The pit in my stomach used to come once a year.
Most Americans receive cancer treatment close to home, at community hospitals or in community oncologists' offices. And based on patient satisfaction surveys, most Americans are very happy with the care they receive.
At a recent NIH study section that I chaired, we had many applications that we reviewed as a group before the meeting. At the meeting, we were required to discuss over 50% of the grants.
Creation of Big Data repositories is now emphasized at virtually all research institutions and the NIH, but the number of publications describing patient outcomes from these sources appears modest.1 Why is this so; what factors limit what should be a hugely productive resource, and how can we improve the impact of this use of Big Data? Why does this issue require greater physician engagement and understanding to solve? The integration of clinical, laboratory, and financial data is required to describe disease and treatment outcomes as well as treatment value.
Advances in the field of tumor immunotherapy have given great hope for those treating cancer. We are in an era of unprecedented achievements, as evidenced by impressive clinical responses in patients treated with adoptive cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Cancer is a relentless disease that impacts millions of Americans.
The ever-rising cost of oncology drugs is doing damage to cancer care on many levels.
It was a thrilling moment for me when, sitting on my living room couch, listening to the State of the Union address, I heard the president say:
The decision to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health should be easy, because it will save lives and save our economy simultaneously. The case for NIH is overwhelming, and there is broad bipartisan congressional support. So why is it so challenging?
Waun Ki Hong and John Mendelsohn were singular forces who combined to change the world of oncology and, in the process, the lives of countless trainees, faculty, patients, and families.
