The number of cancer patients receiving proton beam therapy (PBT) – a newer, more targeted form of radiation therapy – is increasing, but Black patients are less likely to get this treatment than white patients, according to two recent studies published in JAMA Network Open.
The gap between suicide rates in rural and urban areas has grown, in part due to limited access to mental health services and privacy concerns in rural settings. Read more in my article in the American Journal of Nursing.
Did you make a New Year’s resolution to exercise more? And perhaps the more important question: Will you stick to your goal?
These questions are especially important for older adults, who are at a higher risk for chronic diseases such as dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression and anxiety. Physical activity can help reduce the risk for many of these conditions.
“We need to start thinking about these diseases asdiseases of neglect, not necessarily of aging, that occur because people have not been able to maintain a lifelong pattern of healthy behavior,” said Randall Stafford, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine, in an article originally reported by Stanford’s BeWell.
Stafford explained that the exercises appropriate for any one person will likely evolve over his or her lifetime, but increasing physical activity at any age can quickly improve health.
Take my 92-year old relative Al, for instance. He started training and running marathons when he turned 40. In his 80s, he stopped running based on his doctor’s advice but kept hiking. These days, he walks a mile or rides his exercise bike for 30 minutes at a slow pace with breaks, along with strength and training exercises. His goal: Live an active, independent life.
But even if you’re not like Al (yet), it’s not too late; exercise doesn’t have to be something as intense as running a marathon.
“Even incorporating a few minutes of walking into one’s daily routine can be quite beneficial,” said Stafford. “Physical activity has benefits that are immediate as well as sustained.” And people often become better or more comfortable doing physical activities with practice, he said.
Expanding your mindset
Stafford’s other good news? You don’t have to do vigorous, gym-based exercises; joyful movements like gardening or dancing count. You’ll also get an extra social benefit if you share these physical activities with friends or family members, plus you are more likely to stick with the healthy behavior if you do it with others.
Stafford, however, stressed the importance of including strength training, core exercises and stretching — especially for people over 40 — to reduce muscle loss, maintain balance and stay flexible.
Finally, Stafford advised not to beat yourself up if you slide back into sedentary habits. Setbacks happen. Just try to get back into a routine as soon as you’re able.
This is a reposting of my Scope blog story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.
Feeding infants formula with invisible pathogens can cause life-threatening diarrhea, and introducing solid foods too early can result in nutrient deficiencies. For reasons like these, the World Health Organization and UNICEF recommend feeding infants only breast milk for the first six months, when possible.
But this guideline is rarely followed in developing countries with limited access to health care and education. In South Africa, for instance, less than a third of new mothers exclusively breastfeed for that long.
Now, Stanford Medicine researchers are trying to improve breastfeeding outcomes in South Africa by developing and testing an educational video series. These videos discuss topics such as the health benefits of breastfeeding and what to do if breastfeeding isn’t possible. After running a 19-month study, they found that video-based counseling using computer tablets can promote breastfeeding in under-resourced settings as effectively as in-person counseling.
The study was led by Maya Adam, MD, a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics and the director of Health Media Innovation at Stanford. Adam and the research team partnered with health care workers from Philani Maternal Child Health and Nutrition Trust who shared the video series — called the Philani MObile Video Intervention for Exclusive breastfeeding (MOVIE) — with new and expecting mothers in their South African communities.
“Thankfully, more and more mothers even in the hardest-to-reach communities are gaining access to mobile technology,” said Adam. This access opens up the opportunity to promote breastfeeding in these communities by designing entertaining, educational content and delivering it on mobile devices, she said.
Details of the study were published September 28 in PLOS Medicine.
To create the videos, Adam collaborated with Stanford’s Digital Medic team in South Africa to harness the power of “entertainment-education.” The idea is to draw learners in with dramatic narratives, compelling visuals and soundtracks, Adam said.
The 13 videos are short: four minutes or less. A local South African artist illustrated the health and motivational messages and other local women narrated them. For example, one animated video depicts the story of a mother explaining to her daughter why she breastfed against her own mother’s advice. These illustrations were interspersed with personal narratives from three South African celebrities and four community mothers.
“Some videos were more geared towards the early newborn phase, like the common challenges video. And some were geared towards later phases, like the one aimed at supporting moms who need to return to work,” said Adam.
To test the video series’ ability to provide effective education and encourage breastfeeding, Adam’s team ran a controlled trial involving 84 community health workers, or “mentor mothers,” from the Philani Maternal Child Health and Nutrition Trust. Each mentor recruited and counseled a group of mothers in her community, with 1502 mothers participating in the study.
The mentors were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention group. One half, the traditional mentors, used only face-to-face breastfeeding counseling, while the intervention mentors spent part of their home visits showing Stanford’s videos on tablets that the study provided. The videos were viewed a total of 6,435 times during the visits.
As good as face-to-face
Throughout the study, all mentor mothers counseled their clients on infant feeding during regular home visits starting in the last trimester of pregnancy and lasting until the baby was 5 months old. The intervention mentors chose specific videos to meet the client’s needs.
Each time a baby turned 1 month old or 5 months old, the mentors surveyed the mother’s feeding practices and maternal knowledge.
The researchers observed no significant differences between breastfeeding outcomes for both mentor groups. For example, overall, about 54% of all participants reported during the 5-month survey that they were breastfeeding exclusively. The similarity of these outcomes suggests that the videos were as effective as traditional counseling when used to replace part of the home visit.
However, the videos had the benefit of allowing intervention mentors to do other health-related tasks for the families, including monitoring other children’s growth, updating and keeping medical records and completing referral forms, Adams said.
Mentor mothers also reported that carrying a tablet increased their credibility within the community, said Adam. “My hope is this research will help policymakers and funders see the great potential in equipping community health workers of all levels with mobile devices,” said Adam. “The mentors are heroes, fighting for their communities at the frontlines of health. They deserve to have the technological tools they need.”
This is a reposting of my Scope blog story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.
Anyone with an aching back knows just how debilitating that pain can be. Now, Stanford Medicine researchers may have good news for the 500 million people worldwide experiencing low back pain.
Stanford pain psychologist Beth Darnall, PhD, has developed a single-session, two-hour class called Empowered Relief, which aims to rapidly equip patients with pain management skills. The first randomized, controlled clinical trial suggests this new method may be as effective at reducing chronic low back pain as weeks of traditional therapies, a paper in JAMA Network Open recently reported.
Empowered Relief stems from a traditional therapy called cognitive behavioral therapy, which relies on the interconnection between thoughts, feelings, physical sensations and actions. Both treatments can help patients identify and change thoughts and behaviors that increase their pain, as well as learn coping skills to better control pain response and improve quality of life.
“The problem is CBT isn’t broadly accessible,” said Darnall. “There are only a small number of behavioral specialists, and yet millions of Americans live with ongoing pain. And many under-served communities in the U.S. don’t know how to find a trained therapist.”
Another major barrier, said Darnall, is time commitment — cognitive behavioral therapy patients attend a two-hour group session each week for two to three months.
To address this problem, Darnall combined what she believed were the most critical skills from cognitive behavioral therapy, such as identifying unhelpful and stressful thought patterns, with information about the science of pain, mindfulness principles, and the relaxation response. With the help of an instructor, patients then translate their new skills and knowledge into a personalized plan to manage their pain at home.
“The goal is to align our treatments with what’s feasible for patients and make it broadly accessible,” Darnall said. It’s possible, she said, to teach 85 people in a one-and-done Empowered Relief class. And if taught weekly, 680 patients could be treated in eight weeks, compared with 10-15 who could be treated during that time with cognitive behavioral therapy.
Pain treatment with lasting effects
Darnall conducted the clinical study with Sean Mackey, MD, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, perioperative and pain medicine at Stanford. In it, 263 adults with chronic low back pain — most of whom had this pain for more than five years and almost half of whom had additional chronic pain conditions — were randomly assigned to eight cognitive behavioral therapy sessions, one Empowered Relief session or one traditional health education session, which acted as a control. (In health education, participants learned basic information, such as the definition and warning signs of back pain, but not actionable skills or the neurobiology of pain.)
For three months after the treatment, the participants reported information about their pain, such as its intensity and whether it disturbed their sleep. According to patient reporting, Darnall’s course relieved pain as effectively as cognitive behavioral therapy and better than the health education session.
“I was pleasantly surprised that people’s back pain improved as well as their sleep, depression and anxiety symptoms,” said Mackey. “I can easily see this integrating with standard medical care to provide benefits for many patients.”
The results are promising, but the study will need to be replicated in a larger and more diverse population, said Darnall.
The success of the course doesn’t mean cognitive behavioral therapy will be eliminated, Darnall said. Instead, the researchers want to determine how to match individual patients with treatment options that work best for them. That, she said, could inform pain treatment protocols, resource allocations and other medical decision-making.
Now, Darnall’s team is expanding access to the Empowered Relief program to help address existing disparities in pain care. The class is already available in five languages and seven countries to treat chronic pain — and the team has certified 300 healthcare clinicians around the world as Empowered Relief instructors.
“I hope expanded, online access to the course will provide more equitable access to evidence-based pain care for people living in rural areas, prisons and other settings that lack trained pain professionals,” she said.
Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan
This is a reposting of my Scope blog story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.
With less than half of the United States fully vaccinated, you’ve probably wondered, “How should I talk to hesitant friends or family members about getting their COVID-19 shot?” Now, Stanford Medicine researchers specializing in health education have developed guidelines to help facilitate those awkward conversations.
“We’re trying to find common ground between different audiences to create guidelines that catalyze conversation about vaccination, not stifle it,” said Rachelle Mirkin, MPH, administrative director of health education, engagement and promotion at Stanford Health Care, who led the effort.
Moreover, these conversations either aren’t happening or they’re often ineffectively divisive, said Emilie Wagner, a healthcare strategy consultant who teaches at Stanford and who helped Mirkin and Nicole Altamirano, program manager for digital experience strategy, conduct the research. “There’s so much tension that people don’t want to risk a relationship. Yet, if it goes unaddressed, the tension just naturally mounts.”
The team wanted to understand why some people are reluctant to adopt COVID-19 prevention measures — including wearing a mask, social distancing and being vaccinated — and wanted to learn how to facilitate better communication with vaccine-hesitant individuals.
So far, they’ve discovered that traditional messages — such as the need to protect yourself and others or the enticement of getting kids back to school — don’t move the needle when it comes to persuading hesitant people to get a vaccine. Having a personal, empathetic conversation with people works better than presenting statistics and facts at them.
Needing a new approach
Mirkin and her team conducted an extensive literature review of vaccine hesitancy, using the information to create a list of 25 talking points they thought might sway those who are vaccine hesitant.
They then interviewed health care providers, hospital administrators and a small group of older white adults who were vaccine hesitant, but only regarding COVID-19. Somewhat surprisingly, these participants weren’t generally against vaccines, said Mirkin. Some had already received a two-part shingles vaccines, which can have significant side effects including fatigue, muscle pain and fever.
But when it came to COVID-19 shots, the traditional messaging did not resonate with the target group, said Wagner.
“They had a response for everything,” she said. “They thought the vaccine wasn’t a means for returning to normal. It wasn’t their responsibility to keep others safe. And they believed the risk of the vaccine outweighed the risk of COVID.”
So, the team switched from drawing on knowledge to drawing on empathy. Instead of focusing primarily on facts, they suggest having open-ended conversations that validate feelings and personalize the vaccine experience. And they recommend talking about how everyday life is easier once you’re vaccinated.
According to Wagner, they found that the appeal of hassle-free travel can motivate this group to get vaccinated. Visiting with grandkids can also nudge older adults into getting their shots. But generally, it takes a combination of incentives. The researchers also realized that many short conversations over time are needed. “It takes persistence, so talking with friends and family members can be more effective than a single conversation with a provider,” Wagner said.
To share their approach more broadly, the researchers translated their new strategy into two practical guides — one for health care providers and one for friends and family — and are now disseminating them.
“We need to make space for these discussions,” Mirkin explained. “The more non-judgmental conversations you have with an individual, the more likely they are to protect themselves and others from COVID.”
Encouraging vaccine acceptance, one group at a time
Mirkin’s team is also trying to understand the drivers of vaccine acceptance in two other groups: Latino Spanish speakers and Pacific Islanders. They are working with community partners to create social media campaigns, including Facebook ads, Twitter and Instagram posts, as well as public service announcements. So far, the Latino public service announcements have been picked up by Telemundo, a Spanish-language television network, and the Facebook ads have more than 3 million hits.
Based on initial data, the main issue for Latinos and Pacific Islanders is access to personal protective equipment — such as masks — COVID-19 testing and vaccines, Mirkin said. “In general, the concerns are very logistics-based, whereas the Caucasian hesitant group is philosophically- and identity-based,” she said.
Vaccine acceptance is often complicated by a larger erosion of trust of science and health care systems that have failed many people, especially those of color, said Mirkin. “As an academic medical center, we have to understand what’s going on to begin to reshape the conditions to help rebuild trust.”
This is a reposting of my Scope blog story courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.
Photo by Mattia Ascenzo
A year into the pandemic, we’ve all heard the stories. A patient is a little short of breath but appears to have a mild case of COVID-19. The next day, she deteriorates so rapidly that she’s rushed to intensive care, put on a ventilator, and hooked up to a dialysis machine to prevent kidney failure. Her overzealous immune system has gone rogue, attacking healthy cells instead of just fighting off the virus.
What triggers this devastating immune response, called a cytokine storm? Researchers are still struggling to identify the underlying processes that initiate a COVID infection and subsequent cytokine storm.
Biologists use advanced technologies and cell cultures in petri dishes to study severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the coronavirus strain responsible for COVID-19, identifying its key characteristics such as the famous crownlike spikes on their surfaces. But these short-lived cultures don’t act like real organs. And scientists are limited by their samples.
“When you analyze samples from patients, they’re often at the end stage of the disease, and many of the samples are from autopsy. You can’t understand the initiation process because the tissue is essentially destroyed,” says Calvin Kuo, MD, PhD, professor of hematology.
Understanding how the disease develops and testing potential treatments require better ways to model this coronavirus.
Miniature Organs in a Dish
Kuo’s laboratory develops organoids—three-dimensional miniature organs grown in a petri dish that mimic the shape, structure, and tissue organization of real organs.
Grown from human tissue samples using precisely defined ingredients, these organoids are little spheres of gel up to 1 millimeter in diameter. Healthy tissue samples are mechanically minced and enzyme digested to get to single cells, and then the organoids are grown from single stem cells. They last about six months, significantly longer than the few-weeks lifetime of traditional cell cultures.
Kuo initially developed organoids to study stem cell biology and model cancer. His team was the first to use organoids to convert normal tissues to cancer, as previously reported in Nature Medicine.
But he was passionate about using organoids to model infectious diseases. In 2015, he led a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases U19 research program, recently renewed for an additional five years, in collaboration with Stanford researchers Manuel Amieva, MD, professor of pediatrics and of microbiology and immunology; Harry Greenberg, MD, the Joseph D. Grant Professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine and professor of microbiology and immunology; Elizabeth Mellins, MD, professor of pediatrics; and Sarah Heilshorn, PhD, professor of materials science and engineering. Focusing mainly on the gastrointestinal tract, this multidisciplinary team provided proof of principle that organoids could model infectious diseases.
“With an organoid system, you can start at the infection and look at the very earliest events that occur after infection. And those can give insights as to what needs to be blocked therapeutically,” Kuo explains.
Distal Lung Organoids
After the initial success with gastrointestinal organoids, Ameen Salahudeen, MD, PhD, a hematology and oncology postdoctoral fellow working in Kuo’s lab, led efforts to expand this work by developing distal lung organoids. He partnered with lung stem cell expert Tushar Desai, MD, associate professor of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Stanford.
The distal lung is composed of terminal bronchioles and alveolar air sacs, where inhaled air passes through the tiny ducts from the bronchioles into the elastic air sacs. It performs essential respiratory functions that can be compromised by inflammatory or infectious disorders, such as COVID-19 pneumonia.
“Growing distal lung cultures in a pure way that doesn’t require any supporting feeder cells and is in a chemically defined media had not been possible,” Kuo says. “We were able to do this very beautifully—to grow alveoli at the terminal bronchioles as long-term human cultures.”
The team developed two types of distal lung organoids. Both were made from human distal lung samples provided by Stanford cardiothoracic surgeon Joseph Schrager, MD.
They grew the first type, alveolar organoids, from single alveolar type 2 (AT2) stem cells. AT2 cells have several important functions that together help control the immune response to decrease lung injury and repair. The scientists then induced the AT2 cells to produce alveolar type 1 (AT1) cells, which are the thin-walled cells lining the alveolar air sacs; they are essential for the lung’s gas-exchange function.
“The second type are the basal organoids, which grow from single basal stem cells. They give rise to the mucus-secreting club cells and the ciliated cells with beating hair. And we can see the beating hair under the microscope—it’s quite dramatic,” describes Kuo. “That’s a very nice reproduction of the differentiation and function of the lung.” The team also grows a mixture of alveolar and basal organoids.
They selected these organoid types to determine which cell types in the bronchioles and alveoli were infectible—in hopes of identifying the different mechanisms for how viruses cause respiratory compromise.
The team fluorescently labeled the virus and infected the lung organoids, demonstrating that the virus replicated in both basal and alveolar organoids. Next, they did more sophisticated PCR-based testing to show that the virus replicated its genome.
“But then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, so we initiated a fabulous collaboration with infectious disease expert Catherine Blish, MD, PhD, in the Department of Medicine, to infect our lung organoids with SARS-CoV-2. This was driven by a talented MD-PhD student in my lab, Shannon Choi,” says Kuo. “She worked with Arjun Rustagi, an infectious disease fellow in Catherine Blish’s lab, who infected the organoids in a biosafety-level-3 lab.”
Another partnership was critical, though. An important coronavirus receptor, called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, or ACE2, resides inside the lung organoids. But ACE2 needed to be on the outside of the organoid to get the infection going.
Luckily, Amieva previously devised a way to flip intestinal organoids inside out. Working together, Choi and Amieva turned the lung organoids inside out.
As reported in Nature in November 2020, the team demonstrated that the coronavirus infected their distal lung organoids, including the alveolar air sacs, where COVID-19 pneumonia originates. They also identified a new airway subpopulation as a COVID-19 virus target cell.
“Everyone knew basal cells were stem cells in the lung, but they thought they were all equivalent. Using our organoids, we discovered an unknown basal cell subpopulation containing the stem cell activity. And then we showed this subpopulation actually existed in human lungs in very interesting anatomic locations,” Kuo says.
According to Kuo, their distal lung organoids have three major applications for COVID-19.
They are using them to screen potential coronavirus therapeutic antibodies and to understand how these treatments work. Although initially focused on COVID-19, this screening will likely expand to other kinds of lung infections in the future.
Because the distal lung with the alveoli is the site of the COVID-19 pneumonia, they also plan to use the organoids to identify the underlying biological mechanisms behind coronavirus infection. Finally, they plan to extend their organoid system to incorporate immune cells and understand more complex processes. In particular, they plan to model the dreaded cytokine storm.
Overall, Kuo emphasizes that this organoid research represents a huge team effort involving many investigators with wide-ranging expertise from various departments at Stanford, as well as an “interesting evolution of events.” “Now we have a human experimental system to model SARS-CoV-2 infection of the distal lung with alveoli, which is the site of the lung disease that kills patients,” he summarizes. “We know patients die because of severe pneumonia and lung failure. We can now recapitulate this in the dish. So, we can study how it works, and also test drug treatments.”
This is a reposting of my feature article in the recent Stanford Medicine Annual Report. Check it out to see videos of these lung organoids.
Many blood and immune disorders could be cured by transplanting healthy blood stem cells from a matched donor. But first the patients need a pretreatment procedure to eliminate their own blood stem cells, making room in the bone marrow for the donor cells to take their place.
The problem is that the standard pretreatments—chemotherapy or radiation—are very toxic. Doctors don’t want to give them to vulnerable children, such as those with a rare genetic disorder called severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID).
Infants with SCID have compromised immune systems that struggle to fight off even common infections caused by viruses and fungi. These babies have many chronic and life-threatening problems, including frequent lung infections, chronic diarrhea, and recurrent sinus infections.
“Without treatment, SCID infants usually die from infections within the first two years of life. Blood stem cell transplants are the only definitive cure for this disease,” says Judith Shizuru, MD, PhD, professor of blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapy and of pediatrics. “But transplants usually involve chemotherapy, and we don’t want to give these agents to these children because they’re particularly susceptible to the damaging short-term and long-term effects—including growth defects, neurological problems, and increased risk of cancers. This is especially true for certain subtypes of SCID.”
Instead, SCID patients are often given a blood stem cell transplant without pretreating with chemotherapy to create space in their bone marrow. But then the donors’ self-renewing blood stem cells may not fully engraft, so the kids can’t robustly regenerate their immune systems. These children have to rely on regular intravenous immunoglobulin infusions to boost their immune response, and the effectiveness of donor immune cells can wane over time.
The great need for a less toxic pretreatment for blood stem cell transplants inspired Shizuru to initiate a Stanford study testing a novel antibody pretreatment in SCID patients—in collaboration with Rajni Agarwal-Hashmi, MD, associate professor of pediatrics, and other stem cell transplantation and regenerative medicine specialists at Stanford and UC-San Francisco.
Targeting Blood Stem Cells
The novel pretreatment uses the JSP191 antibody to target a protein called CD117, found on the surface of blood stem cells. The antibody binds to this protein, which then blocks CD117 from binding to a stem cell factor critical for keeping blood stem cells alive. When the interaction between CD117 and the essential stem cell factor is interrupted, the patient’s blood stem cells are depleted—making space for the donor’s healthy cells to engraft.
“It’s not like chemotherapy or radiation,” says Shizuru. “It’s a targeted way to deplete the blood stem cells without damaging normal healthy cells.”
The Stanford team chose SCID patients for their first human JSP191 clinical trial in part because these children have a unique biology—they lack lymphocytes, so they are less likely to immunologically reject the blood stem cells from a donor. Since immune suppressive medications aren’t necessary, the researchers can more easily see if the antibody therapy clears space in the bone marrow and the transplant works.
Initially, the clinical trial studied older children and adults with SCID whose first blood stem cell transplant had failed, so that they could evaluate whether JSP191 therapy was safe and well tolerated. The participants ranged in age from 3 years old to mid-30s, but most were between 11 and 13 years old. According to Shizuru, many of these kids had chronic infections and also wanted to be liberated from having intravenous immunoglobulin infusions.
The results are very promising, as Shizuru reported in 2019 at the American Society of Hematology annual conference. The antibody safely created room in the patients’ bone marrow, allowing healthy donor stem cell engraftment without common side effects like transfusion reactions, treatment-related toxicities, or bone marrow suppression.
“The wonderful thing about the antibody JSP191 is it’s super-safe. This conditioning agent doesn’t affect the DNA or any other organ, as far as we can tell,” explains Shizuru. “We give it as a onetime, really low dose. And it’s not showing any side effects. It’s an amazing drug.”
The study’s clinicians even remarked that the re-transplant kids looked bored in the hospital because the expected complications didn’t happen, says Shizuru. “The patients’ counts didn’t drop. They didn’t have increased infections. They didn’t need blood transfusions,” she says. “So, we decided to give the antibody as an inpatient treatment and then do everything else as outpatient after 48 hours.”
The results were promising from the start. The first participant pretreated with JSP191 was a 3-year-old girl with chronic diarrhea and infections. After about a year, she no longer had diarrhea and started going to school for the first time. In fact, her family was infected with COVID-19 and she did fine, as Shizuru learned during a public discussion.
Expanding the Clinical Trial
Based on the safety and success of the first phase, the JSP191 trial expanded to include infants newly diagnosed with SCID. Two infants have received the antibody pretreatment followed by a blood stem cell transplant.
The first infant did really well, demonstrating signs that his donor cells may fully restore his immune function. The second infant’s response was more complicated; the researchers determined that she had some immune function that may have rejected the maternal stem cells. She subsequently underwent another transplant without the antibody agent, using a mix of chemotherapies.
After their initial success, Shizuru’s team expanded the use of JSP191 to include other vulnerable populations—older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). AML is a type of leukemia in which DNA mutations cause the rapid growth of abnormal cells that build up in the bone marrow. Although it starts in the bone marrow, AML often quickly moves to the blood and sometimes spreads to other parts of the body. MDS are a group of diverse bone marrow disorders in which the bone marrow does not produce enough healthy blood cells. Both AML and MDS primarily occur in people over 65 years old.
This adult study is based on the preclinical work of Wendy Pang, MD, PhD, who was a postdoctoral fellow in the Shizuru laboratory. She showed that the disease-causing MDS and AML stem cells express CD117, so they can be targeted by JSP191. Further, the team observed synergistic eradication of stem cells when these anti-CD117 antibodies were combined with low-dose radiation.
The ongoing clinical trial utilizing JSP191 combined with low-dose radiation is led by Lori Muffly, MD, assistant professor of blood and marrow transplantation and cellular therapies. The preliminary results are encouraging based on the first six participants, who were older adults (64–74 years old) with AML or MDS. The researchers observed no side effects associated with JSP191, and the patients’ blood stem cell transplants were successful.
“We transplanted our first SCID babies and then opened the trial up to older patients with AML and MDS. So, now we’re covering the full spectrum for this targeted therapy: from a 3-month-old infant with SCID to a 74-year-old with AML,” Shizuru says.
The JSP191 project has now moved to a biotechnology company, Jasper Therapeutics. Shizuru expects that in the future, the studies will expand to include sickle cell disease, a group of inherited red blood cell disorders, where the JSP191 antibody can help to engraft the donor cells.
“In terms of pretreatment, there’s been no innovation on transplant agents in decades. People have been innovating on transplant by simply reducing the dose of chemotherapies, but we haven’t seen a successful new agent,” explains Shizuru. “The development of JSP191 leverages our understanding of the biology of blood stem cells by targeting a critically important molecule. JSP191 antibody is now the platform agent.”
This is a reposting of my feature article in the recent Stanford Medicine Annual Report.
In our “Behind the Scenes” series, Stanford Medicine physicians, nurses, researchers and staff members share a glimpse of their daily lives.
For Stanford obstetrician/gynecologist Juno Obedin-Maliver, MD, MPH, there is no typical day. Part of what she loves about her job is that every day is different.
Obedin-Maliver practices the full spectrum of gynecology, including outpatient, inpatient, operative and emergency services. She also co-directs The PRIDE Study, which is a national prospective, longitudinal cohort of sexual and/or gender minority people — including but not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people.
I was excited to speak with her about how she fits all of this into her day — both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pre-COVID morning routine
I get up between 5 a.m. and 6:15 a.m. I usually make some tea and have breakfast before getting my three-year-old son up, dressed and fed. Then, either my partner or I take him to school. Next, I head down to Stanford from San Francisco where I live.
Organizing the workweek
I see patients about 30% of the time, and the rest of the time I do research. Days that I don’t see patients are a mix of research writing and meetings — with overnight calls or surgery kind of sprinkled in here and there.
Part of my research team is at Stanford, part at the University of California San Francisco and part at our office in the Oakland City Center. So, I have meetings with folks all over the Bay, and also all over the country, because we have collaborators and stakeholders across the United States.
The PRIDE Study
The main focus of The PRIDE Study is understanding the relationship between being a sexual and/or gender minority person and a person’s health. And we think about health broadly: physical health, mental health, social health and wellbeing. We want to understand in more detail the well-documented health disparities among sexual and gender minority people, but also their health resiliency. We’ve enrolled about 18,000 people in the study.
I’m also working to build an LGBTQ+ program at Stanford, which will include clinical care, research and education.
Most productive time of the day
My most productive time is in the morning at home. I usually triage my email — deleting spam, putting actionable items on my to-do list and putting anything that requires significant time on my calendar. And if I get up at 5 am, I can get an hour of uninterrupted writing in before my son wakes up, which is awesome.
I get home between 6 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., then I just hang out with my son and my partner. We give him dinner and a bath, read him books and get him to sleep. And then we have our own dinner. Sometimes we just hang out until bedtime. And sometimes, unfortunately, we get back on the computer to work.
In the evening, I like to meditate, if only for 10 minutes. I remember what I’m grateful for. And I generally read a novel before I go to bed. Right now, I’m reading a book called The Hakawati by Rabih Alameddine. It’s pretty great. I try to get to sleep by 10 or 10:30 p.m.
My day during the pandemic
I still see patients one day a week, and it’s a mix of in-person and video visits in the clinic. I also work some shifts on labor and delivery.
In terms of research, my team is still rocking and rolling, despite the challenges of COVID-19 and systemic violence around the country. I’m very luck to work with an inspiring team dedicated to equity and justice.
Professionally, it’s been a productive time, and we’ve published a number of papers. We’ve also launched a survey about the impact of COVID-19 for LGBTQ+ people, and a related survey about respiratory symptoms, and have had a few thousand responses already. The pandemic seems to be exacerbating systems of inequality, and that’s certainly true for LGBTQ+ — and even more so for LGBTQ+ people of color and those who are economically disadvantaged. As we enter Pride Month, we are also about to launch our fourth annual questionnaire on June 8, and celebrate having over 18,000 participants.
Having a 3-year-old at home and splitting his care throughout the day with my partner has been a big challenge though. Our kiddo misses his friends and school, as we all do. In many ways, we’re closer than ever, and have had a lot of opportunities to do crafts and bake — and we’re growing food on our porch (tomatoes, lettuce, peppers, chard and strawberries!).
On the other hand, trying to still fit in a full work day is a struggle; it means working before he is up and long after he goes to sleep, and unfortunately more screen time for him than ever before. That being said, we’re so lucky to be healthy, have access to food and have jobs that allow us to work at least some of the time from home while still being of service.
Photos by Steve Fisch
This is a reposting of my Scope story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.
When you get routine X-rays of your teeth at the dentist’s office or a chest X-ray to determine if you have pneumonia, you expect the technologist to drape your pelvis in a heavy radioprotective apron. But that may not happen the next time you get X-rays.
There is growing evidence that shielding reproductive organs has negligible benefit; and because a protective cover can move out of place, using it can result in an increased radiation dose to the patient or impaired quality of diagnostic images.
Shielding testes and ovaries during X-ray imaging has been standard practice since the 1950s due to a fear of hereditary risks — namely, that the radiation would mutate germ cells and these mutations would be passed on to future generations. This concern was prompted by the genetic effects observed in studies of irradiated fruit flies. However, such hereditary effects have not been observed in humans.
“We now understand that the radiosensitivity of ovaries and testes is extremely low. In fact, they are some of the lower radiation-sensitive organs — much lower than the colon, stomach, bone marrow and breast tissue,” said Donald Frush, MD, a professor of pediatric radiology at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford.
In addition, he explained, technology improvements have dramatically reduced the radiation dose that a patient receives during standard X-ray films, computerized tomography scans and other radiographic procedures. For example, a review paper finds that the radiation dose to ovaries and testes dropped by 96% from 1959 to 2012 for equivalent X-ray exams of the pelvis without shielding.
But even if the radioprotective shielding may have minimal — or no — benefit, why not use it just to be safe?
The main problem is that so-called lead aprons — which aren’t made of lead anymore — are difficult to position accurately, Frush said. Even following shielding guidelines, the position of the ovaries is so variable that they may not be completely covered. Also, the protective shield can obscure the target anatomy. This forces doctors to live with poor-quality diagnostic information or to repeat the X-ray scan, thus increasing the radiation dose given to the patient, he said.
Positioning radioprotective aprons is particularly troublesome for small children.
“Kids kick their legs up and the shield moves while the technologists are stepping out of the room to take the exposure and can’t see them. So the X-rays have to be retaken, which means additional dose to the kids,” Frush said.
Another issue derives from something called automatic exposure control, a technology that optimizes image quality by adjusting the X-ray machine’s radiation output based on what is in the imaging field. Overall, automatic exposure control greatly improves the quality of the X-ray images and enables a lower dose to be used.
However, if positioning errors cause the radioprotective apron to enter the imaging field, the radiographic system increases the magnitude and length of its output, in order to penetrate the shield.
“Automatic exposure control is a great tool, but it needs to be used appropriately. It’s not recommended for small children, particularly in combination with radioprotective shielding,” said Frush.
With these concerns in mind, many technologists, medical physicists and radiologists are now recommending to discontinue the routine practice of shielding reproductive organs during X-ray imaging. However, they support giving technologists discretion to provide shielding in certain circumstances, such as on parental request. This position is supported by several groups, including the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and American College of Radiology.
These new guidelines are also supported by the Image Gently Alliance, a coalition of heath care organizations dedicated to promoting safe pediatric imaging, which is chaired by Frush. And they are being adopted by Stanford hospitals.
“Lucile Packard Children’s revised policy on gonadal shielding has been formalized by the department,” he said. “There is still some work to do with education, including training providers and medical students to have a dialogue with patients and caregivers. But so far, pushback by patients has been much less than expected.”
Looking beyond the issue of shielding, Frush advised parents to be open to lifesaving medical imaging for their children, while also advocating for its best use. He said:
“Ask the doctor who is referring the test: Is it the right study? Is it the right thing to do now, or can it wait? Ask the imaging facility: Are you taking into account the age and size of my child to keep the radiation dose reasonable?”
Photo by Shutterstock / pang-oasis
This is a reposting of my Scope story, courtesy of Stanford School of Medicine.