Last week’s issue of The Cancer Letter included an obituary that the entire staff at The Cancer Letter had been dreading for years: Abdallah Abou Zahr, an oncologist at Roger Maris Cancer Center in Fargo, ND, died Jan. 23 of a liposarcoma after a five-year battle with the disease. 

Abou Zahr’s story had become personal for The Cancer Letter. In February 2024, an intimate story of how cancer hijacked his family’s future—and of how his colleagues and community rallied around him—became one of the magazine’s most read articles. His family’s story highlights the heartbreaking reality that even those who work in oncology are not immune to the devastating personal and financial impacts of cancer.

On this week’s episode of The Cancer Letter Podcast, Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, and Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor, reflect on Abou Zahr’s experience with cancer—as an oncologist, a caregiver, and, ultimately, a patient with terminal disease.

Abou Zahr’s obituary was published last week alongside a story about the fate of the fiscal year 2026 funding bill, which was still uncertain at the time. As of Feb. 3, the FY26 funding bill has been passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. Paul and Jacquelyn talk about how important it is for The Cancer Letter, even as a trade publication, to consistently highlight real patients and their stories.

“When we do those stories, they're the most read stories of the year or years,” Paul said. “That is one thing they all have in common.”

“They’re resonant; right?” Jacquelyn said. “I think it is important that we kind of circle back to that every once in a while, even if that isn't necessarily our coverage area technically. We're not necessarily a general publication, but I think we have to keep circling back to that and returning to that because that is the whole point.”

“It's for the soul,” Paul said.

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• Abdallah Abou Zahr, an oncologist whose cancer story resonated widely, dies of liposarcoma at 42 

• An oncologist navigates terminal sarcoma, insurmountable debt, and “a legacy of grief” 

• FY26 funding package blocked in Senate after ICE shooting of Alex Pretti 

• The Directors: Gary Schwartz and Ramon Parsons on the best of times (for science), the worst of times (for funding) 

• Les Biller: Supportive cancer care is the smart investment our leaders in Washington can’t afford to ignore 

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20260204-abdallah/  

As NCI paylines drop to 4%, cancer centers are tapping into their institutional funds to provide “bridge funding,” typically in $50,000 to $100,000 increments, to enable investigators to keep their labs open until better times return—next year God willing.

“It’s sort of starvation wages in terms of the grant funding,” said Ramon E. Parsons, director of Tisch Cancer Institute & Mount Sinai Cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “And so, how do we pay for salaries for research scientists like postdoctoral scientists or graduate students? Those efforts are going to have to be sort of reduced.” 

The paylines raise questions about sustainability of cancer research in the United States.

“I do worry about the next generation of scientists, I mean, the frustration level is pretty high over the funding levels,” said Gary K. Schwartz, director of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. “And this may result in people with really innovative ideas to establish their careers, deciding that it’s just not worth developing a career in cancer medicine or basic science. And what happens then? We lose the whole cadre of people who are going to be the future of this whole program.”

On the first 2026 episode of The Directors Podcast, Parsons and Schwartz spoke with The Cancer Letter’s Paul Goldberg about the challenges facing their cancer centers, how they’re navigating funding difficulties, and their hopes for the future.

A transcript of this episode is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20260130_1/ 

In last week’s issue of The Cancer Letter, Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor, wrote a story about the then-promising legislative package that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives Jan. 22. At the time, the package was expected to pass in the Senate, provide funding for the federal government through fiscal year 2026, and prevent a government shutdown that looms Jan. 30. 

Then, on Jan. 24, 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot in Minneapolis while trying to document the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

In this week’s episode of The Cancer Letter Podcast, Jacquelyn and Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, talk about how the future of the House-FY26 spending package—and its implications for NIH and NCI funding, as well as pediatric cancer initiatives and other important healthcare stipulations—has dissolved as lawmakers refuse to move forward a spending bill without changes to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security.

“There we were, staying in our lane covering nothing but the stuff we cover, which is oncology,” Paul, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, said. “So, suddenly, a 38-year-old nurse from the VA gets killed while trying to document what ICE is doing in Minneapolis. 

“And suddenly the bill, the spending bill, which includes the Department of Homeland Security spending, is derailed. So, we are trying to stay within our lane and cover only oncology and then the world catches up, which also kind of tells you that there are no safe places anymore,” Paul said.

The events of the last week reminded Paul that “staying in our lane” is not always possible. 

“I'm seeing one thing only,” Paul said. “There is no safe harbor that I thought we were kind of seeking so we could focus only on our stuff because The New York Times does a very nice job of covering the rest of the administration. We cover our part of the administration. Well, now we are seeing that our part of administration is becoming more like ‘Well, there's no safe harbor. It's very hard to delineate.’”

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• Premarin's 84-year hold on the market ends as FDA approves a generic version

• Spending bill passed by the House gives NIH $415M raise, NCI gets $128M Legislation caps proportion of NIH grants to receive multiyear funding; indirect costs remain untouched

• Fifth time’s a charm? Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act is included in FY26 spending bill

• Blood Cancer United: A new name at the right moment

• NIH ends fetal tissue research—again 

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20260128-fy26-funding/   

“It's really, really important that every year since 1991, cancer mortality has dropped by a little bit, and it did again!” said Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter. “Now, mortality is a good metric, age-adjusted mortality. As far as survival, well, that's not so good.”

In last week’s cover story in The Cancer Letter, Paul and Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor of The Cancer Letter, wrote about the annual cancer statistics report by the American Cancer Society. The publication reported that age-adjusted mortality has once again dropped by a small, not especially dramatic margin, but ACS focused its messaging around a different metric: the five-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined reached 70% for people diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 in the U.S. for the first time. 

The finding was received with widespread fanfare, but epidemiologists had some qualms with the strength of the endpoint of five-year relative survival. 

In this episode of The Cancer Letter Podcast, Paul and Jacquelyn talk about the nuances of last week’s data-heavy issue of The Cancer Letter.

“And in this case, [ACS] decided to go with this statistic, which is kind of unexplained, that shows that 70% survival is now happening in cancer. Does it mean that people are living longer?” Paul said. “No, not necessarily, even though they are, based on mortality numbers.”

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• ACS report trumpets 70% five-year survival for all cancers amid uncertain funding outlook

• New Medicaid work requirements could lead to 1.6 million missed cancer screenings over two years

• When “safe and effective” is not “reasonable and necessary” We can curb excessive drug dosing and improve the quality of cancer care

• A radiation oncologist’s perspective: Why we need to accelerate early detection strategies for lung cancers

• Ben Seon, immunologist whose work led to development of lymphoma drug Polivy, dies at 89 

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20260121-acs/   

“I believe in the concept of a universal cancer vaccine,” said Elias Sayour, a pediatric oncologist at the University of Florida. “I think if this fails in a prospective phase III trial, I still believe we can engineer a vaccine that works prospectively.”

The cover story of last week’s issue of The Cancer Letter was about the potential of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to improve response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies in patients with lung cancer and melanoma. The finding was published by Sayour and his colleagues in an October Nature paper. 

This week on The Cancer Letter Podcast, Sayour joins The Cancer Letter team to talk about his study and why he is a believer in the promise of mRNA vaccines to help improve cancer treatment. 

“mRNA seems the best at doing this,” Sayour said. “That isn't to say that other vaccines couldn't harness the antiviral response in a similar manner… All I can tell you is in our preclinical models and in our observations, clinical observations as well, we did look at the Pneumovax [a non mRNA-vaccine] as just an example, a vaccine, and it did not confer the same effects as the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Based on that, mRNA to us seems to be very unique. But other vaccine designs that leverage these mechanisms through a non-specific manner could also perhaps achieve the same effects.”

Sayour is hopeful that the COVID vaccine will show clinical benefit in the prospective phase II-III trial that is scheduled to begin enrollment in March, since it would be a boon for patients. 

“If it works, I do think that's revolutionary,” Sayour said. “How commercially available it is, how this can address third-world countries that may have poor access to some of these technologies as a manner of eliciting some type of a universal effect.”

If the COVID vaccine does not help cancer patients in the prospective trial, Sayour said he will continue his work. He sees a future where all cancer patients receive some sort of universal cancer vaccine to reawaken their immune systems to help kill cancer cells.

“It's my hope that now we could have something that's instantly available to patients at the time of diagnosis, perhaps right before surgery,” Sayour said. “Everybody gets a universal vaccine to basically awaken that immune response against their cancer. And that could be bookended with immune checkpoint inhibitors, other cancer vaccines, other types of immunotherapies, for maximal effect.”

This episode is sponsored by City of Hope Cancer Center. Learn more at cityofhope.org. 

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• A planned randomized trial will ask an intriguing question: Do COVID vaccines potentiate checkpoint inhibitors?

• How a Montefiore Einstein screening program is changing the history of lung cancer in the Bronx

• MSK’s AML researcher Bayard “Barney” Clarkson, former president of ASCO and AACR, dies at 99

• Paul Engstrom, Fox Chase pioneer of cancer prevention, dies at 89

• Patient advocate David Mitchell, 75, dies of multiple myeloma

• NIH agrees to review hundreds of denied or shelved grant applications

• House passes three-year extension of ACA subsidies with bipartisan support 

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20260114-sayour/  

On Dec. 19, the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act was blocked in the Senate by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) after receiving unanimous approval from the U.S. House of Representatives Dec. 1. 

On this episode of The Cancer Letter Podcast, Nancy Goodman, founder and executive director of Kids v. Cancer, joins Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor with The Cancer Letter, and Claire Marie Porter, reporter. Goodman walks Jacquelyn and Claire through the emotional highs and lows that have characterized the legislative story of the bill, which is aimed at accelerating pediatric cancer treatments and expanding access to life-saving therapies for children battling rare diseases. 

The legislation was named in memory of Mikaela Naylon, a 16-year-old with osteosarcoma who had advocated for the Give Kids a Chance Act and who had spent her last weeks asking Congress to pass it.

The bill’s failure in the Senate was a total shock to Goodman and the other pediatric cancer advocates involved.

“When the House had their vote, we brought a whole slew of kids who had cancer or who were bereaved siblings or parents and Mikaela's parents and her brother came and we all watched together. And it was just one of the most moving moments you can imagine. People were crying and just it was like this moment where we felt like Congress really cared and Congress was working and Mikaela's family felt like her death was not for nothing. And we came back to my house and celebrated,” Goodman said. “It was just this awesome party, this beautiful moment. We were just so happy. We couldn't believe it. And Senator Mullin's staff was saying they're going to have a vote soon. And we thought, ‘Oh my gosh, this can happen before Christmas. This is going to be our Christmas gift.’ So, we were just ecstatic. We thought it was going to happen.”

But Sen. Sanders blocked the small Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act in favor of pushing a larger, billion-dollar spending bill, Goodman said. 

“What he said was he doesn't object to the bill, but he said that he has other priorities,” Goodman explained. “He has this huge set of priorities…And he said, ‘Look, [the 2024 CR] was a bipartisan agreement. There are over a billion dollars worth of bipartisan priorities. Before we give the Republicans any opportunity to cherry-pick what they care about…let's pass the whole package.’"

Sen. Sanders’s larger bill was struck down by Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), leaving the Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act without support in the Senate.

“I just wonder, Senator Sanders says he cares about kids with cancer,” Goodman said. “And I'm just asking him to show us: How does he care? Where is it?”

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act nixed by Senate 

• House passes Mikaela Naylon Give Kids a Chance Act—next step, the Senate

• Pediatric cancer research cut from spending legislation at last minute

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20260107-goodman/ 

In a year that brought us new KRAS-inhibiting drugs, deepened our understanding of HER2 in breast cancer, and highlighted new potential for mRNA vaccines, the cancer field was also rocked by uncertainty of the future of research funding, equity in cancer delivery, and the integrity of review at FDA. 

In a lively conversation with The Cancer Letter’s Paul Goldberg, Brawley, who is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Oncology and Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University and co-editor of the Cancer History Project, started off on a positive note, highlighting several major discoveries made in 2025. 

“Let me talk about some of the science that excites me. In the last year, we've known for years that KRAS is important. There are a whole bunch of tumors, be it lung cancer, colon cancer, some of the brain tumors, neuroblastoma, where KRAS is an important gene,” Brawley said. “Well, this year we got inhibitors of KRAS G12D, G12V, and G12R. So, all of a sudden we have drugs that truly have the potential of inhibiting KRAS and positively affecting a whole bunch of tumors. And so to me, this is one of the things that really excites me.”

Despite these great breakthroughs happening in oncology, cures and treatments are not being delivered equally in the U.S., Brawley said.

This numbered among his concerns for the field, which included the loss of Rick Pazdur at FDA as well as talented young investigators choosing alternate career paths. 

“I think we've lost some of our young good investigators,” Brawley said. “A lot of the training grants are not being funded. I know several young, talented people who are looking to Europe. I know several young, talented people who are looking to Wall Street, go tell investment banking firms where to put their money as opposed to doing the science to develop the new drug or to develop the new understanding of cancer. So we have been harmed.”

Many of the established systems that have shaped the field of oncology in the U.S. have faced a shakeup this year. Brawley and Paul agree it is time to talk about rebuilding. 

“We do need to talk about rebuilding,” Brawley said. “Part of the rebuilding is how do we finance it? Part of the rebuilding is how do we organize it?”

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• Pazdur leaves FDA after 25-year career that shaped the agency’s oncology regulations

• As cancer scientists, we must change how we engage with the public on the impact of NIH cuts What the scientific method obscures, by George Weiner and Elizabeth Jaffee

• Kay Dickersin: How NBCC started Project LEAD to teach science to breast cancer patients 

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20251231-brawley/ 

A year like 2025 has demanded a lot from all of us, between the Trump administration’s flooding of the zone, the impact of DOGE and MAHA initiatives on the National Cancer Program, and the personal toll of living amidst uncertainty. In many ways, 2025 was a test. Did the field of oncology pass? Did The Cancer Letter? 

Reflecting on a year of cancer news coverage and our readers’ most-read stories, Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, and Jacquelyn Cobb, associate editor, talk about how this year of change has impacted how The Cancer Letter serves the oncology community.

“You had to stay calm because that kind of was the whole purpose of the exercise, is for people to not be calm,” Paul said. “And catastrophizing was easy, but I think all of us tried to keep catastrophizing to a personal level.”

A legacy publication from 1973, this year has demanded The Cancer Letter step into the new century. Between launching this podcast, a new Cancer Policy section, and “The Directors” monthly series, The Cancer Letter has expanded.

“You had been thinking about the idea for ‘The Directors’ for a while,” Jacquelyn said, “but I think that was definitely kind of a kick in the butt to get it going—where we have sort of a leadership vacuum at NCI once Kimryn Rathmell stepped down.”

Hearing from the leaders in the field has a stabilizing impact, and many of these podcast episodes appear among the top stories of the year.

“Stability. That's what we were bringing to this thing all through the year, because instead of catastrophizing, suddenly you could see once a month, two directors of cancer centers who are really leaders of the National Cancer Program saying, ‘Okay, we're doing this. Okay, here's what I'm worried about. But this is what I'm doing.’ Basically, two leaders of this field practice psychiatry without a license. That's really what it's about.”

The field of oncology changed this year. So did we. 

“In the mess, there is movement,” Paul said. 

Jacquelyn agreed. “That really shifted my perspective when all of this started.” 

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• The Cancer Letter’s most-read stories of 2025

• The Directors, a monthly podcast series featuring two cancer center directors in conversation about what’s keeping them up at night

• 17 and Onward, a series of guest editorials by former NCI Director Kimryn Rathmell

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20251224-year-in-review/ 

As trust in scientific and regulatory institutions frays and the meaning of “gold standard science” is increasingly contested, cancer research faces a credibility test of its own. 

“Cancer research is apolitical,” Joann Sweasy, director of the Fred & Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, and president of the Association of American Cancer Institutes, said. “Everyone is impacted by cancer. I don't know any family that's not impacted by cancer.”

Sweasy said since the Trump administration took over federal health agencies, cancer center directors have had a lot of “strategic discussions.”

“We had a lot of open discussion, which was great, but it wasn't reactive discussion,” she said. “We weren't approaching people on the Hill, our delegations, reacting to things. It allowed us time to get our facts together. So, I think it was a very strategic approach. I really do.”

Those closest to this work now have an even greater responsibility to make the case for its value to the public that funds it.

“We need to be also accountable and responsible for how we communicate the good news and the bad to the American public,” said Robert Winn, director of the VCU Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center, and former AACI president.

Winn considers this renewed attention to communicating cancer progress a “silver lining” to the past year of instability. 

“We recognize that we cannot work in a vacuum as much as we had been in the past, that we do need to be also accountable and responsible for how we communicate the good news and the bad to the American public,” Winn said. “So, there's something good that came out of all that craziness.”

NCI-designated cancer center directors have the responsibility of being the “north star” of the oncology community, says Sweasy.

“I think we've shown that we're able to pivot when we need to pivot and work together,” she said. “ I think each of us as directors and members of our cancer center have the north star as really doing the best we can for cancer patients, cancer survivors, and their families, and to prevent cancer. So I think they're incredibly valuable. We are the national team.”

Sweasy and Winn appeared together on The Directors, a monthly series which focuses on the problems that keep directors of cancer centers up at night.

A transcript of this episode is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20251219_1/ 

Last month, FDA withdrew a proposed rule for standardized asbestos testing in talc-based cosmetics. The proposed rule, introduced in Nov. 2024 and withdrawn Nov. 2025, was mandated by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 or MoCRA.

Following an open comment period, FDA decided to withdraw the rule—citing significant public opposition and unintended consequences.

“When you read the headline: ‘They're withdrawing a proposed rule that would regulate asbestos,’ it's hard to see how that could have maybe a less malicious... or not malicious, but insidious spin,” Jacquelyn said. “But like you said, it's so, so complicated.” 

Some experts and lobbyists suggested the withdrawal smacks of industry influence. Indeed, even if unintended—some industries will benefit from the rule reprieve. 

“I think this [rule withdrawal] is enormously valuable for Johnson & Johnson, even if it lasts only for a few weeks. Because at the very least, it sort of muddies the record and helps them clawback credibility,” Gardiner Harris, author of The New York Times bestselling book “No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson,” said to The Cancer Letter.

However, some other experts believe that the proposed rule was fundamentally flawed, and that a withdrawal was necessary in order to completely rewrite it, Claire said. 

“But, nothing has really changed,” Claire said. “It was just a proposed rule, the rule was not finalized.”

An HHS spokesperson said to The Cancer Letter that a new, more “comprehensive” rule is forthcoming. Historically, it’s not unusual for FDA to withdraw a rule in order to rewrite it, and then propose it again.

“A lot of insiders—FDA watchers—I'll call them, pointed out that FDA is legally required to issue this rule. They are mandated by the Cosmetics Act [MoCRA]. So I mean, that's the good news, is that the administration has to propose another and hopefully better rule,” Claire said. “I guess the concerning news is that there's no timeline for when that's going to happen. So, in the meantime, it's voluntary, and it's up to us to decide what's safe.”

Stories mentioned in this podcast include: 

• John Byrd brings blood cancer expertise to solid tumor, immunology powerhouse at UPMC

• FDA withdraws proposed rule for asbestos testing in talc-based cosmetics. It’s anyone’s guess whether the agency is preparing to strengthen or relax talc regulation.

• ESMO publishes guidances on AI tools for clinicians, patients, and researchers. Says one author: “We think there should be some degree of human oversight, otherwise, they can go completely rogue and nobody notices.”

• Harvey Risch, critic of COVID-19 response, tapped by White House to serve as chair of the President’s Cancer Panel

A transcript of this podcast is available: https://cancerletter.com/podcastc/20251217-talc/