Page de couverture de Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall

Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall

Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall

Auteur(s): John Marshall
Écouter gratuitement

À propos de cet audio

 Oncology Unscripted with John Marshall, MD brings you a unique take on the latest oncology news including business news, gossip, science, and a special in-depth segment relevant to clinical practice. Apprentissage des langues
Épisodes
  • Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall: Episode 24: How Do We Translate MRD Innovation Into Everyday Oncology Practice?

    Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall: Episode 24: How Do We Translate MRD Innovation Into Everyday Oncology Practice?
    Dec 15 2025
    MedBuzz: From Hormones to Heroines: Couric, Cancer, and the Case for ChangeJohn Marshall, MDHello, everybody. John Marshall for Oncology Unscripted, coming to you from my now almost empty office. I've been in this office for, gosh, 20-plus years. It's the big office. You may or may not know I stepped down as the division chief here at Georgetown. We planned it—I wanted to do it a while ago. They said no. So, I finally got to step down because I wanted to do some other things. I get a lot of time back from meetings I really didn’t want to go to in the first place, so I’m happy about that. And it’s enabled me to get back to the world of clinical cancer research and to try and innovate in our space and do a lot less administrative things. So, I am glad for the clean-out, moving down to a smaller office in a fresh region. Probably one of the last times—maybe the last time—I film from this spot. But I wanted to take some time to review some high-level things that have changed in a big way just in the last week or two. The one that struck me the most is that there's been a change in black box warnings around hormones for postmenopausal women. I lived this too, where we went from hormones being a good thing—and all postmenopausal women were more or less taking them—to then it was unopposed estrogens were evil. And then the cancer lobby—and the breast cancer lobby—really was responsible for making it so women stopped taking hormones. We made it so terrifying that hormones were going to cause breast cancer that, you know, certainly oncologists weren’t prescribing it. GYNs stopped doing it. Primary care docs stopped doing it because no one was really willing to take the risk. And I think about the suffering, quite honestly, that postmenopausal women have endured since this time. It is really, really remarkable. And only now—only now—that people have gone back to actually look at the clinical trials and look at the studies, they actually pretty clearly show that hormone replacement is not bad for these people. In fact, if you look at the colon cancer literature, surprisingly, there was evidence that it decreased the risk of getting colon cancer. And even despite that, they didn’t want to change it around. So, I am excited about that black box warning change. If you’re a postmenopausal woman or you know some that are around you, make sure that if they’re interested, there are new options for those patients.But there’s a second warning that has been installed, and this is around 5-FU and DPD testing—dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase testing—for 5-FU clearance. Why I think it's a big deal is not only is it an updated Black Box, but NCCN has embraced it. I think it’s a big enough deal that I hope you will click in and watch my interview with Howard McLeod, who is really the world’s expert in this space, about what we should be doing, how to do it, and some of the practical aspects of that.So, make sure and click on that interview and watch it. It’ll be worth your time. All you clinicians out there should do it. Now, whether or not it will become routine, whether or not it will become standard of care, whether or not you’ll get sued if you don’t do it—those things will evolve. But I do think it will be part of your everyday life. So, good to keep up to speed on that.And then lastly, sort of an emotional note to make—and that is, this is the actual 25th anniversary of something I bet you remember. That’s when Katie Couric had a colonoscopy on television, and it was on a morning TV program, The Today Show. She did that because, of course, her husband had had colon cancer, and she became quite a strong advocate.Her sister Emily later developed pancreas cancer and died of that, and she’s been very involved in Stand Up to Cancer and so many things. But I think back about that moment when Katie Couric said, “You’ve got to be getting your colonoscopy.”And the reason it comes up is that, one, we’re giving her a 25th anniversary award here at Georgetown—one of our Luminary Awards. So, we’re very excited about that. I’m going to get to see her later this week and thank her in person. But I was also thinking about the impact that I believe she has had on the number of people who get colon cancer.If you really do the math, the interventions that have changed with colonoscopy, etc., in the United States have probably reduced the number of people who get colon cancer every year by about 20,000. Now, 150,000 people get colon cancer every year. It would be much higher than that if we didn’t have effective screening. So, screening works—fewer people in our clinics—and we need to applaud her for all that she has done.So, that’s all the gossip that’s fit to print for this session of Oncology Unscripted. I hope it gives you a little something to think about, look up, or consider as you move forward in your day tomorrow.John Marshall. See you later.Editorial: ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    24 min
  • Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall: Episode 23: The Molecular Space Race: Will It Bring Earlier Detection and Better Treatment?

    Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall: Episode 23: The Molecular Space Race: Will It Bring Earlier Detection and Better Treatment?
    Nov 18 2025
    MEDBUZZ [0:00:05]When the Sources of Trusted Information Change—Who Do We Believe?John Marshall, MD:Happy whatever day it is today when you're watching this. John Marshall for Oncology Unscripted. A little bit of a rainy day here in Washington, DC. It's been a little bit of a weird time here in Washington, DC—even weirder than it normally has been.Let's start with a little of the business of our world today—the business of oncology. You may have seen that we have a new National Cancer Institute director: Dr Anthony. Professor of medicine, he's kind of a basic science guy, but he's also a medical oncologist from Dana-Farber. Would you take that job if it was offered to you? I knew some of the candidates who were in line for it—or the finalists—and you'd really have to want that job to take it right now, because of all the unsettledness at the NIH in general, et cetera. So, I'm grateful that this very smart person has said yes to the job. Now, what he does—one of his areas of expertise—is programmed cell death, which is sort of a subtle way of getting a cancer cell to kill itself, right? So maybe, just maybe, he'll use some of that expertise to help in the shifting of government. A little programmed cell death around here might go a long way. So, fingers crossed that he succeeds in maintaining and growing the research that we are doing in cancer, much of which is sponsored through the National Cancer Institute. So, fingers crossed.But as soon as he gets the job, what happens? Well, we shut down the government.We've done this before. It is weird in Washington when the government shuts down. Whether it's patients who now don't have a job for the moment and who risk not having health insurance to receive their ongoing cancer care—in my case—or care in general out there.We're clearly seeing an impact on patients. We're clearly seeing an impact on government operations. I'm supposed to fly to Florida to get measles, maybe, this coming weekend, and I'm not sure we will do it because—who knows if there'll be air traffic controllers available? Would you go to work if you weren't getting paid?I had a recent call with an NCI colleague who is going to work, who is seeing patients, and is trying to manage things—but is uncertain about whether they will be paid.I also happened to come across recently somebody in the medical center who works up in McLean. If you know what offices are in McLean, I'll let you figure that out—sort of secret spy stuff. Normally, they're incredibly busy, but because there aren't any other government activities going on, they're kind of sitting there saying, "Well, we can't do what we normally do because we're dependent on the rest of the government to do what we do." So even those who are going to work are kind of stalled.So, there's a whole lot going on. The one positive—and it's not really a positive to make up for the negatives—is that the traffic's a lot lighter here in Washington. But still, not enough to make up for it.Now, I do want to talk a bit about another big topic that’s come forward. You know that RFK Jr. fired 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. This is the group that gathers to make recommendations around vaccines and immunizations in general. He fired a lot of them. He put some replacements in—many of whom have been featured in other articles—I won’t drill down into the weeds on some of this, but many of them are more than just anti-vaxxers. They’re suggesting that we’ve mismanaged this as a medical community, and that we’ve not been telling the true scientific story.The new people who’ve been put in place haven’t made any formal recommendations yet. But the most recent one that came out is that there’s even some debate about whether newborns should be given hepatitis vaccines. And that data is very, very tight about how many lives are saved because of vaccines—as they all have been shown. But we’ve forgotten data, and we’re going to have to relearn the lesson going forward.Do you read the front page of the paper or don’t you? In my family, it’s split. My wife only reads the sports section. I read the front section—or at least read the headlines.In the Washington Post editorial page was an article written by the last six Surgeon Generals—right and left—appointed by different presidents over time. And this was a very thoughtful piece that basically summarized that RFK Jr.—he’s perfectly entitled to have his own opinions about things—but he’s not entitled (this was their conclusion) to put other people’s health at risk.And they collaboratively, collectively, emphatically said that that is what is going on with this new ACIP committee—with RFK Jr. at the helm. That we are putting a lot of people at risk, and it’s what’s making us all very, very anxious in the medical community today.Now, I want to talk in closing on this about a book that I am reading. Don’t worry, it...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    33 min
  • Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall: Episode 22: ESMO, Efficiency, and Evidence: A Look Ahead at New Data and Important Updates

    Oncology Unscripted With John Marshall: Episode 22: ESMO, Efficiency, and Evidence: A Look Ahead at New Data and Important Updates
    Oct 14 2025
    [00:00:05] Main Topic ESMO, Efficiency, and Evidence: New Data, China’s Science Leap, and Leucovorin and Autism John Marshall, MD: Hey everybody, John Marshall from Oncology Unscripted. There is so much going on right now that we're gonna need a full hour-long show, but we're not gonna do that to you. We still promise short bites here and there of the stuff that's going on, just to make sure you're in the loop. I'm sure you are.But let's start with a little science. And the science we wanna focus on is the upcoming ESMO meeting. We've looked at the leading abstracts that are gonna be presented there, and there's not gonna be a lot of surprises about the content. There's a lot of innovation in precision medicine and immunotherapy and different diseases, and positive randomized trials, and some exciting early-phase clinical trials. But what I think is worth noting is that a pretty high percentage of the science that's being presented at ESMO actually comes from China—Chinese pharmaceutical companies sponsoring it, China's institutions running the clinical trials. And there's been a lot of discussion about the quality of Chinese data.Just recently, on September 23rd, Scott Gottlieb—who used to be, of course, the head of the FDA—did a very nice opinion piece in The Washington Post about the impact of Chinese drug development. The quality wasn't actually that bad—it was just less expensive. They were able to do clinical research much less expensively than we can here in Western society, if you will.So, it's not so much intellectual innovation—it's efficiency in getting answers out. His whole editorial is about: how do we reshape and reprioritize our own clinical research infrastructure? How does the opportunity of a, I don't know, a world turned upside down in terms of regulatory oversight, et cetera, give us a chance to maybe improve the process, to lower the cost of drug development, so that our innovation—which we really still remain the hub for—can actually be brought forward and not create some sort of global intellectual property war, which he refers to, but more: how do we keep up with the pricing structure and the innovations that are out there?So, I encourage you to not only look through the abstracts from ESMO—because there are some very important positive results from that—but also think a little bit about how we, in different parts of the world, even the playing field around the cost of new drug development. I encourage you to read that Scott Gottlieb Washington Post editorial.One of the big abstracts that will be presented is around MRD ctDNA testing and using that technology as a way to define who should receive adjuvant therapy and who should not. Of course, we are interviewing the lead author on that paper, so stick around for that interview. But we clearly can see that genetic testing may, in fact, have a major impact on making us more efficient on who should get adjuvant therapy and who should not.So, I do clearly think that's the evolution that's going forward. You wanna make sure to keep your finger on the pulse of MRD ctDNA testing in the decision-making process for adjuvant therapy and subsequent treatment.I'm lucky enough to be running a protocol here in the United States looking at MRD positivity in patients with colorectal cancer, and others are doing it in other diseases.One of the ways that could, in fact, make that much less expensive is digital pathology. Because it turns out that a digital image of an H&E slide—and there's some fascinating data around this—can actually predict risk almost as well as genetic testing. So, that's very inexpensive. It takes 20 minutes to scan it in, send it off to the computer, AI reads it back, and gives you a risk factor.So, I do want you to also keep a nose out for digital pathology as an impact.But maybe the most unsettled science that I saw in the last week actually was also in The Washington Post. Now, The Washington Post, in one issue, reported on vaccines killing children, our administration down the street is going to be talking about how evil vaccines are—continuing that discussion that their rising costs are gonna break us in the U.S. Our economy is so built around healthcare that the rising costs are eventually gonna break it. And the risk is that what I'm saying right now might land me in the same boat as Jimmy Kimmel—of getting fired. But you know, last night he was back on again. So maybe that will only be temporary. But the science I wanna talk about is this whole connection between, say, Tylenol—acetaminophen—and autism. And the only reason it says “Tylenol” is that Donald Trump can't say the word “acetaminophen.” And so many people out there are affected with autism over many, many decades—even well before Tylenol/acetaminophen was invented. But what really caught my eye is these smaller studies that have suggested that leucovorin—which is folinic acid, okay? It’s reduced folic ...
    Voir plus Voir moins
    33 min
Pas encore de commentaire