2021 Brings Changes to DCI Research Programs and Leadership
Published
From the Duke Cancer Institute archives. Content may be out of date.
January 1, 2021, marked Duke Cancer Institute's 49th year as an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, one of the first to be so designated by the NCI Cancer Centers Program that grew out of the National Cancer Act of 1971. The NCI Cancer Centers Program is one of the anchors of America’s cancer research effort.
As an NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center, DCI has, until recently, maintained eight basic, clinical, translational, and population science NCI-Designated Research Programs — each designed to address research opportunities impacting cancer care.
As of the first of the year, however, the Research Programs have undergone a reconfiguration into seven such programs.
In a recent message to faculty, DCI director Michael B. Kastan, MD, Ph.D., detailed these changes, which included some new program names and some newly appointed leaders. Additionally, Kastan announced the appointments of two new associate directors — in Basic Research (last year) and in Translational Research (this year).
"These changes are a result of many months of discussions among a broad group of DCI leaders and have been enthusiastically endorsed by our External Scientific Advisory Committee," said Kastan. "We believe that these changes reflect the goals of DCI, the expectations of the NCI, and better support the current and future needs and research efforts of our faculty."
Mark Dewhirst, DVM, Ph.D., stepped down from his active faculty position last year, including his long-standing role at DCI as associate director for Basic Research. Christopher Counter, Ph.D., who has been active in DCI leadership for many years, stepped up to fill this important position.
Bruce Sullenger, Ph.D., who has served as associate director for Translational Research at DCI for nearly a decade, recently stepped down from this role. Donald McDonnell, Ph.D., has taken his place.
"We express our sincerest gratitude to Mark and Bruce for their years of dedicated leadership and welcome Chris and Donald to their new roles," said Kastan.
2021 Research Program Reconfiguration and Reorganization
He also expressed his appreciation for the continuing service of Ann Marie Pendergast, Ph.D., Kathryn Pollak, Ph.D., Meira Epplein, Scott Antonia, MD, Ph.D., Stefanie Sarantopoulos, MD, Ph.D., David Ashley, MD, Ph.D., David Kirsch, MD, Ph.D., and Nimmi Ramanujam, Ph.D., as Research Program leaders, many in re-imagined capacities.
And Kastan extended his deep gratitude to DCI's out-going Research Program leaders — Sue Jinks-Robertson, Ph.D., Sandeep Dave, MD, Nelson Chao, MD, MBA, Jeffrey Crawford, MD, Dan George, MD, Gerard Blobe, MD, Ph.D., Andrew Berchuck, MD, Donald McDonnell, Ph.D., and Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH — "for their dedication and commitment, over many years, to guiding and strengthening our Research Programs."
Summary
One broad-based basic cancer science research program:
Cancer Biology (CB), co-led by Micah Luftig, Ph.D.; Jen-Tsan Ashley Chi, MD, PhD; and Ann Marie Pendergast, PhD
Two population science research programs:
Cancer Prevention, Outcomes and Survivorship (CPOS), led by Kathryn Pollak, PhD; and Leah Zullig, PhD
Cancer Risk, Detection and Interception (CRDI), led by Meira Epplein, PhD; and Katherine Garman, MD.
Three discipline-focused research programs span the spectrum from basic to translational to clinical research:
Immuno-Oncology (IO), led by Scott Antonia, MD, PhD; and Stephanie Sarantopoulos, MD, PhD
Precision Cancer Medicine and Investigational Therapeutics (PCMIT), led by John Strickler, MD; Shannon McCall, MD; and Dorothy Sipkins, MD, PhD
Radiation Oncology and Imaging (ROI), continuing to be led by David Kirsch, MD, PhD; and Nimmi Ramanujam, PhD
One disease-focused research program:
Neuro-Oncology (NO), led by David Ashley, MD, PhD; and Kyle Walsh, PhD
New research from Duke Cancer Institute (DCI) is helping uncover why some bladder cancer patients are less likely to benefit from a common treatment and how a patient’s cancer history may help guide more personalized care decisions in the future.For more than 50 years, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment has been the standard of care for patients with early-stage bladder cancer. It helps reduce the chances that cancer will come back after surgery, and it works well for many patients. But not all bladder cancers behave the same.Bladder cancer is one form of a broader group known as urothelial cancers, which can develop anywhere along the urinary tract. Most cases begin in the bladder itself and are often caught early because patients develop symptoms, such as blood in the urine. These early-stage cancers are typically treated with surgery followed by BCG, which is delivered directly into the bladder to help prevent recurrence.However, about 10 percent of urothelial cancers originate in the upper urinary tract—in the kidneys or ureters. Even after those tumors are treated, cancer can later reappear in the bladder.“Historically, we’ve treated these bladder recurrences the same way we treat primary bladder cancer,” said Yu Guang Tan, MD, a urology fellow at Duke and a collaborator from Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. “But the question is, are they really the same disease?”In a recent study published in Urologic Oncology, Tan worked with colleagues including Michael Abern, MD, co-chair of the DCI Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, to explore whether bladder cancers that arise after upper tract disease respond differently to BCG than cancers that originate in the bladder.Across both a single-institution study and a larger systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 1,300 patients worldwide, the team found a consistent pattern: patients with a history of upper tract urothelial cancer were significantly more likely to experience recurrence or disease progression after BCG treatment.“In some cases, nearly half of these patients did not respond well to BCG,” Tan said. “That’s a substantial number, and it suggests we may need to think differently about how we treat this group.”BCG has long been the backbone of therapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, but it is not without limitations. In addition to variable effectiveness, the treatment has also faced periodic shortages, particularly in smaller or rural care settings.“This research gives us another piece of the puzzle,” Abern said. “If a patient has a history of upper tract disease, it may shape expectations about how well BCG will work and whether we should consider other options sooner, including clinical trials.”Tan and Abern both emphasize that BCG remains an important and effective therapy for many patients. The goal is not to replace it, but to better match treatments to the patients most likely to benefit.One of the most important implications of the study is its potential role in advancing precision medicine for bladder cancer. The team found that while these cancers may look similar under the microscope, they are likely biologically distinct. That difference may explain why they respond differently to treatment.“We think this history of upper tract cancer may act as a clinical biomarker,” Tan said. “It helps us predict how a patient might respond, but we still need to understand the biology behind it.”To answer that question, the researchers are now conducting whole genome sequencing studies to identify the genetic differences between these tumor types. They are also building a joint database between Duke and Duke-NUS to uncover additional factors that may influence treatment outcomes.“It’s an exciting time in bladder cancer research,” Tan said. “We have many new therapies emerging, and the challenge now is figuring out which treatment is best for which patient.”The research reflects a strong international partnership between Duke University and Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. By bringing together data from multiple countries and healthcare systems, the team was able to confirm that these findings are consistent across diverse patient populations.“That global perspective is really important,” Abern said. “It shows that this trend holds true across different regions, which makes the findings more robust and meaningful.”As new therapies, including immunotherapy and targeted treatments, continue to emerge, studies like this one will play a key role in shaping how patients are selected for different treatment approaches.“By better understanding these differences, we can improve how we counsel patients, design clinical trials, and ultimately deliver more personalized care,” Abern said.
New research from Duke Cancer Institute (DCI) is helping uncover why some bladder cancer patients are less likely to benefit from a common treatment and how a patient’s cancer history may help guide more personalized care decisions in the future.For more than 50 years, Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) treatment has been the standard of care for patients with early-stage bladder cancer. It helps reduce the chances that cancer will come back after surgery, and it works well for many patients. But not all bladder cancers behave the same.Bladder cancer is one form of a broader group known as urothelial cancers, which can develop anywhere along the urinary tract. Most cases begin in the bladder itself and are often caught early because patients develop symptoms, such as blood in the urine. These early-stage cancers are typically treated with surgery followed by BCG, which is delivered directly into the bladder to help prevent recurrence.However, about 10 percent of urothelial cancers originate in the upper urinary tract—in the kidneys or ureters. Even after those tumors are treated, cancer can later reappear in the bladder.“Historically, we’ve treated these bladder recurrences the same way we treat primary bladder cancer,” said Yu Guang Tan, MD, a urology fellow at Duke and a collaborator from Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. “But the question is, are they really the same disease?”In a recent study published in Urologic Oncology, Tan worked with colleagues including Michael Abern, MD, co-chair of the DCI Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, to explore whether bladder cancers that arise after upper tract disease respond differently to BCG than cancers that originate in the bladder.Across both a single-institution study and a larger systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 1,300 patients worldwide, the team found a consistent pattern: patients with a history of upper tract urothelial cancer were significantly more likely to experience recurrence or disease progression after BCG treatment.“In some cases, nearly half of these patients did not respond well to BCG,” Tan said. “That’s a substantial number, and it suggests we may need to think differently about how we treat this group.”BCG has long been the backbone of therapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, but it is not without limitations. In addition to variable effectiveness, the treatment has also faced periodic shortages, particularly in smaller or rural care settings.“This research gives us another piece of the puzzle,” Abern said. “If a patient has a history of upper tract disease, it may shape expectations about how well BCG will work and whether we should consider other options sooner, including clinical trials.”Tan and Abern both emphasize that BCG remains an important and effective therapy for many patients. The goal is not to replace it, but to better match treatments to the patients most likely to benefit.One of the most important implications of the study is its potential role in advancing precision medicine for bladder cancer. The team found that while these cancers may look similar under the microscope, they are likely biologically distinct. That difference may explain why they respond differently to treatment.“We think this history of upper tract cancer may act as a clinical biomarker,” Tan said. “It helps us predict how a patient might respond, but we still need to understand the biology behind it.”To answer that question, the researchers are now conducting whole genome sequencing studies to identify the genetic differences between these tumor types. They are also building a joint database between Duke and Duke-NUS to uncover additional factors that may influence treatment outcomes.“It’s an exciting time in bladder cancer research,” Tan said. “We have many new therapies emerging, and the challenge now is figuring out which treatment is best for which patient.”The research reflects a strong international partnership between Duke University and Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. By bringing together data from multiple countries and healthcare systems, the team was able to confirm that these findings are consistent across diverse patient populations.“That global perspective is really important,” Abern said. “It shows that this trend holds true across different regions, which makes the findings more robust and meaningful.”As new therapies, including immunotherapy and targeted treatments, continue to emerge, studies like this one will play a key role in shaping how patients are selected for different treatment approaches.“By better understanding these differences, we can improve how we counsel patients, design clinical trials, and ultimately deliver more personalized care,” Abern said.
