ASCO Education

Oncology, Etc. is a monthly ASCO Education podcast exploring topics in oncology through interviews with emerging thought leaders, physicians, and innovators. In this episode, hosts Dr. Patrick Loehrer (Indiana University), Dr. Jamie Von Roenn (ASCO), and Dr. David Johnson (University of Texas) discuss the importance and impact that friendship has made on their careers.

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts | Additional resources: elearning.asco.org | Contact Us

Air Date: 8/3/2021

TRANSCRIPT

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

PATRICK LOEHRER: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I was born in Chicago, moved to Indianapolis when I was in high school, went to Purdue University, went to Rush Medical College, came here to Indiana University. And I've been on faculty ever since. I'm now a distinguished professor and the former head of our Cancer Center and Director of our Centers for Global Oncology.

JAMIE VON ROENN: So hi, I'm Jamie Von Roenn. I'm a medical oncologist and trained at Rush with Pat and subsequently stayed in Chicago at Northwestern and came here to ASCO as the VP of Education about eight years ago.

DAVID JOHNSON: Hi, I'm Dave Johnson. And I'm in Dallas, Texas. I'm a medical oncologist originally from Georgia, spent a large part of my career on the East Coast and in Tennessee before relocating to Dallas to become Chairman of Medicine in 2010. I stepped down from that position last year and now serve as an elder statesman [INAUDIBLE].

So we are excited to be here today for a new endeavor sponsored by ASCO, a podcast entitled Oncology, et cetera and with a heavy emphasis on the et cetera. We are here to talk with thought leaders, physicians, authors, innovators in oncology and beyond. To be honest with you, we have a lot of interests.

And so I'm going to turn to Jamie and ask Jamie, why are we doing this? Jamie is the instigator behind this. So Jamie, why are we doing this podcast?

JAMIE VON ROENN: So I think the primary reason we did this is to remind people why they chose oncology, that all three of us are people who are super excited about this profession, about what we've learned and what we've given and how we've shared it with each other and with the profession in general, that it's the science. It's the relationships. It's change. And it's incredibly fulfilling on all of those levels.

DAVID JOHNSON: Yeah, Pat, what are your thoughts?

PATRICK LOEHRER: When Jamie asked us to do this, this was something that we jump at. I love Jamie dearly. Dave and I both share this mutual admiration society. I deeply admire Jamie. And, to do something with Dave who is one of my closest professional friends, this was just a great opportunity.

We thought in our conversations, though, as we talked with other people, that it would be good just to talk among ourselves and particularly about the notion of friendship and what it means to each of us personally with the idea that maybe those listening might reflect on that in their own lives.

DAVID JOHNSON: Yeah, so you mentioned-- you made a distinction there, Pat. I'd like to know what that distinction represents. You said you had your personal friendships and your professional friendships. How do those differ?

PATRICK LOEHRER: Well, you know, I'm not sure how it is for you, but my wife is outside of medicine. I've known her. I had my first date with her 50 years ago. And I have friends that I really don't like to talk about business with. I just talk about other things, our kids, family, whatever.

Our friends in medicine are a little different. We have deeper conversations about our work. And there are certain aspects of our work that I think touch us personally. We have patients that we've become close to that are rough. And, many times, I don't share those interactions with my friends at home because it's just not important to them. So I treasure especially you guys, I treasure deeply. We've shared a lot over the years.

JAMIE VON ROENN: So it seems to me that friendships in general are built on shared experiences and that the experiences in medicine are so different from anything else. And, if you don't have friends in your profession, you may not actually have the opportunity to share and ...

In the second of ASCO Education’s two-part episode, Todd Pickard, MMSc, PA-C (MD Anderson Cancer Center) continues the conversation with Drs. Daniel McFarland (Northwell Cancer Institute), Sayeh Lavasani (City of Hope), and Fay Hlubocky (University of Chicago) about individual and institutional interventions to prevent and address burnout among oncology professionals. Subscribe: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts | Additional resources: elearning.asco.org | Contact Us

Air Date: 6/30/2021

TRANSCRIPT

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

TODD PICKARD: Hello, and welcome to the second ASCO eLearning podcast episode focused on burnout in oncology. In the previous episode, our guest speakers discussed what burnout is, its warning signs, risk factors, preventative measures, and talked about their own personal experiences with burnout. My name is Todd Pickard, and I'm an oncology physician assistant at the MD Anderson Cancer Center.

I'm pleased to introduce our three guest speakers as we continue our conversation on the prevalence of burnout and its implications for personal well-being and professional satisfaction. Dr. Fay Hlubocky is a clinical health psychologist and research ethicist at the University of Chicago Medicine. She's also co-chair of the ASCO Oncology Clinician Well-being Task Force and has extensive research experience in burnout.

We're also joined by Dr. Daniel McFarland, a medical oncologist and consult liaison psychiatrist specializing in head and neck thoracic malignancies and psycho-oncology at Northwell Health Lenox Hill Hospital. He has conducted research on empathy, resilience, and distress in trainees and edited an upcoming Springer book publication entitled, Depression, Burnout, and Suicide in Physicians.

And finally, we are also joined by Dr. Sayeh Lavasani, a medical oncologist specializing in breast cancer and an assistant clinical professor in the department of medical oncology and therapeutic research at City of Hope.

Dr. McFarland, you mentioned that you've been involved in research on burnout. So tell us, how prevalent is burnout in oncologists? And is it getting better or worse?

DANIEL MCFARLAND: Thanks, Todd. Yeah, good question. The research that I did was more on empathy, resilience, and distress, not burnout. I didn't actually measure burnout. But the latter part of your question, I'll tell you that some data indicate that it is increasing. In general, oncologists are in the middle of the pack in terms of medical specialties and where they fall in terms of how burnt out they are. And it really speaks to the drivers of burnout being not always what you think that they might be.

As a specialty, we see a lot of the patients at the end of life. But as has been mentioned, these are really more systemic, administrative of issues, although it can be communication. And again, it's just everyone is a little different in that regard. So whether it's actually increasing or we're just having more attention to it is probably a good question. But either way, it's there, it has been there, it's a problem, and we should do something about it.

TODD PICKARD: So Dr. McFarland, I really like the fact that you just said we should do something about it, and that leads to my next question. Is there any evidence-based interventions that we can use to prevent burnout?

DANIEL MCFARLAND: Absolutely. There are several good meta-analyses in fact. So people have been looking at this across the board. The caveat is that they're not always specific for the setting. And I don't think there is a way to make that necessarily possible, given the multitude of settings. But in general, across the board, doing something seems to be better than nothing. The issue is, well, are they durable responses? And what exactly are you measuring?

So if you have a drop in burnout by two points, is that enough? It looks like actually even a few points-- and I think it's around four points on the Maslach scale, MBI, Maslach Burnout Index. Fay can correct me on that, I guess. But if there's just even a small drop, then ...

In this episode of the ASCO Education Podcast, moderator Dr. Annie Im speaks with fellows and training program directors about oncology training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Featuring Drs. Kathryn Bollin (director), Farah Nasraty (fellow), Jonathan Berry (fellow), Nino Balanchivadze (fellow), and Nishin Bhadkamkar (director). Subscribe: Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts | Additional resources: elearning.asco.org | Contact Us

Air Date: 5/26/2021

TRANSCRIPT

[MUSIC PLAYING]

SPEAKER: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and inform. This is not a substitute for medical care, and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.

ANNIE IM: Hello, and welcome to ASCO's podcast episode focused on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology fellows and training programs. My name is Dr. Annie Im. And I'm an associate professor of medicine and the Fellowship Program Director at the University of Pittsburgh. I am pleased to be joined by our five guest speakers today.

NINA BALANCHIVADZE: Hello my name is Nina Balanchivadze. I'm a second year fellow at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan.

JONATHAN BERRY: Hi, my name is Jonathan Berry. I'm a first year fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston, Massachusetts.

NISHIN BHADKAMKAR: Hi, I'm Nishin Bhadkamkar. I'm an associate professor in the departments of general oncology and gastrointestinal medical oncology. I'm at MD Anderson Cancer Center. And I'm the Program Director of the Hematology Oncology Fellowship Program.

KATHERINE BOLLIN: Hello, everyone. I'm Katherine Bollin. I'm the Associate Program Director for Hematology Oncology at Scripps MD Anderson Cancer Center in San Diego. And I'm also the Wellness Chair for the GME Division of Physician Wellness, and a medical oncologist specializing in cutaneous oncology.

FARAH NASRATY: Hi, Everyone. I'm Farah Nasraty. I'm a third year hematology oncology fellow at Scripps Clinic MD Anderson in San Diego, California.

ANNIE IM: Thank you. So let's get right into it. First, let me ask how are training programs adjusted at your institution during the COVID-19 pandemic? What was the impact on learning? What adjustments did your institution make? And what has worked well that you can share with the treating program community? Let's start with Dr. Bhadkamkar.

NISHIN BHADKAMKAR: When the pandemic hit us, we obviously had to rapidly make changes to our clinical and educational programs. I think the first change that came about was transitioning to telemedicine for many of our outpatient visits. And obviously this had an impact on outpatient rotations for our trainees. At the same time, we also changed all of our didactic programming to the virtual format. And this also had to be done fairly quickly to meet institutional requirements.

And what we found in making these changes was first and foremost on the clinical side that trainees on outpatient rotation definitely had a perception that their learning would be adversely impacted by having less in-person interactions. And so we really relied on our rotation coordinators to make sure that fellows were involved in the telemedicine platforms to talk about decision making, and to interact with the patients. Obviously, there's no way to completely recreate the interaction. But we wanted there to be the element of fellow talking to patient, than fellow talking to the attending, and then all three again coming together to talk about the treatment plan.

With regard to education, we certainly found that there was a social element that is important to learning that it was more difficult to recreate on a virtual platform. However, there were certainly advantages to the virtual setting in the sense that it allowed people to connect from different campuses. It allowed some people to participate who perhaps in a live setting would be less likely to speak up. And so using chat features and other elements, we found that there was a segment of our trainees who actually were participating more than they would have in our normal format. So clearly there were advantages and disadvantages. But I think overall it was a necessary change, and one that I think trainees in the end embraced and were able to make the most of.

NINA BALANCHIVA...

Dr. Sparano is Professor of Medicine & Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Associate Chairman for Clinical Research in the Department of Oncology at Montefiore Medical Center, and Associate Director for Clinical Research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center. He also serves as Vice Chair of the ECOG-ACRIN Research Group and Vice Chair of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium. He is former director of the Hematology-Oncology Fellowship Program at Einstein/Montefiore, co-directs the ECOG-ACRIN Young Investigator Program, and is a faculty member of the Calabresi K12 Oncology Training Program. He is co-principal investigator of the Montefiore-Einstein Minority/Underserved National Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) grant (in conjunction with Dr. Bruce Rapkin), which funds multicenter, NCI-sponsored clinical trials in cancer therapeutics, cancer prevention/control, and cancer care delivery research. He is also the recipient of funding from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation that is supporting creation of a biospecimen bank designed to identify determinants of late relapse.

Dr. Sparano is a practicing clinician who specializes in medical oncology and clinical and translational cancer research. His research has focused on developmental therapeutic approaches for breast cancer, lymphoma, and HIV-associated cancers, and therapeutic application of molecular profiling in cancer. TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to the ASCO University Weekly Podcast. My name is Joseph Sparano, and I am Associate Director for Clinical Research at the Albert Einstein Cancer Center, and chief of the section of breast medical oncology at Montefiore Medical Center in New York. Today, we contrast two cases on adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The standard treatment for hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, early stage breast cancer is surgery, followed by endocrine therapy. Since the early 2000s, adjuvant chemotherapy has also been recommended to the majority of these women, but the added benefit from chemotherapy is modest for most. Many different gene expression assays have been developed to determine prognosis and identify which woman may be more likely to benefit from chemotherapy. One commercial test that is recommended in clinical practice guidelines is a 21 gene recurrence score assay. Based on the recently completed TAILORx study, it was known that woman with low recurrence scores on the 21 gene expression assay do well with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Whereas woman with high recurrence scores benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy and chemotherapy. The TAILORx study clarified the best treatment option for women with an intermediate recurrence score, which was defined as a recurrence score of 11 to 25 in the trial. This is particularly important because the majority of patients fall in this intermediate risk category, up to 70%, in fact. Before we discuss the new evidence reported from this study, let's take a look at two intermediate risk cases. These two cases are very similar, yet the recommended treatments may be very different. Can you identify the key differences between these two cases? We begin with the first case. Case 1 is a 55-year-old postmenopausal woman with a node negative, ER positive, PR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. The size of the tumor is 1.6 sonometers. The 21-gene recurrence score is 24, which is in the upper range of the intermediate risk category. Which option would you recommend as the best systemic treatment. The choices in this case include endocrine therapy alone or chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. The correct answer to this question is, A, endocrine therapy alone. We will discuss the rationale for this recommendation shortly, but first let's move on to the second case. The second case is a 44-year-old premenopausal woman with node negative, ER positive, PR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. Like case 1, the size of the tumor is 1.6 centimeters and the 21-gene recurrence score is 24. Which option would be the best adjuvant treatment in this case? The choices here include endocrine therapy alone or chemotherapy, followed by endocrine therapy. The correct answer in this case is chemotherapy, followed by endocrine therapy. Both of these cases had nearly identical clinical presentations. That is, they presented with ER, PR positive, HER2 negative breast cancer, associated with negative axillary nodes, a primary tumor size of 1.6 sonometers, and a 21-gene recurrence score of 24. However, the key difference was the age at presentation, with one patient being in her mid 50's and postmenopausal, and the other patient being in her mid 40's and premenopausal. The TAILORx trial found that endocrine therapy was not inferior to chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy in the overall population with a mid-range 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25. However, there was an interaction between age, chemotherapy treatment, and...