Category Archives: Research

ASCO Names Immunotherapy The “Clinical Cancer Advance Of The Year”

Medscape (2/4, Chustecka) reports that “immunotherapy has been chosen as the ‘clinical cancer advance of the year’ by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in its Clinical Cancer Advances 2016 report.” In the introduction to the report, ASCO president Julie Vose, MD, writes, “No recent advance has been more transformative than the rise of immunotherapy, particularly over this past year.”

MedPage Today (2/4, Bankhead) reports, “Published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to coincide with World Cancer Day, the report calls on Congress to continue its ‘sustained robust federal funding for cancer research,’ characterized as pivotal to future progress in cancer.”

Healio (2/4, Kelsall) reports that “during a press conference held on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on World Cancer Day,” Dr. Vose said, “In the era of precision medicine and molecular medicine, we can select treatment based on the genomic profiling of each patient and each tumor. Cancer immunotherapy uses the body’s own immune system to fight cancer, which is something that those of us in cancer research have been dreaming about for years, and which has finally come to fruition.”

Some Tumor Samples In MATCH Trial Found To Be Low-Quality

This article leads in with “Shoddy biopsies deny cancer patients a shot at personalized treatment”. Biopsy samples taken from patients with advanced cancer, were collected by doctors in hundreds of clinics nationwide. When researchers checked them, they found as many as 1 in 5 didn’t have enough malignant cells to analyze, in most cases because the biopsy had been poorly done. This glitch raises troubling questions about the new era of precision medicine. The article goes on to report “biopsies done in rural or community centers were more likely to be shoddy”. Those patients’ tumors couldn’t be analyzed and they couldn’t be matched with medicines targeted at their specific genetic mutations. And that suggests that access to the most advanced, customized cancer treatments might be highly unequal — and dependent on the quality of the local doctors performing biopsies. Perhaps “shoddy” is a strong word when trying to balance the need of being minimally invasive to arrive at a tissue diagnosis versus having enough tissue/tumor cells for additional molecular analysis.  Larger biopsies carry the risk of more potential complications while less invasive procedures that may be sufficient for accurate grading/staging may be insufficient for downstream analysis.

STAT reported that the MATCH trial, launched last year by the National Cancer Institute, “has run into an unexpected roadblock: Many of the tumor samples aren’t robust enough to be put through genetic analysis.” According to STAT, the issue “raises troubling questions about the new era of precision medicine.” The article pointed out that though interventional radiologists usually aim to take as small a biopsy as possible to avoid infection and other risks, “only larger and more invasive biopsies can provide the type of genetic information needed for personalizing therapy.” Dr. Michael Thompson, incoming chair of the Community Research Forum Council at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said, “You have these competing issues of trying to minimize toxicity from the procedure and trying to get optimal tissue.”

“Personalized medicine” for years to come will be forced to deal with “diagnostically” suitable tissue samples versus “more tissue for molecular analysis”.

Read more here.

Put Advocates in Charge of the Breast Cancer Research Agenda

Courtesy of Fran Visco, President, National Breast Cancer Coalition – reposted from Huffington Post:

Across the country, people run, walk, dine out, buy “stuff” and write checks to support breast cancer research. All of this is great. But what exactly is “breast cancer research?” Where does the money go? Who decides which questions are asked? How do we measure success? All of these are incredibly important questions. If we really want to end breast cancer and save lives, it will take more than just raising and spending more money on research. We need a thoughtful, strategic approach to making certain that money is well spent. We need to know that the end result benefits women and men at risk of and with breast cancer, rather than just supporting institutions, individual scientists and drug companies.

At the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC), we know that advocates trained in the science of breast cancer, women and men who are outside the system of science and research, should lead the way. That might sound strange–lay advocates setting a scientific research agenda? We have proven it works. Educated advocates like the ones at NBCC are the only ones with no agenda other than to end breast cancer. Not get published, or promoted or make a profit. Just save lives.

Try to look up how many institutions around the country are working on breast cancer research. Or how many thousands of scientists are doing that work. You can’t do it. Nor can we easily find out what they are doing in breast cancer. There is little transparency in breast cancer research, beyond piecing together federal funding and what information you can find on private grants and associations. The federal government appropriated more than $800 million last year for breast cancer research. It is estimated that private philanthropy exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars each year. There is no coordination of all of this. Now, I am not suggesting there should be coordination of science. Having all researchers work in lockstep would send us down one road and it may be the wrong one. There would be no room for innovation or really “wild ass” ideas. We need diversity of approaches, replication of findings, innovation and even some incrementalism. But we don’t need so much of it. We do need some segment of all of this working to answer questions that are important to people. And we must have transparency and accountability.

The current world of science rewards publication and grant funding begets more grant funding. So the propensity of researchers is to do what will get published and what will get funded–not necessarily what will save lives because, unfortunately, these are not always the same thing. An individual scientist, or her team, at one institution most often is not collaborating with teams at other institutions, who may have a different way of approaching the same problem. Now, scientists will tell you of course they collaborate. Maybe we define it differently. We define collaboration as an open exchange of ideas; sharing of tools, technology and knowledge; learning from one other and moving forward as partners to answer a big question. We haven’t seen much of that. How much of that research funding we have walked and raced to raise is spent on that type of collaboration?

Do we know what questions are being asked? Do we know if those questions are important? We can know. I recently read a posting from a breast cancer survivor who claimed that a patient cannot understand science and any attempt to read about it was akin to hearing “zebras clumping by all the time.” I immediately thought about the iconic Barbie doll that, when you pulled the string, you heard, “Math class is tough.”Back in 1992, people rightfully pointed out how offensive this was and demeaning to women. We can do math. We can understand scientific articles; we can help decide what is important. It is offensive to suggest otherwise.

One of NBCC’s signature projects is to train advocates at Project LEAD® Institutes and Workshops in the science of breast cancer and on research methodology. They learn basic terminology, foundational concepts, and a way to think critically about science and gain the confidence to ask hard questions. LEAD graduates have gone on to analyze and influence the science itself. Working together with scientists, advocates have influenced how researchers view the significance of their scientific questions, how research designs might impact participants and why results need to be important endpoints and not just extend life for a week or two.

In 1992, NBCC successfully advocated for unprecedented federal funding for breast cancer research: hundreds of millions of dollars for the newly-created U.S. Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. As part of this new program, I worked with scientists and program leaders to facilitate trained advocates having a seat at the peer review and programmatic tables. Many Project LEAD® graduates have since sat at those tables to review scientific research proposals and to set the research agenda.

As part of NBCC’s Breast Cancer Deadline 2020®, we launched the Artemis Project®, which is our research work on primary prevention, or stopping women and men from getting breast cancer in the first place, and prevention of metastasis, or preventing women and men from dying of it. We are making progress on these two fronts in large part because they are advocate-led.

Math class may be tough for many men and women. That does not mean it creates a barrier. Science can be accessible to all of us–it’s not just for scientists–and it certainly can sound clearer than zebras clumping. Advocates can understand the science of breast cancer and help determine what research questions should be answered. We’ve made progress in getting more trained advocates to the research table. Now we need to put more advocates–who answer to no one, no institution and no industry but to their desire to end this disease–in charge of setting the breast cancer research agenda.

Follow Fran Visco on Twitter @Deadline2020