Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘National Institutes of Health’


 

Yay! Bloomberg View Seems to Be On the Side of the Lowly Scientist!

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Justin Fox at BloombergView had just published an article near and dear to the hearts of all those #openaccess scientists and those of us @Pharma_BI and @MozillaScience who feel strong about #openscience #opendata and the movement to make scientific discourse freely accessible.

His article “Academic Publishing Can’t Remain Such a Great Business” discusses the history of academic publishing and how consolidation of smaller publishers into large scientific publishing houses (Bigger publishers bought smaller ones) has produced a monopoly like environment in which prices for journal subscriptions are rising. He also discusses how the open access movement is challenging this model and may oneday replace the big publishing houses.

A few tidbits from his article:

Publishers of academic journals have a great thing going. They generally don’t pay for the articles they publish, or for the primary editing and peer reviewing essential to preparing them for publication (they do fork over some money for copy editing). Most of this gratis labor is performed by employees of academic institutions. Those institutions, along with government agencies and foundations, also fund all the research that these journal articles are based upon.

Yet the journal publishers are able to get authors to sign over copyright to this content, and sell it in the form of subscriptions to university libraries. Most journals are now delivered in electronic form, which you think would cut the cost, but no, the price has been going up and up:

 

This isn’t just inflation at work: in 1994, journal subscriptions accounted for 51 percent of all library spending on information resources. In 2012 it was 69 percent.

Who exactly is getting that money? The largest academic publisher is Elsevier, which is also the biggest, most profitable division of RELX, the Anglo-Dutch company that was known until February as Reed Elsevier.

 

RELX reports results in British pounds; I converted to dollars in part because the biggest piece of the company’s revenue comes from the U.S. And yes, those are pretty great operating-profit margins: 33 percent in 2014, 39 percent in 2013. The next biggest academic publisher is Springer Nature, which is closely held (by German publisher Holtzbrinck and U.K. private-equity firm BC Partners) but reportedly has annual revenue of about $1.75 billion. Other biggies that are part of publicly traded companies include Wiley-Blackwell, a division of John Wiley & Sons; Wolters Kluwer Health, a division of Wolters Kluwer; and Taylor & Francis, a division of Informa.

And gives a brief history of academic publishing:

The history here is that most early scholarly journals were the work of nonprofit scientific societies. The goal was to disseminate research as widely as possible, not to make money — a key reason why nobody involved got paid. After World War II, the explosion in both the production of and demand for academic research outstripped the capabilities of the scientific societies, and commercial publishers stepped into the breach. At a time when journals had to be printed and shipped all over the world, this made perfect sense.

Once it became possible to effortlessly copy and disseminate digital files, though, the economics changed. For many content producers, digital copying is a threat to their livelihoods. As Peter Suber, the director of Harvard University’s Office for Scholarly Communication, puts it in his wonderful little book, “Open Access”:

And while NIH Tried To Force These Houses To Accept Open Access:

About a decade ago, the universities and funding agencies began fighting back. The National Institutes of Health in the U.S., the world’s biggest funder of medical research, began requiring in 2008 that all recipients of its grants submit electronic versions of their final peer-reviewed manuscripts when they are accepted for publication in journals, to be posted a year later on the NIH’s open-access PubMed depository. Publishers grumbled, but didn’t want to turn down the articles.

Big publishers are making $ by either charging as much as they can or focus on new customers and services

For the big publishers, meanwhile, the choice is between positioning themselves for the open-access future or maximizing current returns. In its most recent annual report, RELX leans toward the latter while nodding toward the former:

Over the past 15 years alternative payment models for the dissemination of research such as “author-pays” or “author’s funder-pays” have emerged. While it is expected that paid subscription will remain the primary distribution model, Elsevier has long invested in alternative business models to address the needs of customers and researchers.

Elsevier’s extra services can add news avenues of revenue

https://www.elsevier.com/social-sciences/business-and-management

https://www.elsevier.com/rd-solutions

but they may be seeing the light on OpenAccess (possibly due to online advocacy, an army of scientific curators and online scientific communities):

Elsevier’s Mendeley and Academia.edu – How We Distribute Scientific Research: A Case in Advocacy for Open Access Journals

SAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing – Open Journals vs. Subscription-based

e-Recognition via Friction-free Collaboration over the Internet: “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research”

Indeed we recently put up an interesting authored paper “A Patient’s Perspective: On Open Heart Surgery from Diagnosis and Intervention to Recovery” (free of charge) letting the community of science freely peruse and comment, and generally well accepted by both author and community as a nice way to share academic discourse without the enormous fees, especially on opinion papers in which a rigorous peer review may not be necessary.

But it was very nice to see a major news outlet like Bloomberg View understand the lowly scientist’s aggravations.

Thanks Bloomberg!

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Early Diagnosis

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

This post contains a curation of all Early Diagnosis posts on this site as well as a curation of the Early Detection Research Network.

Early Research Detection Network (EDRN)

Welcome to EDRN

The Early Detection Research Network (EDRN), an initiative of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), brings together dozens of institutions to help accelerate the translation of biomarker information into clinical applications and to evaluate new ways of testing cancer in its earliest stages and for cancer risk.

Getting Started…

Check out the EDRN Highlights — a listing of our accomplishments and milestones.

 

► Scientific Components ► For Public, Patients, Advocates
► Collaborative Opportunities (how to join EDRN) ► For Researchers

Highlights

Highlights of the accomplishments of the Early Detection Research Network.

A brief list of major EDRN-developed assays that have been adapted for clinical use is described in the table below:

Detection/Biomarker Assay Discovery Refine/Adapt for Clin Use Clinical Validation Clinical Translation
Blood proPSA FDA approved
Urine PCA3 FDA approved
OVA1™ for Ovarian Cancer FDA approved
ROMA Algorithm for CA125 and HE4 Tests for Pelvic Mass Malignancies FDA approved
Blood/DCP and AFP-L3 for Hepatocellular Carcinoma FDA approved
Blood GP73 Together with AFP-L3 used  for monitoring cirrhotic patients for HCC in China
MiPS (Mi Prostate Score Urine test), Multiplex analysis of T2-ERG gene fusion, PCA3 and serum PSA In CLIA Lab
FISH to detect T2S:Erg fusion for Prostate Cancer In CLIA Lab
GSTP1 methylation for repeat biopsies in prostate cancer In CLIA Lab
Mitochondrial deletion for detection of prostate cancer In CLIA Lab
Somalogic 12-marker panel for Lung Cancer In CLIA Lab
80-gene panel for Lung Cancer In CLIA Lab
Vimentin Methylation Marker for Colon Cancer In CLIA Lab
Galectin-3 ligand for detection of adenomas and colon cancer In CLIA Lab
8-gene panel for Barrett’s Esophagus In CLIA Lab
SOPs for Blood (Serum, Plasma), Urine, Stool Frequently used by biomarker research community
EDRN Pre/Validation Specimen Reference Sets (specimens from well characterized and matched cases and controls from specific disease spectra) Frequently used by biomarker research community

Since its inception in 1999 EDRN has achieved several key milestones, summarized below:

1998 through 2000: Inception and Inauguration of EDRN

2001 to 2003: Meeting the Challenges to Harness and Share Emerging Scientific Knowledge

  • EDRN Second Report, Translational Research to Identify Early Cancer and Cancer Risk, October 2002, http://edrn.nci.nih.gov/docs.) published.
  • EDRN joined the Gordon Research Conferences to co-host the New Frontiers in Cancer detection and Diagnosis in 2002.

 

  • Guidelines Set for Studies Measuring Biomarker Predictive Power Journal of National Cancer Institute (Vol. 93, No. 14, July 18, 2001).
  • EDRN Associate Membership Program Initiated: This novel approach to make EDRN inclusive has been extremely successful. EDRN has now more than 120 Associate Members who are significantly contributing to EDRN efforts in biomarker discovery, development and validation.

2003 to 2004: Network Surges Ahead in Real-time

  • Collaborative Discovery and Validation Projects:  More than 100 collaborative projects spanned the various organ sites. These projects are monitored through the EDRN’s electronic System Information System (eSIS).
  • EDRN Virtual Specimen Bank and Validation Management System Launched: The EDRN Virtual Specimen Bank, also known as ERNE knowledge system, was deployed to 10 institutions in early 2003, allowing a common web-based query to search for available specimens across the EDRN Clinical Epidemiology and Validation Centers https://ginger.fhcrc.org/edrn/imp/GateServlet?pwd. VSIMS was created to allow multiple studies to be administered efficiently by minimizing development time with standardization of information and data management across multiple activities and research sites. This system encompasses all the security features of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-required auditing systems.
  • Partnership on the Plasma Proteome Project (PPP) Initiative of the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO): PPP project was initiated to evaluate multiple technology platforms, develop bioinformatic tools and standards for protein identification, and create a database of the plasma proteome. The entire study was published in the August issue of the journal Proteomics August 2005, Volume 4 (4), pp 1045-1450.

2005 to 2008: An Investment in Prevention

  • In late 2006, EDRN’s Program for Rapid, Independent Diagnostic Evaluation (PRIDE), was established (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-CA-07-003.html ) as an administrative means to assist extramural investigators in successfully conducting cross-laboratory validation of biomarkers. Ten applications have been reviewed and five are being supported.
  • EDRN underwent external reviews in 2007 and 2008.
  • The Canary Foundation, Palo Alto, CA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with EDRN, NCI on supporting prostate cancer surveillance network of investigators from seven institutions. The tissue and serum will be collected during a three-year period and will be made available to extramural scientists for discovery and validation research.
  • The Lustgarten Foundation, N.Y., funded 6 institutions to generate monoclonal antibodies and associated hybridoma cell lines for pancreatic cancer antigens (biomarkers) identified by EDRN and non-EDRN investigators. These resources will be stored at the NCI-Frederick Facility for distribution to extramural investigators.

2009 to 2011: Realizing Investment for Clinical Use

  • Two biomarker tests approved by FDA and two IVDs pending FDA review.
  • Six biomarker tests offered by CLIA labs.
  • One biomarker test approved for clinical use outside the USA

A Curation of Posts on Early Detection of Cancer and Other Early Detection Networks is Included Below

 

BRCA 1 and 2 and Early Detection of Cancer

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline

Mechanism involved in Breast Cancer Cell Growth: Function in Early Detection & Treatment

Warning signs may lead to better early detection of ovarian cancer

Cancer Detection

Biomarker tool development for Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer: Van Andel Institute and Emory University

China, India, and Russia account for 46% of all new cancer cases globally, as well as 52% of cancer-related mortality per 4/2014 Lancet Oncology article

 

Read Full Post »


From the NIH Website

New NIH breast cancer research to focus on prevention

A new phase of the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Program (BCERP), focused on prevention, is being launched at the National Institutes of Health. Grant-funded researchers will now work across scientific disciplines, involve new racially and ethnically diverse communities, and expand the study of risk factors that precede breast cancer, such as breast density.

These new directions reflect recommendations made by the Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) in 2013. IBCERCC was congressionally mandated to review the state of the science around breast cancer and environmental influences by the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. Recommendations included prioritizing prevention, involving transdisciplinary research teams, engaging public stakeholders, collaborating across federal agencies, and communicating the science to the public.

This broadened research focus will add to the growing knowledge of environmental and genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk across the lifespan. The six new BCERP projects, plus a new coordinating center promoting cross-project collaboration, are jointly funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Cancer Institute. All projects involve strong partnerships between researchers and organizations focused on breast cancer prevention or environmental health.

The new research will be conducted at the following institutions

  • Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
  • City of Hope/Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, California
  • Columbia University, New York City
  • Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C.
  • Michigan State University, Lansing
  • University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  • University of Wisconsin – Madison (Coordinating Center)

“The beauty of this research is that scientific discoveries and community observations inform each other, in order to dive deeper into the complex causes of breast cancer,” said Gwen Collman, Ph.D., director of NIEHS Division of Extramural Research and Training.

The focus on minority and socio-economically disadvantaged women is an important step in addressing disparities in breast cancer outcomes. Although African-American women are diagnosed with breast cancer less often than white women, more aggressive cancers and breast cancer deaths are more common among African-American women.

Another new direction for BCERP is research on the role of breast density as a possible intermediate risk factor for breast cancer. Dense breast tissue is one of the most common risk factors for breast cancer. Identifying links between environmental exposures and high breast density may provide new insights into prevention.

“These priorities reflect our continued commitment to breast cancer prevention,” noted Caroline Dilworth, Ph.D., BCERP program lead at NIEHS. “Our goal is to build on the high quality science we’ve been funding for more than a decade, while also being responsive to the expert recommendations of the IBCERCC report.”

Grant Numbers: U01ES026130, U01ES026137, U01ES026122, U01ES026132, U01ES026119, U01ES026140, U01ES026127

NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit www.niehs.nih.gov. Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications.

The National Cancer Institute leads the National Cancer Program and the NIH’s efforts to dramatically reduce the prevalence of cancer and improve the lives of cancer patients and their families, through research into prevention and cancer biology, the development of new interventions, and the training and mentoring of new researchers. For more information about cancer, please visit the NCI website at http://www.cancer.gov or call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Other posts on this site on  Cancer and Early Detection  include

Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: American Urological Association (AUA) Guideline

Mechanism involved in Breast Cancer Cell Growth: Function in Early Detection & Treatment

Warning signs may lead to better early detection of ovarian cancer

‘Mosaicism’ is Associated with Aging and Chronic Diseases like Cancer: detection of genetic mosaicism could be an early marker for detecting cancer.

CDC Findings: Due to Aging Population, Actual Number of Cancer Deaths is Rising while Risk of Dying From Cancer is Falling in the US

Read Full Post »


Curation of Recently Halted Oncology Trials Due to Serious Adverse Events – 2015

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The following is reports of oncology clinical trials in 2015 which have been halted for Serious Adverse Events (SAE), in most instances of an idiopathic nature. For comparison I have listed (as of this writing) the oncology drug approvals (8) for 2015. (from CenterWatch.com)

Oncology Drugs Approved in 2015

Farydak (panobinostat); Novartis; For the treatment of multiple myeloma, Approved February 2015

Ibrance (palbociclib); Pfizer; For the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, Approved February 2015

Lenvima (lenvatinib); Eisai; For the treatment of thyroid cancer, Approved February 2015

Lonsurf (trifluridine and tipiracil); Taiho Oncology; For the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer , Approved September 2015

Odomzo (sonidegib); Novartis; For the treatment of locally advanced basal cell carcinoma, July 2015

Opdivo (nivolumab); Bristol-Myers Squibb; For the treatment of metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer, Approved March 2015

Unituxin (dinutuximab); United Therapeutics; For the treatment of pediatrics with high-risk neuroblastoma, Approved March 2015

Varubi (rolapitant); Tesaro; For the prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy, Approved September 2015


Death Forces FDA to Place Clinical Hold on Advaxis (ADXS) Cancer Drug

from Biospace News

October 7, 2015
By Alex Keown, BioSpace.com Breaking News Staff

PRINCETON, N.J. – Following the death of a patient, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a hold on Advaxis (ADXS)’s experimental cancer treatment axalimogene filolisbac, which is currently in mid-stage trials.

In a statement issued this morning, Advaxis maintains the patient’s death was a result of the severity of her cancer and not due to the company’s experimental cancer treatment. It is seeking proof from the FDA that the drug was not a factor in the death. Still, the hold on the experimental cancer drug will cause the company to halt four clinical trials, Advaxis said. Other clinical trials, including those with the experimental ADXS-PSA and ADXS-HER2, are not affected by this hold. The company said it will continue to actively enroll and dose patients.

The FDA placed a hold on the drug on Oct. 2 after the company submitted a safety report to the regulatory agency that week. The drug is being developed to treat patients with persistent or recurrent metastatic (squamous or non-squamous cell) carcinoma of the cervix (PRmCC) who have progressed on at least one prior line of systemic therapy. Phase I trials released at the end of September showed treatment with axalimogene filolisbac resulted in a 38.5 percent 12-month overall survival rate in 26 patients. Patients typically fighting PRmCC who have failed at least one line of therapy have a typical survival rate of four to seven months.

Read full story here


FDA Halts Trial of Halozyme’s PEGPH20 for Pancreatic Cancer

Apr 9, 2014 Alex Philippidis

Halozyme Therapeutics acknowledged today that the FDA placed a formal clinical hold on its troubled Study 202 assessing its experimental drug PEGPH20 in patients with pancreatic cancer—less than a week after the company temporarily halted enrolling and dosing patients in the ongoing Phase II trial.

The agency told Halozyme it placed the clinical hold following the company’s pause in study activity. The trial’s independent data monitoring committee is evaluating data from the trial to learn why patients treated with PEGPH20 as well as nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine saw a higher rate of blood clots and other thromboembolic events compared with patients treated with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone.

“We will be providing this information to the data monitoring committee and the FDA in parallel so they can complete their respective assessments,” Helen Torley, M.B. Ch.B., M.R.C.P., Halozyme’s president and CEO, said in a statement.

“Pancreatic cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of any cancer. We remain committed to evaluating PEGPH20 as a possible therapy to address this devastating disease,” Dr. Torley added.

As with Halozyme’s statement last week, the company’s latest remarks did not indicate when Halozyme expects to resume enrolling and dosing patients in Study 202, or how many patients had been enrolled and dosed when the temporary halt occurred.

The trial was envisioned as having 124 subjects, divided evenly between a treatment arm of PEGPH20 and nab-paclitaxel, and a gemcitabine arm, preceded by eight subject “run-in” phase assessing safety and tolerability, according to Study 202’s page on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01839487), last updated on January 27.

The study is one of two Phase II trials for PEGPH20; the other, SWOG, also aims to assess the drug for pancreatic cancer.

PEGPH20 is an investigational PEGylated form of Halozyme’s FDA-approved recombinant human hyaluronidase rHuPH20 (marketed as Hylenex®), designed to dramatically increases the half-life of the compound in the blood and allow for intravenous administration.

The temporary halt for Study 202 came two months after Halozyme publicly cited “potential acceleration of the PEGPH20 program” among several R&D programs for which it raised funds through a public offering of common stock that closed in February and generated approximately $107.8 million in net proceeds.

Read more at GenNEWS


FDA orders CytRx to halt patient enrollment after death of a cancer patient

CytRx ($CYTR) has run into an unexpected roadblock with its cancer drug conjugate aldoxorubicin, slamming the brakes on new patient recruitment in all their clinical trials after the FDA dropped a partial clinical hold on the program. According to the biotech the hold was forced by the death of a patient who was given the drug through a compassionate use program.

LA-based CytRx execs say that patients already enrolled in the studies will continue to receive the therapy as investigators added new safety measures, retooling trial protocols to include an “appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria, an additional patient screening assessment and an evaluation of serum electrolytes prior to aldoxorubicin administration.” The patient who died, they added, had not qualified for any of its studies.

As it stands now, the biotech doesn’t know exactly how long the partial hold will last, but their announcement sought to calm jumpy investors, saying they expected to resolve the FDA’s demands “expeditiously” and can stick to their current timelines. CytRx says it expects to report preliminary results from their mid-stage study of Kaposi’s sarcoma in the second quarter of 2015 and preliminary results from the ongoing Phase II clinical trial of aldoxorubicin in glioblastoma multiforme in the first half of 2015. The company added that it is committed to completing enrollment in their Phase III trial by the end of next year.

hat reassurance appears to have helped with investors, who seemed to count this as more of a temporary setback than a catastrophe. Shares for CytRx were down about 9% in mid-morning trading.

Aldoxorubicin uses a linker molecule to attach to albumin in the blood and concentrate in tumors, where the acidic environment releases the chemotherapy doxorubicin in doses up to four times higher than what’s used now. Late last year their stock soared after their drug scored promising results for progression-free survival in a Phase IIb trial.

This case illustrates one reason why biotechs often quietly squirm under the pressure of compassionate use programs. They can be expensive to operate, time-consuming and raise fresh concerns when a patient dies or experiences a setback. On the other hand, if regulators take action like this following the death of an advanced stage cancer patient, there may have been something about the case that triggered broader concerns for the entire patient population


Clot risk in Lilly lung-cancer drug raises FDA concerns

July 7, 2015

Eli Lilly and Co.’s experimental lung cancer drug has raised concerns with U.S. regulators that it may increase patients’ risk of suffering potentially deadly blood clots.

The drug, known as necitumumab, improved patients’ overall chances of survival, yet people taking the medicine also experienced more risk, Food and Drug Administration staff said in a report Tuesday. Indianapolis-based Lilly is seeking to sell the medicine to treat a subset of the most common type of lung cancer.

FDA advisers will meet Thursday to discuss the risks and benefits of necitumumab for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer, in combination with chemotherapy. The FDA is expected to decide if Lilly can sell the drug by the end of the year.

While the safety of necitumumab reflects that of similar drugs, the increased danger of clotting “in this already high risk population is of concern,” FDA staff wrote.

One study showed that out of 538 patients taking necitumumab and chemotherapy, 9 percent experienced a serious clot, compared with 5 percent of 541 patients given only chemotherapy, according to the staff report.

Squamous lung cancer accounts for 25 percent to 30 percent of all lung cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

Patients in a clinical trial who took necitumumab lived a median of 11.5 months, 1.6 months longer than those who got only chemotherapy, the FDA staff report said.

Opdivo Side Effects Center (as seen on Rxlist.com) (NOTE:TRIAL NOT HALTED)

Last reviewed on RxList 10/05/2015

Opdivo (nivolumab) is a human monoclonal antibody used to treat patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and disease progression following ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor; and to treat metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer with progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Common side effects of Opdivo include fatigue, rash, itching, cough, upper respiratory tract infection, swelling of the extremities, shortness of breath, muscle pain, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, weakness, swelling, fever, abdominal pain, chest pain, joint pain, and weight loss.


Opdivo FDA Prescribing Information: Side Effects
(Adverse Reactions)

Clinical Trials Experience

Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug and may not reflect the rates observed in clinical practice.

The data described in the WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section and below reflect exposure to OPDIVO in Trial 1, a randomized trial in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma and in Trial 3, a single-arm trial in patients with metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Clinically significant adverse reactions were evaluated in a total of 691 patients enrolled in Trials 1, 3, or an additional dose finding study (n=306) administering OPDIVO at doses of 0.1 to 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS].

Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma

The safety of OPDIVO was evaluated in Trial 1, a randomized, open-label trial in which 370 patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma received OPDIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n=268) or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (n=102), either dacarbazine 1000 mg/m² every 3 weeks or the combination of carboplatin AUC 6 every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m² every 3 weeks [see Clinical Studies]. The median duration of exposure was 5.3 months (range: 1 day to 13.8+ months) with a median of eight doses (range: 1 to 31) in OPDIVO-treated patients and was 2 months (range: 1 day to 9.6+ months) in chemotherapy treated patients. In this ongoing trial, 24% of patients received OPDIVO for greater than 6 months and 3% of patients received OPDIVO for greater than 1 year.

In Trial 1, patients had documented disease progression following treatment with ipilimumab and, if BRAF V600 mutation positive, a BRAF inhibitor. The trial excluded patients with autoimmune disease, prior ipilimumab-related Grade 4 adverse reactions (except for endocrinopathies) or Grade 3 ipilimumab-related adverse reactions that had not resolved or were inadequately controlled within 12 weeks of the initiating event, patients with a condition requiring chronic systemic treatment with corticosteroids ( > 10 mg daily prednisone equivalent) or other immunosuppressive medications, a positive test for hepatitis B or C, and a history of HIV.

The study population characteristics in the OPDIVO group and the chemotherapy group were similar: 66% male, median age 59.5 years, 98% white, baseline ECOG performance status 0 (59%) or 1 (41%), 74% with M1c stage disease, 73% with cutaneous melanoma, 11% with mucosal melanoma, 73% received two or more prior therapies for advanced or metastatic disease, and 18% had brain metastasis. There were more patients in the OPDIVO group with elevated LDH at baseline (51% vs. 38%).

OPDIVO was discontinued for adverse reactions in 9% of patients. Twenty-six percent of patients receiving OPDIVO had a drug delay for an adverse reaction. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 41% of patients receiving OPDIVO. Grade 3 and 4 adverse reactions occurred in 42% of patients receiving OPDIVO. The most frequent Grade 3 and 4 adverse reactions reported in 2% to less than 5% of patients receiving OPDIVO were abdominal pain, hyponatremia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, and increased lipase.


FDA Approves Eisai’s LENVIMA™ (lenvatinib) for the Treatment of Patients with Locally Recurrent or Metastatic, Progressive, Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

– Press release from Eisai (NOTE: TRIAL NOT HALTED)

Feb 13, 2015

WOODCLIFF LAKE, N.J., Feb. 13, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Eisai Inc. announced today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the company’s receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor LENVIMA™ (lenvatinib) for the treatment of locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive, radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAI-R DTC). LENVIMA was approved following a priority review by the FDA, which is designated for drugs the FDA believes have the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment of a serious condition. LENVIMA demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) prolongation and response rate in patients with progressive, differentiated thyroid cancer who had become refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy.

In the clinical trial, adverse events led to dose reductions in 68% of patients who received LENVIMA and 5% of patients who received placebo. Some patients will need to discontinue treatment for serious adverse reactions. In the trial, 18% of patients treated with LENVIMA and 5% who received placebo discontinued treatment. The most common adverse reactions (at least 10%) that resulted in dose reductions of LENVIMA were hypertension (13%), proteinuria (11%), decreased appetite (10%), and diarrhea (10%).

AstraZeneca halts a pair of lung cancer trials over a safety scare

From October 9, 2015 | By of FierceBiotech

“AstraZeneca ($AZN) is pressing pause on trials combining two of its most important pipeline cancer treatments after tracking reports of lung disease, halting enrollment as it gathers more information.

The company is testing a combination of AZD9291 and durvalumab, formerly MEDI4736, in two studies involving patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Late last month, AstraZeneca hit the brakes on enrollment in both trials due to an increase in reports of interstitial lung disease, which can lead to dangerous scarring and impaired pulmonary function. The pauses are temporary, the company stressed in an emailed statement, and patients already enrolled in the study will be given new consent forms to ensure they understand the risks before choosing whether keep getting treatment.”

Other posts on this site on Cytotoxicity and Cancer include

Novel Approaches to Cancer Therapy [11.1]

Misfolded Proteins – from Little Villains to Little Helpers… Against Cancer

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

A Synthesis of the Beauty and Complexity of How We View Cancer

Good and Bad News Reported for Ovarian Cancer Therapy

Read Full Post »


Development of Chemoresistance to Targeted Therapies: Alterations of Cell Signaling, & the Kinome [11.4.1.2]

 

Curator, Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The advent of molecular targeted therapies like Imatinib (Gleevec), and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) has been transformative to cancer therapy. However, as with all chemotherapeutics, including radiation therapy, the development of chemo-resistance toward personalized, molecular therapies has been disastrous to the successful treatment of cancer. The fact that chemo-resistance develops to personalized therapies was a serious disappointment to clinicians (although most expected this to be the case) but more surprisingly it was the rapidity of onset and speed of early reported cases which may have been the biggest shocker.

A post on resistance to other TKIs (to EGFR and ALK) can be seen here: https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/11/01/resistance-to-receptor-of-tyrosine-kinase/

History of Development of Resistance to Imatinib (Gleevec)

The Melo group published a paper in Blood showing that short exposure to STI571 (imatinib; trade name Gleevec®) could result in drug resistant clones

Selection and characterization of BCR-ABL positive cell lines with differential sensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571: diverse mechanisms of resistance. Blood. 2000 Aug 1;96(3):1070-9.

Mahon FX1, Deininger MW, Schultheis B, Chabrol J, Reiffers J, Goldman JM, Melo JV.

Abstract

Targeting the tyrosine kinase activity of Bcr-Abl with STI571 is an attractive therapeutic strategy in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). A few CML cell lines and primary progenitors are, however, resistant to this compound. We investigated the mechanism of this resistance in clones of the murine BaF/3 cells transfected with BCR-ABL and in 4 human cell lines from which sensitive (s) and resistant (r) clones were generated by various methods. Although the resistant cells were able to survive in the presence of STI571, their proliferation was approximately 30% lower than that of their sensitive counterparts in the absence of the compound. The concentration of STI571 needed for a 50% reduction in viable cells after a 3-day exposure was on average 10 times higher in the resistant (2-3 micromol/L) than in the sensitive (0.2-0.25 micromol/L) clones. The mechanism of resistance to STI571 varied among the cell lines. Thus, in Baf/BCR-ABL-r, LAMA84-r, and AR230-r, there was up-regulation of the Bcr-Abl protein associated with amplification of the BCR-ABL gene. In K562-r, there was no Bcr-Abl overexpression, but the IC(50) for the inhibition of Bcr-Abl autophosphorylation was increased in the resistant clones. Sequencing of the Abl kinase domain revealed no mutations. The multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein (Pgp) was overexpressed in LAMA84-r, indicating that at least 2 mechanisms of resistance operate in this cell line. KCL22-r showed neither Bcr-Abl up-regulation nor a higher threshold for tyrosine kinase inhibition by STI571. We conclude that BCR-ABL-positive cells can evade the inhibitory effect of STI571 by different mechanisms, such as Bcr-Abl overexpression, reduced intake mediated by Pgp, and, possibly, acquisition of compensatory mutations in genes other than BCR-ABL.

mellobcrablresistamplification

FISH analysis of AR230 and LAMA84 sensitive and resistant clones, with probes for the ABL (red signal) and theBCR (green signal) genes. BCR-ABL is identified as a red–green or yellow fused signal. Adapted from Mahon et al., Blood 2000; 96(3):1070-9.

This rapid onset of imatinib resistance also see in the clinic and more prominent in advance disease

From NCCN 2nd Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies – Update on Primary Therapy, Second-Line Therapy, and New Agents for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (Slides with Transcript)

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/564097

There is some evidence that even looking earlier makes some sense in determining what the prognosis is. This is from Timothy Hughes’ group in Adelaide, and he is looking at an earlier molecular time point, 3 months after initiation of therapy. And what you have done here is you have taken the 3-month mark and you have said, “Well, based on your response at 3 months, what is your likelihood that in the future you will either get a major molecular response or become resistant?”

3monthimitanibresist

If you look at the accumulation of imatinib resistance to find if it is either initially not responding or becoming resistant after a good response, it goes up with type of disease and phase of disease. So if you look at patients who have early chronic phase disease — that is, they start getting imatinib less than a year from the diagnosis — their chance of failure is pretty low. With later disease — they are in a chronic phase but they have had disease more than a year before they get imatinib — it is higher. If you see patients with accelerated phase or blast crisis, the chances are that they will fail sometime in the future.

speed of imitinib resistance

Therefore, because not all resistant samples show gene amplification of Bcr/Abl and the rapidity of onset of resistance, many feel that there are other mechanisms of resistance at play, like kinome plasticity.

Kinome Plasticity Contributes to TKI resistance

Beyond gene amplification, other mechanisms of imitanib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) include alterations in compensatory signaling pathways. This can be referred to as kinome plasticity and is explained in the following abstracts from the AACR 2015 meeting.

Systems-pharmacology dissection of a drug synergy in imatinib-resistant CML

Georg E Winter, Uwe Rix, Scott M Carlson, Karoline V Gleixner, Florian Grebien, Manuela Gridling, André C Müller, Florian P Breitwieser, Martin Bilban, Jacques Colinge, Peter Valent, Keiryn L Bennett, Forest M White & Giulio Superti-Furga. Nature Chemical Biology 8,905–912(2012)

Occurrence of the BCR-ABLT315I gatekeeper mutation is among the most pressing challenges in the therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Several BCR-ABL inhibitors have multiple targets and pleiotropic effects that could be exploited for their synergistic potential. Testing combinations of such kinase inhibitors identified a strong synergy between danusertib and bosutinib that exclusively affected CML cells harboring BCR-ABLT315I. To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, we applied a systems-level approach comprising phosphoproteomics, transcriptomics and chemical proteomics. Data integration revealed that both compounds targeted Mapk pathways downstream of BCR-ABL, resulting in impaired activity of c-Myc. Using pharmacological validation, we assessed that the relative contributions of danusertib and bosutinib could be mimicked individually by Mapk inhibitors and collectively by downregulation of c-Myc through Brd4 inhibition. Thus, integration of genome- and proteome-wide technologies enabled the elucidation of the mechanism by which a new drug synergy targets the dependency of BCR-ABLT315I CML cells on c-Myc through nonobvious off targets.

nchembio.1085-F2kinomegleevecresistance

Please see VIDEO and SLIDESHARE of a roundtable Expert Discussion on CML

Curated Content From the 2015 AACR National Meeting on Drug Resistance Mechanisms and tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Session Title: Mechanisms of Resistance: From Signaling Pathways to Stem Cells
Session Type: Major Symposium
Session Start/End Time: Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM -12:30 PM
Location: Terrace Ballroom II-III (400 Level), Pennsylvania Convention Center
CME: CME-Designated
CME/CE Hours: 2
Session Description: Even the most effective cancer therapies are limited due to the development of one or more resistance mechanisms. Acquired resistance to targeted therapies can, in some cases, be attributed to the selective propagation of a small population of intrinsically resistant cells. However, there is also evidence that cancer drugs themselves can drive resistance by triggering the biochemical- or genetic-reprogramming of cells within the tumor or its microenvironment. Therefore, understanding drug resistance at the molecular and biological levels may enable the selection of specific drug combinations to counteract these adaptive responses. This symposium will explore some of the recent advances addressing the molecular basis of cancer cell drug resistance. We will address how tumor cell signaling pathways become rewired to facilitate tumor cell survival in the face of some of our most promising cancer drugs. Another topic to be discussed involves how drugs select for or induce the reprogramming of tumor cells toward a stem-like, drug resistant fate. By targeting the molecular driver(s) of rewired signaling pathways and/or cancer stemness it may be possible to select drug combinations that prevent the reprogramming of tumors and thereby delay or eliminate the onset of drug resistance.
Presentations:
Chairperson
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM -12:30 PM
David A. Cheresh. UCSD Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA
Introduction
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM -10:40 AM
Resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Heterogeneity and therapeutic strategies.
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:40 AM -10:55 AM
Jeffrey A. Engelman. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 10:55 AM -11:00 AM
NG04: Clinical acquired resistance to RAF inhibitor combinations in BRAF mutant colorectal cancer through MAPK pathway alterations
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:00 AM -11:15 AM
Ryan B. Corcoran, Leanne G. Ahronian, Eliezer Van Allen, Erin M. Coffee, Nikhil Wagle, Eunice L. Kwak, Jason E. Faris, A. John Iafrate, Levi A. Garraway, Jeffrey A. Engelman. Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:15 AM -11:20 AM
SY27-02: Tumour heterogeneity and therapy resistance in melanoma
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:20 AM -11:35 AM
Claudia Wellbrock. Univ. of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:35 AM -11:40 AM
SY27-03: Breast cancer stem cell state transitions mediate therapeutic resistance
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:40 AM -11:55 AM
Max S. Wicha. University of Michigan, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 11:55 AM -12:00 PM
SY27-04: Induction of cancer stemness and drug resistance by EGFR blockade
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 12:00 PM -12:15 PM
David A. Cheresh. UCSD Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA
Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 12:15 PM -12:20 PM
General Discussion
Tuesday, Apr 21, 2015, 12:20 PM -12:30 PM

Targeting Macromolecular Signaling Complexes 
Room 115, Pennsylvania Convention Center

Drug Resistance 
Hall A (200 Level), Pennsylvania Convention Center
Resistance to Pathway-Targeted Therapeutics 1 
Section 33

Molecular Mechanisms of Sensitivity or Resistance to Pathway-Targeted Agents 
Room 118, Pennsylvania Convention Center

Targeting Signaling Pathways in Cancer 
Room 204, Pennsylvania Convention Center
Exploiting the MAPK Pathway in Cancer 
Room 115, Pennsylvania Convention Center

PLEASE see the attached WORD file which includes ALL abstracts, posters, and talks on this subject from the AACR 2015 national meeting BELOW

 AACR2015resistancekinome

Other posts related to, Cancer, Chemotherapy, Gleevec and Resistance on this Open Access Journal Include

Imatinib (Gleevec) May Help Treat Aggressive Lymphoma: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Treatments for Acute Leukemias [2.4.4A]

Therapeutic Implications for Targeted Therapy from the Resurgence of Warburg ‘Hypothesis’

Hematologic Malignancies [6.2]

Overview of Posttranslational Modification (PTM)

Novel Modeling Methods for Genomic Data Analysis & Evolutionary Systems Biology to Design Dosing Regimens to Minimize Resistance

Mechanisms of Drug Resistance

Using RNA-seq and targeted nucleases to identify mechanisms of drug resistance in acute myeloid leukemia

An alternative approach to overcoming the apoptotic resistance of pancreatic cancer

Resistance to Receptor of Tyrosine Kinase

Read Full Post »


Reproductive Genetic Dx | Nov. 18-19 | Boston, MA
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics
Advances in Carrier Screening, Preimplantation Diagnostics, and POC Testing
November 18-19, 2015  |  Boston, MA
healthtech.com/reproductive-genetic-diagnosticsMount Sinai Hospital’s Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee to Present at Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics Conference

Tanmoy MukherjeePodcastNumerical Chromosomal Abnormalities after PGS and D&C
Tanmoy Mukherjee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital
This review provides an analysis of the most commonly identified numerical chromosome abnormalities following PGS and first trimester D&C samples in an infertile population utilizing ART. Although monosomies comprised >50% of all cytogenetic anomalies identified following PGS, there were very few identified in the post D&C samples. This suggests that while monosomies occur frequently in the IVF population, they commonly do not implant.

In a CHI podcast, Dr. Mukherjee discusses the current challenges facing reproductive specialists in regards to genetic diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss, as well as how NGS is affecting this type of testing > Listen to Podcast

Register  SAVE up to $200, Register by October 9

Learn More  |  Present a Poster  |  Sponsorship & Exhibit Information  |  View Brochure

CONFERENCE-AT-A-GLANCE

ADVANCES IN NGS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES

Keynote Presentation: Current and Expanding Invitations for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
Joe Leigh Simpson, MD, President for Research and Global Programs, March of Dimes Foundation

Next-Generation Sequencing: Its Role in Reproductive Medicine
Brynn Levy, Professor of Pathology & Cell Biology, CUMC; Director, Clinical Cytogenetics Laboratory, Co-Director, Division of Personalized Genomic Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, and the New York Presbyterian Hospital

CCS without WGA
Nathan Treff, Director, Molecular Biology Research, Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Adjunct Faculty Member, Department of Genetics, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey

Concurrent PGD for Single Gene Disorders and Aneuploidy on a Single Trophectoderm Biopsy
Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Ph.D., FACMG, Director, Clinical Genetics, Foundation for Embryonic Competence

Live Birth of Two Healthy Babies with Monogenic Diseases and Chromosome Abnormality Simultaneously Avoided by MALBAC-based Combined PGD and PGS
Xiaoliang Sunney Xie, Ph.D., Mallinckrodt Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University

Good Start GeneticsAnalytical Validation of a Novel NGS-Based Pre-implantation Genetic Screening Technology
Mark Umbarger, Ph.D., Director, Research and Development, Good Start Genetics


CLINICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ADVANCED TESTING TECHNOLOGIES

Expanded Carrier Screening for Monogenic Disorders
Peter Benn, Professor, Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center

Oocyte Mitochondrial Function and Testing: Implications for Assisted Reproduction
Emre Seli, MD, Yale School of Medicine

Preventing the Transmission of Mitochondrial Diseases through Germline Genome Editing
Alejandro Ocampo, Ph.D., Research Associate, Gene Expression Laboratory – Belmonte, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Silicon BiosystemsRecovery and Analysis of Single (Fetal) Cells: DEPArray Based Strategy to Examine CPM and POC
Farideh Bischoff, Ph.D., Executive Director, Scientific Affairs, Silicon Biosystems, Inc.

> Sponsored Presentation (Opportunities Available)

Numerical Chromosomal Abnormalities after PGS and D&C
Tanmoy Mukherjee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital

EMBRYO PREPARATION, ASSESSMENT, AND TREATMENT

Guidelines and Standards for Embryo Preparation: Embryo Culture, Growth and Biopsy Guidelines for Successful Genetic Diagnosis
Michael A. Lee, MS, TS, ELD (ABB), Director, Laboratories, Fertility Solutions

Current Status of Time-Lapse Imaging for Embryo Assessment and Selection in Clinical IVF
Catherine Racowsky, Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School; Director, IVF Laboratory, Brigham & Women’s Hospital

The Curious Case of Fresh versus Frozen Transfer
Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Boston IVF

Why Does IVF Fail? Finding a Single Euploid Embryo is Harder than You Think
Jamie Grifo, M.D., Ph.D., Program Director, New York University Fertility Center; Professor, New York University Langone Medical Center

BEST PRACTICES AND ETHICS

Genetic Counseling Bridges the Gap between Complex Genetic Information and Patient Care
MaryAnn W. Campion, Ed.D., MS, CGC; Director, Master’s Program in Genetic Counseling; Assistant Dean, Graduate Medical Sciences; Assistant Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston University School of Medicine

Ethical Issues of Next-Generation Sequencing and Beyond
Eugene Pergament, M.D., Ph.D., FACMG, Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern; Attending, Northwestern University Medical School Memorial Hospital

Closing Panel: The Future of Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics: Is Reproductive Technology Straining the Seams of Ethics?
Moderator:
Mache Seibel, M.D., Professor, OB/GYN, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Editor, My Menopause Magazine; Author, The Estrogen Window
Panelists:
Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Ph.D., FACMG, Director, Clinical Genetics, Foundation for Embryonic Competence
Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Boston IVF
Michael A. Lee, MS, TS, ELD (ABB), Director of Laboratories, Fertility Solutions
Nicholas Collins, MS, CGC, Manager, Reproductive Health Specialists, Counsyl

Arrive Early and Attend Advances in Prenatal Molecular Diagnostics – Register for Both Events and SAVE!

Prenatal Molecular Dx | Nov. 16-18 | Boston, MA

CHI, 250 First Avenue, Suite 300, Needham, MA, 02494, Tel: 781-972-5400 | Fax: 781-972-5425

Read Full Post »


NIMHD welcomes nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) has announced the appointment of nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NACMHD), NIMHD’s principal advisory board. Members of the council are drawn from the scientific, medical, and lay communities, so they offer diverse perspectives on minority health and health disparities.

The NACMHD, which meets three times a year on the National Institutes of Health campus, Bethesda, Maryland, advises the secretary of Health and Human Services and the directors of NIH and NIMHD on matters related to NIMHD’s mission. The council also conducts the second level of review of grant applications and cooperative agreements for research and training and recommends approval for projects that show promise of making valuable contributions to human knowledge.

The next meeting of the NACMHD will be held on Thursday, Sept. 10, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. on the NIH campus. The meeting will be available on videocast at http://www.videocast.nih.gov.

NIMHD Director Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, M.D., is pleased to welcome the following new members

Margarita Alegría, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research at Cambridge Health Alliance and a professor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has devoted her career to researching disparities in mental health and substance abuse services, with the goal of improving access to and equity and quality of these services for disadvantaged and minority populations.

Maria Araneta, Ph.D., a perinatal epidemiologist, is a professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Her research interests include maternal/pediatric HIV/AIDS, birth defects, and ethnic health disparities in type 2 diabetes, regional fat distribution, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic abnormalities.

Judith Bradford, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Population Research in LGBT Health and she co-chairs The Fenway Institute, Boston. Dr. Bradford has participated in health research since 1984, working with public health programs and community-based organizations to conduct studies on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and racial minority communities and to translate the results into programs to reduce health disparities.

Linda Burhansstipanov, Dr.P.H., has worked in public health since 1971, primarily with Native American issues. She is a nationally recognized educator on cancer prevention, community-based participatory research, navigation programs, cultural competency, evaluation, and other topics. Dr. Burhansstipanov worked with the Anschutz Medical Center Cancer Research Center — now the University of Colorado Cancer Research Center — in Denver for five years before founding Native American Cancer Initiatives, Inc., and the Native American Cancer Research Corporation.

Sandro Galea, M.D., a physician and epidemiologist, is the dean and a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. Prior to his appointment at Boston University, Dr. Galea served as the Anna Cheskis Gelman and Murray Charles Gelman Professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. His research focuses on the causes of brain disorders, particularly common mood and anxiety disorders, and substance abuse.

Linda Greene, J.D., is Evjue Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Law School. Her teaching and academic scholarship include constitutional law, civil procedure, legislation, civil rights, and sports law. Most recently, she was the vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of California, San Diego.

Ross A. Hammond, Ph.D., a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., is also director of the Center on Social Dynamics and Policy. His primary area of expertise is using mathematical and computational methods from complex systems science to model complex dynamics in economic, social, and public health systems. His current research topics include obesity etiology and prevention, tobacco control, and behavioral epidemiology.

Hilton Hudson, II, M.D., is chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Franciscan Healthcare, Munster, Indiana and a national ambassador for the American Heart Association. He also is the founder of Hilton Publishing, Inc., a national publisher dedicated to producing content on solutions related to health, wellness, and education for people in underserved communities. Dr. Hilton’s book, “The Heart of the Matter: The African American Guide to Heart Disease, Heart Treatment and Heart Wellness” has impacted at-risk patients nationwide.

Brian M. Rivers, Ph.D., M.P.H., currently serves on the research faculty at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. He is also an assistant professor in the Department of Oncologic Sciences at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa. Dr. Rivers’ research efforts include examination of unmet educational and psychosocial needs and the development of communication tools, couple-centered interventions, and evidence-based methods to convey complex information to at-risk populations across the cancer continuum.

NIMHD is one of NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers. It leads scientific research to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities by conducting and supporting research; planning, reviewing, coordinating, and evaluating all minority health and health disparities research at NIH; promoting and supporting the training of a diverse research workforce; translating and disseminating research information; and fostering collaborations and partnerships. For more information about NIMHD, visit http://www.nimhd.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »