Oncology On The Go

In this episode, CancerNetwork® spoke with Joseph S. Wallins, MD, MPH, cardiology fellow at Weill Cornell Medicine, about a review of cardiotoxicities associated with breast cancer treatment he coauthored in the June 2025 issue of ONCOLOGY® titled, “Cardio-Oncology Considerations for Breast Cancer: Risk Stratification, Monitoring, and Treatment.” Therein, he touched upon data for risk stratification tools for oncologists, as well as the development of cardiovascular testing for individual treatment regimens.

Wallins discussed the basis for conducting the systemic review as well as noteworthy cardiotoxicities associated with specific classes of breast cancer therapies. Specifically, he highlighted an increase in cancer remission and survivorship for breast cancer, which has, in turn, created alternative health risks impacting survival outcomes, such as cardiovascular risks. Citing a study showing a nearly 2-fold risk in cardiovascular-related fatalities for breast cancer survivors vs the general population, he suggested that the review was warranted to identify cardiotoxicities, strategies for preventing and managing them, and tools for risk stratification and monitoring.

Wallins further outlined considerations for optimizing risk stratification and monitoring strategies in patients at risk of experiencing cardiovascular toxicities as well as treatments that may help with their prevention or mitigation. To that end, he discussed identifying patients who are at a higher risk before initiating treatment and outlined risk assessment tools that serve to do so. Furthermore, he suggested that patients who experience a greater than moderate risk for cardiovascular issues should undergo cardioprotective strategies and have in-depth conversations with providers regarding treatment risks.

He concluded by highlighting future steps to enhance cardiovascular outcomes for patients with breast cancer, among additional key takeaways. Of note, Wallins expressed that genetic testing may help elucidate cardiomyopathy-associated genes while calling for a more personalized approach to risk stratification and more sensitive and specific imaging techniques to better identify at-risk patients. Finally, he emphasized a need for upfront risk assessment to identify patients at a higher risk who could benefit from additional testing as well as more pronounced collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists.

Reference

Bradshaw PT, Stevens J, Khankari N, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Gammon MD. Cardiovascular disease mortality among breast cancer survivors. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):6-13. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000394

In a recent episode of the Oncology-on-the-Go podcast in collaboration with the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), host Daniel C. McFarland, DO, was joined by Christian J. Nelson, PhD, to discuss the often-overlooked subject of sexual health issues for men after cancer treatment. The discussion emphasized the importance of a nuanced approach to men's health, particularly in the context of genitourinary cancers like prostate and testicular cancer.

McFarland is the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center and a medical oncologist who specializes in head, neck, and lung cancer in addition to being the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY®. He opened the conversation by highlighting that while cancer’s physical effects are well-documented, the mental and emotional toll is equally significant and often underappreciated in male patients. He highlighted that the field of psycho-oncology, which began with breast cancer, is now expanding to address men’s specific needs. Men, he noted, are less likely to seek mental health support, yet have a higher risk of suicide, particularly at key moments in their cancer journey like diagnosis and recurrence.

Nelson, chief of Psychiatry Service, attending psychologist, and codirector of the Psycho-Oncology of Care and Aging Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, underscored that cancer treatments, especially for prostate cancer, often have profound adverse effects (AEs) that impact a man’s sense of self and masculinity. 

He detailed the effects of radical pelvic treatments and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which can lead to urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and changes in sexual function and body image. These AEs can lead to feelings of being "broken," "inadequate," or "deflated."

The pair discussed the "double-edged sword" of normalizing cancer, where patients are told their prognosis is good but are left unprepared for the life-altering AEs. This can lead to a sense of cognitive dissonance and isolation. The conversation stressed the need for clinicians to proactively normalize discussions about sexual health, making it clear that these are standard and expected aspects of the cancer experience.

Both clinicians suggested that establishing a trusting relationship with patients is paramount and that referrals to psycho-oncology should be framed as an essential, not optional, component of treatment. They also recommend that clinicians consistently check in with their male patients about emotional and sexual well-being, even long after treatment has ended, to ensure they’re coping with the lasting impacts of their experience. 

In a conversation with CancerNetwork®, Geraldine O’Sullivan Coyne, MD, MRCPI, PhD, spoke about her new appointment as the principal investigator and director of Clinical Research at the Northwell Health unit of the Southern Texas Accelerated Research Therapeutics (START) Center for Cancer Research. Based on a strategic partnership formed between Northwell Health and START in May 2024, she will oversee early-phase clinical trial development at New York’s first START research site at the R.J. Zuckerberg Cancer Center in New Hyde Park.

Coyne began by sharing her excitement to put all her efforts into making the unit a “good opportunity” to consider patients who reside in community settings for enrollment in new clinical trials. Although large academic centers may offer possibilities for enrolling in trials, Coyne highlighted how many patients may need to travel or leave their social networks behind as they undergo treatment, thus illustrating a need for expanded options in the community setting.

“Having the privilege to be able to bring trial opportunities into the community—into the heart of the community—is what we are aiming to do,” Coyne stated about her new role. “We do believe that this will [allow] patients to access novel and powerful therapies that are now increasingly part of a personalized treatment paradigm for patients with advanced malignancies.”

Emphasizing the pursuit of early-phase clinical investigations, Coyne described how the new unit may leverage START’s expertise to advance novel molecules across all stages of the drug development pipeline up to regulatory approval. She noted that being able to safely create and refine new therapeutic approaches in the community setting lies at the heart of a successful collaboration between Northwell Health and START.

“A lot of the excitement surrounding the START unit and Northwell Health collaboration with them is exploring these novel molecules that will hopefully continue to build on the pursuit in oncology drug development, which has been finding better and more targeted therapies for patients in their treatment journey,” Coyne said.

Reference

Olt B. Northwell names Geraldine O’Sullivan Coyne, MD, PhD, to lead clinical trials at new START center. News release. Northwell Health. July 22, 2025. Accessed August 12, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/bdcua8ck

In the inaugural podcast episode created in collaboration with the American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), Daniel C. McFarland, DO, and Michelle Fingeret, PhD, explored the critical, yet often overlooked, issue of body image in patients with cancer. McFarland opened the discussion by acknowledging the significant psychosocial challenges clinicians face and highlighted the therapeutic power of the patient-oncologist relationship, which extends beyond medical treatments.

Fingeret defined body image as a person’s total relationship with their body, encompassing not only appearance but also function and sensory experiences. She emphasized that body image changes are universal experiences for patients with cancer that affect all aspects of their lives. Despite their prevalence, Fingeret suggested that many clinicians feel ill-equipped to address these issues, and that patients are often reluctant to raise the topic due to feelings of shame or a desire not to "burden" their health care providers.

The discussion delved into the spectrum of body image concerns, ranging from mild distress to severe functional impairment. Fingeret distinguished between clinical body dysmorphic disorder and other changes patients experience, stressing that their distress is a valid reaction to actual bodily alterations. She provided a framework for clinicians to assess a patient's concerns, urging them to listen carefully to the language patients use. Patients may describe their bodies with inflammatory words like "deformed" or use avoidance strategies, such as refusing to look in a mirror. Fingeret noted how these are important cues that signal a need for a deeper conversation.

Practical advice was also offered on how to initiate these conversations. Instead of normalizing a patient’s concerns with platitudes like "Your hair will grow back," clinicians should validate their feelings by creating a safe space for them to talk openly. Simple, curious questions—such as "How does that make you feel?" or "Have you looked at yourself in the mirror?"—can open the door to a more meaningful dialogue. The goal of intervention, Fingeret explained, is not to force the patient to love their body, but to help them achieve a greater level of body image acceptance.

The conversation concluded with a focus on redefining success. McFarland noted that patients often hope to "go back to where they were before," an unrealistic goal. Fingeret reinforced this point, stating that a key part of the work is helping patients develop flexible, realistic expectations. Success is often found in incremental progress, such as reducing avoidance behaviors or finding more fulfillment in social relationships, rather than in the complete elimination of body image distress.

McFarland is the director of the Psycho-Oncology Program at Wilmot Cancer Center and a medical oncologist who specializes in head and neck and lung cancer. He is also the psycho-oncology editorial advisory board member for the journal ONCOLOGY. Fingeret is the founder of Fingeret Psychology Services and specializes in body image and cancer. 

In a conversation with CancerNetwork® at the 2025 National Immune Cell Effector Therapy (ICE-T) Conference, Tiba Al Sagheer, PharmD, BCOP, BCACP; Rebecca Gonzalez, PharmD, BCOP, FASTCT; and Syeda Saba Kareem PharmD, BCOP, spoke about their presentations on managing adverse effects (AEs) across different hematologic malignancy populations. At the meeting, Al Sagheer, Gonzalez, and Kareem presented their ideas for treating patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and multiple myeloma, respectively.

Al Sagheer is a Pharmacy Quality Improvement Coordinator and Transplant/Cellular Therapy and Hematology Clinical Pharmacy Specialist at Miami Cancer Institute of Baptist Health South Florida. Gonzalez is a clinical pharmacy specialist in Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Immunotherapy at Moffitt Cancer Center. Kareem is a clinical pharmacy supervisor in Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center.

Across different disease states, the presenters outlined the most common toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, and other novel immunotherapies. Additionally, they described strategies for reducing the severity of AEs such as cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome as well as other oral, dermatological, and nail toxicities. Other key considerations for preserving quality of life among those receiving cellular therapy included risk stratifying patients based on tumor burden and inflammatory markers at baseline to inform prophylactic measures.

Each presenter shared key takeaways for treating patients who experience treatment-related AEs based on their individual presentations. Al Sagheer emphasized that it is not “one size fits all” when it comes to therapy, as providers must tailor their use of specific drugs, prophylactic measures, and anti-infective medication to each individual patient. Kareem noted that cellular therapy represents an evolving field, as toxicity mitigation strategies will continue to change over time as new data emerge. Finally, Gonzalez underscored the intimate nature of the cellular therapy field, which presents opportunities to collaborate with other institutions and receive guidance on managing complex cases. 

References

In a discussion with CancerNetwork®, Jacob Sands, MD, assistant professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, thoracic oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and investigator of the phase 2 TROPION-Lung05 trial (NCT04484142) and phase 3 TROPION-Lung01 trial (NCT04656652), which supported the accelerated approval of datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (dato-DXd; Datroway) in pretreated EGFR-mutant metastatic NSCLC in June 2025, discussed safety and efficacy considerations for the agent’s use.1-3

He began by outlining a combined cohort of the TROPION-Lung05 and TROPION-Lung01 trials, which collectively showed an efficacy benefit with dato-DXd in patients with EGFR-mutant disease vs docetaxel. In the combined cohort, the median progression-free survival with dato-DXd reached 5.8 months, and the median overall survival was 15.6 months. Additional efficacy data revealed an objective response rate of 45% (95% CI, 35%-54%) and a median duration of response of 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.4). 

Furthermore, Sands highlighted the most common toxicities observed with dato-DXd in this population, which included stomatitis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and ocular toxicities. He also reviewed management strategies to mitigate their incidence and severity. Specifically, remedies include prophylaxis, oral hygiene, and dose reductions for stomatitis; using preservative-free eye drops and ophthalmology visits for ocular toxicity management and prevention; and monitoring for any incidence of high-grade ILD.

He then touched upon next steps for research in this disease state, including the phase 2 ORCHARD trial (NCT03944772) evaluating dato-DXd with osimertinib (Tagrisso) in the second-line setting after progression on osimertinib and the phase 3 TROPION-Lung15 trial (NCT06417814), which is evaluating chemotherapy vs dato-DXd alone or with osimertinib.4,5

Sands concluded by discussing the implications for toxicity management in patients who experience responses that exceed median outcomes, suggesting that the toxicity profile may be more severe for this group. Emphasizing the broadness of outcomes with any drug, he expressed that patients with experiences that deviate from the observed median outcome are an important consideration for clinical practice.

References

At the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit hosted by KidneyCAN, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of leading experts about key developments in the research and management of kidney cancer. Throughout the meeting, presenters shared their findings related to updated clinical trial results, personalized cancer vaccines, potential biomarkers of interest, and other advancements in the field.

Thomas Powles, MBBS, MCRP, MD, discussed outcomes from a quality-adjusted survival time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of the phase 3 LITESPARK-005 trial (NCT04195750), in which investigators evaluated treatment with belzutifan (Welireg) vs everolimus (Afinitor) among patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Powles, a professor of genitourinary oncology, lead for Solid Tumor Research, and director of Barts Cancer Institute at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, stated that these data demonstrate how belzutifan is more active and better tolerated than everolimus in this patient population.

David A. Braun, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Yale School of Medicine and member of the Center of Molecular and Cellular Oncology within the Yale Cancer Center, detailed his presentation on a personalized neoantigen cancer vaccine as a treatment for those with RCC. Based on his presentation, Braun highlighted how neoantigen vaccines may effectively yield T-cell responses in patients, illustrating a need for additional, larger studies to elucidate the clinical activity of this modality in an adjuvant setting.

Additionally, Wenxin (Vincent) Xu, MD, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, spoke about his presentation on how kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) may serve as a prognostic biomarker of response to therapy in patients with RCC. His research posed questions on how KIM-1 can inform the use of adjuvant therapy or specific therapeutic combinations like nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) for this patient population.

Eric Jonasch, MD, gave an overview of his presentation focused on the Kidney Cancer Research Consortium, a research partnership spanning 7 institutions dedicated to facilitating mechanistic, hypothesis-testing clinical trials in RCC. Jonasch, a professor in the Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology of the Division of Cancer Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, described how this collaboration aims to link identifiable biological characteristics of RCC subtypes to specific treatment strategies while developing predictive biomarkers.

KidneyCAN is a nonprofit organization with a mission to accelerate cures for kidney cancer through education, advocacy, and research funding. You can learn more about KidneyCAN’s work here: https://kidneycan.org/

References

1. Powles T, de Velasco G, Choueiri TK, et al. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of belzutifan versus everolimus in previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): LITESPARK-005 (LS-005). Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA. Abstract 13.

2. Braun DA. Personalized vaccines in kidney cancer: a journey from concept to clinic. Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA.

3. Xu W. From bench to bedside: advancing KIM-1 as a tool for clinical decision-making. Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA.

4. Jonasch E. Building the infrastructure for discovery: a clinical trial consortium to accelerate kidney cancer research. Presented at the 2025 Kidney Cancer Research Summit; July 17-18, 2025; Boston, MA.

In this episode, CancerNetwork® spoke with breast oncologists Heather McArthur, MD; Erika Hamilton, MD; Hope Rugo, MD; and Paolo Tarantino, MD, PhD, about advances in breast cancer. These developments included recent drug approvals and ongoing research for therapeutic approaches, particularly in the areas of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and CDK4/6 inhibitors, based on presentations they gave at the 25th Annual International Congress on the Future of Breast Cancer (IBC) East in New York City.

Initially, McArthur, Komen Distinguished Chair in Clinical Breast Cancer Research at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, discussed immunotherapy use in high-risk triple-negative and HER2-positive disease, the evolving role of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibition in HER2-negative breast cancer, and potentially transformative advancements in early breast cancer treatment. 

She highlighted the FDA approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer, promising clinical trials in estrogen receptor (ER)–positive high-risk early-stage breast cancer, and data from an investigator-initiated trial to treat HER2-positive disease. Additionally, she highlighted an 8.5% improvement in pathological complete response with pembrolizumab added to immunotherapy in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-756 trial (NCT03725059), adding that a further event-free survival benefit may complicate the landscape for CDK4/6 inhibition based on lung and liver toxicities associated with the coadministration of these inhibitors with immunotherapy.1

McArthur expressed further excitement for ADC-based combinations for triple-negative disease, as well as in the high-risk residual disease setting. In addition, she highlighted potential advancements in de-escalation strategies and further considerations for ADCs in the HER2-positive and hormone receptor (HR)–positive spaces.

Then, Hamilton, director of Breast Cancer and Gynecologic Cancer Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, highlighted emerging therapies for early breast cancer, as well as her use of datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (dato-DXd; Datroway) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) given their recent approvals in various breast cancer subtypes. She also touched upon challenges with respect to the implementation of new therapies for early breast cancer into clinical practice.

She initially highlighted new data from the phase 3 VERITAC-2 trial (NCT05654623) presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.2 Specifically, findings showed that vepdegestrant, an oral proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC), exhibited an efficacy advantage over fulvestrant (Faslodex) in patients with ESR1-mutant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic disease. Moreover, she highlighted data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 (NCT04784715) of T-DXd in various combinations for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.3

Hamilton further highlighted her implementation of T-DXd into clinical practice, citing her use of the agent in patients with metastatic disease, including those with HER2-low and HER2-ultralow breast cancer. She further differentiated dato-DXd from T-DXd, suggesting that they were different classes of drugs due to their different targets: TROP2 vs HER2. She concluded by highlighting an unmet need regarding sustained benefit from endocrine therapy in HR-positive disease, as well as for ADC sequencing and mechanisms of resistance.

Afterward, Rugo, division chief of Breast Medical Oncology, Women’s Cancer Program Director, and professor in the Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research at City of Hope, discussed efficacy and safety considerations for CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer treatment. Specifically, she highlighted their high tolerability despite adverse effects and costs associated with their use. Rugo further touched upon a reduction of recurrence rates associated with CDK4/6 inhibition, although longer-term follow-up data were warranted to optimize the duration of therapy and elucidate survival outcomes.

Finally, Tarantino, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Institute, concluded by discussing sequencing strategies for ADCs, as well as which breast cancer settings or patient populations will experience the greatest impact with this treatment modality. Tarantino discussed his use of the “sandwich strategy,” where he switches the mechanism of action of treatment after using a TOPO1 ADC. Furthermore, Tarantino highlighted data from the DESTINY-Breast09 and phase 3 ASCENT-04 (NCT06100874) trials, which displayed the enhanced efficacy of 2 ADC combination therapies.4 He concluded by discussing future considerations for combining multiple ADCs.

References

1. Cardoso F, O'Shaughnessy J, Liu Z, et al. Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in high-risk, early-stage, ER+/HER2- breast cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 2025;31(2):442-448. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03415-7

2. Hamilton E, De Laurentiis M, Jhaveri K, et al. Vepdegestrant, a PROTAC estrogen receptor (ER) degrader, vs fulvestrant in ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer: results of the global, randomized, phase 3 VERITAC-2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA1000. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA1000

3. Tolaney S, Jiang Z, Zhang Q, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) + pertuzumab (P) vs taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (THP) for first-line (1L) treatment of patients (pts) with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (a/mBC): interim results from DESTINY-Breast09. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA1008.

4. Tolaney SM, de Azambuja E, Kalinsky K, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) + pembrolizumab (pembro) vs chemotherapy (chemo) + pembro in previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Primary results from the randomized phase 3 ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA109. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA109

Following the FDA approval of taletrectinib (Ibtrozi) for patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), CancerNetwork® spoke with Jorge Nieva, MD, about how this regulatory decision may impact the treatment paradigm for this disease.

The approval was supported by findings from the phase 2 TRUST-I trial (NCT04395677) and the phase 2 TRUST-II trial (NCT04919811). The total efficacy population included 157 patients who had no prior treatment with a ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and 113 who were previously treated with a ROS1 TKI.

Topline results showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 90% (95% CI, 83%-95%) in TRUST-I and 85% (95% CI, 73%-93%) in TRUST-II among patients who had no prior treatment. Of those with pretreated disease, the respective ORRs were 52% (95% CI, 39%-64%) and 62% (95% CI, 46%-75%) in each study population.

According to Nieva, an associate professor of clinical medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, taletrectinib may offer advantages over other therapies in the ROS1-positive metastatic NSCLC space based on its improved central nervous system (CNS) toxicity profile and “excellent” response and progression-free survival data. He stated that taletrectinib would become the go-to first-line agent in his practice. Additionally, he discussed strategies for mitigating toxicities related to taletrectinib such as nausea and diarrhea, and highlighted the need for additional research to improve immunotherapy options in NSCLC. 

“I’m very happy that we have choices for patients, and I’m very happy that we have such a wide variety of drugs, but we still need to do better, and we need to find better ways of using these agents because they’re still not cures for the majority of patients,” Nieva stated. “While these drugs can be helpful at debulking tumors, we still need to do a lot more work [to do] on making this a disease of the past for those patients who have it.”

Reference

FDA approves taletrectinib for ROS1-positive non-small cell lung cancer. News release. FDA. June 11, 2025. Accessed July 8, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/yc4f379m

The medical oncology board examinations are a pivotal time in a clinician's career. However, preparing for and taking this exam comes as a crucial moment when residents/fellows begin their transition to attending. 

While in theory, the process of taking an exam and then beginning a new job sounds simple, it is quite complex. The hematology/oncology boards require rigorous preparation. The exam is followed by the new attending position, where clinicians, for the first time, are on their own, making treatment decisions and leading a team. 

ONCOLOGY® spoke with leading clinicians as well as those who are just beginning their careers about this time, and how they handled studying while experiencing personal and professional changes.

Eric K. Singhi, MD, assistant professor in the Department of General Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, and assistant professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, focused on:

·      His transition from fellow to attending (0:58)

·      Where students should focus their efforts on studying (2:11)

·      Advice he would give to those currently studying (2:47)

Nicholas James Hornstein, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Northwell Health Cancer Institute, discussed: 

·      Studying for the boards while balancing a new career (3:18)

·      Specific study areas the exam focuses on (5:43)

Marc J. Braunstein, MD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, fellowship program director in hematology/oncology at NYU Langone Health - Long Island, and codirector of the Hematology-Oncology System at NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, highlighted:

·      How to prepare fellows for the career transition (7:11)

·      Advice he gives about this transition (8:17)

Nerea M. Lopetegui-Lia, MD, assistant professor in the College of Medicine at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-The James, spoke about:

·      Best review practices for the exam (9:01)

·      Advice she would give to those studying (10:15)

MinhTri Nguyen, MD, a medical oncologist with Stanford Medicine, focused on: 

·      As a leadership coach, helping prepare residents/fellows for the career transition (11:36)

·      Advice he would give to those studying (14:34)