Mike Hennessy

Even under the best of circumstances, the CRISPR gene-editing technology that we explore in this issue of OncologyLive won’t make it into clinical practice any time soon.

The right technology can make a wonderful difference, but what if everybody has it? Such is the case with patient assistance-funding software, the use of which is now becoming widespread.

As summer comes to a close, I want to turn your attention to the upcoming 34th Annual Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium: Innovative Cancer Therapy for Tomorrow®, which takes place in New York City, November 9-11, 2016.

There’s no question that checkpoint blockade immunotherapy agents, most notably those directed at the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, will continue to grow in importance as an anticancer modality in a rising number of tumor types.

Although it is gratifying to take stock of the many advances that have been made in the oncology field in recent years, it remains vitally important that we keep in mind just how much work there remains to be done.

The Oncology Care Model blew into town this month, rattling the shutters and bringing with it a lot of dust.

During the annual American Urological Association meeting leaders in urology presented groundbreaking research, new clinical guidelines, and the latest advances in urologic medicine.

Sometimes it seems as though we’ve become addicted to a big story mentality when it comes to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

As we approach the 1-year anniversary of Contemporary Radiation Oncology (CRO) publication, it occurs to me, upon reflection, how much change has occurred in the utilization of radiation oncology for cancer treatment in recent months.

Turning around any ship of state, particularly one as large and unwieldy as the oncology research establishment, is always going to be a slow-moving and laborious undertaking.

The saying on Wall Street is "sell in May and go away," but there's no detaching from the cliffhanger that CMS has left in the air.

Value-based care is becoming a new catch phrase in American medicine, especially in the oncology arena.

A not-so-subtle change in the physician drug payment scheme from The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services could be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

The cascade of news about cancer research—whether it’s about a new drug, biomarker, or treatment approach—has become an ever-present feature of the oncology landscape

We’re talking about a certain type of “more”— more intervention earlier and more effectively in the natural history of a malignancy in order to prevent a recurring or metastatic manifestation of a cancer.

The ongoing value transition got a bit more real in March when The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services introduced a proposal for Medicare Part B drug payment changes that would even out the margins that physicians make on drug sales.

With new therapies in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer on the horizon and tightening regulatory and reimbursement restrictions in place, urologists need to adapt to a quickly changing landscape.

There are many reasons why we should change the way we approach cancer research and evaluate potential new drugs.

Today, there are multiple choices of regimens in two different modalities that can either prolong survival or allow patients to live without disease progression or recurrence for several years.

In this month’s issue of Oncology Business Management, we take you to Hawaii and Alaska to peel back the curtains on how oncologists in remote corners of the United States have innovated to keep their businesses vibrant and effective.

The creation of new technology is a complicated, risky business regardless of the area of healthcare or industry. The cover story in this issue, “Proton Beam Centers Multiply Despite Economic Risks,” illustrates that the oncology field is no exception to those rules of the marketplace.

It was truly heartening to see Contemporary Radiation Oncology proudly represented by its Editor-in-Chief, Stephen E. Finkelstein, MD, at this year’s Fiesta Bowl.

Separating hype from hope has often been problematic when developments that may lead to advances in the oncology field enter the public domain. The mapping of the human genome and the ability to characterize mutations associated with cancer have spawned one of those waves of excess promises.

The development and approval of high-intensity focused ultrasound doesn’t qualify as moving at a glacial pace; if anything, it seems quite measured. In a crowded field of treatments, the technology is trying to gain a toehold.

Despite all you hear about the war between specialty pharma and the independent oncology practice, it is possible for some independents to turn their in-house pharmacy operations into growth machines.

As anticancer therapies continue to improve outcomes for patients, questions about how best to deploy these new options abound. In this issue of OncologyLive, we explore two of the pressing questions that have arisen in treating patients with hematologic malignancies.

PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibition offers the possibility for precision immuno-oncology through the application of biomarkers that predict the immune systems response. This principle has been demonstrated by two of the most recent FDA approvals for patients with lung cancer.

Disruptive technology abounds across a broad range of tumor types and clinicians throughout the spectrum of care will be learning about and adapting to new paradigms.

More models of care are beginning to show signs of recognition that palliative care has a larger role to play in the oncology setting.

We’re always talking about the rapid pace of oncology drug development in this era, but perhaps nothing illustrates that trend so clearly as the events of one 15-day period in November.