ASCO Education

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.