to medical school, and I got into several medical schools. But my father at that time was dying of metastatic bladder cancer. He had been a heavy smoker, and he was still working as a dentist. He worked until the day he unfortunately died. But I got into Downstate. We lived in Brooklyn, and my uncle, the GP, said, "Hy, you need to come home and help take care of your dad." I'm an only child, so I did. And I had a wonderful experience at Downstate.   Several years ago, I was listening to NPR and heard that one of my professors had won the Nobel Prize. Dr. Furchgott in physiology, one would have never thought. And I had a wonderful education and subsequently got into what was then Peter Bent Brigham in Boston, did my internship and residency there, joined the army and medical school, so I wasn't drafted, it was a program then. And then after first year of residency, I went to Vietnam, worked with an artillery battalion, a mystical experience, but no regrets. And then subsequently came back and did hematology and oncology at Brigham and at what was then the Jimmy Fund and Sidney Farber Cancer Center. And Tom Frei had just come. And I did hematology with a guy named Bill Moloney in Boston at Harvard. I'll tell you, a wonderful man. He was like a surrogate father. My dad had died by then, and I just feel I've had every opportunity to have a wonderful education and terrific mentors along the way. Dave Johnson: So we want to ask you about both of those gentlemen, but I would like to just, if I may, drop back to your experience in Vietnam. What was that like?  Dr. Hyman Muss: Well, I was 27 years old and I was put as the doctor for 500 men in artillery. My job was to take care of the general health of the troops. Fortunately, we didn't have many casualties. It wasn't a front war like my uncle, who was a GP actually in World War II, landed in Normandy about a week later and went all through World War II as a doctor. But Vietnam was an unusual war, there wasn't really a front. So my experience was I would go out to fire bases, which were units of about 100 men in the jungle, go out three days in a week in a helicopter, do sick call, check people. I dealt with really alcohol problems, unfortunately, a lot of drug problems. You had young people with really not a lot to do during the day, nothing much to do, and no real goal of being there. I did that for a while, and actually, the reason I got the Bronze Star was because I set up– It was nothing like standing in front of a machine gun. I'm not that kind of brave guy, but I set up a drug amnesty program so I got a lot of support from our regular field people to do this, so we didn't have to keep sending kids home with dishonorable discharges. And I learned a lot. I think we were reasonably successful. I learned a lot about artillery. I think overall it was a great experience in my life. Dave Johnson: Tell us how your interest in hematology and oncology originated. Where did that come from?  Dr. Hyman Muss: When I was an intern at the Brigham, Dr. Moloney was a very famous Harvard professor. He had studied war casualties after Hiroshima, he was one of the people that found the Philadelphia chromosome in CML. He was a guy that rounded on every single one of his leukemia patients every day. So I was an intern. So in those days I would go and see all the hematology people rounding because all the acute leukemia patients and all the serious cancer patients were right on the floors, right on the wards. We had 17-bed wards, and then we had some private rooms. And he loved what he did. And before I left for Vietnam, we didn't have Ara C and daunomycin. So every leukemia patient I saw died. This is '68 to '70. Yet we tried all these different regimens. Occasionally you got someone who did well for six months, a year. But his bedside manner was absolutely wonderful to me. He knew all the patients. He'd ask them about where they lived in Boston. His humanism was terrific, and yet I loved the diseases he treated. The stakes were high. We didn't have good treatment, and I decided that that's probably what I want to do.   So when I was in Vietnam, I applied and got back in the Hematology Fellowship and came back and did that. I saw Ara C and daunomycin. I gave the chemotherapy to them, and he'd say, "Go up and treat Harry Smith with Ara C and daunomycin." I had the syringes in my pocket, guys. Forget about hoods and mixing. And I'd go up and treat them and the marrow would be gone within four or five days. I did a bone marrow. They published their regimen in the New England Journal called COD, C-O-D because they also gave vincristine. So it was cytarabine, vincristine, and daunomycin, the COD regimen. It fit Boston. And I saw it was like the emergence of cisplatin after Larry Einhorn. You saw people that never survived going into remission and I saw some remissions in AML and it cemented it.  About my second year of residency, we had a child. I was running out of money. I was being paid $6,000 a year and I had the GI Bill. I went into Dr. Moloney and he talked with Dr. Franny Moore, who was head of surgery at the Brigham, and they made me the Sidney Farber Research Fellow, doubled my salary and I had to go to the Jimmy Fund and see cancer patients. And it so happened that was when Tom Frei came to Dana-Farber. And so I started rounding with Dr. Frei and seeing those patients. And I think the first day I walked in, I knew I wanted to do more than just leukemia because I saw groups of patients with every disease. We treated everybody with CMFEP, it didn't matter what cancer they had. And I just loved it and said, "My God, there's so much we can learn. What a great career." And so that got me into the oncology portion.   And then I was offered to stay at Harvard. They were going to make me an assistant professor, but they wanted me to do lab work. And I knew my personality, it just wasn't for me. I worked with a lovely guy named Frank Bunn, one of the world's great hem guys in his lab, and he's still a close friend in his 80s. And he told me one day, he said, "Hy, I don't think the lab is for you." And he actually helped me get my first job at Wake Forest University, which turned out to be wonderful. So that's how I ended up with my circuitous in HemOnc. And it's really from great mentors, it's from Bill Moloney, it's from Tom Frei, Dave Rosenthal, tons of wonderful people along the way that not only taught me a lot, but they seemed to love what they do, which is a gift in life to love what you do and love the people you're doing it with. They instilled that in me. Pat Loehrer: From there you went to Wake Forest and there’s a couple of colleagues down there, I believe, that inspired you, Charlie Spurr and Bill Hazzard, who was the founding founder of geriatrics. Tell us about that experience and how’d that shape your life.  Dr. Hyman Muss: I was looking for a clinical job and I looked at Rochester, and I got snowed in one night in Wake Forest, and I said, “Where's the contract?” And I signed it. And my mother, who was living in New York City, didn't know where North Carolina was. My mother was from a family, was born over a candy store in Greenwich Village, and said, “Where are you going?” And then I showed her where it was, and she says, “They're going to kill you down there.” And it turned out to be one of the best decisions of my life. My wife Loretta, who both of you know so well, we got out of our VW with our dog and our daughter when we moved here, and VW bug, by the way, not a van, and she cried. It turned out it was one of the best opportunities.  Charlie Spurr was an iconic oncology leader. He actually did some of the early work on nitrogen mustard in Chicago during the war, the first chemotherapy drug. He was a terrific leader. He had patients programmed in on those IBM punch cards. He had little cards for the protocols, CMFEP, CMF, AC on little laminated index cards. I learned so much from him, and he was to me, great leaders and great mentors morph from things they do themselves to teaching other people, and whose brains have the ability of having the same dopamine shot when you see one of your fellows or young faculty present a wonderful study as you do. And your brain isn't saying, “I wish I was up there.” It's saying, “Isn't this so cool that this young man or woman or fellow or medical student is doing such a wonderful job?” And I had something to do with providing the soil for this seed to grow. That's the kind of guy he was. And so it was wonderful there.  And as I moved on, we got a new Chief of Medicine, Bill Hazzard. And I still hear from Bill on rare occasions, but Bill was one of the first geriatricians in the United States. He wrote the textbook, and his wish was that all the faculty and all the specialties get involved in a geriatric project. And so I had all those little index cards, and I looked and saw how many older people with metastatic breast cancer we'd given chemotherapy to. And these were little protocols, nothing like the protocols today, no 50-page consent forms, 50 pages of where your data is stored. They were like, here's the treatment, here's the dose mods. And I looked at those 70 patients with one of our residents, Kathy Christman, she may be retired now, but in any event, we wrote a paper and showed the old people did as well as the young with breast cancer. And we published it in JAMA. And it's one of the few papers in my career, I got no reviewers. They accepted the paper. I got no reviewers. So because I'm from Brooklyn, and my English is not what it should be, I had my friends read it to just make sure I didn't say anything egregious. But it got published and the next thing I know, my friends in medical oncology in the state were calling me. They said, “I got a 75-year-old woman here.” I'm saying, “Guys, I just wrote this paper. I really don't know anything about older people.” But slowly, with Bill Hazzard and others, I got more and more interested. I started reading about Geriatrics and I ended up making it a focal point of my career. It was kind of happenstance. And Bill was a wonderful mentor.  And then as I subsequently moved on, I worked with terrific people like Harvey Cohen, Lodovico Balducci, and Martine Extermann, all of them heavily involved with ASCO over the years as well, and B.J. Kennedy. They were wonderful to work with. And BJ was inspirational because BJ would get up at an ASCO meeting and he'd say when he saw the age cut off, he'd say, “How come you didn't let old people on that study? There'd be 1000 people in the audience.” And so he really was a great mentor. And I had the bittersweet opportunity of writing his obit for JCO years ago and kept up with his family a few years, but he was a wonderful man. Dave Johnson: I'm just reflecting on the fact that today, patient registries are sort of mainstream, but certainly in the ‘70s, ‘80s, even into the ‘90s, having a list of patients with a particular disorder seemed almost novel in many respects. And to have that was a godsend.  Dr. Hyman Muss: It was a godsend. I still remember those little file cards. And he called it the Oncology Research Center and it was a godsend. And you’ve got to remember, this is like ‘74, ‘75, it's a long time ago. Dave Johnson: So many of our listeners may not be as familiar with Wake Forest as they are with Duke and North Carolina, the other medical schools located there. But you were at right at a point where I mean, it was one of the top oncology programs in the country at that time. Still is, I don't mean to diminish it, but there was a who's who of people there at the time. And you were also involved in creating, I think, one of the first cooperative groups of sorts. It was the Piedmont Oncology Group. Tell us about that.  Dr. Hyman Muss: Oh, yeah, well, that brings back memories. So the NCI at that time wanted to get more, I think, rural and other smaller places involved in research. And they put out an RFA to form like regional cooperative groups. And we formed the Piedmont Oncology Association, the POA. We actually did well for a few years. We wrote some really good studies. We got one or two New England Journal articles. I worked with all the people, mainly in the community, community docs who would go on, and put people on the protocol. I mean, I looked at all the X-rays and scans in a lot of these patients myself as part of the studies we did. And it turned out to be a wonderful organization and it's still run today by Bayard Powell, who is one of our terrific fellows who's the head of Oncology at Wake Forest.  But after a while, we just couldn't compete with CALGB, of which I was a member of also, and ECOG and SWOG, even North Central Group, which was kind of formed in a similar venue, eventually merged. So we did a wonderful job for a while but the truth is we just didn't have the manpower to write studies for every disease site. So eventually we kind of petered out as a clinical trials group. But it's been maintained for educational programs and it's really served as a good resource for a lot of good education for the community oncologists who give most of the care in this country in the state. So it's been good. I think Pat kind of exceeded us with HOG, the Hoosier Oncology Group, which was in a similar vein. But it was a great experience and it was all Dr. Spurr, who thought of doing this and built it.  Dave Johnson: Certainly, it was inspirational in many people in and outside of Wake Forest. So with such an idyllic life, what in the world possessed you to move north to Vermont?  Dr. Hyman Muss: Well, you get this urgent life. You want to be a leader, you want to be a chief. Now, I tell younger people, if they love what they do, don't do it. So I got a wonderful opportunity at the University of Vermont to go up there and be Head of HemOnc. Chief of Medicine was a terrific guy, Burt Sobel. The university at that time, at one time it had a wonderful Oncology program. It had a federally funded cancer center with Irwin Krakoff and Jerry Yates, two other iconic guys. I don't know what the politics were but it had lost a tremendous amount of faculty, especially its clinical faculty, and they needed to rebuild it. And I went up and I thought, “Well, I'm in my 50s. This is going to be a great opportunity. If I don't do it now, I may never get the chance.” So I went up there and actually, it was a great opportunity. We hired terrific people. We got CALGB and we participated. We had actually a very good accrual for a small place and we had a very small but very effective cancer center. So it turned out to be a really good experience.  I worked with wonderful people. I recruited some wonderful people. But over time, the issues of the business of medicine, all the issues that happened, I'm saying I'm kind of losing my focus on clinical care and clinical trials, which I love to do. I don't need to tell either of you. I mean, Dave, you've been chief and department chair and Pat has run cancer centers. After a while, the administrative tasks just were so overwhelming and I didn't enjoy them, that I said, “I've got to get back in some type of more clinical focus.” And that's when I decided to look around and fortunately found what's turned out to be a dream job at UNC.  But it was a time of life. Maybe my ego got in the way of my logic. I don't regret it. I met and I think we rebuilt a wonderful clinical program. But you realize some of the resources of big places with-  we never had the research infrastructure to hire a lot of people and get big programs going on and great translational programs, just didn't have the funding. But it was great, and I have no regrets. And I learned how to tolerate the cold weather. And I have a lovely daughter, Sarah, who still lives up there. So we get back occasionally. And I've kept up with a lot of the people there. There are some wonderful people at UVM.  Pat Loehrer: From there, though, you were pulled down to North Carolina, where you've, again, built an incredible breast program there is outstanding. But you've created a Geriatric Oncology program, one of the first geriatric fellowships in oncology in the country. So tell us a little bit about that and what you feel may be your legacy is there at North Carolina.  Dr. Hyman Muss: Well, I had the opportunity over the years when I was at Wake, really, I got to know Shelley Earp, who's our cancer center director. I think maybe you were close to him, Pat. The longest surviving cancer center director on the planet, or among them. And we were good friends. And North Carolina's legislature actually gave the University of North Carolina substantial funding to improve cancer care in North Carolina, not just research. And so I had talked with Shelley about maybe moving, and because of the generosity of the state, really, he was able to really get me going, start a Geriatric Oncology program. And what I wanted to do was develop trials. As Dave says, I built a registry in 2009 here for older cancer patients using geriatric assessment. I have 2000 patients, which has been a resource for all types of faculty and fellows, and students to write papers. But I was able, with the support, to do things like this right from the get-go. And plus, I joined probably one of the best breast groups on the planet with Lisa Carey and Chuck Perou, and Larry, terrific people, Claire Dees. I had great luck in doing this, so I was able to really focus, get great support from my colleagues to build studies focusing on older people.  And then I had the great fortune of meeting Ned Sharpless, our prior NCI director. And Ned is one of the world's great aging biologists. And I don't mean aging as an adjective, he's really been a master on why we age, the biology of aging, cell senescence. So Ned taught me all about cell senescence and the mechanisms, especially the gene expression p16, which is like our own CDK inhibitor. And so I was able to start using his lab, collect samples, treat people with chemotherapy, follow them off with geriatric assessment. It was a great opportunity to do that here, and we got a lot of studies going and we showed what the pediatricians have known for years, that chemotherapy dramatically ages people, not just children, but adults. But it also allowed me to work with my colleagues in lymphoma and lung cancer to do little studies along the way.  And we eventually then built a T32 program. We got a T32, which we're kind of completing now our first five years to train oncology specialists in geriatrics. So the way we do it is they can be surgical oncologists, GU, we had a GYN oncologist, medical. With their HemOnc training, they do a year where they work with the geriatricians, so they go on geriatric inpatient service for a month and they really learn about older people. And part of it is a project. So we've been able to build that and develop a lot of programs with that. And I should say we've been very successful with mentorship and with ASCO support for things like YIAs, the late and great Arti Hurria, who absolutely an amazing woman. Some of her legacy at ASCO, the YIAs, and things. We've been successful in applying for some. So we've been able to build a whole spectrum of med and hematologists. We have an interest in Myeloma and AML focusing on older people. We've been able to build a whole team approach, including translational projects related to older people. And it's just been a great opportunity, and hopefully, my legacy here will be, too, and I'm working on it.  We have a wonderful guy, Bill Wood, who is very effective and has built this incredible coaching program to continue this legacy. Like many of us in this field, we are bothered because we all know the stats, we all know that first slide of the demographics of cancer, and yet it's been very hard in our culture to provide a lot of the services and build the clinical trials we need to best care for older people. It's still a major problem in this country. So as I cut back on my clinical care, I'm going to still advocate to try to improve the care of older people. Do geriatric assessment, build it into your clinical programs, get your hospitals to support you, convince them, build business plans, et cetera. And hopefully, that'll be my ultimate legacy, that we've made greater awareness of the older people, other than the usual stats, and we're really trying to care for them in a much more global sense, in a much more holistic sense than we've done. I hope we'll be successful. It's a slow haul, but we've got lots of great young people coming up through the pipelines, ASCO has been a great player in this. Many of you know people like Supriya Mohile and William Dale, Heidi Klepin, people, the next generation that's going to keep building this. So I hope the legacy will be that we get more buy-in, more interest, more trained people in other oncology-related subspecialties RadOnc, SurgOnc that will really focus on the care of older people. Dave Johnson: I don't think there's any doubt that that will be a part of your legacy Hy, but I think your legacy will be much broader than the world of geriatric oncology. Your mentorship leadership, your clinical skills, your educational capabilities, all of that will certainly last for many, many years in the future.  Well, I don't want to bring up a touchy topic, but you yourself are geriatric and we're wondering what your plans are for your semi-retirement. I recognize you're not retiring, but what do you like to do outside of medicine? Dr. Hyman Muss: I'll tell everybody who's interested in hearing this. On Tuesday, I had my 80th birthday.  Dave Johnson: Congratulations.  Dr. Hyman Muss: And I think I'm one of the most blessed guys. I'm pretty healthy. I married up -  my wife Loretta, who both of you, Pat Loehrer and Dave Johnson, know well.  Dave Johnson: Yeah, you definitely married up.  Dr. Hyman Muss: Yes. It's really carried me most of my life. She's great and so she flew up our three kids and we celebrated and I'm very fortunate. I have the enthusiasm and strength to do more clinical medicine. But I think the time has come for me to cut back my clinical medicine, so I'm going to do that in June. The hardest thing I've done is say goodbye to so many of my patients here.  We've been blessed. We have a lovely family. We're pretty close. I'm never bored, probably you two know well, I love to do things like fishing, outdoor stuff. I've really gotten into

To stay up to date with new treatments and standards of care medical oncologists in the United States are required to take the ABIM Maintenance of Certification exam, a ten-hour test, every ten years. This ASCO education podcast focuses on the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment. An alternative test that offers more flexibility in medical certification.     Our guests are Dr. Suresh Nair Physician-in-Chief of Lehigh Valley Cancer Institute in Allentown, Pennsylvania and Chair of the ABIM Medical Oncology Board and Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike, Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Chicago and member of the ABIM Medical Oncology Board.   Speaker Disclosures  Dr. Suresh Nair:   Research Funding - Bristol-Myers Squibb Recipient; Merck; Nektar Therapeutics; Mirati Therapeutics; Strata Oncology   Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike:   Consulting / Advisory Role – Abbvie; Impact Biomedicines; Celgene Recipient; Novartis; BMS; Taiho; CTI Biopharma; Threadwell therapeutics; Blueprint Medicines; SERVIER; Kymera; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene  Research Funding - Celgene; Incyte; Astex Pharmaceuticals; NS Pharma; Abbvie; Janssen Oncology; Oncothyrapy; Agios; AstraZeneca; CTI BioPharma Corp Recipient; Kartos; Aprea AB; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Daiichi Sankyo; Loxo; Novartis  Resources  To find out more about the ABIM LKA, go to https://www.abim.org/lka/ For a video walk-through, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0-qaUQmQXc Sign in to the ABIM Physician Portal to sign up for LKA by June 30, 2023: https://portal.abim.org/  To find out more about how ASCO supports physicians engaged in ABIM MOC, go to https://old-prod.asco.org/meetings-education/continuing-education-moc  If you are interested in joining the ABIM Item Writing Task Force for Medical Oncology, find out more and submit your application at: https://www.abim.org/about/boards-and-committees/openings/medonc-iwtf-physician/  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.  Dr. Suresh Nair: The medical profession is one where new treatments and standards of care are being discovered and applied frequently, especially in oncology. Staying up to date with such practices allows the physician to provide the highest quality of care. How is this accomplished? By taking part in the Maintenance of Certification, or MOC. The traditional MOC assessment takes about 10 hours to complete and gives you ten years to be reported as certified before your next assessment is due. But given today's world where new treatments and standards of care are advancing rapidly, a more continuous assessment approach is warranted to help oncologists stay up to date.  This ASCO Education Podcast explores a new alternative to the every decade MOC exam for medical oncology. It's known as the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment or LKA. I'm Suresh Nair MD, the Physician Chief of the Lehigh Valley Topper Cancer Institute in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and Chair of the American Board of Internal Medicine Medical Oncology Board. I will guide you through a general overview of the LKA, what it is, how it works, what the advantages are, and top-level need-to-know information. Joining me is my medical oncologist colleague, Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike, who's a professor of medicine and director of the Leukemia Program at the University of Chicago and serves as a fellow member of the ABIM Medical Oncology Board.  To begin, here are the essential differences between the ten-year maintenance of certification exam or MOC exam and the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment, the LKA. Both are being used to help medical professionals maintain a working knowledge of the latest treatments and standards in use in their field. The MOC is administered every ten years at specified locations, lasts about 10 hours, and the results are available after two months. The LKA is another option. It has a five-year cycle during which you answer questions on an ongoing basis and receive regular feedback on how you're performing. Dr. Odenike has taken the LKA and the MOC.  Toyosi, please describe the preparation and the actual experience of taking the traditional MOC test. How much time did you take to prepare for the exam and how did you fit that prep time into your busy schedule? Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: Thank you so much, Dr. Nair. For the traditional MOC, I started preparing about six months ahead of time and it was challenging to find time to prep and to fit that into an already busy schedule. It came down to blocking out any available time, particularly on the weekends, in the few weeks leading up to the actual examination date. It was also challenging to find time to dedicate a whole day to taking the exam and traveling down to the test site to do so. Dr. Suresh Nair: Today, the LKA is another option for busy oncologists. In 2022, the American Board of Internal Medicine launched the LKA after years of working with and listening to the physician community to understand their needs. As long as you're meeting the LKA participation requirement and other MOC requirements you'll continue to be publicly reported as certified for your entire five-year LKA cycle. The LKA is designed to provide greater flexibility, more convenience, and more immediate feedback, helping physicians stay current. Dr. Odenike, what has been your experience so far with the LKA? Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: So far, I have found the process far easier to navigate than the MOC. Registering for the LKA on the ABIM physician portal was very easy. There are 30 questions per quarter, and I chose to get weekly reminders of the due date, along with a link to access the portal and the LKA questions. I find this to be so convenient, I can determine when to access and complete the questions, which I have often done on block closer to the due date. You are able to do this and fit this in your schedule any way you choose, which is a big improvement on the traditional MOC. Dr. Suresh Nair: Is the LKA a big time commitment for you? 30 questions per quarter seems like a lot. How does it compare to the traditional ten-year model?  Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: There's a four-minute time limit per question. So technically, you can answer all 30 questions in one afternoon. Some physicians report doing this in two hours. Data gathered over the last year have shown that most participants answer questions in under two minutes. And how they approach it is unique to each person. Some set aside a little time each week to answer questions until they're finished. Others, like me, will do it all at once or over the course of one week near the end of the quarter. You could do one a day with your morning coffee if you wanted to. We have found the structure to be significantly more flexible than the traditional MOC.  We have a question for you, Dr. Nair. Can physicians sign up for the LKA now, even if they're not due for an assessment? Dr. Suresh Nair: You can only sign up in the year that you're due, or rather, starting in the December prior to your due year. So, physicians due for an assessment in 2023 were able to enroll starting December 1, 2022. Physicians who are recently certified or who are not due for a few more years have to wait until their due year to sign up for the LKA. Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: What is the last date to sign up for the LKA? Dr. Suresh Nair: The last day to enroll in 2023 is June 30. If you missed the enrollment date for the LKA this year, you can still opt to take the MOC exam in the fall without letting your certification lapse. MOC registration closes August 15.   Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: What happens if you don't pass after five years? Dr. Suresh Nair: If you don't pass after five years, you enter the grace period as long as you're meeting your other MOC requirements and will continue to be reported as certified during that time. You'll have one calendar year to pass the traditional MOC exam. In some ways, this is somewhat risk-free going with the LKA in that regard. Can physicians still take the MOC exam if they prefer to? Dr. Olatoyosi Odenike: The MOC exam is still available in spring and fall each year for most certificates, including med ONC and hematology, the LKA is just another option. Many physicians prefer to take the traditional exam or if they're certified in multiple specialties, they use both the exam and the LKA to balance their time and areas of expertise better. Some physicians take the LKA in hematology and/or medical oncology while using the exam to remain certified in internal medicine, for instance, or vice versa.  I have a question for you, Dr. Nair. Who is eligible to take the LKA? How can physicians know if they're eligible? Dr. Suresh Nair: LKA is offered in 15 specialty areas. All board-certified physicians in their assessment due year, except those in a grace period, are eligible. All physicians certified before 1990, all physicians with a lapsed certification. In fact, I had trained in both hematology and oncology 30 years ago, and I practiced medical oncology at two academic community hospital systems. I actually signed up for the LKA this past year to regain certification in hematology that had lapsed after my first 10 years, and I've had a great experience. I have finished a year of taking the test. I've gotten assessments. I see what my strong points and weak points are. I've actually ordered the ASH_SAP and I'm reading up on my weak points and I'm continuing this process. It really starts growing on you.  I'd like to thank Dr. Odenike for sharing your real-time experience in taking both the MOC and the LKA. I would like to extend an opportunity for all listeners interested in keeping their certifications through the LKA by going to the ABIM Physician portal www.abim.org. That's www.abim.org or go to the notes on the podcast page to access the link, as well as other resources. There you can keep track of assessment deadlines and progress, and it allows you to set reminders for assessments, points, and payments.  I want to thank all of you for listening to this ASCO Education Podcast. The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncology well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Thank you.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In this episode of ASCO Educational podcasts, we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice. The first scenario involves a 72-year old man with high-risk, localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease.  Our guests are Dr. Kriti Mittal (UMass Chan Medical School) and Dr. Jorge Garcia (Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine). Together they present the patient scenario (1:12), review research evidence regarding systemic and radiation therapy for high-risk localized disease (5:45), and reflect on the importance of genetic testing and (10:57) and considerations for treatment approaches at progression to metastatic disease (16:13).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Kriti Mittal:  Honoraria – IntrinsiQ; Targeted Oncology; Medpage; Aptitude Health; Cardinal Health  Consulting or Advisory Role – Bayer; Aveo; Dendreon; Myovant; Fletcher; Curio Science; AVEO; Janssen; Dedham Group  Research Funding - Pfizer Dr. Jorge Garcia:  Honoraria - MJH Associates: Aptitude Health; Janssen Consulting or Advisor – Eisai; Targeted Oncology Research Funding – Merck; Pfizer; Orion Pharma GmbH; Janssen Oncology;  Genentech/Roche; Lilly  Other Relationship - FDA Resources  ASCO Article: Implementation of Germline Testing for Prostate Cancer: Philadelphia Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019 ASCO Course: How Do I Integrate Metastasis-directed Therapy in Patients with Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer? (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Kriti Mittal: Hello and welcome to this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast. Today we'll explore how we interpret and integrate recently reported clinical research into practice, focusing on two clinical scenarios: localized prostate cancer progressing to hormone-sensitive metastatic disease; and a case of de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer progressing to castration-resistant disease.   My name is Kriti Mittal and I am the Medical Director of GU Oncology at the University of Massachusetts. I am delighted to co-host today's discussion with my colleague, Dr. Jorge Garcia. Dr. Garcia is a Professor of Medicine and Urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He is also the George and Edith Richmond Distinguished Scientist chair and the current chair of the Solid Tumor Oncology Division at University Hospital's Seidman Cancer Center. Let me begin by presenting the first patient scenario.  Case 1: A 72-year-old male was referred to urology for evaluation of hematuria. A rectal exam revealed an enlarged prostate without any nodules. A CT urogram was performed that revealed an enlarged prostate with bladder trabeculations. A cystoscopy revealed no stones or tumors in the bladder, but the prostatic urethra appeared to be abnormal looking. Transurethral resection of the prostate was performed. The pathology revealed Gleason score 4+5=9 prostate cancer, involving 90% of the submitted tissue. PSA was performed one week later and was elevated at 50. Patient declined the option of radical prostatectomy and was referred to radiation and medical oncology.   So I guess the question at this point is, Dr. Garcia, in 2023, how do you stage patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and how would you approach this case? Dr. Jorge Garcia: That's a great question and a great case, by the way, sort of what you and I in our practice will call ‘bread and butter’. Patients like this type of case that you just presented come from different places to our practice.  So either they come through urology or oftentimes they may come through radiation oncology. And certainly, it depends where you practice in the United States, at ‘X’, US, they may come through medical oncology.   So I think that the first question that I have is in whatever role I'm playing in this case, where the patient has seen a urologist or a rad onc or me first, I think it's important for us in medical oncology, at least in the prostate cancer space, to talk about how do we think of their case and put those comments into context for the patient. It's very simple for you to tell a patient you can probably have surgery, radiation therapy, but at the end of the day, how do you counsel that patient as to the implications of the features of his disease is going to be really important. I use very simple examples that I relate to my patients, but really this patient is a patient that has very high-risk prostate cancer based upon the NCCN guidelines and how we actually stratify patients into what we call low-risk, intermediate-, and high-risk, and between those very low and very high risk.  So his PSA is high, very high, I would argue. His Gleason score, now, what we call group grading is high. He has high-volume disease. So the first question that I would have is, what are the choices for treatment for a patient like this? But even before you and I may talk about treatment options, we really want to understand the volume of their disease and whether or not they have localized prostate cancer with high-risk features or whether or not they have locally advanced or hopefully not metastatic disease. So back in the days prior to the FDA approval for PSMA PET imaging, we probably will have a Technetium-99 whole-body bone scan, and/or we probably will actually use CT scanning. Most people in the past, we used to do just a CT of the abdomen and pelvic region. As you know, with the movement of oral agents in the advanced setting, I think most of us will do a chest CT, abdomen and pelvic region, and certainly we also probably will have a Technetium-99 bone scan.  Now, with the utility and the use of PET imaging, I think most people like him will probably undergo PET PSMA, where you use F-18 PSMA or Gallium-68 PSMA. I think the importance depends on how you look at the approval of these two technologies. I think that PET PSMA imaging is here to stay. It's probably what most of us will use. And based upon that, we will define yet the truest stage of this patient. So right now, what we know is he has high-risk features. Hopefully, their disease is localized. We'll probably put the patient through an imaging technology. If you don't have access to a PET, then obviously CT and a bone scan will do. But if you do, the PET will actually help us define if the patient has disease outside of the prostate region, in the pelvic area, or even if they have distant metastases. Dr. Kriti Mittal: I would agree with that approach, Dr. Garcia. I think in the United States, we've been late adopters of PSMA scans. I think this patient with high-risk localized disease, if insurance allows at our institution, would get a PSMA for staging. There are still some patients where insurance companies, despite peer-to-peer evaluations, are not approving PSMAs. And in those situations, the patient would benefit from conventional CTs and a bone scan. So let's say this patient had a PSMA and was found not to have any regional or distant metastases. He decided against surgery, and he is seeing you as his medical oncologist together with radiation. What would your recommendations be?  Dr. Jorge Garcia: I think the bigger question is, do we have any data to suggest or to demonstrate that if in the absence of metastatic disease with conventional imaging or with emerging technologies such as PSMA PET, there is no evidence of distant disease, which I think you probably agree with me, that would be sort of unlikely with a patient with these features not to have some form of PSMA uptake somewhere in their body. But let's assume that indeed then the PSMA PET was negative, so we're really talking about high-risk localized prostate cancer. So I don't think we can tell a patient that radical prostatectomy would not be a standard of care. We never had a randomized trial comparing surgery against radiation therapy. This patient has already made that decision and surgery is not an option for him. If he, indeed, had elected radiotherapy, the three bigger questions that I ask myself are where are you going to aim the beam of that radiation therapy? What technology, dose, and fractionation are you going to use? And lastly, what sort of systemic therapy do you need, if any, for that matter? Where we do have some data maybe less controversial today in 2023 compared to the past? But I think the question is, do we do radiation to the prostate only or do we expand the field of that radiation to include the pelvic nodes?  Secondly, do we use IMRT? Do you use proton beam or not? Again, that's a big question that I think that opens up significant discussions. But more important, in my opinion, is the term of hypofractionation. I think the field of radiation oncology has shifted away from the old standard, five, seven weeks of radiation therapy to more hypofractionation, which in simple terms means a higher dose over a short period of time. And there was a concern in the past that when you give more radiation on a short period of time, toxicities or side effects would increase. And I think that there is plenty of data right now, very elegant data, demonstrated that hypofractionation is not worse with regards to side effects. I think most of us will be doing or supporting hypofractionation. And perhaps even to stretch that, the question now is of SBRT. Can we offer SBRT to a selected group of patients with high-risk prostate cancer? And again, those are discussions that we will naturally, I assume, in your practice, in your group, you probably also have along with radiation oncology.  Now, the bigger question, which in my mind is really not debatable today in the United States, is the need for systemic therapy. And I think we all will go back to the old data from the European EORTC data looking at the duration of androgen deprivation therapy. And I think most of us would suggest that at the very least, 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy is the standard of care for men with high-risk prostate cancer who elect to have local definitive radiation therapy as their modality of treatment. I think that whether or not it's 24 or 36, I think that the Canadian data looking at 18 months didn't hit the mark. But I think the radiation oncology community in the prostate cancer space probably has agreed that 24 months clinically is the right sort of the sweetest spot.  What I think is a bit different right now is whether or not these patients need treatment intensification. And we have now very elegant data from the British group and also from the French group, suggesting, in fact, that patients with very high-risk prostate cancer who don't have evidence of objective metastasis may, in fact, benefit from ADT plus one of the novel hormonal agents, in this case, the use of an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor such as abiraterone acetate. So I think in my practice, what I would counsel this patient is to probably embark on radiotherapy as local definitive therapy and also to consider 24 months of androgen deprivation therapy. But I would, based upon his Gleason score of group grading, his high-volume disease in the prostate gland, and his PSA, to probably consider the use of the addition of abiraterone in that context. Dr. Kriti Mittal: That is in fact how this patient was offered treatment. The patient decided to proceed with radiation therapy with two years of androgen deprivation. And based on data from the multi-arm STAMPEDE platform, the patient met two of the following three high-risk features Gleason score >8, PSA >40, and clinical >T3 disease. He was offered two years of abiraterone therapy. Unfortunately, the patient chose to decline upfront intensification of therapy. In addition, given the diagnosis of high-risk localized prostate cancer, the patient was also referred to genetic counseling based on the current Philadelphia Consensus Conference guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in patients with high-risk localized node-positive or metastatic prostate cancer, regardless of their family history. In addition, patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who have cribriform histology should also consider germline genetic testing.  Access to genetic counseling remains a challenge at several sites across the US, including ours. There is a growing need to educate urologists and medical oncologists to make them feel comfortable administering pretest counseling themselves and potentially ordering the test while waiting for the results and then referring patients who are found to have abnormalities for a formal genetics evaluation. In fact, the Philadelphia Consensus Conference Guideline offers a very elegant framework to help implement this workflow paradigm in clinical practice. And at our site, one of our fellows is actually using this as a research project so that patients don't have to wait months to be seen by genetics. This will have implications, as we will see later in this podcast, not only for this individual patient as we talk about the role of PARP inhibitors but also has implications for cascade testing and preventative cancer screening in the next of kin. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Dr. Mittal, I think that we cannot stress enough the importance of genetic testing for these patients. Oftentimes I think one of the challenges that our patients are facing is how they come into the system. If you come through urology, especially in the community side, what I have heard is that there are challenges trying to get to that genetic counsel. Not so much because you cannot do the test, but rather the interpretation of the testing and the downstream effect as you're describing the consequences of having a positive test and how you're going to counsel that patient. If you disregard the potential of you having an active agent based upon your genomic alteration, is the downstream of how your family may be impacted by a finding such as the DNA repair deficiency or something of that nature. So for us at major academic institutions because the flow how those patients come through us, and certainly the bigger utilization of multi-disciplinary clinics where we actually have more proximity with radiation oncology urology, and we actually maybe finesse those cases through the three teams more often than not, at least discuss them, then I think that's less likely to occur. But I think the bigger question is the timing of when we do testing and how we do it.  So there are two ways -- and I'd love to hear how you do it at your institution -- because there are two ways that I can think one can do that. The low-hanging fruit is you have tissue material from the biopsy specimen. So what you do, you actually use any of the commercial platforms to do genomic or next-generation sequencing or you can do in-house sequencing if your facility has an in-house lab that can do testing. And that only gets you to what we call ‘somatic testing’, which is really epigenetic changes over time that are only found in abnormal cells. It may not tell you the entire story of that patient because you may be missing the potential of identifying a germline finding. So when you do that, did you do germline testing at the same time that you do somatic testing or did you start with one and then you send to genetic counseling and then they define who gets germline testing? Dr. Kriti Mittal: So at our site, we start with germline genetic testing. We use either blood testing or a cheek swab assay and we send the full 84-gene multigene panel. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Yeah, and I think for our audience, Dr. Mittal, that's great. I don't think you and I will be too draconian deciding which platform one uses. It's just that we want to make sure that at least you test those patients. And I think the importance of this is if you look at the New England Journal paper from many years ago, from the Pritchard data looking at the incidence of DNA repair deficiency in men with prostate cancer in North America, that was about what,  around 10% or so, take it or leave it. So if you were to look only for germline testing, you only will, in theory, capture around 10% of patients. But if you add somatic changes that are also impacting the DNA pathway, then you may add around 23%, 25% of patients. So we really are talking that if we only do one type of testing, we may be missing a significant proportion of patients who still may be candidates, maybe not for family counseling if you had a somatic change, rather than germline testing, the positivity, but if you do have somatic, then you can add into that equation the potential for that patient to embark on PARP inhibitors down the road as you stated earlier. It may not change how we think of the patient today, or the treatment for that matter. But you may allow to counsel that patient differently and may allow to sequence your treatments in a different way based upon the findings that you have. So I could not stress the importance of the NCCN guidelines and the importance of doing genetic testing for pretty much the vast majority of our patients with prostate cancer. Dr. Kriti Mittal: Going back to our patient, three years after completion of his therapy, the patient was noted to have a rising PSA. On surveillance testing, his PSA rose from 0.05 a few months prior to 12.2 at the time of his medical oncology appointment. He was also noted to have worsening low back pain. A PSMA scan was performed that was noteworthy for innumerable intensely PSMA avid osseous lesions throughout his axial and appendicular skeleton. The largest lesion involved the right acetabulum and the right ischium. Multiple additional sizable lesions were seen throughout the pelvis and spine without any evidence of pathologic fractures. So the question is, what do we do next? Dr. Jorge Garcia: The first question that I would have is, the patient completed ADT, right? So the patient did not have treatment intensification, but at the very least he got at least systemic therapy based upon the EORTC data. And therefore, one would predict that his outcome will have been improved compared to those patients who receive either no ADT or less time on ADT. But what I'm interested in understanding is his nadir PSA matters to me while he was on radiation and ADT. I would like to know if his nadir PSA was undetectable, that's one thing. If he was unable to achieve an undetectable PSA nadir, that would be a different thought process for me.   And secondly, before I can comment, I would like to know if you have access to his testosterone level. Because notably, what happens to patients like this maybe is that you will drive down testosterone while you get ADT, PSAs become undetectable. Any of us could assume that the undetectability is the result of the radiation therapy. But the true benefit of the combination of radiation and ADT in that context really comes to be seen when the patient has got off the ADT, has recovered testosterone, and only when your testosterone has normalized or is not castrated, then we'll know what happens with your serologic changes. If you rise your PSA while you recover testosterone, that is one makeup of patient. But if you rise your PSA while you have a testosterone at the castrated level, that would be a different makeup of a patient. So do we have a sense as to when the patient recovered testosterone and whether or not if his PSA rose after recovery?  Dr. Kriti Mittal: At the time his PSA rose to 12, his testosterone was 275. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Okay, perfect. You and I would call this patient castration-naive or castration-sensitive. I know that it's semantics. A lot of people struggle with the castration-naive and castration-sensitive state. What that means really to me, castration-naive is not necessarily that you have not seen ADT before. It's just that your cancer progression is dependent on the primary fuel that is feeding prostate cancer, in this case, testosterone or dihydrotestosterone, which is the active metabolite of testosterone. So in this case, recognizing the patient had a testosterone recovery and his biochemical recurrence, which is the rising of his PSA occur when you have recovery of testosterone, makes this patient castration-sensitive. Now the PET scan demonstrates now progression of his disease. So clearly he has a serologic progression, he has radiographic progression. I assume that the patient may have no symptoms, right, from his disease?  Dr. Kriti Mittal: This patient had some low back pain at the time of this visit. So I think we can conclude he has clinical progression as well. Dr. Jorge Garcia: Okay, so he had the triple progression, serologic, clinical, and radiographic progression. The first order of business for me would be to understand the volume of his disease and whether we use the US CHAARTED definition of high volume or low volume, or whether we use the French definition for high volume from Latitude, or whether we use STAMPEDE variation for definition, it does appear to me that this patient does have high-volume disease. Why? If you follow the French, it's a Gleason score of >8, more than three bone metastases, and the presence of visceral disease, and you need to have two out of the three. If you follow CHAARTED definition, we did not use Gleason scoring, the US definition. We only use either the presence of visceral metastases or the presence of more than four bone lesions, two of which had to be outside the appendicular skeleton. So if we were to follow either/or, this patient would be high-volume in nature.  So the standard of care for someone with metastatic disease, regardless of volume, is treatment intensification, is you suppress testosterone with androgen deprivation therapy. And in this case, I'd love to hear how you do it in Massachusetts, but here, for the most part, I would actually use a GnRH agonist-based approach, any of the agents that we have. Having said that, I think there is a role to do GnRH antagonist-based therapy. In this case, degarelix, or the oral GnRH antagonist, relugolix, is easier to get patients on a three-month injection or six-month injection with GnRH agonist than what it is on a monthly basis. But I think it's also fair for our audience to realize that there is data suggesting that perhaps degarelix can render testosterone at a lower level, meaning that you can castrate even further or have very low levels of testosterone contrary to GnRH agonist-based approaches.  And also for patients maybe like this patient that you're describing, you can minimize the flare that possibly you could get with a GnRH agonist by transiently raising the DHT before the hypothalamic-pituitary axis would shut it down. So either/or would be fine with me. Relugolix, as you know, the attraction of relugolix for us right now, based upon the HERO data, is that you may have possibly less cardiovascular side effects. My rationale not to use a lot of relugolix when I need treatment intensification is quite simple. I'm not aware, I don't know if you can mitigate or minimize that potential cardiovascular benefit by adding abiraterone or adding one of the ARIs, because ARIs and abiraterone by themselves also have cardiovascular side effects. But either/or would be fine with me. The goal of the game is to suppress your male hormone.  But very important is that regardless of volume, high or low, every patient with metastatic disease requires treatment intensification. You can do an adrenal biosynthesis inhibitor such as abiraterone acetate. You can pick an androgen receptor inhibitor such as apalutamide or enzalutamide if that's the case. The subtleties in how people feel comfortable using these agents, I think, none of us – as you know, Dr. Mittal - can comment that one oral agent is better than the other one. Independently, each of these three oral agents have randomized level 1, phase III data demonstrating survival improvement when you do treatment intensification with each respective agent. But we don't have, obviously, head-to-head data looking at this.  What I think is different right now, as you know, is the data with the ARASENS data, which was a randomized phase III trial, an international effort looking at triple therapy, and that is male hormone suppression plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy against testosterone suppression plus docetaxel-based chemotherapy plus the novel androgen receptor inhibitor known as darolutamide. This trial demonstrated an outcome survival improvement when you do triple therapy for those high-volume patients. And therefore, what I can tell you in my personal opinion and when I define a patient of mine who is in need of chemotherapy, then the standard of care in my practice will be triple therapy. So if I know you are a candidate for chemotherapy, however, I make that decision that I want you to get on docetaxel upfront. If you have high-volume features, then the standard of care would not be ADT and chemo alone, it would be ADT, chemo, and darolutamide.  What I don't know, and what we don't know, as you know, is whether or not triple therapy for a high-volume patient is better, the same, equivalent, or less than giving someone ADT plus a novel hormonal agent. That is the data that we don't have. There are some meta-analyses looking at the data, but I can tell you that at the very least, if you prefer chemo, it should be triple therapy. If you prefer an oral agent, it certainly should be either apalutamide, abiraterone acetate, and/or enzalutamide. But either/or, patients do need treatment intensification, and what is perplexing to me, and I know for you as well, is that a significant proportion of our patients in North America are still not getting treatment intensification, which is really sub-optimal and sub-standard for our practice.  Dr. Kriti Mittal: Thank you, Dr. Garcia, for a terrific discussion on the application of recent advances in prostate cancer to clinical practice. In an upcoming podcast, we will continue that discussion exploring management of de novo metastatic prostate cancer.   The ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologists' well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

The early 1970’s saw the start of the medical specialty we now know as oncology. How does one create standards and practices for patient care during that time? Dr. John Glick is a pioneer during the dawn of oncology. He says that early work involved humanity, optimism, and compassion, all of which were the foundation of his career. Dr Glick describes the clinical experiences that drove him to oncology (4:28), his rapport with patients, which was portrayed in Stewart Alsop’s book Stay of Execution (9:21), and his groundbreaking work developing the medical oncology program at the University of Pennsylvania (12:22). Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. John Glick: None More Podcasts with Oncology Leaders    Oncology, Etc. – In Conversation with Dr. Richard Pazdur (Part 1) Oncology, Etc. – HPV Vaccine Pioneer Dr. Douglas Lowy (Part 1) Oncology, Etc. – Rediscovering the Joy in Medicine with Dr. Deborah Schrag (Part 1)  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page. Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO education podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of our podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of oncology. Today's guest is someone well-known to the oncology community. Dr. John Glick is undoubtedly one of oncology's most highly respected clinicians, researchers, and mentors. I've always viewed John as the quintessential role model. I will add that for me, he proved to be a role model even before I met him, which hopefully we'll talk about a little bit later.   To attempt to summarize John's career in a paragraph or two is really impossible. Suffice it to say, he is to the University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center what water is to Niagara Falls. You can't have one without the other. After completing his fellowship at NCI in Stanford, John joined the Penn faculty in 1974 as the Ann B. Young Assistant Professor. Some five decades later, he retired as the director of one of the most highly respected comprehensive cancer centers in the nation. Among his many notable accomplishments, I will comment on just a few. He established the Medical Oncology program at Penn and subsequently directed the Abramson Cancer Center from 1985 to 2006. Interestingly, he established the Penn Medicine Academy of Master Clinicians to promote clinical excellence in all subspecialties across the health system. He's been a driving force in philanthropy at Penn Medicine, culminating in his role as Vice President Associate Dean for Resource Development.  Over the past several decades, he has helped raise over half a billion dollars for Penn Med. We need you on our team, John. As a clinician scholar, John's research has helped shape standards of care for both breast cancer and lymphomas. For example, he pioneered the integration of adjuvant chemotherapy and definitive breast irradiation for early-stage breast cancer. In 1985, he chaired the pivotal NCI Consensus Conference on adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. He also was a driving force in a clinical landmark study published in The New England Journal some 20 or so years ago about the role of bone marrow transplant for advanced breast cancer. Most impressive of all, in my opinion, is John's legacy as a mentor to multiple generations of medical students, residents, and fellows.   So, John, we want to thank you for joining us and welcome. Thought we might start by having you tell us a little about your early life, your family, your parents, where you grew up, and how you got into medicine. Dr. John Glick: Well, thank you for having me on the podcast, Pat and David, it's always a pleasure to be with you and with ASCO. I grew up in New York City in Manhattan. My father was a well-known dermatologist. He was my role model. And from the age of eight, I knew I wanted to be a doctor. Nothing else ever crossed my mind. But having seen my father's many interests outside of medicine, I realized from very early that there was much more to medicine than just science. And that really induced me, when I went to college, to major in the humanities, in history, art history, and I actually took the minimum number of science courses to get into medical school. That probably wouldn't work today, but it was the start of my interest in humanism, humanities, and dealing with people outside of the quantitative sciences.  Dave Johnson: So that's reflected in how we all view you, John. You're one of the most humanistic physicians that I know personally. I wonder if you could tell us about your interest in medical oncology, and in particular, as one of the pioneers in the field. I mean, there wasn't really even a specialty of medical oncology until the early 1970s. So, how in the world did you get interested in oncology and what drew you to that specialty? Dr. John Glick: Well, I had two clinical experiences that drove me into oncology. The first, when I was a third year medical student at Columbia PNS, my first clinical rotation in internal medicine, I was assigned a 20-year-old who had acute leukemia, except he was not told his diagnosis. He was told he had aplastic anemia, receiving blood and platelets, and some form of chemotherapy. And I spent a lot of time just talking to him as an individual, not just taking care of him. And we became friends. And he was then discharged, only to be readmitted about two weeks later. And in the elevator, the medical assistant had his admission sheet, and unfortunately, it was facing the patient, and it had his diagnosis, acute leukemia. So he came into the ward and he confronted me. "Why didn't you tell me I had acute leukemia?" Well, I couldn't say the attendees forbade me to do that. So I took what today we would call ‘the hit’, and apologized. But it stimulated me to reflect that honesty with patients was extremely important, and that oncology was just in its infancy. We knew nothing about it. It was not considered even a specialty. I don't think we used the word "oncology."  But that inspired me to take an elective in my fourth year at PNS, at an indigent cancer hospital called the Francis Delafield Hospital. It only took care of indigent cancer patients, and there were wards, twelve patients in a ward, six on each side, and nobody would go see the patients. It was almost as if they were afraid that if they were to touch the patient, they would get cancer. And I started talking to the patients, and they were human beings, but nobody had told them their diagnosis. Nobody had told them if they were terminal. And there were a few patients who were getting a new drug at that time for multiple myeloma called melphalan, and they actually had relief of some of the symptoms, of their bone pain. But I realized that there was a huge void in medicine that I could possibly help to fill.  And that was the era of Vietnam, and so I applied to the National Cancer Institute to become a commissioned officer in the Public Health Service to avoid the draft, to be on a service with, at that time, some very notable oncologists Vince DeVita, Ed Henderson, Paul Carbone. I had read some of their papers, and I was lucky to be accepted. And I was a clinical associate at the National Cancer Institute. And that was life-changing because there every patient was considered to be potentially curable. The advances at that time using MOPP for Hodgkin's disease, C-MOPP for lymphoma, some treatments for leukemia. George Canellos pioneered the use of CMF for metastatic breast cancer. It was an amazing, amazing experience. That was in 1971 to ‘73. Oncology did not become a true specialty till ‘73, but my two years at NCI were formative.  However, I realized that there was something missing in my training. Everybody was considered curable, but I had never seen a patient with metastatic colon cancer, metastatic lung cancer. The radiotherapists there did not like to teach clinical associates, and I knew that there was a place called Stanford. And Stanford had Saul Rosenberg in medical oncology for lymphomas and Henry Kaplan in radiotherapy. So, everybody was going to California, and my wife and I packed up and went to California and spent a year at Stanford, which, combined with my training at the NCI, led me to the principles that guided my career in oncology; humanity, optimism, reality, compassion, and a love for clinical trials.  I was very, very fortunate to be there at the dawn of medical oncology shortly after I decided to go to Penn, which at that time did not have a medical oncologist. In fact, I was the only medical oncologist at Penn for four years and did every consult in the hospital for four years, much to the chagrin of my wife. But I was fortunate to have great mentors in my career: Paul Carbone, Vince DeVita, Saul Rosenberg, Henry Kaplan, among many, many others. And that impressed me about the importance of mentorship because my career would never have been where it was or is without these mentors. Pat Loehrer: John, just to echo what Dave said, you've been such a tremendous mentor for us. Dave and I particularly, you took us under your wings when you didn't know who we were. We were people in the Midwest. We weren't from any place shiny, but we really appreciate that. Dave Johnson: So, John, I mentioned at the very beginning that I met you before I met you, and the way I met you was through Stewart Alsop's book, Stay of Execution. He portrayed you as an extraordinarily caring individual, and it tremendously impacted me. It was one of the reasons why I chose oncology as a specialty. I realize it's been 50 or more years ago and most of our listeners will have no idea who Stewart Alsop was. And I wonder if you might share with us a little bit of that experience interacting with someone who was particularly well-known in that time as a columnist for The New York Times.  Dr. John Glick: His brother Joe Alsop and Stu Alsop were two of the most famous columnists at that time. Joe Alsop was a hawk right-winger who lived in the Vietnam War. Stewart was charming, was a centrist Democrat, wrote the back page for Newsweek for years. He and I had very similar educational backgrounds and interests. And we functioned on two different levels—one as a physician-patient, and then we became friends. And he and his wife adopted us into the Georgetown set.  And I received a lot of criticism for socializing with a patient. But over the years, I've been able to become friends with many of my patients, and I've been able to compartmentalize their medical care from our friendship. And I use the analogy if I was a doctor in a small town and I was the only doctor,  I'd be friends with people in town, with the pastor and likely the mayor. But I have always believed that patients can become your friends if they want it and if they initiated it.   Taking care of Stewart Alsop was an amazing, amazing experience. We didn't know what he had. People initially thought he had acute leukemia. In reality, he had myelodysplastic syndrome, but that hadn't been described yet. He had a spontaneous remission, which I rarely see, probably due to interferon released from a febrile episode, all his blasts went away in his marrow. One of my children's middle name is Stewart. But professionally and personally, it was an incredible experience. It taught me the importance of being available to patients. They had my home phone number. We didn't have cell phone numbers in those days. We had beepers, but they didn't work. And from that point on, I gave my home phone number to patients, and I actually trained my children how to answer the phone. “This is Katie Glick. How can I help you? My father's not home. You need my father? Can I have your phone number? I'll find him and he'll call you back.” Patients still remember my children and their way of answering the phone. Pat Loehrer: One of the things you did do is create this medical oncology program at Penn, which has graduated some incredible fellows that have become outstanding leaders in our field. But can you reflect a little bit about the process of creating something that was never created before, like a medical oncology program? Dr. John Glick: Well, I came to Penn, my first day. Person who recruited me was on sabbatical. I asked where my office was and there was no office. There was an exam room. There was a clinic for indigent patients which we scrubbed by hand. There was another office for patients who paid. Within two months, I had abolished that. We had one– I hate to use the word clinic, people still use the word clinic today, but one office that took care of all patients, irregardless of means.   I saw every oncology consult in the hospital for four years. But I had a mentor, not only Buz Cooper, but fortunately, Jonathan Rhoads was Chairman of Surgery, and he was also Chairman of the President's Cancer panel. And what he said at Penn in surgery became the law. And then when we introduced lumpectomy for breast cancer and radiotherapy, he endorsed it immediately. All the other surgeons followed suit. I don't think there's any hospital in the country that adopted lumpectomy and radiotherapy for breast cancer as quickly. And the surgeons were instrumental in my career.  Now, I was taking care of gliomas, head and neck cancers, and it was difficult. If I had a colorectal patient, I'd call Charles Moertel at Mayo Clinic and say, “What do I do?” I was there when Larry Einhorn in 1975 presented his data on testicular cancer with the platinum. Unbelievably inspiring, transformational. It also showed the importance of single-arm studies. You didn't have to do randomized studies because the results were so outstanding. And so in my career, I did both single-arm studies, proof of principle studies, and then many randomized trials through the cooperative groups.  But the first four years were very difficult. I didn't know what the word ‘work-life balance’ meant in those days. If somebody was sick, I stayed and saw them. It was difficult introducing new principles. When I first mentioned platinum after Larry's presentation, I was laughed out of the room because this was a heavy metal. When patients were dying, they died in the hospital, and I wanted to hang up morphine to assist them. The nurses reported me to the administration. I had to fight to get the vending machines for cigarettes out of the hospital. So there were a lot of victories along the way and a lot of setbacks.  It took me several years to have an oncology unit of six beds, and now I think we have 150 or 160 beds and need more. So it was an interesting and, in retrospective, a wonderful experience, but I didn't know any better. Fortunately, I had a great wife who was working at Penn and then at Medical College of Pennsylvania, and she was incredibly understanding, never complained. And I think my kids knew that on Tuesdays and Thursdays, don't bring up anything difficult with dad because he's had a really tough day in clinic. Dave Johnson: We were not in that era, but we were very close. And many of the struggles that you had were beginning to dissipate by the time we were completing our training. But it was still a challenge. I mean, all those things. I gave my own chemotherapy for the first few years I was in practice. I don't know that our colleagues today who have trained in the last, say, 10 or 15 years, actually realize that that was what we did. Most of the chemo was given in the hospital. It was not uncommon in the early days to have 20, 30, 40 inpatients that you would round on because there just wasn't an outpatient facility. But the corporate mind made a big difference, allowing us to give drugs like platinum in the outpatient arena. You span all of that era, and so you've seen the whole panoply of change that has taken place.  John, the other thing you did that has impressed me, in part because of my time as a Chair of Medicine, is you created this Academy of Master Clinicians. Can you tell us a bit about that and what was the motivation behind that?  Dr. John Glick: Ben had a strategic plan, and one of the pillars was talking about valuing clinical medicine and clinical excellence. But there was no implementation plan. It was sort of just words and left in the air. And I was no longer director of the cancer center, and I realized we had a lot of awards for research, awards for education, and no awards for clinical excellence. So I created the idea of having an academy and master clinician spend six months talking to all constituencies, chairs of various departments, directors of centers to get a buy-in. Wrote a three-page white paper for the dean, who approved it immediately. And then, as typical at Penn, I raised all the money for it. I went to one of my patients who was an executive at Blue Cross. I said I need $500,000 to start this program. And then subsequently, I raised $4 million to endow it. Today, it is the highest honor that a Penn clinician can receive.  You could be on any one of our multiple tracks. You have to see patients at least 60% of the time. You not only have to be a great doctor, you have to be a humanist. So the world's best thoracic surgeon who has a demeanor in the operating room that is not conducive to working with a nurse as a team doesn't get in. We emphasize professionalism, mentorship, citizenship, teaching, national reputation, local reputation, and clinical excellence. And so we've elected over 100 people, maybe 3% of the Penn faculty. We give an honorarium. We have monthly meetings now by Zoom. We have monthly meetings on various topics. We never have a problem getting any dean or CEO to come talk to us.  We were the first to do Penn's professionalism statement. The school subsequently adopted, and it's become the highest honor for a Penn clinician. It's very competitive. It's peer-reviewed. The dean has no influence. And we're very proud that 40% of the members of the academy are women. We have a high percentage of diversity compared to the numbers on our faculty, but you really have to be elected on merit, and some people that you might expected to be members of the academy aren't. It's one of the things I'm proudest of. It will go on in perpetuity because of the money we've raised. I think many of my accomplishments as a researcher will fade, as they typically do, but I'm very proud of the Academy, and I'm very proud of the people that I've mentored. Dave Johnson: It speaks to your values, John, and I think it's one of the reasons why you're so widely admired. Thank you for creating that. It proved to be a model for other institutions. I know that for a fact. One would think that valuing clinical care would be preeminent in medical schools, but in fact, it's often ignored. So again, I know that your colleagues at Penn appreciate your efforts in that regard.  Tell us a little about your term as ASCO president. What are you most proud about and what were your most difficult challenges? Dr. John Glick: Well, the most difficult challenge was that ASCO was in transition. I had to fire the company that ran the meeting. We had to decide that ASCO was going to hire a CEO. We hired John Durant, made a small headquarters, tiny staff, and did a lot of the work as being chief operating officer myself. It was the year that email was just getting started, and ASCO wasn't using it. So every Saturday from 8:00 to 6:00, I came into the office and my secretary wrote letters inviting people to be on the program committee or various committees. But it was a society in transition. The growth of membership was huge. The meeting sites had to be changed. We emphasized science. Some of the things that we did are still in existence today.  We formed the ASCO ACR Clinical Research Methods course. It's still given. That's one of our real highlights. We forged relationships with other societies, the National Coalition for Survivorship. We made the ASCO guidelines much more prominent. And I remember that we were going to publish the first guidelines on genetic testing for breast cancer, and the MCI went up in absolute arms, so I arranged a meeting. I was at the head of the table. On my right were Francis Collins, Richard Klausner, Bob Wittes, and a few other people. Then the ASCO people who wrote the guideline were on the left, and they didn't want us to publish it. They thought it was premature to have a guideline about genetic testing. And what I learned from that meeting is that you can agree to disagree with even the most prominent people in oncology and still maintain those relationships. But we did what's right, and we published a guideline on the JCO. There were so many wonderful things that happened at ASCO that I can hardly restate all that happened I guess 27 years later. It was exciting. ASCO was still young. There was a lot we had to do, and we could do it. You could just go ahead and do it. It was exciting. It was gratifying. It was one of the most fun years of my life. Dave Johnson: I mean, that transition from an outside company in many respects, controlling the premier activity of ASCO, its annual meeting to ASCO, taking that on, that defined ASCO, and that's what I remember most about your time as president. It was a bold move, and the hiring of John Durant was brilliant. I mean, he was such an incredible individual, and it was great that you guys were able to pull that off. Pat Loehrer: Thank you for what you've done.  You've had a number of your mentees if you will, and colleagues that have gone on to prominent positions, including, I think, at least three directors of NCI Cancer Centers. Can you just talk briefly how you would describe your mentoring style because you've been so successful? Dr. John Glick: First, there are two aspects. One is when people come to you, and then when you go to people, you sense they're in need. The key aspect of mentoring is listening. Not talking, listening. Looking for the hidden meanings behind what they're saying, not telling them what to do, presenting options, perhaps giving them clues on how to weigh those options in pros and cons, being available for follow-up. Mentoring is never a one-time exercise. Not criticizing their decisions. You may disagree with their decision, but it's their decision, especially if they've considered it. Being proud of the mentee, being proud of their accomplishments, following them over the years. And when they've gotten in trouble or failed to get the job that they wanted, always be there for them, not just in the good times, but in the times that are difficult for them professionally. I think that's one of the most important things.  Even today, I mentor three or four clinical department chairmen, and people ranging from full professors to newly appointed assistant professors. Now that I'm retired, mentoring is the one activity that I've really retained. It's extraordinarily satisfying, and I'm proud of the people that I've mentored. But it's their accomplishments, and the key aspect of mentoring is never to take credit. Dave Johnson: I'll give you credit for mentoring me, and I appreciate it. You were very instrumental at a very decisive point in my career when the old Southeast Cancer Group disbanded, and we were looking for a new cooperative group home. And you were instrumental in helping my institution come into the ECOG fold, and not just as a very junior member, but really as a player. And I'll never forget that, and we'll always appreciate that very much. Pat Loehrer: Ditto on my side, too. Dave Johnson: John, you mentioned that you're retired. What do you like to do in your "free time” if you're not mentoring? Dr. John Glick: Life is good. My daughter says I have a disease, O-L-D. My grandson says, “He's not old; he's almost 80. Look how well he's done.” “Here's $20.” I'm having fun. We are fortunate to have homes in different places. We spend the summer up in the Thousand Islands on the St. Lawrence River, spring and fall down in Charleston, then lots of time in Philadelphia. We travel. I play golf poorly. I'm getting a chance to read history again, go back to one of my great loves. I'm with my children and grandchildren more. I lost my first wife. I've been remarried for about twelve years, and I'm enjoying every moment of that. I'm not bored, but I do wake up in the morning with no anxiety, no realization that I have to herd sheep or herd cats. I have no metrics, I have no RVUs,  not behind of the EMR.  Dave Johnson: You're making it sound too good, John.  Dr. John Glick: We're having fun. And I have not been bored. I've not been down in the dumps. Each day brings a different aspect. We see a lot more of our friends. I exercise. I deal with the health problems that people get when they get older, and I have plenty of those. Seeing doctors takes a lot of time, but I'm grateful that I'm having these few years of retirement. I'm one of the people who is most fortunate to have attained everything they wanted to do in their professional life, and now I'm trying to do some of the same in my personal life. Dave Johnson: John, Pat and I both love to read. We love history. You mentioned that you're reading some history. Is there a book that you've read recently that you might recommend to us? Dr. John Glick: “the Last of the Breed” {With the Old Breed} It's about a private in the Pacific campaign who was not a commissioned officer; it’s just a grunt on the ground. It brings the horrors of the Pacific island campaigns to life. But there's a huge number of books, some historical fiction. I'm a great fan of Bernard Cornwell, who's written about the Medieval times, Azincourt, 1356. I'll read two or three books a week. I'm devoted to my Kindle. Dave Johnson: If you could go back in time and give your younger self a piece of advice, what would that advice be?   Dr. John Glick: Try and achieve more of a work-life balance. I didn't have any choice. If I didn't do the consult, it didn't get done. That's not the situation today. But I have a second piece of advice, don't treat medicine as a 9 to 5 job. If a patient is sick, stay with the patient. Give the patient your home or cell phone number. Remember, medicine is not just a profession, but it can be a calling. Too few of our physicians today regard medicine as a calling. And even if you're employed, as most of us are by an academic or other institution, do what's right for the patient, not just what's right for your timesheet or the EMR. Remember that the patient is at the center of all we do and that medicine is a calling for some people, as it was for me. Dave Johnson: Great advice, John. Great advice.  Well, I want to thank Dr. Glick for joining Pat and me. This has been a delight. You're one of our role models and heroes.  I want to thank all of our listeners of Oncology, Etc., which is an ASCO educational podcast where we will talk about oncology medicine and other topics. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content of ASCO, please visit education.asco.org. Thanks again. Pat, before we go, I've got an important question for you. I've been trying to school you recently, and you’ve failed miserably. So I'm going to ask you, why is it that McDonald's doesn't serve escargot? Pat Loehrer: I can't do it. I don’t know. I give up.  Dave Johnson: It's not fast food. Pat Loehrer: I like that. It's good.  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, experiences, 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.

Oncology is a rapidly evolving medical field. So how do you keep up with all the advances and updates that are delivered through publications, conferences, and social media? This ASCO Education podcast explores how three oncologists in various settings and stages of their career manage this issue. Our moderator Dr. Adriana Alvarez, a medical oncologist at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio is joined by Dr. Sharad Goyal, a professor and division chief of Radiation Oncology at George Washington University in Washington, DC; Dr. Shruti Patel, an oncology fellow at Stanford University in California; and Dr. Banu Symington, a medical oncologist at Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County in Wyoming, and adjunct professor in the University of Utah College of Nursing. Each will describe what they do to keep up to date on research advances and guidelines (3:25), how they find time to stay current in their field (7:25) and how they follow developments outside of their area of concentration (13:57).  The speakers have no relevant disclosures.  Resources: Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burned Out? Here's What You Can Do About It (Part 1)  Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burned Out? Here's What You Can Do About It (Part 2)  Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective  If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: An oncologist recently described that while sitting on a couch to write an article, by the time he finished his first paragraph, he received six notifications on his iPhone from WhatsApp, Twitter, and other messages. He knows what the dilemma is; you can shut down your phone, but you become worried about missing an urgent call or important update. The oncologist knows that social media is a place to follow friends and colleagues, to discover new presentations, and even debate about them. However, he understands the overload of information that is part of the rapidly evolving field of oncology. On any given day or week, there are research advances and updates in the management of cancer being shared through journal publications, conference presentations, newsletters, social media, and other methods. How does one keep up to date with these advances in oncology?  I'm Dr. Adriana Alvarez, a medical oncologist at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. In this ASCO Education Podcast, we will examine what various oncology professionals at different stages in their careers and working in different practice settings, namely academic versus community and urban versus rural, are doing to manage the large amount of information influx regarding advances in oncology.  Joining me are Dr. Sharad Goyal, a professor and division chief of radiation oncology at George Washington University in Washington, DC; Dr. Shruti Patel, an oncology fellow at Stanford University; and Dr. Banu Symington, a medical oncologist at Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County in Wyoming, and adjunct professor in the University of Utah College of Nursing.  Let's start. One of the first questions I have here is how you can describe your current field of focus in oncology. Dr. Patel? Dr. Shruti Patel: My current clinical focus in oncology is in thoracic and gastrointestinal malignancies, while my research interests include clinical trials, liquid biopsy, and diversity, and equity and inclusion.  Dr. Sharad Goyal: My current clinical and research focus is on breast cancer, radiation therapy, as well as radiation therapy with respect to neuro-oncology in the neuro-oncology space. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: I'm a general oncologist, medical oncologist, in an extreme rural, I'm considered a frontier practice. I have a special interest in eliminating the social disparity that is represented by rurality, and I'm interested in clinical trials. We are the only Wyoming Cancer Center that opened clinical trials. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Well, it's all wonderful to hear about you and know a little bit about what your focus of work is, and we come from a variety of backgrounds. How do you feel like you keep up to date with the clinical practice, the research parts with new drugs approval in oncology? You are still in training Dr. Patel. How do you do that? Dr. Shruti Patel: As a millennial, it may come as no surprise that I primarily stay up to date on clinical practice guidelines via Twitter on my phone. I find Twitter to be the best place to learn new information. Just because you don't just get information about the new approvals, but typically experts in the field will weigh in on the trial design, their thoughts on whether it truly will replace the current standard of care or what situations they might use the new approval for, which can really be helpful, especially as a fellow in training. It's helpful context beyond just the information that you get from the approval itself. And then, I also learn about the applications of these new guidelines in the clinic with my mentors, because I am, of course, lucky enough to still be in training where I can gather that information from my attendings. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Dr. Goyal, what is your preferred method of keeping up to date and learning more about the new treatments and research in your area of interest?  Dr. Sharad Goyal: As opposed to Dr. Patel, I am not part of social media in medicine. Actually, I'm not a part of any social media, whether it's personal or work-related. So I tend to be a little more “old school” with respect to how I ingest information. So, in terms of clinical practice guidelines and new drug approvals, which is somewhat peripheral to my field in radiation oncology, I tend to rely on NCCN guidelines and attendance at tumor boards to receive that information from my colleagues in medical oncology. I believe that with any patient that I see with a malignancy, I do tend to refer to the NCCN guidelines on a regular basis. And if it's a malignancy that I do not see, I have to reference PubMed, UpToDate, and the NCCN guidelines to determine the best course of treatment for that patient. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Symington? Being in the rural area, I can see that you have a variety of situations. How do you keep up to date? Dr. Banu Symington: I guess I'm midway between Doctors Patel and Goyal. I do not follow Twitter, but I belong to a 5000-member online hematology/oncology support group, and we post questions, and local thought leaders will reply. I am in such an isolated location. I don't get the stimulation or the benefit of walking down the hall to a colleague to say ‘What would you do?’ So I am affiliated with the Huntsman and the University of Utah. I've made an effort to join every organ-specific tumor board so that I can hear discussions by disease thought leaders about how they're going to take care of each type of cancer and hearing that week after week, I do absorb it.  Medical oncology is a challenging field because things move so rapidly. I took an 18-month, mostly Sabbatical, as I functioned as a chief of staff at a larger hospital. And in that 18-month period, where I volunteered in a clinic, immune checkpoint therapy arose, and targeted therapies for lung cancer arose and I felt like Sleeping Beauty. I went to sleep in one world, and I woke up in a completely different world of oncology. And it was hard to get back into the drift until I connected with colleagues. I'm an avid reader. I don't sleep much. So I am a member of AMA, ASCO, and ACP, so I get all the print journals. And I have a disorder, an obsessive-compulsive disorder, that makes me have to look through every single journal I get. So print and tumor boards and colleagues.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: So we are very busy, and the work that we do, the clinical work, trying to keep up to date and training and all that, how do you schedule time to do this, to learn about the research advances and to keep going? Dr. Goyal, how do you find the time? Dr. Sharad Goyal: In general, I do think that in my realm, in my head, I think that there are three processes that have to occur when I incorporate research into my practice. So number one, I have to learn about it. Number two, I have to determine if that's going to help change my practice. And then number three, if I do end up changing practice, I have to implement it. And that involves dealing with my staff. So I'm going to delve into each of those in a little bit more detail. So learning about the advance typically, I learn about things through CME activities. So in one of my roles in our cancer center, I help organize our grand rounds and some oncology-specific courses. Being involved in the organization, helping find speakers really keeps me engaged not only in the organization process, but also in the learning process because I have a vested interest in making sure that the trainees and other faculty that attend my courses are learning and are happy.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: To organize all these, do you schedule time during your job, outside work hours? Dr. Sharad Goyal: Yes, that is part of my job, which extends outside of work hours. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Sounds good. Dr. Symington, well, you mentioned that you don't sleep much, you keep up to date, looks more at night. But do you find the time in between patients or during your workday to keep up to date, or is more like a solitude type of time?  Dr. Banu Symington: I forgot to mention a resource that I feel like people should know about, MedNet, which is presented daily with three clinical cases and thought leaders mentioning what they would do. They often introduce research ideas that are not adopted into practice. Since I read, I read about new innovative treatments, but I am not an early adopter, so I wait until they become an NCCN guideline before I would adopt it. So that might be different from Dr. Goyal, who's in an academic center. But I see patients five days a week, 10 hours a day, so it has to be all scheduled outside of those hours. It's fortunate that my kids are grown, and I don't sleep much.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Patel? On the go, I can imagine. I remember not long ago, being fellow and a millennial, so I guess on your iPhone. Dr. Shruti Patel: Even though I'm a fellow, I do like sleep. And now that I'm in my research years, I actually get sleep, which is lovely. I can't say that I schedule time to learn about research advances, but rather it's– Usually, I take the train to work, and so I'm scrolling on my Twitter on the Caltrain down to Palo Alto, monitoring for medical news or updates. Really, that's how I gather information. I also partake in CME activity, creating CME educational materials on Twitter as well. And so that's another way in which I learn because if I'm creating the information, then I have to go through the trials and go through all of these things, side effects. And so it's a really great way, additionally, for me to learn. But none of that stuff is really scheduled. It's kind of really when I have time, on my to-do list, usually outside of business hours. Part of the job is staying up to date with things outside of business hours. And I think we all knew that when we signed up for the job. And it's only gotten more as all of these advances are kind of coming out at us like drinking out of a fire hydrant. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: The most recent moment that you found new information related to your practice, how did you learn about it? Not about everything that you do, but the last time, the most recent one that you did that. Dr. Goyal? Dr. Sharad Goyal: I recently referenced the NCCN guidelines. I was treating a gentleman with male breast cancer, and he told me he had some half-brothers and that they were going to get tested, but he was inquiring about the screening guidelines for men with BRCA mutations, and I had to look that up. I knew what they were for women, but I actually did not know what they were for men. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: So last Thursday morning at 7:00, I joined the Huntsman Tumor Board for Breast. And one of the breast-specific oncologists actually said something that defies the NCCN guidelines, but it sounded like it made sense. He said he regularly gets PET scans for staging lymph node-positive HER2-positive breast cancer because he finds, and apparently the breast cancer community finds, that other scans can give you a false-negative result. And there are enough patients with metastatic disease in the lymph node-positive setting that he recommended PET scans for staging of HER2-positive breast cancer patients but not for ER-positive breast cancer patients. So that was just five days ago. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Wow. And what about you, Dr. Patel? When was the most recent time that you found something that was good information for your practice?  Dr. Shruti Patel: Yeah, as a fellow, I love learning about new information when I'm able to learn how to integrate it into the practice with someone that's more experienced than I am. So, of course, I've already mentioned that Twitter can be a great place. But also a few weeks ago, I was attending GI ASCO up in San Francisco, and they presented the latest results from NAPOLI-3, which was a phase 3 study looking at first-line liposomal irinotecan 5FU and oxaliplatin versus gem-Abraxane. And they presented that it was shown to improve overall survival compared to gem-Abraxane in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer. And I was actually sitting next to my clinic mentor at the time, and during the break, I got to hear about his thoughts on whether this is going to be integrated into clinical practice, given that the control arm was gem-Abraxane, and not FOLFOXIRI. And we ended up discussing it again during our weekly GI trials meetings, just when we're thinking about opening new trials and what the control arm should be. And so I just thought that was like a new piece of information. Thought about it in the clinic, thought about it in the trial meeting, and it was pretty cool. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Great. So different settings, different ways to gain information. So, Dr. Symington, you have to see a little bit of everything. So you have to be an expert in everything. And I wonder how you, Dr. Goyal, and Dr. Patel, that you are kind of more subspecialized. How do you usually follow advances in other cancers that are not in your particular area of interest or just focus on your disease group? I'm going to let Dr. Goyal go first. Dr. Sharad Goyal: Thank you. So I find that I tend to go to conferences to learn about advances outside of my disease focus. I prefer going to the educational sessions at major conferences like ASTRO or ASCO to keep up on things. On a more local level, I do find when I cover tumor boards for my colleagues that I do have to prep their patients and learn about different treatment paradigms within those disease sites. And in doing so, I feel like I'm able to gain really a deeper understanding about oncology in general, and I do very much appreciate that. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: And Dr. Patel, well, you're in training, so you have to see a little bit of everything, even though you have the focus of your specialty that you are looking forward to do. But do you follow those too, as well? Other areas that might not take your interest right away but you want to be updated? Dr. Shruti Patel: That's exactly it. I have to have a working knowledge of all the areas of oncology that are not my focus area. But really, for the most up-to-date information, the reality is that there are so many new advances in all of these disease types that I find myself leaning on my colleagues. If I come across a lymphoma patient on consults, I'll usually reach out to my lymphoma specialized colleagues, whether that's my co-fellows or attendings, just to kind of run the patient by them, get their insight, get their input, because they're just a lot more up to date on those things than I am. But really, regardless of the subspecialty within oncology, I do think that understanding the basics of all the oncology subspecialties is important in medical oncology. Because most of us will, or are, will for me because I'm a fellow, will be spending time on the inpatient service, which is not tumor type specific, and you really do have to make decisions for patients. And while, of course, you always have your colleagues to rely on and call on, some of those decisions are being made in the middle of the night. And so having a working knowledge of all of them, I think, is important. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: We are lucky to live in a time that we have so many options, right? As a practicing oncologist myself, I rely also on all the resources that you're mentioning. The fear I have sometimes is, okay, I'm relying on the NCCN guidelines, but what if I'm missing something? The fear of missing something, right? It’s like if I'm not on Twitter or in another social media; I'm missing the most recent data, that may affect my patient care or things like that. But if I have to ask one of you, if you have to pick one, what would be your preferred method or format of receiving updated information if you have to decide where you could go for it? What about you, Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: So, although I have made the case that I love reading, I actually absorb information better if someone is talking to me. So if I had the freedom to take time off, I would prefer to hear it at one-day specialty seminars where a thought leader is describing their work. That is not what I do in practice, but that would be my preferred way of getting new information.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Dr. Goyal? Dr. Sharad Goyal: I'm very much aligned with Dr. Symington in that. I prefer a less active role in the learning process, and I prefer to be spoken to. My preferred method is via podcast, but I also do prefer the in-person or virtual learning through a conference as well. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Patel? Dr. Shruti Patel: I promise you that Elon Musk is not paying me to say all of this because I've probably mentioned Twitter in every single answer. But my preferred method, as you guys probably can guess, is Twitter. It doesn't require too much dedicated time. Information is delivered in small doses. Like I said, I do it on my commute, so it makes me feel like my commute is actually part of my work, which is just wonderful. I do like to attend these smaller meetings to be kind of, like both Dr. Symington and Dr. Goyal said, to be spoken to and really learn additional information. I would say that I don't necessarily always get that experience at the bigger meetings where the focus is more networking. But ‘Best of ASCO’, those are kind of some types of meetings where the information is kind of told to you. It's distilled down into bite-sized pieces and really understandable. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Well, all amazing experiences. And I'm glad that we have different points of view, different settings, different career paths. Someone mentioned before is that we're always learning. I feel like here; everybody's very humble to recognize that we're on the learning curve all the time and that we have a real interest in our patient care. Because we are trying to catch the moment, try to make sure that we deliver the best care to our patients, like keeping up to date and listening to the new information. Dr. Goyal, any advice for your colleagues in terms of how to best keep up to date? Dr. Sharad Goyal: My personal philosophy is that as a physician, the learning never stops. And if you do stop learning, maybe you should find a different field. During the pandemic, I started scheduling time with colleagues, friends in my field, and I would set up a meeting with them via our assistants every two or three months. And we would not only socialize but we would kind of catch up on the current state of affairs in our field. And it was an opportunity to also network, and it was very helpful, especially during COVID. It really helped me gain some normalcy and kind of keep me attached to the field of radiation oncology during that time. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: How do you navigate clinic work, keeping up to date, and work-life balance? Dr. Goyal? Dr. Sharad Goyal: Like Dr. Symington, I probably work about 50 hours a week in the office, so I tend to work from 7:00 to 5:00, and I'm out of the office at 5:00 on the dot. I have two small children at home, and I want to see them at least for two hours in the evening before they go to bed. As a radiation oncologist, we take HomeCall, and there are very few emergencies, so I have the weekends to not only spend time with my family but also catch up on any work that needs to be done.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: I'm so glad to hear that. Congratulations on your family.  Dr. Symington? Dr. Banu Symington: Well, I rescue small dogs, so at the moment, I have five small dogs, and they get a walk a day when weather permits. We're in the middle of a blizzard in Wyoming, so weather hasn't been permitting for the past four days, so the love and attention of those dogs keep me grounded. I also regularly go to the gym. I dread it every time I go, but I go at least four times a week, and I leave the gym and leave some of my problems behind. When I was younger, people would comment on the fact that I was slender and didn't need to go to the gym and would ask me why I did it, and I would say it's so I don't beat my children. That was obviously a joke, but I could shed the problems of the day by running on the treadmill or using the StairMaster. So I guess that's how I keep work-life balance.  Dr. Adriana Alvarez: What about you, Dr. Patel? Dr. Shruti Patel: I would say that my work-life balance has improved greatly in the last eight months since I started the research portion of my fellowship. I'm not writing papers at 2:00 a.m. anymore, so that's like a huge upgrade. But really, I think, prioritizing when you're at work, you're at work, but then when you're at home, really trying to prioritize the things that are important to you. I am currently in my parents’ home, while I'm recording this podcast, I get to spend time with them. I get to spend time with my family, my friends. I like to make time for those things because they provide me joy. I think a huge part of our work is being there for people in really, really tough times in their life, and that can be extremely emotionally draining, even though it's exactly what we want to do. And I think making sure that you have things outside of work that really provide you a lot of joy is extremely important. And so I think now that I have the time to do it, I really am trying to capitalize on it. Dr. Adriana Alvarez: Well, I really want to thank you, all of you, Dr. Goyal, Dr. Patel, and Dr. Symington, for a lively discussion. I learned a lot from you and a little bit about your personal life. Thank you for sharing that and sharing how you navigate to be a physician in oncology.  So this ASCO Education Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncology well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or guest you would like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, visit education.asco.org. Thank you very much.   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, experiences, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

The availability and quality of cancer care varies in different parts of the globe. Some locations find it difficult to have proper equipment, access to medications or even trained staff on hand. In this ASCO Education podcast we look how a group of doctors are sharing their skills and experience to set up training programs to help improve outcomes for patients with cancer in Kenya. Our guests will explore the creation of a pediatric oncology fellowship program in Kenya (11:48), how a young doctor found herself interested in improving global health (14:30), and discuss lessons learned that are applicable to health care in the United States (21:07).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Dr. Terry Vik: Research Funding Takeda, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation Dr. Jennifer Morgan: None Resources: Podcast: Oncology, Etc. - Dr. Miriam Mutebi on Improving Cancer Care in Africa Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 1) Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan Part 2 If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page. Dave Johnson: Welcome, everyone, to a special edition of Oncology, Etc., an oncology educational podcast designed to introduce our listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of Oncology. Today's guest is my co-host, Dr. Pat Loehrer, who is the Joseph and Jackie Cusick Professor of Oncology and Distinguished Professor of Medicine at Indiana University, where he serves as the Director of Global Health and Health Equity. Pat is the Director Emeritus of the Indiana University Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center. Pat has many different accomplishments, and I could spend the next hour listing all of those, but I just want to point out, as many of you know, he is the founder of what formerly was known as the Hoosier Oncology Group, one of the prototypes of community-academic partnerships which have been hugely successful over the years.  He's also the founding director of the Academic Model for Providing Access to Healthcare Oncology Program, which has grown rather dramatically over the last 17 years. This includes the establishment of fellowship programs in GYN oncology, pediatric oncology, and medical oncology through the Moi University School of Medicine in Kenya. Through its partnership with the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, over 8000 cancer patients a year are seen, and over 120,000 women from western Kenya have been screened for breast and cervical cancer in the past five years. Pat is also the co-PI of the U-54 grant that focuses on longitudinal HPV screening of women in East Africa. He currently serves as a Senior Consultant of the NCI Cancer for Global Health.  So, Pat, welcome. We have with us today two special guests as well that I will ask Pat to introduce to you. Pat Loehrer: Dave, thanks for the very kind introduction. I'm so pleased today to have my colleagues who are working diligently with us in Kenya. The first is Terry Vik, who is Professor of Pediatrics here at Indiana University and at Riley Hospital. He's been the Director of the Fellowship Program and the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Program and Director of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Program. He got his medical degree at Johns Hopkins and did his residency at UCLA and his fellowship at Dana-Farber. And he's been, for the last 10 to 15 years, been one of my co-partners in terms of developing our work in Kenya, focusing on the pediatric population, where he helps spearhead the first pediatric oncology fellowship in the country.  And then joining us also is Dr. Jennifer Morgan. Jenny is a new faculty member with us at Indiana University as an Assistant Professor. She, I think, has 16 state championship medals for track and field in high school. I've never met an athlete like that in the past. She ended up going to Northwestern Medical School. She spent time in Rwanda with Partners in Health, and through that, eventually got interested in oncology, where she completed her fellowship at University of North Carolina and has spent a lot of her time in Malawi doing breast cancer research. I don't know of anyone who has spent as much time at such a young age in global oncology.  Dave Johnson: So Pat, obviously, you and I have talked a lot over the years about your work in Kenya, but our listeners may not know about Eldoret. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about the history of the relationship between your institution and that in Kenya. Pat Loehrer: It's really a remarkable story. About 30 some odd years ago, Joe Mamlin and Bob Einterz, and Charlie Kelly decided they wanted to do a partnership in Global Health. And they looked around the world and looked at Nepal and looked at Mexico, and they fell upon Eldoret, which was in Western Kenya. They had the birth of a brand new medical school there, and this partnership developed. In the midst of this came the HIV/AIDS pandemic. And these gentlemen worked with their colleagues in Kenya to develop one of the most impressive programs in the world focused on population health and dealing with the AIDS pandemic. They called it the Academic Model for Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS or AMPATH, and their success has been modeled in many other places. They have many different institutions from North America and Europe that have gone there to serve Western Kenya, which has a catchment area of about 25 million people.  About 15 to 20 years ago, I visited AMPATH, and what they had done with HIV/AIDS was extraordinary. But what we were seeing there in cancer was heartbreaking. It reminded us, Dave, as you remember back in the ‘60s and ‘70s with people coming in with advanced cancers of the head and neck and breast cancers that were untreated. And in addition, we saw these young kids with Burkitt's Lymphomas with huge masses out of their jaws. And seeing that and knowing what was possible, what we saw in the States and what seemed to be impossible in Kenya, spurred me on, as well as a number of other people, to get involved. And so, we have built up this program over the last 15 and 20 years, and I think it's one of the most successful models of global oncology that's in existence.  Dave Johnson: That's awesome. Terry, tell us a little bit about your involvement with the program at Moi University.  Terry Vik: Sure. So, I took an unusual path to get to Eldoret because I started off in work in signal transduction and protein kinases, then morphed into phase I studies of kinase inhibitors that was happening in the early 2000s. But by the end of the decade, Pat was beginning to establish oncology programs in Kenya. And because half the population is children and there were lots of childhood cancers, and many of them can be curable, he mildly twisted my arm to go with him to set up pediatric oncology in Kenya. And through his help and Matt Strother, who is a faculty member on the ground, establishing that, I first went in 2010 just to see how things were running and to see all the things that Pat had recognized as far as things that needed to be done to make Eldoret a center for cancer care.   And so, the last 13 years now, I've been working, going anywhere from one to four times a year to Kenya, mainly helping the Kenyans to develop their medical care system. Not so much seeing patients or taking care of patients, other than talking about best practices and how we do things in the US that can be readily translated to what's going on in Kenya. And so, we've been able to establish a database, keep track of our patients in pediatric oncology, recognize that lots of kids are not coming into care, not being diagnosed. There's a huge gap between numbers who you would expect to have childhood cancer versus the numbers actually coming to the hospital. As the only pediatric treatment center for a catchment area of 25 million, half of whom are under the age of 20, we should be seeing a lot of kids with cancer, but we are probably only seeing 10% of what we would expect.  So, myself, many of my colleagues from Indiana University, as well as colleagues from the Netherlands Princess Maxima Hospital for Pediatric Cancer, we've been partnering for these past 13 years to train Kenyans to recognize cancer, to have treatment protocols that are adapted for the capabilities in Kenya, and now finally starting to show real progress in survival for childhood cancer in Kenya, both in leukemias, lymphomas, and solid tumors, with a fair number of publications in Wilms tumor and Burkitt lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. So, it's been really heartening, I think.  I tell people that the reason I go to Kenya studying signal transduction and protein kinase inhibitors in pediatric cancer, I can maybe save a couple of kids over a career by that kind of work. But going to Kenya to show people how to find and treat kids with leukemia, I'm literally seeing the impact of hundreds of kids who are alive today that wouldn't be alive otherwise. So, that's really been the success of pediatric oncology there. Dave Johnson: Is the spectrum of childhood cancer in Kenya reflective of what we see in the States, or are there some differences? Pat Loehrer: It really is surprisingly similar. I think the only thing that– Well, two things that are more common in Kenya because of the so-called ‘malaria belt’ and the association with Burkitt Lymphoma, there's a fair number of kids with Burkitt’s Lymphoma there. Although, as mosquito control and malaria control has improved, actually, the numbers of cases of Burkitt’s have been dropping, and a lot of cancers were sort of hidden, not recognized as leukemia or not recognized as other lymphomas. Just because if Burkitt’s is endemic, then every swelling is Burkitt's. And I think that's been shown by looking at pathology retrospectively to say a lot of what they thought was Burkitt's was maybe not necessarily Burkitt's. And then nasopharyngeal carcinoma with Epstein-Barr virus prevalence also is a little bit more common than I'm used to seeing, but otherwise, the spectrum of cancers are pretty similar. So, it's heartening to know that we've been treating childhood cancers with simple medicines, generic medicines, for 50 years in the US. And so I like to tell people, I just want to get us up to the ‘90s, maybe the 2000s in Kenya, and that will really improve the survival quite a bit. Dave Johnson: You mentioned that there were adjustments that you were making in the therapies. Could you give us some examples of what you're talking about? Terry Vik: The biggest adjustments are that the ability to give blood product support, transfusions of platelets is somewhat limited. So, for instance, our ability to treat acute myeloid leukemia, which is heavily dependent on intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy, we're not so good at that yet because we don't have the support for blood products. Similarly, the recognition and treatment of infections in patients is somewhat limited. Yet, just the cost of doing blood cultures, getting results, we actually have the antibiotics to treat them, but figuring out that there actually is an infection, and we're just beginning to look at resistance patterns in bacteria in Kenya because I think that's an indiscriminate use of antibiotics. In Kenya, there are a lot of resistant organisms that are being identified, and so figuring out how best to manage those are the two biggest things. But now, in Eldoret, we have two linear accelerators that can give contemporary radiation therapy to kids who need it. We have pediatric surgeons who can resect large abdominal tumors. We have orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons to assist. All those things are in place in the last three to five years. So, really, the ability to support patients through intensive chemotherapy is still one of the last things that we're working diligently on improving. Dave Johnson: So one thing that I've read that you've done is you're involved heavily in the creation of a pediatric oncology fellowship program. If I read it correctly, it's a faculty of one; is that correct? Terry Vik: Well, now that two have just graduated, it's a faculty of three, plus some guest lecturers. So I feel quite good about that.  Dave Johnson: So tell us about that. That must have been quite the challenge. I mean, that's remarkable. Terry Vik: That goes back to one of my longtime colleagues in Kenya, Festus Njuguna, who is Kenyan. He did his medical school training at Moi University and then did pediatric residency there. They call it a registrar program there. And then he was, since 2009, 2010, he's been the primary pediatric oncologist. Although he always felt he did not have the formal training. He'd spent time in the US and in Amsterdam to get some added training for caring for kids. But it was his vision to create this fellowship program. So Jodi Skiles, one of my colleagues who had spent some time in Kenya and myself and he worked on creating the fellowship document that needs to go through the university to get approved. That finally got approved in 2019. And so the first two fellows…I was on a Fulbright Scholar Award to start that fellowship program for a year right in the middle of the pandemic, but we were able to get it started, and I was able to continue to go back and forth to Kenya quite a bit in the last two years to get through all of the training that was laid out in our curriculum. And two fellows, Festus and another long-standing colleague of mine, Gilbert Olbara, both completed the fellowship and then sat for their final exams at the end of last year and graduated in December. So it really was heartwarming for me to see these guys want to build up the workforce capacity from within Kenya, and being able to support them to do that was a good thing. Pat Loehrer: Parenthetically, Dave, we had the first Gynecology Oncology program in the country, too, led by Barry Rosen from Princess Margaret, and they have 14 graduates, and two of them now are department chairs in Kenya. Jenny's spearheading a medical oncology curriculum now so that we have that opened up this year for the first time. Dave Johnson: It's uncommon to find a junior faculty as accomplished as Jenny. Jenny, tell us a little about your background and how you got interested in global health, and your previous work before moving to IU.  Jennifer Morgan: I was an anthropology major at undergrad at Michigan, and I think I really always liked studying other cultures, understanding different points of view. And so I think part of that spirit when you study anthropology, it really sticks with you, and you become a pretty good observer of people and situations, I think, or the goal is that you become good at it. I think my interest in medicine and science, combined with that desire to learn about different cultures really fueled a lot of my interests, even from undergrad and medical school. I really felt strongly that access to health is a human right, and I wanted to work for Partners in Health when I graduated from residency. I had heard a lot about that organization and really believed in the mission around it.   And so I went to work in Butaro in Rwanda, and I really didn't have any plans to do cancer care, but then I just kind of got thrown into cancer care, and I really loved it. It was a task-shifting model that really where you use internists to deliver oncology care under the supervision of oncologists from North America. So, most of them were from Dana-Farber or a variety of different universities. And so it made me feel like this high-resource field of Oncology was feasible, even when resources and health systems are strained. Because I think a lot of people who are interested in Oncology but also kind of this field of global health or working in underserved settings really struggle to find the way that the two fit sometimes because it can feel impossible with the hyper-expensive drugs, the small PFS benefits that drive the field sometimes. And so I think, Butaro for me, and Partners in Health, and DFCI, that whole group of people and the team there, I think, really showed me that it's feasible, it's possible, and that you can cure people of cancer even in small rural settings. And so that drove me to go to fellowship, to work with Satish Gopal and UNC. And because of COVID, my time in Malawi was a bit limited, but I still went and did mainly projects focused on breast cancer care and implementation science, and they just really have a really nice group of people. And I worked with Tamiwe Tomoka, Shakinah Elmore, Matthew Painschab, really just some great people there, and I learned a lot.  And so, when I was looking for a job after fellowship, I really wanted to focus on building health systems. And to me, that was really congruent with the mission of AMPATH, which is the tripartite mission of advancing education and research and clinical care. And I knew from Pat that the fellowship program would be starting off, and I think to me, having been in Rwanda and Malawi and realizing how essential building an oncology workforce is, being a part of helping build a fellowship as part of an academic partnership was really exciting. And then also doing very necessary clinical outcomes research and trying to do trials and trying to bring access to care in many systems that are very resource constrained. So that's kind of how I ended up here.  Pat Loehrer: That's awesome. So tell us a little bit about your breast cancer work. What exactly are you doing at the moment? Jennifer Morgan: In Malawi, during my fellowship, we looked at the outcomes of women with breast cancer and really looking at late-stage presentations and the fact that in Malawi, we were only equipped with surgery, chemotherapy, and hormone therapy, but not radiation. You see a lot of stage four disease, but you also see a lot of stage three disease that you actually have trouble curing because it’s so locally advanced, really bulky disease. And so that first study showed us the challenge of trying to cure patients– They may not have metastatic disease, but it can be really hard to locally even treat the disease, especially without radiation. And so that’s kind of what we learned.   And then, using an implementation science framework, we were looking at what are the barriers to accessing care. And I think it was really interesting some of the things that we found. In Malawi, that has a high HIV rate, is that the stigma around cancer can be far more powerful than the stigma around HIV. And so, we are seeing a lot of women who are ostracized by their communities when they were diagnosed with cancer. And really, they had been on, many HIV-positive women, on ARVs for a long time living in their communities with no problem, and so HIV had kind of been destigmatized, but we’re seeing the stigma of cancer and the idea that kids are as a death sentence was a really prominent theme that we saw in Malawi.  So some of these themes, not all of them, but some of them are very similar in Kenya, and so what I’m helping work on now is there’s been this huge effort with AMPATH called the Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Program, where around 180,000 women have been screened for breast cancer in a decentralized setting which is so important - so in counties and in communities. We're looking at who showed up to this screening and why did women only get breast cancer screening and why did some of them only get cervical, and why did some get what was intended - both. Because I think many people on the continent and then other LMICs are trying to do breast and cervical cancer co-screening to really reduce the mortality of both of those cancers. And the question is, I think: is mammography a viable screening mechanism in this setting or not? That’s a real question in Kenya right now. And so we're going to be looking to do some studies around mammography use and training as well.  Dave Johnson: So, I have a question for all three of you. What lessons have you learned in your work in Kenya or Malawi that you've brought back to the States to improve care in the United States? Pat Loehrer: One is that the cost of care is ever present there. And so one of the things that we need to think about here is how can we deliver care more cheaply and more efficiently. It goes against the drug trials that are going on by industry where they want to use therapy for as long as they can and for greater times. And there are a lot of common things like access to care is a big issue there, and it’s a big issue in our country. So we have used in IU some community healthcare workers in rural parts of our state as well as in the urban centers so that they can go to people's houses to deliver care.  Terry was involved with a wonderful project. It was a supplement from the NCI, which looked at barriers to care and abandonment of therapy. And just by giving patients and their families a small stipend that would cover for their travel and their food, the abandonment rate went down substantially, and they were able to improve the cure rate of Burkitt's Lymphoma. It’s probably about 60% now. And so those are issues that I think we see here in our state, where people can’t come to IU because of the cost of parking, that’s $20 a visit. The lesson there is that we really need to get down to the patients and to their families and find out what their obstacles are.  Terry Vik: My favorite example, since I deal with kids and parents, is how striking parents are the same worldwide. They all want the best for their child. They all want anything that can be done to potentially cure them, treatment, they do anything they could. And I think the hardest thing, as Pat said, is the financial burden of that care. And the other thing that I bring back to my fellows in the US is that you don't have to do Q4-hour or Q6-hour labs to follow somebody when they start their therapy. Once a day, every 3 days, works quite well also. And just the realization that things can be done with a lot less stress in the US if you only decide to do it. Dave Johnson: Jenny, any thoughts from you on that? Jennifer Morgan: I think for me, decentralized cancer care is so important. Even being back on the oncology wards in Indiana in December, I saw a couple of really advanced patients who were really unfortunate, and they had tried to go through the system of referrals and getting to cancer care. And unfortunately, I think there are disparities in the US health system, just like in Kenya, and maybe on different scales. But cancer care that's accessible is so important, and accessible versus available, I think we a lot of time talk about therapies that may be available, but they’re not accessible to patients. And that’s really what we see in Kenya, what we see in rural Indiana. There are a number of grants that talk about reciprocal innovation because some of these things that we do in Kenya to minimize burden on the system are things that can be done in rural Indiana as well. And so, partnership on these issues of trying to improve decentralized care is important everywhere.  Pat Loehrer: And again, from the perspective as a medical oncologist, we see patients with late-stage diseases. We could eradicate the number one cause of cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa, cervical cancer, from the face of the earth just by doing prevention. We don't do enough in our country about prevention. The other dimension I guess I wanted to bring up as far as multidisciplinary care - when we think about that in our country, it’s radiation therapy, surgery, medical oncology, but one of the lessons learned there is that the fourth pillar is policy. It’s really about cancer policy and working with the government, Ministry of Health to affect better insurance cover and better care and to work with a different discipline in terms of primary care, much more strongly than we do in our country.  Dave Johnson: Are you encountering similar levels of vaccine hesitancy in Kenya as you might see in the States, or is that something that’s less of an issue? Pat Loehrer: I’ll let Terry and Jenny answer that. Terry Vik: I think there is some degree of vaccine hesitancy, and not so much that it's fear of the vaccine, but it’s fear of the people pushing the vaccine. If it’s coming from the government or if it’s coming from outside drug companies or outside physician recommendations, it’s less likely to be taken up. And if it’s coming from within their own community or if it’s their chiefs and their community leaders they respected, then I think there is less vaccine hesitancy certainly in a lot of things we do in pediatrics. So I think there is hesitancy, but it’s coming from a different source than what we see in the US.   Jennifer Morgan: I would agree, and I think also COVID has changed the game on vaccine perceptions everywhere, and I don’t think Kenya is spared from that either. So it may take a few years to see really what’s going on with that.   Pat Loehrer: Jenny and I were at this conference, it’s a Cancer Summit in Nairobi a couple of weeks ago, and we saw this little documentary there. And this notion of misinformation, as we’ve seen in our country, is also common over there. They were interviewing a number of men and women from Northern Kenya about prostate cancer, which is a very serious problem in Kenya. The notion was that even doing PSA screening caused infertility, and so the men and women didn't want their husbands to get screened for prostate cancer because they would become less fertile by doing that. So, again, there are lessons that we– as Jenny mentioned from the top about anthropology, I think we’re all connected, we all have different ways of viewing communications in health, but I do think that we can learn from each other substantially. Dave Johnson: I mean, it's remarkable work. How is it funded?  Pat Loehrer: Well, I've been fortunate to be able to work with some friends who are philanthropists. We've had strong support as we've told our story with various different foundations. And we've been very grateful to Pfizer, who are very helpful to us in the early stages of this - Lilly Foundation, Takeda, Celgene. And I think as we basically share our vision of what we're trying to accomplish, we've been very humbled by the support that we have gotten for us. The U54 helps support some of the research. We have D43 we're doing through Brown University. So we plan to increase our research funding as best as we can. But this is active generosity by some wonderful people. We have a $5.5 million cancer and chronic care building in which a large sum of it came from Indiana University and the Department of Radiation Oncology. Dr. Peter Johnstone helped lead that. There was a Lilly heir that gave us quite a bit of money. An Indian Kenyan named Chandaria also donated money. So it's a matter of presenting the vision and then looking for people that want to invest in this vision.  Well, I just want to say, from my perspective, I am more of a cheerleader than on the field. But Terry, I know you spent a tremendous amount of time on the ground in Kenya, and Jenny, you're living there. I just wanted to say publicly that you guys are my heroes. Dave Johnson: Yeah. I think all of our listeners will be impressed by what they heard today, and we very much appreciate you both taking time to chat with us.  So at this point, I want to thank our listeners of Oncology, Etc., an ASCO Educational Podcast. This is where we'll talk about oncology medicine and beyond. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org.  Pat, before we go, I have an important question to ask you. Pat Loehrer: I can't wait. Dave Johnson: Do you know how snails travel by ship?  Pat Loehrer: As cargo! Dave Johnson: Awesome. You got it. All right. Well, Terry and Jenny, thank you so much for taking time to chat with us. It's been great. I'm very impressed with the work you guys are doing. Really appreciate your efforts. Terry Vik: Great. Thank you. Jennifer Morgan: Thank you. 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.

Clinical trials are essential to progress in medicine, but racial and ethnic minorities are frequently underrepresented in such studies. In this ASCO Education podcast episode, we will examine this issue with Dr. Carol Brown, gynecologic cancer surgeon and Chief Health Equity Officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Dr. Ana Maria Lopez, Professor and Vice Chair of Medical Oncology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College and former Chair of ASCO’s Health Equity Committee and Mr. Ted Bebi, Innovation Manager at Medidata Solutions. They discuss how diversification of clinical trials contributes to health equity (4:03), barriers to participating in clinical trials (14:37), and what clinicians and trial sponsors can do to improve participant diversity in clinical trials (20:25).  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Carol Brown – None Ted Bebi: Employment – Medidata (a Dassault Systèmes company); Stock and Other Ownership Interest – Pfizer, Eli Lily, Abbvie, Merck, BMY        Dr. Ana Lopez - None Resources ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial & Ethnic Diversity in Clinical TrialsJournal Article: Increasing racial and ethnic diversity in cancer clinical trialsJournal Article: Representation of minorities and women in oncology clinical trialsPodcast: Impact of Implicit Racial Bias on Oncology Patient Care and Outcomes ASCO-ACCC JustASK Training Program If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Carol Brown: Welcome to the ASCO Education podcast. I'm Dr. Carol Brown, a gynecologic cancer surgeon and the Chief Health Equity Officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Our guests and I will be exploring the problems and solutions with regards to racial disparities in clinical trials.   A necessary element for conducting clinical trials is, obviously, the enrollees or participants. Racial and ethnic diverse groups are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, despite having a disproportionate burden for certain cancers. In addition, there is increasing evidence that a person's individual genetic makeup may determine the level of toxicity or efficacy of a new cancer drug specifically. Therefore, when we don't have enough diversity in our cancer clinical trials, it can really undermine the generalizability of our results. And so, to address this gap, in its recent updated guidance to industry, the US Food and Drug Administration stated that enrollment in clinical trials should reflect the diversity of the population who ultimately use a treatment.   In 2022, ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers issued a joint statement recommending that anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion.   Joining me to discuss this important topic today is Dr. Ana Maria Lopez, who's the Professor and Vice Chair of Medical Oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College. And she's the former Chair of ASCO's Health Equity Committee. Our second guest is Mr. Ted Bebi, Innovation Manager at Medidata Solutions. His research explores underrepresentation of black patients at clinical trials and how diversity impacts clinical trials.  Participant disclosures for this episode are listed on the podcast page.  So why should we care about improving diversity in clinical trials? Dr. Lopez? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: We are clinicians. We are wanting to take care of our patients as best as possible, and we can only do that if our studies include everyone. An example that I often think about is the concept of airbags began in 1953, and in 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came out and said, “You know what? We should be testing airbags on small female crash test dummies because otherwise, we don't know that these airbags will be safe.” And in fact, there were data that the airbags that existed put women and children at a much higher risk for injury or death. So, we want to be ahead of that curve, and we want to allow the best possible treatment. Dr. Carol Brown: So, Mr. Bebi, what would you say about how we could improve diversity in clinical trials? Ted Bebi: So I really like the example of the airbags that Dr. Lopez brought up because it makes it clear when building a product it's important to test the product in a representative sample of the population that will ultimately end up using it. It's the same with products like medications. If you want an efficacious drug, you should test it in the appropriate population. It's what constitutes good science. Additionally, adequate diversity in clinical trials is also important because it's ultimately an issue of health equity and providing fair access. Dr. Carol Brown: Could you kind of go on from there and talk about, specifically, how does diversifying the group of people that participate in clinical trials actually translate into increasing health equity?  Ted Bebi: Well, participating in a clinical trial is a form of receiving health care. Often, we are talking about patients for which a clinical trial might be their last resort. And even if not, participating in a clinical trial means gaining early access to potentially life-changing drugs that could become the new industry standard and doing so at no cost. So, you're receiving care and follow-up from some of the best specialists in the field. So having fair access to this opportunity for all patients is definitely a health equity issue. Dr. Carol Brown: Great. Dr. Lopez, how would you answer that question about how does diversifying clinical trials contribute to health equity? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Yeah, no, I think I agree with everything that Mr. Bebi said. In addition, I think we have to remember that diversity is more than race. Race is truly a social construct. We need to think about gender. We need to think about age, the whole lifespan, and people are living longer. How we metabolize medications at different time points in our life may vary. So, lots of different factors that we can consider when we think of diversity. But the gold standard is really: Are folks getting the best outcome possible? And as long as that metric is not being reached, we need to be thinking of how can we facilitate that. Dr. Carol Brown: So, Dr. Lopez, you brought up this concept that health equity is really the best outcome possible. Could you comment a little bit about how do we know, particularly in cancer, what is the best outcome possible? So how do we determine what the reference is for that, so we can figure out whether our patients are actually getting health equity? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Sure. So, we use different time points. We can look at relapse rates, survival rates, and of course, part of that may be comorbidities. Certain comorbidities that people have may impact their cancer treatment outcomes. So, it is complex, but it is important for us to take a look contextually at what the patient's risk is and what the patient's outcome would be. Dr. Carol Brown: We can kind of all agree that when we're talking about equity, it's getting the best outcome for everybody, no matter what they're bringing to it. And I really like your comment, Dr. Lopez, about race being not only the only factor but remembering that it is a social construct. If you could add to that, Mr. Bebi. Ted Bebi: We're talking a lot about diversity in clinical trials in terms of race and ethnicity, and that is something that is ultimately very important. But we're talking about diversity in all sorts of aspects. We're talking about diversity with age. We're talking about diversity with sex, with socioeconomic aspects because we often use race as a proxy for other things that might be going on in patients’ lives. And we need to consider all of this part of diversity in clinical trials because once the drug is out in the market, it will be an intersection of potentially all of those identities and many things going on in their life that might affect how they respond. So, when we're thinking about race as a diversity point, we might be using it as a proxy for a specific type of individual, a specific patient journey that we want to make sure to include. It's not necessarily that race is the end-all, be-all measure of diversity; it's that we want to capture the true patient experience for that disease. Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: What I think is also really interesting is how we collect the data. And some of what the last couple of years have taught us is that folks may not trust our healthcare systems, and so folks may not be willing to say, ‘I am X, Y, or Z,’ which certainly puts us a little bit in the void. So how important it is for us as clinicians, as researchers, to be part of creating an environment where patients can feel that ‘Yes, I can trust and I can share, and I can say, this is who I am,’ because that could impact clinical care. Dr. Carol Brown: So, acknowledging that race is a social construct and that it really is used as a surrogate for other social determinants of health and other factors that affect health, and again, really acknowledging what you said, Dr. Lopez, that even asking people to identify their race is extremely problematic. But given what we do know and what our experience has been in the clinical trial world, first, Mr. Bebi, could you comment about what has been your experience and your research with the current state of participation by diverse racial and ethnic groups in clinical trials in the United States? What have you found in your research?  Ted Bebi: Recently, at Metidata, we published a paper where we looked at the state of black participation in clinical trials. We found the level at which you look at the data really matters. For example, when we looked at racial diversity across all US trials, black representation actually matched the proportion of black people represented in the 2020 US National Census, which is about 14%. But looking deeper, there were actually huge differences by therapeutic and disease area. And specifically, we saw that in oncology, black participation was only at around 8.5%, so far below the representation of black people in the United States.   Another interesting story is that when we were looking at the central nervous system therapeutic area, overall, we saw a pretty high rate of black participation at around 20%. But when we looked at one of the largest central nervous system indications, Alzheimer's, we saw only 5% black participation, so much, much lower. What we discovered is that within this therapeutic area, there were actually a lot of psychiatric trials that were driving the rate up. So, the main takeaway from this research is that you cannot take a general level of diversity as adequate for all diseases. You really have to zoom in on the specific indication to understand what constitutes good diversity or representative diversity for that disease.  Dr. Carol Brown: I'd like to ask both of you what do you think about that - what the bar should be. Because Mr. Bebi, you mentioned using the census distribution of races in the population, but I think a lot of us in the cancer field feel like that maybe isn't the right bar. Maybe the bar should really be what is the cancer burden distributed according to self-identified race, ethnicity, or other categories. And when you look at that, I think you find some different statistics. So, Dr. Lopez, could you comment about what your work has shown you about the current state of representation of diverse people affected by cancer in cancer clinical trials, and maybe get a little bit more into what you were saying earlier about the definition of race and the challenge of determining race, etc. Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: We really need to look closely at the data, and that looking at therapeutic trials and at specific populations can be really important. Now, we're a big country, so there can be - what is the catchment area that you serve? And in that catchment area, what are the cancers you're treating, and in which populations are at greatest risk? But right, sometimes it may not be - let's say the population is 10%x, but if that population is at higher risk for a certain disease, to really get granular about the understanding, I need to recruit more people that are from that greater-risk population. So that's where I think it's so important to know the population, to have connections with the community. And actually, the community can say, “Hey, this is what you may want to be studying because this is what impacts us.” Ted Bebi: If I can speak on the research side as well, the best way to ensure representative diversity is to have a very solid understanding of the natural prevalence of a disease. We need to be able to understand what the risk populations are and, even further, what does the mortality look like? Are there differences in how different patients are experiencing the disease further on, not just how they're getting the disease and how often they're getting the disease? So it needs to look different for every single indication. And even with the oncology, for example, the two largest indications in clinical trials for oncology, lung cancer and breast cancer, they also look slightly different. With lung cancer, and our research showing at 8% black participation and breast cancer being a little bit higher at around 11%. So, we always need to take into consideration that incidents include prevalence, include mortality. And yes, the golden standard should be can we build a clinical trial that reflects the actual representative diversity of the disease in the real world? That is what we're striving for. Dr. Carol Brown: I would agree with that. I would also add, though, that there may be some specific cancers for which you want to have an even greater representation of a particular group because it might be directly related to the question you're trying to answer. So, for example, you mentioned breast cancer, so I think most of the audience is probably aware that young women who self-identify as black tend to have a higher mortality from breast cancer. And this is believed to be because they are more likely to get triple-negative breast cancer. And so one of the strategies we've looked at at our cancer center is for trials specifically for triple-negative breast cancer, trying to overrepresent women who self-identify as black or have African ancestry in those trials because we're specifically trying to make sure that we do something to narrow that gap in survival from breast cancer that they experience. So, I think that, as you all mentioned, I think what we can take from this is it's really important to look closely that there are different layers and subtleties that we have to take into account.  So, I think we've clearly established that there is underrepresentation of diverse groups. But let's talk about why. So why do we think that different self-identified races and ethnicities or age groups or socioeconomic status background people are underrepresented in clinical trials? What are some of the reasons in your experience for this, Dr. Lopez? Is it funding outreach? What are the main barriers that you've experienced in terms of getting diverse populations to participate in clinical trials? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Maybe all of the above. But one of the things, and one of the things that we're working on, is when a person comes in and you have the trauma of the diagnosis. And they're offered a study, and there may be suspicion of the health care system, that may not be the best time to really talk and educate around a clinical trial. So, if people receive the education, learn about clinical trials before that acute event, then they can come in more prepared. So, one is just the concepts of randomization, double blind in the setting where there may be distrust of the healthcare system may be difficult. Also, some of the clinical trials, and I'm sure everyone has studies where the person needs to be at the clinic for about 12 hours getting blood draws. And people have other responsibilities, and they may not have the support mechanisms for transportation, for childcare, for elder care. And if you're taking two to three buses and, you know, here I am in Center City, Philadelphia, and you need to take two to three buses to get home at 07:00, that could be a deterrent to getting on a clinical trial.   So, there are lots of clinical factors, social factors, experience with the studies, and also how we design the studies. Can we design studies so that we are more inclusive in the criteria? So, I think lots of questions, and then certainly there are clinician factors. There could be bias that we all have that maybe we don't offer studies to certain people, so something for us to be very introspective about as well. Dr. Carol Brown: So, Mr. Bebi, could you comment specifically on, with the research that you've done, are there some barriers on the side of the sponsors of the trials or in terms of industry that you found and that you found in your work at Medidata, maybe really affecting the ability of diverse people to participate in clinical trials? Ted Bebi: Dr. Lopez did a really good job at presenting what we consider patient-level barriers, such as mistrust in the healthcare system. Logistical issues such as taking time off from work, transportation, or feeling that the investigators running the trials don’t fully represent the patient. But the industry-level barriers are just as important. A lot of companies are making decisions on what good diversity should look like and where they can find more diverse patients based on incomplete data sources such as disconnected external data, or they might be limited to data from the companies.  Dr. Carol Brown: Great. So, Dr. Lopez, what do you think individual physicians can do, or individual investigators can do to improve the diversity of representation in cancer clinical trials? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: Certainly, being circumspect, being aware of our own biases, our own approaches. But as a health system, I think we need to think about: How can we make it easy to enroll people into trials? So are there ways, if this is, for example, a study for people at this stage of cancer, that all of those patients could be screened in the electronic record? Let's have our electronic tools work for us so that we identify patients that are meeting the study criteria and then connecting the patients, the study, and the investigators together. So, this way, by having our systems identify potential participants, there's a less chance of there being that personal bias. The research team can come to the doctor, to the oncologist, let's say, and say these are folks that are eligible. What do you think? So, in a way, setting up systems to help with the recruitment would be very helpful. Dr. Carol Brown: Mr. Bebi, can you comment from the standpoint of specifically– because you focus on this– the importance of data, the data, how to capture the data about race or ethnicity or whatever the demographic diversity variable is, what can individual investigators do to really address the challenges around collecting this data and sharing it? Ted Bebi: Often, race and ethnicity data is not even captured at all. So, if we want to understand this issue better and improve upon it, we need better data inputs in order to produce this large-scale research that will help us ultimately advance the issue and not just rely on anecdotal information. Dr. Carol Brown: Are there any technologies or things that you came across in your specific work that can help with this ability to capture this type of data and to share it? Ted Bebi: I think it has more to do with the awareness and the clinician relationship with the patient. And I also think it has to do with sponsors and the way that they design the trial, to begin with, whether or not the race and ethnicity entry is something that they're asking in their electronic health forms. Because if that is not included in the clinical trial, to begin with, then there won't be any incentive to capture that information. Dr. Carol Brown: Dr. Lopez, do you have any specific tips that you would recommend to clinicians who want to improve recruitment of underrepresented groups in their clinical trials? Dr. Ana Maria Lopez: I think one thing that's really important is to be able to have the time. Now, that may not mean that it's all the clinicians' time. It may mean that you have a research coordinator. It may mean that you have a research nurse. It may mean that you give the patient a video that explains the study that they can take home. There can be different ways. Something that I often ask a patient is, “How do you make decisions?” People tell me, “You know, I always go over this with my wife,” let's say, or, “I always discuss this in our family, and then we come to a conclusion.” Because that really helps me to think about how should I best deliver the information so that the patient can really feel I made a good decision and I made a value-congruent decision. So, I think time is critical and to set up our patient experience to really facilitate that type of experience for the patient.  Also, as a reference, I would urge people to take a look at the recent recommendations put out by ASCO and ACCC that talk specifically about increasing racial and ethnic diversity in cancer clinical trials. So, there are lots more strategies, a lot more ideas, and ways to really support clinicians and researchers. Dr. Carol Brown: Mr. Bebi, do you have any specific tips, particularly for trial sponsors, about how they can improve diversity in their clinical trials? Ted Bebi: In terms of companies and sponsors, what they can do if they want to improve diversity in their trials is they need to find and include the right sites that serve the populations that they are looking for. We published research that shows that there is high variability of diverse recruitment based on which sites you are looking at, with some sites providing the highest concentration of diverse patients. So, if diversity is not woven into trial design off the bat and you're not selecting the right sites, you run the risk of not reaching these populations. Companies also need to be willing to put in work to educate and develop sites into clinical trial sites. A clinical trial site is about building trust and relationships and knowing how to be culturally adept at talking to diverse communities.   Dr. Carol Brown: Great. Thank you so much. Well, I want to thank both of you, Dr. Lopez and Mr. Bebi, for a lively discussion on this ASCO Education podcast about diversity in clinical trials.   The ASCO Podcast is where we explore topics ranging from implementing new cancer treatments and improving patient care to oncologist well-being and professional development. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the ASCO Education Podcast, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org.  Speaker Disclosures Dr. Carol Brown – None Ted Bebi: Employment – Medidata (a Dassault Systèmes company); Stock and Other Ownership Interest – Pfizer, Eli Lily, Abbvie, Merck, BMY       Dr. Ana Lopez – None 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.

For some, pursuing a medical career is an all-consuming passion. What do you do if you have two? In this ASCO Education podcast, we look at the influences that propelled Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum to become a practicing cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and a national correspondent for the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Rosenbaum will explain the family legacy that impacted her choice to pursue medicine (1:46), her discovery of the love of writing (5:02) and what prompts her to write about specific topics (15:53). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: None Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Resources:  Gray Matters: Analysis and Ambiguity by Lisa Rosenbaum, MD Podcast: Oncology, Etc. - In Conversation with Dr. Peter Bach (Part 1) Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – In Conversation with Dr. Peter Bach (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Disclosures for this podcast are listed in the podcast page.  Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson:  Hi, I'm Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. If you're a regular listener to our podcast, welcome back. If you're new to Oncology, Etc., the purpose of our podcast is to introduce listeners to interesting people and topics in and outside the world of oncology, hence the "etcetera" in our name. Today's guest is an example of the "etcetera" aspect of our podcast. Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum is a practicing cardiologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty. She's a highly respected national correspondent for the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Rosenbaum began her writing career while she was still an undergraduate at Stanford. She later attended med school at the University of California, San Francisco, completed an internal medicine residency at the Mass General Hospital in Boston, and a cardiology fellowship at Weill Cornell in New York. She spent an additional year of fellowship at The New England Journal, where she learned about writing, reporting, and investigative journalism. Subsequently, she was hired for an academic position at Brigham and presented with an opportunity to write on a regular basis for The New England Journal. She's written on a whole variety of topics, ranging from physician burnout to cognitive bias, resident duty hours, conflicts of interest, vaccine hesitancy, and many other topics.  So, Lisa, thank you for joining us today. We're very excited to have you on the program.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: Thank you so much for having me. Dave Johnson: Well, perhaps we could start by asking you to just tell us a little about your background and your family. Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: I grew up in Portland, Oregon. My parents are both physicians. My father is a rheumatologist and my mom is a cardiologist, and now my sister is also an endocrinologist. And we have several family members who are physicians, including my grandfather, who was also a rheumatologist and a writer and played a pretty pivotal role in my life, both in terms of my decision to become a physician and also a writer. When he was in his 70's, he got laryngeal cancer and he was treated with radiation therapy and cured. But after, he wrote a book about the experience of being a patient called A Taste of My Own Medicine, which I think was published in the late 80's. It's an autobiography. And then in the early 90's, Disney bought the rights to the book and made it into the movie The Doctor, starring William Hurt. He has a cameo, actually, and apparently it took him like 17 takes just to get it right, to wave his hand when he's sitting in the waiting room.   That was a pretty formative experience in my life, because basically he ended up, after writing that book and, you know, having a lot of success with it, wanting to write another book. And by then he was in his late 80's, and he ended up getting Parkinson's disease, which steadily progressed. He died at 94, so he lived a long, good life. But when I got into medical school, he decided he wanted to write a book with me and that it was sort of the follow up to A Taste of My Own Medicine, because he sort of recognized medicine's shortcomings in the book and asked a lot of questions, but he would always say, "I have more questions than I have answers." And when I got into medical school, he had this idea that we were going to come up with all the answers and make medicine as wonderful as it had once been for him. So obviously that was a big part of my life, both in terms of my career as a writer and also my career as a doctor. Though I think I really never questioned whether or not I wanted to be a doctor. That just sort of seemed so obvious to me as a kid that the work was so meaningful. And I don't know, there's something about growing up where everywhere you go, people tell you how one of your relatives made their lives better. That's pretty inspiring, as a kid.   Pat Loehrer: It's interesting that both your parents were physicians, but you claim that your grandfather is the one that got you into medicine. But I think your early career, I think you were actually kind of focused on writing and writing creative fiction, and there was another event in your life that kind of turned you back over to medicine too, right? Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: Right, right. And I don't want to not give credit to my parents. They played a huge, wonderful role in my life as well, and they still do.  So anyway, I did take a detour in my career. So, in college I ended up, the fall of my junior year, taking a creative writing class. I'd done all the pre-med requirements by then and probably like many pre-meds, it felt very robotic to me. It's also, you're surrounded by all these people who are really ambitious, and you can feel like you're not very good, right? I remember I made a B-minus on my first organic chemistry exam, and I called my mom crying, and I was like, "I'm not going to be a doctor. This is a disaster." So all of a sudden, once I had gotten through those classes and I took this creative writing class, it was just this transformative experience for me because it was intensely creative. And I've always been just really interested in people, like what makes people do what they do, and character. I am just so fascinated by people's characters.  But the other part of the creative writing classes that I loved so much was just the sense of community. So you go from this setting where you're all sort of pitted against one another in these classes, and then you're in this place where everybody's trying to help each other and you're learning about each other through writing because we're all really just like writing about ourselves, even when we pretend otherwise. And I made some of the best friends of my life who've gone on to have actually remarkable writing careers. So sort of on a whim because it was so enriching for me and I felt like I couldn't live without it, I applied for MFA's in Creative Writing in my senior year, and I got rejected everywhere but waitlisted at Columbia. And then I got in. So I moved to New York in 2001, basically a week before September 11th, and I truly fell apart. Not in a way that I regret at all now. I think that a lot of us, when we are not productive, feel like our time is wasted. And I don't think I wrote a word that entire year. Like, I got really depressed and I just spent a lot of time wandering the city and I ate a lot of bagels, but I was really sad. I spent a lot of time downtown, like, looking at the faces of all these people who had died. And it was so unfathomable to me. And I wasn't able to use writing to cope with it as I might be able to now. I think I was just too young. And I had challenges with my writing professor who sort of felt like we shouldn't be writing about that.  And so I ran away from writing. I mean, I dropped out of creative writing school and went to medical school, and that was clearly the right move. More than anything in my life, I love being a doctor, so I don't regret that at all. And I think it actually was really helpful to me to recognize that I'm not cut out to just be a writer. I need to be inside people's lives, and there's no better way to do that than as a physician. And writing is this extra bonus that I have still that helps me just like it did when I was writing fiction, sort of try to understand the world. But I don't think I could function if I didn't get to take care of patients. And that became clear when I was 22 years old, essentially.  Dave Johnson: So, Lisa, you did this fellowship at the New England Journal of Medicine. Can you tell us about that? What was that like? And how much influence did that have in your current position?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: It was awesome on so many levels. I think the first was that I really loved listening to people talk about science. That was new for me. And the rigor of the conversations at The Journal is really just hard to describe, and I just felt like I was like a kid in a candy shop. I'm interested in science, obviously, as a practicing physician, but I'm interested in science always in these meta ways. I'm interested in how we communicate science and the words we use and the conflicts that we focus on and those that we don't. And so much was always going on in my mind. ‘I was like, oh, my God, these are the data that are going to shape our practice. And then you have, like, a bunch of humans making these decisions.’ And so that was inherently fascinating to me.  And the other thing that was really transformative was just sort of watching Jeff Drazen, who was the editor in chief at the time, and just how he led was so amazing to me. And I still think about it because, you know, in an ideal environment, I mean, people study this their whole lives, you know, organizational psychology and things like that. But, you know, to create a work environment where you can have, like, all these brilliant people sort of have a conversation and argue with each other and still come out friends was really remarkable to me. I don't think I could ever tell you what the recipe for that is, but I loved watching Jeff do his thing. And then, of course, on the most personal level, it was eleven years after I had tried and failed to be a writer in New York and all of a sudden I had medical training under my belt and I had a lot I wanted to say and I was capable in a way that I wasn't before of spending my days writing. So it turned out that I was able to structure my time and not just fall into a deep depression. So that was really important to me in terms of shaping my ambition. I still didn't believe that it was possible to have a job as a doctor and a writer until I was actually offered that job. But at least I knew that I loved it as much as I ever had.   They published what I wrote, and it's hard to describe, like, how that changes you in terms of realizing that, like, anybody might care what you had to say. You know, my experience until then had been writing this stuff with my grandfather, which was so inherently meaningful, but I could never get it published. I mean, the piece that I think that I'm still most proud of is what I ultimately wrote about my grandfather and this book project and it's called ‘The Art of Doing Nothing.’  I had a knee injury at the time, and I was in med school, and I couldn't get the doctor to do anything about it. And I was really compromised. I couldn't walk, and I was going into internship. And the prospect that I wasn't going to be able to do what I needed to do as an intern was just so terrifying to me. And so it sort of goes back and forth between that experience and my grandfather's ambition for us to fix medicine and his sense that something so fundamental had been lost. And it ends—I'm going to start crying when I talk about this—it ends with his death and how I wasn't planning to speak at his funeral, but then I just remembered this sense of something pushed me to walk onto the pulpit after all the other eulogies had been given. And I remember feeling the sense like, ‘Okay, he spent the last seven years wanting me to tell these stories, and I'm never going to be able to convey what he means or the point of his stories. And I could never describe the way he touched people's lives.’ And I just remember when I was standing up there, I looked out and there were hundreds of people, patients, their children, who had just come to celebrate his life. And then this feeling that I didn't have to say anything because everybody already knew. So ‘The Art of Doing Nothing’ is this idea that we're so reliant now on all these things that we can do. And my sort of tension with my own doctor was wanting an MRI. And by the way, I completely believe in a lot of the things we can do. I don't see how you could spend a day in the hospital as a cardiologist and not feel some awe for advances in our technologies and what they can do for patients. But I do think a lot of it has come at the expense of our humanity, not by the fault of any physicians, but in a system that just doesn't allow us to give people our time, our attention, or make them feel how much we care about them.  And so I think for me, the idea that my grandfather practiced at a time where he didn't have an MRI machine and he couldn't revascularize—I mean, he was a rheumatologist, but at that time, he would see patients having MI’s and he did house calls and all these things, but that he could give them his love, for lack of a better word—it's a different type of love, but the love that we can give to patients, and that so many people then remembered him and showed up for him.  Pat Loehrer: If I can speak on behalf of your grandfather, if he was here, he would say that you have honored him.  Dave Johnson:Yeah, for sure.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: That's very kind.  Dave Johnson: Lisa, you write about so many different things. They're all wonderful. I really appreciate your willingness to bear your soul, so to speak. And speaking of soul, one of my favorite pieces that you wrote was I think it was ‘Heart and Sole’, where you talked about-  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: -broke my feet?  Dave Johnson: Yeah, your feet. That was great. You, in a sense, mentioned your father. And your father is also a Rheumatologist, actually, your father gave a grand rounds here about seven or eight years ago that was one of the best lectures I've ever heard on uveitis.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: No, my dad is also huge. I've talked about my mom. I've talked about my grandfather. My dad is a huge part of my life, too. I just love him a whole lot.  Dave Johnson: Well, that came through in the article about your feet. What I wanted to ask you is obviously a lot of your ideas for writing come from personal experience, but you've also written about things like conflict of interest. You wrote a three-piece article in The New England Journal that actually generated some interesting conversation in the letters to the editor, including from former editors of The New England Journal. I wonder how you come upon these ideas. I mean, what prompts you to write about a particular topic?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: The two things in my life that like, drive my writing. I mean, I'm not talking about medicine specifically, but I'm extremely emotional. I feel things very intensely, and I think because of that, I've always been interested in the way emotions affect reason, because it's been clear to me for a long time that my emotions could get in the way of my ability to make good decisions. So then I became very interested in sort of the nature of how we make decisions and the role emotion plays in that. And so conflicts of interest were, like, the perfect example of this, both at a very individual level of the way emotion shapes reasoning, but also I'm very interested in sociology, how humans affect one another's perceptions. And I think that series was published in 2015, so it was sort of a little bit before social media became so much more pervasive in our lives, but this idea of sort of collective pile-ons and canceling people that hadn't picked up as much.  But I was very interested in this tension between advancing care and how that had gotten lost in this sort of desire to vilify people who worked with industry, because it just seemed very obvious to me that we needed that. And I was perplexed as to why we sort of seized on this one aspect of bias when so many biases shape how we behave. And again, that goes back to the fact that I spend my entire life thinking about what is biasing my own behavior. And so I remember very clearly, and I tell this story in the series, in the second essay, how I used to get called when I was a cardiology fellow about transfers from other hospitals overnight and whether or not they should give TPA en route, because if you wait too long to revascularize them, at that time, people were getting TPA. I've only ever worked at a hospital where people get revascularized, so we don't really do it a lot. But anyway, I remember being so tired and so wanting to not go in that I would feel inclined to say, just give TPA, even though it would be better for the patient to get revascularized. And if they would get revascularized, it meant that I would be up all night, because after they would have, like, a sheath, and I would have to pull the sheath, and it was over. And so I remember thinking, like, ‘I'm making a decision out of, like, fatigue and laziness.’ I mean, I didn't actually make decisions this way, but I remember how powerful those forces were in shaping my medical advice. And we all know when we practice in these busy hospitals that so many of our interactions are not about what the science says to do. There are other factors that come into play that are deeply embedded in sort of the sociology of medicine or people's feelings about one another or themselves. And so conflicts of interest was just like, at the nexus of all these things that fascinate me.  And then the third one was about sort of moral outrage. And again, this was before our politics were as polarized as they are today, for instance. But this idea that when you feel moral outrage, that you lose the ability to weigh trade-offs was extremely interesting to me because, again, it seemed to be at the crux of what was happening in sort of our ability as a profession to talk about how to optimize our relationships with industry so that we could get our patients the best treatments. And that instead of vilifying scientists who either had unique expertise that could be shared with companies to develop treatments, or who were on FDA panels because they were the ones who knew the most, it just seemed to me kind of strange that we weren't able to have those conversations.  And then when you mentioned all the blowback, I mean, that was the first time in my career, and I've since experienced it again and again. But that felt to me very much part of the problem in the first place, that that like, just saying that this was more nuanced than we were recognizing, you know, generated a lot of anger, and I was, like, totally okay with that, because it it was why I wrote it in the first place. And if I felt that in 2015, I feel that even more now, which is essentially you cannot write about anything interesting anymore without risking being canceled. Like, it's just things are so volatile, and everything I write, I think this might be the end of me. And you sometimes can't predict what is going to enrage people, but it feels, speaking of trade-offs, like a worthwhile trade-off for me because I could write what I know everybody wants to hear, or what they already know, and there's clearly a market for that. But that is so boring to me. And I don't learn anything, and I don't think readers learn anything, so that just doesn't feel like my role in this universe. Dave Johnson: When do you find time to read?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: I read like, every night, every afternoon. I mean, I'm constantly reading or listening to podcasts and thinking about what I'm writing, or I'm interviewing people. I read like, all the time. Pat Loehrer: What are you reading now that you would recommend it?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: The best books that I've read recently were Tomorrow, and Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin. I don't know if you've read it. It's actually my computer is literally sitting on the book. She also wrote a book that has some oncology relevance. It's called The Storied Life of AJ. Fikry, I think. I finished it the night before I was going on the consult service, and for some reason I wept. There's a cancer part of the story, so you'll see when you read it, I don't want to give it away. But it was one of those moments I think I'll remember forever, just because even though I'm saying all these things about caring about humanity, I still lose it sometimes. And the consult service can be really hard because this goes back to this whole bias thing, because you're just going as fast as you can. It's not because you don't care, it's because there are ten people also who need to be seen. And so you're triaging your time, but also your emotional bandwidth, and you walk into the room and you just hope that you don't get asked a lot of questions and that you can move quickly so you can go see the next consult. And so I finished this book, and I hope it's not giving me too much away. But anyway, someone in the book has cancer and isn't treated very well by the medical system. And so it was like the night before I was going on consults, and it stayed with me in the same way my grandfather stays with me. Just like, take a deep breath, the week will end and you never get a second chance to see these people. So do it right. Pat Loehrer: I can't wait to read it. One of my residents, when I was an intern, I had a patient that died, and I was just really distraught, but she just quietly said that the beauty of medicine is that it has such a great joy, but it also has these downs, and that's unlike any other profession. And that's really what makes it such a marvelous profession, because of the feeling that you have.  You're a physician writer. Which physician writers do you think are the most meaningful? Or which ones do you admire the most?  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: I have to tell you, I teach a writing class.  Pat Loehrer: It's you.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: For what?  Pat Loehrer: You're the one that you admire.  Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: Oh, God, no. That wasn't what I was going to say. It's the opposite. So in the writing class, my editor of the journal and I teach a class to people, mostly to Brigham, but over the years, people from all over have started to join, and we do it on Zoom. And I have to say that there are some people in the class I just think are so talented. And what has struck me most about the experience beyond their talent, is just that physicians often just don't have an opportunity to get to write. And so I lucked out, like I really did. I lucked out in terms of having the opportunity to journal. I lucked out to grow up in a family that was just so loving toward me, telling me I could do whatever I wanted. But not everybody has that luck or privilege. And so to get to be in this writing workshop and see all these people who are just having their first chance to process what they've experienced and narrate it has been really awesome for me. And so they are not the people who are household names yet, but I have been struck by many of their talents. And also my editor and I taught one at Colorado this past summer, and there were some people who are just so equally talented. So that said, I think Gawande is like a masterful storyteller. He's able to sort of narrate in a way that is so accessible to people, and I think that is a mark of genius. So I do find myself studying his work. I have to tell you that I read mostly fiction, so I don't read a ton of doctor writers anymore. I used to when I was, before I was more established as a doctor writer, and I would do it to study them. But now I just find myself wanting to either read about culture or some sort of nonfiction that is unrelated to medicine or just read pure fiction. I'm mostly interested in how people tell stories and develop characters, and I could think about that forever. It never stops. Dave Johnson: What advice do you have, Lisa, for young physicians who may be contemplating a career with writing as a part of it? What advice do you have for them? Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum: When you write, you have to expect to fail. And I think that one of the hardest things about being within the institution of medicine and trying to be a writer is that we have these metrics for success that we're all so accustomed to in terms of publications and putting things on our CV and also how those are valued in advancing our careers. And if you really want to write, if it's really important to you, you have to let all of that go. And again, if people meet me at this moment in my life, they don't realize that I had this chunk of time for seven to ten years where I was writing and writing and writing, and I wasn't publishing anything, and I was getting rejected all over. And I did it because it meant so much to me and it meant so much to my grandfather. But if it becomes this thing that is meant to, like, advance your career, I think first of all, it becomes much more frustrating, but also you take away what makes it so meaningful, and I think that ends up detracting from the writing itself because it's just like the purity of it goes away. So I think that's one thing I would say.  The other thing is if you want to write, you just have to write. There's no other way about it. It's not fun. I mean, I wish people could see how much of my writing gets thrown away. It's so bad. But if you think of it as an act of discovery, which it is, I never know what I'm going to say until I get there. Then you can sort of forgive yourself for all of that time wasted. But it's pretty empathetical to how we function as doctors. I mean, when I go into the hospital, it's like a switch flips in my brain. I move into this extremely efficient, concrete sort of way of existing, and it's just so different from the mode I'm in when I'm creating.  Dave Johnson: That's extremely helpful. Thank you for that Lisa.  We want to thank all of our listeners of Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast. This is where we will talk about oncology medicine and beyond. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. To stay up to date with the latest episodes and explore other educational content, please visit education.asco.org. Thanks again.  Pat Loehrer: Hey, Dave, I got something for you. Dave Johnson: A present?  Pat Loehrer: No. A question for you. Which knight of King Arthur invented the roundtable? Sir Cumference. Doesn't get any better than that.  Dave Johnson: No, the snail joke was better. 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.

Advanced practice providers (APPs) are a key component to effective team-based care, but what is it that our APP team-members can do in an oncology practice? Join the Co-hosts of the APP podcast series, Todd Pickard (MD Anderson Cancer Center) and Stephanie Williams (Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine), along with guests Wendy Vogel (BroadcastMed/APSHO)) and Tammy Triglianos (University of North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital), as they highlight the services and examples of what APPs in oncology can do, their role as an APP in team-based care, if and how they bill for their services, and how they are reimbursed.  Speaker Disclosures: Stephanie Williams: Consultant or Advisory Role – CVS Caremark Tammy Triglianos: Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Todd Pickard: No relationships to disclose Wendy Vogel: No relationships to disclose  Resources: Podcast: Advanced Practice Providers - APPs 101: What and Who Are Advanced Practice Providers (APPs)? Podcast: Advanced Practice Providers – An APP’s Scope of Practice Advanced Practice Providers - APPs 101: Physicians Assistants (PAs) and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNS) in Oncology If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Stephanie Williams: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to the ASCO Education podcast, and our fourth episode of the Advanced Practice Providers series. I'm Dr. Stephanie Williams, a medical oncologist, and your co-host for the series, along with physician assistant Todd Pickard. We’d also like to introduce you to our guest panelists today. Returning guest, Wendy Vogel, along with Tammy Triglianos. We’ll take a moment to let them introduce themselves, starting with Wendy. Wendy Vogel: Hi. Thanks so much for having me today. I'm Wendy Vogel. I'm an oncology nurse practitioner by trade, and I am the Executive Director of APSHO, the Advanced Practitioner Society for Hematology and Oncology. And thanks for having me here today. I'm really excited to be here.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: Tammy.  Tammy Triglianos: Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me. And I'm excited to join this group for our conversation today. I'm Tammy Triglianos. I am a certified oncology nurse practitioner practicing in North Carolina. My career has been dedicated to caring for oncology patients, even starting out as a nursing assistant and then as a registered nurse practicing in a variety of settings. I've been a nurse practitioner for almost 20 years now, with the past 15 specializing in GI medical oncology.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: Thank you.  Todd Pickard: Thanks, everybody, for being here today.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: In today's episode, we will be highlighting the services and examples of what advanced practice providers in oncology can do and describing if and how they bill for their services and how they are reimbursed.  So let's get started. Wendy and Tammy, I'm starting in my clinic, 8:30 in the morning. We have a full panel of patients, patients who just need reassessment, chemotherapy prescribed, reevaluation, bone marrow biopsies, test results. How do we work together to see, as a team, these particular patients, or in other words, what can you do to help me through my days as an oncology practitioner?  Wendy Vogel: Wow, that’s a great question to just jump right in and start with. I’m excited to talk about that. Well, I think that, you know, as we always are talking about our team approach, we would look at that schedule. And hopefully, the AP and you have their own schedule so that we're able to divide and conquer and be able to accomplish that schedule, see all the patients in the most efficient manner possible. Hopefully, I've looked at all my patients beforehand and see if there's anything that I need to collaborate with you on. Looking at our labs, you know, maybe scans, talking about any changes in plans that we might anticipate together, and so on.   Tammy, would you do the same?  Tammy Triglianos: Yeah, I’d like to echo your point, Wendy. Having independent schedules, I think, makes for a more efficient workflow in the clinic. And in my practice we have a team meeting with our clinical pharmacist, physician, myself, and our nurse navigator, and review last week’s and even prep for the upcoming week, trying to anticipate and make sure people are set up and orders are in, and we're prepared for the week to come. Day of, as you know, can get pretty hectic. But since we've done a lot of that prep work, I think it makes for the unknowns that pop up in clinic easier to connect with each other, with my physician and other team members.  Todd Pickard: I agree. I think the great thing about how physicians and APPs work in teams is that the team can decide what's best. I have done everything from having my own independent template so that I have patients that I'm responsible for to a general template where the physician and I just divide and conquer at the beginning of clinic, and we say, “Okay, you see these patients, I'll see these patients, and we'll back each other up if we need to.” All the way to seeing every single patient along with the physician when we are seeing a lot of news and consults, very complex, very acutely ill patients. And we basically just work as a team the entire day on everything.  So it's really interesting about the conversation that I think we'll end up doing today is the “what” versus “how.” What APPs do is– really, honestly, APPs can do anything and everything unless a state scope of practice or an institution's policy specifically says they can't. That's the good news is that we pretty much can do everything but the “how,” that's a really interesting question because a lot of different things come into play. Position preferences, which could be influenced by their own personal experience or their own personal preferences of style versus, you know, having a misunderstanding of what APPs can and can't do. Then there's the institutional policies and the state scope of practices that come into play. So I think this where we’ll end up spending some time today.  And, you know, Stephanie, maybe we could start the conversation with you a little bit around physician preferences and what your experience has been, and some of the things that you’ve noted around the physicians as part of this team.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: I’ve worked with APPs, both inpatient and outpatient, and I think it is very important to have that team-based approach. Patients really appreciate that, knowing that there is always a provider, someone there that they can turn to. And I think that’s one of the great things about APPs is they always seem to be there for patients to turn to and for our nurses to turn to, to get help too. Both our clinic nurses, our infusion nurses, and our inpatient nurses really appreciate having that extra clinical provider available to them. I think as a physician, during my day, what I would like to see is us getting through our panels of patients, whether we’re together, which is not as efficient as if we’re independently seeing patients, but also help with things like procedures that need to be done on patients, phone calls at the end of the day, peer-to-peer reviews in order to get either medications or tests done for our particular patients. Filling out forms, no one likes doing that. No one likes filling out disability forms or other insurance forms, but those are all things that we all need help with in terms of doing. Ordering consults, seeing new patients together. I work in the transplant field, so they’re complicated patients, so it actually is very helpful to have, to see a patient with your advanced practice provider so that you can come up with a treatment plan together that you know you can then follow throughout the course of hopefully that patient's treatment and recovery. Chemotherapy orders is another place that we need, that can be very valuable, whether it's the initial chemotherapy order, which were usually the physician or pharmacist initiated, but those follow-up chemotherapy appointments or problems in the infusion clinic are also helpful areas.  There are some physicians, though, who want to have an APP simply as their scribe, to follow them around in clinic and to then begin whatever orders they feel is appropriate for that particular patient. That is not the most efficient way to see patients, particularly when you have a large panel of patients that you have to see.  Wendy Vogel: Exactly. It really isn't. I will just tag off something you said about the AP being the scribe. That's probably one of the most expensive scribes that a physician could employ, and what a better use of our time is to not be a scribe. You know, there are other people who could really efficiently be a scribe better than the AP, and the AP could actually be seeing patients and gaining reimbursement for the practice.  Tammy Triglianos: An additional comment on team-based care. I work with a physician where we alternate visits, and I think that has really worked well in establishing a relationship with patients. We both have very high touch points with the patients, very involved, and patients feel like there's that team that's always available because always one of us is usually available. Dr. Stephanie Williams: How long did it take you all, all three of you, to develop that relationship with your physician colleagues to work tightly in a team? Todd Pickard: That's really a great question, Stephanie, because I think one of the strengths of the relationship is that level of trust and comfort and not really to view it as a hierarchical relationship, but really a team. We're there for each other. And you know, that depends, you know, there’s personalities involved, people’s previous experience, you know. If you've only had great experiences with APPs, probably trust them right away. If you've had difficult relationships with APPs or teams that didn't work well, it may take longer. I'd say the best approach is for both the APP and the physician to really look at this as, “How can we accomplish our work together that provides the best quality and the highest level of safety for our patients?” And really just set the expectations of ‘this is a trusting relationship where we work together, we support each other, and we're willing to talk about where the limits of our knowledge are. And for both of us, that's when we get consultations with other folks, and so we just approach it from this perspective.’ And of course, you know,over time, that just strengthens and grows. And when you have a really good, strong, trusting relationship, that's where the real power of the team comes into play. Wendy Vogel: I like what you said about trusting. You know, the AP has to trust in the physician to be able to go and ask questions and to be mentored, and vice versa, too. I think we play to each other's strengths. If my strength is talking about hospice to a patient that needs to change trajectory of course, then maybe that's what I do better. And there are other things that another team member would do better, but feeling comfortable and saying, “You know, this is what I do good,” or, “Hey, I need help with this. I don't do this as well as I would like to.” Dr. Stephanie Williams: Tammy, anything? You said you work with one physician. How did that develop?  Tammy Triglianos: Right now, that's my current setup because of volumes, but I have worked with a team of physicians as well, which, when you're an APP working with a team of three, four plus physicians, that can kind of get a little bit tricky, people fighting for your time. I think being in parallel clinics has helped establish our trusting relationship because all day long, you're with that person navigating care together. We've been together probably 14 years, so that's really dipping back into my memory bank of the beginning of our time together. But I think it's what Wendy was talking about is just approaching each other with questions or, “Hey, why did you do that?” Or “Help me understand this.” And I think our approach to each other wasn't, “Why did you do that?” But, “Help me understand your thoughts on this.” Or “Can I talk through this with you to make sure I'm on the right page.” And how that response came back, then I think that has helped develop a trusting relationship.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: You both bring up excellent points because there still exists that power gradient between the physician, the advanced practice provider, and a staff nurse or an infusion nurse. And it's really important to overcome that so that people are comfortable in terms of taking care of the patient, to give the patient the best possible care that there is. Todd Pickard: Yeah, I mean, I think this is a great time to really just highlight the fact that there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there around APPs, what they can, what they can't do, what they will, what they won't do. In some corners, there's this fear that APPs will go rogue, and that will harm patients. And really, that is an irrational fear because when we are trained, we are trained very clearly about when you reach your own limits, that you are required and obligated as part of your professional practice to find that support, find those resources, get consultations, work with your team to understand so that you serve the patient. And I think it's really important that folks remember that with this respect and trust and accountability, because asking for help is not a failure. Asking for help shows a successful dynamic within a team so that the entirety of the team brings to bear their expertise, their knowledge, their skills, and their judgment. And when the team doesn't know what to do, that's when you’ve got to reach out to your consults and your other resources. So I think that's an important thing to remind everybody is that we're all here trying to do the same work, and it doesn't do any good if you spend a lot of time wondering, “What's Todd up to today?” So I think it's important to realize and for us to kind of dispel those kinds of myths. Wendy Vogel: I think, despite a social media post by one of our well-known medical associations that will remain unnamed, we don't think that healthcare is a game. We are absolutely serious about this, and we love taking care of our oncology patients. This is something that we're trained to do and that we want to work together as a team. Great thoughts, Todd. Dr. Stephanie Williams: In terms of actual practice in the states that you're at, are there any restrictions, either statewide, institution-wise, on what you can and can't do? Tammy Triglianos: I think a big topic that comes up a lot is signing treatment plans or antineoplastic treatment plans. And I don't know across the states, but in my state, that is not a state restriction. But not allowing APPs to sign antineoplastic treatment plans is more of an institutional restriction, and that varies. Recently, I was able to work with a team of people to update our policy to allow APPs to sign antineoplastic treatment plans and how it works at my institution, they go through a privileging process, so essentially it's an opt-in privilege. So, APPs can obtain approval to sign treatment plans, and it is restricted to cycle two and after. So the treatment plan initiation and signing the first cycle is done by the physician, and APP can place the treatment plan and get it teed up. But it actually is signed by a physician for cycle one, and then an APP is now allowed to sign beyond cycle one. We have a few guidelines like they have to be in their subspecialty practice and be manipulating treatment plans that are cosigned by the physician initially and have certain subspecialty training. So, yeah, I'm excited about this update to allow APPs to practice to the top of their license.  Todd Pickard: Stephanie, this is such an important concept and one that we have hit upon in all of our podcasts. And really, the limits of APPs outside of physician preferences are really state laws and institutional policies. And so, the answer to your question is ‘yes, and it depends on where you are’. So, for example– Tammy gave an example of what's going on in her institution. In my institution, all chemotherapy plans must have a double signature, whether it's initiated by a physician or a pharmacist, or an APP, and that's a safety and quality check. And so everybody just needs to understand, again, limits generally are only in state laws and institutional policies rather than what APPs are trained to do or what folks will reimburse for. And so, really, that's where you have to do the most detailed examination is: what state are you in and what does your institution or your practice say? Generally speaking, most states allow teams at the local level to kind of figure out what they want to do. Sometimes they'll limit a certain medication, like a schedule II drug or a certain other medication. Institutions sometimes do the same thing. But the good news is, if it's not explicit in state law, you can change institutional policy and physician preference all day long.  Wendy, what's your experience been?  Wendy Vogel: Oh, I totally agree. I think it's important for APs to know who's setting the institutional policies and for physicians to know this as well because it may be someone who is not familiar with what the AP role could really be. What do they know about the advanced practitioner? We mentioned that earlier. But I think it also brings up a very important gap that we've seen in oncology, is what's the training of the AP to be able to write anti-cancer therapy orders, and it's a wide variety. There are very few, for instance, nurse practitioner oncology certification or graduate programs. Most of us are trained in a generalist level as a family nurse practitioner. PAs, as you said before on this podcast, you are trained at a generalist level, and we get a lot of our specialty education on the job or through other advanced education. So we're coming into this at all different levels: brand new APs, brand new to oncology APs, and we've seen a gap at the educational level across the US is not the same.  One of the things that APSHO has done to relieve this, and I'm so excited to be able to share with you guys, is we've just recently launched the APSHO Cancer Therapy Prescribing Course. This, I think, will set the benchmark that we've just talked about and bridge this gap, and allow APs to really practice to the top of their licensure, as Tammy mentioned earlier. It's a very comprehensive online, self-paced course providing that advanced education to prescribe cancer therapies and to manage that hem/onc patient throughout the treatment trajectory. It does not just include the cancer therapies but other things we need to know as APs, like: what kind of drugs do we give with the cancer therapies, what are the standards of care, what do we do in clinical trials? And so just all this that we need to know, and I hope this will bridge that gap, if you will, for this education.  Dr. Stephanie Williams: Excellent points. I think it also requires physician education to know and understand what advanced practice providers can do. And I think an advantage to our younger generation physicians is that they are now growing up in institutions where APPs are normal, as opposed to older physicians like myself, where we really do have to learn what can be done and what can't be done so that we can trust what everyone is doing there. Todd Pickard: Are we normal? Yes. But what you really mean is that we're present. It's really about interprofessional education, and I think there's a lot of importance of that concept. If we're going to be delivering care in teams, we should be trained in teams so that you grow up side by side and so that way it does seem normal. I'm working in a team; where's the social worker? Where's the APP? You know, where’s the pharmacist? Because that’s how you trained, and that’s how we really deliver care. That’s the honest truth. No man or no woman is an island in medicine. We all work in teams, whether we recognize that or not. And so I think it’s great when you hear about folks that are actually training side by side because it just dispels some of this anxiety, some of these misconceptions, and you’re just used to the team being around, and it’s like, “Okay, where’s my team?” And then it doesn’t become unusual. It’s just normal. Wendy Vogel: Yeah, we’re all sitting here nodding our heads together. You all can’t see us, but we’re all nodding. So, Stephanie, I really want to know, how do you educate your colleagues who might not be as receptive to the idea of an advanced practitioner writing cancer therapy orders? Dr. Stephanie Williams: I have to tell you, it’s difficult sometimes, Wendy, or it has been difficult in the past. The problem becomes not so much a “do you know what you're doing,” problem is how does the reimbursement - I hate to say this – how does reimbursement figure into all this? If I let an APP see half of my patients, who gets that money? And then the other thing is just how do I efficiently use an APP? And we are trying, and  ASCO through the Clinical Practice Committee, to try to get out there and reach out to practices, particularly rural practices, to help them understand the role and the value of advanced practice providers. And I think it's going to be a reach-out effort, leading by example, showing people that this is the way we can do it and we have to do it this way because we need practitioners out there to take care of patients. Todd Pickard: I want us to all pause here because what you just talked about is critically important. And we all know this is part of medicine, whether we like it or not. But reimbursement, how we get paid, and productivity, how we are recognized for what we do, are concepts that sometimes get mixed up. So when you're talking about reimbursement, APPs are reimbursed just like physicians for everything that we do. Depending on who's paying the bill, they may reduce that reimbursement. So CMS reduces generally to 85% of the physician fees. Medicaid is all over the place, depending on your state and the third-party payers, like the commercial insurance, that's based on whatever you've negotiated in your contract. Sometimes it's a little, and sometimes it's the same. So APPs get reimbursed, period. What level they get reimbursed compared to the physician’s reimbursement is really up to a lot of different factors.  But productivity, I think that's the thing that we really get hung up on is, well,who's going to get credit for this work? And guess what? The beauty of that is you get to decide. Every practice, every institution makes up those rules. And so, you know, the take-home message here is, don't confuse reimbursement with productivity. Reimbursement is a lot of external factors that are either statutory, or they're contractually negotiated. But productivity is an internal accounting, and you can use team-based metrics. Who's to stop you from saying ‘we reward and recognize both the physician and the APP in these teams.’ They both get credit, and they both get productivity measurements and recognition. And so I think that's where we really need to drive home the message is it's not about setting each other up as competitors. It's redesigning our internal productivity measures so that it's collaborative and that all the work that's being done by the entire team is being recognized and rewarded. Wendy Vogel: A lot of what we do, as Stephanie referred to earlier, is not reimbursable. All those peer-to-peer reviews, we don't get paid for that. None of us do. Calling patients back, liaisoning with the nursing staff, and answering their questions through the triage line, so much of that is vital to supporting a practice, and you can't do it without all that, but it doesn't appear on the bean counter's metric sheet. So how do we do that? I don't have the answer to that. Tammy Triglianos: Yeah, and I think in oncology/hematology, there's a lot of frequent touch points in between provider visits, and that doesn't equate to money, but equates to high-quality care, to have access to skilled providers to help manage all the complications, and, you know,in between stuff that happens between provider visits. Dr. Stephanie Williams: Wendy, there have been changes now in terms of who can enroll and write treatment orders for patients on cancer clinical trials. Could you go over those changes with us and how APPs can now fully participate in this process? Wendy Vogel: So there were some recent changes to CTEP and then now allowing APs to sign clinical trial orders. This is huge because it really makes the process of getting patients their drugs in the infusion suite much quicker. We don't have to track down a physician to sign those clinical trial orders. The AP can do that. And so this process is made much smoother. I think we'll see a lot of other cooperative groups and institutions follow suit with this. And I think this was a real demonstration of the AP's quality of care and the safety of AP prescribing and being able to have this privilege. Todd Pickard: Well, this has been a fascinating conversation today, and I would like everybody to have a final say. What’s your take-home message today about what APPs can and can't do. And Tammy, we'll start with you.  Tammy Triglianos: Thank you. This was a great conversation today. Happy to be a part of it. Know that APPs with supportive, appropriate training, and, you know, I just have to shout out to Wendy and APSHO for the chemo prescribing course. I think this is huge for bridging a gap. Lots of education programs don't have oncology subspecialty, and this is such a comprehensive course that bridges a gap that I think will be huge. And I hope every oncology cancer center adopts, incorporating this to elevate the education and offer some subspecialty education to our oncology APPs. Kudos for all the team-based care and physician and APP teams out there that are really working hard to care for our cancer patients. Todd Pickard: Wendy, what are some of your final thoughts? Wendy Vogel: I have to agree with Tammy. I'm really excited about the APSHO Cancer Therapy Prescribing Course. I think that we can, together as a team, really make a difference in cancer care, playing to each other's strengths, and I think that would be my takeaway is: how can we better play to each other's strengths? Todd Pickard: Stephanie, what about some of your final thoughts? Dr. Stephanie Williams: I think working with APPs is critical to the success of any medical practice and to any physician who takes care of patients. Todd Pickard: Well, I appreciate all the insights. And just as a reminder, APPs and physicians, generally speaking, can decide whatever they want that is best for the practice, best for their patients, and delivers high-quality and safe care. Just be aware of your state regulations and find those institutional policies that are holding you back. Good news on the institutional policies - you can change them just like you can change your productivity metrics and models. So the good word is APPs and physicians can work in amazing teams, and we have all the power at our disposal to do so.  Well, I want to thank you to my co-host, Dr. Williams, along with Wendy and Tammy, for joining our discussion today and sharing all of your experience and highlights into the services that APPs can deliver. It's clear that APPs and physicians working together in teams are vital to a strong and efficient delivery of our team-based care.  Well, until our next episode, thanks, everybody, and take care. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org. 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.

"Various places on the globe lack the proper knowledge, infrastructure and workforce to adequately treat cancer. In Africa, one doctor is focusing her efforts to change all that. This ASCO Education podcast spotlights Dr. Miriam Mutebi, the first female breast surgeon in Kenya. One of Dr. Mutebi’s goals is to improve women’s health and cancer care in Africa and includes attaining her pilot’s license to reach remote areas of the continent. Dr. Mutebi reflects on her life growing up in Kenya (1:21) and her inspiration for getting into medicine and pursuing what was at the time a male-dominated specialty (5:07). She also details how cancer care has improved in Kenya in the last decade (12:49) while there are ongoing challenges of working in low-resource settings (23:25). Speaker Disclosures Dr. Miriam Mutebi: None Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical Resources: ASCO Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 1) ASCO Podcast: Oncology, Etc. – Global Cancer Policy Leader Dr. Richard Sullivan (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Welcome to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Education Podcast. I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Pat, we have a terrific guest today that ties in very nicely with your interest in global health. I'd love for you to introduce her. Pat Loehrer: Thanks, Dave. Battling cancer is truly a global effort, both in research and in treatment. However, there are various degrees of quality in these fields, depending on the economic health of a particular region. Our next guest is trying to optimize cancer care in Africa. We're very excited to talk to her. Dr. Miriam Mutebi is one of the most prominent cancer doctors in Africa. Dr. Mutebi is the first female breast surgeon in Kenya, and she's currently assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at the Aga Khan University in Nairobi, Kenya. She's on the board of directors for the Union of the International Cancer Control. She has trained and studied at top hospitals in New York and South Africa. Dr. Mutebi is so focused on increasing women's health in Africa that she's trained to be an airplane pilot in order to connect with hard-to-reach areas. Disclosures for this podcast are listed on the podcast page. Thank you so much, Dr. Mutebi, for joining us from Kenya. Can you start off by telling us a little bit about what it was like growing up there? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: I grew up in Nairobi, which is a pretty urban setting to grow up in. So, most of my childhood was spent…I think it was probably a much simpler time where, you know, you would play in the street, go off to somebody's house, spend the rest of the day there and come back at the end of the day. But in terms of growing up, I think I was one of those super nerdy kids, for want of a better word. One of the sorts of things that got me interested in reading and learning and challenging myself was actually my dad. Because what would happen was we had to go to school, I would say almost about 30 kilometers bus ride, and my dad would be like, “Well, if you're on the bus for that long, you can as well, you know, carry a book and made it nice and exciting.” So I remember sort of discovering the library at my primary school and going like, “My word!” Because you get access to all these different experiences and worlds. I mean, you're going in and reading, you know, The Chronicles of Narnia, you're reading about Enid Blyton and different experiences, you're reading all these different worlds and getting to, you know, identify to some extent with the core values that exist. It doesn't matter where the books were centered. And so that for me was an almost, I would say, idyllic growing up, because for me it was like, “Yes, books, check; running around, check.” That's, I think, what I remember most about my childhood. Dave Johnson: It sounds like your father was a powerful influence in your youth. Can you tell us more about your father? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Sure. My dad, how old is he now? He's going to turn 74. One of the things that he always says, “It costs you nothing to be kind.” And so he would generally– Sorry, I'm just going to stop a little bit. I'm getting weepy. Dave Johnson: I'm sorry. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: It’s okay, it's okay. Shame. Dave, you pushed the button. Dave Johnson: It's not our intent to push a button. It sounds like your dad's a wonderful person. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: No, it's fine. Pat Loehrer: Both Dave and I have daughters, and we feel the same way. So as weepy as you're getting, I can guarantee you that he's going to feel the same way on the other end. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: No, it's just that he hasn't been well recently, so it’s just– Dave Johnson: Oh, I’m sorry. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Yeah. Okay, cool. Let me see if I can stop getting a little weepy. Yeah. So one of the things that he frequently says is that it costs you nothing to be kind, and I think that's one of the things that he sort of instilled in us that you need to think beyond yourself. You always need to sort of think about what is the other person going through and how can I help to make it better. Now, my dad, he has a really interesting sense of humor. I think it's where I get my cheesy humor from as well. But he always talks about what we call the 11th commandment, which is, don't take yourself too seriously. And so I think that was part of the grounding steps that he sort of helped to instill in us because he was working– I mean, sort of looking back, our parents, I would say, got married at a very young age and had several kids that they were raising. And sort of looking back, you're thinking they were probably just doing the best that they can, right? But I think he did a fairly decent job, I hope. Dave Johnson: So, Miriam, when did your interest in medicine begin, and who was the inspiration for that? Or if there was someone that inspired that? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: At the end of high school, I remember I wanted to do five or, rather, was it six different things. And so I wanted to do medicine, I wanted to write, I wanted to do architecture, I wanted to do law, I even forget what the other things were. There was like two other things on my to-do list. And I think part of the genesis of that was because, as part of the high school training that we go through, we had to do the international sort of baccalaureate, and what that entails is we have to do components of creativity, action, and service. And so at the end, I'm like holding back to father dearest, and I'm like, “Dad, I have six different things I want to do, and I don't really know about.” And he was like, “So why don't you spend a bit of time, sort of just going through each of those, like shadowing these different specialties?” And so we managed to track down his lawyer friend, spent time in the hospital, spent time in the pharmacy, just shadowing the pharmacist. I actually went to work briefly for a publication house. Eventually– Oh, yes, in architecture as well. So then I managed to narrow it down to, “Yes, okay, I want to do medicine, and I want to write.” And so I went back to my dad and said, “Dad, okay, I have two things I want to do.” And my dad was like, “Well, if you do medicine, you can write. But if you write, then you might not necessarily be able to do medicine.” So that's how I sort of wandered into medicine. Although I still say there's still the great African novel waiting to get out. But again, with medicine, I think I'm guilty of what we call ‘end of rotationitis’, where at the end of the day, you finish a rotation, and you're like, “I can do this. I can do this.” So I think going through different rotations– I think for me, the drive– Well, the slow narrowing down to surgery was really around, unfortunately, the time when we were doing our rotations, and this was just really at the start of the 2000s in Kenya. And the challenge around that time was we're really just at the tail end of the HIV epidemic, and not everyone had access to antiretrovirals. And it was an incredibly harrowing time, I would say, for the healthcare profession, just because there was still a lot of stigma around HIV. And what was happening was that we would go to the wards and find patients had been abandoned. And there was a general sort of pervasive sense of hopelessness because people didn’t have access to the medication, they’d been abandoned, and unfortunately, not much was being done in terms of active management to patients. Whereas then that was like on the 7th floor, and then you would go four floors down to the surgical ward where patients come in, they’re bleeding; you take them to OR, they get better, you send them home. And so, for me, the timing was like, “I need to do this. At least I could see where I was making an impact.” And so that’s sort of how I wandered into surgery. And I’m sure, as I said, with, of course, the developments now, the experience, of course, for medical rotations, they're entirely different, but that’s how I sort of ended up in surgery. But then, how I sort of found myself in breast surgery was actually because– for me, what stood out about my breast rotation was really looking at what we were reading in the textbooks, which was breast cancers, the disease of the sixth and seventh decade and a “poster child” for this is the elderly nun who’s never had any children, who’s had this prolonged [inaudible]. And I’m sitting there and looking at the clinic, and I’m like, “These patients are in their 30’s and 40’s. All of these traditionally protected factors, like having multiple children, having breastfed, ticking all the boxes, but they're still coming in with these kinds of cancers.” And so just thinking this is totally different from what the textbook is saying, and somebody needs to get to the bottom of this, and that’s how I found myself going in along breast cancer surgery and also research into women’s cancers and things. Pat Loehrer: My sense is that Kenya and many African nations were male-dominated. I don't know what it was like for you going to medical school, but particularly in surgery, it tends to be a male-dominated field. What was that like as a woman? In many ways, I think you were breaking some glass ceilings. I'm sure other women are doing similar things, but tell me a little bit about that experience. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: I would say bewildering for both parties. Because we had to do several interviews just in different institutions before getting into a surgical residency, and I remember these senior professors sort of peering down their glasses and looking frankly bewildered and asking the most bizarre of questions, which I don't think anyone would sort of get away with in this day and age. I remember somebody asked me, and this one always stands out in my mind because somebody asked me on the interview route, “So what happens if you get a patient in ICU and you start to cry?” I'm like, “Well, first of all, I'm guessing that I am crying because I'm having a bit of empathy for the patient. And I think that actually probably makes me a better clinician because I am really truly seeing the patient rather than bed X with diagnosis Z. This is like Mary, mother of one, two, three, and whatever.” But it was really bizarre. Then somebody asked me as well, “Okay, so what happens when you're on call, and you have to breastfeed?” And I'm like, “Well, let's see. This is a tough one.” You could tell as well that they were really out of their depth. So,  eventually I settled on the Aga Khan just because, in terms of the faculty and the interviews, I got a sense that they were a little more open to the idea. And that's because I think one of my earlier mentors, Prof. Raja, who is our former chair of surgery, had come in from the Aga Khan in Pakistan. And for him, it wasn't anything unusual to see women in surgery. So, like, “Yeah, come along. We'll train you and stuff.” And he was also pretty inspiring in terms of the decision to get into surgery because, for him, their approach to at least surgical training– and we always tease him and say, we all drunk the Kool-Aid because we kind of came back. Because it wasn't about just training surgeons for surgery's sake, it's about how do we become leaders, how do you impact care in your region. And so it was never about just learning surgery; it's how do you use the tools that you have in order to improve the health of those around you. In the Aga Khan, you're sort of, one would say, in a position of privilege. Just the backstory to those listening who might not know about the Aga Khan, it's a private university hospital. But I mean, as a private center, then, of course, I would say there isn't any difference, one would say, between the Aga Khan and most of the international hospitals anywhere in the world. But it was always sort of driven into us that this is a privilege that you're having. And how do you use this privilege to elevate the communities around you? Pat Loehrer: Let's talk about breast cancer, if you will, in Kenya. You mentioned it that when you first went into it, patients were coming in with advanced disease, they still do. But how has the field of medicine changed in Kenya during your professional lifetime as it pertains to breast cancer? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: While we still have the majority of patients diagnosed with advanced disease, the scenario ten years ago was that patients would get diagnosed with advanced disease and frequently would not complete their care. And if we did a deeper dive into the reasons behind this, we saw a constellation of factors. One being the fact that patients were having to pay out of pocket, resulting in financial toxicity, catastrophic health expenditure. And then the other major barrier was the health system itself. And again, to some extent, that still exists where we know, at least on average in sub-Saharan Africa, patients are going to see 4 to 6 healthcare providers before a definitive diagnosis of their cancer is made, which of course, again, translates into delays in ultimate treatment. Another area that we frequently don't necessarily talk about as much are the social-cultural barriers that exist and, to some extent, are still pervasive in some communities. What we see is, one, there’s a lot of use of alternative therapies. There is still quite a bit of stigma around cancers. There is what we call collectivism, where we always say in Africa, ‘our community is our strength’. But sometimes, that sense of community is a double-edged sword because then, if the patient is losing agency, then that becomes a real concern. Because what we find, for instance– I’ll give you an example, I'll have a patient come in and discuss, and maybe she has early cancer, and discuss the options of having breast conservation versus a mastectomy. And then you will find maybe she goes home to have a think, and then a couple of days or whatever later, there's a community gathering, and the clan elder is saying, “We have decided.” And I’m like, “Who’s we? That’s not your breast coming off. Like, what right do you have to decide on patient decision-making?” But you see, as much as we would like to sort of say have the patients have autonomy over the decision-making, it's really a question of equity and access to care. Because even if you're giving the patient autonomy, and she’s saying at the end of the day, “Well, they’re the ones paying for the treatment so let them decide what it is I’m going to have”, then we haven’t really adequately empowered our women. And so those are some of the challenges that existed, I would say, about ten years ago. We’re definitely seeing an improvement. One in the patient’s ability to pay, and this, I think, has been a concerted effort by the government to come up with a National Health Insurance Fund, which initially wasn’t covering cancer care but has definitely helped to ensure that the number of patients who actually complete their care or going through their entire cancer journey are probably more.   I remember when I was doing my internship, there were like truly heartbreaking because, as interns, we would have the medical internists sometimes– and because there weren’t that many medical oncologists– prescribe the chemotherapy and as interns, we were the ones who would administer the chemotherapy. And so, you would have a patient come in and it involves– Basically, we give the prescriptions like chemotherapy, but they’ll also have to buy their own saline, the IV line, and everything else,,, and then they get the first cycle, and they just disappear. And then those were the times when mobile phones weren’t that common. They literally just disappear. But then they come back six months later, and they’re like super excited, and they’re like, “Doc, we’ve raised enough money for the next cycle.” And we’re like, “Well, it doesn’t quite work like that.” So, with the National Hospital Insurance Fund, it’s not perfect, but we definitely see more patients going through the entire care continuum, which is gratifying. I’m sort of putting on my  [inadudible] hat as the chair of Kenya Society for Hematology and Oncology, and we’ve been working closely with the National Cancer Control Program, really to advise the National Hospital Insurance Fund on maybe getting more comprehensive covers. Because what was happening initially was, for instance, they would cover maybe four cycles of chemotherapy. Then the patient has to come up with the remaining four, for instance, and sometimes if they’re not able to afford that, then you’re sort of giving them the side effects without the therapeutic benefits of some of these. So they are currently in the process of really looking more at treatment plans, and that’s also been, at least, a truly– And the fact that they are willing to listen has also at least been a huge stride. And then, of course, in terms of the real efforts, I would say by the National Cancer Control Program to ensure some of the decentralization of cancer services. Initially, we had only one radiotherapy center at the tertiary referral hospital in Nairobi that was having patients traveling from across the country, 400 kilometers or more, coming in. And you come in from a rural area, you come into Kenyatta and somebody tells you have to live there for a month, you have no family, nowhere to stay. People say, “You know what? I don’t need to have this stage or rather have this additional treatment.” And so with the deliberate development of or decentralization of the radiotherapy services, we now have at least regional centers in planning and so really looking at how do we bring the services closer to people. And so, we now have, in addition to the tertiary referral centers, we now have two regional centers in Mombasa and in– Pat Loehrer: Eldoret. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Yes. I think beyond Nairobi, Eldoret, we now have a comprehensive center in Mombasa. Nakuru’s just launched a comprehensive center and Garissa as well, so really looking at enhancing our capability to bring these services closer. And there has also been the development of the chemotherapy units across the country that have at least tried to ensure that these services are more readily accessible to populations. And really just underpinning that with the support from the National Hospital Insurance Fund has helped to basically have more patients completing their care. One of the other things that I think deserves particular mention is really the grassroots advocacy that has really tried to increase awareness around cancers. And as a result, we definitely are seeing, as much as we are saying the majority of patients are still diagnosed with advanced disease, we are definitely seeing the entire continuum all the way from screen-detected tumors, early stage I, stage II cancers to more advanced tumors. So with that, it also really shows that there is a continuing consciousness that’s really sort of driving these education efforts and awareness in the community. Of course, we definitely do need to do more because we still see that the advocacy’s efforts sometimes tend to center largely around urban areas. And also, the question is how do we then sort of percolate that down to more rural areas? It’s definitely something that’s improved in the last ten years. And then, of course, we’ve also seen an expansion in the cancer workforce. And that, I think, has also been largely driven by the fact that we’re having in-country training for clinical oncology, medical oncology, gyne-oncology, so we’re really thinking about how to expand the workforce but– Of course, we are still looking at the patient-to-population ratios, those are still pretty low and we still recognize that there are deficits along the care continuum. But we’re now having pharmaco-oncologists, we are having psycho-oncologists, increase in palliative care specialists. So there’s definitely been an exponential growth of all the cadres of healthcare providers, whether it’s oncology nurses and things. We’ve had an oncology nursing chapter now that’s been developed. We really see the rise of the professional societies like the Kenya Society of Hematology and Oncology, and there is a lot of crosstalk between the academic institutions that are running the oncology training programs. So it’s really a positive move in the right direction, but I think what needs to happen is, as I would say, more deliberate investment in the workforce. Because, again, even as we increase the spectrum of the oncology workforce, there’s really a need to carry along the primary care providers because they invariably are the gatekeepers to access. And so unless the primary care providers are empowered and knowledgeable to facilitate early and timely diagnosis and referrals to the appropriate pathways, then it doesn’t matter how many people or how much of a workforce you have on top of the pyramid. It just means you’re invariably going to be still getting patients diagnosed at later stages. And so there’s also been efforts around that to come up with, from healthcare provider courses to educating common signs and symptoms. This is something that the Kenya Society of Hematology and Oncology has been doing in collaboration with the National Cancer Control Program. There’s a deliberate effort to come up with an online platform that are actually able to give real-time information to primary care providers. And so, I would say there are definitely steps in the right direction, but there definitely needs to be more investment in the entire spectrum of care. Dave Johnson: Miriam, what you've done is astonishing. What you've just described is an amazing infrastructure in a relatively short period of time. What you're talking about took us in the United States half a century. You're trying to do that in a matter of five to ten years. You've trained in both Kenya and in the United States. I wonder if you might just take a few moments to compare and contrast those experiences. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: In terms of working in different spaces and sort of working in the US, working in South Africa, working in Kenya, what you realize is perhaps a very different patient profile. Whereas in countries like the US, where you have vibrant screening programs, and you're definitely having a lot more discussions around 4-millimeter, 5-millimeter tumors that you are doing an MRI-guided biopsy for and maybe a lot more screen-detected tumors. Whereas working in settings, especially when you get out of the urban areas, whether it's in Kenya or South Africa, you find that you tend to have a lot more diagnoses of patients coming in with fungating tumors and advanced disease, and so it's really that spectrum. And that's what I'm saying in terms of the current state of flux that we're in. We're now, as clinicians, at least working in Nairobi, you're sort of seeing the entire spectrum and much less and less of the sort of fungating tumors. So I think in terms of the principles, and the good thing is that irrespective of where you are, principles do not change. But I think you sort of have to rapidly innovate and iterate in settings where you may not necessarily have a say, MRI to do an MRI-guided biopsy, but you also sort of look at what makes sense for the patient. Working in lower-resource settings, I think, is actually a good thing because it challenges you to constantly think about value-based care. People talk about value-based care as a concept, but you're doing it on a day-to-day basis, even between different patients in clinic, because you have to think about the cost and you have to think about how do I deliver care that's still of good quality, that's not necessarily going to break the bank. And so these are some of, I think, more challenging or at least questions that we have to think about deliberately. Whereas in the US, if you have insurance, then it’s pretty much carte blanche, for want of a better word. Which we did realize, especially with COVID - and I’m sure Pat and Dave you can bear testament to this - these disparities exist globally. And so you’ll find that in your patients who have no insurance or are underinsured, they’re still coming in with the same, sort of, challenges. I was talking to my colleague at NYU who works at Bellevue. When she was giving me the profile of her patients, it was interesting to see that there wasn’t really– and these are patients who don’t necessarily have insurance, there really wasn’t any difference in the images we are seeing from patient they’re seeing and the patients we’re seeing. So really it’s an opportunity for us to sort of rethink collectively our approach to care and really thinking about how do we provide quality care. Pat Loehrer: I was in Washington this week, and President Biden had a three-day African US summit, and at the end of this, he basically pledged to spend $55 billion in Africa to help relations with them. We also had a discussion about the Moonshot 2.0, in which President Biden wants to end cancer as we know it, with a particular emphasis, I think, and now, in linking with LMICs. Briefly, what would you tell President Biden in terms of what would be very helpful for the United States to help with the cancer problem in sub-Saharan Africa? What would you say in a sentence or two? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: As we say, perhaps have the Moonshot, but stay grounded in the sense that– even before we think about complex molecules, we are still struggling as a continent with the basics of care. And so, investing in health systems and the basics will ultimately give more or improve outcomes rather than sort of focusing on specific molecules. So if we have the basics in place to deliver the basics of care, then that would go a long way toward shifting outcomes. The other bit that does need to happen is, again, with research because there is a paucity of cancer research. We did a recent bibliometric analysis and found that as a continent, we are only contributing to less than 8% of all sort of cancer research globally. And we do know that one, we have, I would say, the breadth of diversity in terms of genetic diversity. We do know that the responses to care and treatments are different. We do know that we do need to think about implementation science and what structures we can put into place, and what strategies. What works in different settings might not necessarily work in ours, and it does need to be backed by evidence. So there are opportunities to expand care and strengthen systems, but really do this in an evidence-based, pragmatic way that ultimately [inaudible] its own outcomes and outputs for the patient. Dave Johnson: Thank you for that, Miriam. Pat Loehrer: Well said. Thank you. Dave Johnson: Great advice. I hope the President is listening. Pat Loehrer: Dr. Mutebi, what was the first book that you remember that you really loved? Dr. Miriam Mutebi: I think it was actually The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It was just the whole sort of just stepping into a different world. And then, of course, we all had crushes on Aslan, the lion, but it was more because he was like this sort of guy who would swoop in and was morally just and get to mediate the world. And so I went through the whole series, I just gobbled it down, and I think that’s one of the things that really stands out for me as one of the books that I sort of remember early on. Pat Loehrer: It's such a great pleasure today. I'm really excited. We're typically talking about books. And here's a book, Dave, I know that you have not read; it's entitled 101 Things I've Learned in Engineering School. It was an interesting book. As you know, I’m an engineer background, but there were a few quotes in here that I– Dave Johnson: Pat, I live on Purdue Avenue, so I have some engineering background. Pat Loehrer: Oh, that's true. Good for you. So you might like this one, Dave. One of the quotes I have is: "Inventing is a mixing of brains and materials. The more brains you use, the less materials you need." And another one - do you know the difference between accuracy and precision? They're really different things. And so, the best example that came from the book, which I thought was interesting, was pi, so pi is what? Dave Johnson: Round. Pat Loehrer: Okay, this is going to be painful. Pi is 3.14. Right? So that's accurate. But if you say pi is 3.1415926535, that's accurate and precise. And if you said pi is 3.98, that's just inaccurate and imprecise. As I think about engineering as we move forward, I'm thinking about the Lung Pragmatic trial that has just been announced, where we're trying to do trials a lot more simply in which I think we can be accurate, but perhaps not as precise as we always deem to be important. And I think we're really excited about that and that project. Dave Johnson: Well, that's really all the time we have for today. And we really want to thank you, Miriam, for a wonderful interview. And knowing that you're up very late at home makes it all the more special. We also want to thank our listeners to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast where Pat and I will talk about just about anything. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. Thanks again. Pat, I have an important question for you before we leave. What do you call a snail that's not moving? Pat Loehrer: You got me, man. Dave Johnson: Escarstay. Pat Loehrer: I love it. Miriam, Asante sana. Dr. Miriam Mutebi: Nime Shukuru. 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.

"Battling cancer takes place in many parts of the world and our next guest has led initiatives to do just that. In Part Two of this Oncology, Etc. Podcast episode, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King’s College London Dr Richard Sullivan shares with us his research into cancer care in conflict zones around the world (0:58), his thoughts on “colonial” cancer research (5:50), his advice to people interested in pursuing a career in global oncology field (10:08) and using “pooled procurement” as an innovative approach to cancer care (11:13). Participant Disclosures Dr. Richard Sullivan: Honoraria – Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical If you liked this episode, please follow the podcast. To explore other episodes, as well as courses visit https://education.asco.org or contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes.  Pat Loehrer: Hi. I'm Pat Loehrer, director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas, and a friend of mine. This is the second half of our Oncology Etc. conversation with the professor of cancer and global health at King's College in London and the director of the King's Institute of Cancer Policy and the co-director of the Conflict and Health Research Group, Dr. Richard Sullivan. In part one, we chatted with Professor Sullivan about his international travels as a child to his transition from biochemistry and finally to a great career in health policy and research. Today we're going to continue our conversation with Professor Sullivan by asking him about his insight into the current state of the progress in global health care. Richard Sullivan: Conflict and fragile populations around the world are sadly growing. They're unique ecosystems for a whole variety of reasons. I think fundamentally, though, to do research in those systems requires a huge amount of sensitivity and experience and expertise because you're dealing with the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable. And then, of course, whatever research you do, you're constantly thinking in the back of your mind how you then tie this into any form of impact. There is a tendency, often with research in these populations, that the research is just done for the researcher's sake rather than actually being utilized to help improve those lives you're actually involving and studying. But I admit it's a very tricky area to work in. Cancer in conflict populations, a particular interest is a relatively new domain. It's only really been around for the last eight to ten years for a variety of very understandable reasons. Let's be honest, 30 years ago, cancer was not a significant factor in humanitarian conflict operations. You were dealing with demographically untransitioned societies, much younger. Really the group one, infectious diseases, child and maternal mortality, et cetera, were the primary foci. That still is the case. But what we're seeing now is much more transitioned populations being impacted by conflicts. And you think about in Mexico, in the Narco Wars, Syria, Iraq, even Afghanistan, and all of those have changed dramatically the nature of how care is delivered and how patients move. And we call these new therapeutic pathways, and we consider them kind of post-Westfalian. We're not talking about cancer care anymore that's boundaried within nation states. Patients moving across national lines, we have patients moving in pathways which are absolutely unique and we've never experienced or seen before in the high-income West. And that means you have to have a different paradigm for care and a different paradigm for building cancer control systems. And I guess for the last ten to fifteen years that's what we've really been interested in is this dynamic of conflict populations and how you deliver care and who delivers it. And there, of course, you're talking with a very mixed act, a bunch: humanitarian organizations, the big NGOs, the ICRCs, Medecins Sans Frontières. You're talking about the militaries in many countries. The militaries are very powerful in many countries in terms of providing care. And then finally there is, of course, the health services or systems that exist to varying degrees in the individual countries infected by conflict. So our program really tries to understand how you strengthen health systems per se in these conflict populations. And obviously, my particular interest is in cancer and palliative care. But I'm going to be honest, for that we have a very large team, some remarkable colleagues I've worked with over the years, sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and increasingly, there's a lot of leadership coming out from these countries taking these sorts of programs forward. It's an important time, and I think Ukraine has taught us as well that if you don't think about, for example, cancer care within humanitarian operations, within UNHCR, you can end up in serious trouble in terms of planning, financing, sustainability. So I think Ukraine is going to be an interesting turning point in generally thinking about cancer care and conflict and humanitarian operations because it's really illuminated to everyone very clearly in Europe and the USA, what cancer and conflict really is, because I think the Middle East has felt a little bit far away, and it's been quite difficult selling all that kind of policy and work. But Ukraine is really having a dramatic impact and I think it's producing a lot of learning points. Dave Johnson: You recently published, along with colleagues, I thought, a very provocative paper in JAMA Open Network about the participation of lower and upper middle-income countries in oncology clinical trials led by high-income countries. You made the point, be sure to correct me if I'm wrong on this, that first of all, Ukraine and Russia are actually two of the top participants in these kinds of trials. Number one. Number two, the question is, is it exploitative of the higher-income countries to be conducting these trials in these two countries and then more particularly, what the recent conflict in Ukraine has done to the participation of patients? And I wonder if you might comment on those points. Richard Sullivan: I’ll maybe talk to the last point first. The conflict has been devastating for recruitment. It's also important to realize a lot of these sorts of clinical trials are funded by industry and they've been the backbone of funding research and also to a greater degree also access to certain types of medicines in these countries. Is it exploitative? I think it's a very hard judgment call to make and I think if you ask my Ukrainian colleagues, the answer is no. We know exactly what we were getting into. When companies work in these places, they pay and they pay properly. The difficulty I think is, generally speaking, there is obviously this discussion now ongoing about neocolonialism and exploitation of low middle-income settings more generally. It's very hard, all the research we've been doing, it's very hard to make generalizations. There is absolutely no doubt. I want to recognize right up front that there has been some appalling exploitation and what I would consider to be colonial cancer research going on over the last 20 years. And it's blindingly obvious when you read papers, when you look at authorship, when you undo this sort of analysis, that there has been a lot of exploitation where high-income countries are parachuted in. Investigators have taken whatever they needed data, samples, interview data, made good careers on the back of it and good research funding, and not really put much back into the ecosystem they've been working with. So that's absolutely clear up front. Then we have this other problem, as well as research funding generally, because if you step back and look at the data, and this is something we've published on, actually, with Julie Gralow, and ASCO, we talk the talk about funding global cancer, that's big, high, powerful, wealthy, high-income countries. But when you actually look at the data and you ask that question, of all the cancer research publications, how many from the USA, the UK, the Frances, the Germany are actually with lower middle-income countries, you barely get above 4%. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize we taught the talk here, but we're not walking the walk. The money is not being provided to do genuinely equal collaborative work. We've not built capacity and capability in many countries in terms of clinical research methodologies and strengths. We failed to back up a lot of the rhetoric. We talk about global cancer with actually proper cancer research system strengthening. And I think there's that realization, and there's been that realization over the last five or six years that that's been the case. And when you take countries like India who kind of realized, you know, maybe ten to fifteen years ago this was the case, they've obviously gone themselves and driven their own agenda. So the National Cancer Grid of India, the development of Credo, the methodology workforces led by Dr. C.S. Pramesh from the Tata Memorial Centre, has been absolutely superb work. I mean, it's been amazing. A real master class in national development. But I think we do, as high-income countries have to think, look ourselves in the mirror and ask the question, is this what we mean by global cancer? Are we really putting enough money in? And are our research priorities right? You've heard me argue about this enormous amount, about how much money goes into discovery science and biopharmaceuticals. Where's the money going into implementation science, health services research, social science research, health economics, all the stuff that actually leads to direct improvements by strengthening cancer systems. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the billions and billions a year that have been spent in these other areas. So I think the agenda is unbalanced. But I think when you talk about exploitation, you have to be kind of more nuanced about that argument. Pat Loehrer: Richard, we were just at the World Cancer Congress and it was heartening to see all these wonderful young people from around the world thinking about global oncology and various different aspects of things. But I'm thinking about Brexit. I'm thinking about some of the issues going on in our country in which we are hunkered down to issues in our own country. P30 grants for the cancer centers are focused on issues in our catchment area. They have an illusion of global stuff, but it's really not a priority. What would you say to young people who are interested in pursuing a career in global oncology? Is this something that's worthwhile for them to do, and what would you advise them? Richard Sullivan: Yes, it's absolutely worthwhile to do. And I think two pieces of advice I would have is develop, first of all, your interests with friends. The work we do around the world is with friends. These are close colleagues. This is not some instrumental transactional research program of sending your samples to a genome lab for them to sequence it and send back to you. These are really long-term true friendships. That's what makes the difference, is that long-term commitment, year after year, decade after decade. So find out where it is and what it is you're really passionate about. Make those friends and then develop the suite of knowledge that you're going to require to do the kind of research. I mean, the thing with global cancer is it requires a very broad outlook. It doesn't matter what you are the master of; whether you're an epidemiologist or social scientist - mixed methods is absolutely the way to go. What you have to be able to do then is sort of think more broadly about other sorts of disciplines to bring out, because most of the really complex problems require a very transdisciplinary approach methodologically, and that takes a few years to build the insight into these other disciplines and also to make research relationships. And again, there is no substitute for experience in terms of going to places, working with people, working on projects. And of course, with that comes the advocacy. Cancer crosses borders, the advocacy for global cancer. You need people who are going to be passionate about this, who are really going to stand up and shout from the rooftops what's really needed and change, I think, the minds of both national and the philanthropic funders, which, as you said, Pat, you're spot on, are still very, very insular, very inward looking in terms of how they see the world of cancer research. And I think it needs a bit of a sea change. But the opportunities are out there. There's some, as we know, wonderful, wonderful people working all over the world on really, really different problems. Building capacity in surgery in Zambia is not the same as building capacity in surgery in one of the states in India, for example. So there's an incredible richness and diversity. It's a really, really important area. And I think younger crowds don't get put off because there's no clear pathway and there's a reason there's no clear pathway. It's so diverse, but it's absolutely worth it. And there's plenty of us, I think, out there now that can help. There's some great conferences like the Word Cancer Congress, amazing regional conferences like AORTIC, which is happening in Senegal next year, the big conferences in India. Absolutely superb. Just go immerse yourself in this. Dave Johnson: You've talked about a lot of different innovative approaches to cancer care and lower- and middle-income countries. One thing that I read that you'd written about was something that I had never thought about. I think you called it pooled procurement. Can you talk about that? Where maybe two countries can join together? It seems irrational to me that we could expect something like that to happen. Are you aware of any examples? Richard Sullivan: It's interesting because I’ve the pleasure of working with a lot of colleagues over the years on access to essential cancer medicines. And it's interesting because we're now getting into a domain in global health, which again is very rich for more learning, for more people coming into which is the political economy of cancer. Because this is where the disciplines of health economics, decision procurement, logistics, all kind of fuse together, as well as an understanding of power and decision making in individual countries. So, in and of itself, procurement is where groups of countries or centers within a particular country will come together to create sufficient volume to negotiate with suppliers for a particular consumable. And that drives down the prices. You become much more powerful in negotiating prices if you can all get together. One of the biggest problems, and again, there's some amazing work that's been done, for example, by Chai on this, who have really innovated in the pool procurement medicine space. But we've also seen pool procurement as well for radiotherapy. If you can come together as large groups with common needs, you've got a lot more power to negotiate prices with individual suppliers. And more importantly, one of the problems with suppliers, whether it's essential medicines or other sorts of consumables, is if the market is too small, if you're trying to negotiate on a center by center basis, it's often it's just not worthwhile for the supplier to come to attend a deal with you. They don't want to contract with you because the volumes are too small and the margins are therefore too small. So pooled procurement is one way of getting around this. But I speak very easily about something that's actually a very complicated and complex subject. There's a lot of law involved in this, there's a lot of economics in this, there's a lot of business work in this. Again, it's one of those areas of research and expertise in the cancer area that's really quite thin and really needs to be bolstered. And here we're talking about the second translational gap is you've got the Essential Cancer Medicines list - how on Earth do you deliver that in an equitable and affordable manner to population X and country Y? That is in of itself a research question, that falls under the political economy of cancer in terms of research, but again, also falls out with most research funding organizations who don't quite know how to handle supporting this sort of research and capacity building. But as you can see, absolutely crucial. Great. You've invented the drug, you've invented the new surgical technique, or the new form of radiotherapy. It delivers clinically meaningful benefits. So how on Earth do you embed that in a sustainable manner in a health system? And that is a big missing gap in the global research agenda. Pat Loehrer: You can have all the drugs and radiation equipment in the world, but if you don't have the healthcare professionals trained to give it, it's worthless. I think one statistic was that there's 176 physicians in the United States for every one in Uganda. And how do you deliver cancer care by trained oncologists? It's getting more and more complex for us, too. But this has been just a wonderful discussion. Just as a quick question, though, Richard, Dave mentioned his book. Anything you're reading right now or anything of interest? Richard Sullivan: Yeah, yes, I've just started reading a fascinating book called Dadland by Keggie Carew. And it's fascinating because this is a marvelous piece of work, actually. And this is a daughter trying to make sense of her father's life. And she really sort of spends years patiently collecting all these details of her father's life and growing up with it. And she sort of takes, juxtaposes– when she starts the book, he's got dementia. But this is a man who in his early days was in Jedburgh, was a Special Operations executive, fought behind enemy lines in France in D-Day, went to the Far East in Burma. And there's this extraordinary pathos and sensitivity in this book about watching his decline with dementia, as she puts it, as he slowly disconnects from reality and then he disconnects from himself, and trying to make sense of it with the individual he once was and the kind of individual. And through that, she gets to explore all the kind of boxes of letters and things that were all stuck in the attic. Memento mori, essentially, of his time in Burma and France. But it's very, very touching, and I would really recommend your listeners to read it because it unpacks dementia in a way I've never seen a book unpack before in terms of the impact it makes to an individual. And it asks that question about - what makes you you? And when this father, he dies, is he still the same man who jumped out of airplanes in the middle of the night in France? Is he still the same man as he was in Burma? It's very touching. It's one of the most impressive books of exploration into human nature and an identity that I've read for a long time. So, yeah, Dadland, excellent. Pat Loehrer: I'll get it. Dave Johnson: Absolutely. Sounds great. Well, that's all the time we have for today, and I want to thank Richard Sullivan so much for joining Pat and me. This has been a fascinating conversation and you're to be congratulated on all of your many accomplishments and all the things that I'm sure you'll do in the future.   I want to take the opportunity to thank our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, etc. This is an ASCO Educational podcast where we'll talk about almost anything and everything. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to hear on our show, please email us at education@asco.org.       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.

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma or DLBCL is the most common type of lymphoma. Much progress has been made in treatment of the disease lately, particularly with emergence of CAR T-cell therapy, but not all patients are benefiting from it. This episode of Cancer Topics features Drs. Loretta Nastoupil and Chijioke Nze exploring treatment approaches for two cases of refractory DLBCL: a 60-year-old man with no comorbidities (1:30) and a 39-year-old woman with HIV (18:35). The guests also discuss improving patient access to CAR T-cell therapy and managing its toxicities (10:35), as well as emerging therapies for DLBCL (14:30). To learn more about management of refractory DLBCL, check out the ASCO course linked bellow. Guest Disclosures:Loretta Nastoupil, MD: Honoraria – Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Bayer, Janssen Oncology, TG Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeuitcs, Morphosys, Epizyme, Genmab, Takeda, Genentech/Roche; Research Funding – Janssen Biotech, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Epizyme, Novartis, IgM Biosciences, Caribou Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Allogene Therapeutics, Takeda Chijioke Nze, MD, MPH: No Relationships to Disclose Resources: ASCO Course: Second-line Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (Free to Full and Allied ASCO Members) ASCO Podcast: Cancer Topics - New Therapies for Lymphoma (Part 1) ASCO Guideline: Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy ASCO Article: Navigating the Evolving Treatment Landscape of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma If you liked this episode, please follow the show. To explore other educational content, including courses, visit education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org.  TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: So, I do have optimism that as we have more and more treatment options entering into the treatment landscape, we'll have fewer patients that are experiencing a refractory disease, and potentially succumbing to the lymphoma. Hello, my name is Dr. Loretta Nastoupil, I'm an Associate Professor and Deputy Chair of the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Welcome to this ASCO Education podcast episode. It's my pleasure to welcome Dr. Chijioke Nze. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Hello, everyone. I'm Dr. Chijioke Nze, a Hematology/Oncology fellow at MD Anderson, I'll be co-hosting this episode with Dr. Nastoupil. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: We've seen notable advances in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma research lately, with novel treatments including CAR T-cell therapy, offering the prospect of long-term remission for some patients, yet many patients are not even receiving second-line or later therapy, and even fewer are treated beyond the second line. How do you approach a patient with refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma? In today's episode, we'll explore strategies for management of refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma through two patient cases. So, Dr. Nze, walk us through our first case. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Our first case is Frank. Frank is 60 years old and has no comorbidities. He presented with severe back pain in September 2021, and was evaluated locally. He had a CT scan that showed retroperitoneal mass, prompting further evaluation. He had a biopsy of the left retroperitoneal mass in November 2021, which was consistent with diffuse large B-cell, germinal center B-cell of phenotype Ki-67 of 90%. He had a subsequent PET-CT scan, which showed a large conglomerate, and invasive left retroperitoneal hypermetabolic mass with satellite nodularity and contiguous bulky retroperitoneal adenopathy. He had bulky, FDG-avid metastatic retrocrural and intrathoracic adenopathy as well. He was treated with R-CHOP for six cycles, and at the end, achieved complete remission. He had a PET-CT a year later that showed new and worsening intensely FDG-avid abdominal adenopathy. This was new from a PET scan he'd had in January 2022 of the same year. He had a biopsy of this retroperitoneal adenopathy, which was consistent with relapsed diffuse large B-cell germinal center phenotype, also Ki-67 of 90%. Locally, he was treated with ICE, times five cycles, and had a follow-up CT scan at the end, which showed persistent bulky nodal disease with periaortic regional nodes with double 5, consistent with persistent disease. He also was found to have new and more conspicuous nodes in other areas as well. He presented for his first visit at MD Anderson in September 2022. Dr. Nastoupil, when you see a patient like this coming into your clinic, what's your typical approach? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: For a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, we are always hoping for cure with frontline rituximab, containing anthracycline-based chemotherapy. And so, it's always a gross disappointment when patients experience relapse. The timing of that relapse right now informs our current approach. And the reason I mention that, is because there have been three large randomized studies conducted and reported out just in the last year demonstrating that CAR T-cell therapy is the preferred option for patients who experience either primary refractory disease, or relapse within 12 months. And that is because they resulted in better outcomes than standard salvage-based chemotherapy and high-dose therapy autotransplant in the setting of chemosensitive disease. I have to acknowledge, of the three studies that were done, two were positive trials, so that's why currently, we have axi-cel or Axicabtagene ciloleucel, or Lisocabtagene maraleucel, and not tisa-cel or Tisagenlecleucel, as CAR T-cell therapy options. And again, that's because two of the three studies were positive trials. Now, the challenge is why would we have two positive studies in one negative trial? There are a lot of caveats to how those studies were conducted, but I think one of the biggest important lessons to be gained is that if you're going to consider CAR T for these high-risk patients, you want to do it as soon as possible, because that delay from identifying CAR T as a preferred option to actually infusing cells in a disease-- in a case particularly like this, where patients may have bulky, aggressively-behaving disease - that prolonged time may actually have an impact on outcomes. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Excellent. Thank you. So, you've mentioned he had an early relapse. How would you define early relapse in this patient population? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: Thinking back to how we've been approaching diffuse large B-cell lymphoma over the last two decades, the PARMA study, which was done prior to Rituximab, suggested that for patients who had chemosensitive disease to a platinum-based salvage chemotherapy, which generally, was at least a partial response on CT, if they went on to high-dose therapy autologous stem cell transplant, 50-60% of those patients could anticipate cure. Whereas for the folks who continued on salvage chemotherapy, 10-20% of those patients had favorable outcome. So, we generally do try salvage-based chemotherapy, and for patients with chemosensitive disease, go on to high-dose therapy autotransplant. However, in the modern era where we've approached patients who've had rituximab as part of their frontline therapy, at least two studies - the ORCHARD study, and the CORAL study suggested that only 20% of patients who relapse in the post-rituximab era, particularly within 12 months, were successfully salvaged with platinum-based chemotherapy and high-dose therapy autologous stem cell transplant. Now, fortunately for patients who fail salvage, we have had CAR T-cell therapy as an option based off of three pivotal phase II studies, demonstrating about 40% of patients could anticipate a cure with CAR T-cell therapy. So, it only made sense to try and move that therapy up into second line, and the preferred population was those that had progressed within 12 months of frontline rituximab and anthracycline-based chemo. Now, to qualify for those studies, patients had to be considered fit for the control arm, which was salvage and auto transplant. Nonetheless, I do think for a patient like this, who's 60, without any other significant comorbidities, whose biggest challenge to longevity of life is his aggressive lymphoma, CAR T-cell therapy should be considered as soon as possible for this patient. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Is there still a role for high-dose therapy and autologous transplant in the new era, given the efficacy shown with CAR T-cell therapy? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: I think there is. And the reason why I say that is, the trials that were done really did focus on the highest-risk patients, which were those with primary refractory disease or those who progress within 12 months of frontline. Now, there are patients that will have later relapse. And so, I do think for those patients, particularly those who are young and otherwise fit, should be approached first with a platinum-based salvage chemotherapy, in the setting of chemosensitive disease, proceed onto high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant. Now, what do we do for those patients who have a late relapse but are otherwise older, or who have comorbidities that would make them suboptimal candidates for the high-dose therapy preceding stem cell transplant? I have a couple other options for those patients - so, there was a trial done with liso-cel for patients who were otherwise older, or not fit for intensive therapy. It's a single-arm phase II without a randomized comparison, but also demonstrated that liso-cel in second-line, later relapsed patients who are not fit for intensive therapy, resulted in comparable outcomes to what we would anticipate on that third-line or later setting. We also have other non-CAR T-cell therapy options, such as tafasitamab, which is a naked CD19 antibody, which has been combined with lenalidomide in the L-MIND study, again, for patients without primary refractory disease and who would not be appropriate candidates for intensive therapy. So, I do think we have alternative options, it's just when we look at the totality of the data right now, my conclusion is that CAR T-cell therapy, particularly for high-risk patients, is the most likely chance to result in cure. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Excellent. In a patient who we are considering CAR T-cell therapy, what are some of the short-term and long-term consequences, or toxicities that we should worry about? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: One of the challenges right now with CAR T, and why it's still only available in specialized centers, is the acute toxicity, which is really a derivative of its mechanism of action. We take patients' own T-cells, we use a viral vector to introduce extracellular receptor, but also a co-stimulatory molecule. So, once these cells engage their antigen, sort of prime to react to that, and that can lead to pretty rapid T-cell expansion, release of cytokines, recruitment of other inflammatory cells to that tumor bed, and as a result, a large portion of patients can anticipate to experience cytokine release syndrome, which again, is the result of the activation of these T-cells, the expansion and the recruitment of other inflammatory cells. Fortunately, for most patients, this results in fever alone that can be managed with supportive measures. Occasionally, they'll have concomitant hypoxia or hypotension, and unfortunately, few patients will have significant or severe toxicity. The other toxicity that's less easily manageable or less predictable is the neurotoxicity that can vary according to patient-specific characteristics, such as age, and the amount of tumor burden, their performance status going into CAR, but even more importantly, the construct that's utilized, with highest rates of neurotoxicity associated with axi-cel. Again, likely speaking to its construct and the CD28 costimulatory domain that is unique to axi-cel. As a result of these acute toxicities, patients are required to stay within two hours of their treating center for the first four weeks, and they're also discouraged from operating heavy machinery, such as driving, for the first eight weeks following CAR T. So, I do you think this creates some barriers to access to this therapy, particularly the patients that are treated in community settings that may reside long distances from these certified CAR centers. Dr. Chijioke Nze: So, you mentioned that obviously, given the specialized care needed for the CAR T therapy, that they're kind of localized in certain sites. What are some of these issues with access that you're noticing both in the logistics of giving CAR T, and also in patient access? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: I'm hoping we're going to address one of those issues right now, which is, education and awareness, because we've had these three randomized studies, and two being positive readouts just in the last year. It's important to get the message out that CAR T-cell therapy for high-risk early relapsed refractory large cell lymphoma patients can result in a significant improvement in event-free survival and progression-free survival over the standard of care. And so, being aware that this therapy can result in more favorable outcomes is step one. Step two is, we have to ensure that there are minimal barriers to getting those patients into these treating centers as quickly as possible. So, recognizing who delivers the care - is it your traditional stem cell transplant physician? Is it a lymphoma doctor? What centers are certified? Some of these issues can be addressed with quick internet searches. So, for instance, in our center, we have a 1-800 number for anyone who's interested in CAR T-cell therapy that connects them directly to a CAR T coordinator who can help them understand do they meet the FDA-approved indication? Would they be interested in seeking consult? And we try and prioritize getting those patients in the door as soon as possible since time likely does have an impact on outcomes. And then, partnering with our community oncologist - you're going to be the primary oncologist for these patients leading up to CAR, and then after that four-week window, when we're keeping the patients in close proximity to our centers, we often send them back. And so, making sure that they're comfortable knowing what potential late toxicities to be on the lookout for, which include B-cell aplasia and risk for infection, or prolonged cytopenias, beyond just lymphopenia. And so again, there's a need for education and partnering with our community sites to make sure that there is successful handoff of these patients back after they've completed the monitoring for the acute toxicity. And then, really trying to explore opportunities to utilize some of the better tolerated CAR T, such as liso-cel, in your non-traditional academic centers. Those that are equipped to handle phase I studies or stem cell transplant, for instance, may not be affiliated with the university. So, I think those are all types of strategies that could be employed to try and improve access for patients. Dr. Chijioke Nze: And then, you mentioned the liso-cel, but in some of the toxicities, are there ways of predicting which patients will do better or worse? Are there ways to reduce toxicities? And is there any hope for things such as outpatient administration of CAR T? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: So, my answer today may improve over time as we get larger numbers and more experience, but what we currently understand is that the patient performance status, their degree of tumor, how quickly that tumor is increasing, LDH and some inflammatory markers such as CRP or ferritin pretreatment can provide some insight into a higher risk of toxicity. And then obviously, the construct that's utilized. Again, axi-cel has higher rates of neurotoxicity. All will have some form of cytokine release syndrome, generally speaking, but rates of grade three or higher are quite infrequent, particularly with liso-cel and tisa-cel. So, it's multifactorial. That then raises the question, can we do anything to alter those modifiable risk factors? Can we reduce the disease burden? Can we improve the performance status? Can we do anything to reduce the inflammatory markers pre-treatment? And so, those are strategies that are being discussed, and I think in general, as we get more effective therapies that enter into the treatment landscape, it's probably some of the best ways to try and reduce some of those risk factors. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Rounding that up, are there any exciting developments or things to look out for, for exciting therapies in the relapse setting? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: A couple of things beyond CAR T that I think we should all be aware of and anticipate to be in our toolkit relatively soon; probably, one of the most exciting, is the development of the bispecific antibodies. So, another challenge with CAR T is the requirement to collect these patients' own T-cells and send them off to a central manufacturing site, and the turnaround time can be anywhere from 3-4 weeks. And again, in a situation where you have an aggressive disease, that can be a long time to wait. And so, is there any treatments that are more readily available, that again, will be effective at reducing disease burden? And so, by specifics kind of fit those unmet needs to some extent - you have essentially two heads; one head is going to bind the endogenous T-cells that eliminates the need to leukapherese these patients and manufacture, and then the other head is going to generally engage CD20, which we know is an effective targeted antigen, particularly in B-cell lymphomas. And there are a number that are under development. We saw preliminary phase II data with glofitamab, epcoritamab, as well as combination strategies with mosunetuzumab. So, I do have optimism that the bispecific antibodies will potentially enter into the treatment landscape. I anticipate they'll probably be used first post-CAR T, but will likely move their way into earlier lines of therapy. I've already mentioned tafasitamab in combination with lenalidomide, which is an effective non-chemotherapy option. We have antibody-drug conjugates, such as Loncastuximab, which is a CD19 antibody-drug conjugate. It's essentially targeted delivery of chemotherapy, and it looks to have a pretty promising activity as a single agent in that third-line or later space, and then polatuzumab, which is a CD79b antibody drug conjugate, in the relapse setting has been combined with bendamustine and rituximab, but also demonstrated significant improvement in the frontline setting in the POLARIS study where vincristine was replaced with polatuzumab. So, I do have optimism that as we have more and more treatment options entering into the treatment landscape, we'll have fewer patients that are experiencing refractory disease, and potentially succumbing to the lymphoma. Dr. Chijioke Nze: And then, one additional question: How do you approach a patient who is not quite as fit, in thinking about what their options are for later-line therapies? You already mentioned some of these, but which of those would you prioritize in this setting? Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: Again, as we get more experience, we develop skills that help us sort of navigate all these different options. In my practice, if I'm even considering CAR T, I'm going to delay bendamustine until after I've collected those cells. I think that's one caveat that-- we do get nervous about the quality of those autologous CAR Ts if they're generated in someone who's had recent exposure to bendamustine. So, that may help me sequence that later on. We have questions right now about what's the optimal sequencing of CD19-directed therapy because we have several options beyond just CAR T-- As I mentioned, we have Lonca, we've got tafasitamab and lenalidomide. Currently, we don't have prospective data that really informs that question, and there's a number of research studies underway to try and help us understand if there is a preferred sequence, or even if it matters how we handle CD19 targeting. For my older, frailer patients where I'm really worried, they're not going to be able to tolerate something like liso-cel, or they're not going to be able to have that caregiver, and they're uncomfortable relocating to an area where CAR T might be available, my general approach right now is to consider tafasitamab and lenalidomide first in that relapse setting, followed by either Lonca or Pola-BR. Selinexor is another option. It's an oral agent, though again, in my opinion, if we look at the totality of the data, may be less effective than the other options. So, I might reserve that as a last option for someone, again, with relapsed/refractory large cell. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Excellent. Thank you. This has been very helpful. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: All right. So, Dr. Nze, now I'm going to turn the table and ask you some questions. I'm going to change this up a little bit - she's now a 39-year-old female. She has significant comorbidities. She has HIV, and again, large cell lymphoma. So, let me walk you through her case, and then we'll discuss some of the challenges, again, in a very different scenario, albeit a similar disease. So, our female is, I mentioned 39, pre-existing HIV, she's treated frontline with six cycles of R-CHOP and intrathecal methotrexate for CNS prophylaxis. Because of her comorbidities, again, not well controlled HIV, she also has a poor functional status at the time of relapse. This was a couple years ago, and CAR T was not an option in second line, though she is someone who had a relapse that was beyond 12 months. So, for her second-line approach, because of her comorbidities, she actually receives rituximab in combination with high-dose cytarabine, dexamethasone, and oxaliplatin for three cycles, and actually achieves a chemosensitive disease and is referred to our stem cell transplant colleagues. Unfortunately, at that time, due to comorbidities, she was deemed not to be an appropriate candidate for high-dose therapy, and she's been monitored for signs of relapse. Despite being in the minority, she actually does not have a recurrence of her lymphoma but has a number of other, again, challenges in regards to her comorbidity, including multiple infections, resulting in recurrent hospitalizations. And so, it's always been a challenge for me in being intimately involved in her case, deciding when she's presenting, how alarmed to be about recurrent lymphoma versus infection, and how I might approach her in the setting of relapsed large cell lymphoma. So, what role does prior type and response to therapy play in treatment selection at your next line of treatment? Dr. Chijioke Nze: I think in this patient, it sounds like she got one adequate therapy on and the initial presentation with R-CHOP, and then with IT chemotherapy as well. She looked like she had a good response. I think the fact that she achieved a complete response and the duration of her response, lets me know that she likely has chemosensitive disease. This, in turn, helps me to pick what to do next. As you mentioned previously, we know how efficacious the CAR T therapy is, but in someone like her who had a long duration, trying salvage therapy and proceeding to autologous transplant might make sense. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: Yeah, I agree. And I think part of the challenge, particularly when we're facing patients with HIV, they're often excluded from prospective studies. And so, we're often in a scenario where we may not have the wealth of data to inform our treatment decision. But I do think in general, comorbidities play a major role-- we're navigating treatment options. Because again, traditionally, we've used intensive chemotherapy as our mainstay of treatment, and there are clear criteria that patients generally should meet that help us predict how likely they are to have significant or severe toxicity from high-dose therapy. And this is a prime example of even though she was young, her comorbidity made her a poor candidate for intensive therapy. I think the other sort of non-clinical factors that we sometimes take into consideration, because CAR T was approved off of single-arm phase II studies, again, none of which would've included someone like her, because of her HIV status, how do we extrapolate-- for instance, if she had relapsed in that third-line space, and suggesting that she did not have significant infection or other significant comorbidities, do we have experience to proceed with an autologous CAR in that setting? So, again, there've been a few cases where we have case reports where people have reported on their standard of care outcomes, particularly with CAR T in patients with active HIV disease, but one of the concerns I have in these scenarios is very selected. If you have active infection, that can make the acute toxicity with CAR significantly worse. And so again, we're trying to navigate a sort of limited data zone to try and help her and choose the right therapy. Again, you've met this patient with me, you helped care for her for some time, and you have a unique experience of also practicing in a county hospital where comorbidities, particularly, like HIV, can be much more common. What is your perception regarding barriers to accessing CAR T as it pertains to social factors, clinical factors, and again, this is a case that highlights some of those issues. Dr. Chijioke Nze: You mentioned at first that she had uncontrolled HIV. So, I think which, one, speaks to her treatment reference of her non-malignancy-related diseases, and trying to get that under control would be one of the first things I could think about. Thinking about how her care is managed and what kind of support she has are very important for us to think about as well. The other thing that's very important is, a lot of patients who we're seeing in the community may not have access to such specialized centers such as MD Anderson, where patients do have access to clinical trials and CAR T therapy. So, patients who are unlike her, who might qualify, may not actually be able to get these therapies as well. Part of the reason is, it can be insurance status, which is what we see in a lot of our patients. So, a barrier to get into the door. And then too barriers, lack of social support can be a big issue as well. And then there's also a big push in the community to improve the trust and awareness of these novel therapies, as you've mentioned. So, in a lot of the community practice, some of the community practitioners may not be comfortable with these, and a lot of the patients may not have heard of these new technologies, and also want to defer trying new therapies before having other people try new therapies before they consider them themselves. I think all these things present specific significant barriers to patients in the community. One, their ability to adhere to care, two, their insurance and their ability to get care and the financial toxicities associated with that. And then third, really understanding the options that are available. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: And again, just to try and illustrate a couple other points. You know, we use a case here, which is a real case, with significant comorbidities such as HIV, which again, is something that is not frequently encountered, and will have a large impact on treatment selection. What if I just told you this patient has comorbidities, but she has moderate type-2 diabetes, and as a result, she has mild renal insufficiency, ejection fraction is actually adequate, would you have done anything different in this case? Dr. Chijioke Nze: No. I think in this particular case, I do think the fact that she did have a good response for a long duration of time, and did seem to have chemosensitive disease, I would probably still have tried a salvage therapy and autologous transplant in this patient. In the event that she was refractory, or had early relapse, and in that case, I would consider her to not be chemosensitive and would definitely have sought some more active therapies such as CAR T cell therapy through available products. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: And then one last question for you: What if we just changed her age and we made her 79, but no other significant comorbidities, how would that have impacted your approach? Dr. Chijioke Nze: I'm going to turn that one over to you, I'm not exactly sure how I would treat with older patient with the same disease. Dr. Loretta Nastoupil: That's fair. So, if you have an older patient who has a late relapse, but not necessarily someone you would consider appropriate for salvage chemotherapy and high-dose therapy, then I think tafasitamab and lenalidomide would be probably my first choice in that setting, just based off of the L-MIND study. Dr. Chijioke Nze: Thank you, Dr. Nastoupil, for a great discussion of the management of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. And thank you to all our listeners. We appreciate you tuning in to this episode of the ASCO Educational podcast.   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.

Battling cancer takes place in many parts of the world and our next guest has led initiatives to do just that. In Part One of this Oncology, Etc. Podcast episode, Dr. Richard Sullivan, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King’s College London, shares with us his intriguing life trajectory, encompassing a childhood in various parts of the world, aspirations for a veterinary career that turned to basic science, medicine, health policy (4:27), and even a long-term stint with the British Army Intelligence (12:22). Dr. Sullivan, who served as Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade also discusses traits he looks for in a cancer investigator (19:21), and how to be happy (21:16)! Guest Disclosures Dr. Richard Sullivan: Honoraria – Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical If you liked this episode, please follow. To explore other episodes, as well as courses visit https://education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University Cancer Center.   Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas.   Pat Loehrer: And this is Oncology, Etc. Dave, what book have you read this last month?   Dave Johnson: I have one I wanted to recommend to you. It's very interesting. It's by Steven Johnson, not of the syndrome fame. It's entitled Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer. You may have heard of this because PBS made a special documentary about this particular book. But in it, Johnson talks about the remarkable increase in human lifespan, especially over the 20th century, and the various factors that contributed to increased years of life from on average in the United States of about 48-49 in 1900 to just about 80 in the year 2000. So that beats anything in the history of mankind before.   And he has a chapter about each of the factors that contribute to this, and some of which I think we all recognize. Things like antibiotics playing a role, but some of the things that I hadn't thought about were improved drug regulation and the development of randomized controlled trials, which all of us have participated in. How important that is.   He also talked about, at least in the United States, the importance of automotive safety. And I'm sure some of us on this podcast are old enough to remember cars that did not have safety belts and certainly not other safety maneuvers that have really improved lifespan in that regard. So I found it a fascinating book. I think our listeners who are interested in medical history would also enjoy this text.   Pat Loehrer: Did he mention this podcast?   Dave Johnson: No, actually it wasn't mentioned, and I thought that was a tremendous oversight. So, I've sent him a letter and recommended that he add it.   Pat Loehrer: We may not live longer, but it just seems like we're living longer. When you listen to this podcast, time stands still.   Pat Loehrer: Well, it's my real great pleasure to introduce our interviewee today, Richard Sullivan. I met Richard several years ago through the late Professor Peter Boyle in Leon, and it's one of the greatest highlights of my life to be able to know Richard.   Professor Richard Sullivan's Research Group studies health systems and particularly chronic disease policy and the impact of conflict on health. He's a professor of cancer and Global Health at King's College in London and director of the Institute of Cancer Policy and Co-director of Conflict and Health Research Group. As well as holding a number of visiting chairs, Richard is an NCD advisor to the WHO, a civil military advisor to the Save the Children Foundation, and a member of the National Cancer Grid of India. His research focuses on global cancer policy and planning and health system strengthening, particularly in conflict ecosystems. He's principal investigative research programs ranging from automated radiotherapy planning for low resource settings to the use of augmented or virtual reality for cancer surgery through the political economy to build affordable equitable cancer control plans around the world.   Richard has led more Lancet Oncology commissions than anyone else. In fact, Lancet is talking about calling it the Sullivan Commissions. He's led five Lancet Oncology commissions and worked on four others. He's currently co-leading the Lancet Oncology Commission on the Future of Cancer Research in Europe and Cancer Care and Conflict in the conflict systems. His research teams have had major programs in capacity building in conflict regions across the Middle East and North Africa. He's done studies on the basic packages of health services in Afghanistan and worked in Pakistan, Syria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He's been a member of the British Army, intelligence and security, and in that capacity he's worked many years in biosecurity and counterterrorism issues. I think in some ways, this is the most interesting man in the world, and it's our pleasure today to have Richard join us. Richard, thank you for coming.   Richard Sullivan: Pat, Dave, you're really too kind. Marvelous to be with you. Thank you for the invitation.   Pat Loehrer: Can you tell us a little about your upbringing and early life before you became Dr. James Bond?   Richard Sullivan: I'm not sure that's anywhere close to the truth, sadly. But, yeah, I have had a very interesting, eclectic life. I was born in Aden just on the cusp of where the British Aden Protectorate met a country which actually no longer exists, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. Because after the British left Aden, essentially the East Germans, and what was then the Soviet Union took over southern Yemen. So I was born in a very unusual part of the world, which sadly, since then has just deteriorated. I spent many years of my life with my parents, who were in the diplomatic service and doing other things, wandering around the globe, mainly in the Middle East and East Africa. We spent quite a lot of time, strangely enough, we washed up on the shores in the USA once as well. Dayton, Ohio, and eventually-   Pat Loehrer:  Not to interrupt you, Richard, there are no shores in Dayton, Ohio. So just correct you there.   Richard Sullivan: That is so true. My memory - cornfields everywhere. I had a wonderful dog then, that's how I remember it so well. And I didn't really come back to the UK until, oh, gosh, I was nearly 10-11 years old. So, coming back to the UK was actually a bit of a culture shock for me. And then relatively classical in terms of the UK, sort of minor public school and then into medical school. In the old days when it was in the 80’s. I had a fabulous childhood, going all over the place, seeing lots of things, being exposed to lots of different cultures. I think it remained with me all my life. I never really feel a foreigner in a foreign land. That's nice. That's really unique and it's been marvelous being able to tie in the passion for global health with my upbringing as well. So, yeah, I had a wonderful childhood.   Dave Johnson: Would you mind expanding on your medical training, Richard? Tell us a little bit about that.   Richard Sullivan: Yeah, so when I, when I went to medical school in the UK, we were still running the old system. And by the old system, I mean, you know, these small medical schools with entries of, you know, 70, 80 individuals, particularly in London, you had that St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, which is where I went, Charing Cross, Guy’s, St. Thomas', and they were all individual medical schools. Now, most of these now have merged together into these super medical schools. But certainly when I went to medical school, I'll be absolutely honest with you, I wanted to be a vet to begin with, but actually discovered I wasn't bright enough to be a vet. It was harder to become a vet than it was to become a doctor. In my day going into medicine, and people listening to this, or some people who understand the A level system in the UK will recognize if you're offered a BCD, that's quite low grades to get into medical school. So I went to Mary’s, to be absolutely honest with you, because I heard that they took people that played rugby, and I came from a rugby-playing school. And sure enough, 90% of the interview was based on my rugby prowess, and that was St. Mary's Hospital Medical School. So it was wonderful.   And we'd already had people going there who were big rugby players. And again, it was, I remember thinking to myself, am I making the right decision here? But it was interesting, as soon as I went into medical school, I realized that was the life for me. I had done myself a favor by not going into veterinary science, which I would have been awful at. We had six years of very, very intensive pre-medicine, the classical medical rotations, and then that movement into the old schools of pre registration house officers, registrar jobs. We were quite an early stage. I kind of slightly went off-piste and started doing more academic work. Interestingly, most of my academic early days academic work was not in health policy and research. It was actually in very hard core cell signaling. So my doctorate was in biochemistry, and we worked on small GTPases, calcium-sensing proteins.   There were some really extraordinary heady days, and I'm talking here about the early nineties and the mid-nineties of tremendous discovery, real innovation. I was at UCL at the time, but mixing and matching that up with a sort of surgical training, and again, surgical training in those days was pretty classical. You went into your general surgery, then sort of specialized. It was really, really interesting but it was full on. I mean, you spent your entire life working. Morning to night so these were the days of 100 hours week rotations. You were doing one in twos, one in threes. That's every other night and every other weekend on call. It was incredibly intense, but there was a lot more diversity and plasticity in those days. You could dip in and out of medicine because of the way you were chosen and how you were recruited. So it suited my personality because I liked moving around and doing different things and that sort of took me through, really until the late 1990s.   Pat Loehrer: You became a urologist, right?   Richard Sullivan: That's right. Exactly. So I trained up until the late 1990s, it was all pretty standard, I would say. And then I decided I was bored and moved into the pharmaceutical industry and I went to work in for Merck Damstadt at the time, which was relatively small. I was going to say family owned, but it was quite family-owned pharmaceutical company that was just moving into oncology. And because I'd done the background in cell signaling and cell signaling was really the backbone of the new era of targeted therapies, this seemed like a great move. To be absolutely blunt with you, I didn't last very long, less than a couple of years, I think, mainly because I just found the whole environment way too constraining. But what it did provide me with was a springboard to meet the wonderful late Gordon McVie, who I met at a conference. And he said to me, ‘You're absolutely wasting your time and life by staying in the pharmaceutical industry. Why don't you come out, get an academic job at University College London and become my head of clinical programs?” - for what was then the Cancer Research Campaign. This Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund were the forerunners of Cancer Research UK. So, you know, this was an offer that was too good to be true.   So I jumped ship immediately, went back into academic life and joined CRC. And really the next ten years was this extraordinary blossoming of the merger of CRC with the Imperial College Research Fund, the creation of Cancer Research UK, and that was Paul Nurse, and obviously Gordon and me, bringing that all together. And it was the heady days of that resurgence of cancer, the importance of cancer care and research in the UK. And coupled with that, of course, it was the blossoming of my interest, really then into the global health aspects of cancer, which really, Gordon, people like you mentioned already, the late, wonderful Peter Boyle, all those individuals were already engaged in and they were the ones that really kind of catapulted me into a more international scene.   Dave Johnson: Did you know Dr. McVie before you met him at this conference, or was it just a chance encounter?   Richard Sullivan: No, he actually met me via John Mendelson, because John had picked up a paper I'd been writing on basically the very early versions of Rituximab that we were working on and we were looking for pharmacodynamic endpoints. And of course, one of the things I noticed with the patients is they were getting all these skin rashes on their faces, and I thought, that's terrific. Just seemed to be the skin rashes seemed to be together with those individuals that had better responses. And I remember writing this paper for Signal, which was a kind of relatively minor journal, and I think it was John Mendelson who picked it up and must have mentioned something to Gordon. Gordon hunted me out down at a particular conference, said, "How on earth do you know about this, that you're not anything more than a surgeon?" He was absolutely right about, goodness sake, what do you know about pharmacodynamic endpoints, and I kind of had to sort of confess that I've gone kind of slightly off-piste by doing biochemistry and cells signaling and working with these extraordinary people. And that's how I essentially met Gordon. He was very good for spotting slightly unusual, eclectic human beings.   Pat Loehrer: I'm very curious about the intersection of your work and how you got into the British Army and Intelligence with medicine and how that even may continue even today. So explain that story, that part of your life a little bit to us.   Richard Sullivan: Yeah, it was very early on, as I went into medical school, one of the key concerns was making money. I looked around for ways of doing something interesting to make money, and most of the jobs on offer were bar jobs, et cetera. Then I thought, what about the Territorial Army, which, in the early days of the 1980s, was, and still is, a very large component of the UK Armed Forces. So I actually joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, as you would expect for someone going into medicine. I thought, okay, I'll join the Royal Army Medical Corps, and I was a combat Medical Training Technician, et cetera. So I went along, signed up, and I think I was about three months into training when I was at a place called Kew Barracks and some chap came up to me and handed me a little bit of paper. It said "Intelligence Security Group" and gave a phone number. He said, "This is more your line of work. Why don't you give them a ring?"   It was interesting because, in those early days, they were looking for analysts who could work on lots of different areas. In those days, most of the work was domestic.. Of course, there was counterterrorism with Northern Ireland, but there was also the Soviet Union, and the fallout from the Warsaw Pact, so they were still actively recruiting into that area. There are lots of details I can’t talk about, but it was relatively, to begin with, quite hard work and low level. It was a lot of learning foreign equipment recognition. It was what we consider to be standard combat intelligence. But the more time you spend in it, the more interesting it gets.   One of the areas they were looking to recruit into, which I didn't realize at the time but only later, was bioweapons and biosecurity. They needed people who understood biotechnology and the language of science, and who could be taught the language of infectious disease on top of that. That is quite a difficult combination to find. It’s very easy to teach people trade craft and intelligence, it’s very hard to teach them subject matter expertise. And they were really missing people who specialized in that area.   It was interesting because it was still a relatively open domain. There was still a lot of work going on in the counterterrorism front with biological weapons, and a lot around the Verification of the Biological Weapons and Toxin Convention. And it was an interesting, and I'd almost say parallel life. But your medical knowledge and the scientific knowledge I had already gained and was gaining was what was being looked for. So that was very early on and it has expanded over the years. More and more now we talk about health security and intelligence so that goes beyond what you would consider classic medical intelligence or Armed Forces - this is more about putting together the disciplines of intelligence with the securitized issues of, for example Ebola. That is a classic example. The big outbreaks in West Africa, the DRC, these are sort of the classic security intelligence issues - even COVID 19 for example - and mostly around the world, what we've seen is the intelligence apparatus taking front and center in that, whether you're looking at states like South Korea, et cetera. So I've moved more into that, and we do a lot of work and research into this as well. So we look at, particularly now, how to improve human intelligence in this area, the pros and cons of signal intelligence collection. And we go as far as to kind of ask sort of deep ethical and moral issues, for example, about how far should these sorts of apparatus of state be applied to public good issues like health. Because at the end of the day, when you're talking about the armed forces security sector, their primary job is for defense of the realm. So applying them in other areas obviously comes with a whole load of moral and ethical challenges. So, yes, it's been a fascinating journey, which, as I said, it extends all the way back to the late 1980s. It's been both complementary and different.   Dave Johnson: So, Richard, there's so many things in your resume that warrant exploration, but you served as Clinical Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade. What was that experience like, and what accomplishment are you most proud of?   Richard Sullivan: It was an enormous privilege. In your life, you always look at some jobs and you think, “How lucky I was to be there at that time with those people.” I think, first of all, enormous respect for the people that ran both Cancer Research Campaign, Imperial Cancer Research Fund – I mean, Paul Nurse and Gordon McVeigh, Richard Treisman – I mean, some extraordinary people who were leading both of these charities. And so to be there at that moment when they both came together, but more importantly as well, they had this most amazing global network of literally the illuminati of cancer research, spanning from basic science all the way through to epidemiology, public health, health systems. And in those days, of course, those individuals would come on site visits to the UK to look at the different units and evaluate them. So you can imagine when you're bringing those sorts of individuals across, you get a chance to go out with them, go drinking, talk to them, learn about their research, and also learn about the extraordinary breadth of research that was there in the UK. So you're condensing almost a lifetime's worth of learning into a few years. It was an absolute privilege to have been able to serve the community like that.   What I'm most proud of? Gosh, I like to think I suspect that most proud of trying to help a lot of the fellows get through to where they were going to actually get the most out of their careers. When I look back, there are lots and lots of names of people who started at a very early stage with funding from Cancer Research Campaign or the Imperial College Research Fund, who are now very, very senior professors and global research leaders. And I like to think that we did a little bit to help them along that way and also help to support individual research programs actually reach their full potential. Because I think research management and planning is often overlooked. People think of this as very transactional – it's not transactional. It's an incredibly important, serious discipline. It requires very careful handling to get the very best out of your research ecosystem. You've really, really got to get under the skin and really have a clear view of how you're going to help people. So I think that's what I'm most proud of – is the individuals who made it all the way through and now these great leaders out there.   But it was also, let's be honest, it was halcyon days. Great innovations, great discoveries, new networks growing, incredible expansion of funding in the UK, in Europe, in the USA. They were very, very good days. And it was, as I said, it was a real privilege to be there almost at the center for nearly a decade.   Dave Johnson: Let me follow up on that, if I may, just for a moment. You have had such an incredible influence. What characteristics do you think are most desired in a cancer investigator? What sorts of things do you look for, especially when you're thinking about funding someone?   Richard Sullivan: Creativity. I think creativity is really important. We talk about the word innovation a lot, and it's an interesting engineering term, but creativity is that spark that you can see it in people, the way they talk about what they're doing. They have this really creative approach. And with that, I think you have to have the passion. Research careers are long and difficult, and I'd probably suggest there's probably more downs than there are ups, and you have to have that passion for it. And I think along with that passion is the belief in what you're doing – that first of all, you have that belief that actually drives you forward, that what you know you're doing is good work, and that you're really dedicated to it. But obviously, hand on heart, when you're looking at researchers, it's that passion and that creativity.   I think it's a brave person to judge how any person's career or program is going to go. I don't think any of us are prophets. Even in our own land. We might be able to see slightly into the future, but there are so many elements that make up  “success”. It's funny when I look back and I think those who've been successful, it's people who've also been generally happy in their lives. They've found their careers in whatever shape or form, fulfilling, and they've generally been happy human beings, and they've managed to create a life around research which has given them meaning.   Pat Loehrer: Richard, you have reinvented yourself a number of times – this transition of going from like a basic scientist, a surgeon, moving into public policy and global policy. Tell me a little bit about the journey that's been in terms of academics. How do you learn? What were the transition points in each of these things to get you now to be, as I mentioned before, kind of the key person for Lancet’s commissions to somebody who was a rugby player?   Richard Sullivan: I suppose if you're being mean, you say, he clearly gets bored easily. But it's not that. Actually, I'm not very instrumental about life either. I mean, there are many people you will meet who have got their lives and strategies mapped out. They know they're going to do X next year, Y the following year. And for me, it's never been like that. For me, it's that excitement, that creativity of working on new and interesting things, but also knowing when you've run out of road in a particular area, where it no longer gets you out of bed in the morning, where you no longer feel happy, where you no longer feel you’re contributing. All of us talking today have the great privilege of having choice about our lives, about what direction our lives should take. And it's not a privilege one should squander lightly because many people do not have choices about their lives. It's all about chance. And having that choice to be able to move into different areas is really important because I said you can stick in the same thing because you think you have to. And you can become an unhappy, miserable human being. And that makes you a miserable researcher to be around. It makes you a terrible doctor. Probably makes you a terrible person, actually, generally, if you're having a miserable life.   So finding new things, that really you're passionate about how you do it, there's no shortcut in this. It's hard work. Readily admit I went back to law school of economics, retaught myself lots of things. There are no shortcuts for. Deciding if you're going to a new area is learning, learning, practice, practice, practice, and just doing the hard work. I think that's an ethos that was probably drilled into us quite early anyway in medical school, because that's how you approach medicine. That's how you approach science when I was growing up. And it was that idea of humility that you can never have enough learning, you will always learn off other people. That's probably what drove me and how I've managed to change and as I say, who knows what the future is? I don't know. Maybe one day I'll think about doing a bit of poetry.   Dave Johnson: Your comments about happiness and work resonate with Pat and me. I think we both feel like humor is really important for happiness and career success. And, you know, Osler once said, “The master word of medicine is work.” You can't get around that. It is what it is. And I think you just reaffirmed that.   Well, this concludes part one of our interview with Richard Sullivan, professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College, London and director of the King's Institute of Cancer Policy and co-director of the Conflict and Health Research Group. In the second part of this episode, Professor Sullivan will speak about the progress of global health, especially in conflict areas, and the need for young people to enter into the world of oncology and oncology research.   Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast where we will talk about just about anything and everything. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. Thank you again for listening.  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education ASCO.org. 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. 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.

Getting into oncology requires a lot of education and training. How does one deal with the success and stress of such a journey? In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast, moderator Dr. Aakash Desai – fellow at the Mayo Clinic along with guests Dr. Madison Conces – fellow at Cleveland Clinic, and Hematology/Oncology fellowship program directors Dr. Lori J. Rosenstein (Gundersen Health System) and Dr. Deepa Rangachari (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) explore the past, present, and future of Oncology Training. They discuss the transition from training to clinical practice (1:02), how to stay current with new treatments and guidelines (6:39) and what oncology training should look like in the future (12:12). Resources: ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 1) ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think really this idea of what I call work-life negotiation, is present very much during training, and one continues to be very present in your ongoing clinical practice. Aakash Desai: Hello, everyone, this is Dr. Aakash Desai, I am currently a Hematology and Oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, and this is part two of our discussion on the past, present, and future of Oncology training. My guests are, Dr. Madison Conces, Hematology/Oncology fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori Rosenstein, Hematology, and Oncology Fellowship Program Director, at Gundersen Health System, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, Fellowship Program Director, at Fellowship Program Director, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In part one, we gave our insight into what motivated us to get into Oncology, along with spotlighting the rewards and stresses of going through fellowship. Today, we're going to look at what the future of Oncology should look like. But first, I and my guests will explore the challenges of transitioning from training to clinical practice in Oncology. Lori, gives us her answer. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: You know, I think part of it is, you are in that final stage, this is the rest of your life. So, I think a lot of my fellows feel like when they're leaving fellowship, they have to find the perfect job, because it's where they're going to be for the rest of their life, and I think everybody who is out in practice knows that it's very unlikely you stay in the first job out of fellowship. And so, having less stress on yourself, of finding that perfect experience, I think, finding an experience that fits with your goals and aspirations, and what you see your life being like, is good enough. And then if you go there, and it turns out it's not a great situation for you, feeling free to go somewhere else, that's a different paradigm than I think fellows expect. They put so much stress on themselves. We're all type-A people, right? And you just want to make the right choice.  I've now had a couple of jobs. Each of them was the right choice for me at the time, and each of them taught me really important lessons that I have carried on to my next role. When I started my first job out of fellowship, I had no idea medical education was going to be a huge part of my life and career. I like to teach - that was what I knew about myself, but as I got more involved in medical education as a career, as a research opportunity, as probably the most important part of what I do in work, it changed where I was going to go. It changed what I ended up doing. You know, I ended up as a program director, and when I talked to my fellows and I say, you know, my job is research and taking care of patients, and teaching, and then medical education. To me, medical education is at the top, and that would not have been what I said as I left fellowship. So, having that openness to say, "I'm going to take in experiences and continue to grow and develop," is huge. Aakash Desai: Madison, what challenges do you think you are going to have to face when you start clinical practice from training? Dr. Madison Conces: I think for me right now, the main things on my mind are making sure I have the support I need after I graduate. I don't think I'll be abandoned anywhere, but I just want to make sure I join a supportive practice. And I think the second kind of big stress on my mind is doing research as a staff. Obviously, have mentorship, but as a fellow, I feel like there's a little bit more of a structure maybe with that, and so again, I'm not sure how that will be as a staff, but you'll be kind of more of the PI right on the project rather than a co-PI necessarily, and kind of going with patient care, like all the details, and making sure all T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted, and I know I'll be ready when it's time, but I just feel like it's kind of always in the back of my mind, like that it's coming - exciting, and I think one thing I try to reflect on, is I have made it; I'm literally the 10th year of my medical training. If I've made it this far, and I have problem solved, and helped patients, and worked as a team, and been a leader when I needed t0 this far, then I have to have faith that I can figure it out as a staff as well. Aakash Desai: Deepa, can you answer next? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: Couple of recurring themes: one, appreciating the interdisciplinary nature of the care that we give, and just recognizing that the need for help, whether it's help with regard to clinical decision making, or intuition, or best practice, or the need for help just in terms of supporting the needs of your patients, those things never, ever go away. That sort of segues very nicely into this idea of consistent and ongoing rapidity of the growth and knowledge that doesn't end when you come out of fellowship. Those things continue to evolve and change well after your fellowship training. You need to know when and how, and who to ask for help. You also need to develop paradigms for lifelong learning. What will it mean to you to be a learner during career span journey, where not only will the knowledge change, but the way in which you access that knowledge will change? And I think those are important things to recognize as challenges of making us transition. I think really this idea of what I call work-life negotiation is present very much during training, and one continues to be very present in your ongoing clinical practice. And what I mean by work-life negotiation is, on any given day or any given week, or any given month, the way in which you organize these relative priorities at home and at work certainly can change dramatically. And this idea that you can be in charge of refining, and reorganizing, and defining, and turning up or down the dial at home or at work, according to what's going on in your life, is very important to recognize, and so, I think that idea of paying attention to the need to continue to negotiate those factors on a regular basis is something that is very important as you transition from training to clinical practice. I would not go so far as to say that it necessarily ever becomes easier, but I absolutely think it becomes more manageable for two main reasons; one, you have more control over your career and your life as you move from training to practice, and two-- and I think we should be open and honest about this, you have more resources to do so - whether there's financial resources, or supportive resources. But both of those things, I think, make it more manageable, even if the challenges never go away. Aakash Desai: And now we'll move on to the next question. I think this is a question I think most fellows have in mind because they realize that as and when they go out to clinical practice, the treatments you learned during fellowship and what ends up happening when you're actually interactive, there's going to be a lot of difference because of all the new updates, and the new drugs, and others that come out. But how do you stay current with new treatments and guidelines, and what would you advise current fellows and future Oncologists, the resources to use for these kinds of updates? So, Madison, I'll start with you. Dr. Madison Conces: That's a tough question, I think because some groups, the field is changing so fast. I would say if I'm dealing with something I've not seen before, or I don't know in depth as much as maybe, you know, GI malignancies, which is mostly my interest right now, we'll start out with the NCCN guidelines, and I'm well aware there are plenty of people who don't follow those verbatim and all of that, and there is some interpretation with those, but at least, it gives you a structure to work with. And so, I like to start there, and they usually have at least updated, you know, genetic mutations and some drugs that are, you know, used for those mutations, and so any targeted therapy might be listed on that guidelines. And so, I usually start there and then go beyond there. I mean, I'm obviously talking in a very general sense here, because patients with a really rare cancer, you're just going to have to read up more and look at case reports, you know, see if there's any recent trials. That's kind of where I start, and I just kind of read from there. It's almost like a trickle-down effect in a way. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: So, Madison, I think that is also where I start - NCCN guidelines, up to date, those sorts of things. I will tell you that as I have gone along, I have become much more likely to phone a friend than I used to be. I used to be, as a fellow, like, "I'm not going to call that person." I still remember, as a fellow, I called somebody at MD Anderson to ask about Mantle Cell lymphoma, and he was absolutely lovely, but I was petrified. I was like, "Oh, he's going to think I'm an idiot, and why am I calling him?" Now, I know that people are out there and they're experts for a reason, and they're experts because they want to share their expertise, and it's very rare that someone is just completely not interested in helping you. But reaching out, I think there's lots of ways on social media that you can reach out, and my fellows, they think I'm silly because I tell them, "Look what I just found on Twitter." Like, if you're following the right people on Twitter, and people who you trust their opinions, and you know they're experts in their fields, and they say, "Hey, I was just at ESMO, and here's the slide from what I think is really important." That helps guide me to like, "Hey, this is something." Now, obviously, social media is what it is, and you have to take it with a grain of salt - I try not to trust complete strangers, but at least it leads me to new articles that I wouldn't necessarily have seen. Currently, on my desk, I probably have about 30 "Bloods" because I just am so behind in looking through those, so, knowing that someone who I know in Hematology said, "Hey, this is a really great review article on X, Y, or Z," I'm texting that to my fellows at night when that comes across Twitter. And likewise, there's some really good groups on Facebook that are specifically for Hem/Onc, that provide support, you know who the experts are, they're willing to help. ASCO and ASH both have ‘phone a friends’ where you can present difficult cases and MedNet -- I have no financial disclosures for any of these, by the way. MedNet is a really interesting ‘phone a friends’ where you can put in a question around a general concept with a clinical case, and get experts in the field to reply back. So, all of those things, I'm much more likely to do now, than I was when I was a fellow, just because I'm now less concerned that people would think I don't know what I'm doing; I'm much more likely to say, "Hey, I don't know what I'm doing, and I need help in this situation." Aakash Desai: That is so great to hear because social media really has become one of the primary sources of updates that we get. It's definitely not the ideal resource, but I think in a fast-paced world, I think having a few things on updates, I think definitely has been very helpful. How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: Yeah, being, staying current, it's really a challenge and I think lifelong learning is often interpreted as sort of like being willing to continue to learn over time. The trickiest thing about this is learning how to adapt the ways in which you learn over time, and so, I'm a very pen-and-paper sort of a person, I've had to really learn how to be savvy with using digital resources. I keep a very brisk PDF library of key literature, not only that I like to read and save to re-review myself, but also in terms of a lot of the teaching, and presentations, and talks, that I'm invited to give. And so, I think I've gone from a very pen-and-paper modality, and I still have the notebooks that I kept during my residency and fellowship training, and I still remember at the quarter left hand of a page, I wrote something that I really wanted to remember, but I've had to move away from that because I can't be walking around with pen and notebooks all the time. And so, I've developed PDF libraries and things that are available leveraging the technological support provided by my institution to maintain things on the cloud. I've incorporated podcasts into my lengthy commute time to, and from work, to sort of have a chance to keep up. And I think the honest truth is that everybody has to develop a system, and you have to be willing to be flexible and iterative with that system, and modify it, and grow it as time goes along. So, I don't have any simple equation for this other than a willingness to recognize the importance of being organized, and a willingness to be willing to change as the ways in which we learn and get information change, and a willingness to ask - that's the most important thing, is to be willing to ask others, and have others in your realm, who you know and trust, and can get candid and accurate answers from. Aakash Desai: So, now I have a very simple question, I think, to which you'll all have to give straightforward answers: What do you think Oncology training should look like in the future? What are your thoughts, Deepa? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think two of the things that we really have to acknowledge are; one, it has never been possible, nor will it be possible in the future, to think that three years of clinical training can prepare you for all of the questions, and nuances, and advancements that our discipline is fortunate to witness, or that we are fortunate to be a part of, and contribute to. So, really, fellowship training then has to be about developing a very rigorous infrastructure for critical thinking, and lifelong learning, and recognizing general frameworks and scripts for illness, and wellness, and therapeutic intervention, and understanding when are moments to push, and when are moments to sort of take a step back, and sort of revisit or refine the care trajectory along with our patients. I think that's one thing - sort of really just acknowledging there's no way we're going to be able to train people to see everything and know everything, so to really make sure that our training programs provide each trainee, and the program at large, with that sort of rigorous infrastructure and framework for thinking about complex problems, and really for working in complex interdisciplinary teams. I think the second thing that conceptually, I think, training program leaders should be thinking about is, helping make connections between different disease entities so that we're not training folks to think in disease-specific silos, but really think about emphasizing concepts that are shared across disease entities; thinking about making connections between common disease biologies, and things that may be similar or different, rather than memorizing a series of therapeutic pathways in stage III non-small cell lung cancer versus locally advanced breast cancer, versus early stage pancreatic cancer, but really thinking, what are the things that these different disease entities, at the biological level, or at the care coordination level, what are the things that are similar or different? I think this serves a couple of different things. From a learning science perspective, it sort of reinforces what we know are effective strategies for knowledge acquisition and retention, but I think also part of our obligation as training program leaders, is to make sure that we're training people to be thought leaders and innovators in their respective clinical and scholarly domains, and that really requires a lot of cross pollination of ideas - what is something that we know works well in lung cancer? How might that same way of thinking or science be applied to a patient in breast cancer? And how could we use those insights to innovate across different diseases? And I think a lot of this comes down to just acknowledging that this finite amount of training time will never be enough to fully expose people to every aspect of the breadth and depth of the discipline, let alone, how we're practicing now, or even thinking about the future. And so, really thinking about making sure that training programs create paradigms of thinking and collaborating, and lifelong learning that will go the distance rather than just emphasizing very specific content. Aakash Desai: Lori, what are your thoughts on this? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: From my standpoint, I think if I could totally change fellowship-- the thing that I'm most worried about with my fellows is trying to have all the medical knowledge for Hem and Onc by the time you finish three years. ACGME is so useful, as a program director, to help me guide what I need to be helping my fellows learn during that time. But for any of you who are program directors all know, there continues to be more and more things that we need to show that we're doing - we need to show that we're teaching our fellows multidisciplinary approaches to care of patients, they need to know about patient safety and quality improvement, they need to do research, they need to have all this medical knowledge. And as more and more things kind of come on the plate of what we need to turn out in three years, and more and more knowledge is out there, it becomes this point where we're not going to be able to do that. And if I had my choice, I would drop the medical knowledge part of knowing every esoteric drug mechanism and pathway, and having testing for that, and more, can we prove that they can critically think and take care of patients who are very complex? It's hard to test on that, and it's hard to just check that box and say, "Complete." But when you're a program director, and you're working very closely with fellows during that three years, you learn that - is this someone you want to take care of your patients or not? And they may be extremely able to take tests and answer questions correctly, and still not the Hem/Onc doctor that we would want them to be. In general, I would just say, less and less emphasis on test taking, and you know, regurgitating medical knowledge, and more and more emphasis on, where can you find the knowledge, and how do you apply it? Aakash Desai: So, as currently the programs are structured, I think most programs in the country are dual Hem and Onc boarded. Some programs do allow for single boarding, but I guess I want to ask thoughts on the future. There'll be more and more programs who will opt for singular boarding Hem or Onc, rather than a dual board. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah, so this is Lori. I think that single boarding is extremely challenging with the way our healthcare structure is laid out. So, you know, we all have to be very realistic that most of our fellows are going to leave fellowship, and are going to practice both Hematology and Oncology, and they're going to take care of the broad spectrum of all of those diseases. And in order to do so, their hospital is going to require they’re credentialed, and certified in both of those. So, I think if we start to either only have Hem, or only have Onc, people are going to have extended training, and it's going to become less and less attractive. It's already a really long slog to be a medical oncologist and hematologist, and making that longer, I really don't think it's the way to go. Aakash Desai: Madison? Dr. Madison Conces: I'll jump back to the prior question of where do I see fellowship training in the future. I definitely think that the critical thinking aspect will still be there. I think there'll have to be more of an emphasis on thinking through patient care, and not so much the regurgitation medical knowledge of memorization. I think, you know, core lectures, like I'm sure a lot of fellowships we do here, which I think are really important to have, maybe at the beginning of the year, just to kind of lay out the basics for first-year fellows, but I think beyond that, doing case conferences where it's not crystal clear what even the subject is going to be and walking through it, and making people answer questions even in more of an interactive manner is another way we could go about the conferences. Other than maybe some very obvious information, I think a lot of this we just need to make sure we know how to find it - like we've already mentioned the NCCN, up to date, I think probably a lot of us got used to doing some of that in residency, in terms of where to find information. We've all been-- I think most people who are in fellowship right now have trained through all their training with computer and the internet, so you know, I think a lot of us are very familiar with it. Aakash Desai: Yeah, I think completely agree. And I think, you know like Lori mentioned, fellowship should be more than just preparing for Boards. And especially, I think as we move on in our fellowships Madison, and I think I've realized that you know, to know what your blind spots are and when to ask for help is also a critical part of actually training during fellowship. And I think as I come towards the end of my fellowship journey, I think I've realized now that it's a continuation of a longer journey. You know, three years is just the tip of the iceberg, and there's obviously a whole lot of you know, things that I'm going to see in the future. So, that, to me, I think in the future, needs to be kind of emphasized for the fellows to kind of really be okay with the idea of not knowing it all at the end of three years. And as we've geared more towards-- and we talked a little bit about work-life negotiation rather than balance, I think will be also very important. Thank you. I think those are phenomenal points, and I really appreciate everyone's time today. So, that is all what we have for today. Thank you so much, Dr. Conces, Rangachari, an Dr. Rosenstein, for this candid and vivacious conversation on Oncology training. I'm sure our listeners will appreciate and be able to relate to many of the personal anecdotes that you've shared, and the insights that you have shared today. Thank you also to our listeners, we appreciate you tuning in to this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "subscribe". Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org. 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.

Getting into oncology requires a lot of education and training. How does one deal with the success and stress of such a journey? In Part One of this ASCO Education Podcast, moderator Dr. Aakash Desai – fellow at the Mayo Clinic along with guests Dr Madison Conces – Hem/Onc Fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori J. Rosenstein, Hematology and Oncology fellowship program director at Gundersen Health System and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, fellowship program director explore the past, present and future of Oncology Training. They discuss their motivation of pursuing oncology (1:55), the rewards (5:51) and the stresses (8:44) of fellowship, coping with the loss of a patient (12:52) along with methods to keep up with advances in the field (19:50). TRANSCRIPT Dr. Lori Rosenstein: What I learned in fellowship is completely different than what I know now. And I passed the Boards, I did well on the Boards, I stressed about them, but the Boards do not define who you are as a cancer doctor; they are just a step along the way. And so, really, I am much happier if a fellow has that thought process and that self-reflection and knowledge of what they do and do not know; they're going to be amazing when they're done. Dr. Aakash Desai: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Education podcast. My name is Aakash Desai, and I'm a Hematology/Oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. I will moderate this episode focusing on how Oncology training has changed in the last couple of decades. Do you think today's fellows have it easier with the electronic medical records, or is it rather harder with that? Given the much bigger pool of treatments to choose from and the constant stream of information, is it more difficult for Oncology fellows in this day and age? On a personal level, what challenges persist? How might we reimagine Oncology training in the future? To discuss all these questions and more, I'm joined by current Oncology fellow Dr. Madison Conces from Cleveland Clinic and two former fellows; Dr. Lori Rosenstein, a Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Program Director at Gundersen Health Systems in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, a Medical Oncologist, Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Director of Hematology/Oncology Graduate Medical Education at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. As we are all colleagues, I'm going to refer to everyone by their first names, if that is okay. And so, I'm going to pose my first question to Madison. Question is, what motivated you to get into Medicine and specialize in Oncology? And then, I will have Lori and Deepa answer the same. Dr. Madison Conces: Thank you, Aakash, for having me join this conversation today. So, I'll kind of answer the Medicine and Hematology/Oncology portion at the same time. I was in college when I actually was shadowing Dr. Pat Loehrer at IU over the summer, and I worked in the lab while also doing clinic with him one day a week. And I think being able to see the science and working to improve patient care while also witnessing the patient interactions, and the relationships, and the trust between the physician and the patient, is something I really admired, and that really drew me. So, I think that's kind of when it first sparked. And then, just during residency in medical school, my recurrent interactions with Oncology patients is what kind of definitively made me go that route. Dr. Aakash Desai: Lori? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: So, I was a little bit slow to figure out what I wanted; I thought Neurology or Internal Medicine, and then I had no plans after that, and I really debated a long time. You know, ultimately, now that I'm a Hematologist-- and this totally makes sense with my personality and everything else, what I love about Hematology is the mystery and the detective work that happens. It also happens in Neurology. That's what I liked was figuring out where the lesion was based on your exam. But in Hematology, we figure out where the lesion is, and then often, we can fix it. And to me, that was really exciting. So, I joke with my fellows all the time that I'm a blood detective, and the best thing ever happened yesterday - is that one of my fellows knocked on my door, and she came in, and she said, "Today, I'm a blood detective. I figured this out." And it's super cool. I think that's a really fun part about Hematology and Oncology. Dr. Aakash Desai: How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: My inspirations mimic those shared by my colleagues already today. At a very young age, a very dear family friend whose mother is a Pediatric Hematologist/ Oncologist, and I think I was immediately enthralled by her demeanor. And later in life, as a medical student, I had the opportunity to shadow her and really see her in action. And I think she really embodied all of the things that I always considered in terms of being a consummate physician. And I think, on a daily basis, what inspired me to become an oncologist is, really, what to this very day holds me deeply, devotedly to this lifelong career which is the ability to exhaust and frankly apply all of my intellectual, emotional, and interpersonal skills to achieve the best possible outcome for a patient and their loved ones in what is often very challenging and/or devastating circumstance. The inspiration, in many regards, from years ago is the ongoing inspiration. Even today, I'm very much informed by early experiences, seeing such folks practice in a way that I felt was truly the art and science of Medicine. Dr. Aakash Desai: I guess the next question I would want to ask both of you is: What is the most rewarding part of the fellowship? Lori? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: I hate to say this; I'm the oldest one of the group here, so I've been here the longest since I did my fellowship. But I will say, the best part of being a Heme/Onc doctor is the longitudinal relationships that you develop with those patients over time and the difference that you make in people's lives in the really short amount of time that sometimes you're with them. I think fellowship-- we'll talk later about the stresses and difficulties of fellowship - but knowing that you're in that final stage, you know, everything up until fellowship is, "I'm doing this to do the next thing. I'm doing this to do the next thing." There is really not a next thing after fellowship. That is what you're going to do. And I think that's the most exciting part - everything you're doing is for that purpose. You know, once you pass the Boards. Dr. Madison Conces: I agree with what Lori just said, and I think as someone who's in their final-- I'm a third-year Heme/Onc fellow right now, and I would agree where you're just like, "This is it. This is what I am going to do for the rest of my life." And there's excitement with that, there is some little bit of anxiety, I guess, under it, but there's a lot of excitement with it, and I think-- like when I sit and talk with patients now, I know we keep kind of reiterating a human connection, but I feel like at least as a fellow now, I'm able to explain things or understand things in a way I didn't before. And I feel like that makes me even more connected in their care, and also in a way kind of, I wouldn't say I understand, because I'm not in their position, but I'm able to, I feel like, meet them closer to the middle than I was before. So, I really appreciate that, I guess, growth I've had during fellowship, that's allowed me to, I think, be closer with patients and their journey. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Madison, this is Lori. So, I was just going to ask based on that; I see externally as my fellows are going through their training, there's usually just this moment where I can suddenly see that it's kind of clicking, and, you know, the hardness of first becoming a fellow all of a sudden, starts to get easier; and they really start to fly - they start to do fantastically. Do you remember if that was something that you experienced? Dr. Madison Conces: So, I was on Oncology consults August of my first year of fellowship, and I am September of my third year of fellowship. And I just noticed how quick I can be. Like in July, I was like, "Oh my gosh, I'm a third year. How am I going to be ready for next year?" But now that I'm on Oncology consults, again, seeing every type of solid tumor malignancy, specifically for solid tumors, obviously, but I see the pace I'm going compared to before; I know the depth of knowledge I have is much greater, I kind of am more aware of my deficits of knowledge. So, I would say, just even in the past week, I've noticed, like, "Wow, I've definitely gotten better." I don't know if I'd call that an aha moment, but I've definitely had that perception of myself in the past week. Dr. Aakash Desai: Yeah. I think, as a third-year fellow myself, I agree. I think that's, you know, very rewarding. Essentially, recently, I was giving a talk to our first-year fellows as a primer talk on lung cancer. And, you know, I realized like some of this comes so naturally to me now, and I remember myself being a newly-minted, first-year fellow, and just thinking like, "How am I ever going to make sense of all this data and everything that's coming out?" That's also, I think, the part of the personal growth - you grow as a fellow. I think it's also very rewarding, as the fellow that I've found. So, with that, I think one other thing that's been, you know, obviously, more recently brought out is resident burnout, fellow burnout. Just in general, position burnout has been the theme, and we are becoming very aware of this. And I think fellowship, being the training, it obviously has its own stressors. So, what are the most stressful aspects of fellowship that you've found? Tell us about the most stressful day you've had so far and how do you cope with stress and workload. And any tools or strategies that you would recommend to current fellows and other peers that would be useful. Dr. Madison Conces: I would say, probably, it's twofold in terms of what's most stressful about fellowship; one is the information which you had already mentioned, Aakash, and I think with that, is kind of the research aspect and balancing that. Like, how do we dive into research and look into spaces that are unknown, if you will, and then at the same time, know the data of the cancers we're already treating? I think the outpatient stressors are different from the inpatient stressors in a way because I think during inpatient, you're constantly engaged in these difficult situations patients are in, and there's not much of a break. And so, I think sometimes, not that we don't have difficult clinic days, but I think there can be a little bit more emotional drainage, and I think, in terms of trying to deal with that stress, like you mentioned-- I'm a distance runner. And so, even when I'm on service, I actually still make time for a run, even if it's just a quick run in the evening, or get it in before work if I'm on call that night, or something, sometimes just some light weights. That's been my crutch, if you will. I've done that all my medical training; I've been running for most of my life. And I've been very deliberate and diligent about continuing that, and I think, somehow, it kept my head above water some days. I do wonder what else I could do to help because I definitely have days where I feel like my running isn't enough. I think, as many people have felt since the COVID pandemic started, there's been a real struggle with burnout. Dr. Aakash Desai: Lori? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah. I think there's a lot that's stressful about Heme/Onc fellowship, and as a Program Director, you see the cycle. You know, first-year fellow comes in; they're brand new. That first six months, as I said previously, is just so, so hard, and you, as a program director, want to help. You know you want to get them through that. Because, you know, many people are coming in, it's a new hospital, it's a new system, it's new diseases, it's working in the clinic instead of the hospital-- most Internal Medicines are very, very hospital-focused. And then all of a sudden, you're in a clinic where it's almost all outpatients, and you don't know how that works, even though you should. You know, like people think, "I could be an internist; I could be done.” And yet all of a sudden, I'm right back at the bottom of the barrel, so to speak. You know, not knowing how to do anything. And so, that first six months for sure is really stressful because you feel like you've had autonomy; when you're a third-year resident, you're ready to go out, and then boom, you don't know what you're doing again. And so, at the same time, you are a young adult who often is having families, thinking about settling down, buying homes, you know, growing up, and that just adds to all of the stress because you have the stress at work, and then potentially, stress at home. For me, I had my first child when I was a resident and then had my second as a third-year fellow. And so, I had these different stresses as I was going through my training. You know, some of my fellows have had parents die while they've been in fellowship or parents that they're helping to take care of. So, not only are us older people in kind of the sandwich generation, but I think younger people in fellowship are seeing that as well. So, yeah, I think there's a lot going on that can make it challenging. But my encouraging part of it is that it gets easier. You start to figure out where you can find the information that you need, how to make things happen, and there's just this tipping point where suddenly it becomes easier, and then I see that they're back having fun again. You know, that, "Oh, this is such a really interesting disease, and I've never seen this presentation before, and I looked in the literature, and there's only three cases." You know, that passion and that excitement for finding new things, or, you know, "I wasn't sure if this chemo was going to work, and I gave it, and they're back today, and they are so much better." Just that excitement and passion. It's so wonderful to see as a program director. Dr. Aakash Desai: The other thing is also; I feel like the stresses are different as you kind of evolve through your fellowships. So, I think, as Lori very rightly pointed out, like the first year is, you know, just getting used to the information, the flow, and everything. But what I've found particularly challenging is, as you enter the second and the third year, and when you have patients that you continue to follow, just by the nature of the disease and the field that we are in, you will end up having some patients who you lose along the way. And I think that dealing with it emotionally; I think because during the first two years of your fellowship, you know, you meet them every few weeks, you kind of get attached to them, and you know what their life is like, you share part of your life with them. How have you found your way of coping with loss of the patients that you kind of have a deep connection with? I think that's part of the stressful aspect of, like, later years of your fellowship, I feel. Any insights on that, Lori? I mean, you've obviously been doing this much longer than me and Madison. How do you deal with this kind of loss and keep going every day, even with the same enthusiasm? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah. I think that absolutely is a really challenging part of our field, but it's also part of the blessing of our field - is that we are there, and we can help negotiate people through difficult times. And if we're doing this well, we have seen this coming. We have been able to prepare people; we've been able to make sure that we're honoring the things that are important to them at the end of life, and we're working to make sure they're not in pain and that they have their family members near them. And so, for me, that's always that rainbow at the end - is that I was able to assist them in this process. We all know we can't stop death. We may, you know, fool ourselves into thinking this carbo/etoposide is going to change the world for this patient. But I think being realistic about what we can and cannot do. For me, having a great conversation with a patient and their family and knowing that I've helped them, even if the end result is not that they have another 20 years to live, is super meaningful. And I think most oncologists that can do this for a long time find the value and the meaning in that part of their job. I think if you're constantly trying to stop death and trying to, like continue chemo till the very bitter end, this could be a very draining job. Dr. Aakash Desai: You know, and more and more, we are realizing the importance of supportive care in Oncology. And I think what you just pointed out is that, you know, improving someone's quality of life, even for two months, is also very rewarding in its own way. So, thank you for saying that. The next question I have is especially geared towards you and Deepa for fellowship program directors: How has Oncology training changed since you were a fellow? And is training for current fellows harder or easier do you think? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: You know, any program director who trained a long time ago will give you the woes of, you know, ‘I had to walk both ways with no boots in the snow’. I think that probably the biggest change since I was a resident is work-hour restrictions, which came sometime during my residency. So, I was a fellow when there were work-hour restrictions. But to be very honest, in fellowship, you almost never are reaching that 80-hour work week like you would've been when you were on an ICU rotation in Internal Medicine. Most of my fellows, you know, they log their hours every week, and we're somewhere around 40 to 45 hours a week, depending, you know, there's going to be times where it's busier. So, I think the work hours are less of an issue, but that doesn't mean it's easier. And I think now, the most difficult challenge is, all the new treatments, all of the options-- it used to be-- we had two choices; you could do this, or you could do this. And now, there's all these nuances, and nuances are very challenging when you're first learning. You know, you can see this study, and it was this compared to this, and option A was better. But then you would talk to your attending, and they say, "Well, option A was better unless you were from some esoteric country," and then you know you did worse. So, you start to really piece apart, and you know, you gain your basic understanding, but then start to try to apply that to your patients. And that is, I think, a very big challenge. Dr. Aakash Desai: How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think it's become harder in that it has become incredibly more nuanced than incredibly more sophisticated. Three things, in particular, come to mind; one's are the burgeoning evidence basis for what we do and the prospects for advancing our knowledge and understanding and thereby have better interventions that's certainly been a seemingly explosive growth in our knowledge and understanding, especially considering the humble origins of our field. They work daily with colleagues and friends who remember those days when Heme/Onc was sort of an esoteric field of people whose methods were considered bizarre at best, and that's absolutely not where we are anymore. It's an incredibly exciting time, so a lot of information to keep up with. Secondly, one of the things that maybe we didn't really appreciate at the time was true before but is increasingly true now is the importance of recognizing your role as the leader of a very sophisticated interdisciplinary team. Thankfully, I think this is true for all patients with any illness, but thankfully, in our disease area, care by an expert village is really the new norm, not the exception. And sort of learning how to function in those interdisciplinary teams in an incredibly collaborative and productive way across the spectrum of a patient's care and needs is incredibly nuanced, more so than ever before. And something that fellows, at the earliest instance of their training, really need to learn to be agile with. So, I think that's something that is also both a sign of progress, but also an added layer of nuance and sophistication. And I think the final thing is that there are so many diverse ways in which someone can have it truly impactful and fulfilling career within Heme/Onc, and I think this makes fellowship also that much more exciting and complicated, nuanced, really trying to understand within your career span, what is the pathway or the different pathways, honestly, that you may choose to train and prepare for and conduct yourself is really dizzying. And I think we really are expecting a lot in terms of our fellows these days to sort of be willing to understand those options and understand which options are most meaningful to them and then prepare in a very deliberate and rigorous way for those specific career interests. So, kudos to all of you. You guys are doing an incredible job; you are the future of our field. And those of us who run programs, direct such programs, we really have a continued challenge and inspiration to meet your needs. Dr. Aakash Desai: The field is moving so fast that I can say, like when I joined fellowship in first year compared to now, I think there is a lot more treatment options. And I think as fellows also, it's so difficult to keep up with this, you know, constant stream of information. So, Madison, how do you think things have changed since you joined fellowship, and how do you envision yourself, you know, resources to use to kind of keep yourself updated? Dr. Madison Conces: I would agree with both of you. It's definitely changed. It's also interesting because it's not always the addition of treatments; it's sometimes showing that adding this extra drug does nothing. And so, all of a sudden, you've now changed the paradigm again for how you treat that patient. And I think for me, what I've found during fellowship is-- and maybe Lori would enjoy this part, but the thinking of it, right? So, even Hematology, I definitely think of as the puzzle, but in general, all these patients, there's something about them, whether their tumor's genetics, or the family history, or any of their germline mutations they have. So, there's always this kind of; every patient is very specific. And so, I think what has helped me, at least during fellowship, is in clinic, to go through that, in that mindset with the staff I'm working with. And I think sometimes, at least, I've been fortunate to have staff who do a great job of making sure I'm thinking of everything, which is like, "Oh, if this doesn't work, what are you going to do next?", which makes me think about, "Well, what do we know about the patient? What do we know about their tumor? What are the other options?" I'm someone who learns by doing, which I think is many of us at this point, and so, I think the constant feedback from staff of kind of pushing us to think on our own is going to be helpful in the long term, rather than expecting us to come in remembering, you know, every part of the NCCN guidelines, because those are going to change as well. So, we've really got to be able to think through these patients' cases like puzzles, and also, you know, a lot of these patients don't read these textbooks a lot of times. Lori was talking about seeing the excitement of her fellows. Again, you know, yesterday I saw a patient who has paraneoplastic nephrotic syndrome. It's like these things; we have to be able to keep pace with essentially our patients in their pathophysiology. And the more we learn, the more kind of breath that's going to be. It's going to be wider and wider in terms of what we have to know, and I'm not sure knowing it all is going to be the way to go. And for me, I try to know the basics, and then beyond that, really look at the patient. And instead of thinking about every treatment for that whatever cancer of the patient, look at, "What do we already know about it, and what can I go from there?" Dr. Lori Rosenstein: That's so interesting, Madison. And Deepa and I had talked about this; you know, as program directors, my goal for fellows is that they learn how to think about cancer, and how to have a really regimented way of going through a new patient, and thinking through, "Do I have the diagnosis? Do I have the stage? Based on those things, what do I know about the patient and their disease to make my treatment plan?" And that's the same for every cancer. Essentially, you're going through this regimented process. If I have a fellow that I know can think through a cancer, to me, it doesn't matter if they know that Merkel cell is associated with the Merkel polyomavirus virus. They may never see a Merkel cell, or they may see it once. So, that regurgitation of information that you are so used to doing for Boards and for tests, to a program director, is really so much less important than, "Can you think through the process? Can you find the own holes in your knowledge base? And then, can you find where to fill those holes so that you can take great care of patients?" If I could tell any first-year fellow coming in, don't panic about your knowledge base because what I learned in fellowship is completely different than what I know now. And I did well on the Boards, I stressed about them, but the Boards do not define who you are as a cancer doctor. They are just a step along the way. And so, really, I am much happier if a fellow has that thought process, and that self-reflection, and knowledge of what they do and do not know; they're going to be amazing when they're done. Dr. Aakash Desai: This kind of reflects how the program directors in our field actually, you know, are thinking beyond just like, "Oh, you need to score good on the Boards," because they realize the importance of thought process, and how to come up with treatment plans. So, thank you, Lori. I think this is phenomenal, and I'm sure all the fellows listening to this podcast will be delighted to hear what you just said. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Now, you still have to pass the Boards; that's still a key component. But I think if you polled program directors about what we think about Board passing, most of us would say it's probably sixth or seventh on the list of importance. Dr. Madison Conces: Yeah. I would actually add onto that. We've been talking about thinking through processes, and through these cases, and using, you know, the thinking process more than just memorization. And I think also in fellowship, we are trained to also have these conversations with patients, right? Because it's not always what would be the right answer when we think about it in a treatment sense, but if that doesn't match what the patient wants, then it's not the right treatment. And how do we adjust that based on what's in the patient's best interest or what the family wants, depending on what the situation is, obviously? I think fellowship is about this critical thinking, but also in the context of the fact that we're taking care of this human being in front of us. Dr. Aakash Desai: Well, this concludes part one of our discussion on the past, present, and future of Oncology training. My guests have been Dr. Madison Conces, Hematology/Oncology fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori Rosenstein, Hematology and Oncology Fellowship Program Director at Gundersen Health System, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, Fellowship Program Director at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In the second part of this episode, we will explore the different ways to stay current with new treatments and guidelines, as well as our guests' insights into how Oncology training should look like in the future. Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into this ASCO Education podcast. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at: education@asco.org.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click "Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org. 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.           Resources: ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 1) ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org

Vaccine development is a tremendous scientific breakthrough. In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast episode, Dr. Doug Lowy, Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute describes overcoming the hesitancy of taking vaccines in the era of Covid (:57), the scientific impacts of other nations like China (3:54), the importance and the standing of the NCI (5:10) and the future of oncology (10:36). If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity, at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a colleague and friend, and Medical Oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. This is the second half of our Oncology, Etc., conversation with Principal Deputy Director of the NCI, and Chief of the Intramural Laboratory of Cellular Oncology in the Center for Cancer Research, Dr. Doug Lowy. In part one, we chatted with Dr. Lowy about his interest in cancer, which was developed through his personal academic experiences, including that of his parents, as well as his groundbreaking work on the HPV vaccine with Dr. John Schiller. Today, we're going to continue our conversation with Dr. Lowy by asking him about overcoming the hesitancy of taking vaccines in the era of COVID.   Dr. Doug Lowy: Pat, it's very difficult. There was some vaccine hesitancy when the HPV vaccine was introduced initially. My view is that the people you want to speak to and with, are the people whose minds can be changed. So, I don't try to change the minds of people who are opposed to vaccination for one reason or another, but instead, try to talk with people about evidence, but directing it towards those people whose minds potentially can be changed. A big advantage with the HPV vaccine is that this has been going on over a number of years. With COVID, everything happened in a greatly truncated way. So, the vaccine was introduced less than a year after the pandemic. But concomitant with that was a lot of vaccine hesitancy, and I think that that's going to be difficult to overcome. What I have really worried about is whether the vaccine hesitancy associated with COVID might extend to other vaccines and not just to the HPV vaccine, but to childhood vaccines, et cetera. The national data for 2020 and 2021 for HPV vaccination is almost counterintuitive and provisionally reassuring, both. Compared to 2019, the last full year without the pandemic, the number of people being vaccinated with the HPV vaccine went up between '19 and '20, and between '20 and '21, went up again. So, at least by that metric and through that time, it doesn't look as though the vaccine hesitancy associated with Covid is extending to the HPV vaccine, at least in the short term. So, what we've seen between 2019 and 2021 is that HPV vaccine uptake among teenagers actually has gone up each year. So, at least in the short term, the vaccine hesitancy associated with the Covid vaccine does not seem to have extended to the HPV vaccine. Dave Johnson: So, Doug, I'm going to shift gears just a little bit. I read recently, in Science, that China had overtaken the United States in terms of scientific publication and impact; and I'm wondering what you think about that, and what we need to do to retain our longstanding leadership in that role. Or does it really matter? Dr. Doug Lowy: If China's research, if their quality is outstanding-- I mean, there's nothing wrong with another country making important contributions to biomedical research. I don't see this, per se, as a competition. Perhaps, it's because I'm just looking at it through the lens of cancer research, and we think that cancer research is much too big to be done exclusively through support of NCI, exclusively in the United States, et cetera. So, to me, if other countries are doing high-quality research that can help people all over the world with regard to cancer- Pat Loehrer: -Let me ask you this, Doug, you've been at the NCI for 50 years. And I calculated that you've served under nine presidents, and of the NCI's 16 directors, you've served with 10 of them- Dr. Doug Lowy: Really ancient. Thank you. Pat Loehrer: -so, with all that, what do you think; one, about the importance of the NCI, and then also, we'll ask you a little bit about the reflections of the directors, and lessons learned from them, and maybe, some good stories. So, where do you think the NCI stands, and why is it important for the world, and for the country? Dr. Doug Lowy: What's really important is the funding from Congress. It is long-term and sustained. Cancer research can't be done in two or three years. It just takes a while to do really high-quality cancer research. And what really counts, from my perspective, is you can rely on the government to be strongly supporting cancer research through the NCI. In other words, private philanthropy is very important, but private philanthropy can decide, "Tomorrow we don't want to be doing what we have been doing." It's very much like pharmaceutical companies - they can decide that they're not going to be doing it. But it's almost impossible for us to say, "We are no longer going to support basic science research. Okay? We're not interested in investigator-initiated research," because, of course, we are. And that's the bedrock of development. We can't say, "We're no longer interested in doing clinical trials," because, of course, we are, because we can't make the progress that we need to make without clinical trials. We can't say, "We're not interested in doing implementation research," because it's one thing to have a new approval, it's something else to have it widely and equitably disseminated, and doing some kind of research with implementation. Science is critically important, and this applies for prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, all of these areas that NCI supports, and will continue to support. The proportion may vary from one year to another, from one director to another, but all of those areas are going to continue to be supported. Dave Johnson: So, Doug, during your various tenures as the interim director, what program or programs are you most proud about? Dr. Doug Lowy: Instead of programs that I'm most proud of, I would say that working with NCI staff is what enables the achievement. The mission of the NCI is just incredible, and virtually everyone on the staff buys into the mission; which is, to help people live longer and healthier lives through research-related advances in cancer. That's what people do. And the first time when I was Acting Director, was the first Cancer Moonshot, so I was involved in that. But tremendous amount of credit needs to go to the Obama administration for wanting to do it, to the Congress for its strong bipartisan support for the initial Cancer Moonshot, and to my NCI colleagues, and then extramurally, for everybody who really got on board and tried to do things. So, this is very much a team effort, and it's not limited to NCI, you know, extramural colleagues are critically important to everything that we do. Pat Loehrer: Doug, you've alluded to the fact that you've served under so many different presidents and directors, and they all have different leadership styles. If you were gonna be a mentor on leadership, what advice would you give to the listeners as to what makes a good leader, and perhaps, what makes a not-so-good leader too? Dr. Doug Lowy: I think that there is a spectrum - there are some people who lead by intimidation, and some people who lead by example; and all of them can be effective leaders. My own view is that I like to lead by example because I really feel that that leads to very high morale. People who lead by intimidation may get a lot of work out of people, but it is nowhere near as satisfying as knowing that you are an extraordinarily, highly-valued member of a team and that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So, I think that having tremendous admiration and respect for the people that you work with, is absolutely number one, and number two, is listening to them. You don't always need to do what they advise, but people really thrive on being listened to, and everybody wants to make a difference. And so, help them to achieve that goal. When they look good, you'll look good. Dave Johnson: So, Doug, I'm attending on the general medical wards right now. Just got asked today by the medical students to give them some advice about the future of Oncology, and where did I think it was going. Before I go back and meet with them, I'd love to get your thoughts. Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, the future of oncology is extraordinarily bright. On the one hand, we've made tremendous progress. On the other hand, there are still 600,000 people dying every year in the United States from cancer, and worldwide, the problem is even greater. But what's going to happen in the future is, we will understand the causes of cancer better, and so, that will enable us to prevent more cancers. I think there's going to be an enormous increase in the opportunities for screening, and to reduce either the incidence of cancer or increase the outlook for people with cancer, because asymptomatic cancer will be diagnosed at a substantially earlier time point. And then when it comes to treatment, my view is, we've barely scratched the surface. With the opportunities for making drugs, immuno-oncology, and who knows what other areas lie in front of us, are almost limitless. The Biden administration has a goal for the reignited Cancer Moonshot of decreasing the mortality rate over the next 25 years by 50%. What I think we need to do is to decrease mortality over the next 25 years by even more than that, and in addition, to make progress against those cancers where progress thus far has been limited. Take pancreatic cancer as a specific example; 10 years ago, the RAS oncoproteins were thought to be undruggable targets. But last year, we had the first approval from the FDA of a RAS-specific inhibitor. The good news is, that can target about half of lung cancer that has mutant RAS. The bad news is, it targets very few people with pancreatic cancer who have mutant RAS. On the other hand, there now are G12D inhibitors where there's excellent preclinical data and hopefully, sometime next year, be starting clinical trials. G12D mutations account for about half of people with pancreatic cancer. If the success there mirrors the success that we've seen thus far with lung cancer, it means that we are potentially on the way to actually making a difference in outlook for people with pancreatic cancer. But I just see this as one of many opportunities as time goes forward. Pat Loehrer: You did, this week, something that no one has done, and that is, to turn the reins of the directorship of the Cancer Center, over to the first woman director, Monica Bertagnolli. What was in your letter that you left on the desk that you gave her? What kind of advice did you give her? Dr. Doug Lowy: My advice that I gave her was really, "How can I help you the best and the most?" Dave Johnson: That's awesome advice. No doubt about it. It's a really historical moment, and of course, we, who are members of ASCO, are particularly proud that Monica has taken the reins, as a former ASCO president. And Doug, we really appreciate you taking the time to spend with us. It's been incredibly interesting, and congratulations on an amazing career. Pat Loehrer: Absolutely. Dave Johnson: And also, thanks to our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. As you know, this is an ASCO Educational podcast, where Pat and I will talk about just about anything. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like us to interview, please by all means email us at: education@asco.org      Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education Podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "subscribe". Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center, at: education.asco.org.  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.

Vaccine development is a tremendous scientific breakthrough benefitting countless human lives. In Part 1 of this ASCO Oncology, Etc. Education Podcast episode, you will hear from the pioneering co-developer of the HPV vaccine Dr. Doug Lowy who serves as Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute , He speaks about how he got into the cancer field through the influence of his parents (4:49), the path that led him to focus on HPV (8:04), and his collaborative professional partnership with fellow HPV vaccine developer Dr. John Schiller (9:31). He also discusses his ongoing trial of one-dose administration, which promises to boost HPV vaccine uptake and reduce the burden of cervical cancer globally. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm Director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. Dave Johnson: I'm Dave Johnson. I'm a Professor of Medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. Pat Loehrer: And this is Oncology, Etc. Dave, what have you been reading lately? Dave Johnson: Well, you and I have talked about a couple of books, but I thought in light of our guest today, I would mention a book I actually read probably nearly 60 years ago called The Microbe Hunters by Paul de Kruif - very interesting book, written, if memory serves me correctly, in the '30s, about many of the early bacteriologists and physicians who were interested in microbes; Pasteur, for example, and others. And I don't remember all the details, but it certainly was one that was influential for my choice of Medicine as a career, much like Arrowsmith. It was a really impactful book. I doubt many of our listeners today would've read that book, but if one is interested in the history of Medicine, it's a really interesting book to read. Pat Loehrer: You said 60 years ago. Okay, when I was reading books back then, it was about Dick and Jane. Dave Johnson: It's my understanding that you're not past Dick and Jane yet. Pat Loehrer: Good, good point. Good point. Well, it's such an incredible honor today, we have Dr. Doug Lowy as our interviewee today. Doug is the Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute and Chief of the Intramural Laboratory and Cellular Oncology Program at the Center for Cancer Research. He has served as Acting Director more than any other person - he served as Acting Director between April of 2015 and October of 2017, between April of 2019 and October of 2019, and most recently, he served as an Acting Director until Monday of this week, October 3rd. I had a chance of seeing Doug, I think, about a year ago, a week after he took over, and this is great to have that bookend here. He has had this title of Principal Deputy Director since July of 2010 and he leads many of the NCI's key scientific initiatives. He graduated from Amherst College, I think in Art History, I may be wrong on that, received his medical degree from New York University School of Medicine, trained in Internal Medicine at Stanford, and did a Dermatology Residency at Yale. His focus has been on papillomavirus and the regulation of normal and neoplastic growth. The papillomavirus is in close collaboration with Dr. John Schiller with whom he's co-authored 150 papers over the last 25 years. In the 1980s, he studied the genetic organization of papillomaviruses and identified oncogenes that were encoded by the virus, and he's been integrally involved and instrumental in the development of the papillomavirus vaccine. His laboratory did work with the RAS gene family and other suppressor genes, and as you can guess, he's just one heck of a smart guy. For his body of work and together with Dr. Schiller, they received the Federal Employee of the Year Award in 2007 and the Partnership for Public Service Award, the Dorothy P. Landon American Association for Cancer Research Prize for Translational Research, the Albert B. Sabin Gold Medal in 2011. In 2007, he got the Medal of Honor for basic research from the American Cancer Society, and President Obama awarded him the National Medal of Technology and Innovation in 2014. And in 2017, he received the Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, which is considered one of the most prestigious honors in biomedical research. He is listed in the Institute of Scientific Information as one of the most highly-cited authors in Microbiology, and obviously, he's a member of the National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Medicine. Although these are notable honors, I'm told that none of them match the opportunity to speak with Dave and I today, and we really thank you so much, Dr. Lowy, for joining us. Thank you. Dr. Doug Lowy: Pat, I am speechless. Pat Loehrer: I so wish that Dave Johnson was, but could you tell us a little bit about your upbringing and your early life? Dr. Doug Lowy: Sure. I grew up in The Bronx, in New York City. I'm the younger of two boys. My brother is two and a half years older than I am. Both of my parents were general practitioners. My parents were both Americans, but my father had a classic sophomore slump when he was an undergraduate and was unable to get into a medical school in the United States. And so, he actually went to medical school in Austria, in the University of Vienna, and needed to learn German in order to go to medical school. But my parents were both very successful private practitioners. They had separate practices but practiced in the same office, and I learned about medicine, in large part, through them. They would go to lectures, and from the time I was probably nine or 10 years old, they would be telling me about cancer, and I became interested in that area. And then, when I was 16, my mother developed a deep melanoma on her leg, and so, cancer literally came home. And luckily, she had very good surgical treatment and lived for almost another 40 years - she lived until she was 80 and actually died of metastatic stomach cancer. But I got involved in thinking about cancer really through my parents. They talked with me about the role of tobacco in the development of lung cancer, and I heard about the Hammond and Horn report from the mid-1950s when it came out. Pat Loehrer: That was when Dave was reading the Microbe Hunters. Dr. Doug Lowy: I was reading it at about the same time. I must say that, although I found it very interesting, it didn't really speak to me, and now that's what I need to go and do. Although, in retrospect, that's what I've ended up going and doing. Pat Loehrer: Was it because of your mother that you had an interest in dermatology? How did you swing into there? Because we think of you mostly as a translational researcher. Dr. Doug Lowy: The dermatology was really when I was at NYU. I worked in the laboratory of Jan Vilcek, who had recently come from Czechoslovakia to NYU, and in his lab was Alvin Friedman-Kien, who was a dermatologist. And Alvin subsequently was among the first people to identify the AIDS epidemic through the Kaposi sarcoma. But Alvin talked with me about dermatology, and potentially, this might be an interesting field for me to go into. And then, when I went to Stanford, I did Internal Medicine for internship and a year of Medicine, and I did a rotation in Dermatology. And I was very impressed that the people who smiled the most were the dermatologists. And they had time also to think about what was going on with patients. And since I was at Stanford, it was a tertiary care facility and so we were taking care of people who were terribly sick, largely people with lymphoma and other types of cancer. And I thought that I might be better suited to taking care of people who were less sick than that. Dave Johnson: Is that where your interest in Papillomavirus started? Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, that was indirect. I first went into dermatology and then said, "Well, I want to be doing research. What can I do in research that might be connected both with dermatology as well as with cancer?" And the closest that I was able to come was Papillomaviruses. And when I started working on them, they were not yet clearly associated with cancer the way they are today. It was known that they were associated with an uncommon condition called Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis or EV and this is a condition where people have widespread HPV infection. And on sun-exposed areas, a subset of them develop skin cancer, but it's distinctly uncommon. The real interest, if you will, came from the identification of HPV infection and cervical cancer, which is one of the more common cancers, especially on a worldwide basis. And that was really the link with cancer. Pat Loehrer: You had an incredibly long-term collaboration with John Schiller, and as I mentioned, you published more than Dave and I have written letters to our wives with this man. Tell us a little bit about that relationship, that friendship, and that professional partnership. Dr. Doug Lowy: John, actually, he was at the University of Washington in Seattle doing his PhD, and it was so long ago that he sent me a letter, and I had been doing research on retroviruses. He sent me a proposal that he was doing his PhD in bacterial genetics, but he wanted to learn about mammalian viruses and so was writing to me about doing work with retroviruses. I wrote back to him and said, "That's very interesting, but I had just started working on papillomaviruses." And I thought the room for development and learning more was even greater there than with mouse retroviruses, which is what I was working on and what he was proposing to do some post-doctoral research on. Of course, he had never heard of papillomaviruses, so he had to look them up. But he developed a project with papillomaviruses and was able to get an NIH award to come as a postdoctoral fellow to work in my lab, and he actually did the research that he proposed, and it led to our improved understanding of the genetic organization of papillomaviruses. But then, it was clear that John and I got along very well, and it looked like both of us might be able to work together. So, he ended up getting tenure after he had been at NIH for about 10 years. And it's just been an amazing collaboration for me because John knows a lot of things that I don't know, and he thinks that I know some things that he doesn't know. And working together has been terrific, really, because when one of us doesn't want to do anything about something, the other one tends to step in. And so, it's been an amazing partnership that we have had for this time. Dave Johnson: This is really important. One of the reasons we agreed to do this podcast is to provide insight to up-and-coming faculty and fellows about mentoring and partnerships. What is the most important aspect of your partnership with Dr. Schiller? Dr. Doug Lowy: I think treating him as an equal colleague from day one, that probably is important. And then, since I was senior and he was junior, trying to make sure that he got credit when discoveries were made because the default, otherwise, was going to be that it was Doug Lowy who was doing things, whereas it was very clear that John was a key part of this collaboration. Dave Johnson: Now that your relationship is a long-lasting and mature one, how do you make those decisions now? Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, we've just worked together for a long time, and we enjoy talking, and actually, over the last few years, we are collaborating less rather than more. We're still very close colleagues, and we're in the same lab. But since I've been Deputy Director, especially during the last seven and a half years, I've been Acting Director for about three and a half out of the last seven and a half years, and there just isn't enough time to devote to the lab. And it would've been inappropriate for me to have been considered a co-principal investigator with John, who has gone off and done a lot of amazing research, more or less independent of me. Like everything else in this world, it develops, it continues to evolve, but we still are very close colleagues. As Pat was mentioning, this is my first week in several months not being Acting Director, and yesterday, John and I simply reveled in the opportunity to talk informally for 30 minutes without having to look at my watch because I needed to go someplace else. Dave Johnson: I'm glad you've reviewed that. I think a lot of junior faculty and fellows think that being in a leadership position is a cush job, and I'd tell them that it defies the laws of Physics because all poop flows uphill in this setting, and you have to deal with it. Pat Loehrer: I do want to spend some time talking about the NCI and your role there, but talk a little bit about how you have seen and where you envision that vaccines, particularly, HPV and maybe hepatitis vaccine - where you see it's been, and where it's going, and the impact that this potentially has on cancer worldwide? Dr. Doug Lowy: Well, one of the areas that John and I are continuing to work on closely is more research on the HPV vaccines. We noticed, quite a number of years ago, that the HPV vaccine performance was quite different from that of other so-called subunit vaccines. So, this is not an attenuated live vaccine, but instead is a subunit - it's just made up of one protein of the papillomavirus, the protein that gives rise to the outer shell of the virus. And what we noticed in a clinical trial that we were doing with colleagues in the intramural program, but who are medical epidemiologists - they are the leaders of the research, and what was happening was that although everyone was supposed to get three doses, there were some young women who were getting either two doses or one dose, in the trial, and this is in Costa Rica, where historically, cervical cancer has been the number one cancer of women. And it turned out that there was no difference in level of protection whether the women got one dose, two doses, or three doses. And even more surprising was that the antibody levels over the first few years were remarkably stable. And this led John and me to wonder whether it might be possible to get away with just a single vaccine dose. So, a lot of the research that we have been doing with our colleagues over the last few years is to develop stronger evidence that one dose of the vaccine would be sufficient to confer strong protection that's long-lasting. We've now carried out the studies in Costa Rica, with the initial trial to more than 10 years, and the antibody levels continue to be very stable, and the protection does not seem to have waned. Because this was not a pre-specified outcome, it's not enough to change standard of care. So, we and our colleagues are conducting a non-inferiority efficacy trial that is comparing two doses versus one dose of two different FDA-approved vaccines. One, GARDASIL 9, which is the HPV vaccine that's available for sale in the United States. But also Cervarix, which is made by GlaxoSmithKline, it's approved by the FDA, but it's no longer sold in the United States. And we anticipate that the results will read out in another couple of years. And if the results show that one dose and two doses are pretty comparable, we're expecting that this will lead to a worldwide change in recommendations for the HPV vaccine. So, whether you are in a high-income country or a low or middle-income country, that one dose is what will end up being recommended. Pat Loehrer: They could almost completely eradicate this disease, the most common cancer around the world. It's huge. Dr. Doug Lowy: So, Pat, the problem is that although the vaccine was approved 15 years ago, only about 10% of eligible young women in low and middle-income countries have actually been vaccinated up to now. And we think that the logistics and the cost of one dose could really be transformative, especially for those young women. It also would save the United States a great deal of money because needing only one dose would be far less expensive, and the government actually pays for about half of the HPV vaccine that is delivered to teenagers through the Vaccines for Children program.   Dave Johnson: Well, this concludes part one of our interview with Dr. Doug Lowy, Principal Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute and Chief of the Intramural Laboratory of Cellular Oncology in the Center for Cancer Research. In the second part of this episode, Dr. Lowy will give his insight to vaccine hesitancy in the COVID era and the evolution of accomplishments over the past 50 years working at the National Cancer Institute. We want to thank all of our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. an ASCO Educational podcast, where we will talk about just about anything and everything. So, if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like for us to interview on the show, please email us at: education@asco.org.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, Subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center, at: education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

In Part Two of this Oncology, Etc. episode, hosts Patrick Loehrer and David Johnson continue their chat with hematologist-oncologist Dr. David Steensma. They explore his views of key opinion leaders and a lifelong passion – collecting rare stamps, including medical stamps. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer, Director of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University. I'm here with Dave Johnson, a Medical Oncologist from The University of Texas, Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. Welcome to the second half of our Oncology, Etc. conversation with Dr. David Steensma. He's a highly accomplished physician and scientist in the field of Hematology/Oncology. In the first part of this episode, Dr. Steensma told us about his Dutch immigrant roots, and how a single college biology course changed his career interests from astronomy into medicine. Today, we'll explore his views on Key Opinion Leaders and another passion of his, and an interest of ours - collecting rare stamps, including medical stamps. Dave Johnson: So, David, in addition to your scientific writing, you've been a prolific writer in many other sort of viewpoints and opinion pieces. There's a lot to choose from, but I know you've been interviewed in the past about your column called ‘The Raven’, which I won't ask you about, as an Edgar Allen Poe fan. You also wrote a wonderful piece called, ‘Key Opinion Leaders’, which I thought might be quite interesting to ask you about, now that you might be calling upon KOLs. Do you want to tell us a little about that? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah, that's not my favorite term. Thought Leaders is another kind of silly term, but we know what we mean when people are talking about it. Yeah, I've had a chance to write on a lot of different things over the years, and that's been great fun. And when I first heard that term, I couldn't figure out what it meant, KOL. And then, a pharmaceutical representative actually accidentally left a list of KOLs in my office and I realized that not only are KOLs cultivated very carefully, those relationships, but there's a hierarchy of KOLs. They were people who influenced the local formulary and local practice at the institution, there were those who had a regional impact, and then there were those who were on the NCCN guideline committees, and had, you know, much broader impact that they really wanted to make sure to influence the heart and minds of-- in my interactions now, this opinion piece was a sort of tongue-in-cheek about Key Opinion Leaders and Thought Leaders. And with Thought Leaders, I was reminded of Sherlock Holmes’s brother Mycroft Holmes, who, by Conan Doyle's fiction, was a brilliant man, but unwilling to stir his ample backside from his Chair in the Diogenes Club to actually get out there, and do some real work, and solve mysteries. And so, it fell to his slightly less brilliant brother, Sherlock, to become the consulting detective. So, that was fun. Now, we're sort of on the receiving end of wisdom from people who are experts in the area. And it's very important what doctors think, and in different geographies about how they think their patients will be potentially treated in a year or two, five years down the road, what the issues they have with current approaches are, where they see opportunity for some of our new compounds, for some of those of other companies, and it's different in Europe versus the US versus Australia. And so, there's a lot that we gain from advisory boards. There's an arc to an advisory board. You don't want to convene an advisory board when there's no data, because then, everybody is just speculating. You don't want to do it too late after something is already on the doorstep of FDA approval because then not anything can be changed at that point. So, you know, doing it at an in-between point where there's some initial data, but where we can really be guided by academic, clinical, and other experts, is really helpful. Pat Loehrer: I'd encourage people to pull this article out. It is really, really good. 2015, I think it came out there. The end of it, I also love it. You're talking about Kanti Rai who came up with the Rai classification and he was at this Meet the Expert session at the ASH meeting, and he said at the meeting, and this is your quote from it, and I love it, he said, “I don't like the name of this session because no one's an expert in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I've been studying this disease for decades, and still too many of my patients die. If I was truly an expert, the disease would've been cured by now." I just love it, but it's a great read. Dave Johnson: Let me ask you, very seriously, if a younger colleague were to come to you, David, what advice would you give him or her about being invited to be on an advisory board? We'll skip the term KOL or Thought Leader. What advice would you give him or her, and what should they look for, and how should they prepare for that activity should you think they should do it? Dr. David Steensma: Well, I think getting back to imposter syndrome, people should feel, if they're invited to be in such a meeting, that they're there for a reason because their opinion does matter. And sometimes, younger physicians are reluctant to speak up in this setting, especially when there maybe leaders in the field there that have been doing it for decades, and may have very strong opinions. So, not being afraid to share their perspective and realizing that they're invited for a reason. On the other hand, I found it very helpful when I was a young faculty member and, on these panels, to listen to how colleagues were assessing data, and the recommendations they were making, and their perspective. And I learned a lot from some of those advisory boards earlier on. Many of the people who are the senior leaders in leukemia and MDS, you know, Rich Stone, Peter Greenberg, you know, John Bennett, in MDS, Marty Tallman, Hagop Kantarjian, Clara Bloomfield, just people who had decades of experience. And in part, I think it's some of my comments at advisory boards that helped get me my job at Dana-Farber, because I'd been in a number of meetings with Rich Stone, and he apparently liked some of the things I'd said about approaching patients. And so, you know, when a faculty position came open, he invited me out to come visit. And so, they can have benefits that you don’t anticipate. Dave Johnson: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. And there's pros and cons to being involved in those activities, but there are an awful lot of good that comes from it. And I think you've just touched on some of those. I'm going to shift gears a little bit because Pat has been waiting anxiously to hear all about your stamps. So, out of the many, many things that you've done and written about, I would say you've got close to 100 publications on medical stamps. It's an extraordinary productivity, David. So, tell us a little about your interest in medical stamps. How did you get involved in this, and where do you find time to write about them, and how do you decide which ones you're going to write about? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah. Bob Kyle, is really the driver on that, and we continue to do these together. Bob turned 94 this year, and he continues to be intellectually engaged. He's fun to talk to, if it weren't for COVID, he'd still be traveling and coming into the office, you know, which he was doing until just a few years ago. So, I met Bob as an intern when I was at Mayo. Somebody said, "Oh, you should meet this guy, he's really fun to talk to." And we just hit it off. And when I was a boy, my grandfather and my great-grandfather had collected stamps. And my grandfather really got me interested in it, partly given our family history, those of The Netherlands and former colonies, but also just more generally. And then as often happens, I got to be a teenager and other things took over in terms of interest, and there was less time, so, I had fallen away from it a bit. But somehow in this conversation, Bob had mentioned this, and that they were looking for someone younger who had this kind of background, to help with this series that has been running. Initially, it was running in JAMA with a guy named John Mirt, beginning around 1960, and then about a decade later, moved to the Mayo Clinic proceedings when they published six stamp vignettes on medical science per year, and Bob has done over 500 of these going back decades. And so, I got involved in that, and writing about-- thus far, it's mostly focused on individuals, but I have done a few also about more general trends in Philately. I will say that there are fewer of us, certainly those under 50, who are involved in the hobby. There's so much other distractions, but I still find it interesting and fun. And I've learned a lot, putting those vignettes together. Pat Loehrer: I started collecting stamps when I was young, I still have my Scott’s album down. And now it's not stored, in properly, but I remember US Number One, I could have bought for $35, but I was only like 10 years old, and that was, you know, like $500 to me. So, I still regret that. Are you collecting stamps yourself now, still that you've resumed the collection part of it? Dr. David Steensma: Yeah. I would say, only a little bit. So, my Netherlands and Colonies collection is now actually complete, except there's one elusive. There's always one, right? Can't find this thing, even at auctions and such. And I also collected coins as a kid, and you know, still have some involvement in that. It's hard to find the time because I do do so many other things, and my wife and I have children, they're now college and PhD age, so I do woodworking, I have a telescope, so I never lost the love of astronomy. It seems like there's always other things to do. But I still have my collection over there on the shelf. Pat Loehrer: Did you inherit it from your grandfather too? Dr. David Steensma: Some of it I did. Yep. The core of it, I inherited from my grandfather and my great-grandfather. And then once I paid off my substantial medical school debt to the University of Chicago with the help of, in part, from advisory boards, but also mostly from moonlighting in emergency rooms around rural Minnesota-- during fellowship, I was like a full-time ER doc who happened to be doing a Hem/Onc Fellowship on the side, and finally got it paid off and then I could start on filling in some of the gaps. Pat Loehrer: Before we change this thing, what is your most cherished stamp that you own? Dr. David Steensma: Oh, my most cherished stamp is not a Dutch one. It is a set of national park stamps from 1934, authorized by James Farley, who was the Postmaster General at that point. 10 stamps, different colors about, you know, Zion and Acadia-- and it was my grandfather's favorite, and he was a big fan of the national parks, took two big trips there back in the '50s out West. And so, at his funeral, I put together a little display of those hanging with the photographs of other things from his life. I have that display, it's very meaningful to me - it's a connection with him. He was certainly very influential in my life. I never imagined I'd be working for a Basel-based pharmaceutical company, like he did for his whole career. Never thought that that would happen, but life has some unexpected twists. He worked for Roche in Nutley, New Jersey for much of his career as a research chemist. And ironically, when my grandmother was diagnosed in the 1990s, pancreatic cancer, and she saw the oncologist and was offered a 5-FU infusion after surgical, he said, "5-FU. I worked on that in 1959, 1960, that's still the best that we have to offer?" He was shocked by that. I was a fellow at the time. I said, "We need better drugs." Dave Johnson: For sure. So, do you have a favorite medical stamp, David? Dr. David Steensma: A favorite medical stamp? Gosh, that one's I think a little bit harder. I certainly have medical stamps that have piqued my interest. One of the sort of most moving is one of the US stamps that came out in the 1950s that has the Sir Luke Fildes’ ‘The Doctor’, on it. You know, with this concerned physician at the bedside of a young boy, and I actually wrote a vignette about the history and background there, and I think that connection with patients at the end of the day when we don't have good drugs, that connection with patients is still so meaningful, isn't it? As you guys really know. So, and as many of our listeners know, and so much of what medicine remains despite the molecular glue degraders and CAR T and gene therapy, is still that human connection, and being there for our patients. And so, I would say that that is probably one of the most meaningful. There's some real quirky ones, too. Austria's come out with some stamps in the last few years; one made of toilet paper, when the toilet paper shortage was happening, another, made of the mask material and the shape of the mask to remind people to mask up. You know, there's been a lot of creativity. And the Dutch are very good about design. They come up with just some brilliant innovations in postage stamps. Dave Johnson: I mean, stamps are really quite artful, by the way, the Fildes painting hangs on the wall of my office. You can't see it, but it's on the wall. And then behind me, you can perhaps see a couple of framed stamps that are some of my favorites. One was a gift to me from a former Group of Chief Residents, of an Osler stamp that Canada put out, and the other is one I received actually as a gift, as part of an award. It's the first cancer stamp that was produced in the United States. So, I love them both. They're quite nice. The Fildes stamp is actually my favorite of all, so I think that's a great stamp. Pat Loehrer: I have actually looked behind me. I've got a stamp collection on the frame that was given to me too that I love. It's stamps of medicine. There was one, a Dag Hammarskjöld stamp, that was famous because they printed it upside down when they put the color in, and I think it created a huge controversy from-- you know this better than I do because they decided then just to overprint them. Instead of making a few sheets that were incredibly valuable, they ended up printing out thousands of these things, which I have one now. It's only worth 7 cents, but at the time, it seemed really cool to have a misprinted stamp in your collection. Dr. David Steensma: Dag Hammarskjöld, there's an interesting connection with what I was talking about a little bit earlier with St. Elizabeth's Hospital. So, this relatively small teaching hospital had, at one point, a very strong hematology research program led by a guy named Fred Stallman. And in 1974, Fred Stallman, who was coming back from ISH, International Society Hematology, which was in Tel Aviv that year, and his plane exploded somewhere over the Aegean Sea, ultimately thought to be related to the PLO, and so he died. There was a big painting on the wall, in the hospital of him. And Dag Hammarskjöld also, at the peak of his career, you know, as the UN Secretary-General, was killed in a plane crash. But the interesting thing about Fred Stallman is, here, you have somebody who was so important in hematology. None of the fellows had any idea who he was or their connection to hematology. You know, it shows how fleeting fame is, unless you're an Einstein or Babe Ruth level. So, that was a good thing to keep in mind as well. Pat Loehrer: We could talk for another hour or two on this. Dave, we really appreciate it. But unfortunately, this is all the time we have for today. And I really want to thank you for joining us, Dave. This has been a wonderful conversation. I also want to thank all our listeners for tuning in to Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO Education broadcast where we will talk about anything and everything, as you can imagine. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the show, just email us at: education@asco.org. Thanks, again. And, Dave, I've got a quiz for you here. Do you know why pirates don't take a shower before they walk off the plank? Dr. David Steensma: I do not. Dave Johnson: I have no idea. Pat Loehrer: It's because they wash up on shore. Dave Johnson: Oh boy.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up-to-date with the latest episodes, please click, "Subscribe." Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org.   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.