25 April 2013

H7N9 22 DEATHS

Experts brand new bird flu strain one of the 'most lethal viruses ever' as it spreads from China to Taiwan

  • Taiwanese businessman in serious condition after contracting H7N9 in China
  • Scientists are concerned that it passes more easily from bird to human
  • Authorities step up screening of visitors from China for signs of fever
  • Some 6,000 Chinese tourists visit Taiwan every day
  • New strain has infected 108 people in China, 22 of whom have died
By Daily Mail Reporter
|

Scientists have described the new bird flu that has killed 22 people in China as one of the most deadly influenza strains as it spreads to Taiwan.
The H7N9 flu has infected 108 people in China since it was first detected in March, according to the Geneva-based WHO.
Some 6,000 Chinese tourists visit Taiwan every day, putting pressure on Taiwanese authorities to step up their screening at airports to contain the virus.
The strain appears to spread more easily to humans than SARS, a virus that caused panic when it started killing people in Asia a decade ago.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314293/Bird-flu-strain-labelled-lethal-viruses-spreads-Taiwan.html#ixzz2RTlodgIX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

23 April 2013

FREE LIGHT CHAIN HAEMODIALYSIS

Ther Apher Dial. 2011 Aug;15(4):394-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-9987.2011.00964.x.

Comparison of free light chain removal by four blood purification methods.

Source

Department of Nephrology, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan.

Abstract

Renal failure is a frequent complication in patients with multiple myeloma. Immunoglobulin free light chains (FLCs) form casts in the distal tubules, resulting in renal obstruction, and are also directly toxic to proximal renal tubules. Removal of FLCs contributes to renal recovery. High cut-off (HCO) membrane Theralite2100, protein leaking dialyzer PES210Dα, plasma separator Evacure1A20 and β(2) microglobulin adsorption column LixelleS-35 were compared in their FLC removal rate. Dialysis using Theralite2100 or Evacure1A20, diafiltration using PES210Dα and adsorption using LixelleS-35 were performed in an in vitro circuit. The highest removal rate was obtained by Theralite2100 dialysis among the four blood purification methods. Albumin loss was also the greatest in Theralite2100 dialysis. The removal content of FLCs per 1 g albumin loss was better in PES210Dα diafiltration. The removal rate of FLCs by Evacure EC1A-20 dialysis was the third highest. Adsorption of FLCs by the β(2) microglobulin adsorption column Lixelle S-35 was confirmed. In conclusion, Theralite2100 dialysis was the best in removal of FLCs. PES210Dα diafiltration can remove FLCs with smaller loss of albumin.
© 2011 The Authors. Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis © 2011 International Society for Apheresis.

19 April 2013

MAYO CLINIC "MGUS" should be called MGRS

MGRS Monoclonal gammopathy of RENAL SIGNIFICANCE.

50% of Myeloma patients have renal disease.  10% on dialysis


17 April 2013

ProMED: RICIN


RICIN - USA: (WASHINGTON, DC) LETTERS
******************************
*******
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>

Date: Wed 17 Apr 2013
Source: Chicago Tribune, Reuters report [edited]
<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-obama-letterbre93g0ou-20130417,0,2770928.story>


A letter addressed to President Barack Obama contained a substance
that preliminarily tested positive for the deadly poison ricin,
authorities said on Wed 17 Apr 2013.

News that the letter to Obama was being investigated came as a flurry
of other reports of suspicious letters and a package caused the
evacuation of parts of 2 Senate buildings and set nerves in Washington
on edge.

The letter contained "a granular substance that preliminarily tested
positive for ricin," an FBI statement said. But the statement added:
"There is no indication of a connection to the attack in Boston,"
where 3 people were killed in bombings at the Boston Marathon on
Monday [15 Apr 2013].

The USA Secret Service said the letter to Obama was received at a mail
screening facility on Tue 16 Apr 2013. The mail facility that received
the letter was not located near the White House itself, Secret Service
spokesman Edwin Donovan said in a statement. "The Secret Service is
working closely with the US Capitol Police and the FBI in this
investigation," Donovan said.

Parts of the Russell and Hart Senate office buildings were cleared
while officials investigated suspicious letters and a package, a
Capitol Police spokesman said.

CNN read a statement from a spokesman to Senator Richard Shelby,
saying that Capitol Police were investigating a suspicious package
that had been delivered to their office.

Senator Carl Levin said one of his Michigan regional offices had
received a suspicious-looking letter, but it was not opened.
Authorities are investigating, Levin said in a statement.

On Tue 17 Apr 2013, USA authorities intercepted a letter sent to
Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker that preliminary tests showed
contained the deadly poison ricin.

[Byline: Susan Cornwell]

- --
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
<promed@promedmail.org>

[ProMED-mail awaits more information regarding the presumed ricin.

The following is extracted (citations removed) from: Lutwick LI,
Gradon J, Zellen J: Category B Biotoxins. In Lutwick LI, Lutwick SM
(eds), Beyond Anthrax: Bioterror - The Weaponization of Infectious
Diseases. Springer-Humana, New York, 2009, New York, pp. 181-206:

"Ricin is found in castor beans from the plant _Ricinus communis_ and
is a residual product of the production of castor oil. The oil has
applications as a purgative, an engine lubricant, and as a component
of brake and hydraulic fluid. The industry is no longer active in the
United States but the oil is produced in large quantities in other
areas of the world. Importantly, the oil, if properly prepared, does
not contain the toxin.

"One million tons of castor beans are used each year for producing the
oil. The waste mash from the oil production process can have as much
as 5 percent ricin by weight and is easily and inexpensively isolated
via a simple process in a low technology setting using materials
easily obtainable. Ricin is easily prepared in liquid or crystalline
forms or as a readily aerosolized, lyophilized powder. The toxin is
stable and can be poisonous in its native form in the beans.

"Ricin is a 66 kD [kiloDalton] globular protein with a toxic mode of
action of inhibiting protein synthesis in eukaryotic cells. The
mechanism is due to the enzymatic removal of a single adenine residue
from (amino acid 4324) close to the 3-prime end of 28S ribosomal RNA.
The removal prevents elongation factor-2 from binding. Structurally it
is made up of 2 approximately equal molecular weight subunits, the A
and B chains, linked by a disulfide bond. The B chain facilitates
binding to cell surfaces and entry into the cell through binding to
terminal galactose moieties of cellular membrane glycolipids and
glycoproteins.

"The clinical presentation of ricin poisoning depends on whether the
exposure is parenteral, inhaled, or ingested. In mice, the dose found
to be lethal to 50 percent (LD50) of animals was found to be 3-5
microg/kg in inhalation or intravenous exposures and 20-25 microg/kg
in intraperitoneal, subcutaneous, or intragastric administration. The
time to death in the mice was 60 hours for inhalation, 90 hours for
intravenous, and 80-100 hours for the other exposures. It is important
to note that there is a variation of as much as 2 logarithms
[100-fold] in the microg/kg dose of ricin between animals, with the
horse seeming to be the most sensitive and the frog and chicken the
least.

"The 1st symptoms of toxicity generally occur 6-12 hours after
exposure but can occur as early as 3 hours. This is longer than many
of the chemical agents affecting the lung and more rapid than
infectious agents. In humans, as seemed to have occurred in the Georgi
Markov assassination, multiorgan failure occurred with a prominently
elevated white blood cell count. [Markov was a Bulgarian communist
defector who was killed in London in 2003 by a ricin pellet injected
into his leg from a modified umbrella point -- see
<http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/07/terror.poison.bulgarian/index.html>.]

"As a weapon of bioterrorism, ricin would most likely be dispersed as
an aerosol although contamination of food and water supplies is also
feasible. Although easily obtained, massive quantities of toxin are
necessary to create a large scale effect. Because signs and symptoms
are non-specific, detection of an attack would require a high index of
suspicion based on clinical and epidemiologic factors. The finding of
a geographic cluster of patients with acute lung injury should arouse
suspicion of an attack via an aerosolized agent, although the list of
potential culprits is extensive and includes chemical as well as
biologic agents. Ricin cases do not exhibit mediastinitis, as with
anthrax, and they do not demonstrate any response to antibiotic
therapy as would be expected with an infectious etiology. Pulmonary
edema may develop one to 3 days after ricin exposure, in contrast to
staphylococcal enterotoxin B or phosgene where time to development of
pulmonary edema is 12 and 6 hours respectively.

"There are limited data describing the outcome from an inhalation
exposure. In the 1940s, sublethal and accidental exposures were said
to have occurred and were manifest 4-8 hours after exposure with
fever, cough, shortness of breath, and nausea. Studies in rodents
suggest an inhaled ricin aerosol could lead to necrosis of the upper
and lower airway, respiratory distress syndrome and respiratory
failure. Chest x-ray would be expected to show bilateral infiltrates.
In animal studies death occurred in 36 to 72 hours and was dose
dependent. In primates, symptoms and time to death were also dose
related and associated with alveolar flooding, fibropurulent
pneumonia, and necrotizing tracheitis. Death occurred 36 to 48 hours
after challenge following a 8-24 hour preclinical period." - Mod.LL

BMJ: PSA @ 40, 50,& 60 clinically indicated.

Strategy for detection of prostate cancer based on relation between prostate specific antigen at age 40-55 and long term risk of metastasis: case-control study

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2023 (Published 16 April 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f2023
  1. Andrew J Vickers, attending1,
  2. David Ulmert, research fellow23,
  3. Daniel D Sjoberg, research biostatistician1,
  4. Caroline J Bennette, PhD student4,
  5. Thomas Björk, associate professor3,
  6. Axel Gerdtsson, resident3,
  7. Jonas Manjer, associate professor5,
  8. Peter M Nilsson, professor6,
  9. Anders Dahlin, data manager7,
  10. Anders Bjartell, professor3,
  11. Peter T Scardino, chair2,
  12. Hans Lilja, attending clinical chemist, professor2891011
Author Affiliations
  1. Correspondence to: H Lilja, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave (Box 213), New York, NY 10065, USA liljah@mskcc.org
  • Accepted 13 March 2013

Abstract

Objective To determine the association between concentration of prostate specific antigen (PSA) at age 40-55 and subsequent risk of prostate cancer metastasis and mortality in an unscreened population to evaluate when to start screening for prostate cancer and whether rescreening could be risk stratified.
Design Case-control study with 1:3 matching nested within a highly representative population based cohort study.
Setting Malmö Preventive Project, Sweden.
Participants 21 277 Swedish men aged 27-52 (74% of the eligible population) who provided blood at baseline in 1974-84, and 4922 men invited to provide a second sample six years later. Rates of PSA testing remained extremely low during median follow-up of 27 years.
Main outcome measures Metastasis or death from prostate cancer ascertained by review of case notes.
Results Risk of death from prostate cancer was associated with baseline PSA: 44% (95% confidence interval 34% to 53%) of deaths occurred in men with a PSA concentration in the highest 10th of the distribution of concentrations at age 45-49 (≥1.6 µg/L), with a similar proportion for the highest 10th at age 51-55 (≥2.4 µg/L: 44%, 32% to 56%). Although a 25-30 year risk of prostate cancer metastasis could not be ruled out by concentrations below the median at age 45-49 (0.68 µg/L) or 51-55 (0.85 µg/L), the 15 year risk remained low at 0.09% (0.03% to 0.23%) at age 45-49 and 0.28% (0.11% to 0.66%) at age 51-55, suggesting that longer intervals between screening would be appropriate in this group.
Conclusion Measurement of PSA concentration in early midlife can identify a small group of men at increased risk of prostate cancer metastasis several decades later. Careful surveillance is warranted in these men. Given existing data on the risk of death by PSA concentration at age 60, these results suggest that three lifetime PSA tests (mid to late 40s, early 50s, and 60) are probably sufficient for at least half of men.

Introduction

Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test became widespread long before the availability of randomised evidence as to its value. There is now evidence that PSA screening is associated with reduced mortality from prostate cancer in men who would not otherwise be screened,1 2 although this comes at considerable harms in terms of the number of men who need to be screened, undergo biopsy, and be treated to prevent one man experiencing prostate cancer metastasis or dying.
That said, PSA screening is not a single intervention and men can be screened in different ways. There is surprisingly little evidence to support many aspects of contemporary screening guidelines. In particular, the age at which screening starts and the frequency of PSA testing is rarely justified in terms of empirical data. Recent evidence has suggested that a single PSA measurement can predict the long term risk of clinically relevant prostate cancer.3 4 5 6 This suggests that a baseline concentration could be used to determine whether a man might benefit from subsequent PSA tests and, if so, when these should be administered.
We used data from the Malmö Preventive Project cohort to develop an evidence based schema for prostate cancer testing. We retrospectively analysed PSA in previously unthawed, archived, anticoagulated blood plasma obtained at baseline from a large highly representative population based cohort of men who had not been screened for PSA and had been followed for 25-30 years. As such, the cohort provides a “natural experiment” for investigating the association between PSA and long term prostate cancer outcomes.
Using this cohort, we previously showed that PSA concentration at age 60 can predict the risk of death from prostate cancer by age 85 (AUC of 0.90). In particular, the 25 year risk of death from prostate cancer in men with PSA below the median (≤1 µg/L) is low (0.2%) and suggests that half of the men at age 60 could be exempt from further screening.7 We determined the risk of metastasis or death from prostate cancer within 25-30 years based on PSA measured close to the time when screening is normally recommended to begin. As there was little screening for prostate cancer in our cohort, these results can be used to determine which men are most likely to benefit from screening.

15 April 2013

USA: LEGAL RISK of GUIDELINES

From AMERICAN MEDICAL NEWS

Doctors win first safe harbor against ACA use in liability suits

States and Congress are urged to pass legislation based on an AMA model bill to prevent health reform criteria from exposing doctors to medical liability.

By Alicia Gallegos amednews staff — Posted April 15, 2013
Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin
Physician leaders hope a first-of-its-kind bill approved in Georgia protecting doctors from civil liability for breaching federal health system reform requirements will be replicated in other states.
Medical associations long have been concerned that federal quality-of-care and payment reform measures, such as those authorized by the Affordable Care Act, could be used to fuel negligence accusations against individual physicians. The Georgia law, drafted from American Medical Association model legislation, prevents such health reform metrics from being used as evidence in liability cases. Georgia's law states that payer guidelines and quality criteria under federal law shall not establish a legal basis for negligence or a standard of care for the purposes of determining medical liability.
“We're saying if it's a breach in those federal guidelines based on administrative behavior, let's make sure that evidence is not admissible in court, and more than anything, let's make sure that evidence is not being used as a determinant in the standard of care,” said Marcus Downs, director of government relations for the Medical Assn. of Georgia, which advocated for the enactment of the shield law. “There could be some [administrative] wrongdoing, but it is definitely not malpractice. It's definitely not negligence.”
The passage of the Georgia bill, which at this article's deadline was expected to be signed by Gov. Nathan Deal by the end of April, came as a federal version of the legislation was being reintroduced in Congress. The Standard of Care Protection Act would prohibit health system reform provisions from being construed to establish a standard or duty of care owed by a health professional to a patient in any liability case. A similar version of the bill died in committee at the end of the last Congress.
The Standard of Care Protection Act would ensure that federal laws do not change the way health care professionals practice medicine or treat patients through the threat of liability, said Rep. Phil Gingrey, MD (R, Ga.), the bill's chief sponsor.
“This legislation provides that lawsuits cannot be brought against health care providers based simply on whether [they] followed national guidelines created by the health care law,” Dr. Gingrey stated in an email. “This bill reinforces my belief that medical decisions must be made between patients and their doctors. The practice of medicine is not one-size-fits-all. It must be protected from policies or rules that may threaten a physician's ability to treat patients according to their specific needs.”
The AMA supports the federal legislation and also advocated for the Georgia law. In a statement, AMA Board of Trustees member Patrice A. Harris, MD, praised Georgia's shield law, saying federal reform statutes and regulations are intended to enhance access to high-quality and efficient health care, not to justify windfalls through lawsuits against physicians.
“Georgia is the first state to take decisive action to prevent federal health care reform laws and regulations from fueling the unrestricted excesses of the state's broken medical liability system,” she said. “To hold the line against tort abuse, Georgia relied on AMA model legislation to make it clear that federal health care standards or guidelines cannot be skewed to invent new legal actions against physicians.”
The Georgia Trial Lawyers Assn. also worked with MAG on the state legislation and was pleased with how the final bill turned out, said Bill Clark, GTLA's director of political affairs. The association successfully pushed for including a “goose-gander” provision in the bill that also protects plaintiffs in medical liability suits from having defendants introduce reform standard compliance as evidence.
“The only way we were willing to allow the bill to go forward was to have it go both ways,” Clark said. “If a physician can't be held accountable for malpractice for failing to adhere to a payment guideline, then they also shouldn't be able to use their compliance with a standard as evidence that they complied with the standard of care. If it can't be used against you as a sword, you also can't use it for a shield.”
The director of policy for the American Assn. for Justice, Susan Steinman, declined to comment on the Georgia law. The national association represents trial attorneys.

Potential risks from reform

Without explicit legal protections, observers said doctors who are sued for medical liability face various legal risks from the ACA or other health system reform statutes.
To find negligence, a plaintiff generally has to show — usually through expert testimony — that his or her treatment did not meet the standard of care observed by a reasonable physician, said Hal Dasinger, vice president for government relations for The Doctors Company, a national physician medical liability insurer. The Doctors Company supported the Georgia law and is involved with promoting the federal legislation.
“Our concern has been that plaintiff's counsel might attempt to use federal guidelines developed, for example, to cost-effectively manage chronic patients as evidence of negligence, by claiming that any treatment that differed from the federal guidelines is beneath the standard of care, rather than the result of an individual physician deciding what is in the best interest of the patient,” Dasinger stated in an email.
Another potential legal risk could come from the ACA's hospital value-based purchasing program. Those provisions authorize payment adjustments for certain hospitals based on designated health care performance criteria. Whether a hospital-based physician met such criteria easily could be raised in a medical negligence lawsuit to challenge the doctor's credibility, Downs said.
Physicians' adherence to hospital readmissions limits and prohibitions on payment for treating hospital “never events” also are quality measures that could come up in court. Plaintiffs could attempt to sway juries using such data, said Dan Huff, a medical liability defense attorney based in Georgia.
Plaintiffs alleging an undesired patient outcome could use the information to argue that doctors “have no right to defend themselves or their actions, because statutes and regulations have said these things should never happen, and we're not going to pay them when they happen,” Huff said. “If we have a gallbladder case we're defending about whether the physician has met the standard of care, the plaintiff should not be allowed to introduce evidence about the physician's readmissions rate, complication rate or other issues that deal primarily with reimbursement and payment.”

Federal shield bill redesigned

Despite their failed attempt to enact the federal shield law in 2012, supporters are hopeful a newly redesigned version of the measure will have a different outcome. The new bill has been broadened beyond the provisions of the ACA and also would encompass sections under the Social Security Act that deal with Medicare payments.
Dr. Gingrey said the liability loopholes created by the ACA should be addressed at the federal level. “The bill makes clear that the care standards and guidelines detailed in federal health care laws cannot be used to create new causes of legal action against physicians, nor do they supersede state liability laws,” he said.
The Doctor's Company was not aware of legislation similar to Georgia's that is pending in other state legislatures. However, Dasinger said it is only a matter of time before other states follow the lead.
“With the victory in Georgia, it seems likely that other states will try to enact their own versions,” he said.
State Rep. Edward Lindsey, a Republican who co-sponsored the Georgia law, agreed. “I think it is good, pragmatic legislation, and I certainly would think a lot of other states would look at it, just as we look at other states when they pass pragmatic legislation.”

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

5 ACA standards that could give plaintiffs an advantage in court

Physicians say a first-of-its-kind bill passed in Georgia will protect doctors from being exposed to increased liability associated with new federal health system reform standards. Supporters argue that without such a safe harbor, more than a dozen provisions of the Affordable Care Act could be used by plaintiffs for establishing civil tort liability in medical cases, including:
  1. Adult health quality measures: The federal government is authorized to develop a core set of health care quality measures to be reported for adult Medicare beneficiaries.
  2. Hospital readmissions reduction program: To decrease Medicare hospital costs, excessive 30-day readmissions of certain patients will mean lower payment rates.
  3. Hospital-acquired conditions initiative: Facilities will be prohibited from receiving additional Medicare payment for treating certain hospital-acquired conditions.
  4. Medicare shared savings program: Hospitals and physicians that coordinate care successfully for patients will share in some of the cost savings to the federal government that result — and might be penalized for failing to restrain costs.
  5. Value-based payment modifier: Medicare payments to certain physician group practices will be modified based on how well they meet certain quality measures.
Source: Medical Assn. of Georgia

14 April 2013

New York Paediatrician Henry KOPLIK born HENRI KOPLICK (1858-1927)

KOPLIK SPOTS

2. Koplik H. The diagnosis of the invasion of measles from a study of the exanthema as it appears on the buccal mucous membrane. Arch Pediatr1896;13:918-22. [PubMed]

01 April 2013

NIH "MGUS" = MYELOMA

Investigator Profiles

C. Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D.

C. Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph. D.
Medical Oncology Branch and Affiliates
Head, Multiple Myeloma Section
Senior Investigator

National Cancer Institute
9000 Rockville Pike
Building 10, Room 13N240
Bethesda, MD 20892

Phone: 301-496-0670
Fax: 301-402-0172
landgreo@mail.nih.gov

Dr. Landgren received his M.D. in 1995 from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. Following clinical training as a hematology/internal medicine specialist physician, he earned a Ph.D. with a focus on diagnostics and prognostics in Hodgkin lymphoma in 2002 at Karolinska Institute. He then served as an attending physician at Karolinska and conducted clinical research on lymphoproliferative malignancies and related precursors. He came to the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG) in 2004, where he served as an Investigator before he joined the Medical Oncology Branch.
Dr. Landgren's major research interests are in the treatment, causation, diagnostics and prognostics, and natural history of multiple myeloma and its precursor condition, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS). He also studies related hematologic malignancies and their precursor states, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL); Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, and IgM MGUS, as well as myeloproliferative neoplasms. His research focuses on treatment-, host-, disease-, and immune-related factors in the pathway from precursor to full-blown malignancy and their relation to outcome.
Dr. Landgren's Clinical Trial(s):
NCI’s Center for Cancer Research (CCR) is currently conducting the following trial(s) for patients with MGUS, smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma. Click on the trial(s) below for additional details, including a summary of key eligibility criteria, study outline, and information on how to contact the study team directly.
Videocast/Podcast Videocast/Podcast Details:
The quality of these videocasts is dependent on the speed of your Internet connection. Many videocasts are streamed directly to your computer by software on the NIH VideoCasting Web site. Others require that you have a standalone player installed on your computer to handle the streaming. If you do not have a standalone player installed or if you are having problems viewing the videocast, please visit http://videocast.nih.gov/faq/.

CC Grand Rounds: (1) Therapeutic Gene Delivery: Using Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Sickle Cell Disease (2) Multiple Myeloma and Its Precurser (MGUS): Looking into the Future
Speaker(s): John F. Tisdale, M.D., Senior Investigator, Molecular and Clinical Hematology Branch, NHLBI
Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D., Investigator, Medical Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, NCI
April 16, 2010
60 minutes
http://videocast.nih.gov/launch.asp?15720

Eradicating Multiple Myeloma
Speaker(s): C. Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D., Head, Multiple Myeloma Section, Medical Oncology Branch and Affiliates, NCI
September 15, 2010
3 minutes, 32 seconds
http://bethesdatrials.cancer.gov/rss/videocastdetail.aspx?webcastid=9

NIH Director's Seminar Series: Multiple Myeloma and its Precursor Disease: the Future is Already Here
Speaker(s): C. Ola Landgren, M.D., Ph.D. Head, Multiple Myeloma Section, Medical Oncology Branch and Affiliates, NCI
April 20, 2012
50 minutes
http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=17227