Cancer Awareness Calendar 2020

January

Cervical Cancer Awareness Month

Blood Donor Month


February

National Cancer Prevention Month

Gallbladder and Bile Duct Cancer Awareness Month

World Cancer Day (February 4, 2020)

National Donor Day (February 14, 2020)

Rare Disease Day (February 29, 2020)


March

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month

International Women’s Day (March 8, 2020)

Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Day (March 3, 2020)

Kidney Cancer Awareness Month

Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month

Anal Cancer Awareness Day (March 21, 2020)


April

National Cancer Control Month

Esophageal Cancer Awareness Month

Minority Cancer Awareness Month

Minority Health Month

National Oral, Head, and Neck Cancer Awareness Week

Testicular Cancer Awareness Month

World Health Day (April 7, 2020)


May

Bladder Cancer Awareness Month

Brain Tumor Awareness Month

Cancer Research Month

Clinical Trial Awareness Week

Melanoma and Skin Cancer Awareness Month

Melanoma Monday (May 4, 2020)

Women’s Check-up Day (May 11, 2020)

Women’s Health Week (May 10−16, 2020)

Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Month


June

Cancer Survivors Month

Cancer Survivors Day (June 7, 2020)

Men’s Health Week (June 10−16, 2020)


July

UV Safety Awareness Month

Sarcoma and Bone Cancer Awareness Month


 August

Summer Sun Safety Month

World Lung Cancer Day (August 1, 2020)


September

Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

Uterine Cancer Awareness Month

Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month

Blood Cancer Awareness Month

MPN Awareness Day (September 10, 2020)

Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month

Prostate Cancer Awareness Month

Take a Loved One to the Doctor Day (September 15, 2020)

Thyroid Cancer Awareness Month


October

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

National Mammography Day (October 16, 2020)

Liver Cancer Awareness Month


November

Lung Cancer Awareness Month

National Family Caregiver Month

Carcinoid Cancer Awareness Month

Neuroendocrine Tumor (NET) Awareness Day (November 10, 2020)

Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month

Stomach Cancer Awareness Month

How to Boost Fitness During and After Cancer Treatment

Exercise is considered an important additional therapy during and after cancer treatments, according to Harvard Health. While some cancer patients may not feel well enough to work out, others will have the capacity to exercise at home. Cancer treatments vary widely, from chemo to surgery to targeted drug therapy and beyond, so every cancer patient is different. If you want to exercise, speak to your oncologist and find out how mild, moderate or strenuous your workouts can be. In certain cases, exercise may need to be postponed until later on in recovery. If you do get the ‘all clear’ to exercise, these techniques can boost your fitness and speed up the pace of your physical rehabilitation.

Try restorative yoga at home

A study published in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation showed that females with Stage II breast cancer benefited from regular exercise, as it helped them to sleep better, elevate their moods, access more energy, and feel stronger. The advantages of regular physical activity for cancer patients (and for those recovering from cancer) are conclusive. The benefits have been established via a host of peer-reviewed studies, including the breast cancer patient study mentioned here. One easy way to begin is by learning five or six restorative yoga poses and holding them for about five minutes each. You should be able to find apps, streaming video and other instructional tools which help you to master restorative yoga moves at home. For best results, invest in a few bolsters and blocks that help you to achieve correct form without physical strain.

Use exercise machines to build strength

If you’ve lost strength due to cancer treatment and you want to feel stronger, using home exercise machines will be a great way to rehabilitate your body. Investing in equipment like an elliptical or stationary bike are two potentially low-pressure machines that offer the opportunity for a solid workout from home. Another scenario is that you’ve gained weight during treatment and want to lose it. With cancer treatment, weight loss is more common than weight gain, but some people do put on pounds. Home exercise machines, such as elliptical machines or rowing machines, offer cardio workouts that boost healing blood flow, burn calories and tone muscles. If you’re just getting back to exercise, start with brief workouts a few times a week and build up to half an hour of exercise four times a week. You’ll love what these workouts do for your body and your mood.

Do a little gardening

If you want to get active at home, why not take up gardening during or after cancer treatment? If you have a yard to garden in, you’ll find that being outside, among green grass and flowers, is very relaxing. If you don’t have access to a yard, do a little container gardening on a patio or start an herb garden in your kitchen. Gardening promotes heart health and relieves stress. It also gives a sense of accomplishment that’s very fulfilling. Participating in nature is inspiring and some types of gardening require plenty of physical activity, including crouching, arm movements and lifting.

Exercise is advantageous to most cancer patients and people who have recovered from cancer. Adding physical activity to your routine during this time in your life will give you strength and help you to cope with the strain, allowing you to feel powerful again.

How Leukemia is Diagnosed

Introduction to Leukemia

Cancer and neoplastic lesions are affecting our lives every day. Nearly 40% of the world’s population is affected by cancer—irrespective of age, gender, and ethnicity. Equally detrimental to cancer’s physical manifestations are the psychological influences. However, medical advancement and new research are helping to to combat this life-threatening disease.

Of all the cancers of the body, the most treacherous is Leukemia. It is a cancer of blood cells. Humans have three kinds of blood cells: red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Leukemia involves the malignant proliferation of white blood cells (WBC).

Our white blood cells are major components of our body’s defense mechanism. They play a vital role in fighting against diseases, whether bacterial, viral or fungal in nature. They originate within the bone marrow, spleen and lymph nodes.

A person suffering from Leukemia has poor white blood cell functioning. WBCs start to divide abnormally eventually outgrowing the normal number of cells.

Leukemia has 4 types:

  1. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)
  2. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)
  3. Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ACL)
  4. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

1. Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)

Acute Myelogenous Leukemia is a heterogeneous clonal disorder. It is characterized by immature myeloid cells and bone marrow failure. It commonly affects children and adults. Studies have suggested the disease arises from recurrent hematopoietic stem cell genetic alterations.

2. Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)

Chronic Myeloid Leukemia is a myeloproliferative (slow-growing blood cancer) disorder characterized by the existence of a balanced genetic translocation of chromosomes 22 and 9. It mostly affects adults. CML consists of 3 distinct phases: chronic, accelerated, and blast phases.

The history of patients with CML shows 3-5 years of chronic stage proceeding to a fatal blast phase and then progressing to an accelerated phase.

3. Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia is the second most common Leukemia occurring in adults. Like other Leukemias, ALL’s pathophysiology is also based on chromosomal abnormalities and genetic alterations which happen to take place in differentiation and proliferation of lymphoid precursor cells present in the bone marrow and blood. In adults, the precursors of B- lymphocytes are greater in number than the malignant T- lymphocytes.

4. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia is a tumor of CD5+ B cells that characterizes the deposition of tiny, mature lymphocytes in the blood, bone marrow and lymphoid tissues. Apart from the CD5 cells, other genetic alterations are involved in the pathogenesis of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Stromal cells, T cells and nurse-like cells in the lymph nodes also predominate.

Causes and risk factors for Leukemia

Although the exact cause of Leukemia is unknown, certain risk factors can contribute to making a person susceptible to it. These include radiation, viruses, exposure to benzene, smoking, genetics, and family history.

1. Ionizing radiations

Exposure to ionizing radiation comes from continuous radiation therapy for treating any pre-existing cancer. Prolonged exposure to X-rays is found mostly in people who work as radiologists and are exposed to persistent radiation. Patients who have received chemotherapy sessions for cancers are also prone to Leukemia. Ionizing radiations damage the DNA and result in the defective genetic makeup of stem cells.

2. Viruses

The Human T-lymphotropic Virus (HTLV-1) has been shown to have an association with Leukemia.

3. Exposure to benzene

Benzene is a toxic solvent used in cleaning chemicals and some hair dyes. Benzene’s toxic effects on the blood and bone marrow include increasing the risk of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), myelodysplastic syndrome, and other hematological malignancies, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

4. Smoking

Smoking is not only detrimental for the lungs alone but for the entire body. Although the link between smoking and Leukemia is unclear, studies say it can affect the bone marrow and increase the chances of AML in young adults.

5. Genetic conditions

Chromosomal abnormalities are also responsible for increasing Leukemia susceptibility. Examples include Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, Fanconi anemia, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, Bloom syndrome, Ataxia-telangiectasia, and neurofibromatosis, to name a few.

6. Hereditary

The most common cause of Leukemia is family history. If any family member has had Leukemia it increases the risk for other blood relatives.

Signs and symptoms of Leukemia

The signs and symptoms of Leukemia vary with different forms. They are generally nonspecific and warrant investigations for proper diagnosis.

Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

The signs and symptoms of AML are:

  • Fever
  • Pain in bones and joints
  • Pale skin
  • Easy bruising and contusions
  • Recurrent infections
  • Unusual bleeding, epistaxis, bleeding gums

Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)

The signs and symptoms of CML are:

  • Fatigue and muscle weakness
  • Shortness of breath
  • Pyrexia
  • Increased sweating mostly during the night
  • Cachexia (weight loss)
  • Abdominal discomfort secondary to spleen enlargement
  • Stomach bloating
  • Itching
  • Pain in joints and bone

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL)

The signs and symptoms of ALL are:

  • Joint pain and muscle fatigue
  • Fever
  • Frequent infections
  • Epistaxis (Nose bleed)
  • Lumps felt around the neck, groin and underarms as a result of lymph node swelling.
  • Pale skin
  • Shortness of breath

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

The signs and symptoms of CLL are:

  • Nocturnal sweating
  • Fever
  • Recurrent infections
  • Fatigue and constant tiredness
  • Cachexia
  • Loss of appetite
  • Stomach bloating as a result of splenomegaly (enlarged spleen)
  • Shortness of breath
  • Pea-sized swelling or lumps in groin, neck or armpits.

Diagnosis of Leukemia

Early detection can prevent complications. The earlier the diagnosis the easier treatment is. Medical advancement has made diagnosis easier than ever before. Some of the essentials to reach an accurate and precise diagnosis are enlisted below.

History and examination

A proper and detailed history is the key to an ideal diagnosis. It involves asking relevant questions related to the signs and symptoms that can link to the suspected disease.

Your physician might ask the following questions:

  1. How long have you been feeling a fever?
  2. What is the temperature?
  3. Do you feel a loss of appetite?
  4. Have you experienced prolonged bleeding after a cut?
  5. Have you noticed any changes in weight recently?
  6. When did you notice lumps?
  7. Are these lumps felt, painful and movable?
  8. Did you feel the lumps gradually increasing in size?
  9. Do you face difficulty in breathing?
  10. Do you feel you sweat a lot while sleeping?
  11. Are you taking any medications?
  12. Have any of your family members had any diseases?
  13. When did you feel the need to visit the physician?

The answer to the above questions can lead to the next step, investigations.

Investigations for Leukemia

Investigations are the major component involved in diagnosis as they make the suspected disease clear to understand. These include blood tests, radiology and biopsy.

1. Blood tests

  • Complete Blood Count (CBC)
  • White Blood Cell (WBC) differential
  • Blood smear
  • Tumor markers
  • Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis
  • BCR ABL1
  • Genetic tests for targeted cancer therapy
  • Chromosome analysis

The most commonly used test is the Complete Blood Count (CBC) which shows a clear picture of the abnormal growth of red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets.

2. Radiology

The excessive proliferation of the cells in the bone marrow leads to marrow expansion and invasion of the cortex which, in later stages, can be seen by radiographic studies. A simple X-ray can reveal any spot bone changes. In some circumstances, a CT-scan may be needed to extensively study the disease and prognosis.

X-ray findings may include:

  • Osteolytic lesions; most commonly seen in Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia seen in small and flat bones, metaphysis of long bones.
  • Metaphyseal bands (classical Leukemia lines)
  • Bone destruction
  • Some pathological fractures
  • Radiological lesions, in later cases, are seen in the form of vertebral collapse, osteolysis of bones and avascular osteonecrosis.

3. Bone marrow biopsy

This is the gold standard investigation to diagnose Leukemia. This invasive procedure is done after the suspicion of Leukemia or when the blood test reports point to a Leukemic picture.

The procedure involves the removal of a small sample of bone marrow from the hipbone. A long, thin is the needle is used to extract the bone marrow. Once the sample has been taken it is sent to the laboratory where the histopathologists study the tissue microscopically.

Prior to examining the histopathologist or the lab technician prepares a slide. During the process, the specimen is then cut into thin slices. The sectioned structure is dyed using different dyes. The dye discriminates against the parts of the cells. The section is then placed on a glass slide and then covered with a slip on the top to keep the specimen intact. The slide is now ready to be placed under the microscope.

The samples examined under the microscope are then studied based on the type of cells, how the cells are arranged, whether the cells are normal or abnormal etc.

The microscopic findings may reveal:

  • Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Increase in bone marrow cellularity, consisting of granulocytic or monocytic forms a number of erythroid precursors

  • Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia

Hypercellular bone marrow with multiple tightly packed lymphoblasts that have undetectable cytoplasm, round irregular shape, divided nuclei, and dispersed chromatin. The bone marrow has B and T lymphoblasts with indistinguishable morphology along with necrosis in some areas.

Treatment for Leukemia

Treating Leukemia challenges all medical practitioners. Its success and failure solely depend on the extent of the disease and how far has it spread within the body.

Following are treatment options that can help fight Leukemia.

1. Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drugs to kill or halt the proliferation of cancer cells. Generally, chemotherapy is administered orally or intravenously. In some patients, the chemotherapeutic agent is given intrathecally, i.e., injected into the CSF (cerebrospinal fluid) that bathes the brain and spinal cord. This is done after performing a lumbar puncture and injecting chemotherapeutic drugs, such as methotrexate. The course is usually repeated every three weeks.

2. Radiotherapy

Compared to chemotherapy that attacks all the cells of the body, including the healthy ones, radiotherapy is a localized treatment regimen. High ionizing-energy radiation emits to destroy cells that have an increased proliferation rate. Radiotherapy can either be given to cure the disease (therapeutic) or to improve the signs and symptoms encountered during the disease course (palliative).

3. Stem cell or bone marrow transplantation

Transplants are widely used in management and treatment of the disease. Bone marrow is transplanted from a patients’ family member, or another person who bears the same type of bone marrow, into the diseased person. The survival rates vary with different factors but the cost and affordability remain the major concern in this treatment modality.

4. Immune therapy

Immune therapy is another set of treatments that has some promising result in managing Leukemia. The immune therapy works by promoting the immune cells of the body to fight against cancer cells. One of the successful regimens in immune therapy is Gleevec, commonly given in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. CML patients live a long, symptomless life with the daily oral administration of this drug.

Complications with Leukemia

Though Leukemia is curable, treatments may give rise to certain complications–basically the body’s response to the treatment given. The complications mostly arise from chemo and radiation.

They can include:

  • Anemia
  • Skin rashes
  • Altered taste sensations
  • Soreness of the mouth and throat
  • Liver dysfunction
  • Hair loss
  • Diarrhea
  • Fatigue
  • Bleeding
  • Fertility problems
  • Nausea and vomiting
  • Neurological effects
  • Impaired sexual activity

Relapse of the disease may also occur after some years.

Conclusion

The prognosis of Leukemia depends on how far has the disease has spread but the medical advancement has brought in new regimens that can now treat Leukemia at any stage. A person suffering from Leukemia and undergoing its treatment should be dealt with love, care, and pampering

How to help prevent Leukemia

Informational campaigns and awareness programs help people learn about the risk factors of Leukemia. Family members of Leukemia patients should undergo blood screenings to see if they have been affected. A good diet can help improve health status. Limiting use of benzene-infused chemicals can also make the disease less susceptible. Ceasing tobacco smoking can also help keep Leukemia at bay.

 

References

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Leukemia: an overview for primary care

Acute Myeloid Leukemia: diagnosis and management based on current molecular genetics approach

Treatment of acute myeloid leukemia

Clonal hematopoiesis and preleukemia-genetics, biology, and clinical implications

No free rides: management of toxicities of novel immunotherapies in ALL, including financial

Adult Acute Myeloid Leukemia Treatment

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia

Genetics and prognosis of ALL in children vs adults

Etiology of leukemia. A review

Symptoms of adult chronic and acute leukaemia before diagnosis: large primary care case-control studies using electronic records

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a comprehensive review and 2017 update

Acute myeloid leukaemia: optimal management and recent developments

What Patients Should Know About CT Scans and MRIs

As patients, we normally rely on our doctors to tell us which tests and medications to take for the betterment of our health. Rarely do we question them since they know a whole lot more than most of us when it comes to medical ailments and overall health. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t find out more about the various suggestions doctors make.

If you have an ailment in the body and your doctor finds it hard to determine exactly what it is, they will likely ask you to get either a CT scan or MRI done. The tests are used to provide a detailed view of your internal body to help determine the ailment. We breakdown the two for your better understanding:

CT Scans

CT scans provide imaging using x-rays at different angles. This scan is more in-depth as compared to an x-ray. X-ray tests use a beam of radiation from a set angle and display the image. Since a CT scan uses a series of radiation beams at different angles, it slices the same image up, giving a 3D view so doctors can understand the ailment better. With the help of a computer, an image is produced. CT scans can help determine ailments such as cancer, bone injuries, and chest and lung ailments.

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) uses a magnetic field instead of radiation and provides a more detailed image of the body which also includes soft tissues along with the internal body. It is used to help diagnose the following:

  • Brain injury
  • Cancer
  • Damaged blood vessels
  • Spinal cord injury
  • Stroke
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Bone infections
  • Damaged joints
  • It can also be used to ensure that various organs are healthy.

Both methods are noninvasive and rely on heavy technology. But when it comes to CT scans, more and more hospitals are opting for mobile CT scanners, which make it easier for them to manage.

Getting Ready for the Test

Preparing for CT Scan and MRI is slightly different. With CT scans, your doctor may recommend you take a contest dye. The dye helps highlight the scanned region more and is generally consumed when scanning the abdomen. It is important to notify your doctor if you have any allergies because you may react to the dye. If you’ve previously had reactions to prednisone (a steroid), iodine, or seafood then the doctor should be immediately notified. Other than that, the doctor may ask you not to drink or eat several hours before the test.

For an MRI, the one thing you need to make sure is that you are not wearing anything that can be detected by magnets. This means, no jewelry, watches, hearing aids, glasses, and other items that may have a metal can be worn during the test. In some cases, a gadolinium dye may be recommended which is injected into the hand or arm. The dye highlights certain details in the imaging and rarely results in any type of reaction. The test can be lengthy for some as it takes anywhere from 30-45 minutes, so if you are claustrophobic, you may want to discuss that with your doctor since you are required to stay in a closed space for that period.

The Test

  • CT Scan: You will be asked to put on a robe and remove jewelry and other metal objects so they don’t have any impact on the image produced. The scanner itself is a doughnut-shaped machine and you lie on a flat table in the middle. The table starts to move back and forth and x-ray tubes fitted into the scanner send out beams and different angles. They pass through your body to the other end of the scanner. The test is painless but make sure you are comfortable because you will be asked to stay still as the scan is going on.
  • MRI: The MRI machine is a long narrow tube that is open at both ends. Like in a CT scan, you lie down on a flat movable table that slides into the tube. As you slide in, the table stops at the specific part of the body being examined and a magnetic field is created and radio waves are directed to the body. The machine does make tapping and thumping noises, so the technician will likely offer earplugs to block it out.

Understanding the Test Result

After getting either a CT scan or MRI done, you will need to consult your doctor. Unless you are a trained doctor, the images will make little to no sense to you. You will need to consult a radiologist that can explain the results to you. In case of an ailment, they will usually recommend you consult a specialist, depending on the ailment, that can assist you further.

As a patient, it is important for you to understand the tests and treatment doctors recommend. Most of the time, you can consult your doctor and they will be more than willing to give you the information you need. Knowing makes it easier for you to undergo the tests and treatments with a little more ease.

Breast Cancer Before 40: How Can I Preserve My Fertility?

Breast Cancer Before 40: How Can I Preserve My Fertility? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Dr. Stephanie Valente discusses fertility preservation in breast cancer patients under the age of 40 and the potential for pregnancy following treatment.

Dr. Stephanie Valente is the Director of the Breast Surgery Fellowship Program at Cleveland Clinic. More about this expert here.

Related Program:

Breast Cancer Before 40: What You Should Know


Transcript:

Dr. Stephanie Valente:

So, another issue that is really important for young women is discussing fertility preservation. And this really needs to happen at the time of their diagnosis. So, we know that the cytotoxic agents that we can give females just through chemotherapy can decrease the ovary and the ability for these women to have menstrual periods after chemotherapy. So, the ability for them to get pregnant naturally.

As well as some of the medications. So, somebody who has a breast cancer that is estrogen positive, the recommendation is for these women to be on hormone suppressant medicine for five to 10 years after their breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, therefore not being able to be pregnant while on these medications. So, talking with young women when they get diagnosed about their family planning and their fertility options up front before they have surgery or chemotherapy is really beneficial.

And whether or not they need to see a fertility preservation specialist. If they want to consider IVF. Or if they have a gene, looking at genetic testing for their future offspring. So, these are all conversations that really need to happen before these women begin chemotherapy if they need it.

And the good thing is that at the young women’s clinic, these fertility specialists are embedded in the clinic. So, they are able to get an appointment with them right away. And a lot of times if these women do want to undergo fertility preservation, that can happen within 10 days of seeing the specialist. So, it really doesn’t delay their care. And we do know that it is safe even with the breast cancer diagnosis.

The other thing is that we do offer a medicine which is a GRNH agonist which will kind of essentially shut down the ovaries during chemotherapy to help protect them so that when a young woman is done with chemotherapy, it helps the ovary kind of get back to normal a little bit sooner.

So, it sounds good in theory. Unfortunately, it’s not something that is covered by insurance companies right now. And so, fertility preservation is expensive. And so, the good thing is there are a lot of groups that put together packages and stuff for these young women to be able to afford it. But it is pretty pricey. So, for those that can afford it, it is a great option. And a lot of them do take advantage of it. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about it. Number one is that patients don’t really know if it’s safe.

Number two, they are scared about their overall diagnosis and a potential delay and 10 days might make some of them afraid that doing that is a good option. Another thing is when these women come in with a diagnosis of breast cancer, they see a surgeon, a medical oncologist, a radiation oncologist, a plastic surgeon.

And so a lot of times an extra appointment at that point in time is just really overwhelming for these women. So, our goal is to kind of refocus and say, “Hey, the good news is that with our modern therapies you’re going to be here for a long time. So, let’s plan for the future now so that in the future you’ve got options.”

Fertility Preservation in People with Cancer

This podcast was originally published by Cornell Weill Cancer Cast, on March 22, 2019, here.

The Empowered Lung Cancer Thriver and Expert Chat

The Empowered Lung Cancer Thriver and Expert Chat from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.


Transcript:

Laura Levaas:

Hello, and welcome to this Patient Empowerment Network program, the empowered cancer survivor and expert chats. I’m your host, Laura Levaas, the lung cancer community manager for Patient Power, and a two-year survivor and thriver of lung cancer. This program is produced by Patient Power. We thank Celgene Corporation, Novartis, and Pfizer for their financial contributions to this program. They don’t have editorial control, but we do really appreciate them helping us make this program happen.

So, our guest today is Dr. Ross Camidge, the Director of Thoracic Oncology at the University of Colorado here in Denver. He’s also one of the top doctors in the U.S. for the very type of lung cancer that I have. It’s a rare mutation called ALK positive. And hopefully he can talk about that a little bit more later.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

We can talk about that until the cows come home.

Laura Levaas:

That’s good. Well, I’m excited to be interviewing somebody who is in the same town as me. So, you’re right down the road.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah, and we’re doing it virtually. Isn’t that crazy?

Laura Levaas:

It is crazy. So, we’re both in Denver, but we’re both online. So, I hope you’re having a good day. And thank you for joining us. So, can you estimate how many lung cancer patients you’ve worked with during your career?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

More than 1,000, I would have thought. So, I tend to see about 30 people a week, of whom about two or three of them are new each week. And then you can do the math. And then I’ve been here…it’ll be 15 years in October. So, someone really clever with a calculator can do that calculation, but it’s several thousand.

Laura Levaas:

That’s a lot.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yep.

Laura Levaas:

Is there a case that stands out to you in your career? Maybe somebody who beat the odds of their prognosis, or somebody that had a very interesting or unusual case?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, you know, it’s funny. I mean, there are lots of people who I’ve looked after who’ve inspired me in different ways. But the ones that I keep thinking about the young patients who were diagnosed before we knew about all these molecular sub-types of lung cancer.

And I remember one young guy. He was 21 years old. He was really into skateboarding and art. And his parents were busy getting a divorce at the time. And it was a total disaster to have a diagnosis of lung cancer, and he’s stuck in the middle. And his disease was incredibly aggressive, and he didn’t survive very long. And somewhere in me, it’s like, well, he must have had something. He must have had ALK; he must have had ROS1.

And these things weren’t even described at the time. And part of life is about timing. So, nobody wants to have lung cancer. But it’s a much better time to have lung cancer now than it was last year, and certainly last decade.

Laura Levaas:

Right. So, there is hope for people who are diagnosed now?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, I mean, I think that the best example of that is, people who now have Stage 4 lung cancer, the questions they have to ask are, “Shall I go for promotion in my job? Shall I go on this fun vacation? Am I gonna marry this person?” The same things that we all struggle with before a diagnosis of lung cancer. Because there used to come a time when you got a diagnosis of lung cancer, and the same conversation at least that the doctor was concerned was, “You’re about to drop down dead.” We phrased it differently, but you get the drift.

And now, those are completely separated by an unspecified amount of time, in the same way that we’re born and we die at some point in the future, and we don’t quite know when that’s gonna be. And so, we don’t have the two things – “Hi! Mrs. Jones! You’ve got a bouncing boy and they’re about to drop down dead.” Now, they’re separated by life. And we are gradually increasing the distance between those two events.

Laura Levaas:

I think that’s amazing. And this is a good segue, actually, for me to tell a little bit about my story. I don’t wanna get too far into the weeds. But my story, I think it was unique because I had a threemonth prognosis, basically, by the time they got a hold of me. I’d been misdiagnosed for about a year, which is pretty common, I think, with –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah.

Laura Levaas:

– lung cancer. You know, allergy symptoms, some migraine symptoms. And mine was actually caught, oddly enough, during a breast cancer screening. Because my mother is a breast cancer survivor, and she was diagnosed very young. So, my doctors have always been really proactive about that. But my original prognosis was three months. And that’s before they knew that I was ALK positive. So –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

So, who told you that you had three months?

Laura Levaas:

It was –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

That’s what drives me crazy, some well-meaning person in the emergency room.

Laura Levaas:

Yes. And I think it’s because when they discovered what I had, I had 50 brain mets and 50 spine mets, and my brain was swelling. And they were telling my family, “We’ve gotta get her into whole-brain radiation right away.”

We found out about two weeks later that I was ALK positive. So, they stopped the radiation, and I went right into taking Alectinib, which is a newer drug. And it was approved by the FDA I think about three months after I started taking it as first line for ALK.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

It’s all about timing.

Laura Levaas:

And then it stopped – yeah. Yeah. So, it’s kind of – I feel a bit like a champion. Because they said, “Well, you have three months.” And that can be a real bummer. And it’s a real shock to friends and family and my boyfriend at the time, who’s no longer. But here I am, 26 months later. And I feel great. And nobody ever thinks that I’m sick. They’re always shocked to find out that I have lung cancer. So –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

I think you’ve done great. And you’re still doing great.

Laura Levaas:

Thank you. And let me explain to our audience how I met you. One of the things that helped me have a positive outlook on being diagnosed with lung cancer is, No. 1, because I have this mutation, there was a targeted therapy available to me. And so, within six months, all of the cancer ground to a halt.

And I was basically able to resume most of my normal activities. I could drive again. I could go out to eat. I could do some normal things. But a friend of mine told me that there was a Facebook group for my specific type of cancer. And it was so valuable, and it helped me sort of like find my people. I refer to them affectionately as mutants because we’re all mutants together. But we share information. And they told me about your second opinion program, which I hope is okay to talk about on –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Sure.

Laura Levaas:

– this program. But that’s how I found out about you. And you’re now my oncologist. And I’m in a Phase 2 clinical trial for a drug that’s new to me. And I’m very excited about that.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

You haven’t started it yet, have you?

Laura Levaas:

I have. I started it last week.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Oh, you started last week, didn’t you?

Laura Levaas:

I did. I did. The first couple days, I felt weird. But now, I feel great. So, for those –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah, that’s fantastic.

Laura Levaas:

– that are watching, just know I do think having a positive attitude will help you through those really tough times when you’re feeling low. Reach out to your sub-group. Reach out to the people who have what you have. Because they’ve been walking that path, and they can help you.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

I mean, I think that one of the things is – I mean, it’s the same like when doctors talk to doctors. You can do the shorthand. You don’t have to explain what you’ve got and what it means. You don’t have to explain to me that you weren’t a smoker. You can just sort of jump in and say, look, this is the stuff that’s happening with me. And they understand.

Laura Levaas:

Absolutely. Absolutely. So, I am going to ask you a couple of quick questions. And then we got a lot of audience questions for you. So, I hope you’re ready.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yep. Bring it on.

Laura Levaas:

Lots of really good questions. So, before we transition into those, I wanted to ask whether you have noticed a mindset shift? You mentioned right at the beginning that this is the best time to be diagnosed with lung cancer because there are options. But are you noticing a mind shift in your patients?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah, I mean, I think there is. I mean, I think lung cancer has gone from being – or let me rephrase that. Certain sub-groups of lung cancer has gone from being this kind of embarrassing thing, that you were sort of hidden in a closet, and nobody knew a lung cancer survivor because they didn’t exist – to now, I can show a room full of people and you can’t pick out who’s the lung cancer patient and who’s their significant other in the picture because everybody looks the same. And that, to me, is huge success.

So, I mean, one of the things we did last year – and I may have shown you the picture that we have up in the clinic – is we actually had a survivors’ celebration.

Laura Levaas:

Awesome.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

And to get your invite, you had to be at least five years out from your diagnosis. And we invited 400 people. Now, to be honest, we messed up the timing, and we sent the invites out about two weeks late. But we still had about 100 people turn up –

Laura Levaas:

That’s great.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

– which was pretty awesome. And we took a big picture. And it’s framed and sitting up in the clinic, for the simple reason that when you’re first diagnosed, you know these people exist, but you don’t believe they’re real. And I wanted to be able to come outside and say, “See that guy there? Well, he’s 10 years out. And look, he still looks fine, and he’s leading a normal life.”

So, I don’t mean everybody’s gonna do that. But it’s gone from being this fantasy – I might win the lottery – to, well, I might graduate from high school. I mean, it becomes a much more realizable dream.

Laura Levaas:

Right. Well, what questions do you think patients should be asking when they’re first diagnosed? They go to the doctor. They’re like, “You have lung cancer.” What should a patient ask?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, some of the basics are, what’s the stage of the cancer? How far has it spread around the body? So, usually, at least in the USA, people are getting a PET scan and an MRI of their brain.That’s the kind of standard bread and butter. I mean, 10 year ago, probably the most common thing I would encounter in the second opinion is somebody who wouldn’t have scanned the brain. They were waiting until someone had symptoms before they scanned it, which was like, well, you’ve lost a few neurons by then.

Now, probably the big thing is, have they done molecular testing? And I think the education has been, that’s not a uniform box. If you find something, that’s great. But if somebody says, “Well, you don’t have a mutation,” the next question is, “Well, what have you looked for?” Because if you haven’t looked for A, B, and C, you don’t know that that’s not there. So, the things that we test for have become more expansive.

And then the last one – and it’s hard not to say this without sounding like a complete jerk, but I’m going to do it anyway – is that the disease has become super complex and super specialized. And you don’t have to have all of your treatment with a thoracic specialist, but you should have a relatively early appointment with a thoracic specialist to just check that you’re on the right path.

Laura Levaas:

Good. That’s –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Those are the three things.

Laura Levaas:

Okay. Those are really, really good things to ask. I wanted to ask also how long you’ve been involved in lung cancer clinical trials in the development of new medicines?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, I’ve been here, as I said, nearly 15 years. I trained before that amongst other places in Edinburg, in Scotland, which is where I did most of my training. And that’s where I first encountered lung cancer patients. And it was actually probably the very first – so, you were taken round to different centers in your training. And I landed in lung cancer. And I really liked the patients. And I kind of felt that they were … they were very undemanding. Often, many of them had smoked, and they were kind of feeling a little embarrassed. And so, they made you want to step towards them because they were kind of stepping away from you. And I also felt that it was kind of poised for a breakthrough. So, that was kind of how I got involved.

And then since I’ve been here, when I first arrived in Colorado, it was pretty well known for lung cancer. But it had not a huge clinical program. I think when I arrived, they put nine patients a year on clinical trials. And within a few years, we were putting more than 100 on. So, I really helped to build that. And then with my colleagues here, we’ve been able to build the program.

Laura Levaas:

What’s the best advice you can give someone who is newly diagnosed with cancer?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, the first thing is, for those of you who’ve seen The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the first thing is, don’t panic.

Laura Levaas:

That’s good advice. That’s good advice.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

The thing is, what you do is, you get diagnosed. And there’s a period of time where the room – you just can’t hear anything, and you feel distant from it. And what you’ve gotta do is, you – absolutely, you can wallow in self-pity for a period of time. And then you have to get up and move on. And that’s when you say, okay, this is a problem like anything else in life. And I will figure out the best of all possible solutions.

Laura Levaas:

Absolutely. Conversely, Terry wanted to know, what is the biggest mistake patients make in decisionmaking about treatment?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, listening to people who say you only have three months to live.

Laura Levaas:

Yeah. That’s not good.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah. I don’t know what – I think perhaps believing that everything you see about cancer on the TV – which is everyone who’s bald and throwing up – must automatically apply to you. Or that that person down the street who died from a brain tumor automatically applies to you. I mean, so, cancer isn’t cancer. There are different diseases. And until you can find out, like you said, your peer group, you don’t know what the truth will be for you. And then you’re still gonna make your own rules up anyway.

Laura Levaas:

That’s true. That’s true. And I was thinking the other day, my needs when I was first diagnosed are very different than what they are now a few years later. Because in the beginning, I didn’t have coping skills. And I just didn’t know what to do. But you do develop them over time. And I remember a woman telling me, “Oh, you’ll figure it out.” And that made me really mad. But I see the wisdom –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah.

Laura Levaas:

Yeah. I see the wisdom in that now because you do figure it out over time.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

But how did you figure it out? How did you develop those coping skills? … Am I allowed to ask you questions?

Laura Levaas:

Oh, absolutely! Yeah, I think it was helpful, oddly enough, that I wasn’t allowed to drive and that I was in such a bad state. Because it allowed me to sort of withdraw from society for a while, withdraw from my work, withdraw from relationship drama. Because I ultimately ended up breaking up with my partner because he wasn’t capable of handling what I was going through, and he wasn’t supportive. So, all of the things that were familiar to me, like my job, my apartment, I retreated from all of that. And at the time, it sucked. But now, I’m like, that allowed me to have a perspective that was removed from everything. And I just –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

How old was your son at the time when you were diagnosed?

Laura Levaas:

Four.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

So, I mean, there’s an element of where you can withdraw from society, but you’ve got a 4-year-old.

Laura Levaas:

That’s right.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

So, how do you deal with that?

Laura Levaas:

Yeah. Well, I ended up moving in with my sister. Because at that time, I couldn’t drive, and I couldn’t take care of myself. So, I did rely really heavily on her. And their daughter is the same age as my son. So, they were going to school together. I relied very heavily on them, and I’m so thankful for that because that allowed me to just rest and heal. Because in the beginning – not to get too far in the weeds – but I couldn’t watch TV. I couldn’t be on my phone. I couldn’t be on the computer. Just no attention span whatsoever because of whole brain, I think. So, retreating from everything actually was good for me. And I’m also kind of a loner. So, I liked it, being alone too, oddly enough.

Good question.

I have another question from Christine C. She says, how long do you think it will take until lung cancer will be a chronically managed disease?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, I think for some people, it already is. So, I now have 10-year Stage 4 survivors who are still alive and still thriving, to use your word. So, for those people, it’s a reality. And I don’t know – as I said, people will make their own rules – I don’t know how long they will go. I mean, I honestly do not know how long I can control their disease. You just have to stay alive and in the game and hope that breakthroughs will happen.

Now, then the challenge is, okay, “Well, what about me? I don’t have ALK. I don’t have – whatever.” And you go, okay, well, so, everyone – we have to try and replicate the success of the ALK positive population with all of the other sub-types of lung cancer or the ones that don’t even have a label yet. And so, there’s plenty of work to do.

Laura Levaas:

Definitely. Leslie wants to know, what do you see in the near future for treatment of lung cancer? And she lists a couple of things like a fourth generation TKI, immunotherapy – a couple of things that I don’t even know what they are, SHP2, Protex, anything else?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah. I don’t know what Protex is, but I know what SHP2 is. So, first of all, so, the concept of the fourth generation TKI, I mean, I assume that’s because we have a third generation TKI and therefore, the next one must be called the fourth generation. So, I don’t know that the generations of TKI is going to be the immediate solution.

If I had to say what I think the future is gonna hold, there’s a couple of things. So, one is I think we can – and we’ll use ALK as an example. But really, ALK is this model system that everybody else with lung cancer might like to replicate. So, we’re really good at developing drugs that are great at suppressing one particular pathway that is driving some people’s cancer.

But the cancer still grows eventually. Usually now, with some of the drugs – like the one you’re on and the third-generation drug – is that they’re not growing because they’re turning back on the same pathway. What they’re doing is, they’re growing through some other pathway coming up. So, finding these other pathways, these so-called second drivers, is going to lead to rational combinations of drugs. That’s one way.

The other thing which is kind of the elephant in the room is, well we have these drugs. You have these fantastic responses on the scans. But if you stop the drug, the cancer starts to grow. And if you go back on the drug a week later, it’ll shrink down. So, you clearly haven’t killed all of the cells which are even sensitive to that drug. So, until we can address why we can’t get 100 percent cell kill – that’s a technical term – we’re never gonna deal with the elephant in the room, which is, why can’t we actually cure people?

And that’s a very different situation from, why does the cancer grow three years later? The question is, why, when you walk through the door and you have a great response on the scan, if you had a magic microscope, why is there still one in 1,000 cells left? And that to me is actually the horizon we need to look for.

Laura Levaas:

Okay. Okay. That’s a great answer. A few more questions. Will R. wants to know about a lung cancer vaccine.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Well, so, you could view that in a couple ways. So, if you think about how we use vaccines, we use them when we don’t have a disease to prevent us from getting that disease. We don’t really use a vaccine when we’ve already got the disease. So, if you’ve got chicken pox, I don’t vaccinate you for chicken pox. I treat the chicken pox. And so, lots of people are trying to develop vaccines, but they’re giving them in the wrong way. They’re giving them to somebody with an established lung cancer, and then they’re surprised that it doesn’t work. But that’s not what vaccines do.

The question is, could we find a way of saying, well, these are the people who are at highest risk for lung cancer, and give them something before they have lung cancer to reduce their risk? And the answer is, maybe. But if you can imagine, that’s a really difficult study to do. It would take years and years and years.

I’ve just come back from something called the World Conference on Lung Cancer, which was in Barcelona – tough life – but the biggest breakthrough there wasn’t about treatment. It was about a study that was actually done in Scotland about screening people. So, we’re pretty familiar with, if you smoke this much, you meet a certain criteria, and you go get a CT scan. But that’s no good if you’re not a smoker. You don’t meet those criteria.

So, they still have to look at a blood test. And they can show that that particular blood test, it wasn’t definitive. It wasn’t, you’re gonna get cancer or not. But it bumped up your risk if you are positive on the blood test to then make that screening even more effective.

Laura Levaas:

That’s awesome.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

And they had some evidence – loose evidence – that it might even work in never smokers. And I think that’s what will come in the future too. And then what if you identify this high-risk group? I’m getting all excited now – all that higher-risk group? Maybe then say, okay, well, why are they at higher risk? Is that the group we give a vaccine to?

Laura Levaas:

Right. And then how would you identify a non-smoker, high-risk group? Can you?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah, well, so, it’s a work in progress. So, one of the things that they’re starting to do is find some of the mutations which are driving people’s cancer in the blood. Okay? So, the problem is that the sensitivity of the test isn’t very good. So, you can find it when somebody has lots of cancer in their body. But to get the screening, you want to find it when there’s one little ditzel in your lung. So, you have to really turn up the sensitivity.

And I think that’s where the field is kinda going. So, they would know that if they found ALK in your blood, if they made a super sensitive test, that that would be wrong. Shouldn’t be there. And therefore, they would say, you should go get a CT scan. And so, the sensible thing would be, develop a cocktail of tests for every one of the things that drive lung cancer and say, if we find it, that’s bad news. Go get a CT scan.

Laura Levaas:

I like that. A cocktail of tests. Good. Well, hopefully, that will be soon. Two more questions. This is a really great question, actually, from Gail O. Is there a resource for local oncologists to reach out to for information and collaboration about lung cancer? Because as I’m sure you know, some of these smaller centers, maybe those physicians aren’t seeing lung cancer patients. So, they – I don’t wanna say they don’t know what to do, but maybe a patient is not getting the appropriate treatment protocol.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

I mean, that’s a really good question. So, it depends on where you are in the world. So, there are guidelines that NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network – which is a common guideline used in the USA – is updated every few months. And that’s a common thing that a private practitioner could look at. And yet, it’s astonishing how many people sort of still don’t follow that. That’s a guideline. And the trouble with guidelines is, they don’t describe every possible scenario. In terms of how do you –? This may come as a huge surprise to you, but doctors have egos.

Laura Levaas:

No!

Dr. Ross Camidge:

No! So, how do you convince a person who may be a very good general oncologist that they don’t know everything? And that’s really hard. So, it’s not that we don’t necessarily have the resource. But we have to have people feel comfortable, if you like, asking for help. And I think that may be the biggest challenge.

I mean, I’ll give you an example. So, here we are in Colorado. There are probably several hundred medical oncologists in the state, of whom a handful ever send us patients for clinical trials. And you go, well, they must all see lung cancer. Lung cancer’s common. So, why do only some of them send people for clinical trials? Either they’re sending them somewhere else – and that’s okay – or they’re just not asking for help. And that is a huge tragedy if that’s happening.

Laura Levaas:

Yeah. So, is there a resource for local oncologists, like –?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Do you want me to actually answer the question?

Laura Levaas:

If it’s possible. It’s a big question.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

No. I mean, not in a – I mean, there are lots of separate resources. So, all oncologists are subject to CME, continuing medical education. There are videos they can watch. There are updates of all these conferences. But they have to want to do it. Nobody is getting down and forcing them to do it.

Laura Levaas:

Right. And I think that’s where an empowered patient comes in. An empowered patient will seek out the care that they’re looking for.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

Yeah. I mean, I do lots of second opinions. And for many of my patients, they’re around the world and around the country. And sometimes, their oncologist I form a very close relationship with because we both feel like we’re looking after the same person. And you almost feel like you’re kind of a co-parent. And that’s great because they don’t feel threatened by me, and I don’t feel threatened by them, and we can work together. “Well, this has happened. This is what the scan shows. What do you think? And I’ll do this.” And others don’t. But that’s how it can work well.

Laura Levaas:

Okay. Last question. This person’s name is Parentin B. I’ve never heard that name before. It’s very interesting. Are there recommendations about what patients can do themselves, like supplements, diet, exercise, etc., that could be helpful? And I know when I was first diagnosed, that was one of my first questions. Because my physician said, “Well, eat healthy.” And I was like, “Well, what does that mean?”

Dr. Ross Camidge:

What does that mean? Yeah.

Laura Levaas:

So, I think there’s a glut of, should we do Keto? Should we do Paleo? Should we go vegan? Vegetarian?

Dr. Ross Camidge:

I think one of the things is, what this is actually telling us is that when we’re diagnosed, we want to be part of the solution ourselves. We don’t want to be passive and have people do things to us. And I think the physicians who go, “Well, no. Nah,” I mean, they’re missing out on that need to take some aspect of control of our lives.

And so, some of it, you can channel that energy into becoming empowered and educating yourself about it. Not to the point that you’re obsessed about it, but I mean so that you’re, again – occasionally, I get patients who come in, and you go, “So, what treatment are you on?” And they go, “I don’t know.” And you go, “Well, you’re hardly taking control if you wanna change your diet, yet you can’t be bothered to learn the name of your chemotherapy. That’s not empowerment.”

I think diet is something we can all control in our lives. It can also make you – a diagnosis of cancer makes you vulnerable to anyone who wants to sell you any kind of quack theory. I think most people, at least our cancer dietitians here, would say, you bump up the fresh fruit and vegetables. You don’t have to become a juicer. But fresh fruit and vegetables generally make you feel better. They keep your bowels moving more, which sometimes, some of the treatments can interfere with that. You don’t have to feel guilty if you have a candy bar. But if you minimize the amount of highly processed food you have and the amount of sweets, that’s fine. It’s like anything else. You can have cheat dates. Don’t feel bad about it.

But all of that is kind of subjective. There’s people who are gonna tell you, you have to have cottage cheese and flax seed oil or the Gerson diet and have coffee enemas. I prefer my coffee this way, but –

Laura Levaas:

Me too.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

And there are always testimonials about these things, but there’s very little hard evidence that it actually makes a difference. The one exception is exercise. Actually, there’s quite a lot of data that being a healthy weight – so, not overweight, and just being active. It doesn’t mean you have to sign up for a triathlon, but just going for a walk every day or doing something actually makes people feel better, makes them cope with the treatment better. And there’s even some data that actually survival is improved. So, that’s definitely something that people can do.

Laura Levaas:

Well, those are all really good things. And I appreciate these questions. Many of them came from the ALK positive Facebook group that really helped me cope through some of my tough times. And there are some really smart folks in there, way smarter than me. Probably not as smart as you. But they –

Dr. Ross Camidge:

No! Way smarter than me! They’re all like nuclear physicists and things.

Laura Levaas:

I’m really amazed at the amount of specialized information that I’ve been able to find in these support groups. So, kind of winding up. Thank you, Dr. Camidge, for joining us today for – it’s a new program, actually, from the Patient Empowerment Network, but it’s produced by Patient Power. And again, we want to thank Celgene Corporation, Novartis, and Pfizer for their support, even though they don’t have editorial control. We’re kinda driving the bus. And we’re really grateful that you could join us today and answer all of these pressing questions.

Dr. Ross Camidge:

My pleasure.

Laura Levaas:

Thanks. We’ll catch you next time. And everybody, thanks for watching. Please remember the opinions expressed on Patient Power are not necessarily the views of our sponsors, contributors, partners or Patient Power. Our discussions are not a substitute for seeking medical advice or care from your own doctor. That’s how you’ll get care that’s most appropriate for you.

Dr. Lisa Fitzpatrick

Dr. Lisa Fitzpatrick is an infectious diseases physician, CDC-trained medical epidemiologist and founder of Grapevine Health, an organization focused on improving health literacy and patient engagement. Her career has spanned research, clinical medicine, global health, community health education and patient advocacy.

Most recently she served as the medical director for Washington DC’s Medicaid program. Dr. Fitzpatrick is a professorial lecturer for the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health and an adjunct clinical professor at the George Washington University School of Medicine. She is an Aspen Institute Health Innovator fellow and member of the Aspen Institute Global Leadership Network.

 

She has a Masters in Public Health from the University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health and Masters in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

In addition to public health and infectious diseases, Dr. Fitzpatrick’s areas of professional interest include health literacy, patient engagement and health innovation for underserved communities, specifically digital health solutions.

Updates In Lung Cancer

This video was originally published by National Comprehensive Cancer Network here.

Lung Cancer experts provide information and answer questions on types of lung cancer, new research, biomarker (molecular) testing, and quality of life.

Click the play button above to view the Updates in Lung Cancer videos playlist or select an individual video within the playlist menu in the top left corner of the video window or from the list below. You may also view on YouTube.

The Know What Your Doctors Know: Updates in Lung Cancer webinars occurred in February 2019. This informational program was created in conjunction with the recently updated NCCN Guidelines for Patients® for Early Stage and Locally Advanced Lung Cancer and NCCN Guidelines for Patients for Metastatic Lung Cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Patients and NCCN Quick Guide™ sheets are available to read and download for free online and via the NCCN Patient Guides for Cancer mobile app. Printed editions can be ordered from Amazon.com for a small fee.

NCCN Guidelines for Patients and NCCN Quick Guide™ sheets DO NOT replace the expertise and clinical judgment of the clinician.

Supporters

This activity is supported through the NCCN Foundation, by a contribution from our industry supporters AstraZeneca and Pfizer, Inc. NCCN independently develops and distributes the NCCN Guidelines for Patients. Our industry supporters do not participate in the development of the NCCN Guidelines for Patients and are not responsible for the content and recommendations contained therein.

The NCCN Guidelines for Patients: Lung Cancer are endorsed by:

American Lung Association
Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation
Caring Ambassadors Program, Inc.
Dusty Joy Foundation (LiveLung)
Free ME from Lung Cancer
Lung Cancer Action Network (LungCAN)
Lung Cancer Alliance
Lung Cancer Initiative of North Carolina
Lung Cancer Research Foundation
LUNGevity

Get The Best Myeloma Care NOW: A Physician’s View

Get The Best Myeloma Care NOW: A Physician’s View from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Advocating for yourself is critical when diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Dr. Peter Forsberg details the value of collaborating with your healthcare team on treatment decisions.

Dr. Peter Forsberg is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and is a specialist in multiple myeloma. More about Dr. Forsberg here.

See More From The Pro-Active Myeloma Patient Toolkit

Related Resources

Overwhelmed By a Myeloma Diagnosis? The Key Steps to Take

Should You Consider a Second Opinion? Advice from a Myeloma Advocate 

Find Your Voice Myeloma Resource Guide

Transcript:

Patient education and self-advocacy I think are critical in multiple myeloma. Myeloma is a complicated disease. Getting your head around it can be challenging. Beyond that we have more and more treatments. Treatments are fairly complex. Our goals can be pretty different patient to patient. So really, patient education can be a key to understanding that and removing layers of complexity from something that can be a little challenging to get into.

I think self-advocacy is also really important in that, sometimes you can feel swept up into a wave of what the next treatments are gonna be, what the next steps are. So, making sure you’re taking time to voice your opinions or concerns for yourself, to make sure that you’re not leaving stones unturned in terms of what your best options are, what the best next steps are, what treatments or testing might be available.

I think myeloma, maybe more so than even some other diseases because it’s such a unique type of cancer, one where patients are often dealing with it for many years… Making sure that there’s a good level of education that evolves over time can help make sure that the patients get the best out of their treatments; to make sure that they’re able to have the most fulfilling experience dealing with their cancer and with their cancer team, and making sure that they’re advocating to get all options available to them in the mix potentially.

I think patients are often very thoughtful about knowing that providers are busy and that clinic can be kind of fast-paced, but I want to make sure that they know that the last thing that they’re ever doing is bothering me or other members of my team when they ask questions. I think one of the keys to making sure that everybody is comfortable with the steps we’re taking with their myeloma is to recognize that it’s a team. And the patients and myself and other members of my team, you know I think that the goal is for all of us to be on the same page and to understand what we’re working towards.

So, I think that my philosophy about how best to take care of patients tis to try to make it as collaborative as possible. To make sure people understand what we’re doing and why. And to be all on the same page I think you have to feel comfortable to take a moment to say, “Why are we doing this?” or to voice concerns about what’s going on or what the next steps might be.

Is It Difficult to Participate in a Clinical Trial?

Clinical Trial Mythbusters

 

Downloadable Program Guide

Three experts discuss the clinical trial process and the difficulty in participating in a trial. Our expert panel includes:

  • Ken Getz, MBA – Founder and Board Chair, CISCRP
  • Andy Lee – Senior Vice President and Head, Global Clinical Trial Operations, Merck
  • T.J. Sharpe – Melanoma Survivor and Patient Advocate

Transcript:

Andrew Schorr:

And greetings from Southern California. I’m Andrew Schorr from Patient Power. And welcome to this Patient Empowerment Network program, another in our series of Clinical Trials MythBusters. Our goal, of course, is to help you get the treatment for you or a loved one that you need and deserve. I want to thank the financial supporters for this program to the Patient Empowerment Network; AbbVie, Inc., Celgene Corporation. Daiichi Sankyo and Novartis for their support. They have no editorial control and we’re going to have a very freewheeling discussion today. And really what it’s about is how can a clinical trial be made easier for you to participate? Are there barriers? We’ve talked about it in previous programs. But specifically, what are the companies—the pharmaceutical industry mostly, who sponsor trials all around the world, what are they doing to make trial participation easier? For you to know about trials. For the people at your clinic to know about it and what to say and how to administer it. For you to have documents that are understandable for you and your family to know whether you want to participate. To keep you informed. And also related to the requirements of trials. How can they be relaxed a little so that there may be a trial that would benefit you, that you and your doctor agree on, and the requirements of it allow you to be in the trial. Okay, and the logistics of it are not so tough either. All right, I’ve been in two clinical trials, and I believe I’m alive today because of that. So, I’m very grateful. We have some wonderful panelists with us over the next hour. Now as you have questions, send them to questions@patientpower.info. And some of you have. So, you’ll be able to interact with us as we go along. First, I want to go to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and T.J Sharpe. And T.J. has been on programs with me over the years. Stage four melanoma patient having been in trials. And T. J., you would agree, you’re alive today because you were in trials, right?

T.J. Sharpe:

Absolutely, Andrew. I think both of us are very fortunate that we found a trial that was the right treatment for us and gave us the ability to combat our disease in areas may not have been available to us if we just waited for standard of care therapies.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. And here you are—we should say that you were diagnosed a number of years ago with melanoma, went through trials. And now you’ve had two years without treatment, right?

T.J. Sharpe:

Yes. It’s been five years of treatment followed by now two good years of a clean bill of health.

Andrew Schorr:

Well, great. And I should mention for our audience, many people are familiar with T.J. T.J. goes around the country, gives speeches. He’s been at many events, consults with industry that are developing trials to try to bring the patient perspective forward. So, T.J., thank you for all you do. We really appreciate it.

T.J. Sharpe:

You’re welcome. It’s my honor to be able to represent all these patients.

Andrew Schorr:
Well, most every family—certainly most have been touched by cancer. But our other guests are not cancer patients but are in national leadership programs. And so, let’s go up to Medford, Massachusetts at Tufts University outside Boston, Ken Getz. Ken, welcome to the program. Ken, ladies and gentlemen, is a true national leader when it comes to clinical trials and really helping us move forward with better processes, better understanding. Ken, tell us a little bit about your organization there, CISCRP. What does that stand for?

Ken Getz:

Thank you. And I have to say your pronunciation was nearly perfect. It’s hard to pronounce it. It’s an acronym and it stands for The Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation. It’s a non-profit organization. It was founded 18 years ago. And it’s really there to help patients and their families navigate the whole clinical research progress which for many is completely unfamiliar terrain until they’ve been diagnosed with an illness or when they have exhausted all other treatment options. So, CISCRP really helps people become more educated and informed so that they can really think of the clinical research process with more confidence. And they can navigate this unknown terrain.

Andrew Schorr:

All right. I’m going to come back to you in a minute because you have such an overview, and you’re also an Associate Professor at Tufts. And so, you study all this, and you’ve written books. But I want to introduce the third guest. And that is a leader from the pharmaceutical industry and one of our most respected and venerable companies in the field, and this is Merck. So, joining us in a senior vice president of clinical operations there around the world. And that’s Andy Lee. Andy, welcome. Thank you so much for being with us.

Andy Lee:

Andrew, thank you. And pleasure to be with some prestigious panelists, both of whom I know. And I’ve met you over the last two weeks. And thank you to T.J. and yourself who have been trial participants and who are representing that part of the organization.

Andrew Schorr:

Okay, and we should mention that both T.J. and Andy are working on a couple of levels. And Ken sounds off on this too. There is a group called TransCelerate where pharmaceutical industry is working together on some of the issues they face in having the proliferation of trials. More trials sites, more accessibility, procedures for that. And then, of course, Andy has helped lead that effort at Merck related to breakthrough therapies that they have been trying to develop there in supporting patients who might be in Merck trials. So, we are going to come back to that. But I want to go to you for a second, Ken. Ken, how low is the participation among adults in clinical trials, at least in the U.S. Now, I’ve heard really low percentages. Where are we now with that?

Ken Getz:

Right, it’s a great myth for us to start with, this notion that only three to five percent of patients—eligible patients, participate in clinical research. That’s actually a statistic that was published by the National Cancer Institute in the early 1990’s. The latest research really shows that it varies widely. For example, when we look at pediatric cancers, the participation rates are extremely high, 80 to 90 percent in same cases—pediatric leukemia. In part because those communities have very engaged healthcare providers, very engaged families that really share their information. It’s just an enabled community where all of the stakeholders support participation. And then there are other areas of course. Some cancers where we do see relatively low participation rates. But I want to point out that low participation is driven by so many factors, Andy, including the strict eligibility criteria. And the demanding protocol designs which are a real burden for some people, and they choose not to participate. As well as low awareness, very low accessibility to trials among minorities and underserved communities. So, there are many factors that contribute to this variation in the participation rates.

Andrew Schorr:

Yeah, you’ve ticked off some now. T.J., in your own experience, one of the breakthrough trials you were in you had to go from Ft. Lauderdale in South Florida and move your whole family to Tampa in central Florida, right. I mean that was a big deal.

T.J. Sharpe:

Absolutely. When you have a young family and a stage four cancer diagnosis, relocating simply across the state during the holidays especially, is no big deal. We were fortunate because we had the means to be able to move there with work situation, with family. But too many people can barely go across the county, much less the state or the country to find a trial that might be the best match for them.

Andrew Schorr:

Andy, so we’ve ticked off some of the obstacles, and Ken touched on some about even the proliferation of trials. Is that a lot of what you do is how can we have trials be more accessible, be more widely distributed to a clinic near you?

Andy Lee:

Yes, let me just explain. When we look at a new cancer therapy, we look at the various cancers that may be affected. And what we do is we go for high probabilities of success. And the challenge is if you bring a new cancer agent. You normally start off in very advanced disease. So, patients would have failed multiple lines of therapy, and often it is a last gasp. And you have to show some sort of clinical efficacy. And then you move sort of backwards in the disease, and you go from sort of third-plus line, second line and first line.

And then you may work downwards into earlier stages of the disease into an adjuvant setting and maybe a neoadjuvant setting. So, as we sit down and design a trial, what we need to look at is what is the population that is most likely to show any benefit at all. And quite often when you are developing a new therapy, it’s difficult to show benefit because many of the patients are very ill. So, what we have to do is optimize the opportunity for success of a compound by going to the right target patients.

And quite often as we have learned a lot more about cancer, this does not mean we test a product broadly in anyone with cancer. We typically try and find a profile of a patient that is likely to respond. And many patients now will realize their predictor biomarkers or prognostic biomarkers. So, for example, with immunotherapies, those that work through the PD1 mechanism would probably want to have a PD1 ligand receptor positive patient who is likely to bind to the drug.

And that gives a higher probability of success. So, it sounds counterintuitive that while we want to develop therapies for all cancer patients, when we start clinical trial development, we have to show efficacy in a population that will benefit. And that’s normally predefined and makes the inclusion criteria fairly strict. As we show efficacy and as we can move into broader populations, it makes it a lot easier for us to design more liberal clinical trials. And then we can actually spread those in the geographic domains.

I could talk more about geographic allocation, but let’s hold that for the time being, and let’s see if there’s time later on.

Ken Getz:

Can I just add to what Andy said because I think it’s really important for your viewers to understand just how active drug development activity is today. We’re looking at over 4,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, some of them very, very small. But in total, we’re looking at nearly 6,000 drugs that are in active clinical trials. And to Andy’s point, many are really targeting a patient with a very specific genetic profile or a specific biomarker. But it should give anyone who believes that a clinical trial may be an important care option for them, they should recognize that there may be many, many trials out there.

In total we estimate as many as 80,000 clinical trials, nearly 50 just conducted in the U.S. alone—50,000. So, it’s just important that we keep all this activity in perspective.

Andrew Schorr:
Right. So, T.J., that’s why all of us as patients need to ask about them, right? Go to different resources, whether it’s an advocacy group that you ultimately spoke with other patients, and obviously quizzing the doctors we go to. Is there something that may line up with my situation, right T.J.?

T.J. Sharpe:

Absolutely. There is a both top down and bottom up approach here that patients as they become educated—and every patient should be the owner of their healthcare as they become educated. Hopefully they are coming across advocacy organizations, other informed patients, patient support groups—all of which will help inform them different options for disease treatment, including hopefully as Ken mentioned, clinical research as a care option. At the same time, there is certainly very much an opportunity from the top down from the sponsors who develop the trials and from the sites that execute them to educate patients as they come in.

Not just at their own site, but at any site, at any medical facility. That if you have a diagnosis and you are looking into your care options, that you should be asking the question. And we should be giving you more information on the possibility of clinical trials and where you may find clinical trials that are appropriate for you.

Andrew Schorr:

Right, the whole enchilada, if you will, of all your options. Andy, so you mentioned about trial requirements. So, first of all, what efforts either at Merck or are you aware in the industry are being made to really talk to patients early on as you are designing trials? Whether it’s the requirements—how many CT scans you’re going to have. How often you are going to have to go to the main trial site. All the different things that sometimes get in the way.

Andy Lee:

Well, firstly we start with design. And we believe in exquisite trial design, quality by design as well. So, what we want is to run the experiment once and not have a sloppy trial design. We want to make it really robust in terms of scientific integrity and operational execution. So, we have a lot of internal design committees and what we do is we co-op with many groups external to our company. So, we speak to people who run clinical trials at cancer institutes.

We speak to the doctors who manage this. We speak to the trial coordinators. We speak to people involved with the transporting and shipping of medicine how they would do that. And then we of course speak to people in the ecosystem. We quite often speak to investigational review boards before we start trials. We talk to them about our design and what would be best to protect the rights and well-being of patients. And then, of course, the patient-centric approach says that we need patient insights.

And I’ve chosen my words very carefully because the insights are really important. Not all patients—and I’m very respectful that some patients are very intelligent and actually may be involved in this. Some patients can contribute to design, not all can. And so, what we do is we take the insights and we impute those. We often have focus groups. We talk about this disease. We talk about the burden of the disease. And then we talk about how that disease is managed in an ecosystem. And quite often in different countries it’s managed differently.

And so, we have to appreciate the global clinical trials have to navigate a path that may not be a linear path as we’d see it at an exquisite elite cancer center in the United States. It’s community-based, it’s all the rest. So, we take that input, and what we try to do is unburden the trial for the patient. We say, “How can we design a trial that requires the least visits to the clinic—the hospital, the least burden for them. And how can we take some of that burden from the clinic and actually transfer that into an easier environment.

So, document reading and review. Perhaps filling in questionnaires about quality of life. These are things that don’t have to be done in the clinic itself. And then often when we work with clinics, we work with them to help them understand how we as sponsors can make their life easier. And some of those things might be simplifying the informed consent. But I want to stress just one point here is that we can do whatever we like in the design at a company.

One of the things is, the patients are not sponsor patients. Okay, we sponsor clinical trials. The patients are managed by a doctor and a professional. And underneath that principal investigator is a whole oncology team. And it involves radiology. It involves pharmacists. It revolves around a 360 multidisciplinary team. They’re exquisite. They help manage the patient, not the sponsor. We provide the enabling functions for them. And then also that the oversight of the patient’s right, safety and wellbeing is the responsibility of an institutional review board.

And while we may provide templates and simplify templates in text and language, we rely heavily on the institutional review boards to help us with things that may make things easier, such as reimbursement for parking, transport, all of these things. And by and large, the institutional review boards are very supportive of these things. But they are very difficult to quantify in exact terms because of different geographic regions and different norms in different places. So, we rely heavily on exquisitely well-trained 360 team who manages oncology patients with a great PI. They manage patients.

And we work collaboratively with the sites who work with patients on our behalf. So, I just wanted to say the myth is that sponsors interactive with patients. That’s a myth. And the truth is that we engage with clinical sites, and we try and make our design and all the elements—the enabling elements, simpler for the trial sites in order to manage the patients in a simpler way.

Andrew Schorr:

Okay. Thank you for that. So, Ken, I want your comment on that. Because okay, we are downstream patients. We have a doctor, healthcare team. And we know somewhere in the background there’s a sponsor that tried to enable good things to happen to get reliable data and hopefully a cure for us. So, how do we—what’s happening? Are we improving things there in that interaction between clinic and patient?

Ken Getz:

Yes, we absolutely are. And I’ll start by just echoing and acknowledging that Andy has really laid out just an incredible amount of input that goes into the design of a protocol. And that’s really for a really large company. We see many, many examples now of patient advocacy groups or smaller companies turning to a variety of approaches to solicit input from patients and healthcare providers. Some virtual approaches through a social media or digital community. So, there’s lots of ways that feedback is being channeled.

And that’s really important. The flip side, to really answer your question, is that our protocol designs are becoming more and more complex, more and more demanding. A much larger proportion of drugs are now targeting rare diseases that have been stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria. And the designs of the studies—the number of procedures and the number of visits. The number of investigators that are involved, all of that has also continued to grow. And as a result, we do see that our trials are taking longer.

We have yet to see a year when we actually witnessed a reduction in the cycle time to conduct a clinical trial. And we just have to figure out new ways of making the participation process less burdensome and more efficient.

Andrew Schorr:

Oh, my. So, T.J., you had been living with stage four melanoma, a life-threatening condition. We have people even on our team who are living with stage four disease. So, when Ken talks about things slowing, that’s not what we want to hear. We want to hear two things. One is, we can accelerate a development of new medicine. And ideally—because this is an issue certainly in the U.S., but I think worldwide, that by speeding the process, cutting through red tape, improving procedures and us participating, the cost can be less as well.

And when we talk about cancer, the costs are going through the roof as you know for people living with chronic cancer. And you know so well, Andy, people who are on some of the medicines that you’ve come out with at Merck. Where people used to die unfortunately in short order, are living a much longer life thanks to new medicines. We want it to happen faster and be financially achievable. Andy, any comment about the pace of science?

Andy Lee:

Yeah, I would like to make a couple of comments about that. We often hear the sort of story that 80 percent of clinical trials don’t recruit on time, et cetera. We do immense feasibility. Once we have designed a protocol, we send it out to all of the countries that could potentially work with us. We have staff in 47 countries. And they look at two areas of interest. One is the medical durability, is the comparator the one we use in our country. Is the protocol designed the way we practice clinical medicine, not clinical research medicine?

And will that enable us to recruit the patients? That’s the first level. The second level we look at is to ask the question, is this operationally feasible? Can we source the comparator? Do the clinical sites have the equipment? How would we have to ship the biological samples around the world? And based on medical durability and the operational durability, we do a site selection. And we run the indicators through a Monte Carlo simulation. And we simulate this trial. What if we took three countries out? What if we added this more sites? What if we changed this inclusion?

And we come up with a model of what the recruitment would look like. And recruit about 80 percent of our trials according to our model. So, about 80 percent of our trials recruit on our model time. And then if we look at the typical time for drug development, it has been from eight to 10 years for many years in the industry. And when we look at some of the development timelines now—the cycle times. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda), for example, from first study until first approval, was 60 percent reduction in time.

We were looking in the four-year time period. And we are looking at five or six years for many indications. And so, we’ve halved that cycle time for some of the newer oncology products. And there are a number of reasons we’ve done that. One is we have found operational efficiencies. Two is the trial design has enabled us to interim analysis with independent data monitoring committees to assist with that. I’d also like to put in a positive plug for the regulators.

I do believe—and I’ll talk specifically about the FDA, because they are the agency for the United States. They have revolutionized the way they approach the designs and the way they review the data. And they have breakthrough designation status they’ll give to compounds that are really looking like they have strong efficacy. And so, the approval process through the agency has improved remarkably. And they’re open to adaptive designs. And they are open to interim analysis. And they are open to all sorts of things.

So, I really wanted to give credit to our agency who has said, “Where there’s a need for breakthrough medications, we’ll try to find the path.” And so, I do believe there’s a real positive side to this. The challenge is the market is saturated. We have now more than 25 PD1s in development. And to put the 25th one in there, they are so far behind in development. I wonder what that does. It clogs up the system. So, when you look at how can we influence sites, at the top sites we only get one or two patients.

And we compete with 50, 60, 70, 80 other sponsors. And so, it becomes so saturated that, that site has to learn to do systems and process with 70 companies. And what they are doing is almost hedging. They are not focusing on certain things. So, in those cancer centers, they offer treatment for all lines of therapy and all types of cancer, the specialized and nonspecialized. And we are moving out of that sort of geography and moving it community-based oncology practices where it’s less saturated, and we can actually have more traction there and be able to engage more with the clinical trial enterprise for the good of the patients.

Andrew Schorr:

Ken, you write books about all kinds of issues around this. So, if we are getting—particularly in oncology to have trials offered at the community practice where those doctors work night and day—the nurses. They are really stretched. More and more cancers, genomic subtypes, most sophisticated testing. How—what would you say the patient can do. T.J. talked about it a little bit. What would you recommend to patients so that at that community oncology practice the patient and the family can kind of discover what may be available for them as Merck and other companies try to get these trials distributed?

Ken Getz:
Right, well you—talk about the whole enchilada, Andrew. You’re really touching on it. It’s also very exciting times for patients, not just cancer patients, but patients that are dealing with any chronic and severe illness today. And it’s really all about more of a partnership with the clinical care environment and clinical research. And of course, at the heart of it is the patients and their family being as informed as possible, sharing their electronic health and medical information so that they can be connected to trials that might be appropriate for them.

But it’s moving—as Andy said, away from the classic places where trials used to be conducted. And in many cases, they were at these dedicated centers that only conducted clinical trials. It’s a very competitive environment now for patients. So, many sponsor companies like Merck and others are looking at clinical care settings and moving into communities or, in some cases, large health systems where you can have clinical research professionals who will supplement and provide support to the healthcare providers, so they’re not stretched too thin.

But so that they have the clinical research capability onsite at the point of care. For patients it’s a great opportunity because now they have the opportunity to get their own healthcare or treating physician and treating nurse involved in a clinical trial as part of their overall care. And we expect to see more of that over time. We expect to see other virtual trials or opportunities for patients to participate in the comfort of their own home tied in with their clinical care setting.

And all of this is relatively new to the whole world of clinical trials and the investigation of experimental medications.

Andrew Schorr:

You touched on something I just want to follow up on. I’ve heard of this term site-less trials where you said you participate in your home. So, T.J. had to go from Ft. Lauderdale to Tampa. I had to go from Seattle to Houston. There are not—this is a big deal, especially if you have little kids as I did, he has. So—and away from work and whatever your situation is. So, is technology going to come in play so Andy can get the data he needs for the FDA, but that we can have technology help accrue that data in a more efficient way.

Ken Getz:

And I’ll say absolutely. And my colleagues here today I’m sure can comment on this as well. But absolutely. We are seeing wearable technologies and mobile applications that now have the ability measure vital signs and other important baseline information in a validated manner. There are ways that you can access a specific facility for a highly specialized test, specialized imaging for example where the technician can evaluate it remotely. Blood can be drawn at remote locations as well.

So, there are lots of places where we have sort of this more flexible environment that can cater more to the patients and less about a specific physical facility where you have to go to participate in a trial.

Andrew Schorr:
T.J., I want to talk to you about diversity. So, you and I are kind of middle-class white guys. But we want to know how new medicines work for a variety of populations, ethnically, economic groups, et cetera. And Andy needs that data. And he goes to the FDA, and the FDA says, “Well, do you have Hispanic people? Do you have Asian people? Do you have African American people?” or whatever the country is because he works globally. And they say, “We want to understand are there differences?”

How are we doing with that. How can we make a difference there so that we really know what medicines make a difference for broader and also distinct populations?

T.J. Sharpe:
I’m sure Ken can back up some of these things with more hard data than I can. I know that different populations have different levels of trust with the medical system. One thing that you and I both experienced was a lack of options—a lack of good options. And when you get into dire straits, you tend to be a little more trustful of anything that comes along. But we have serious or chronic conditions that have proven treatments that might not be the most effective for certain populations.

And we’re not able to broad the scope to these minority populations or populations that don’t have access to NCI designated cancer centers or top-notch medical facilities. They are not able to get either in a trial that is looking for a drug that would help them or even get access to medicines that have been recently approved simply because their healthcare situation doesn’t allow it. Whether that’s a lack of insurance, a lack of healthcare literacy or simply a mistrust of—there’s a lot of generational mistrust I think in some communities of the clinical trial system.

So, as an advocate, I certainly push caretakers especially—and children caregivers for older populations who are maybe first or second-generation Americans to help facilitate a conversation between the medical professional who’s trusted and a patient that might not be able to get or rely on the information they’re given. Because it really will speak to populations that don’t get the opportunities that you and I have gotten simply because they are either not aware, or there is a barrier there to get to that medical professional.

Ken Getz:

I appreciate, T.J., you mentioned CISCRP. That’s one of the things that we’ve focused on for 18 years is bringing clinical research education into major metropolitan areas around the U.S. and parts of northern and western Europe where we plan for several months, and then we put on what we call an Aware for All events. And we really work very hard to encourage participation by—or from patients based within minority or underserved communities.

And I’m happy to say that we’ve had a lot of success with that. These are really difficult communities to reach through a lot of the traditional approaches. We have to rely on community centers and clergy and other approaches to really help these communities, for a lot of the reasons T.J. mentioned, trust the educational information, and come out to learn more. And I’m happy to say we’re seeing more and more people of diverse backgrounds that are curious and interested in learning more about clinical research, especially knowing that representative populations provide more information that can inform treatment for different types of patient sub-populations.

Andrew Schorr:
I want to go to Andy in a second. Andy, just one second. I wanted to mention and call out—and Andy’s company has been a leader in this. He was talking about PD1 and all of that. But drugs that have been breakthrough in immunotherapy for people like T.J. where—and it’s being explored in broader cancers where otherwise life was going to be short. And how to activate the immune system and really fight the cancer in people living long term. So, the people in those trials—and certainly there were people in the melanoma trials like yourself T.J.

Lung cancer trials and increasingly now others who did get tomorrow’s medicine today. Andy talked about accelerated approval which is great. So, that’s the impetus for the patient and the family. Is there the chance to get tomorrow’s medicine today? Now the obstacles may be distrust. You talked about that, Ken. And also, is maybe accessibility. Is it as a clinic near you? And Andy you talked about pushing that out. And then sometimes it’s related to cost.

Now is there anything that sponsors can do, Andy, related to the costs that people may have in being in certain trials? Where do we stand with that?

Andy Lee:

Yeah, so I’ll just touch on the distribution first and then get into the costs because they are linked. When we prosecute global trials—we’ve had a very U.S.-centric discussion so far. But cancers present differently in different geographic regions of the world. And so, when we want speed out of our trials. You want me to shorten that timeline and get drugs to market quickly. I do it internationally and in some cancers like esophageal cancer or some of the gastrointestinal cancers, Asia has a much higher prevalence of these cancers.

And we do a greater proportion of work there. We always include multi-country studies. And U.S. may have a greater proportion in other areas. So, we balance that out to optimize speed. Of course, with clinical trials the cost structure around the globe is very different. But let’s talk about U.S. We have spoken about a saturated core of clinical trial sites that we all go to. And I speak generally now for all sponsors. And we are all looking to optimize and get great efficiency.

At the same time, we realize we have many underrepresented geographies and ethnic groups—and not just ethnic groups, but under resourced populations. And so, what we’ve been thinking about is how can we support people, and support people at all levels. And so, we start off with thinking about the cost structure, and we obviously pay clinical sites for what they do. But we will support all sorts of things. We’ve been negotiating with Uber and Lyft, so we can build that into automated transport for patients.

Again, the IRB has to approve that. We are looking at ways to augment that they are not out-of-pocket for things. And we’ve been talking a lot with a group called Lazarex Foundation who has really expanded into under resourced communities and found ways to ensure that they have daycare and different access for those patients. We have worked extensively now to look at outreach programs into communities that typically wouldn’t be in trials. We are focusing in two areas right now as we speak.

One is next generation of HIV medicines, and the other one is in prostate cancer. And we’ve got a large program rolling out in prostate cancer. So, what we are doing is going into sites and we have put together training videos and training materials. And we are looking at cultural competency. So, it starts at the site. Are they culturally competent to engage a different community? And we’ve spoken about working with the community churches, community education systems.

And so that starts with cultural competency. I have a woman, Madelyn Goday, who works on this day and night in my organization. And she’s very strong at this. It’s early days, but if we can show that it works in one or two therapeutic areas and cancer types, we’d expand it further and further. But we can’t just have a shotgun approach and just go and do 100 sites and hope it works. Hope isn’t a good strategy. We are working systematically to engage different people. And as appropriate and approved by ethics committees, we will support all of these communities and help build infrastructure and capacity.

Those are important things for us. But as I said, where appropriate and where it’s sustainable. We can’t just throw money at something in the hopes something sticks. We have to have something sustainable and it goes to what Ken says, and that’s education and providing resources and materials. And we’ve used quite a lot of Ken’s materials in multiple clinical trials. Thank you for that, Ken. It’s been really helpful for us.

Andrew Schorr:

Great. I wanted to note for your audience. If you have a question, send it to questions@patientpower.info. We have expert panelists here. And this is really—we are all in this together. I think you hear the dedication from Andy at Merck and T.J. as a patient advocate and Ken as a professor and founder of organizations devoted to this. We want obviously accelerate medicines, but have the accurate data of how it affects different people, who is it right for so that the regulators—and thank you for what you said about the FDA here in the U.S., has the information to make a decision on should this medicine be available for people with that diagnosis.

Okay, so what about staying in the trial. So, T.J., how long—let’s take with the Keytruda trial or one of them. How long were you in to for?

T.J. Sharpe:

Nearly four years. Three-and-a-half years.

Andrew Schorr:

Were there ever times when you said, “I’m done. I want to bail out.” You know.

T.J. Sharpe:

I’ll be very careful how I answer this question for Andy’s sake.

Andy Lee:

It’s okay, T.J., we’re friends.

T.J. Sharpe:

No, probably the biggest crossroads I ever came to was when one of my tumors started growing about a year into it. And we weren’t sure if the medicine stopped working or not. We didn’t know what to do. And as it turned out, it was still working. And I think was just one spot that wasn’t responding. But everything else had responded great. However, at the point, as a patient, you’re thinking about yourself first and your family first and the trial second. It’s easy to stay compliant on a trial when things are going well.

But when you’re ahead of the medicine in some ways, and I think patients with chronic illnesses or in some cases rare diseases, are almost more knowledgeable than some of their doctors or the trial protocols about when they’re stopping. They don’t have the luxury of finishing out a protocol and seeing where their disease journey takes them. And the best example I can give of this is a very passionate advocate by the name of Jack Wheelen who we unfortunately lost a couple of years ago, but whose influence has kind of dominated the patient advocacy world for the last decade or so.

And Jack was able to monitor his health almost better than a doctor. And he knew when his trials weren’t working. When we get to that point in a clinical trial setting where we know the medicine is not being effective or where a patient would be better served to move on to another treatment. That’s when we are going to take the next step in clinical research, because now we’re aligning the trial design and the trial goals with a patient and a patient’s family’s treatment goals. And as those two points merge, that’s where clinical research becomes that much more effective as a care option.

Andrew Schorr:

That was well said. And I think with all those trials, you’re right, the team—that care team, what’s right for you at that time. Obviously to get the data, but also not at all costs. In other words, if the data is showing something is no longer effective for you, is there another treatment or a trial? I’ll just share my story for a second. So, I was in a phase two trial of combination therapies—which are increasingly common certainly in oncology. And after three months—halfway in the trial, my blood was kind of cleaned up.

And I had nausea and some other side effects. And I said to the trial coordinator, “You know, I think I’d like to stop.” And she said, “You know, our belief is that you still have microscopic illness in your bone marrow—in this case with the blood cancer, and the additional three months in this protocol will make a long-term difference for you. That’s what we believe.” They didn’t have the answer, but that’s what they believed. You know what? I stuck it out. She was right. I had 17-year remission.

If I’d stopped after three months, would I have? So, it’s a dialogue with the care team Andy, right? It’s this ongoing discussion not just entering the trial, but remaining in the trial, correct?

Andy Lee:

Yes. Absolutely. And I just wanted to impress a really important thing. People talk about people dropping out of trials. In cancer trials we see extremely low drop out. I mean these are potentially lifesaving medicines for all of the companies. But what we do want to make sure about is that when there is progression of disease, and it’s shown that the drug—whichever it is, the control arm or the active arm or the new agent, where there is progression of disease that they get the best available therapy.

And so that often contaminates trials because we have the crossover effect that now they are getting maybe the experimental agent in the standard of care type of thing. But most important thing for us is to track the survival of the patient, regardless of whether they go on another therapy. And we have put a tremendous amount of effort into looking at the informed consent and making sure we work with IRB to track patients long term survival.

Because as you’ve said, you may have a short-term issue that shows that the drug may not be working short term, but long term it may have prolonged and profound effects. Positive or negative, we don’t know that. And so, what we like to do is get long term survival. And we ask patients to consider when they sign the consent for whatever trial and whichever sponsor is sponsoring this, is to consider that knowing their status throughout their treatment—whether it’s on a sponsor’s drug or another sponsor’s drug or x therapy. It is really important — and I ask people to think about that.

Because that really helps us get as much data out of the individual treatment as possible. And that may prevent nonrequired trials in the future or it may say, “Wow, that really informed.” And we’d like to inform all cancer patients. If data we generate can inform other therapies, we certainly want to do that. We do not want to do wasteful clinical trials. So, tracking patients long term or patients—the message to patients is being cognizant of letting the sponsor—and the sponsor could be an institution. Letting them know your status is really important. All they want to know is are you dead or alive.

Andrew Schorr:

In the end, just one thing is, are we partners. In the end, our viewers here, are we your partner? And can we feel that not just for their doctor but you guys behind the scenes with the labs and everything, that in the end we are partners. And unless we see it that way, we won’t get anywhere.

Andy Lee:

Absolutely. I’m glad you used the term partners. Because when we’ve done a prep for this people have said, “Are they investors in the thing?” So, yes, patients invest their time and everything, but they are partners in research. They are contributing so much. They are contributing—they are going into the absolute unknown. And there is an immense trust level that is there. And we owe that back as research professionals is to treat people with respect, dignity and as partners, to make information available, to publish our data to get it out there as quickly as possible. And to make sure we get that back into the participant’s sort of hands.

Andrew Schorr:

So, Ken, how are we doing on that because you go back over the years and people say, “I don’t want to be in a trial because I’ll be a guinea pig,” and respect was not seen as part of it.

Ken Getz:
Well, that’s also a bit of a myth, right? You had a few that claimed that they felt the process made them feel like a guinea pig. The vast majority of people, over 90% of people who participate in a trial, would do it again. So, once they get past that unfamiliar area where they’ve perhaps only heard a few case examples or a few very vocal people who had bad experiences. Once they’ve done it themselves or they’ve been able to work with a group of advocates that really help them think about this process, and they become more educated, generally they’re very impressed with the level of professionalism, the compassion that exists at all levels.

I work with so many professionals—science professionals and pharmaceutical companies and at the research centers, and they all share that kind of commitment that Andy just mentioned. There’s a real desire to partner with the patient to really inform them. I would say one place where we need to see much, much more however is in the return of clinical trial results in a plain language to people who’ve been in trials. That’s a place where as an enterprise—government, research sponsors as well as industry have not really made this a standard practice at this point. And that’s one thing that we’re really working on actively.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. Great. So, T.J., you and I are investors—and Ken used that term and Andy used it, and I’ve always believed it. We are investors of our tissue, our body, our future to help other people and hopefully help ourselves. And certainly, for profit companies that may greatly benefit if they have a blockbuster therapy. But we need to be kept informed in the long term, right T.J.? We want to know what a difference our participation made.

T.J. Sharpe:

Certainly. And I think to echo what both Andy and Ken said is that patients do become partners. Patients who are involved in clinical research, a significant chunk become altruistically invested. I’ve heard more than once, “Even if this doesn’t help me, I’m glad I participated because it might help somebody else.” I know I’ve felt like that, and I’d venture that you’ve had some of that too, Andrew on your journey. So, it’s only—it’s at the very minimal fair, and it’s certainly very justified to expect as a co-participant in this.

And as kind of a co-creator of science with sites and sponsors that we understand what has come of our sacrifice and our time dedication to helping science out. We shouldn’t have to find it out through press releases from ASCO or hope that we hear about it on the nightly news. We deserve to hear what has happened. Not just because it can affect us as people and as patients, but that we put a lot into this too. And then we did our part to further medical research and we want to be part of the—whatever the end of the trial ends up being. We want to be aware of that. Not just for personal knowledge, but to know that it’s going to help this many other people.

Andrew Schorr:

Right, to be honored. So, Andy, at Merck you’ve established some internet platforms in particular related to keeping people informed, right?

Andy Lee:

Well, we’ve got an internet platform that people can log onto. I’m happy to share that with you; in which they can get access to a list of our trials. So, I didn’t prepare this but especially, but I did make a handmade note. And if anyone wants, it’s a very simple log on. Andrew Schorr:
You’re a great artist.

Andy Lee:

And it’s a simple one. What that will get you access to is two main important things. One is it gives access to information about clinical trials. We have a tab on there that tells everyone about the phases of clinical trials and what to expect in a trial. So, it’s an educational part. Then we have a lot of information about the Keytruda clinical trials were, are running, and they’re called keynote trials. And there you can look at the different indications. And you can look up and it has a telephone number you can call.

Now I must stress is that we run over 1,000 clinical trials in oncology. But many of them are not sponsored by us, they are investigator sponsored trials. So, you can go to clinics, and they run their own clinical trials that are not sponsor-related. And the NCI runs their clinical trials. So, there are a lot of different sources. And many companies will have clinical trials. We also have the website clinicaltrials.gov. I’ve had to use that in the last two days for a colleague.

And you can navigate that and look for different types of trials. And you can look at different products and everything. It’s not perfect. But at least it’s a place to go to. And I don’t want to sound as if I’m one sponsor centric. Many other companies have access to websites, and they really want to try and enhance and direct people to the clinical trials sites at which they are working.

Andrew Schorr:

Right, absolutely. And then you were working at the industry level with a group called TransCelerate, and I know T.J. is involved too, to try and establish common procedures as you establish trial sites, as you have communication, as you have training, right? So, that hopefully all boats will rise, right?

Andy Lee:

That’s correct. TransCelerate is a group that formed about eight or nine years ago. There were 10 initial member companies. I was a founder member of that. And we got together to say, “We have to improve operational efficiency.” So, we do not collaborate on molecular structures and those types—that’s competitive. We collaborate on what we call precompetitive, procompetitive aspects which says, “If we all work together to improve something, we’ll all get the benefit of this.” And we share it publicly.

There’s a website, you can look at it. But we’ve looked at standardizing protocols. We have a common protocol template. We’ve adopted that at our companies, so have other sponsors. The protocol can be developed in a standardized way. We’ve looked at standardizing ways where we can improve monitoring. We’re looking now at ways that we can work with investigative sites through i-platforms, shared investigative platforms. So, a clinical trial site has to provide the information for us as a sponsor and use the exact same standardized questionnaire and information for any other sponsor through a standard portal.

So, we are trying to reduce the burden on clinical trial sites. And we’ve plugged away for many years, and we are seeing greater traction there. We are seeing more efficiency, more standardization. We are seeing greater quality, less rework. And so, while it’s hard to quantify this, what we believe is that the sites are freed up of some of the more burdensome things, and they can direct their attention towards patients, patient safety, and access to clinical trials. So, the work may not be directly related to access for a cancer patient into a cancer trial, but there’s a lot of tangential spin-off of making a site more efficient so they can put their resources and energy in the right place.

Andrew Schorr:

Well, thank you for that effort and your leadership. So, Ken, you’ve been around this a long time. And you’ve deal with all the companies and the government and the various agencies. And as you know, in some quarters there’s a distrust for pharma. We mentioned cancer that you get the price tag of a drug, and it’s very expensive. And some people are struggling to pay for it. And there’s just frustration about it. And often in the news media they are the bad guys who are called out for unethical procedure or something that went awry.

So, how are we doing there in overcoming that because we talk to Andy, he seems very ethical, dedicated guy representing a company that’s been around I think well over 100 years. So, how are we doing to move clinical trials on in this area when people aren’t sure what to make of pharma.

Ken Getz:

Yeah. It’s a huge issue, Andrew. And I think part of the challenge is that all it takes is one questionable behavior, and it makes it difficult for the reputation of the entire industry. Right now, we are dealing with major pharma companies that are actually being fined for having contributed—a judgement, having contributed to the opioid crisis. And when you start looking at some companies aggressive marketing tactics, right? It really sort of sheds a darker light on a lot of the great work that companies do.

What we look at, at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at the School of Medicine. We look at the overall output, the level of innovation that’s coming from the industry today. And we look at the number of complaints that have been filed with the FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world. And what we see is tremendous growth in the innovation and the quality of the innovation—drugs like Keytruda and other cancer immunotherapies. What an exciting area.

We see that the vast majority of companies really support and live by highly ethical, highly professional, highly compassionate approaches because they all know that it takes just one questionable issue that can really tarnish the reputation of every company operating in the industry. So—again, Andy also mentioned just how regulated we are as an industry, the fact that we have ethical review committees and data safety monitoring boards and so many other external agencies that help to oversee the work that’s done here.

So, I would say for patients who are thinking about clinical trials, it’s good to know the history. It’s good to know what you need to do to protect yourself. But the vast majority find that the people they deal with are ethical, they are professional, they are compassionate. And, as I mentioned, over 90% of people who get involved in trials say that they would do it again.

Andrew Schorr:

Thank you. That was a wonderful response. Andy, you mentioned earlier about starting research with the sickest people basically, where there are no options. But one of the questions that came in is, “Are trials only for the sickest people or are there of all those trials you talked about opportunities for people who maybe are newly diagnosed or could be their fairly initial therapy?

Andy Lee:

Yeah, great question. And thank you to the person who asked that. And the answer is that we start in people—because we don’t know if our experimental agent will work. And everyone assumes that new medicines are all going to succeed. And we work in research and researcher because of that many things fail very early on. They fail in phase one before anyone hears of it. It’s normally a code number at that point. And we may just not make the drug soluble enough, or it may not be distributed enough.

So, we may have a thing that works in a test tube or a petri dish. But to get that into humans and make sure that it’s safe at the dosage we use often fails. We just don’t progress far enough. So, what we want to make sure of is that firstly the drugs are safe. And there’s a trade-off between safety and efficacy. We’re constantly trading off. And so, what we do is we look at that and say when someone has no option and we want to get an option going, that’s where we start.

We’ve actually moved down the disease scale, and we’ve come into adjuvant treatment or secondary prevention. And we’ve gone into newer adjuvant is when you have a small tumor is we pre-treat to manage that tumor before surgery is done. And post-surgery we hope that there’s limited treatment or no treatment. And we actually have removed the cancer, and there would be no evidence of disease. But. of course, using the word cured is something we try not to do, because we prefer to use no evidence of disease.

But absolutely. And the next strategy is prevention of cancer. Our company does a lot of vaccinations in women’s health. We have a product that protects against human papilloma virus which is a precursor for cervical cancer. So, people who are vaccinated with this particular product—and I’m deliberately not using brand names for obvious reasons. But when you vaccinate for HPV, you essentially are preventing the likelihood of a cervical cancer. And there are now prospects in many disease areas where either vaccination or early treatment gives you a tremendous positive prognosis of not getting the disease later on in life.

The answer to your question is yes, we are absolutely looking at ways to prevent getting to a very advanced stage which is very costly to manage and very emotional and stressful and difficult.

Andrew Schorr:

I want to thank you. I just want to get a final comment on what you would say to patients or family member. And I want to start with you, Ken. What do you want patients right now to know so that—what tips would you give them so that they’d consider being part of clinical research or stay in clinical research and the benefit it could be for them.

Ken Getz:

I will say really two things. The first is there’s just a tremendous amount of information out there, and we recommend education before participation. So, do your homework and engage family and friends and people you meet and trust to help you make the decision. And the second point comes off of that. And that is this is not a decision you make alone. Really bring in your treating physician, your nurse. Bring in your support network. And chances are you will learn a lot, and you might even find a trial that is right for you.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. And Andy, what about you? A final point—what would you say to a friend or family member or colleague related to considering trials today.

Andy Lee:

We get this question every single day. And we get it from patients in need. And my answer is we are all patients. We are all going to face this as professionals in our job or professionals outside. And so, I say community of practice. And disease hits all of levels of society in all education professions, et cetera. And so, my thing is to encourage people to do what Ken has said. Work as a team. Get multiple inputs.

And I am sponsor agnostic. Get the best therapy that is available. And that may be the best care option—as I said, the ecosystem in which you get the care is really important as well as the medicines that you get. So, have the discussion. Trust the medical professionals, they are very skilled out there. They are extremely well educated. And I just urge people, “Don’t think on two clicks on Google you are going to solve what your treatment option is.” Really discuss it with people because not all the options are public, and there is not enough information available about how to manage the whole disease through the entire enterprise. Trust the professionals.

Andrew Schorr:

Well said. And T.J., you and I are alive today because of trials. What do you want—what’s the thing you want to leave our viewers with?

T.J. Sharpe:

That they don’t have to be involved in clinical research. I think that’s an important distinction to make. And it’s going to pull together what Andy and Ken said that clinical research should not be considered a hail mary or last gasp option. If you are a patient—and we are all going to be patients as Andy mentioned. You want the best care for you. You want to be able to weigh all of your options. And if you are not considering clinical research, if you don’t know about it or aren’t able to get the information you need about it, then you are not going to be able to make the best healthcare decision long term for your health.

So, take that information that you can get. Find the trusted sources. Be able to reach out to advocates or colleagues or someone that you know that would have the disease or can connect you with good information. And be your own advocate—a little cliché, but really own that healthcare information. And once you are able to collect all of the different treatment options, then you consult with your professional medical team as to what the plan forward—the best plan forward for your individual situation would be.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. T.J., my friend, thank you. It’s a delight to see you again. Andy, with Merck, thank you so much for being with us and bringing your years of expertise. And, Ken, being at an independent non-profit center and also at Tufts University there, thank you for all the work you do. I want to thank the Patient Empowerment Network for pulling this all together. And the sponsors who supported us in this effort, AbbVie Inc., Celgene Corporation. Daiichi Sankyo and Novartis.

All these companies and I’m sure many more, working so that research can move forward. We can be true partners in it. And hopefully get tomorrow’s medicine today to make a difference for the community and live a long life, and hopefully a cure, right? I’m Andrew Schorr in California. Remember, knowledge can be the best medicine of all.


Please remember the opinions expressed on Patient Empowerment Network (PEN) are not necessarily the views of our sponsors, contributors, partners or PEN. Our discussions are not a substitute for seeking medical advice or care from your own doctor. That’s how you’ll get care that’s most appropriate for you.

How Healthcare May Be Improved With Artificial Intelligence

If you have not been up to date with healthcare news, or do not work in any healthcare related field, you may be unaware of the gradual increase how reliant the sector is on technology. Every facet of society has been on an upward climb with how digitized it is, and healthcare is no exception. From breakthroughs as interesting as robotic surgery to standardizing electronic patient notes, both primary and secondary care have grown accustomed to the benefits of how artificial intelligence can benefit them.

In healthcare, introducing new treatment whether based in technology or pharmaceuticals is highly expensive, though great efforts are being taken to increase efficiency, reduce human errors and improve healthcare overall. In the long running of things, this would save the healthcare economy billions in coming decades.

Genomics

There has been a public declaration made by IBM Watson Health to incorporate artificial intelligence to the ongoing battle against cancer. The focus currently lies with later stage cancer patients who are at their most critical points. This is because it is likely current treatments have failed for them, or aren’t strong enough. New treatments could offer them the best chances when facing their life or death situations.

Specific genetic factors involved in cancer can be identified and targeted with idealized therapies. This offers hope to many Veterans in the US, and cancer patients worldwide.

Drug Discovery

It has been about three whole decades since a new effective antibiotic has been discovered. This has led to a seemingly losing battle with the emergence of more superbugs (antibiotic resistant pathogens) significantly often. The journey to discovering new drugs is very expensive, meaning many drug companies have slowed down the process of discovery. However, Pfizer’s use of IBM Watson (technology that utilizes machine-based learning) is pioneering the path to finding new drugs that are active for cancer and immune therapies.

Other drug companies such as Sanofi are using artificial intelligence to find new therapies for metabolic disease; Genentech are also leading the way in cancer research with artificial intelligence from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Robotic Surgery

The correct term for this is robot-assisted surgery, because though it looks like a robot is handling the surgery from the operating theatre, there is actually a surgeon (or multiple surgeons) that are controlling the robotic tools remotely. This has been rolled out successfully in multiple countries so far. These include the United Kingdom and Dubai. The major benefits of robot-assisted surgery is increased precision and accuracy. There is less room for human error, and more room for improved patient care.

Secondary Prevention

One of three or sometimes four main branches of prevention, secondary prevention relates mostly to medical imaging. There has been a huge surge of technological advances in this area in the past century. The simple ultrasound has become 3D imaging and the simple radiograph has become detailed computerised tomography. New approaches can now be taken, that reveals more information about patients. This leads to clearer imaging, faster diagnosing and better results.

Personalized Medicine

Genetic screening has been more incorporated into healthcare since the sequencing of the human genome in recent decades. With genetic information and associations readily available, more accessible means of accessing patient DNA have been developed. There are now easy methods of reaching a patient’s genetic code and assessing their risk for certain health issues that carry genetic risks.

“Polygenic scoring weighs the linear combination of multiple small genetic variations and are used in predisposition assessment,” says Mary Crawford, tech blogger at Australia2Write and Write Myx.

Visual Assisting

Nursing is investing in the development of virtual assistants, which can take over the role of healthcare assistants and push the healthcare staff population to higher fields of work. Healthcare providers will then be able to maintain continuous contact with patients.

Better Data Security

A major leap in healthcare is digitizing patient records, and rolling out a singular way of standardizing them across the country. Though this is extremely useful for transferring patients from healthcare provider to healthcare provider, it creates room for a cyber-attacks that will steal sensitive data.

“As artificial intelligence increases with patient data storage, it also increases with cybersecurity. Extra security is essential to patient protection,” says Erick Schmid, data analyst for Brit Student and Next Course Work.

Discussing how healthcare may become revolutionized by artificial intelligence may conjure up images of the 1985 movie Daryl. However, the movements are very much real and non-fictional. Productivity is on the rise and medicine has become more business-minded.

Due to its benefits, artificial intelligence is certainly gaining popularity in the healthcare industry and there are developments every year. There are predictions that the involvement of artificial intelligence will grow by 1000% by 2015, pushing it to become a 13 billion dollar industry.

Michael Dehoyos is a medical Blogger at Phd Kingdom and Academic brits. He assists companies in their marketing strategy concepts, and contributes to numerous sites and publications. Also, he is a writer at Case Study Help, academic service.

Past Patient Chats

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Patientchat Etiquette & Guidelines

Chat etiquette & guidelines:

  • Patient Chat is appropriate for patients, doctors, nurses, caregivers, mental health professionals, complementary care providers,  loved ones of patients, basically anyone and everyone that cares about improving the healthcare system and a patient’s journey through it.
  • Please try to stay on topic.
  • No problem if you jump in late, just say hello and join in.
  • Please don’t pop in and promote a business or product. If it is relevant to the discussion, feel free to share. We have had some companies not participate but just tweet out links. Please participate in the chat instead. Chatters will click through to your profile if they’re interested in you.
  • Please say hello even if you’re just following along. It helps us gage if the chats are reaching people.
  • Please share the chats with other people and Retweet as much as you can to help spread the word.
  • Discussion topics and questions are asked with a T1, T2, T3, etc. Be sure to include the appropriate number in your answer, T1, T2, T3. For example: We ask, “T1. What is your favorite color? #patientchat” You respond, “T1. Blue. #patientchat”
  • Be sure to include the hashtag in your tweets and responses. If you use a tool like tchat.io, it will automatically append the #patientchat hashtag to your tweets.
  • Feel free to challenge the status quo with your responses and be creative! However, be mindful and polite at the same time.
  • Be respectful, even if you disagree with someone. Focus on dialogue and solutions.
  • Please don’t discount other people’s stories and experiences. You may disagree & think your way is better. Honor others’ experiences that are different from your own.
  • As #patientchat has grown in its reach, we regularly become a trending topic on Twitter. When this happens, you may see unrelated posts in the Patient Chat feed. This happens because other people try to abuse trending topics on Twitter and promote unrelated causes and spam. It is still safe to participate in Patient Chats. If this happens, you can BLOCK or REPORT the abusive tweet directly in Twitter. See Twitter’s abuse report guidelines.