Conference MDAngle: ASCO 2025 Metastatic Breast Cancer
Preconference Considerations
ASCO 2025: Previewing Updates in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Dr McArthur is eager to attend the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, where key breast cancer studies will be presented. Highlights include DESTINY-Breast09 and ASCENT-04, showing promising results for antibody-drug conjugates in HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer. Additionally, EMBER-3, INAVO120, and VERITAC-2 offer new insights into targeted therapies for HR-positive disease. Dr McArthur sees these findings as advancing precision medicine. Quick Clinical Takeaways
Coming soon: Dr McArthur highlights new data and progress regarding metastatic breast cancer immediately following ASCO. How Will My Patients Benefit?
Coming soon: Reflections from Dr McArthur on how new data from ASCO will affect her patients with metastatic breast cancer. Image 1: Heather McArthur, MD, MPH
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
7Up's Original Formula Contained A Substance That Really Put The 'Up' In The Drink
Back at the turn of the 19th and early 20th century, when soft drinks like Coca-Cola and Pepsi were first created, it was mainly pharmacists who came up with these beloved (and demonized) drinks with the idea of creating health tonics. As an example, Pepsi was named after the medical term for indigestion, that is, dyspepsia. But back then, what was considered healthy was a bit different from today. While Coke actually contained small amounts of cocaine, 7Up contained lithium, a mood-stabilizer that today is used to treat bipolar disorder and some forms of depression. 7Up's inventor -- Charles Leiper Grigg, who wasn't a pharmacist -- highlighted the use of lithium citrate, a naturally occurring alkali metal with psychotropic (or mood altering) effects, in his soda. He allegedly named it Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon Lime Soda, but it was more likely simply called 7Up from the beginning. The meaning of this mysterious moniker has been lost to time, but the "up" part may be related to lithium's enhancing effects. A the time Grigg created his new drink, lithium was a bit of a mystery and didn't come into use as a psychiatric drug until around 20 years later. Read more: 11 Ginger Ale Brands, Ranked From Worst To Best Charles Lieper Grigg, who had started the Howdy Corporation in 1920, began working on the formula for a new lemon-flavored soda. In a crowded field of around 600 competitors, he needed to find a way to stand out. By 1929, just weeks before the stock market crash that helped lead to the Great Depression, Grigg had perfected his new soda. There were a few key differences between his new concoction and the competition. It was a lemon-lime soda with a bit less sugar and more fizz. And, of course, there was the lithium. Among the supposed curative effects of 7Up, Grigg successfully promoted it as a hangover cure, which is funny considering that a few decades later someone came up with the idea of combining Seagram's 7 and 7Up, a hugely popular highball in the 1970s and (likely) the cause of more than a few hangovers. Also like Coke, which had removed any cocaine from its soda by 1929, 7Up removed lithium in 1948, after studies determined the possibility of serious side effects from its overuse. Even without the lithium, 7Up continued to grow in popularity, knocking out the competition, such as the now-discontinued Sierra Mist. The days of drug-laden soft drinks are over, but their descendants live on. Read the original article on Chowhound.
Fox News
43 minutes ago
- Fox News
Obama WH physician says Biden doc should have performed cognitive test
Former President Barack Obama's White House physician said in a new interview that former President Joe Biden's doctor should have performed a cognitive test to evaluate his fitness to serve in office. Obama's doctor, Jeffrey Kuhlman, told The Washington Post that Biden White House physician Kevin O'Connor should have performed a cognitive test during Biden's last year as president, given his age. O'Connor, who Kuhlman first appointed as Biden's doctor in 2009 when he was vice president, declared in a 2024 report that the then-81-year-old president "continues to be fit for duty." The report did not mention any neurocognitive testing. "Sometimes those closest to the tree miss the forest," Kuhlman told the Post. "It shouldn't be just health, it should be fitness," Kuhlman said. "Fitness is: Do you have that robust mind, body, spirit that you can do this physically, mentally, emotionally demanding job?" Kuhlman, who departed the White House Medical Unit in 2013, described O'Connor as "a good doctor" who appeared to do his best to "give trusted medical advice." "I didn't see that he's purposely hiding stuff, but I don't know that," Kuhlman told the Post. "Maybe the investigation will show it." President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Biden's aides "abused the power of Presidential signatures through the use of an autopen to conceal Biden's cognitive decline and assert Article II authority." "This conspiracy marks one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history," the order says. "The American public was purposefully shielded from discovering who wielded the executive power, all while Biden's signature was deployed across thousands of documents to effect radical policy shifts." "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency," Biden said in a statement Wednesday night. "I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false." Trump's order appeared to nod to the findings of special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents while he was vice president. In a report released in February 2024, Hur concluded Biden "willfully retained and disclosed" sensitive materials but should not stand trial, describing the president as a "sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory." Hur cited instances when Biden could not recall key dates and events, including when he served as vice president and when his son, Beau, passed away. The report was released at a time when Biden was still planning a second term run. Last week, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., issued a subpoena for O'Connor to appear for a deposition at the end of the month "as part of the investigation into the cover-up of President Joe Biden's cognitive decline and potentially unauthorized issuance of sweeping pardons and other executive actions." The committee re-posted the Post's interview with Kuhlman to X, writing, "Even Obama's doctor admits the truth. This is precisely why Chairman @RepJamesComer subpoenaed Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden's physician. This is a scandal of historical proportions, and we will investigate it thoroughly!" In a letter to O'Connor, Comer said the transcribed interview would focus on the physician's February 2024 assessment that Biden was "a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency." "Among other subjects, the Committee expressed its interest in whether your financial relationship with the Biden family affected your assessment of former President Biden's physical and mental fitness to fulfill his duties as President," Comer wrote. Questions about Biden's cognitive state stretch extend solely past Republicans. CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson recently published a book titled "Original Sin," which details concerns and debates inside the White House and Democratic Party over Biden's mental state and age. In the book, Tapper and Thompson wrote, "Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board." Naomi Biden, the former president's granddaughter, dismissed the book as "political fairy smut for the permanent, professional chattering class." Comer requested transcribed interviews with Biden's White House senior advisers Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed and Steve Ricchetti, a former counselor to the president. He also called for former senior White House aides Annie Tomasini, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams and Neera Tanden to appear before the committee and suggested subpoenas could be forthcoming if they did not schedule voluntary interviews.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Endangered species deserve a home, too
The elusive Northern Spotted Owl. The majestic Whooping Crane. Charismatic Florida panthers and beloved Monarch butterflies. These and many other endangered species now face even graver threats in the wake of two recent developments in the world of conservation. On Apr. 7, the billion-dollar biotech firm Colossal announced the 'de-extinction' of the dire wolf, a canine species that vanished in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 13,000 years ago). And on Apr. 17, the Trump administration revealed its intention to weaken decades-old endangered species protections by redefining a key word: harm. This narrower definition effectively rescinds protection of an endangered species' habitat, limiting harm to actions that 'directly' harass, injure or kill organisms. What these two developments have in common is a disregard for the vital connection that exists between species and the places they call home. Habitat refers to the place where an organism naturally or normally lives. Removal of habitat protection opens the door to logging, development and extraction of oil and minerals. The proposed definition of harm could convert fragile wetlands into farmland, migration corridors into freeways and nesting sites into beachfront property — and none of this would qualify as harm to the creatures who live there. A habitat includes the specific resources and conditions that a given species needs to survive — the plants or animals it feeds on, and particular features of topography, soil, climate and water. Some species are especially vulnerable to extinction because they require a very rare or specific type of habitat. Others are at risk because they range across several. Many butterfly species, for example, are reliant on a single host plant for every stage of their life cycle — mating, laying eggs and feeding their young. Even plants closely related to the host plant cannot replace these vital functions, however indistinguishable they may appear to the human eye. Migratory creatures, meanwhile, depend upon many habitats in far-flung geographic locations. A recent study found that approximately half of all migratory species are in decline. Annually, billions of migratory birds crisscross state and national boundaries, with varying degrees of legal protections for the places where they nest, feed or rest. Further erosion of habitat protection could be the death knell for these and other vulnerable species. Were species not so intimately tied to their environments, it might make sense to regard lab-created or genetically engineered organisms, like the recently unveiled dire wolves, as suitable replacements for endangered or extinct species. Conservation would be akin to curating museum or zoo specimens, with living representatives of endangered species, or mere samples of their genetic material, maintained in artificial environments. Disregard for the importance of habitat is evident in the fanfare over Colossal's so-called dire wolves — more accurately, grey wolves with dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome. Consider that in their original Pleistocene environments, true dire wolves preyed upon large herbivorous megafauna that are now extinct: sloths, mastodons, giant bison and camels. By contrast, Remus, Romulus and Khaleesi, the telegenic trio of fluffy white wolves created by Colossal, will live their entire lives in a highly secured, undisclosed site, subsisting on a hand-fed diet of ground meats and kibble. In short, the same flawed logic lies behind the dire wolf 'de-extinction' and the Trump proposal to redefine harm: Both treat species as if they live in a vacuum. Doug Burgum, the Trump-appointed secretary of the Interior, exemplified this sort of thinking when he took to social media to hail de-extinction as the 'bedrock' of future conservation, arguing simultaneously for re-think of endangered species protections: 'It has been innovation—not regulation—that has spawned American greatness,' he said. Citing Colossal's breakthrough, Burgum questioned the need for an endangered species list. Ten days later, the administration moved to weaken endangered species regulation by excluding habitat from the definition of harm. Yet, habitat loss remains the primary culprit of species endangerment and extinction. While these losses can occur naturally through periodic events like fires or earthquakes, the vast majority of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss stems from human activity: land development, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, air and water pollution, and human-caused climate change, among other factors. Even amid intensified political polarization, endangered species protection is wildly popular, with 84 percent of Americans supporting the Endangered Species Act. In the past month, some 350,000 members of the public weighed in to protest changes to the act. Many offered the commonsense argument that destroying the home of any living being, human or nonhuman, clearly constitutes harm, as surely as a gun pointed to the head. Innovation in conservation science, including cutting-edge genetic techniques aimed at saving species on the brink of extinction, is welcome and should be encouraged. But innovation is no substitute for regulation, any more than a laboratory or zoo is a substitute for the places where animals naturally live. Endangered species face a barrage of threats from human activities. We owe them a place to call home. Lisa H. Sideris is a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of California. Santa Barbara, where she is professor and vice-chair of the Environmental Studies Program. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
