My Waldenström Macroglobulinemia, Miracle Number Three

/in , , , , , , , /by

Dear Fellow Cancer Patient,

As I believe in universal love for ALL, I’m reaching out to you, whether we have met or not, to invite you to join me in embracing the concept of medical miracles no matter what kind of cancer you have.

I do so because in January 2023 I experienced my third medical miracle since being diagnosed with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) in August 2012, an extremely rare and currently incurable lymphoma.

The mission of Patient Empowerment Network (PEN) to support and educate patients with all cancers has an exceptional impact. It is an honor to cooperate with PEN, and my dream is to bring you hope through my own medical successes through the past 10 years. (*Please see footnote for a brief history of my story.)

It is my tremendous good fortune to be in the constant care of my world-renowned WM specialists/hematologists at the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass. since March 2013. Also, my oncologist at Virginia Cancer Specialists who has extremely high credentials in hematological malignancies, diagnosed me in 2012, and treated me immediately with what was then the flagship chemotherapy for WM.

In September 2022, I experienced the most aggressive outbreak ever of my Waldenström. A lymph node was so enlarged, I discovered it myself. One week later, my feet were unbelievably swollen, which I discovered when I couldn’t put my shoes on. I immediately reached out to the Bing Center’s Director, Dr. Steven Treon. Within the same hour, he called my Virginia oncologist and recommended a PET scan and biopsy for me. The next morning at 10 am, less than 24 hours later, I was examined in Virginia by my oncologist, and he ordered both tests on the spot.

The results were extremely concerning and put fear in my heart again as is the case with any cancer diagnosis. Enlarged lymph nodes were very widespread throughout my body, and there was increased activity in my entire bone marrow throughout my skeleton from head to toe.

My two Bing Center for WM doctors’ recommendation of Benda-R [bendamustine (Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan)], for chemotherapy was agreed to by all upon consultation with my Virginia oncologist.

For three months, I couldn’t walk outside of my house and only went to medical appointments with my oncologist every week and chemotherapy treatments for two days each month. Tony, my husband, had to drive me there and take me by wheelchair down the hall to his office. I was also very frail due to losing 15 pounds, making my weight 90 pounds.

During this very challenging time, my brother Mike, a two-time survivor of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), supported me constantly and even called me from Egypt and Panama on his cruises there, as he understands too well how trying it is to be back in treatment for cancer. My dear friends also offered wonderful daily encouragement with special contact to lift my spirits.

After three months of chemotherapy, my follow-up PET scan in January 2023, showed “complete interval resolution of the abnormal marrow and nodal activity evident on the previous study.” Although I’m not an expert, the comparison of the images of my body between September and January was remarkable. In the Bing Center for Waldenström’s clinical review of its patients led by my doctors and joined by their colleagues from three Harvard hospitals in Boston, my PET scan results were examined, and one more round of chemotherapy was unanimously recommended to complete my treatment.

My third medical miracle has arrived! According to Dr. Steven Treon, Director of the Bing Center for Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia in Boston, “From all evidence so far, it appears you may be in complete remission!” My deepest gratitude to him, Dr. Jorge Castillo, Clinical Director of the Bing Center, and my Virginia oncologist for their cooperative spirit with each other on my behalf and extraordinary attention in providing life-saving treatment to me is beyond words. In July 2023, a bone marrow biopsy and CT scans at the Bing Center for WM in Boston are planned to confirm my response.

Yet, again, I am celebrating the gift of life with Tony who has been a saint to me through countless years of ups and downs with experiences as a WM patient. He has been by my side and done absolutely everything possible to love and support me endlessly. For care partners, be sure to get the support you deserve for yourself, as cancer in your world is very challenging for you too.

Amazingly, although I couldn’t swim for seven months, I exceeded my own goal and swam for 40 minutes during my first time back at a pool in my fight to regain strength and normalcy. And I can now walk for 15 minutes outside every day, too, as my swollen feet have resolved. Tony even took me to a favorite place for my March 2023 birthday, the first time we’ve gone to a restaurant since August 2022.

As I mentioned earlier, in sharing my medical miracles with you, my dream is to give you hope for your own cancer treatments – and success. I encourage you to stay in contact with family and friends, be a proactive advocate for yourself, read PEN’s news and that of other relevant cancer support organizations, follow your own status, and reach out to your oncologist immediately with concerns or new symptoms, see a specialist for your specific cancer if possible or have your oncologist consult with one. Stay hopeful and realize that profoundly sophisticated advancements in medical research and science are progressing at a phenomenal pace for all cancers and continue forward with unwavering commitment by medical experts across the globe. I have benefited from this greatly in my own experiences in the past 10 years and may this be truly inspiring for you too!

Wishing you all the best in every way!

Sincerely, Lu Kleppinger

Footnote:

* Brief history…In August of 2012, being highly symptomatic, I was diagnosed with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), One week later, I started chemotherapy provided by my Virginia oncologist. In March 2013, I became a patient of Dr. Steven Treon, Director of the Bing Center for WM/DFCI/Harvard Medical School in Boston and he extended my chemotherapy for an extra year. After 18 months and 50 infusions, it was an extraordinary success and gave me five years of being under control without treatment. In 2014, my hematologist, Dr. Jorge Castillo, Clinical Director at the Bing Center, said “You are doing really, really, great! Go live and have fun!” I did just that.

In 2019, my WM flared up a second time, and Dr. Castillo placed me on ibrutinib (Imbruvica), a daily pill for life. The results were incredible within a month, and my WM was under control yet again. I lived a normal life for three years, feeling cancer-free.

Original Stories of Hope from the first two episodes can be found at Lymphoma.org and IWMF.com.

Three Ways to Partner in Your Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Care

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

How can Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) patients become partners in their care? In the “Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Treatment Decisions: What’s Right for You?” program, expert Dr. Jorge Castillo from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute shares three key ways that WM patients can take a more active role for optimal health outcomes.

1. Ask Your Doctor When the Appropriate Time to Treat Is

WM patients can often remain in the watch-and-wait phase of their disease for many years, but it’s important for the oncologist to monitor the patient during this time. Ask your doctor when the appropriate time to treat will be, make sure that your bloodwork is monitored on a regular basis, and report how you’re feeling and all of your symptoms.

 2. Establish Your Treatment Goals and Plan

Depending on each Waldenström macroglobulinemia patient, treatment goals may vary depending on the patient age, overall health, lifestyle, and other factors. Work together with your healthcare team to determine your treatment goals and then learn about treatment options. Take action to both ask your WM provider about treatment options and ask about credible Waldenström macroglobulinemia online resources to do further research. And then discuss your treatment options with your WM provider to determine the best treatment for you.

3. Become a Proactive Patient

WM patients can take actions to further advocate for their best care. Educate yourself about your condition by reading credible online resources like International Waldenstrom’s Macroglobulinemia Foundation, Lymphoma Research Foundation, and The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Bring a friend or family member to your appointments with your Waldenström macroglobulinemia doctor to help take notes or to ask questions – and make sure to advocate for yourself if you feel ignored or unheard.

By taking a more active role in their care, Waldenström macroglobulinemia patients can help determine the best treatment plan for optimal health outcomes.

Understanding Clinical Trials: A Jargon Buster Guide

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

When it comes to cancer treatment you or a loved one may be considering participating in a clinical trial as a treatment option.  Clinical trials are designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a treatment. They may involve researchers administering drugs, taking blood or tissue samples, or checking the progress of patients as they take a treatment according to a study’s protocol.

Learning about clinical trials can be a steep learning curve – not least because the process comes with a lot of new terms, acronyms and jargon.  To help you, I’ve put together this list of the most common terms you will find when you are researching clinical trial information. This is not an exhaustive list but it is a helpful starting point. At the end of this article you will see links to find more information.

Adverse Effects (AE)

Also called Adverse Events, or Adverse Drug Reaction, AEs are any harmful event experienced by a person while they are having a drug or any other treatment or intervention. In clinical trials, researchers must always report adverse events, regardless of whether or not the event is suspected to be related to or caused by the drug, treatment or intervention.

Arm

Subsection of people within a study who have a particular intervention.

Bias

Bias is an error that distorts the objectivity of a study. It can arise if a researcher doesn’t adhere to rigorous standards in designing the study, selecting the subjects, administering the treatments, analysing the data, or reporting and interpreting the study results. It can also result from circumstances beyond a researcher’s control, as when there is an uneven distribution of some characteristic between groups as a result of randomization.

Blinding

Blinding is a method of controlling for bias in a study by ensuring that those involved are unable to tell if they are in an intervention or control group so they cannot influence the results. In a single-blind study, patients do not know whether they are receiving the active drug or a placebo. In a double-blind study, neither the patients nor the persons administering the treatments know which patients are receiving the active drug. In a triple-blind study, the patients, clinicians/researchers and the persons evaluating the results do not know which treatment patients had. Whenever blinding is used, there will always be a method in which the treatment can be unblinded in the event that information is required for safety.

Comparator

When a treatment for a specific medical condition already exists, it would be unethical to do a randomized controlled trial that would require some participants to be given an ineffective substitute. In this case, new treatments are tested against the best existing treatment, (i.e. a comparator). The comparator can also be no intervention (for example, best supportive care).

Completed

A trial is considered completed when trial participants are no longer being examined or treated (i.e. no longer in follow-up); the database has been ‘locked’ and records have been archived.

Control

A group of people in a study who do not have the intervention or test being studied. Instead, they may have the standard intervention (sometimes called ‘usual care’) or a dummy intervention (placebo). The results for the control group are compared with those for a group having the intervention being tested. The aim is to check for any differences. The people in the control group should be as similar as possible to those in the intervention group, to make it as easy as possible to detect any effects due to the intervention.

Efficacy

How beneficial a treatment is under ideal conditions (for example, in a laboratory), compared with doing nothing or opting for another type of care. A drug passes efficacy trials if it is effective at the dose tested and against the illness for which it is prescribed.

Eligibility Criteria/ Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Eligibility criteria ensures patients enrolling in a clinical trial share similar characteristics (e.g. gender, age, medications, disease type and status) so that the results of the study are more likely due to the treatment received rather than other factors.

Follow-up

Observation over a period of time of participants enrolled in a trial to observe changes in health status.

Informed Consent

A process (by means of a written informed consent form) by which a participant voluntarily agrees to take part in a trial, having been informed of the possible benefits, risks and side effects associated with participating in the study.

Intervention

The treatment (e.g., a drug, surgical procedure, or diagnostic test) being researched. The intervention group consists of the study participants that have been randomly assigned to receive the treatment.

Investigator

A person responsible for the conduct of the clinical trial at a trial site. If a trial is conducted by a team of individuals at a trial site, the investigator is the responsible leader of the team and may be called the principal investigator (PI).

Multicentre Trial

A clinical trial conducted according to a single protocol but at more than one site, and therefore, carried out by more than one investigator.

Number needed to treat (NNT)

The average number of patients who need to receive the treatment or other intervention for one of them to get the positive outcome in the time specified.

Outcome Measures

The impact that a test, treatment, or other intervention has on a person, group or population.

Phase I, II, III and IV Studies

Once the safety of a new drug has been demonstrated in tests on animals, it goes through a multi-phase testing process to determine its safety and efficacy in treating human patients. If a drug shows success in one phase, the evaluation moves to the next phase

  • Phase 1 tests a drug on a very small number of healthy volunteers to establish overall safety, identify side effects, and determine the dose levels that are safe and tolerable for humans.
  • Phase II trials test a drug on a small number of people who have the condition the drug is designed to treat. These trials are done to establish what dose range is most effective, and to observe any safety concerns that might arise.
  • Phase III trials test a drug on a large number of people who have the condition the drug is designed to treat. Successful completion of Phase III is the point where the drug is considered ready to be marketed.
  • Phase IV trials can investigate uses of the drug for other conditions, on a broader patient base or for longer term use.

Placebo

A fake (or dummy) treatment given to patients in the control group of a clinical trial.  Placebos are indistinguishable from the actual treatment and used so that the subjects in the control group are unable to tell who is receiving the active drug or treatment. Using placebos prevents bias in judging the effects of the medical intervention being tested.

Population

A group of people with a common link, such as the same medical condition or living in the same area or sharing the same characteristics. The population for a clinical trial is all the people the test or treatment is designed to help.

Protocol

A plan or set of steps that defines how something will be done. Before carrying out a research study, for example, the research protocol sets out what question is to be answered and how information will be collected and analysed.

Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

A study in which a number of similar people are randomly assigned to 2 (or more) groups to test a specific drug, treatment or other intervention. One group has the intervention being tested; the other (the comparison or control group) has an alternative intervention, a placebo, or no intervention at all. Participants are assigned to different groups without taking any similarities or differences between them into account. For example, it could involve using a computer-generated random sequence. RCTs are considered the most unbiased way of assessing the outcome of an intervention because each individual has the same chance of having the intervention.

Reliability

The ability to get the same or similar result each time a study is repeated with a different population or group.

Sample

People in a study recruited from part of the study’s target population. If they are recruited in an unbiased way, the results from the sample can be generalised to the target population as a whole.

Subjects

In clinical trials, the people selected to take part are called subjects. The term applies to both those participants receiving the treatment being investigated and to those receiving a placebo or alternate treatment.

Trial Site

The location where trial-related activities are conducted.

References

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

TROG Cancer Research

ICH.org

NICE

Further Resources

American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Cancer.Net trials site

National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Trials lists open and closed cancer clinical trials sponsored or supported by NCI. 

ClinicalTrials.gov database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies

CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing

How to Read and Understand a Scientific Paper

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

In a previous article, How to Read Beyond the Headline: 9 Essential Questions to Evaluate Medical News, I recommended you should always try to read an original study (if cited) to evaluate the information presented. In this follow-on article, you will learn how to read a scientific research paper so that you can come to an informed opinion on the latest research in your field of interest.  Understanding research literature is an important skill for patient advocates, and as with any skill, it can be learned with practice and time.

Let’s start by looking at what exactly we mean by the term “scientific paper”. Scientific papers are written reports describing original research findings. They are published in peer reviewed journals, which means they have been refereed by at least two other experts (unpaid and anonymized) in the field of study in order to determine the article’s scientific validity.

You may also come across the following types of scientific papers in the course of your research.

•       Scientific review papers are also published in peer reviewed journals, but seek to synthesize and summarize the work of a particular sub-field, rather than report on new results.

•       Conference proceedings, which may be published in a journal, are referred to as the “Proceedings of Conference X”. They will sometimes go through peer review, but not always.

•       Editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor offer a review or critique of original articles. They are not peer-reviewed.

Most scientific journals follow the IMRD format, meaning its publications will usually consist of an Abstract followed by:

•       Introduction

•       Methods

•       Results

•       Discussion

 

Let’s look at each of these sections in turn.

(a) Introduction  

The Introduction should provide you with enough information to understand the article. It should establish the scientific significance of the study and demonstrate a relevant context for the current study.  The scope and objectives of the study should be clearly stated.

When reading the Introduction, ask yourself the following questions:

·       What specific problem does this research address?

·       Why is this study important?

(b) Methods

The Methods section outlines how the work was done to answer the study’s hypothesis. It should explain new methodology in detail and types of data recorded.

As you read this section, look for answers to the following questions:

  • What procedures were followed?
  • Are the treatments clearly described?
  • How many people did the research study include? In general, the larger a study the more you can trust its results. Small studies may miss important differences because they lack statistical power. Case studies (i.e. those based on single patients or single observations) are no longer regarded as scientific rigorous.
  • Did the study include a control group? A control group allows researchers to compare outcomes in those who receive a treatment with those who don’t.

 (c) Results

The Results section presents the study’s findings.  It should follow a logical sequence to answer the study hypothesis.  Pay careful attention to any data sets shown in graphs, tables, and diagrams. Try to interpret the data first before reading the captions and details.  If you are unfamiliar with statistics, you will find a helpful glossary of terms here.  Click here for an online guide to help you understand key concepts of statistics and how these concepts relate to the scientific method and research.

Consider the following questions:

  • Are the findings supported by persuasive evidence?
  • Is there an alternative way to interpret these findings?

(d) Discussion 

The Discussion places the study in the context of the broader field of research. It should explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward and outline the next steps for further study.

Questions to ask:

•       Does the study have any limitations? Limitations are the conditions or influences that cannot be controlled by the researcher.  Any limitations that might influence the results should be mentioned in the study’s findings.

  • How are the findings new or supportive of other work in the field?
  • What are some of the specific applications of the study’s findings?

The IMRD format provides you with a useful framework to read a scientific paper. You will need to read a paper several times to understand its findings. Consider your first reading of the study as a “big picture” reading.  Scan the Abstract for a summary of the study’s principal objectives, the methods it used and the principal conclusions. A well-written abstract should allow you to identify the basic content of an article to determine its relevance to you.  In describing how she determines the relevance of a study, research RN, Katy Hanlon, focuses on “key words and phrases first. Those that relate to the author/s base proposal as well as my own interests”.  Medical writer, Nora Cutcliffe, also scans upfront “to gauge power and relevance of clinical trial data”. She looks for “study enrollment (n), country and year”. It’s important to note the publication date to determine if this article contains the latest findings or if there is more up-to-date research available. Cutcliffe also advises you should “note author affiliations and study sponsors”.  Here you are looking out for any potential bias or vested interest in a particular outcome.  Check the Acknowledgments section to see if the author(s) declare any financial interests in the research which might bias their findings. Finally, check if the article is published in a credible journal.  You will find reputable biomedical journals indexed by Pubmed and Web of Science.

Next, circle or take note of any scientific terms or keywords you don’t understand and look up their meaning before your second reading. Scan the References section – you may even want to read an article listed here first to help you better understand the current study.

With the second reading you are going to deepen your comprehension of the study. You’ll want to highlight key points, consult the references, and take notes as you read.  According to the scientific publisher, Elsevier, “reading a scientific paper should not be done in a linear way (from beginning to end); instead, it should be done strategically and with a critical mindset, questioning your understanding and the findings.”  Scientist, Dr Jennifer Raff, agrees. “When I’m choosing papers to read, I decide what’s relevant to my interests based on a combination of the title and abstract”, she writes in How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists. “But when I’ve got a collection of papers assembled for deep reading, I always read the abstract last”. Raff explains she does this “because abstracts contain a succinct summary of the entire paper, and I’m concerned about inadvertently becoming biased by the authors’ interpretation of the results”.

When you have read the article through several times, try to distill it down to its scientific essence, using your own words. Write down the key points you have gleaned from your reading such as the purpose of the study, main findings and conclusions. You might find it helpful to develop a template for recording notes, or adapt the template below for use. You will then have a useful resource to find the correct reference and to cross reference when you want to consult an article in the future.

In the example below I have taken an article published in 2015, as an example. You can read the paper Twitter Social Media is an Effective Tool for Breast Cancer Patient Education and Support: Patient-Reported Outcomes by Survey on PubMed.

Template for Taking Notes on Research Articles

 

 

Further reading

How to Read Beyond the Headline: 9 Essential Questions to Evaluate Medical News

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Ben Goldacre writing in Bad Science classified science reporting as falling into three categories – wacky stories, scare stories and breakthrough stories; the last of which he views as ”a more subtly destructive category of science story”. Whether you get your news through digital or traditional means, you can’t fail to notice the regularity with which journalists report on the latest medical breakthroughs. Some of these reports are sensationalist (“coffee causes cancer”) and fairly easy to dismiss; but do you know how to separate fact from fiction when it comes to less sensationalist headlines?

The foundation of empowered patient-hood is built on reliable health information. This means not only knowing where to find medical information, but being able to evaluate it and knowing how it can be applied to your own, or your loved-ones’ particular circumstances. Headlines often mislead people into thinking a certain substance or activity will prevent or cure chronic disease. As patient advocates we must learn to read beyond the headlines to filter out the good, the bad, and the questionable. The following questions are designed to help sort the signal from the noise next time you read the latest news story heralding a medical breakthrough.

1. Does the article support its claims with scientific research?

Your first concern should be the research behind the news article. If an article contains no link to scientific research to support its claims, then be very wary about treating those claims as scientifically credible.

2. What is the original source of the article?

If the article cites scientific research you should still treat the findings with caution. Always consider the source. Find out where the study was done. Who paid for and conducted the study? Is there a potential conflict of interest?

3. Does the article contain expert commentary to back up claims?

Look for expert independent commentary from doctors or other healthcare providers to explain the findings (there should be an independent expert source quoted – someone not directly connected with the research).

4. Is this a conference presentation?

Journalists frequently report on research presented at large scientific meetings. It’s important to realize that this research may only be at a preliminary stage and may not fulfill its early promise.

5. What kind of clinical trial is being reported on?

If the news relates to results from a clinical trial, it’s important you understand how, or even if, the results apply to you. Quite often, news publications report on trials which have not yet been conducted on humans. Many drugs that show promising results in animals don’t work in humans. Cancer.Net and American Cancer Society have useful guides to understanding the format of cancer research studies.

6. What stage is the trial at?

Research studies must go through several phases before a treatment can be considered safe and effective; but many times journalists report on early phase trials as if these hold all the answers. The testing process in humans is divided into several phases:

  •  Phase I trials: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
  • Phase II trials: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
  • Phase III trials: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov

7. How many people did the research study include?

In general, the larger a study the more you can trust its results. Small studies may miss important differences because they lack statistical power.

8. Did the study include a control group?

A control group allows researchers to compare outcomes in those who receive a treatment with those who don’t. The gold standard is a “randomised controlled trial”, a study in which participants are randomly allocated to receive (or not receive) a particular intervention (e.g. a treatment or a placebo).

9. What are the study’s limitations?

Many news stories fail to point out the limitations of the evidence. The limitations of a study are the shortcomings, conditions or influences that cannot be controlled by the researcher. Any limitations that might influence the results should be mentioned in the study’s findings, so always read the original study where possible.

Useful Resources

  • Sense about Science works with scientists and members of the public to equip people to make sense of science and evidence. It responds to hundreds of requests for independent advice and questions on scientific evidence each year.
  • Trust It or Trash is a tool to help you think critically about the quality of health information (including websites, handouts, booklets, etc.).
  • Understanding Health Research (UHR) is a free service created with the intention of helping people better understand health research in context. It gives clear and understandable explanations of important considerations like sampling, bias, uncertainty and replicability.