This week we answer a few questions: the first is from Patreon backer, Harry Hong, on Kaplan-Meier curves. The second is from a student at Mount Sinai Medical School who reached out with some ethical questions they had after the ASH annual meeting on the obligations and responsibilities of peer reviewers. Finally, we end the episode with an interview with Dr. Bishal Gyawali of Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada on his new paper out today in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network titled "Response Rates and Durations of Response for Biomarker-Based Cancer Drugs in Nonrandomized Versus Randomized Trials".

This week we return to our discussion of going after soft targets vs hard targets, but this time with a focus on how it applies to building a burgeoning career in medicine, in our segment Questions from a Medical Student with Audrey Tran. We end this week's episode with a far-reaching interview with Dr. Ellie Murray (most people know her as Epi Ellie on Twitter and as the co-host of the podcast Casual Inference) on all things epidemiology.

This week we wonder incredulously how this abstract from ASH titled "Time from diagnosis to treatment does not affect outcome in intensively treated patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia" was selected as one of the top abstracts from the conference. In the second half of the episode we interview Dr. Sherrie Aspinall of the Veterans Administration on how to use real-world data. Her new paper is titled "Use of targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the Veterans Health Administration".

We're back in Plenary Session HQ! We have multiple topics for you this week. We cover the use of trastuzumab in later lines of therapy for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, we take a listener question on Kaplan-Meier curves, and we talk a little about Patreon.

This BONUS episode is an interview with Dr. Arjun Gupta, a second-year hem/onc fellow at Johns Hopkins University, on his new paper out TODAY in JAMA Oncology titled ''Use of Bone-modifying Agents among Medicare Beneficiaries with Multiple Myeloma''.

This is the last week of pre-recorded episodes -- we'll be back next week with a fresh, hard-hitting monologue. In the meantime, we have three questions of the week for you. Two are inspired by the hematology/oncology boards and are presented by Dr. Sven Olson. Between the two, we have one from Ian Straehely that's inspired by the USMLE Step 2 CK.

Our host is still out of town, but don't worry -- we have some questions of the week to tide you over. The first is inspired by the hematology/oncology boards, presented by Dr. Sven Olson; the second is inspired by the USMLE Step 2 CK, presented by Ian Straehley; and the third is from Audrey Tran, inspired by her experiences as a med student.

This week our host is still in Australia, but we have some questions of the week saved for you! The first is inspired by the USMLE Step 2 CK, presented by Ian Straehley; the second is inspired by the hematology/oncology boards, presented by Dr. Sven Olson; and the third is from Audrey Tran, inspired by her experiences as a med student.

First up this week is Question of the Week inspired by the Hematology/Oncology boards, with Dr. Sven Olson. No monologue on current trials this week because our host is still in Australia, so we conclude the episode with an interview with Dr. Jonathan Kimmelman of McGill University on his extensive work in research ethics, studying the most important issue in cancer medicine today: the risk-benefit of clinical trials and how best to spare patients from the burdens of creating a new drug.

This week we have a question of the week from Ian Straehley, inspired by the USMLE Step 2 CK, as well as an interview with Dr. Robert Hirschtick of Northwestern University on what it means to be a doctor, how you should think as a physician, and his many popular pieces published in journals like JAMA.

We begin this week's episode by addressing a listener's feedback to our discussion of smoldering multiple myeloma. We then expand on our critique of 'going after the soft targets' (criticizing studies that fall apart with little resistance) by elucidating how to identify and go after hard targets and why it's so important that you do. Finally, we launch into an interview with Dr. H Gilbert Welch that explores his tremendous body of work on the preventable harm that comes from too generous a hand with novel diagnostic advances.

We begin this week's episode with a thoughtful discussion of the internet's "courageous skeptics". Then, after lamenting the way in which the recent study "Randomized Trial of Lenalidomide Versus Observation in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma" was conducted, we end with an interview with Dr. Andy Saultz on his ongoing campaign for Oregon state representative. We break up the interview with a couple Hem/Onc boards questions of the week from Dr. Emerson Chen.

This week we give a short monologue on the late Dr. Bernard Fisher's legacy in the field of oncology, and then dive into a far-ranging interview with Dr. Mark Lewis of Intermountain Healthcare on his career, his family, and diagnosing himself with MEN1 syndrome.

This week we begin with a critique of the recent perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled "Talking about Toxicity — 'What We’ve Got Here Is a Failure to Communicate'". After that we interview Dr. Eitan Amir on his paper on undisclosed conflicts of interest among authors of ASCO guidelines. Interspersed between segments of the interview, we invite guest Dr. Sven Olson on to offer a correction to a recent Hem/Onc boards question of the week on Lynch Syndrome (original question posed in episode 2.11) and we invite Ian Straehley on for a question of the week inspired by the USMLE Step 2 CK.

We start this week's episode with a quick breakdown of why the recent BEACON trial is "the worst trial" host VP has ever read. After that, we have two questions of the week: one from medical student Audrey Tran, and one inspired by the Hem/Onc boards from Dr. Sven Olson. We end with an interview with Dr. Jonathan Yeh of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine on his recent paper: "Has There Been a Shift in Use of Subacute Rehabilitation Instead of Hospice Referral Since Immunotherapy Has Become Available?".

This week we break down the limitations of the recent FLAURA trial and then we're back in the Plenary Session Mobile Command Unit! We have a special guest host, Dr. Christopher Booth of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. He and Dr. Bishal Gyawali, also of Queen's University, conduct a reverse interview with our usual host, Dr. Vinay Prasad of Oregon Health & Science University, on his career, the formation of Plenary Session, and what truly matters in the career of an academic physician.

This BONUS episode is an interview with Dr. Michael Raphael of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario on his new paper out today in JAMA Oncology: "The value of progression-free survival as a treatment endpoint among patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and qualitative assessment of the literature".

This week we sit down with Dr. Jeremy Cetnar, director of the Oregon Health & Science University Hematology & Oncology Fellowship Program. In this far-ranging interview, we discuss what he is looking for when reviewing applications to the fellowship program. We also have two questions of the week: one from Dr. Derrick Tao, inspired by the MKSAP; and one from Dr. Sven Olson on hematology and oncology.

On this week's BONUS episode, we sit down with Dr. Huseyin Naci, Assistant Professor of Health Policy at the London School of Economics, to discuss his new paper that came out Wednesday (producer's edit: not "yesterday" as said in the podcast - apologies for the delay!) in the British Medical Journal. The paper's titled "Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis.

We begin this week's episode by revisiting last week's topic on the ethics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to address some of the controversy stirred up by our episode. We transition from there to an interview with Dr. Dan Morgan of the University of Maryland School of Medicine on hospital transmission and medical overuse. We have two questions of the week, as well -- one from Ian Straehley, inspired by the USMLE Step 2 CK; and one from Audrey Tran, inspired by the life of a medical student.