Heather Jacene, MD
Johannes Czernin, MD, from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, talked with Heather Jacene, MD, an associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School (Boston, MA), about her career as a clinical innovator and SNMMI leader. She is an internationally known nuclear medicine physician, clinical investigator, and teacher, with expertise in interpreting PET/CT oncology imaging and treating various tumor types with radiopharmaceutical therapy. Her clinical research primarily focuses on using molecular imaging to monitor the response of cancer to therapy and on optimizing therapeutic strategies by integrating molecular imaging at key time points. She is actively involved in clinical trials at the institutional and national levels. She has served as a director on the American Board of Nuclear Medicine and on numerous SNMMI committees. She is SNMMI vice-president-elect and chair of the Scientific Program Committee (SPC). In 2023, Dr. Jacene was awarded the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute Bridging Boundaries Clinical Faculty Award for her dedication to oncology and outstanding skills in interacting with other disciplines. She received a 2024 Brigham and Women’s Hospital Clinical Excellence Award. In 2024, she was elected as a fellow of the SNMMI.
Dr. Czernin: Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. You currently serve as the program director for the annual SNMMI meeting. I went to the meeting in Toronto and thought it was remarkably well done. Before we discuss this, however, tell us about your career. How did you get into nuclear medicine and come to be at Brigham and Women’s?
Dr. Jacene: My major in college was molecular biology, and I was always intrigued by how cells work. So many things must go perfectly in a cell. Then a single thing goes wrong, and you end up with cancer. In my junior and senior years, I worked in a Drosophila melanogaster fly lab investigating how muscles organize and discovered that I loved research, the lab, and ultimately the science of medicine. That’s what led me to medical school. There, I enjoyed pediatric and radiation oncology rotations, as well as imaging. The diagnostic radiology program director introduced me to Jeffrey Kempf, MD, a nuclear radiologist. Dr. Kempf knew Richard Wahl, MD, and about the work he was doing in radioimmunotherapy at Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, MD) and pointed me in that direction. That’s how I ended up in nuclear medicine and at Johns Hopkins for training.
Dr. Czernin: After training did you immediately become a faculty member?
Dr. Jacene: Yes, after completing my PET/CT fellowship, I became a faculty member at Johns Hopkins. PET/CT was just taking off at this time.
Dr. Czernin: Rich Wahl was a pioneer in diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine. One of his group’s key papers, of which you were an integral part, introduced the PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST) (J Nucl Med. 2009;50(suppl 1):122S–150S). That was early in your career. How did you get involved?
Dr. Jacene: Given my interest in oncology, I began working in Dr. Wahl’s lab shortly after I started my residency. Clinical trials and clinical practice were starting to incorporate FDG PET/CT, so it was natural that my early projects focused on questions relating to metabolic response to therapy. Plus, I became the fellow/junior faculty member everyone asked to draw regions of interest! Based on this, Dr. Wahl invited me to participate in PERCIST 1.0. PERCIST 1.0 was based on published data but also our practical experiences. It provided a more specific and standardized framework for people to follow in clinical trials for monitoring metabolic response to treatment.
Dr. Czernin: This ended up being the most cited paper in the history of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. It had a tremendous impact that continues today, because it really put semiquantitative FDG PET imaging as a response or intermediate endpoint biomarker in the forefront. After your initial successes at Johns Hopkins, where did you go next?
Dr. Jacene: I moved to Boston and joined the faculty at Dana–Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I now serve as assistant chief of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the clinical director of nuclear medicine at Dana–Farber Cancer Institute. In addition, I am the associate program director of the Joint Program in Nuclear Medicine, our nuclear medicine residency training program across several hospitals.
Dr. Czernin: You obviously have had a very busy schedule, and then you volunteered to become the chair of the SNMMI SPC, which oversees the content presented at both the SNMMI annual and mid-winter meetings. Why?
Dr. Jacene: It keeps me up to date and involved with what’s going on in the field. I don’t have to be an expert in every area, but I learn what’s going on because I have access to a network of people who can help me. It’s like putting a challenging puzzle together—working with an amazing committee and designing programs that inspire a broad group of colleagues and help the community to work at the top of their game to achieve a common goal of improving patients’ lives. At the end of the meetings, when it goes well, it’s really gratifying.
Dr. Czernin: Were you also prompted to do this by an unmet need to improve the program? Because the improvements are remarkable. How did you go about this?
Dr. Jacene: There was a strategic planning meeting, and reimagining the meeting emerged as one of the top priorities from SNMMI leadership to ensure continued relevance to our community for years to come. You’re always going to get pushback when you have change. But, here, there was a mandate for change, so the SPC took advantage of that.
Dr. Czernin: One of your changes was that you were much more careful in how you scheduled parallel sessions, so that sessions don’t “cross-cannibalize” each other. You also reduced the number of sessions so that people can attend sessions that used to be poorly attended. One resulting example was a dosimetry session that was standing-room only, which was unheard of in prior meetings. But it showed that people had the time and opportunity to go to something that interests them. What are your plans to make the plenary sessions more attractive? Can you envision redesigning them to focus on the latest and greatest research and maybe make them more exciting?
Dr. Jacene: We had extensive discussions about the plenary sessions at our preview meeting. In Toronto in 2024, we revamped the opening ceremony to escape the historical didactic approach of the meeting overview. The feedback was positive, and the committee agreed this was great progress. We want to keep inviting vibrant speakers and feature an increasing number of hot or trending scientific topics and practice-changing science. We know that everyone looks forward to the Wagner, Anger, and Cassen lectures, so we want to expand that idea. We also recognize a lot of history in the plenary sessions, so moving some of the less scientific items out of the plenaries may take time. We also need to ensure that the prestige of any element moved from a plenary is honored and celebrated appropriately.
The virtual component of the meeting also adds to the complexity. The plenaries are live-streamed around the world, so attendees can watch virtually from their rooms or anywhere they may be. The SPC is working hard to add elements to the program that will attract larger audiences back into the room and create excitement.
Dr. Czernin: One way to mitigate this problem is to allow virtual attendance but delay it by, for example, a month or more, so that attendees may opt to be there in person. Or maybe move all the well-deserved awards to a separate evening event.
Dr. Jacene: I must thank you. You helped us establish a new event in Toronto with the JNM Editors’ Choice Awards, and the feedback has been fantastic. We already have some new ideas and plans for New Orleans in 2025.
Dr. Czernin: One of the prior scientific program chairs told me that changes are so difficult to make because one cannot disenfranchise all the different groups that had been charged in past years with creating sessions. People have done it for years, have done great jobs, and don’t want to give up what they lead. Do you at times feel like a secretary of state for whom diplomatic and negotiation skills are required to make these changes?
Dr. Jacene: Absolutely. We are a diverse community, which is one of our strengths. However, there is only so much time in each day at the meeting. Every time you change or add an aspect to the grid, there are trickle-down effects for others. I am learning that the needs of the various groups are different. Last year, we were purposeful in reducing overlaps, which led to a small decrease in overall sessions. We also want to be equitable, and we realize that certain groups may not need and want equal continuing education versus scientific sessions. Finding this “perfect” equitable balance is hard, so we are always open to feedback and new ideas.
Dr. Czernin: I like to have crowded rooms. I like standing-room only. It makes it more exciting. I think this year I could see that already. So your accomplishments are pretty remarkable already.
Dr. Jacene: Yes, the other major part of the program we changed is the Science Pavilion, as the Poster Hall is now called. We received a lot of feedback about the change to electronic posters in the first year. In Toronto (year 2), we went back to the drawing board. The room setup was improved, attendance increased, and I personally observed more attendees talking to authors at their posters. One of my major goals is to raise the perceived importance of poster presentations. A poster presentation is as exciting and contributory to the meeting and field as an oral presentation.
“I want everybody who’s working on science (basic, translational, or clinical) in nuclear medicine to want to present their results at the SNMMI meeting, to feel honored to go, and to be excited and perhaps a little nervous about the discussions they may have.”
Dr. Czernin: Can you briefly summarize your goal and what you want to achieve for the annual meeting?
Dr. Jacene: My goal is simple: I want everybody who’s working on science (basic, translational, or clinical) in nuclear medicine to want to present their results at the SNMMI meeting, to feel honored to go, and to be excited and perhaps a little nervous about the discussions they may have. Those attending for clinical or practical education should learn at least 5 new things. I want everyone to leave the meeting feeling energized to go back with new ideas and new connections.
Dr. Czernin: What is your succession plan as program chair?
Dr. Jacene: Giuseppe Esposito, MD, who is the chief of nuclear medicine and PET/CT and professor of radiology at the Medstar Georgetown University Hospital (Washington, DC), is the SPC chair-elect and will succeed me after the New Orleans meeting. As a member of the SPC for the past several years, he’s been active in all the changes we have made, and I am confident he will do a great job sustaining the positive momentum.
Dr. Czernin: New challenges are ahead for you. You have been voted in as the vice-president-elect of SNMMI. What is the role of the vice-president-elect?
Dr. Jacene: In this role, I will attend all the leadership meetings and participate in everything in which the president and president-elect are involved. I view this as my opportunity to learn and dig deep into every aspect of what the society has been working on, particularly those components outside my expertise.
Dr. Czernin: What would be your goal for the SNMMI as president?
Dr. Jacene: As president, I want to increase engagement with the next generation of individuals in our field, providing a tangible path for being an active member of the society. SNMMI volunteer members work tirelessly, and I would like to see the number of actively participating members increase. During the election for vice-president-elect, many people emailed asking how they could get involved. I’ve kept all these emails and plan to keep everyone to their word.
In addition, I have always viewed SNMMI’s various communities (e.g., physicians, scientists, technologists), ranging from basic science to translational to clinical aspects, as a major strength. I hope that by increasing active member involvement we can also forge more collaborations across the communities as well as with communities outside of SNMMI.
Dr. Czernin: After your presidency you will go back to your clinical work. What will your personal aspirations be?
Dr. Jacene: I will continue my active clinical practice in nuclear medicine and radiopharmaceutical therapy. I am working on several clinical trials using FDG PET/CT in breast cancer that can potentially change practice, so I will have to work with the team to build on these, depending on the results. I also look forward to continuing to identify questions arising from the clinical work, figuring out which questions can change practice, and how we can test nuclear medicine to answer them. I love working across the entire team to do this.
Dr. Czernin: In terms of thinking about the next generations, how would you try to attract young scientists and clinicians to nuclear medicine?
Dr. Jacene: We must meet them in medical school and provide them opportunities to participate actively in the clinic and research, not just as observers. We must give them doable projects, so they can see how their work provides value. We must take some extra time to show them all aspects of nuclear medicine, from basic science to clinical, so they understand that, even within the field, there are multiple options to pursue for a long and viable career.
Dr. Czernin: Our training was largely focused on nuclear medicine plus a little bit of cross-sectional imaging. So, it was intimately related to radiology. But now our residents have a strong desire to rotate through various disciplines, ranging from radiation oncology to urology to oncology and radiology. I think that would make the training so much more attractive. In addition, it sets the stage for nuclear medicine practitioners’ being as competent and knowledgeable as radiation oncologists had to become in the treatment or management of prostate cancer and many other cancers. In order for us to get to get that “seat at the tumor board table,” we need to be more knowledgeable, and the training needs to be redesigned.
Dr. Jacene: This is another area where we can expand and grow in our training. Participating in the cancer cooperative group trials taught me that it’s not just about the current work or trial; it’s also forward-thinking to the entire disease space in a couple of years. You must think 2 steps ahead.
Dr. Czernin: If you could repeat your career, would you pick nuclear medicine or another field?
Dr. Jacene: I would do it again. You see things with nuclear medicine before other modalities. You must correlate with structural imaging and clinical history to find the best answer (knowing it’s never black and white). Every imaging modality does this, but I think it’s particularly true for functional imaging. There is a mix with radiopharmaceutical therapy. I liken all of this, again, to a puzzle; sometimes, you have to be creative.
Dr. Czernin: That brings me to my last question: What is your general life advice and professional advice for young people in our field?
Dr. Jacene: So many points come to mind. Here are my top pieces of advice. (1) You have to make choices, and sometimes they’re hard choices. There are times when work is going to be (or seem) more important, but there are other times when a family or life event is on top. I can share one example. Since kindergarten, my kids have had public speaking events every year. These are very formal, and they practice for weeks. I will not miss these. On the other hand, some weekends I tell them, “Guys, I need this much time to finish this work, and then we can go play tennis.” (2) Look for opportunities to get help and accept help when you can. You can’t do everything all the time. (3) Work hard and keep your word. Hard work doesn’t go unrecognized, even if you think it does. (4) Finally, if there’s something that you want, take a risk and ask for it.
Dr. Czernin: Thank you very much for this discussion. Our readers will definitely enjoy it.
Footnotes
Published online Nov. 21, 2024.
- © 2025 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.