Episode 27, Part 1: American Cancer Society 2022 Grant Winners at UT Austin Share Their Research

[00:00:00] Intro: We are a resource for learners, including every member of the Live Strong Cancer Institutes, on track educational pipeline from middle school to residency. We are a growing collection of interviews, talks and experiences that uncover the myths and the uncertainties of cancer and careers and cancer in order to empower and inspire generations of thinkers and leaders.

This is cancer. An education and empowerment podcast by the Live Strong Cancer Institutes.

[00:00:45] Kristen Wynn: Welcome back to Cancer Uncovered. I am Kristin Wynn with the Live Strong Cancer Institutes at Dell Medical School here at the University of Texas at Austin. In this two part episode, we’re going to hear from five cancer researchers here at UT Austin that we’re [00:01:00] awarded funding for their research from the American Cancer Society Institutional Research Grant, or as we call it, the acs I r.

At UT Austin, what that means is UT Austin applied for the opportunity to receive money from the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society is a longstanding organization that raises money for cancer research, and directly helps cancer patients and families with their needs. UT Austin was awarded the money and it is now UT Austin’s job to give that money to deserving cancer researchers new in their career here at ut.

The hope is that this money will help them really jumpstart their research and begin strongly so they can grow and continue their work. There’s a ton of really cool new research and science packed into these episodes. If you’re able to, while you’re listening to this episode, make yourself. About concepts you’re not sure of and go back and do your own research on them [00:02:00] later.

Even if you don’t understand every single part of their work, don’t sweat that. These are things that you will learn in time. It’s still really intriguing to hear about their processes. What I want you to really listen for and think about as you listen are the following, less obviously sciencey things about this cool science one, consider the importance of teamwork and partnership.

There isn’t a single researcher that doesn’t mention the team of people it takes to make all of this research happen. Two, note how all of these different types of research in cancer are getting. Sometimes you’ll hear about the use of proteins and chemicals. Sometimes you’ll hear about the use of surveys given to patients or one-on-one interviews with patients, or digging in and deeply reviewing the data that has been previously collected about a certain type of medicine and the effects of that on [00:03:00] patients.

Number three. Think through the skills all of these researchers require to get all of this accomplished. Yes, they need to understand the science, but these researchers also have to be able to write. They had to write their application and write about their research to apply for this money. In this episode, they had to present, so they’re presenting their research to a room full of other scientists.

They have to get creative and come up with other ways to get things done when they run into roadblocks. You’ll hear on this episode, it’s everything from supply chain issues, to staffing shortages to language barriers. While you might be thinking, this is totally overwhelming, you’re not wrong, but we are hoping that you see that there is a.

For you in all of this, that you don’t have to do it alone and that it takes all kinds of people to get this work done. What is also an added cool bonus is that this year [00:04:00] all recipients of the acs I r G are women. Women are still underrepresented in cancer research. So getting the chance to help these five women build their research is particularly I.

In part one of this episode, you’ll hear from Dr. Cassandra Coleman, Dr. Tara Kaufman, and Dr. Lelia Noel. In the second part of this episode, you’ll hear from Dr. Chanon Park and Dr. Jenny Spencer. And then hear their group discussion at the very end. Okay. I’m going to have Dr. Barbara Jones, the co-principal investigator, or one of the lead scientists on the A C S I R G.

Take it from here.

[00:04:36] Barbara Jones: My name is Barbara Jones. I am a professor, uh, at the Steve H School of Social Work and at Dell Medical School, uh, and associate Director of Social Sciences at the Live Strong Cancer Institutes. I’m really excited to welcome you all here to this cancer research seminar series. We’re particularly excited today because we have all of the recipients of the American Cancer [00:05:00] Society Institutional Research Grant awardees to talk about their research.

We have given them a challenge, probably even bigger than, uh, writing the grant, which is to present where they are in eight minutes. So it’s gonna be great. And I’m not gonna take up too much more time, but I do wanna say that for us to receive the American Cancer Society, IRG was quite a win, particularly at the stage in our development.

I’m sorry, that Bill met Suey. Uh, you know, we’re both PIs on the grant. It’s not with us today. I’m the other Pi. But it really was quite an accomplishment for us to get this funding. And it means a lot to junior investigators to be able to fund their research so that they can go on and continue studying all of the wonderful things that they’re studying.

And we’re really excited to hear. We’ve got a wide range of participants from a number of different schools. I really am gonna be so brief that I’m gonna. Introduce them by name and department and let them take it away. We’re gonna kick it off with Dr. Cassandra Coleman, who is joining us. [00:06:00] She is an assistant professor of Chemistry, so take it

[00:06:03] Cassandra Callmann: away.

Awesome. All right. Well thank you for the introduction. Uh, my name is Cassandra and I am an assistant professor here in the chemistry department at ut. I’ve been here a little bit over a year now, and today I’m really excited to tell you about our progress on a project I like to call revising The. Of Heparinase and cancer therapy.

Before I get started, I really just wanna take a second and acknowledge my group. So as I said, I just started about a year ago and I’ve been really fortunate to have a lot of really talented graduate students. Postdocs and undergrads work with me already so far. Um, and we’ve been doing some really cool science.

I especially wanna take a second to point out, uh, Chandler Wells, who is one of the graduate students here on the screen. Um, because the project that I’m gonna tell you about now really has been his main focus since, um, even before we got the grant. And so he’s really put a lot of effort and work into it.

Also, I wanna just acknowledge Cole and Carson because they’ve been helping out as well. As I get started, I wanna just take one quick second [00:07:00] just so that everybody, um, because I know we all come from different backgrounds, to just mention that when you think about a tumor, that it’s more than just a collection of cancer cells.

So a tumor, you have cancer cells, but then you also have a lot of different other types of cells, proteins, and different aspects that make a tumor a tumor. So my research group is really has a main focus on developing new tools and strategies for both detecting but more importantly, treating cancer. But of course, today I am focusing on our project on revising the role of Hena in cancer therapy.

Hena is a protein and it’s a gly glyco that is overexpressed in the tumor microenvironment of essentially all cancers and henas function, um, in normal physiology is to degrade and break down oligosaccharides of this oligosaccharide called heparin sulfate. And so under normal physiology, heparinase expression is really tightly controlled because it actually is really important in embryonic development.

But [00:08:00] what happens is as tumors start to reach a certain size, they start expressing and producing all sorts of types of proteins and degradating and degrading enzymes. One of it being hena. In the context of cancer, what this does is it starts cleaving these oligosaccharides and degrading the basement membrane and help contributing to the tumor, being able to metastasize and move to distance sites.

And so Hena has actually been a validated and identified drug target since about the mid 1990s. Multiple small molecule hena inhibitors have been entered in our undergoing clinical trials, but actually none of these materials have actually attained FDA approval as of yet. And so the goal behind these or hena inhibitors is these oligosaccharides are designed so that they bind to the protein and inhibit its function, so essentially shut it down so that it can’t continue to go on and break up and chop up the oligosaccharides and contribute it to metastasis.

As I said, none of these have attained FDA approval. Potentially due to the fact that, of course, Hena has a [00:09:00] tumorogenic role, as I’ve talked about. But just like many things in cancer, there’s this duality where Hena also has anti-tumor effects as well. And so in my group, in this project that I’m talking about today, we had this idea where instead of using Hena as a therapeutic target and trying to develop.

And inhibitors of the protein to instead utilize and take advantage of the fact that Hena is this endogenous enzyme. And so the goal of this project is to, instead of trying to inhibit the action of of Hena, to instead capitalize on what it already does as a way of targeting drugs to tumors. And so the way that we’re going about this is through the development of polymer nanoparticles that are comprised of these dye block co-polymer.

Where you have a hydrophilic block, which I’ve shown in blue, which contains hena responsive heparin sulfate, oligosaccharide mimics, and then the hydrophobic block, which I’ve shown here in purple. Ultimately, the goal is to have [00:10:00] this be a chemotherapeutic, but for now we’re just working with an inner hydrophobic mo ideaism model, and so these, um, polymers we’re designing them so that they form these nanoparticles where you have your drug in the core and then this all goes s saccharide on the shell.

And so the idea behind it is that when you expose these nanoparticles to Hena, it starts recognizing the oligosaccharides on its surface, cleaving them, and inducing a shape change. And so the way that this, this process is supposed to work in the tumor is that falling intravenous injection. Once our nano materials enter the tumor micro environment, the henas recognizes its oligosaccharide substrate and starts cleaving it, which induces this change in size and shape, and ultimately allows us to build up this depot of drugs and therapeutics.

Specifically within the tumor itself. And so this is the target that we’ve been working towards since day one. But as I mentioned, we are a new group. I just started a year ago and thanks to the pandemic and then all of the supply chain issues and delays, and we’re still [00:11:00] waiting on our solid phase oligosaccharide synthesizer to facilitate the synthesis of this hexa saccharide here.

And so in the interim, we’ve been working on a scheme to actually synthesize this, our. Of course, uh, even if you’re not a chemist, I think what you can appreciate is that there’s a lot of steps here. And so we’ve been able to synthesize this target so far. But obviously this has been a tour to force and a lot of effort has been going into it.

And so in parallel, what we’ve been working on is a different. Approach just so that we can at least prove out our proof of concept. And so here, what we’ve also been working on in parallel is developing a polymer system that still has that heparin sulfate, hexa saccharide along its backbone. Um, but instead we’re using a pre synthesized purchase, um, hexa saccharide that we’re, we’re adding onto a pre-formed polymer back.

We have been able to actually successfully synthesize this polymer so far. And what’s really exciting is that when we actually take a look at it and, and test its activity with Hena, we [00:12:00] actually see that it is responding to Hena in the manner in which we designed it to. And so this is preliminary data that we actually just got.

That’s super exciting. And so what it shows is that we have our heparin sulfate mimicking polymer. The important thing to note is that before you expose the p polymer to henas, this is what it looks like. There’s not really much going on. However, after you incubate this polymer with Hena for about, for 24 hours, we see the appearance of these two peaks here, which we believe is the Teros Saccharide fragment, and a disaccharide fragment indicating that this enzyme is actually acting on the substrate as a poly.

And so as a sanity check, we also, um, can compare the cleavage of the polymer to the cleavage of just the hexa saccharide solution. And we see the same peak suggesting that this is indeed working. So just wrap up and conclude. Um, so what we’ve done so far has been able to successfully synthesize heparin sulfate containing polymers that are degradable by Heparin ace.

And [00:13:00] as far as we can tell, and as far as we are aware, this is actually the very first demonstration of Hena having activity on polymer heparin sulfate mimics. And of course, in the future, we’re gonna continue to work on our synthesis of our diplo co polymers, and then evaluate the, um, the function of this material, both in vitro and in InVivo.

Thank you for your time.

[00:13:20] Barbara Jones: Thank you so much Dr. Coleman, for keeping to time you set the bar for the challenge. All right, and I’m gonna turn it over to Dr. Tara Kaufman, who is an assistant professor of oncology at Dell Medical

[00:13:30] Tara Kaufmann: School

. Thank you, Barbara. I appreciate it. Uh, my name is Tara Kaufman. I’m an assistant professor of medical oncology, um, in the Department of Oncology.

I’m a breast medical oncologist and also a palliative medicine physician. And today I’m going to tell you about my research program, which focuses on using patient-reported outcomes or pro. To monitor patients for early palliative care referral, um, in outpatients with advanced cancer. The health problem that my research program seeks to address is to improve early [00:14:00] palliative care referral for patients with advanced cancer.

And what we really know over the last 10 years or so, um, is there’s now a wealth of evidence that early palliative care improves patient and health outcomes for patients when they receive it early in their cancer treatment after metastatic diagnosis. Yet patients don’t receive timely and appropriate referrals either in academic and community setting.

And so there’s a gap between evidence and practice, and my research really seeks to close this gap, and there’s now a large body of evidence that’s also looked at why it’s been so difficult to implement early palliative care, even though we know that this is a great evidence based practice. Some of the reasons are that models of palliative care integration that have been studied have been really difficult to, um, implement and scale in, uh, standard oncology settings, particularly in places where there’s limited workforce supply, so settings with constrained access to services.

There’s also been a lot of work to understand barriers to integration, and what we now know is that there are barriers. Multiple levels in the health ecosystem on the [00:15:00] patient, provider and system level. Yet there aren’t that many supportive care interventions that have been tested with multi-level approaches or strategies to integrate palliative care.

So there’s really a need to still figure out how to best implement palliative care. I would argue it’s really an implementation problem at this point, and we really need to approaches also to better understand how to implement it. And I’ve come to believe that it really will take a multi-level type intervention strategy to do this.

So my research question that I’m focusing on currently is can we use p o monitoring or patient reported outcomes to increase the implementation of early palliative care referral for patients with advanced cancer? Pros or patient reported outcomes are patient surveys. Essentially, it’s any report that comes from a patient without interpretation by anyone else.

And what we now know from some seminal work that’s been conducted over the last few years is that patients who receive patient reported outcomes monitoring for physical symptoms have better outcomes, um, both in quality of life, reduce care utilization, and even an overall [00:16:00] survival. And so this is also an evidence-based practice that’s been shown to improve patient outcomes.

It’s really growing rapidly in oncology. And has already moved into the implementation space also. Now, this is just used to monitor patients for physical symptoms, and my question is whether we can also use patient reported outcomes to monitor patients for other multidimensional palliative care needs in order to more efficiently screen and assess patients in a standardized fashion.

To monitor them for unmet palliative care needs during their cancer treatment, and then also trigger referrals to palliative care as needs developed. So this is a conceptual model that I’ve developed with my mentors as we’ve really thought through the issue of how would you do peer directed palliative care referral.

And what this illustrates is that we propose monitoring patients using patient reported outcomes across a range of palliative care domains. These are domains that we’ve identified that are, uh, potentially appropriate for p o monitoring. These are domains that are important to patients, physicians, and [00:17:00] have been shown to be impacted by early palliative care interventions.

And you can see that physical symptoms are part of it, but there’s really a range of domains that palliative care addresses. We’ve also worked on developing a structured multi-level intervention, which I won’t get into in this talk. And so worked for a future grant in which we proposed using, um, standardized p o monitoring to screen patients in standardized way during their treatment, and then provide referral decision support to palliative care through predefined triggers.

The hypothesis is that this will increase timely and equitable referral, um, through a few different mechanisms to better detect, um, palliative care needs. What we propose is that using p o monitoring to screen patients for palliative care needs is really a more efficient way of screening patients rather than repeated provider intensive assessments.

We will better detect, um, met needs through direct patient report and that there’s also the potential that such a structured intervention could reduce referral bias if used in patient populations or maybe patients are less likely to report their needs [00:18:00] or that, or that physicians don’t appropriately screen patients, um, for palliative care needs.

So the first set of work that we sent out to do when I came here, About two years ago and really moving into this grant is to identify the pure items set that we would use to screen patients for palliative care needs. So what we did was really use a very methodologic and rigorous approach to identify eight different domains.

That early palliative care addresses and then identify validated p o measures and then p o items that could be used to screen patients for AME palliative care needs. And the way that we developed this approach was really to focus on items that were feasible for p o monitoring, um, that are actionable by palliative care interventions, um, that were appropriate for p o monitoring.

And also items that are available in Spanish translation since we propose doing this also in our clinic here, which serves a largely Hispanic speaking patient population. So the idea is that you screen patients, um, across these different multidimensional P [00:19:00] domains. We propose here screening patients with 13 peer items weekly for symptoms that rapidly changed such as physical and psychological symptoms.

And then screening patients monthly with an additional 11 pure items that screen patients across a range of other domains. The idea here that you, um, as you monitor patients on treatment, that you may identify palliative care needs. So the focus of the ACS IRG proposal is that to pilot test this pure item set that we developed, and the focus of the proposal is to conduct a single arm pilot study of pure monitoring of multi dimensional palliative care domains, primarily to determine feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness.

And so what we’ve done, we opened our pilot study in on May 15th, This. As we’re recruiting patients in the Live Strong Cancer Institute Clinic, 30 patients, and we’re piloting the P item set to assess these multidimensional palliative care needs, we’re recruiting outpatients with advanced, incurable solid cancers who are on active treatment, who are earlier in their, um, diagnosis of a prog prognosis of at least [00:20:00] six months, and we’re following patients longitudinally for 12.

This is our study schema where we screen patients approach and enroll them. We collect baseline sociodemographic, um, clinical and study measures, including the fact G at baseline, which is a quality of life measure patients. Then go on p o monitoring, which includes the weekly symptom pros. Which are those 13 items I showed you, And then a monthly palliative P assessment, which is an additional lead of 11 items.

We then collect the fact G at week 12, administer end of study surveys to assess appropriateness and acceptability. And then in a subset of patients, we will conduct study and interviews to further understand the how um, the pilot study went as well as do some provider I. These are our study outcomes and evaluation metrics where you can see that this is truly a pilot study where ingles are discussed feasibility, um, which we define as enrollment rates, retention rates, and adherence to P R O monitoring, as well as acceptability and appropriateness.

We’ve partnered with Cure Vibe, which are our research technology. [00:21:00] Partner to do this work. They provide the patient reported outcomes mobile platform called prompt, in which patients can receive the symptoms surveys on any device, a phone, tablet, or computer. They report the symptoms weekly, and the clinical team then receives alerts for severe symptoms and response per standard of care procedures.

We review the palliative care assessment that’s done monthly with the interdisciplinary team, as well as send it to the oncology provider. I don’t have results yet. We’re, we’re still just a few months in, but this is a concert diagram which shows our progress. So we screened since in the last five months, about 220 patients.

The majority of patients were ineligible because at an early stage diagnosis, around 45% of patients, We identified 30 eligible patients so far, about 13% of patients that we screened. So it takes a lot of screening in order to identify eligible patients. Uh, the majority of patients who we’ve approached have consented.

So feature directions for this work is that we plan to expand this pilot study to the seat oncology clinic here, which serves a medically [00:22:00] vulnerable patient population who’s largely under uninsured, um, in Spanish speaking only. So in order to do this work in that clinic, we’re building the pure items set on the cure life platform in Spanish translation.

Um, we will then conduct cognitive interviews, which is a way of pretesting the pure items in a target population. Um, and we’ll recruit Spanish speaking patients to do that and do that, uh, in a bilingual fashion to understand if the pure items need to be, uh, modified at all, substituted or changed. And then, um, I’m also writing some five year grants and submitting them with a goal of conducting a large randomized control trial.

Which would also be a pilot study, um, to compare a multi-level p directed referral intervention to usual care using this p monitoring strategy. I’d like to thank everyone who’s been involved in this work. It’s really been a major team effort, especially like to highlight here the medical students and residents who’ve jumped in and helped with this work.

John SATs and Katie Goodfellow Neha Ready. As well as our clinical oncology team who’s really been amazing in supporting this work and, [00:23:00] and the research team and research coordinators. So thank you for your time and attention and I welcome collaboration involvement. So please reach out with any questions or again involved.

Thank you

[00:23:09] Barbara Jones: very much, Dr. Kaufman. We are now gonna turn to Dr. Lelia Noel, who’s an assistant professor in the Steve Hicks School of Social

[00:23:17] Lailea Noel: Work. Thank you for having me today. I look again like my colleague. I’m grateful to have this opportunity to share sponsored research by the Livestrong Cancer Institute in American Cancer Society.

My work is titled A Pilot Study to inform a health equity approach to providing precision supportive care for cancer survivors in rural communities. The work that I am looking at, the issue that I am trying to address in communities that are isolated, more isolated, um, in particular rural communities, I am looking at health equity, and according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Health Equity means that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible.

This requires removing obstacles. [00:24:00] Such as poverty, discrimination, and their consequences, including powerlessness and lack of access to good jobs and fair pay, quality education, housing, safe environments, and healthcare. What we would really like to see is a system in communities, especially communities that are socially isolated, that look like, looks like this, right?

A nice balance between, In fact, what we would really like to see is a small bubble for social determinants and a small bubble for, um, barriers to mental health and an increased large bubble for cancer care utilization. But at best, if we could get it to the point where we are, their balance. Be a start, but instead in reality we see more of an inter, uh, situation in our community that looks like this, where there’s a lot of social drivers of health, um, and there’s a lot of barriers to accessing mental health services.

And because of that, that pulls away from cancer patients and survivors accessing quality care in a timely fashion. And [00:25:00] so my project looks at what, what would it. Uh, what kind of an intervention is needed in order to move us from the left side of the screen to the right side of the. And so I am do I have started a community based participatory research project and it’s something that I’ve been working on for the three years that I’ve been here.

I have built partnerships with various coalitions and community groups throughout the rural area surrounding Travis County in particular, Basford County Cares Coalition, and the af, the Alliance for African American Health. So when I had the opportunity to apply for these funds to get us started and to be able to look at how we can address the issues surrounding equity, health, equity issues within rural communities, these two groups in particular were super excited to get on board.

I spent most of the summer meeting with them and talking to them about how we can move forward and what we can do to make an impact, at least with these pilot. So the first thing I wanted to just speak with you is what is community [00:26:00] based participatory research? And it’s more than just engaging communities.

What we have done is we’ve actually, we, the community partners that I’m working with are an intricate part of this process. From the very beginning, I’ve introduced to them what the specific aims are and how should we address the specific aim. And they’ve had an input on that. They are also very much involved with the where we are going to hold the focus groups, who they’re gonna be.

Recruiting who will be participating in a lot of the focus groups and individual interviews that we’ll be meeting with. Um, they will be, have an intricate part of us being able to report back the findings to the community, as well as designing what the intervention will look like based on the pilot data that we come up with from this initial project.

They will also have an a say in on the following grant that we’re, we’re planning on writing to the American cast study in the spring. So the specific games are pretty much around three different areas. One is we wanna define barriers in support secure for rural cancer survivors in central Texas. [00:27:00] Two, we wanna give meaning to the specific social, cultural, and economic needs and preferences of cancer survivors living in rural areas around central Texas.

And three, we want to inform the adoption of an intervention. And in particular, we’re looking at designing a training manual, which draws on a collaborative partnership between interprofessional care. Including rural social workers and community health workers to address identified barriers, needs and prefers of rural oncology patients and survivors.

We are engaging in research, breast cancer survivors, rural social workers, and community and provider stakeholders. We’re doing individual interviews with breast cancer survivors. They are semi-structured qualitative interviews. They will take place in the community, and it’s going to be in three different rural areas.

SUP County, Caldwell County, and Hay County, which were chosen because they have the highest. Incident of breast cancer mortality in and around the, the [00:28:00] rural areas that surround Travis County for breast cancer. We are choosing individuals who identify as female and are over 18, um, and cancer survivors who receive the diagnosis of breast cancer within the last five years.

For the second part in, in order to engage rural social workers in the study, we are going to be holding focus groups and. I had originally proposed to do one focus group in each one of the counties, but when I met with the community partners, they said the Bastrop County is so large and there’s so many, and the, and the rural areas are so diverse that it would be important for us to do two focus groups in Basd County, one in Caldwell, and one in Hayes.

We had originally, similar to Dr. Kaufman, we had wanted to do one looking at those who work with Spanish speaking populations, but due to. Timeline of 12 months and really getting our CBPR work off the ground, we really felt like our Spanish speaking populations deserve more attention. So that will wait until [00:29:00] we have more funding in the future to be able to focus on how we engage Spanish speaking populations than those that work with Spanish speaking populations.

So for this particular study, we’re gonna just work on work with English speaking communities and uh, social workers that work within those area. So the third one that we’re gonna be using group model building and most people who are on this call are aware that, that I do a pro, a methodology called group model building.

So I won’t get into that today, but if you have questions you can ask me later. But that’s basically engaging community and provider stakeholders in conversations. So we’re gonna be looking to identify current community act that’s important to connecting cancer survivors with care, identifying breaks and services we haven’t thought about before.

Share factors of mistrust leading to interruption and care. And shared times when care was received due to an increase in trust. So engaging people who are already doing the work in the community in order to also include their voice at the table because we don’t need to reinvent the wheel because there are people that are out there already, um, engaging in some of this work.

[00:30:00] What we hope to do in the future. Then once we have this initial pilot data, it’s to then, Design a training manual that can be used within an intervention using rural community health workers and in collaboration with rural social workers and interprofessional care teams to address some of the needs and be able to get more rural cancer patients and survivors into care for what they need.

And then we hope to disseminate the information to the community and our community partners will help us do that. And also we hope to be able to also do this on a national basis as well, and including, um, working with scientific journals as well as locally with white tapers and, and town hall meetings.

So thank you.

[00:30:43] Cassandra Callmann: Thank you so much to Dr. Jones,

[00:30:45] Kristen Wynn: Dr. Coleman, Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Noel for sharing your research and. Check your notes. What did you put down to go back and research? If you have questions for us, if we can help you decipher some of the concepts, please email us [00:31:00] at Live Strong Cancer Institutes del me dot u texas.edu.

For more information about the Live Strong Cancer Institutes, check out our website. We’re at Del Med dot u Texas dot ed. You can also follow our chair, Dr. Gail Eckhart on Twitter at s Gale Eckhart. Eckhart is spelled E C K H a. Rdt. This is Kristin w Reporting for Cancer Uncovered. Thank you for listening and learning with us.