The talks will be held 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. every Thursday of the month.

What’s Stress Got to Do with It? — February 2

Dr. Bonnie McGregor is a behavioral medicine pioneer interested in how psychological factors affect the health of our bodies and our minds. Hear how stress influences our vulnerability to disease, and how stress management techniques can help you reduce your own disease risk.

Stem-cell Therapy: The Hope, the Hype and the Real Potential – February 9

Join Drs. Beverly Torok-Storb, Tony Blau, Phil Horner and Chuck Murry in a discussion of stem-cell research. Learn about the different types of stem cells, common misunderstandings about stem-cell work, clinical therapies being explored and what these researchers envision for the future.

Cancer and Infectious Diseases: Making a Global Impact – February 16

Did you know that nearly a quarter of cancers around the world are infection caused or related? Meet Dr. Corey Casper, the force behind the Hutchinson Center’s research on infection-related cancers in Uganda. By focusing efforts in a country with a higher disease burden, we hope to understand how chronic infections lead to cancer, including why this happens in some of us and not in others.

Influenza: A Study in Evolution – February 23

Soon personal genomic sequences will be cheaper than personal computers. But genomic sequences don’t come with instruction manuals, so revealing what they tell us about evolution and disease remains a challenge. Dr. Jesse Bloom will take us on a journey along the evolutionary path followed by one influenza gene over the last 40 years, and reveal the obstacles and forces that shape genetic change as we attempt to understand evolution at the molecular level.

When:

Thursdays
February 2-23
7-8:30 pm

 Where:

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N., Seattle
Thomas Building
Pelton Auditorium

To Register go HERE.

Zocalo Public Square: How Doctors Die

Photo: Hanspeter Klasser

Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. … He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible.

Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.

It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little (Dr. Ken Murray, 11/30).

Photo courtesy of Hanspeter Klasser

Health Affairs: An MS Patient Loses Trust When She Finds Out Her Doctor Is Paid By Drug Companies’

Last year, four years after showing initial symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), I walked out the door of one neurologist’s office and, after several months of searching, switched to a different doctor.

It was the final act in a series of events that had gradually eroded my trust in the first neurologist’s judgment, which I believe was colored by his financial relationships with drug companies who manufacture and market medicines for MS patients. … Given my background in medical ethics, I was familiar with the potential conflicts of interest that exist for physicians participating in clinical pharmaceutical trials.

Assuming that my neurologist was being compensated for running the trial, in addition to his earnings from seeing patients in his neurology practice, I’d asked him if that was the case, and he confirmed that it was (Maran Wolston, December 2011).

The New Republic: More Health Care Heresy From Newt

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich’s past endorsement of an individual mandate has drawn fire from conservatives. But that’s not his only health care heresy.

In 2008, Gingrich made the case for another idea that became part of Obamacare and, in due time, the focus of right-wing attacks.

Worse still, at least from the standpoint of conservatives, he did so by writing an op-ed for The New York Times. Oh, and did I mention he had some help? Gingrich had a co-author: John Kerry, the Democratic senator and former presidential nominee. … they also acknowledged that ultimately the private sector couldn’t solve this problem on its own.

More action was necessary, they said, and that action had to come from government … That’s the problem for Gingrich when it comes to improving the delivery of health care. He isn’t crazy. But plenty of influential conservatives are (Jonathan Cohn, 12/13).

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Newsweek: Could This Be The End Of Cancer?

By all rights, Shari Baker should have said her final goodbyes years ago. In 2005, more than a year after three doctors dismissed a lump under her arm as a harmless cyst, she was diagnosed with stage IV (metastatic) breast cancer … In May 2006, she traveled to the University of Washington.

The (cancer) vaccine was injected into her upper arm; she got five more shots over the next five months. Today, with scans detecting no cancer anywhere, Baker seems to have beaten some extremely stiff odds. …

By “cancer vaccine,” scientists mean something that will stimulate the immune system to attack malignant cells (Sharon Begley, 12/12).

The Atlantic: The Top 10 Health Stories Of 2011

Photo by Jean Scheijen

Coffee is good for you. And coffee is bad for you. Cell phones cause cancer. And cell phones don’t cause cancer.

Like any other year in health, 2011 was one of conflicting studies. In the end, we’re not always sure how to act or what to drink or when to exercise, but we do know more about ourselves and the world we live in thanks to researchers everywhere and the work that they do.

However broad or specific their conclusions, however small or large their sample size, medical studies do contribute to our wellbeing simply by existing and, if nothing else, by making us think twice about the things we eat, say, and do on a daily basis (Nicholas Jackson, 12/14).

Photo courtesy of Jean Scheijen

The Daily Show: Ed Gillespie

Jon Stewart talks health care with Republican political strategist Ed Gillespie (12/8).

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

By Michelle Andrews

When Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently suggested that the human papillomavirus vaccine — recommended for girls and young women to protect against cervical cancer — was dangerous and might cause mental retardation, the American Academy of Pediatrics pushed back hard. The AAP, which represents 60,000 pediatricians, issued a statement saying the claim had “absolutely no scientific validity.”

Bachmann’s is only the latest attack on vaccine safety, as anyone knows who has tracked the persistent and discredited claims that vaccines cause autism, among other problems.

Public-health experts insist that childhood immunizations are safe, but widespread misinformation by self-described safety advocates and others is one reason pediatricians frequently find themselves fielding questions from anxious parents.

When repeated efforts to educate parents fail, some pediatricians are now taking action: They’re refusing to treat children unless their parents agree to have them vaccinated according to guidelines set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pediatricians who go this route say they’re concerned about more than the health of the children. They’re also worried about other patients in the waiting room, some of them too young to be immunized or with health problems that compromise their immune systems. Unvaccinated children put those kids at risk.

“It’s my job to do the very best we can with patients in this practice,” says Dr. Harry Miller, a pediatrician with Four Seasons Pediatrics in Clifton Park, N.Y., whose practice stopped treating unvaccinated children last year. “Exposing that small percent who don’t vaccinate to those who do is a disservice.”

Most parents have supported the decision, he says, which was spurred in part by a rise in the number of the practice’s parents who refused immunizations. That number was very small, and those who felt strongly about avoiding all vaccines — about 0.5 percent of the families — have left the practice.

The AAP doesn’t think doctors should take such a hard line. “Over time, parents may be willing to reconsider previous vaccine refusals,” says the group’s policy statement.

More From This Series: Insuring Your Health

When vaccination rates fall below roughly 80 or 90 percent, a population loses the benefit of “herd immunity,” which protects even those who can’t be vaccinated or for whom the vaccine didn’t work, experts say.

According to the CDC, vaccination rates for children ages 19 to 35 months were at or above 90 percent for many illnesses, including polio; measles, mumps and rubella (MMR); and hepatitis B. Fewer than 1 percent of children received no vaccines. Vaccination rates for teens are significantly lower but increasing, the CDC found.

Although overall refusal rates may be low, they vary widely by location. In Washington state, for example, the rate of nonmedical exemptions from school vaccination requirements was 6 percent in 2007, with one county recording a 27 percent refusal rate.

Under the Affordable Care Act, starting last fall vaccines that are recommended by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices must be provided at no chargeto people in new health plans.

Melissa Henriksen says she would be thrilled to encounter a doctor who took a proactive stance on vaccines, but the Charlottesville practice where she takes her 5-year-old daughter, Jaya, has no such requirement.

Noting that there was a recent measles outbreak in the city, she says, “I feel like these parents don’t get it: It is your own decision [whether to vaccinate], but there is a consequence for your community.”

An assistant professor of biology at the University of Virginia, Henriksen conducts cancer research using human cells. She occasionally has encountered undergrads who wanted to work in her lab but hadn’t been immunized against hepatitis B, which they might contract working with the cells. When she suggests getting the shot, they decline, often citing their parents’ concern about vaccinations.

States require that children be vaccinated before attending school, but in 2008, 48 states allowed parents to sidestep the requirement for religious reasons, and 21 states permitted exemptions for philosophical or personal reasons, according to a studypublished in the New England Journal of Medicine. (All states permit exemptions for medical reasons.)

Parents may have concerns about vaccines, says Douglas Diekema, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine. But in general, “they don’t have a strong philosophical objection.”

And that’s where the AAP thinks pediatricians can make a difference: by addressing parents’ concerns and educating them about the importance of vaccines. Ideally, that will convince them to go forward.

But even if it doesn’t, pediatricians shouldn’t turn them away, says the AAP. “If the goal is to get children vaccinated, you don’t accomplish that by asking them to leave the practice,” says Diekema, the lead author of the AAP policy statement.

Nor is Diekema persuaded by the waiting-room argument: “Presumably these kids will get treated somewhere,” he says. “Maybe you’re keeping your own waiting room clean, but you’re not preventing the spread of disease.”

This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Mildew from a wooden soap dish - Photo by Bob Baylock

By Glenda Fauntleroy, Contributing Writer
Health Behavior News Service

A new evidence review finds that ridding homes and offices of mold and dampness can help reduce respiratory infections and troubling symptoms for asthma sufferers across the globe; however, the best way to eliminate the mold remains unclear.

Mold is one of the most important environmental triggers of symptoms such as coughing and wheezing, according to National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

“Mold is found in many homes with basements, in apartments and walkouts that are partially or fully below ground, and in buildings that have been flooded or have poor humidity control,” said Peter Thorne, head of the occupational and environmental health department at the University of Iowa. “Homes and office buildings alike have problems.”

But does “remediating” or relieving homes, offices and schools of dampness and mold make a big difference? Lead reviewer Riitta Sauni at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in Tampere, Finland, said that results are mixed.

PHOTO: Bob Baylock under Creative Commons license

Key Points:

• Ridding homes and office buildings of mold can reduce the incidence of respiratory illness and decrease asthma-related symptoms, a new Cochrane review finds.

• While removing mold from offices and homes can reduce coughing and wheezing, the best method for mold removal remains to be determined.

• Mold can be costly to remove from buildings, which can be re-infected even after cleaning and fungicide treatments.

“We were happy to find evidence that remediation of mold-damaged houses decreased the severity and amount of symptoms in patients with asthma and respiratory infections,” Sauni said. “Unfortunately, we did not find evidence that remeditation could prevent these diseases.”

The review appears in the September issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization that evaluates research in all aspects of health care. Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical practice after considering both the content and quality of existing trials on a topic.

Remediation of mold and dampness requires total or partial renovation of a building, or cleaning with a fungicide or bleach solution. Sauni and her team looked at eight studies with 6,538 participants who had their homes, schools or workplaces remediated by a mixture of these methods.

The reviewers say that because the available studies did not offer high-quality evidence and sample sizes were small, “drawing hard conclusions was difficult.”

Nonetheless, the review found that when compared to doing nothing at all, repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms as well as the amount of respiratory infections in adults.

Remediation also decreased the number of acute care visits in children and students’ visits to physicians for common colds.

In one South Wales study, for instance, 115 members of the group who had their homes remediated with the complete removal of visible mold, a fungicide treatment and installation of a fan, were more likely to see improvement in their respiratory symptoms for six and 12 months afterwards, compared to those in the control group whose homes were not cleaned.

The reviewers, however, could not determine which method of remediation was superior to significantly improving asthma symptoms.

“The studies have shown that after cleaning and fungicide treatment, a large number of the buildings were soon re-infected with molds, and also a partially remediated office building had to be repaired more thoroughly,” Sauni said, adding that mold removal can be costly.

“Sometimes, if the structures are damaged widely, the easiest and most cost-effective possibility is to pull down the damp building and build a new one,” she said.

The reviewers concluded that better research is necessary to give evidence of improved outcomes.

Health Behavior News Service is part of the Center for Advancing Health

The Health Behavior News Service disseminates news stories on the latest findings from peer-reviewed research journals. HBNS covers both new studies and systematic reviews of studies on (1) the effects of behavior on health, (2) health disparities data and (3) patient engagement research. The goal of HBNS stories is to present the facts for readers to understand and use for themselves to make informed choices about health and health care.

Prof. Bowtell

The largest grant will go to David Bowtell, PhD of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center in Melbourne, Australia, who won the Center’s first Scientific Challenge Grant, a new award that seeks to encourage research into the origins of ovarian cancer with the goal of developing ways to diagnose the cancer early, when it is more treatable.

The two-year, $150,000 grant will fund Professor Bowtell’s to research to see whether ovarian cancers release enough of a form of DNA into the bloodstream that it might be possible to detect the cancer early with a simple blood test.

The Center also awarded one-year $75,000 Pilot Study Awards to 13 researchers conducting innovative research and three $60,000, one-year Scientific Scholar grants for promising young laboratory and clinical scientists pursuing careers in ovarian cancer research.

Dr. Salazar

Among the recipients of the Pilot Study Awards is Lupe Salazar, MD of the University of Washington’s Tumor Vaccine Group, who studies how the immune system’s white cells can be induced to attack cancer cells. For a summary of her grant click here.

Dr. Liao

Among the three Scientific Scholar grantees is John Liao, MD, PhD, assistant professor of the UW Obstetrics & Gynecology Department, who is working on developing vaccines against ovarian cancer. For a summary of his grant click here.

Ovarian cancer is the ninth most common cancer among women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, according the American Cancer Society.

Each year in the U.S., about 21,990 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and about 15,460 die from the diseases.

Only about half of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer will be alive in five years, but if the cancer is found and treated before it has spread outside of the ovary, the five-year survival rate is 94 percent.

Early diagnosis is difficult, however, because early ovarian cancers often produce no or only subtle symptoms and no screening test has yet been proven to be effective, according to American Cancer Society.

As a result, only about one in five cases of ovarian cancer are diagnosed early.

To learn more:

• Visit the Marsha Rivkin Center’s webpage.
• Visit the American Cancer Society’s webpage on Ovarian Cancer.

Pilot Study Awardees for 2011:

Karen Abbott, PhD
University of Georgia

Targeting Tumor-Specific Glycosylation: Discovery of Novel Membrane Receptors

Dr. Abbott’s work is focused on discovering new tumor-specific targets on the surface of cancer cells. Tumor-targeted therapy regimens will have less toxic side effects to normal tissues, and lead to a better quality of life for patients. This project is based on a recent discovery of a unique type of carbohydrate (glycan) found on proteins that cover the surface of ovarian tumor cells and not normal ovarian cells. The membrane receptors that help this glycan stick to the surface of tumor cells will be identified and subsequently used for the development of tumor-targeted therapeutics in the future.

Karen Cowden Dahl, PhD
Indiana University

The role of ARID3B isoforms in ovarian cancer and chemoresistance

Around 70% of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer have advanced disease and the prognosis is very poor. Treatment for ovarian cancer consists of surgery followed by chemotherapy. One of the contributing factors to the poor prognosis for advanced ovarian cancer is due to tumor cells becoming resistant to chemotherapy. This project aims to understand how a new overexpressed gene (ARID3B) is regulated in ovarian cancer and how different forms of this gene contribute to chemoresistance. These studies will further the understanding of genes that are involved in ovarian cancer and chemoresistance in order to better treat ovarian cancer patients.

Daniela Dinulescu, PhD
Brigham and Women’s Hospital

Experimental Models to Validate a Tubal Cell of Origin for Serous Ovarian Cancer

Too little is known about the genetic lesions responsible for ovarian cancer tumor initiation, and uncertainty remains over the specific cell or cells of origin. Data emerging from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) on the many genomic alterations in serous ovarian carcinoma has delivered a treasure trove of new candidates for investigation, but discerning which gene alterations are critical early events in cancer pathogenesis, how tumors evolve to their highly aggressive state, and which pathways represent the best therapeutic targets will require a large scale collaborative research effort. Animal models developed in Dr. Dinulescu’s lab, which accurately recapitulate the human disease, constitute great tools for defining the key roles that ovarian cancer cells in the ovarian surface epithelium and distal fallopian tube play in tumor initiation and resistance to chemotherapy. Furthermore, they provide us with unique, relevant in vivo systems in which to screen novel molecularly targeted therapies as they become available.

Thuy-Vy Do, PhD
University of Kansas Medical Center

Preclinical Evaluation of Aurora A Kinase and PARP Inhibitor Combination Therapy

Women carrying mutations in the breast-cancer associated 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) genes are at higher risk for developing epithelial ovarian cancer. BRCA1/2 play critical roles in repairing DNA and helping genes avoid mutation. Interestingly, BRCA1/2 is not functioning optimally in cases of sporadic epithelial ovarian cancer, and BRCA2 and Aurora A interact in cells to regulate genomic stability. Dr. Do will test the hypothesis that Aurora A and BRCA1/2 interact to mediate DNA repair and cell growth. An Aurora A kinase inhibitor and a PARP inhibitor will be tested as therapies for ovarian cancer.

Alexander Nikitin, MD, PhD
Cornell University

Role of Stem Cells in Ovarian Cancer

Understanding of epithelial ovarian cancer development is critical for designing effective diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. During recent years it has become increasingly clear that cancers may arise from stem and progenitor cells. However, the location of the stem cell compartment of the ovarian surface epithelium that give rise to cancer cells remains unknown. Dr. Nikitin will explore a newly identified stem cell compartment in the ovary and determine properties of these stem cells and their contributions to epithelial ovarian cancer.

Daniel Powell, PhD
University of Pennsylvania

Preclinical Evaluation of Costimulated CIR Therapy for Ovarian Cancer

Adoptive immunotherapy is extremely effective for triggering tumor regression in patients with malignant melanoma. To develop adoptive T-cell therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer, we have created a chimeric immune receptor (CIR) that redirects the immune system against alpha-folate receptor, a protein on the surface of 90% of epithelial ovarian cancer cells. In designing this therapy, other strategies that will be taken into account including promoting growth and survival of the body’s own immune cells to fight ovarian cancer. The results of Dr. Powell’s work will provide preclinical data essential for clinical development.

Carrie Rinker-Schaeffer, PhD
University of Chicago

Milky Spot Macrophages: Co-Conspirators in Omental Metastasis Formation

No one knows what microenvironmental interactions control ovarian cancer metastasis. Getting this crucial information requires a fresh look from a new perspective. Recently Dr. Rinker-Schaeffer’s lab made a novel connection between ovarian cancer metastatic colonization and structures on the omentum (tissues in the abdomen) that contain immune cells and are called milky spots. It is suspected that cancer cells take advantage of milky spots to promote their own survival and growth. This project will identify interactions between omental immune cells and cancer cells that can be targeted in combination with current therapies in order to suppress metastatic growth, improve quality of life, and extend disease-free survival.

Lupe Salazar, MD
University of Washington

Adoptive transfer of tumor specific Th1 cells derived from vaccine-primed patients achieved clinical benefits

Adoptive immunotherapy can induce cancer regression but rarely results in cure. We have infused HER2-specific Th1 cells in breast cancer patients, and 50% of patients had a partial or complete response to the treatment. Dr. Salazar hypothesizes that Th1/Th17 immune cells that can recognize tumor cells can have enhanced therapeutic efficacy. This project will determine the optimal conditions to grow these multifunctional immune cells in the lab in order to enhance their ability to identify and target cancer cells using IGFBP2. Results from this project will lead to a phase I study of adoptive immunotherapy in ovarian cancer after priming with an IGFBP2 vaccine.

Janet Sawicki, PhD
Lankenau Institute for Medical Research

Utilizing HuR to Combat Chemotherapeutic Resistance in Ovarian Cancer

The molecular basis underlying the range of ovarian cancer patient responses to chemotherapeutic agents is poorly understood. This project will address the urgent need to stratify ovarian cancer patients for therapy and enhance currently available treatment strategies. Recently, Dr. Sawicki’s lab discovered that the stress response protein, HuR, can mediate therapeutic efficacy of gemcitabine and a PARP inhibitor, two drugs currently used to treat ovarian cancer, by rapidly binding and regulating cancer-associated mRNA transcripts. Therefore, HuR may serve as both a potential predictive marker for drug efficacy and a promising target for therapeutic manipulation for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Kavita Shah, PhD
Purdue University

Chemical genetic dissection of Aurora A Kinase in ovarian cancer

The function of kinases is to turn proteins on and off in cells. Aurora A kinase is one such kinase whose levels increase early in ovarian cancer and are associated with poor prognosis. By identifying the proteins that Aurora A kinase turns on and off in ovarian cancer cells that are not affected in normal cells, Dr. Shah can design drugs to inhibit Aurora A kinase from doing its job and reverse the cascade of proteins that are involved in progression of ovarian cancer. Safer drugs can be developed which target only ovarian cancer cells while avoiding normal cells.

Barbara Vanderhyden, PhD
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

Role of PAX2 in the etiology of ovarian and fallopian tube cancers

The origins of ovarian cancer are poorly understood but most cancers seem to arise from the surface layer of cells on the ovary or the fallopian tube. Ovarian surface epithelial cells have the ability to develop into ovarian cancer subtypes that fall into two broad categories: low-grade and high-grade. Previous work shows that changes in a protein, PAX2, occur in the earliest cancerous structures in both ovaries and fallopian tubes. Dr. Vanderhyden’s lab has developed methods to isolate both ovarian and fallopian tube cells from mice and will determine how changes in PAX2 contribute to the early stages of ovarian cancer.

 Christine Walsh, MD
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Genetic Modifiers of BRCA1-Associated Gynecologic Cancer Penetrance

Women who inherit a mutation in the BRCA1 gene have a 40% risk of developing ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer. Dr. Walsh is seeking to shed light on genetic and molecular events that lead to tumor development in some women in this high-risk population but not in others. A significant difference in the genetic sequence of the PARK2 gene distinguishes BRCA1 mutation carriers that do develop cancer from those who do not develop cancer. This project will further investigate PARK2, which is mutated in other cancers and has a tumor suppressor function, by looking at its role in the biology of BRCA1-associated gynecologic cancer development.

Jian-Jun Wei, MD
Northwestern University

MiR-182 overexpression in early tumorigenesis of high grade serous carcinoma

High grade papillary serous carcinoma may arise from serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma in the fallopian tube. MiR-182 is a small RNA molecule that is significantly overexpressed in both types of carcinomas. Dr. Wei hypothesizes that miR-182 overexpression is a critical and early molecular change in papillary serous carcinoma. He will use normal fallopian tube secretory epithelial (FTSE) cell lines to investigate whether adding miR-182 in large amounts will result in tumors and whether miR-182 causes tumors via target genes BNC2 and MTSS1 known to be involved in papillary serous carcinoma. The results will provide a new marker in early detection and a potential therapeutic target for PSC.

Scientific Scholar Awardees: 

Young Min Chung, PhD
Stanford University School of Medicine

Targeting Ovarian Cancer with Combination of Olaparib and Trifluoperazine

Dr. Chung is developing innovative therapeutic strategies by combining a clinically used small-molecule drug called trifluoperazine (TFP) and a chemical compound named Olaparib, which is an inhibitor of an enzyme called PARP, to suppress advanced ovarian cancer and to overcome PARP inhibitor-unresponsive ovarian cancer. In addition, novel biomarkers will be identified for monitoring therapeutic sensitivities in ovarian cancer. Ultimately, the results of this project will be used to design a clinical trial to treat patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

John Liao, MD, PhD
University of Washington

Development of a polyepitope DNA vaccine for ovarian cancer immunotherapy

While ovarian cancer patients can respond to chemotherapy and achieve remission, the majority of advanced stage patients succumb to recurrent disease. Strategies harnessing the immune system have the potential to augment available therapies, prolong remissions, and prevent relapses. Vaccines generating immune responses against proteins in ovarian cancer cells could offer a possibility of selectively killing those cells. Dr. Liao has identified 6 proteins associated with poor prognosis. Vaccines targeting fragments of these 6 proteins will then be tested in a mouse model for ovarian cancer to evaluate safety and effectiveness in preparation for clinical trials.

Fiona Simpkins, MD
University of Miami

Characterization of subpopulations capable of self-renewal in ovarian cancers

Most ovarian cancer patients suffer disease recurrence, and most available chemotherapies are toxic and stop working. Cancer stem cells comprise a subpopulation of cells capable of self-renewal and are resistant to chemotherapy. By characterizing such subpopulations and determining which signaling pathways drive their growth, Dr. Simpkins would like to develop better strategies to target these subpopulations and overcome drug resistance. This project will characterize the self-renewal potential of cell populations expressing different surface markers suggestive of “stemness” in ovarian cancer, determine developmental and mitogenic signaling pathways unique to these populations, and determine how targeted treatments effect these subpopulations.