Insight
Women Who Lead: An interview with Malissa J. Wood, MD
By Women As One
Welcome to Women Who Lead, a series highlighting inspiring women leaders in cardiology who are shaping the future of cardiovascular medicine.
In this edition, we feature Dr. Malissa Wood, a distinguished cardiologist, physician executive, and champion for diversity and health equity.
Through her clinical leadership, programme-building, and advocacy, Malissa has advanced the care of women with cardiovascular disease while shaping more inclusive systems within medicine.
From founding landmark women’s heart health and SCAD programs to leading at the highest levels of organised cardiology, her work continues to strengthen opportunities for women physicians and improve health outcomes for women worldwide.
As Chief Medical Officer of Women As One, Dr. Wood leads the organisation’s medical and scientific activities, guiding clinical strategy, research, advocacy, and partnerships that advance equity for women in medicine.
What first drew you to cardiology, and what personal or professional experiences most shaped your leadership journey?
I was drawn to cardiology because it sits at the intersection of science, prevention, and human connection.
Early in my training, I became aware of how differently cardiovascular disease presents in women—and how often those differences were overlooked. That realisation shaped both my clinical focus and my leadership journey.
Professionally, stepping into roles where I could build programmes, mentor others, and address inequities—particularly in women’s heart health—made it clear to me that leadership is not about title, but about creating systems that serve people better.
Can you describe a defining moment when your leadership made a meaningful difference for a patient, colleague, or institution?
One defining moment was helping to establish a multidisciplinary women’s heart health programme at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
Seeing improved outcomes for patients—and watching early-career clinicians grow into confident leaders within that programme—reinforced the power of intentional leadership. It reminded me that when you invest in people and structure, the impact multiplies far beyond any one individual.
How has the landscape for women leaders in cardiology changed since you began your career, and what still needs to shift?
There is far greater visibility of women leaders today than when I began my career, and conversations around equity are more open and data-driven.
That said, representation still drops off sharply at senior leadership levels, and women continue to shoulder disproportionate clinical, mentorship, and “invisible” work.
What still needs to shift is not just access, but accountability—ensuring that leadership pathways are transparent, equitable, and sustainable.
What are the most persistent challenges facing women cardiologists in your country or region today?
Persistent challenges include pay inequity, lack of sponsorship, inflexible career structures, and the ongoing tension between professional advancement and personal responsibilities. Many women also face burnout from being asked to “do more” without the authority or resources to truly lead. Addressing these challenges requires structural—not just individual—solutions.
What leadership pathways are there for women cardiologists in your region, and where are opportunities still lacking?
Leadership pathways exist through academic promotion, professional societies, clinical programme development, and industry or nonprofit partnerships. However, opportunities are still lacking in early sponsorship, formal leadership training, and access to high-visibility roles that lead to executive positions. Too often, women are prepared but not positioned.
How is women’s leadership in healthcare viewed in your region, and what progress or resistance have you seen?
Women’s leadership is increasingly recognised as essential to high-quality, patient-centred care. We’ve seen progress in representation and advocacy, but resistance still shows up subtly—through unconscious bias, uneven expectations, and slower advancement.
True progress comes when women’s leadership is normalised, not exceptionalised.
What role do institutions and male colleagues need to play to truly accelerate gender equity in cardiology?
Institutions must commit to equity as a core value, supported by data, resources, and measurable outcomes. Male colleagues play a critical role as sponsors—opening doors, amplifying voices, and challenging inequities when they see them.
Gender equity is not a women’s issue; it is a leadership and quality issue.
In your view, what is the most urgent unmet need for women in cardiology today?
The most urgent unmet need is sustainable leadership infrastructure—clear pathways, protected time, and support systems that allow women to lead without burnout. Talent is not the limiting factor; opportunity and structure are.
What advice would you offer to early-career women cardiologists who want to lead, but may be unsure how to start?
Start by leading where you are. Seek mentors and sponsors, say yes to opportunities that align with your values, and don’t wait to feel “ready.”
Leadership is a skill that develops through action. Most importantly, remember that your perspective matters—especially in shaping the future of cardiovascular care.
Women like Malissa J. Wood, MD exemplify the vital role of leadership in advancing gender equality in healthcare and improving outcomes for women with cardiovascular disease. Supporting women in cardiology is essential not only for fairness but for better science and patient care.
The Women Who Lead series aims to uplift talented women in cardiology, raising their international profile and inspiring the next generation of women in cardiology. Join the Women As One community, The Pulse, today.
The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) has warned against “financial half measures” on women’s health as the government published its response to the report.
Ministers launched the renewed Women’s Health Strategy in April after the committee’s March report concluded it was not convinced that the menstrual and gynaecological needs of young women and girls had been sufficiently prioritised in wider healthcare reforms.
It followed the committee’s 2024 “medical misogyny” report, which found women with painful reproductive health conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis and heavy menstrual bleeding were frequently finding their symptoms “normalised” and their “pain dismissed” when seeking help.
In both reports, MPs called on the government to recognise the benefits of increased investment in early diagnosis and treatment of women’s reproductive health conditions and provide additional funding needed to transform the support available to millions of women.
In its response, published on 26 May as a command paper, the Department of Health and Social Care outlined action on reducing gynae waiting times, ensuring procedures are conducted with women’s full consent and adequate pain relief, and improving access to contraception for menstrual healthcare in line with the committee’s recommendations.
It said: “The government agrees with the committee’s overarching findings and recommendations for improving women’s health outcomes and experiences.
“We acknowledge the impact that menstrual health conditions can have on women’s lives, relationships, and participation in education and the workforce.
“We recognise that more needs to be done to support women with menstrual health conditions, particularly around listening to women, improving information and education, and enhancing patient experience.”
However, there was no commitment to increase school nurse provision, no measurable actions and targets on countering online misinformation, no new commitments to end inappropriate censorship of women’s online health content, and no further initiatives on tackling racial discrimination or understanding the menstrual wellbeing needs of young disabled and Deaf women.
The response comes after analysis by The Times suggested the government is allocating 60 per cent more funding to its men’s health strategy than to its renewed strategy for women’s health.
Sarah Owen, chair of the Women and Equalities Committee and Labour MP, said: “WEC’s 2024 ‘medical misogyny’ report warned 18 months ago of women in unnecessary pain and undiagnosed for years and called on the Government to recognise the benefits of increased investment in early diagnosis and treatment.
“Our follow up report this March cautioned girls’ and women’s health are not being sufficiently prioritised in system-wide NHS reforms, while initiatives which have proven to be successful in reducing waiting lists and improving women’s healthcare access, such as women’s health hubs, risked being scaled back or discontinued.
“While it’s welcome to see a focus on tackling ‘medical misogyny’ in April’s renewed Women’s Health Strategy and an emphasis on women’s voices being heard, this must be backed by adequate funding, not financial half measures, particularly when compared to men’s health.
“Significant questions remain following today’s response publication over the adequacy of investment being provided, including for workforce training, menstrual health education in schools, research and additional ring-fenced funding for women’s health hubs to deliver services within the emerging neighbourhood health framework.
“There are both opportunities and risks when it comes to increasing use of technology in women’s healthcare.
“As the Committee’s report set out, social media companies should be held to account for inappropriate and disgraceful ‘shadow banning’ censorship of important women’s health content and there should be a rigorous approach to tackling the risks from ineffective, unsafe and exploitative for-profit FemTech apps.
“The Government should take the problem of ‘shadow banning’ more seriously.
“A strategy which does not fully address the concerns set out in WEC’s report, alongside measurable actions and timescales, will only scratch the surface of the issues facing women’s health.
“WEC will keep a close eye on progress and continue to push for long overdue tangible change for women and girls.”
An early PET scan after one cycle of chemotherapy may help predict how aggressive breast cancer responds to treatment, a study suggests.
Research led by The Institute of Cancer Research, London and King’s College London suggests that an early scan taken after one cycle of chemotherapy could help predict how well a patient’s cancer will respond to treatment.
The study focused on patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of the disease in which cancer cells lack receptors for the hormones oestrogen and progesterone, as well as the HER2 protein.
Patients with TNBC are usually treated with chemotherapy prior to surgery. While many respond well, residual disease at surgery, typically around six months later, is associated with a significantly poorer prognosis. Identifying people sooner who are unlikely to respond remains a major clinical challenge.
The research explored whether using PET imaging shortly after treatment begins, rather than relying only on MRI scans later in the treatment process, could provide earlier insight into how a patient’s cancer is responding. Twenty-two patients were recruited, with fourteen undergoing FDG-PET scans before treatment and after the first cycle of chemotherapy.
The findings, published in Clinical Cancer Research, showed that changes seen on PET scans after just one cycle of chemotherapy were strongly associated with subsequent response, including whether there was no detectable cancer, known as a complete response, by the end of treatment. Importantly, early PET response showed stronger associations with treatment outcomes than standard mid-treatment MRI scans in this study.
Being able to identify patients who are not responding well at an early stage could allow clinicians to adjust treatment sooner or consider alternative approaches. These findings may also support future strategies to better tailor treatment intensity to individual patients.
The study also compared two types of PET tracers, FDG and FLT, to determine which was most suitable. While both met the study’s technical criteria, FDG-PET was selected for further evaluation due to its better image quality, greater consistency and wider use in clinical practice.
The research also explored how imaging changes after just one cycle of chemotherapy relate to the body’s immune response to treatment. Biopsies taken before and after the first cycle of chemotherapy showed that an increase in immune cells within the tumour was strongly associated with both early PET changes and improved treatment outcomes.
The researchers emphasise that these findings now need to be validated in larger studies. Future work will aim to confirm these results in broader patient groups and explore more accessible imaging approaches, such as ultrasound, alongside PET and MRI.
Sheeba Irshad, professor of cancer immunology at King’s College London and lead of the Breast Cancer Now KCL Research Unit, said:
“In patients who had PET scans both before treatment and after the first cycle, we found that this early scan could predict whether they were likely to achieve a complete response by the end of treatment. These findings highlight the potential of early imaging to guide treatment decisions, and now need to be validated in larger, modern clinical trials.”
Andrew Tutt, professor of breast oncology at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, said:
“Research that helps us determine early who is already benefitting from standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy and who might benefit from clinical trials to find better treatments is vital. This study shows that FDG-PET may have great value in this regard. We hope to be able to design studies that further investigate and validate these findings.”
The study was supported by funding from King’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Breast Cancer Now, Cancer Research UK, and Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity.
Ki-67, a protein used to measure tumour growth, may also help prevent chromosome errors that drive cancer, a study suggests.
The findings could change how scientists view Ki-67, a marker commonly used in breast cancer and other tumours to assess how quickly cancer cells are growing.
Researchers found the protein may help preserve genome stability by maintaining the structural integrity of centromeres, key parts of chromosomes that help ensure DNA is shared correctly during cell division.
The research was led by professor Paola Vagnarelli at Brunel University of London in collaboration with scientists at the University of Edinburgh and the Technical University of Berlin.
Professor Vagnarelli said: “Doctors already measure Ki-67 to see how aggressive a cancer might be. But our results suggest it is actually helping maintain genome stability.
“That means it may be more than a marker. It could potentially also be a therapeutic target.”
The study examined three proteins that attach to chromosomes during cell division and help rebuild the molecular system that tells each new cell what kind of cell it is.
Every human cell carries identical DNA. What makes a liver cell different from a brain cell is which genes are switched on and which are kept inactive.
When a cell divides, that entire system of switches must be rebuilt. The three proteins involved in this process were Ki-67, Repo-Man and PNUTS.
Vagnarelli’s team developed a method that individually removes each protein from a living cell at the precise point of division. Older techniques could not isolate that moment cleanly.
They found that cells rely on all three proteins to reset themselves after division, but each failed in a different way when removed.
Without PNUTS, gene activity spiralled out of control and thousands of genes switched on at once.
Without Repo-Man, cells escaped safety checkpoints that usually stop damaged or abnormal cells from continuing to divide.
“What we didn’t expect was how clean the separation was,” said Vagnarelli.
Each protein fails in its own specific way. There is no redundancy, no safety net. Which means there are three separate points at which this process can go wrong.
“When the system breaks down, cells can emerge with the wrong number of chromosomes. That condition, called aneuploidy, is seen in disorders such as Down syndrome and in many cancers.
“We also found that these chromosome errors can trigger inflammatory signals inside the cell.”
Aneuploidy means a cell has too many or too few chromosomes, which can disrupt normal growth and function.
Inflammatory signals are chemical messages that can make a cell behave as if it is responding to injury or infection.
“These cells behave almost as if they are under attack,” said Vagnarelli.
“The immune response switches on because the genome is unstable.
“That link between chromosome imbalance and inflammation could help explain patterns we see in several diseases.”
The researchers said the findings may help cancer scientists better understand how chromosome instability, loss of gene regulation and cells dividing before they are ready contribute to tumour growth.
They said understanding the normal machinery that prevents these errors may help researchers find ways to push cancer cells into making mistakes they cannot survive.
“We now have a clearer map of the machinery that resets the cell after division,” said Vagnarelli.
“That knowledge gives us a starting point for thinking about new therapeutic approaches.”
Motherhood4 weeks agoWhat Maternal Mental Health Month reveals about where postpartum support actually breaks down
News3 weeks agoNIH Grant terminations disproportionately impact minority scientists, research finds
Menopause5 days agoPerimenopause misinformation ‘putting women at risk’
Adolescent health3 weeks agoWUKA brings Period-Positive Pool Party to London Aquatics Centre to keep girls swimming through puberty
Insight3 weeks agoPCOS renamed after decade-long campaign to end ‘cyst’ misconception
Events4 weeks agoWHIS 2026 unveils agenda and first speakers for the leading women’s health summit
Menopause3 weeks agoCBT shows promise for menopause insomnia and hot flashes
Insight4 weeks agoOnline abuse and deepfakes ‘pushing women out of public life’