Chat GPT: Chairing a Panel at a Cancer Conference

In October 2023, I will be chairing a panel at a cancer conference.  The topics for the panel are provided in advance by the organizer (I did not write the agenda bullets).   

I asked CHAT GPT a series of four questions to help me navigate, orient myself, and think about the panel.

1. Question 1 to CHAT.   What topics will be of the greatest interest to this audience?
2. Question 2 to CHAT.   Draft me a summary of the panel by a science journalist.
3. Question 3 to CHAT.   Draft me a two minute intro speech.  [Note, this came out kind of clunky.]
4. Question 4 to CHAT.   Give me some advice in how to chair the panel.   [Note, this came out kind of "pro forma," but still helpful.]

###

ORGANIZER's AGENDA FOR THE PANEL (given to me)

Panel discussion on the future and shape of precision medicine.

• What will CAP/CLIA look like in relation to additional standards that allow for "certification".
  • Will there be more regulatory oversight that both incents innovation but prevents poor quality testing from becoming widespread in availability.
  • Industry will have to come to terms on the oversight and agreed upon ways of judging analytic validity, analytic utility, clinical utility.
• In this debate we need consensus on what is the minimal threshold for both breadth and depth of testing, ie. not just how many genes spanned, but:
  • the clinical utility of the pan-tumor markers (TMB, NTRAK, etc....),
  • and the elements of transcription (RNA level views) and translation (proteomics).
• The panel will make some recommendations on these issues, so industry can ideate over how to deploy precision medicine across the ecosystem.
• Notwithstanding the above there are still open issues of
  • nomenclature [See PMC & Lungevity??],
  • complete data sets,
  • interoperability,
  • data security, and
  • agreements around sharing the data.
• When we follow the science with the acknowledgement that current studies showing the efficiency of CGP in solid tumors is true, then all data sets must be structured to allow for automated prior authorization and pre-certification.
• Future models could (should) theoretically streamline care, because only the therapies that have a biologic possibility of success will be in the consideration set, rank ordered by most efficacious to least efficacious.
• The panel will offer their insights on how personalized medicine can add value to the equation without making the testing/treating process overly complex and bureaucratic.

###

QUESTION ONE TO CHAT

What topics will likely be of the most interest?

The oncology audience, consisting of physicians, researchers, and industry professionals, will be primarily interested in topics that directly affect patient care, drive research innovation, and have implications for the day-to-day practice of oncology. Based on this, the topics likely to be of greatest interest or engender the most debate would include:

"Will there be more regulatory oversight that both incents innovation but prevents poor quality testing from becoming widespread in availability."

Rationale: This topic strikes at the heart of a significant tension in modern medicine: the balance between accelerating innovation for patient benefit and ensuring that new technologies are safe, effective, and of high quality. Regulatory frameworks have a direct impact on the pace and direction of research and can influence patient outcomes.

"In this debate, we need consensus on what is the minimal threshold for both breadth and depth of testing, ie. not just how many genes spanned, but the clinical utility of the pan-tumor markers (TMB, NTRAK, etc....), and the elements of transcription (RNA level views) and translation (proteomics)."

Rationale: As precision medicine advances, the criteria for effective testing become more important. Ensuring that tests are comprehensive and clinically relevant is vital for patient care. Debates about the specifics of these criteria can influence treatment decisions and research priorities.

"When we follow the science with the acknowledgement that current studies showing the efficiency of CGP in solid tumors is true, then all data sets must be structured to allow for automated prior authorization and pre-certification."

Rationale: Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) holds promise for tailoring treatments to individual patients. However, the logistics, including data management and authorization processes, can either facilitate or hinder its broad implementation.

"Future models could (should) theoretically streamline care, because only the therapies that have a biologic possibility of success will be in the consideration set, rank ordered by most efficacious to least efficacious."

Rationale: This topic addresses the practical implications of research findings for patient care. Streamlining treatment decisions to focus on the most effective options has clear benefits for patients and can drive debates about the specifics of how to implement such an approach.

"The panel will offer their insights on how personalized medicine can add value to the equation without making the testing/treating process overly complex and bureaucratic."

Rationale: The promise of personalized medicine is counterbalanced by concerns about increasing complexity in patient care. This topic addresses a core challenge for modern oncology: optimizing individualized care without overwhelming clinicians and systems with complexity.

The remaining topics, while undoubtedly important, deal more with technical, infrastructural, or procedural issues. Although these will also generate interest, they might not spark as much intense debate or immediate concern as the ones highlighted above.

###

QUESTION TWO TO CHAT:  

WRITE A JOURNALIST'S ARTICLE

Striking a Balance: 

A Glimpse into the Future of Precision Cancer Care

At the recently concluded cancer conference, experts grappled with questions of innovation, regulatory oversight, and the challenges of harnessing cutting-edge diagnostics. As the panel delved into the intricate details of policy and scientific research, the broader implications for the world of cancer care became evident.

Regulation and Innovation: Navigating the Dual Challenges A crucial question raised was the future role of CAP/CLIA in relation to newer standards aiming for “certification”. The primary concern hinged on the balance between spurring innovation and ensuring that poor quality testing doesn't inundate the market. This is a tightrope that regulatory bodies worldwide grapple with. While innovation drives progress, unchecked and unregulated technological advancements can lead to compromised patient safety.

Redefining Testing Standards As the panel pointed out, the industry must find a common ground on evaluating analytic validity, utility, and the clinical implications. Moreover, it’s not just about the number of genes examined, but the depth of the analysis. Highlighting the clinical utility of pan-tumor markers like TMB and NTRAK, the discussion also steered towards understanding the RNA-level views and proteomics, signaling a holistic approach to diagnostics.

Precision Medicine: Challenges and Opportunities The enthusiasm for precision medicine was palpable, with panelists underscoring its potential to reshape the landscape of cancer treatment. Yet, as discussions deepened, it was evident that challenges abound. Questions of nomenclature, data interoperability, and security loomed large. Furthermore, achieving consensus on data sharing agreements remains a contentious point.

Highlighting the promising efficiency of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling (CGP) in solid tumors, experts posited that structured data sets allowing for automated prior authorization and pre-certification would be the way forward. Such an approach would not only streamline care but also ensure that patients receive the most appropriate treatment options based on biological evidence.

The Future of Cancer Care One of the more thought-provoking segments of the discussion centered around future care models. Panelists posited a future where treatments are not just chosen but ranked based on efficacy. The implication? A more focused and effective approach to cancer care, saving patients from unnecessary treatments and the healthcare system from undue costs.

Yet, this optimism was tempered with caution. The panel also acknowledged the risk of making the testing and treatment processes excessively complex and bureaucratic. The challenge then remains - how do we maximize the potential of personalized medicine without entangling it in red tape?

In Conclusion The session was more than just a deep dive into the technicalities of cancer diagnostics and treatment. It was a reflection on the broader implications for patients, healthcare providers, and the industry. As we stand on the cusp of a new era in cancer care, the insights from this panel will undoubtedly shape discussions for years to come. The journey ahead is complex, but with collaboration and a shared vision, a brighter future for cancer care is in sight.

QUESTION THREE TO CHAT:  MY INTRO SPEECH

Two-Minute Introductory Speech [clunky]:

"Good [morning/afternoon/evening] everyone. As we gather here today amidst pioneers of cancer research and policy, I am both honored and excited to chair this vital discussion. We stand at a juncture where innovation in cancer diagnostics and treatment is burgeoning, and with it comes the responsibility to set standards that preserve quality while promoting innovation.

Our agenda today dives into the issues of regulatory oversight, the balance between innovation and quality, and the consensus on the breadth and depth of testing. We will explore the nuances of precision medicine, data sets, interoperability, and the myriad challenges and opportunities they present.

But beyond these technical details, our mission is bigger. It is about harnessing the power of science and data for the betterment of patient care. By striving for a future where care models are streamlined, where only therapies with genuine biological promise are considered, we move towards a world where the fight against cancer is not just more precise but more compassionate.

As we embark on this discussion, I urge all panelists and participants to approach each topic with an open mind and a collaborative spirit. Let us seek to understand, to find common ground, and to envision a future where our policies and practices serve our patients in the best way possible.

Thank you, and let's delve into our session."

(Note: Adjust the speech to better fit your personal style or the specific context of the conference.)

QUESTION FOUR:  ADVICE TO ME AS A CHAIRMAN

Advice on Chairing the Session [pro forma]:

1. Preparation: Review the provided agenda in depth. Research any unfamiliar terms or concepts, so you have a baseline understanding of the subject matter.
2. Understand Your Role: Your role as the chairperson is to guide the discussion, ensure that all panelists get an opportunity to voice their opinions, and manage the time efficiently.
3. Engage with Panelists: Prior to the conference, it might be beneficial to hold a brief meeting or call with the panelists to understand their viewpoints, answer any queries, and set expectations.
4. Time Management: Given the breadth of the topics covered, it’s crucial to manage time. Consider allocating specific amounts of time to each bullet point and communicate this to your panelists.
5. Encourage Constructive Discussion: You might encounter conflicting viewpoints. Ensure discussions are constructive and centered around finding solutions or understanding differing perspectives.
6. Audience Engagement: Allow time for audience questions or comments. This ensures a more interactive and engaging session.
7. Summarization: At the end of the session, briefly summarize the key points discussed and any recommendations made by the panel.
8. Thank the Panelists and Audience: Acknowledge the contributions of your panelists and the participation of your audience.