New method of cancer immunotherapy developed

Thu, Aug 25, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.nextbigfuture.com
Author: staff

A team of Stanford ChEM-H scientists has discovered a novel form of cancer immunotherapy, which works by removing certain sugars from the surface of cancer cells and making those cells visible to the immune system.

Scientists have long known that if certain sugars are present on a tumor, it is less likely to respond well to therapies. But nobody knew what that halo of sugars was doing, in part because such a small number of labs study the glycocalyx.

Evidence had been mounting within those few labs that do study the glycocalyx, including Bertozzi’s, that a subset of sugars called sialic acids act as a signal for the innate immune system to ignore the otherwise suspicious-looking tumor. Eliminate those sugars, and maybe innate immune cells would be more likely to recognize and attack the cancer cells, Bertozzi thought.

And essentially that’s exactly what happened.

Current immunotherapies on the market work by blocking one of the inhibitory signals that are recognized by the adaptive immune system. Block those and the balance tilts in such a way that the immune system will attack the now recognizable cancer.

Bertozzi’s approach provides a second way of tiling the balance in favor of attack, this time for the innate immune system. She said this study shows just one example of how it could work, but her sugar-removing lawnmower could be used on a wide variety of cell types, not just those expressing HER2, and on different types of sugars.

PNAS – Precision glycocalyx editing as a strategy for cancer immunotherapy

PNAS – Precision glycocalyx editing as a strategy for cancer immunotherapy [Supplemental information]

Significance
Successful tumors are able to evade the immune system, which is otherwise capable of killing transformed cells. Therapies that prevent this evasion have become revolutionary treatments for incurable cancers. One mechanism of evasion is the presentation of sugars, called sialic acids, within the cell surface’s sugar coating, or glycocalyx. Here, we designed biotherapeutic molecules, termed “antibody–enzyme conjugates,” that selectively remove sialic acids from tumor cells. The antibody directs the enzyme to the cancer cells, the enzyme cleaves the sugars, and then the antibody directs immune cells to kill the desialylated cancer cells. The conjugate increased tumor cell killing compared with the antibody alone. Editing the cancer cell glycocalyx with an antibody–enzyme conjugate represents a promising approach to cancer immune therapy.

Abstract
Cell surface sialosides constitute a central axis of immune modulation that is exploited by tumors to evade both innate and adaptive immune destruction. Therapeutic strategies that target tumor-associated sialosides may therefore potentiate antitumor immunity. Here, we report the development of antibody–sialidase conjugates that enhance tumor cell susceptibility to antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) by selective desialylation of the tumor cell glycocalyx. We chemically fused a recombinant sialidase to the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-specific antibody trastuzumab through a C-terminal aldehyde tag. The antibody–sialidase conjugate desialylated tumor cells in a HER2-dependent manner, reduced binding by natural killer (NK) cell inhibitory sialic acid-binding Ig-like lectin (Siglec) receptors, and enhanced binding to the NK-activating receptor natural killer group 2D (NKG2D). Sialidase conjugation to trastuzumab enhanced ADCC against tumor cells expressing moderate levels of HER2, suggesting a therapeutic strategy for cancer patients with lower HER2 levels or inherent trastuzumab resistance. Precision glycocalyx editing with antibody–enzyme conjugates is therefore a promising avenue for cancer immune therapy.

Source:
Stanford University, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
PNAS

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Expert says Nivolumab Poised to Change Standard of Care in SCCHN

Wed, Aug 24, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.onclive.com
Author: Laura Panjwani

Robert-Ferris

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is a game-changing agent for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), according to Robert L. Ferris, MD, PhD.

“Recent findings have shown us that this agent is really the new standard-of-care option for all platinum-refractory patients with head and neck cancer,” says Ferris, vice chair for Clinical Operations, associate director for Translational Research, and co-leader of the Cancer Immunology Program at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. “This is regardless of whether patients are PD-L1–positive or negative or whether they are HPV-positive or negative.”

The PD-L1 inhibitor received a priority review designation by the FDA in July 2016 based on the CheckMate-141 study, which demonstrated a median overall survival (OS) with nivolumab of 7.5 months compared with 5.1 months with investigator’s choice of therapy (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51-0.96; P = .0101) in patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN.

The objective response rate (ORR) was 13.3% with nivolumab and 5.8% for investigator’s choice. The FDA is scheduled to make a decision on the application for the PD-1 inhibitor by November 11, 2016, as part of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

Ferris was the lead author on an analysis that further evaluated preliminary data from CheckMate-141, which was presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting. In an interview with OncLive, he discusses the findings of this study, potential biomarkers for nivolumab, and questions that remain regarding the use of the immunotherapy in SCCHN.

OncLive: What were the updated findings from CheckMate-141 presented at ASCO?

Ferris: The data that were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting were further evaluations and follow-up on some preliminary data—originally presented at the 2016 AACR Annual Meeting—that listed the OS results.

At ASCO, we recapped the primary endpoint of OS as an important endpoint for immunotherapies because response rate and progression-free survival may not be as accurate. Ultimately, the FDA and people at large want OS. In this study, OS was 36% at 1 year in the nivolumab-treated arm and 16.6% in the comparator arm, which was investigator’s choice of single-agent chemotherapy, consisting of methotrexate, docetaxel, or cetuximab. In this phase III randomized trial, nivolumab was given in a 2:1 randomization: 240 patients received nivolumab and 120 received investigator’s choice.

Also at ASCO, we presented further evaluations consisting of what the regimens are in the comparator arm. There was about 20% each of docetaxel and methotrexate and 12% of cetuximab. Approximately 60% of the patients had prior cetuximab exposure and we stratified by cetuximab as a prior therapy. We also demonstrated the ORR, which was 13.3% in the nivolumab-treated arm versus 5.8% in the investigator’s choice arm.

Therefore, there was an improvement in overall response, but the difference seemed more modest than the OS benefit—which was a doubling—with 20% more patients alive at 1 year. This reinforces the concept that perhaps response rate may not be the best endpoint. Progression-free survival (PFS) was double at 6 months, with about 20% in the nivolumab arm versus about 9.9% in the investigator’s choice arm. The median PFS was not different, but the 6-month PFS was twice as high. The time to response was about 2 months in each arm at the first assessment.

Your analysis also looked at biomarkers. Can you discuss these findings and their significance?

The p16 or HPV-positive group had a better hazard ratio for OS than the overall study population. The hazard ratio was .73 for the overall population, using a preplanned interim analysis. With the HPV-positive group, we had a hazard ratio of .55 and the HPV-negative group had a hazard ratio of .99. It is still favoring the nivolumab-treated patients but, with the curves separated earlier in the HPV-positive group, one could see the improvement with nivolumab at about 1 to 2 months. It took 7 or 8 months with the HPV-negative group to show a separation of the curves in favor of nivolumab.

We looked at PD-L1 levels, and PD-L1—using a 1% or above level—had an improvement in the PD-L1–positive patients in favor of nivolumab in terms of OS and ORR. When we looked at 5% and 10% thresholds of PD-L1, the OS did not seem to improve. Therefore, in all levels above 1%, the OS was similarly beneficial over the PD-L1 less-than-1% group. However, essentially all levels of PD-L1–positivity and PD-L1–negativity still favored nivolumab, but the benefit was more when its levels were greater than 1%.

We could combine HPV status with PD-L1 status and look at subsets; however, essentially every subset benefited, whether it was PD-L1–negative or positive. This indicates that, in this group of patients, who progress within 6 months of platinum-based therapy, that no current systemic therapeutic options benefit patients as well as nivolumab.

With regard to these findings, what are you most excited about?

Head and neck cancer is a difficult disease. Until recently, we didn’t know the impact of this enrichment for HPV-positive virus-induced subsets and we didn’t know if this was an immune responsive cancer. Clearly, it is. We have all of the hallmarks that we have seen for a bright future—based on the melanoma data—and a series of other cancers indicating response rates in the 15% to 20% range, suggesting that we now have a platform of the PD-1 pathway to combine with other checkpoints and to integrate earlier in disease with radiation and chemotherapy.

We have a demonstration of head and neck cancer as an immune-responsive cancer. We are beginning to get an idea of the biomarkers and starting to be able to segment patients who will benefit. Now, we have a large comparative trial with an OS endpoint and tissue to look at biomarkers to try and understand what the best future combinations will be.

What are some questions that you still hope to answer regarding nivolumab in head and neck cancer?

We have to get down deeper into the nonresponders. We should acknowledge that the majority of patients neither had a response nor benefited. Understanding who is more likely to benefit is useful, but we also need to understand the levels of alternative checkpoint receptors or other biomarkers of resistance.

We have sequential lymphocyte specimens from the peripheral blood, tissues, and serum so those are intensively under evaluation. There are interferon gamma signatures that have risen from the melanoma checkpoint field that will certainty be applied, as well.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Vigilant Biosciences awarded phase I SBIR grant for next generation oral cancer diagnostic system

Sat, Aug 20, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.consumerelectronicsnet.com
Author: press release

Vigilant Biosciences, Inc., a leading innovator and developer of solutions that aid in the early detection and intervention of cancer, today announced that it has received a Phase I Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant in the amount of US $219,454 from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). The 15-month grant will fund research by Vigilant Biosciences to develop a diagnostic test that utilizes optical imaging in combination with an oral rinse to detect CD44, a tumor-initiating and stem cell-associated biomarker for oral cancer.

Vigilant Biosciences’ current product line is based on patented technology that measures an unprecedented combination of CD44 and total protein levels markers clinically validated to be associated specifically with oral cancer when measured in an oral rinse to aid clinicians in the early detection and intervention of oral cancer. The simple, oral rinse procedure is easy to administer and non-invasive for the patient. Vigilant Biosciences’ product line currently includes the OncAlert Labs OraMark Test, a laboratory developed test available only through OncAlert Labs, a CLIA certified laboratory; and the OncAlert Oral Cancer RAPID Test and the OncAlert Oral Cancer LAB Test, both CE Marked and available in select markets outside the United States.

“We are very pleased to receive this Phase I SBIR award from the NIDCR, as it supports the significance and further validation of the promise of our technology and its potential impact on cancer detection and intervention,” said Matthew H.J. Kim, Founder, Chairman, and CEO of Vigilant Biosciences. “The proprietary science behind our tests uses unique biomarkers that can indicate the presence of oral and oropharyngeal cancer, often before physical symptoms are present. This grant will enable us to expand our approach to additional platforms and applications to meet the critical and growing need for earlier intervention of this disease and potentially other cancers.”

The Phase I preclinical study will include in vitro work as well as human tissues from cancer patients and patients with benign disease of the throat.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Proton therapy treatments, technology and access grow exponentially

Sat, Aug 20, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.dotmed.com
Author: John W. Mitchell , Senior Correspondent

On the occasion of the facility’s 10 year anniversary, a professor at the University of Florida Health Proton Therapy Institute (UFHPTI) looked back on the evolution of proton therapy as an advanced weapon against cancer.

When UFHPTI opened, it was the first proton treatment center in the southeastern U.S. Since then, the number of centers in the U.S. has increased from five to over 20 locations today.

“In 2006, proton therapy was limited mostly to just prostate cancer, pediatric brain tumors, melanomas of the eye, and rare tumors of the base of skull and paranasal sinuses,” Dr. Bradford Hoppe, MPH, the James E. Lockwood, Jr. Professor in Proton Therapy at UFHPTI, told HCB News. “In the last 10 years, there has been exploration and interest in utilizing proton therapy for head and neck cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, cancer of the GI tract, sarcomas, pediatric non-CNS cancers, and lymphoma.”

Since 2006, UFHPTI has treated more than 20 different types of cancers in more than 6,400 patients, and has published over 130 peer-reviewed journal articles on proton therapy.

Over that time, Hoppe said, technological advancements have coincided with the increase in the number of proton facilities. “Pencil beam scanning and in-room imaging for patients allows us to provide better treatment planning with proton therapy for a number of different sites,” He said.

“Additionally, smaller, more compact and cost-efficient equipment allows more centers the ability to offer proton therapy treatment.”

Fortunately, many of the older models of proton cyclotrons can be upgraded. Hoppe said the UFHPTI center will be upgraded with pencil beam scanning and a single compact room, all part of a $39 million expansion at the center to increase patient capacity by 25 percent, including treating more kids. According to Hoppe, they operate the busiest pediatric proton treatment center in the world and the fourth busiest program overall.

“Pediatric patients are a group that we recognized could benefit the most from proton therapy in reducing both acute and late side effects,” Hoppe explained.

He said to better treat children, they have developed a multidisciplinary team of child life specialists and social workers, as well as establishing relationships with physicians from a large academic medical center.

According to a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute study, the median Medicare reimbursement for proton therapy for prostate cancer is $32,428 compared to $18,575 for traditional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

However, proton advocates maintain that the overall costs compared to IMRT are less, because proton patients experience fewer side effects. This, they assert, results in a better quality of life, which reduces ongoing medical and societal costs. Proton therapy has also been shown to offer significantly improved outcomes for treating head and neck tumors.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Massage therapy promising for pain, anxiety in patients with cancer

Sat, Aug 20, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.oncologynurseadvisor.com
Author: Jason Hoffman, PharmD, RPh

Massage therapy may be promising for reducing the intensity/severity of pain, fatigue, and anxiety in patients with cancer, a study published in the journal Pain Medicine has shown.1

Previously reported studies have demonstrated that more than half of patients undergoing active cancer treatment report experiencing pain, with the highest prevalence among patients with head and neck cancer, suggesting that these patients are not adequately treated for their pain.

Moreover, patients who experience cancer pain often simultaneously report significant anxiety and depression, as well as fatigue and weakness, which can all negatively impact quality of life.

Massage therapy is commonly practiced among patients seeking to relieve their pain, but its efficacy is unclear. Therefore, researchers sought to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of massage therapy in treating pain and quality of life in this patient population.

For the study, investigators analyzed data from 12 high quality and 4 low quality studies. They found that massage therapy is effective for treating pain compared with no treatment and active comparators.

Results further showed that massage therapy was beneficial for reducing fatigue and anxiety compared with active comparators.

The authors conclude that patients should consider massage therapy as an option for reducing their cancer pain; however, the strength of the recommendations is weak as compared with an active comparator for improving pain and quality of life.

Reference

1. New research analysis indicates massage therapy shows promise for pain & anxiety in cancer patients. PR Newswire website. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-research-analysis-indicates-massage-therapy-shows-promise-for-pain–anxiety-in-cancer-patients-300314735.html. Updated August 17, 2016. Accessed August 18, 2016.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Zafiropoulos targets cancer mortality rates with launch of National Cancer Network

Sat, Aug 20, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.dentistryiq.com
Author: DentistryIQ Editors

Debra Zafiropoulos, RDH, an advocate for the early detection of oral cancer, is broadening her efforts to include other forms of cancer with the formation of the National Cancer Network, a non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization.

According to Zafiropoulos, often referred to as Debbie Z within the dental hygiene profession, said, “Dental professionals are the early warning system of the health-care profession because we see our patients on an average of once a year and they spend a lot of time in our chairs. In addition to conducting a thorough oral exam, we can be paying closer attention to any abnormalities we notice on the patient’s skin or any complaints described in their patient history form such as persistent sore throat, cough, zone tingling or tenderness, etc.”
When something suspicious is discovered, the Florida-based Zafiropoulos says it is the responsibility of all dental professionals to integrate with other allied health professionals and make the appropriate qualified referrals sooner rather than later. “By taking the initiative to break down the silos between the various health care disciplines, we can significantly reduce the mortality rates of a wide variety of cancers.”

Two cornerstones of the National Cancer Network (NCN) are consumer awareness and professional training in the form of live patient screening events and professional training courses throughout the country. NCN’s consumer and clinician awareness campaign introduced an exam protocol called “Screening for Oral and Skin Abnormalities” (SOSA).

The first NCN event is hosted in conjunction with the First District Dental Hygiene Society component of the Tennessee Dental Hygiene Association on September 16 in Kingsport, TN. The event will be based around one of Debbie Z’s most popular lectures, “HPV: It’s not the hanky-panky virus the media says it is.”

To learn more upcoming NCN events, visit http://nationalcancernetwork.org/hpv/. For more information on how you or your organization can support NCN, contact Debra Zafiropoulos at DebbieZ@NationalCancerNetwork.org.

NationalCancerNetwork.org was designed to be a membership website that is fully accessible with resources and information such as the latest screening, diagnostic, active therapy, disease management, and nutrition as well as spiritual and emotional support.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

NYU Expert Says Cancer Pain Varies by Tumor Type

Fri, Aug 5, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.onclive.com
Author: Jane de Lartigue, PhD

Brian L. Schmidt, DDS, MD, PhD, is a specialist in head and neck cancers whose research focus includes an exploration of the biological and molecular mechanisms of pain related to cancer and associated treatments.

He is the director of the New York University (NYU) Oral Cancer Center and of the Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, and a professor of oral and maxillofacial surgery at the NYU School of Dentistry. In June 2016, the National Institutes of Health awarded Schmidt and colleagues a $1.2 million grant to study gene therapy for the treatment of patients with oral cancer pain.

Schmidt talked to OncLive about the difficulties of studying cancer pain and developing new drugs.

OncLive: How has our understanding of the mechanisms of cancer pain changed in the past decade?
Schmidt: The field was developed probably in about 1999. That’s the first publication that I’m aware of that looked at mechanisms in terms of using preclinical models, and by that I mean animal models. Before that time we really had no understanding of basic mechanisms, so there’s been significant advancement over the last 10 years.

Could you briefly describe our current understanding of how cancer pain develops?

Let me tell you what it’s not, because I think that’s important. For many years, people were writing about it but we weren’t testing the possible mechanisms, and what people were writing turned out probably not to be true.

It was initially thought that the pain was due to the cancers growing and pressing on the nerves and we clearly don’t think that’s the underlying mechanism now. Possibly in some cancers that plays a role, but this whole idea of “pressing” really doesn’t work because it’s pretty hard to compress a nerve and there are actually a number of tumors that are not cancer that can compress nerves and those don’t hurt.

There might be a circumstance, for example, if you had a cancer in a perfect location, either let’s say in your leg where the femoral nerve is, or in the paravertebral skeleton where you have what are called spinal roots. In these cases, the cancer could press on the nerve and it would hurt, but that’s probably not a common mechanism.

Probably the best explanation for cancer pain we have is that the cancers produce a number of different molecules—and that depends on the type of cancer—that sensitize the nerves, which makes them respond to stimuli that’s normally not painful. And so the nerves that are surrounding the cancer become fragile, for lack of a better term, and those nerves fire in response to minimal stimuli.

What is the most effective therapy currently available?
I can tell you what’s most commonly used and its effectiveness is highly variable. We’re basically using the same drugs that have been used for thousands of years for pain, which are the opioids. So the narcotics—morphine, fentanyl, methadone, oxycodone, hydrocodone—that entire class of drugs. That’s what’s most commonly used.

Have researchers made any headway in developing drugs that target the underlying causes of cancer pain?
No, they haven’t. Probably the biggest development, and it’s not really targeted therapy, but the biggest development has been for cancers that go to the bone. Those include breast cancer, prostate cancer, multiple myeloma, lung cancer—those cancers go to the bone and cause a lot of bone pain.

We started using a class of drugs called bisphos phonates, which inhibit the cells that break down bone. They specifically inhibit a cell type called osteoclasts. Those drugs work for some patients who have bone metastasis. But we have not discovered true targeted therapies, and one of the challenges has been that the same obstacle that is present for oncologists treating the cancer has also proved an issue for pain physicians, which is that these cancers all behave differently, even within a specific type of cancer, so one colon cancer doesn’t behave like another one, for example.

So, where some cancer patients respond better to a particular drug than others, we think that the challenge of treating cancer pain is going to be the same—the drug will work for one patient but not for another. There is a class of drugs with an unusual mechanism of action—they are monoclonal antibodies that bind nerve growth factor. The history of those drugs has been interesting. Pfizer was the first company that produced one of these drugs and tested it in a clinical trial for low back pain, but the trial was stopped because patients on the drug were requiring hip replacement and it’s not entirely clear why. So there was a hold on the drug, but recently the FDA opened up the drug and so it’s going to be tested again.

It is thought that tanezumab would be very good for cancer pain, and Pfizer and Eli Lilly have joined together to test the drug. They’re both interested in seeing how it works for cancer pain.

What are the key unanswered questions relating to the effective treatment of cancer pain?
The key challenge, as I mentioned earlier, is going to be that all of the cancers behave differently, so they are independent of each other. It’s not like osteoarthritic pain, where the mechanism for causing osteoarthritic pain is, if not the same, then very similar between patients. Cancers are not that way. Even if you were to take a glimpse at the cancer at a fixed point in time, let’s say across 2 patients, now if you add the dimension of time, because cancers change over time, then in a patient 1 drug might be effective for a short time but then the cancer will change and it won’t be effective any longer. Again, this is similar to what oncologists face in treating cancer, where a drug is effective for a couple of months, but then patients stop responding and the tumor grows back.

Another challenge is that cancer pain clinical trials are also very difficult to recruit for because the patients are sick or dying, so they typically don’t want to enroll in studies. They are often on a lot of drugs. So of all the clinical trials, they are probably the most difficult for which to recruit.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Henry Schein Donates Medical Supplies In Support of Free Oral Cancer Screening Events throughout the United States

Wed, Jul 27, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.mysocialgoodnews.com
Author: Api Potter

Company’s Donation to Support 77 Screening Events in 2016 and 2017 by the Oral Cancer Foundation

Press Release – MELVILLE, N.Y., July 25, 2016 – Henry Schein, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSIC) announced today that it is donating more than $10,000 in medical supplies to the Oral Cancer Foundation (OCF) in support of 77 free oral cancer screening events being held throughout the United States in 2016 and 2017. Each OCF-hosted event aims to boost awareness of the disease and increase early detection.

The Company’s donation of gauze, tongue depressors, and disposable dental mirrors, facemasks, and gloves is an initiative of Henry Schein Cares, the Company’s global corporate social responsibility program, and continues the Company’s support of OCF’s screening events. OCF hosts the events in a range of locations, including pharmacy parking lots, health fairs, farmer’s markets, colleges, and OCF Walk/Run for Awareness events.

“The health of our mouths greatly impacts our ability to eat and drink, communicate thoughts and ideas, and express feelings for loved ones,” said Brian Hill, Founder of the Oral Cancer Foundation. “When cancer affects our mouths, it does more than take away these everyday functions, it too often takes our lives. Our screening events are designed to identify signs of oral cancer before it ever gets that far, and we thank Henry Schein for this generous donation and its continued support of oral cancer awareness and early detection efforts.”

The donation comes at a time when nearly 500,000 people worldwide are diagnosed annually with oral and oropharyngeal cancer, according to data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s Globocan 2000 database and the World Health Organization’s Mortality Database. Of that number, between one-third and one-half lose their lives annually while many more suffer from the complications of treatment. Despite the easy accessibility to these body sites by health care providers and the overall impact early detection can have on a person’s overall health, more than two-thirds of these patients are diagnosed in advanced stages where the cancer has already spread to regional lymph nodes or beyond.

“Regular oral cancer screening events raise awareness and enhance early detection and prevention efforts, which are critical to reducing the disease’s incidence and impact,” said Steven W. Kess, Vice President of Global Professional Relations at Henry Schein. “Oral cancer is a stark reminder of the vital importance of good oral health in relation to a person’s overall health, and that’s why Henry Schein is pleased to support the Oral Cancer Foundation.”

Henry Schein’s donation continues the Company’s long-standing commitment to exploring ways of reducing the disease’s global impact. Earlier this year, the Henry Schein Cares Foundation, Inc.—an independent 501(c)(3) organization founded by the Company to foster, support, and promote dental, medical, and animal health by helping to increase access to care in communities around the world—funded the Global Oral Cancer Forum. The Forum gathered many of the world’s foremost experts on oral cancer, as well as clinicians, scientists, epidemiologists, activists, public health experts, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and other stakeholders who are working to understand how to reduce the global oral cancer burden.

About Henry Schein Cares

Henry Schein Cares stands on four pillars: engaging Team Schein Members to reach their potential, ensuring accountability by extending ethical business practices to all levels within Henry Schein, promoting environmental sustainability, and expanding access to health care for underserved and at-risk communities around the world. Health care activities supported by Henry Schein Cares focus on three main areas: advancing wellness, building capacity in the delivery of health care services, and assisting in emergency preparedness and relief.

Firmly rooted in a deep commitment to social responsibility and the concept of enlightened self-interest championed by Benjamin Franklin, the philosophy behind Henry Schein Cares is a vision of “doing well by doing good.” Through the work of Henry Schein Cares to enhance access to care for those in need, the Company believes that it is furthering its long-term success. “Helping Health Happen Blog” is a platform for health care professionals to share their volunteer experiences delivering assistance to those in need globally. To read more about how Henry Schein Cares is making a difference, please visit our blog: www.helpinghealthhappen.org.

About Henry Schein, Inc.

Henry Schein, Inc. (Nasdaq: HSIC) is the world’s largest provider of health care products and services to office-based dental, animal health and medical practitioners. The Company also serves dental laboratories, government and institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care sites. A Fortune 500® Company and a member of the S&P 500® and the Nasdaq 100® indexes, Henry Schein employs nearly 19,000 Team Schein Members and serves more than one million customers.

The Company offers a comprehensive selection of products and services, including value-added solutions for operating efficient practices and delivering high-quality care. Henry Schein operates through a centralized and automated distribution network, with a selection of more than 110,000 branded products and Henry Schein private-brand products in stock, as well as more than 150,000 additional products available as special-order items. The Company also offers its customers exclusive, innovative technology solutions, including practice management software and e-commerce solutions, as well as a broad range of financial services.

Headquartered in Melville, N.Y., Henry Schein has operations or affiliates in 33 countries. The Company’s sales reached a record $10.6 billion in 2015, and have grown at a compound annual rate of approximately 15 percent since Henry Schein became a public company in 1995. For more information, visit Henry Schein at www.henryschein.com, Facebook.com/HenrySchein and @HenrySchein on Twitter.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Knowledgeability, Attitude and Behavior of Primary Care Providers Towards Oral Cancer: a Pilot Study

Mon, Jul 25, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.link.springer.com
Authors: Neel Shimpi, Aditi Bharatkumar, Monica Jethwani, Po-Huang Cyou, Ingrid Glurich, Jake Blamer, Amit Acharya

 

The objective of this study was to assess current knowledgeability, attitudes, and practice behaviors of primary care providers (PCPs) towards oral cancer screening. Applying a cross-sectional design, a 14-question survey was emailed to 307 PCPs practicing at a large, multi-specialty, rurally based healthcare system. Survey data were collected and managed using REDCap and analyzed applying descriptive statistics. A 20 % response rate (n = 61/307) was achieved for survey completion. Approximately 70 % of respondents were physicians, 16 % were nurse practitioners, and 13 % were physician assistants. Nearly 60 % of respondents were family medicine practitioners. Limited training surrounding oral cancer screening during medical training was reported by 64 %. Although 78 % of respondents reported never performing oral cancer screening on patients in their practice, >90 % answered knowledge-based questions correctly. Frequency rate for specialist referral for suspicious lesions by PCPs was 56 % “frequently”. Optimal periodicity for oral cancer screening on all patients selected by respondents was 61 % “annually”, 3 % “every 6 months”, 3 % “every visit”, 2 % “not at all”, and 31 % “unsure”. This study established a baseline surrounding current knowledgeability, practice patterns, and opinions of PCPs towards oral cancer screening at a single, large, regional healthcare system. In the absence of evidence-based support for population-based cancer screening, this study result suggests a need for better integration of oral cancer surveillance into the medical setting, supplemented by education and training with emphasis on assessment of high-risk patients to achieve early detection. Prospectively, larger studies are needed to validate these findings.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

Print Friendly
Continue reading...

Bucking the trend: Cody Kiser, bronc rider

Sun, Jul 24, 2016

0 Comments

Source: www.thecalifornian.com
Author: Champ Robinson

Cody Kiser always had a fascination with the rodeo. The 25-year-old out of Carson City, Nevada competed in the high school rodeo as a bull rider, but Kiser used that term loosely.

cody

“I was more of a bull getter-oner than a bull rider,” Kiser joked. “I had a bad tendency of holding onto the rope until the very last second.”

This time, that bad habit would cause significant injuries during a high school rodeo competition when Kiser was 14.

“I hit the ground and I don’t know if I was on my chest or my back, but one foot (of the bull) landed on my face and the other on my chest or back,” Kiser said.

The impact of the bull crushed Kiser’s left side of his face that broke his hinge bone and jaw bone and shattered his cheek bone. Kiser had to undergo plastic surgery to fix the injuries which required two plates and eight screws to be inserted to do so. Kiser spent a year recovering from the accident before returning to riding – this time horses.

“Riding bucking horses was something I always wanted to do,” Kiser said. “My dad (P.D. Kiser), that’s actually what he did. I thought I’d give that a go and turns out I was a little better at it and now I’m here today.”

When Kiser returned to riding, the nerves were there, but in a good way.

“I think I was more excited than anything,” Kiser said. “Sure, you get nervous, but you can’t think about that. You can’t think about getting hurt. You got to think about winning and doing your best. Think about staying positive.”

Having competed in the PRCA for the past five years, this will mark only the second time Kiser has participated in the California Rodeo Salinas.

“The first time I was here was probably three years ago or so. I think I was on my permit still, so I was still new to the PRCA rodeo and I was just awestruck by the rodeo and the guys I was riding with.

“It was just a mind-blowing experience. Now I’m here this year, I’m excited. I got a good horse that I’m excited to get on and I’m just ready to go.”

Kiser said the stuff he’s learned in his five years in the PRCA has helped him improve as a bareback bronc rider tremendously.

“I’m able to break down my rides and think through what I did wrong and what I can do right next time. What I did really good and focus on that and move on for the next one and just have fun most of all and see all of these amazing places.”

When preparing for a run at an event, Kiser said there’s little time for thinking once the gate opens.

“It’s more of a reaction,” Kiser said. “I trained for this and mentally try to get myself prepared before I get on the horse where I can just relax and react to what the horse does.”

Kiser said he’s seen some success during his time in the PRCA, but the greatest accomplishment to him is outside of the arena as a spokesperson for the Oral Cancer Foundation.

“It’s just been a crazy experience to be a part of the Oral Cancer Foundation and help out with the message that they try to get out there,” Kiser said. “That’s one of the things I’m really proud of.

“There’s been some rodeo wins here and there over the years, but being a part of that is something I’ll never forget.”

Kiser said he became involved with the Oral Cancer Foundation through a classmate at the University of Nevada, Reno.

“Her sister works for the Oral Cancer Foundation and they were looking for a cowboy that didn’t smoke or chew,” Kiser said. “I ended up talking to the founder Brian Hill and one thing led to another and it’s just been a great partnership ever since then.

“It just kind of fell into my lap. I’m just the luckiest guy in the world really.”

Kiser said he’s never personally experienced a family member having to go through a battle with cancer, but credits the way he was raised as to why he decided to take part in this cause.

“I grew up in a family that instilled into me that you don’t want to smoke or chew and if you want to make it far in this game, you got to be an athlete so I just never did that.”

Print Friendly
Continue reading...
Older Entries