DEI/CRT

Food insecurity and incident cardiovascular disease among Black and White US individuals

JAMA Cardiology

Facebook

XLinkedIn
MessageWhatsAppEmail

About The Study:

 In this prospective cohort study among participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, food insecurity was associated with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) even after adjustment for socioeconomic factors, suggesting that food insecurity may be an important social deprivation measure in clinical assessment of CVD risk. Whether interventions to reduce food insecurity programs can potentially alleviate CVD should be further studied. 

Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Jenny Jia, MD, MSc, email jenny.jia@northwestern.edu.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0109)

Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflicts of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.

#  #  #

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article This link will be live at the embargo time https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0109?guestAccessKey=29128803-5125-4973-82d3-b85485ee115d&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=031225

---

Journal

JAMA Cardiology

Food insecurity today, heart disease tomorrow?

Study is the first to show food insecurity raises risk of heart disease over time

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Northwestern University

Facebook

\XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessag

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Study compares those with food insecurity to food-secure individuals over 20 year

• Food insecurity is associated with a 41% increased risk of heart disease over time

• Findings suggest food security screening as a key tool to prevent heart disease

CHICAGO --- Struggling to afford food today could mean heart problems tomorrow. Young adults experiencing food insecurity have a 41% greater risk of developing heart disease in midlife, even after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study. Food insecurity — struggling to get enough nutritious food to stay healthy — affects one in eight households in the U.S. each year. 

“We’ve known that food insecurity and heart disease often go hand in hand, but this study shows, for the first time, that food insecurity comes first,” said Dr. Jenny Jia, an instructor of general internal medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a Northwestern Medicine internist. “That makes it a clear target for prevention — if we address food insecurity early, we may be able to reduce the burden of heart disease later.”

The study will be published on Wednesday (March 12) in JAMA Cardiology.

How the study was conducted

Jia and her colleagues analyzed data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a long-term cohort study that has followed Black and white U.S. adults since the mid-1980s. The scientists identified participants who reported food insecurity in 2000-2001, when they were in their early 30s to mid-40s, and compared their health outcomes over the next 20 years to those who were food secure.

Among the 3,616 study participants, those experiencing food insecurity were 41% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than their food-secure counterparts. Over the study period, 11% of food-insecure individuals developed heart disease, compared to 6% of those with adequate food access.

“For a long time, there was this chicken-or-the-egg question — does food insecurity cause heart disease, or does heart disease make food insecurity worse because of the high cost of healthcare?” Jia said. “By following people over two decades, we were able to show that food insecurity, on its own, significantly increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease.”

At baseline, participants with food insecurity were more likely to identify as Black and had lower educational attainment than those who were food secure.

Screening for food insecurity

Jia says the findings highlight the need for healthcare providers to be savvy in how to best screen for food insecurity and connect patients with community resources.

She says primary care settings, such as with internists, pediatricians and family doctors, are ideal for screening for food insecurity, “because there tends to be a lot of trust between primary care providers and patients.”

Jia also stresses that food security screenings could extend to emergency rooms and specialties like cardiology, and can be done by nurses, medical assistants or even patients themselves filling out forms.

“The more we screen for it, the better,” Jia said, adding that “we need better strategies to help people once they screen positive. Do we connect them to social workers who can refer them to existing community programs? Should healthcare systems develop their own interventions? These are the next big questions.”

Next steps

Jia and her team plan to continue tracking this group to understand the long-term effects of food insecurity. “It’s surprising to see heart disease in this group, which doesn’t include those 65 or older,” Jia said. “As they near 80, we plan to revisit the study to explore the evolving link to heart disease.”

The CARDIA study was conducted and supported by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham (75N92023D00002 and 75N92023D00005), Northwestern University (75N92023D00004), the University of Minnesota (75N92023D00006) and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute (75N92023D00003). Dr. Jia is supported by grant K23HL173655 from the NHLBI. Dr. Kandula (another study author) is supported by grant K24HL155897 from the NHLBI.

---

Journal

JAMA Cardiology

DOI

10.1001/jamacardio.2025.0109 

Article Title

Food Insecurity and Incident Cardiovascular Disease Among Black and White US Individuals, 2000-2020

Article Publication Date

12-Mar-2025

Researchers identify molecular differences in pancreatic cancer of Black and white patients

Findings reinforce the need for diverse racial makeup in clinical trials

News Release 12-Mar-2025

Henry Ford Health

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Ling Huang, Ph.D. performs research work at the Henry Ford Health Pancreatic Cancer Center in Detroit. 

view more 

Credit: Photo courtesy of Henry Ford Health

DETROIT – Researchers have discovered race-associated molecular differences in tumors that may impact the way patients with pancreatic cancer respond to immunotherapies. The findings, which were recently published in the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Journal, reinforce the need to include racially diverse participants in clinical studies. 

Immunotherapies are a type of cancer treatment that uses the body’s own immune system to fight cancer. Black or African American patients have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, compared with other racial groups. 

In the article appearing in the AACR Journal, researchers at the Henry Ford Health Pancreatic Cancer Center, found that Black patients showed a higher prevalence of PD-L1 overexpression, a marker often linked with aggressive cancer behavior and a key target for immunotherapy treatments. Additionally, Black patients showed higher frequencies of TP53 mutations and KRASG12R mutations compared to White patients. Those genes affect how quickly cancer grows and the body’s ability to fight cancer.

“This finding strongly supports that in clinical trials across the country, we need to enroll patients from different racial groups to reflect the racial makeup in the U.S. and to more accurately represent tumor molecular changes,” said lead researcher Ling Huang, Ph.D. 

In a separate analysis of recent clinical trials testing immunotherapies for pancreatic cancer, the researchers found that Black patients and other minorities were underrepresented in most clinical trials.

“It is also important to ensure people of different racial background have equal access to cancer care, especially precision medicine,” Dr. Huang said. 

PD-L1 is like a shield that some cells wear. Normally, it tells the immune system’s T cells (which kill harmful cells) not to attack. Cancer cells can hijack this signal, wearing PD-L1 as armor to protect themselves from being destroyed by the immune system. When cancer cells have a lot of this PD-L1 shield, it’s harder for the body to fight the cancer, leading to a worse outlook for the patient.

Think of TP53 like a brake pedal in a car that helps stop cancer growth. If something goes wrong with this gene (like mutations), it’s like the brakes are broken, and the car (or cancer) can keep going without control. 

The KRAS gene is often faulty in pancreatic cancer. The KRASG12R is a specific error in this gene. This error makes the KRAS gene stuck in the “on” position, constantly telling cells to grow and divide, which can lead to cancer. This is like flooring the gas pedal of a car, making it accelerate to full speed.

This study shows that, in pancreatic cancer, Black patients tend to have higher levels of the PD-L1 shield on their cancer cells compared to white patients. This could affect how their cancer progresses and responds to treatment.

The research team emphasizes that these molecular features are not necessarily the determinants, but associations, that help understand the complex nature of cancer disparities. 

“We hope that these insights will guide future studies and lead to improved outcomes for all patients, regardless of race,” Dr. Huang said.

Molecular profiles of patient tumors were determined from the Tempus multimodal database, through collaboration between Dr. Huang’s team, Tempus AI, and Henry Ford scientists, Howard Crawford and Albert Levin. Members from Dr. Huang’s team, Saurabh Mandal and Swathi Sridhar also contributed significantly to this project. 

Based in Detroit, where 77% of the population identifies as Black or African American, Henry Ford Health is nationally recognized for its commitment to inclusive research endeavors that address healthcare disparities, develop new treatments, and identify ways to prevent and understand disease.

###

MEDIA CONTACT: mediarelations@hfhs.org

---

Journal

Cancer Research Communications

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Molecular Differences in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas from Black versus White Patients

COI Statement

E.A. Teslow reports personal fees and other support from Tempus AI during the conduct of the study, as well as personal fees and other support from Tempus AI outside the submitted work. M. Huang reports other support from Tempus AI during the conduct of the study. Y. Yu reports receiving a salary from Tempus and stock ownership in Tempus. A.J. Hockenberry reports other support from Tempus AI, Inc. outside the submitted work. M.C. Stoppler reports other support from Tempus AI, Inc. during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

‘F*ck the Consultants’: Free Advice Offered for Democrats in Need of a Position on AI

“Wild that candidates are avoiding an enormously consequential issue with broad bipartisan support among voters, for fear of unleashing attack ads from super PACs funded by a tiny handful of AI billionaires and corporations.”


Protesters during a “Stop the AI Race” demonstration calling for a slowdown in the development of advanced artificial intelligence systems outside City Hall in San Francisco, California, on September 17, 2026.
(Photo by Karl Mondon / AFP via Getty Images)

Jon Queally
Sep 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A veteran aide for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has some choice advice for Democrats running for office in this year’s election, which is to ignore the guidance some of them are reportedly receiving from their political consultants on the question of regulating the artificial intelligence industry in the face of growing public concerns about runaway machine learning and the data center buildout that big tech companies are pursuing nationwide.

Warren Gunnels, who currently serves as the minority staff director for Sanders on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in the US Senate, issued his advice in response to a Politico article published Thursday, which had the headline “Democratic advisers are warning their candidates not to go too hard at AI.”

While the reporting noted that members of the Democratic Party’s consultancy class are “privately encouraging their battleground candidates to avoid talking about AI regulations out of fear that powerful tech groups will unleash a tidal wave of spending against them” ahead of this year’s midterm election, Gunnels offered a 9-word antidote to what he considered bad political advice and a failure to recognize where most voters are on the issue.

“Nine words,” said Gunnels in his post: “Fuck the consultants, End Citizens United, Ban super PACs.” Gunnels backed up his statement with recent polling data suggesting that a strong stance on AI and data centers would likely help, not hurt, those seeking elected office.



Gunnels wasn’t the only one to react negatively.

Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at the Campaign Legal Center, said it’s “wild that candidates are avoiding an enormously consequential issue with broad bipartisan support among voters, for fear of unleashing attack ads from super PACs funded by a tiny handful of AI billionaires and corporations.”

The US Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which unleashed a tidal wave of dark money campaign spending, said Fischer, “promised unlimited political spending would mean more speech and a more robust marketplace of ideas. But instead, candidates are chilled from discussing issues voters care about for fear of angering wealthy interests capable of spending millions to defeat them.”



In July, Business Insider reported that the AI industry had already spent at least $65 million in midterm races, though other estimates have put that figure much higher. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, CEO of Space X and a major player in the AI space with his GROK model, has vowed to spend a $100 million help his preferred candidates and the Republican Party win.

At a summit on the need for robust regulation of the AI industry held earlier this week, Sanders said he had a message for leaders and executives running theses tech companies.

“My message to the AI CEO’s: If you truly care about the future of humanity,” said Sanders, “stop pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into super PACs to defeat Members of Congress and candidates who are fighting for serious guardrails on AI.”



As the debate over AI regulation has emerged as a major topic in Washington, DC, and on the campaign trail in recent weeks, a series of polls have confirmed public anxieties about the technology.

A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago released Wednesday showed that more than half of US voters (53%) are “extremely” or “very” concerned about artificial intelligence’s environmental impacts, and the poll also found broader concerns about the negative impacts of data centers, especially on local water resources and utility rates.

“Change is scary, and I think some of that is being reflected here,” said Michael Greenstone, who directs the University of Chicago institute that collaborated on the survey, of the results.

The Politico reporting, which drew Gunnel’s fiery response, also acknowledged the public sentiment, but described how consultants working on various Democratic campaigns are trying to avoid provoking the ire of deep-pocketed tech giants:
Some top Democratic candidates and their campaigns are quietly trying to avoid crossing any red lines for tech super PACs — even as it’s unclear exactly what those lines would be, after Musk and two of the biggest AI CEOs called for more regulation on the technology last week.Democrats are especially wary of Leading the Future, a pro-AI industry super PAC that spent over $25 million in primary races this year and is backed by investors and executives of OpenAI. The rival super PAC network, Public First Action, pushes for AI regulation and is funded by OpenAI’s chief competitor, Anthropic.

While the fears of being targeted by the industry cash may not be unfounded, progressives like Gunnels suggest that a willingness to take a stand against powerful AI companies is exactly the kind of fight voters want to see from party candidates.

For the Politico article, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House, explained how AI super PACs “come out and they say that they’re concerned, that they want regulation. But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation.”

In a social media post Thursday night, however, Jayapal backed the congressional campaign of Will Lawrence, running as a Democrat to win an open seat in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, by saying voters “need leaders who answer to their constituents, not the corporations that paid for their election.”

Following Gunnels advice that bucking the influence of corporate donors is actually a key component of a winning electoral strategy in the 2026 midterms, Jayapal said “electing fighters who don’t take corporate PAC money”—whether on the issue of AI, healthcare, housing policy, or broader concerns about economic inequality and affordability—is key for Democrats.

Amid Urgent Demand for Oversight, Analysis Details 105 US Lawmakers Personally Invested in the AI Industry

Despite catastrophic warnings from AI industry insiders, Congress has adjourned until after the midterms without passing any laws to regulate the technology.


US Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) participates in the Competing and Setting the Standards in the AI Era panel during The Hill & Valley Forum 2026 at Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on March 24, 2026, in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images The Hill & Valley Forum)

Stephen Prager
Sep 18, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.

A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.



Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.

Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.

Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.

The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress’ AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.



One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party’s legislative agenda around the emerging technology.

According to Sludge, Gottheimer’s household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.

The report draws attention to the “scores of sales” he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his “Liberation Day” tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.

Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party’s approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of “superintelligent” AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.

This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill’s voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.

Gottheimer’s proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.

Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.

Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.

Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household’s millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.

Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.

One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.

Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.

On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk’s company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.

The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November’s midterm elections.

On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.

“AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both,” the lawmakers wrote. “While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles.”

“The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards,” the letter concluded. “To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, ‘Why Congress Slept’—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable.”

Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.

 

Personalizing cancer treatments significantly improve outcome success

Study is first in the world to show that using molecular testing to customize cancer treatments based on a patient’s tumor DNA is safe, effective and achievable

University of California - San Diego

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Jason Sicklick, MD, who led the study, is a professor of surgery and pharmacology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and surgical oncologist at UC San Diego Health.

view more 

Credit: UC San Diego Health

Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have led the first clinical trial in the world to show that cancer drug treatments can be safely and effectively personalized based on the unique DNA of a patient’s tumor.

The study results, published in the January 8, 2026 online edition of Journal of Clinical Oncology found that individualizing multi-drug treatments to each patient’s specific tumor mutations using molecular testing can significantly enhance treatment success.

“Every patient and every cancer is unique, and so should how we treat for them,” said Jason Sicklick, MD, senior author of the study, professor of surgery and pharmacology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and surgical oncologist at UC San Diego Health. “Our findings demonstrate that precision oncology at the individual level is achievable. When every patient’s treatment is guided by their tumor’s distinctive DNA, we can treat cancer with better accuracy.”

The clinical trial, known as Investigation of Profile-Related Evidence Determining Individualized Cancer Therapy (I-PREDICT), used advanced genomic sequencing to identify the genomic changes driving each person’s cancer. Clinicians then developed personalized treatment plans using FDA-approved drugs, with doses carefully adjusted for each patient to precisely target those molecular alterations — the opposite of a one-size-fits-all approach.

Among a cohort of 210 patients with advanced cancers that were treated, nearly 95% had distinct tumor DNA profiles — no two cancers were alike. This led to 157 different treatment regimens, including 103 new drug pairings that had never been tested together before. Patients whose therapies were most closely matched to their tumor mutations experienced better treatment results, improving their chances for response and survival. Importantly, those who received new drug combinations did not experience more severe side effects than patients receiving standard therapies.

The study also found that starting new drug mixes at lower doses and carefully increasing them over time kept treatments safe, even with therapies that had never been used together before.

“The I-PREDICT study shows what’s possible when we let a patient’s biology guide their treatment,” said Shumei Kato, MD, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego School of Medicine and medical oncologist at UC San Diego Health. “By using biomarkers to select drugs and adjust doses, we can design combinations that precisely target the drivers of each person’s cancer.”

“Innovative clinical trial design is a central part of what we do at Moores Cancer Center,” said Diane Simeone, MD, director of Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health. “This study reflects the strength of our multi-disciplinary team-based approach, combining scientific leadership, clinical trial expertise and the infrastructure needed to bring discoveries directly to patients. It’s a powerful example of how we’re shaping the future of precision oncology and placing the patient at the center of every decision.”

Both Sicklick and Kato are members of UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, which served as a key partner in supporting the clinical trial.

Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health is the region’s only National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. They are consistently ranked among the top 50 in the nation for cancer care by U.S. News & World Report.

Sicklick, who is also co-leader of the structural and functional genomics program at Moores Cancer Center, adds that this research marks a turning point for cancer treatment. 

“Instead of a one-size-fits-all, we’re moving toward one-size-fits-one,” said Sicklick.

The research builds upon earlier findings published in Nature Medicine (2019) and Genome Medicine (2022) that analyzed subsets of the I-PREDICT cohort. The new publication expands this work, including more patients and longer follow-up, while offering detailed guidance on how other organizations can replicate precision cancer care strategies.

This study lays the groundwork for a future randomized trial designed to confirm the benefits of this personalized precision oncology approach.

Additional co-authors of the study include Daisuke Nishizaki, Hirotaka Miyashita, Ryosuke Okamura, Michael E. Hahn, Mina Nikanjam, Paul T. Fanta, David E. Piccioni, Hitendra Patel, Ramez N. Eskander, Rana R. McKay, Jeffrey S. Ross, J. Jack Lee, Scott M. Lippman, Shumei Kato, and Razelle Kurzrock, MD, all at UC San Diego.

Funding support for the study came, in part, from Foundation Medicine, the Joan and Irwin Jacobs Foundation, Jon Strong, and the National Institutes of Health (P30 CA023100).

# # #

---

Journal

Journal of Clinical Oncology

DOI

10.1200/JCO-25-01453 

COI Statement

Sicklick serves as a consultant for BlossomHill, CureMatch, Deciphera, GSK, Kura, Kureha, and Springworkds; received speakers’ fees from SpingWorks; owns stock in CureMatch and Personalis; and is founder of Oncureon. Jeffery Ross is an employee of Foundation Medicine and an equity holder of Roche Holdings, as well as a consultant and equity holder in Tango Therapeutics and Celsius Therapeutics. Ramez Eskander serves as a consult or advisor to AstraZeneca, Eisai, Immunogen, Gilead, Lilly, GSK, Clovis Oncology, CARIS Life Sciences, Natrea, Nuvectis, PMV Pharmaceutical, Faeth Therapeutics, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Myraid, Seagen, Onconova, GOG Foundation, and Clearity Foundation. Rana McKay serves as a consult or advisor to Janssen, Novartis, Tempus, Exelixis, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Medivation, Dendreon, Bayer, Sanofi, Merck, Vividion Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Myovant Sciences, Caris Life Sciences, Sorrento Therapeutics, AVEO, Seagen, Telix Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Ambrx, Arcus Biosciences, Sumitomo Pharma Oncology, and Esiai; as well as receives institutional research funding from Bayer, Tempus, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Oncternal Therapeutics, and Artera.