Explore the vast range of titles available.

Attorney Rachel Gold--reluctantly representing a working class neighborhood against a developer intent on bulldozing homes to erect a gated community and investigating the death of rehabber Nick Moran, who's demise--his sister believes--was the result of foul play--begins to suspect the two cases may be related.

Chestnut cultivation for nut production is increasing in the eastern half of the United States. Chinese chestnuts ( Castanea mollissima Blume), or Chinese hybrids with European ( C. sativa Mill.) and Japanese chestnuts ( C. crenata Sieb. & Zucc.), are cultivated due to their high kernel quality, climatic adaptation, and disease resistance. Several hundred thousand pounds of high-quality fresh nuts are taken to market every fall, and several hundred additional orchards are entering bearing years. Grower-led on-farm improvement has largely facilitated this growth. A lack of significant investments in chestnut breeding in the region, paired with issues of graft incompatibility, has led many growers to cultivate seedlings of cultivars rather than grafted cultivars. After decades of evaluation, selection, and sharing of plant materials, growers have reached a threshold of improvement where commercial seedling orchards can be reliably established by planting offspring from elite selected parents. Growers recognize that if cooperation persists and university expertise and resources are enlisted, improvement can continue and accelerate. To this end, the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry (UMCA) and chestnut growers throughout the eastern United States are partnering to formalize a participatory breeding program – the Chestnut Improvement Network. This partnership entails the UMCA providing an organizational structure and leadership to coordinate on-farm improvement, implement strategic crossing schemes, and integrate genetic tools. Chestnut growers offer structural capacity by cultivating seedling production orchards that provide financial support for the grower but also house segregating populations with improved individuals, in situ repositories, and selection trials, creating great value for the industry.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3), the immediate cervical cancer precursor, is a target of cervical cancer prevention. However, less than half of CIN3s will progress to cancer. Routine treatment of all CIN3s and the majority of CIN2s may lead to overtreatment of many lesions that would not progress. To improve our understanding of CIN3 natural history, we performed a detailed characterization of CIN3 heterogeneity in a large referral population in the US. We examined 309 CIN3 cases in the SUCCEED, a large population-based study of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening results. Histology information for 12 individual loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) segments was evaluated for each woman. We performed case-case comparisons of CIN3s to analyze determinants of heterogeneity and screening test performance. CIN3 cases varied substantially by size (1-10 LEEP segments) and by presentation with concomitant CIN2 and CIN1. All grades of CINs were equally distributed over the cervical surface. In half of the women, CIN3 lesions were found as multiple distinct lesions on the cervix. Women with large and solitary CIN3 lesions were more likely to be older, have longer sexual activity span, and have fewer multiple high risk HPV infections. Screening frequency, but not HPV16 positivity, was an important predictor of CIN3 size. Large CIN3 lesions were also characterized by high-grade clinical test results. We demonstrate substantial heterogeneity in clinical and pathological presentation of CIN3 in a US population. Time since sexual debut and participation in screening were predictors of CIN3 size. We did not observe a preferential site of CIN3 on the cervical surface that could serve as a target for cervical biopsy. Cervical cancer screening procedures were more likely to detect larger CIN3s, suggesting that CIN3s detected by multiple independent diagnostic tests may represent cases with increased risk of invasion.

Introduction/BackgroundIn the phase 3 RUBY trial (NCT03981796) in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC), dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus CP in the mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and overall populations and overall survival (OS) in the overall population. Treatments in pA/rEC aim to improve PFS and OS while maintaining health-related quality of life (HRQoL). By assessing time to deterioration (TTD), the length of HRQoL maintenance can be compared between trial arms.MethodologyPatients with pA/rEC were randomised 1:1 to receive dostarlimab+CP or placebo+CP Q3W for 6 cycles, followed by dostarlimab or placebo monotherapy Q6W for ≤3 years. Post-hoc TTD analyses were conducted for EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Endometrial Cancer 24 (QLQ-EN24). Time to first deterioration (TTD1) was first deterioration of ≥10 points versus baseline. Time to permanent deterioration (TTDP) was deterioration of ≥10 points versus baseline that was sustained at all subsequent time points.ResultsOf 494 patients randomised, 118 were dMMR/MSI-H (53 dostarlimab+CP; 65 placebo+CP). In the dMMR/MSI-H population, most QLQ-C30 domains directionally favored dostarlimab+CP for TTD1 and TTDP; social and role functioning were longer for TTD1; global QoL and role functioning showed delayed TTDP (figure 1). Gastrointestinal was the only QLQ-EN24 domain with an observed difference in this population (TTDP only) in the dostarlimab+CP arm. In the overall population, neither QLQ-C30 nor QLQ-EN24 showed differences between arms for TTD1 or TTDP.Abstract 633 Figure 1Analysis of EORTC QLQ-c30 and EORTC QLQ-EN24 (A)TTD1 and (B) TTDP in the dMMR/MSI-H populationConclusionDostarlimab+CP demonstrated clinically meaningful delay in TTDP for QoL in the dMMR/MSI-H population compared to CP in addition to lengthening of TTD1 and delayed TTDP in several QLQ-C30 and QLQ-EN24 domains; no detriment was observed in the overall population. These findings, together with PFS and OS benefits, further support the use of dostarlimab+CP as a standard of care in patients with dMMR/MSI-H pA/rEC.DisclosuresDisclosures: This study was funded by GSK (Waltham, MA, USA).Clinical trial registration number: NCT03981796Topic area: Endometrial cancerCOI: Dr Boere reports institutional research grant from GSK; and institutional advisory board meeting fees from AstraZeneca and GSK.Dr Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, SeaGen, Sutro Biopharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Elevar Therapeutics, Imab, Merck, Mersana, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, and Toray; support for attending meetings from GOG Foundation; advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Atossa, Clovis Oncology, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, Imab, Lilly, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, VBL Therapeutics; and non-compensated leadership fees from NYOB Society Secretary, SGO Clinical Practice Committee Chair, and SGO COVID-19 Taskforce Co-Chair.Dr Sukhina reports institutional grants from TesaroDr Myers reports honoraria from Immunogen.Dr Tuninetti reports institutional grants and honoraria from GSK, MMSD, and EISAI; meeting support from GSK; and paticipation on Data Safety Monitoring or Advisory Boards for GSK and MSD.Dr Secord reports support paid to her institution from GSK for present IGCS abstract; institutional grant support from AbbVie, Aravive, Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Ellipses, I-MAB Biopharma, Immunogen, Merck, Oncoquest/Canaria Bio, Roche/Genentech, Seagen Inc., TapImmune, Tesaro/GSK, VBL Therapeutics; honoraria from @Point of Care Clinical Care Options Curio Science, Peerview, Bio ASCEND, RTP, GOG Foundation (Highlight reel) and GOG Foundation Symposium; patent issued for ‘Blood based biomarkers in ovarian cancer;’ non-compensation for participation on a data safety monitoring board/advisory board from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Gilead, Immunogen, Imvax, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, and OncoQuest; uncompensated leadership roles with SGO, AAOGF, and NRG and compensated role from GOG; receipt of medical writing support from AstraZeneca; and uncompensated Clinical Trial Steering Committees for the AXLerate trial (Aravive), AtTEnd trial (Hoffman-LaRoche), Oval Trial (VBL Therapeutics), FLORA-5 trial (CanariaBio), and QPT-ORE-004 (CanariaBio).Dr Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro, and Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Tesaro and Roche.Dr Auranen reports advisory board fees from GSK and MSD.Dr Gilbert reports institutional grants from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Esperas, IMV, ImmunoGen Inc, Karyopharm, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novocure GmbH, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro; consulting fees from Merck; honoraria from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, and GSK.Dr Slomovitz reports advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech, GSK, GOG Foundation, Merck, Myriad, Jazz Pharma, Onconova, Nuvation Bio, EQRX, Regeneron, Eisai, and Incyte; and Board of Directors for GOG Foundation and HOW: Hearing Ovarian Cancer Whispers.Dr Willmott resports speaker’s bureau fees from Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Immunogen, Merck, and Seagen; and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Immunogen, and Seagen.Dr Powell reports consulting fees from GSK, Tesaro, Merck, Eisai, SeaGen, Clovis Oncology, and AstraZeneca.Dr McCourt reports persnal royalties <$200 annually from UpToDate; and personal honoraria of $200 from the Washington University OB/Gyn annual symposium.Drs Nowicki, Nevadunsky and Gold have nothing to disclose.Dr Mirza reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, Karyopharm, Merck, Roche, and Zailab; speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; research funding (to institution) from Apexigen, AstraZeneca, Deciphera (trial chair), GSK, and Ultimovacs; and personal financial interest in Karyopharm (stocks/shares, member of board of directors).Dr Cloven reports advisory board fees for Aadii, GSK, Kartos 2022, Novita pharmaceuticals 2023, Tarveda Therapeutics, Toray, Umoja 2022, ZentalisMs Vincent is an employee of GSK.Dr Simang is an employee of GSK and KLIFO GmbH (Munich, Germany)Third-party medical writing support: Medical writing and editorial support were coordinated by GSK, and provided by Shannon Morgan-Pelosi, PhD,CMPP, and Jennifer Robertson, PhD, CMPP, of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.

Introduction/BackgroundIn the phase 3 RUBY trial (NCT03981796) of patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC), dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus carboplatin-paclitaxel alone in the mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and overall populations with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in the overall population. Here we report on PFS2-PFS1 (defined as time from disease progression to the date of progression on the first subsequent anticancer therapy following study treatment or death by any cause) in the RUBY trial.Methodology>Patients with pA/rEC were randomised 1:1 to dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel or placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel Q3W (6 cycles) followed by dostarlimab or placebo monotherapy Q6W ≤3 years or disease progression. PFS2-PFS1 was a post hoc analysis in all populations.ResultsOf 494 patients randomized (245 dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel; 249 placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel), 118 were dMMR/MSI-H (53 dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel; 65 placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel). In the dMMR/MSI-H population, median PFS2-PFS1 was longer in the dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel arm (17.7 vs 10.5 months; HR, 0.77; figure 1). In the mismatch repair proficient/microsatellite stable (MMRp/MSS) population, median PFS2-PFS1 was numerically higher (7.9 vs 7.1 months; HR, 0.82) favouring dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel; notably, the survival curves progressively separate after approximately 3 months and remain separated. Median PFS2-PFS1 in the overall population was also numerically higher with dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel (7.9 vs 7.3 months; HR, 0.82).Abstract 462 Figure 1ConclusionIn the RUBY trial of patients with pA/rEC, longer PFS2-PFS1 in the dMMR/MSI-H population suggests that patients continue to derive benefit from dostarlimab treatment following disease progression. In the MMRp/MSS population, the early and progressive separation of the KM curves suggest that the PFS1 benefit of immunotherapy+carboplatin-paclitaxel may translate into better long-term outcomes, including PFS2 and eventually overall survival. Overall, these results suggest that the sequencing of dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel as 1L treatment provides benefit beyond PFS1 into PFS2. This provides further support for dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel as standard-of-care in pA/rEC.DisclosuresThis study (NCT03981796) was sponsored by GSK, Waltham, MA, USA.Third-party medical writing support: Writing and editorial support, funded and coordinated by GSK (Waltham, MA, USA), was provided by Shannon Morgan-Pelosi, PhD, and Jennifer Robertson, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.COI: Dr McCourt reports personal royalties <$200 annually from UpToDate; and personal honoraria of $200 from the Washington University OB/Gyn annual symposium.Dr Shahin reports institutional grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck; honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Merck, and Seagen; expert testimony fees from Robindon & Havens PSC, Lexington KY; advisory board fees from Seagen; and board member for Unite for Her.Dr Kristeleit reports Grants from Clovis and MSD; honoraria and consultancy fees from Basilea Pharmaceutica, MSD, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Incyte, and Pharmamar; and personal fees from GSK.Dr Willmott reports speakers’ bureau fees from Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Immunogen, Merck, and Seagen, and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Immunogen, and Seagen.Dr Barlin reports participation on the FLORA and XPORT steering committees, participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, and Immunogen, and participation in speaker’s bureaus for AstraZeneca and Merck.Dr Gilbert reports institutional grants from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Esperas, ImmunoGen Inc, IMV, Karyopharm, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novocure GmbH, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro; consulting fees from Merck; and honoraria from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, and GSK.Dr Cloven reports participation in advisory boards for GSK, Kartos, Novita, Takeda, Toray, Umoja, and Zentalis.Dr Bjørge reports grants/research support from AstraZeneca, honoraria/consulting fees from Onsanger, and participation in a company-sponsored speakers’ bureau for MSD.Dr Black reports institutional grant fees from GSK; fees for being a member of GOG Partners Investigational Council; and medical director/owner of Trials365, LLC.Dr Mathews reports institutional research funding from AvengeBio Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Deciphera, EMD Serono, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Merck, Moderna, The National Cancer Institute, Regeneron, Seagen, and Syros.Dr Powell reports grants/research support from GSK and honoraria/consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, and Merck. Dr Gilbert reports institutional grants from Alkermes, GSK, Immunogen Inc, Karyopharm, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro and honoraria/consultation fees from Alkermes, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, GSK, Merck, and Novocure.Dr Mirza reports institutional research grants from Allarity, Apexigen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis, GSK, Novartis, and Ultimovacs; trial chair for Deciphera, Mersana, and NuvationBio; invited speaker for AstraZeneca, GenMab, GSK, Mersana, Seagen, and Takeda; a member of board of directors and holds stocks and shares for Karyopharm and Sera Prognostics.Drs Gold, Landrum, Ronzino, Sharma, Wymenga, and Zub have nothing disclose.Drs Antony and Stevens are employees of GSK.

Introduction/BackgroundDostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel demonstrated PFS and OS benefits vs carboplatin-paclitaxel in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC). Here, we report on the management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in the RUBY (NCT03981796) trial.MethodologyPatients with pA/rEC were randomized 1:1 to dostarlimab 500 mg, or placebo, plus carboplatin AUC 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W for 6 cycles, followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg, or placebo, Q6W for up to 3 years. AEs were assessed according to CTCAE v4.03. irAEs were defined as CTCAE grade ≥2 from a predefined list.ResultsThe safety population included 487 patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment (241 dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel; 246 placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel). irAEs related to dostarlimab or placebo were reported by 38.2% in the dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel arm and 15.4% in the placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel arm; grade ≥3 irAEs related to dostarlimab or placebo were reported by 12.4% and 3.3%, respectively (table 1). Only 7.9% and 3.7% of patients discontinued dostarlimab or placebo because of an irAE, respectively; there were no irAE-related deaths. Of those experiencing irAEs in the dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel arm, 63.5% were treated with steroids, immunosuppressants and/or thyroid therapy; 73.6% resolved (median resolution, 10.0 days). Of the 36.5% patients not receiving steroids, immunosuppressants and/or thyroid therapy, 80.0% resolved (median resolution, 8.0 days). Management and resolution frequency were similar in the placebo+carboplatin-paclitaxel arm (table 1).Abstract 639 Table 1ConclusionIn the RUBY trial, most irAEs were mild and resolved. Few patients discontinued dostarlimab because of irAEs. The irAE profile observed in the dostarlimab+carboplatin-paclitaxel arm showed similar trends as that observed with dostarlimab monotherapy.DisclosuresClinical trial registration: NCT03981796Encore Statement: Data presented on behalf of the original authors with their permission. Previously presented at the International Gynecologic Cancer Society (IGCS) Congress 2023; 5–7 November 2023; Seoul, Korea. Final publication number: 248. Zoltán Novák et al. Reused with permission.Disclosures: This study (NCT03981796) was sponsored by GSK, Waltham, MA, USA.Third-party medical writing support: Writing and editorial support, funded and coordinated by GSK (Waltham, MA, USA), was provided by Shannon Morgan-Pelosi, PhD, and Jennifer Robertson, PhD, of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company.COI: Dr Novak reports honoraria from Sofmedica, AstraZeneca, and MSD; support for attending meetings from Sofmedica and Preglem; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AstraZeneca and Richter Gedeon; stock options from Richter Gedeon; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from AstraZeneca.Dr Savarese reports institutional funding and provision of study materials from GSK and MSD; institutional funding and provision of study material for other clinical trials from GSK and MSD; honoraria from GSK and MSK; support for attending meetings and/or travel from GSK, MSK, and Pharmamar; and advisory board honoraria from Eisai and MSD.Dr Kommoss reports grants from GSK; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, MSD, and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, and Roche.Dr Cantuaria reports consulting fees from GSK; and she holds a patent on an anti-tumor lipid molecule that is early stage of development.Dr Boere reports institutional research grant from GSK; and institutional advisory board meeting fees from AstraZeneca and GSK.Dr Gilbert reports institutional grants from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Esperas, IMV, ImmunoGen Inc, Karyopharm, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mersana, Novocure GmbH, OncoQuest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Roche, and Tesaro; consulting fees from Merck; honoraria from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Eisai-Merck, and GSK.Dr Holloway reports honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai Inc, and Merck.Dr E. Miller reports advisory board meeting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Tempus; honoraria from OncLive and Opinions in Gyn Malignancies; and support for attending meetings from Opinions in Gyn Malignancies and OncLive.Dr Powell reports consulting fees from GSK, Tesaro, Merck, Eisai, SeaGen, Clovis Oncology, and AstraZeneca.Dr Mirza reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biocad, GSK, Karyopharm, Merck, Roche, Zailab; speakers’ bureau fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; research funding (to institution) from Apexigen, AstraZeneca, Deciphera (trial chair), GSK, and Ultimovacs; and personal financial interest in Karyopharm (stocks/shares, member of Board of Directors).Dr McCourt reports personal royalties <$200 annually from UpToDate; and personal honoraria of $200 from the Washington University OB/Gyn annual symposium.Dr Diaz, Dr Fleming, Dr Gill, Dr Gold, Dr Herrstedt, Dr R. Miller, and Dr Pennington have nothing to disclose.Dr Dabrowski and Dr Stevens are employees of GSK.

Forest farming is an agroforestry practice defined as the intentional cultivation of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) underneath a forest canopy. Forest farming perspectives and preferences among family forest owners are generally understudied, particularly in Appalachia, where many marketable native NTFPs species are found. We surveyed Appalachian family forest owners in 14 Southwest Virginia counties about their interest in forest farming and likelihood of leasing land for this purpose. We also asked about the owner’s residency and historical connection to the region as well as contemporary land uses, and identified the following types of uses: absentee and vacationers, newcomers, longtime farming residents, and longtime nonfarming residents. We mailed 1,040 surveys and 293 were returned (28.9%). Forty-five percent were interested or extremely interested in forest farming and 36% were likely or extremely likely to lease land. Rates of interest in forest farming and leasing were similar across owner types, suggesting broad appeal among family forest owners. Study Implications Forest farming of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) and leasing forestland for this practice is broadly appealing across diverse family forest owners in Appalachia. Opportunities to scale profitable forest farming are on the rise, potentially improving family forest management and spurring regional economic development. Study results indicate there is a critical mass of family forest owners interested in forest farming who could potentially supply cultivated NTFPs. Forest management professionals and stakeholders would benefit from considering how they can assist family forest owners who are interested in forest farming.

Background HPV16 variants are associated with different risks for development of CIN3 and invasive cancer, although all are carcinogenic. The relationship of HPV 16 variants to cancer survival has not been studied. Methods 155 HPV16-positive cervical cancers were categorized according to European and non-European variant patterns by DNA sequencing of the E6 open reading frame. Clinico-pathologic parameters and clinical outcome were collected by chart review and death registry data. Results Of the 155 women (mean age 44.7 years; median follow-up 26.7 months), 85.2% harbored European variants while 14.8% had non-European sequences. HPV16 variants differed by histologic cell type (p = 0.03) and stage (1 vs. 2+; p = 0.03). Overall, 107 women (68.0%) were alive with no evidence of cancer, 42 (27.1%) died from cervical cancer, 2 (1.3%) were alive with cervical cancer, and 4 (2.6%) died of other causes. Death due to cervical cancer was associated with European variant status (p < 0.01). While 31% of women harboring tumors with European variants died from cervical cancer during follow-up, only 1 of 23 (4.4%) non-European cases died of cancer. The better survival for non-European cases was partly mediated by lower stage at diagnosis. Conclusions Overall, invasive cervical cancers with non-European variants showed a less aggressive behavior than those with European variants. These findings should be replicated in a population with more non-European cases.

Shiitake mushrooms (Lentinus edodes) have many nutritional and medicinal benefits. The cultivation of log-grown shiitake mushrooms encourages forest farming and can be an opportunity for farmers interested in developing an additional enterprise. In 2006, the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry conducted a nationwide survey of shiitake mushroom producers to analyze the U.S. shiitake mushroom industry by taking into consideration the forces that influence competition based on Porter's five forces model. Shiitake mushrooms are grown primarily as a side business, especially those produced exclusively outdoors. Indoor production on sawdust generates higher income than outdoor production on logs, but log production is more suitable for a small-scale operation in an agroforestry setting. Barriers to entry are created by relationships in the market, economies of scale, and the learning curve effect. Although there are a limited number of spawn suppliers in the market, they produce quality inoculum and maintain good relationships with shiitake mushroom producers. The majority of respondents sell their shiitake mushrooms locally. Gourmet restaurants, farmers markets, and on-farm outlets are the main markets for shiitake mushrooms. Trends in demand are increasing and prices are high. Shiitake mushrooms can be replaced with other common or gourmet mushroom types, but also have their own identity for numerous nutritional and medicinal properties. Competition for log-grown shiitake mushrooms arises from shiitake mushrooms produced on sawdust and from imports. To successfully survive in the market, firms create competitive advantages through quality, customer service, and consistent supply. Barriers to success in the shiitake mushroom business include demanding work requirements, the need for a serious commitment to produce and market shiitake mushrooms, a 1-year time lag between investment and a return on investment, and insufficient production and marketing information. Grower associations, universities, and state and federal agencies must join their efforts to fund and support shiitake mushroom research and industry development.

Over the past two decades, the American education system has experienced profound challenges due to long-term and sustained declines in federal and state funding, coupled with rapid and innovative progress in the development of advanced educational technologies. Concurrently, employers are increasing their expectations and outputs from their employees and as a result, working professionals are seeking affordable opportunities to upgrade their skills for career advancement while maintaining full time job responsibilities. Responding to these challenges, both public and private educational institutions have developed innovative online courses and curricula creating fully accredited undergraduate and graduate degree programs often at lower cost than in campus-based degree programs. These courses and programs enable working professionals and other non-traditional learners to realize their aspirations for advanced training, and breach the traditional barrier for those disadvantaged by limited time or distance. Agroforestry, the intentional mixing of trees with crop and/or animal production systems to create economic, environmental, and social benefits, is gaining recognition as an integral component of multifunctional working landscapes. While gradually gaining attention, widespread agroforestry illiteracy remains and the need for a cadre of well trained professionals is essential to support its continued growth. Short courses and workshops are helpful, but professionals and landowners alike across the U.S., Canada and overseas are seeking more comprehensive graduate degree or certificate programs. A web-based, asynchronous M.S. degree and/or a graduate Certificate will help to fill this void. Presently, there are no comparable comprehensive graduate programs in agroforestry elsewhere in the U.S. To meet the current and future needs of the agroforestry profession, The Center for Agroforestry at the University of Missouri has created an online graduate certificate and master’s degree program in agroforestry. Initial student evaluation data reveals that online agroforestry courses compare favorably with face-to-face courses. This program will serve as a model for other institutions interested in developing online programs in agroforestry and related disciplines.