Answers for DCIS are coming

Great news for those confused about Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS). That includes just about everyone, from doctors and researchers, to patients and their families!

Four new projects and resources are available: COMET logo

  1. A new study called COMET just opened that will look at whether women with low-risk DCIS will do just as well with active monitoring (also called Active Surveillance) as those who choose surgery, radiation and/or hormonal therapy. Watch the video.

    “The aim of this work is not to try and determine what’s ‘better,’ but rather to quantify the tradeoffs associated with these two approaches to DCIS treatment.”
    – Dr. Shelley Hwang, Principal Investigator

  2. A new website for DCIS also opened this week to help the over 50,000 women per year who are diagnosed with DCIS each year in the U.S. Of course, the site is also available for women worldwide.
  3. SHARE is sponsoring a webinar called “DCIS: What You Need to Know” that features
    SHARE DCIS webinaryours truly on March 22 at noon Eastern Time (US). We’ll explain what DCIS is, how to think about it, and what is needed to make rational decisions when faced with a diagnosis.
  4.  A new international research project called “Preventing Unnecessary Breast Cancer Treatment” was recently announced to learn how to find DCIS that will not turn into breast cancer so women won’t have to deal with treatment issues.CRUK DCIS graphic

Together, these projects can tell us how to deal with DCIS, what risk factors may cause approximately 1 in 10 women to develop a later invasive breast cancer, and hopefully, that Active Surveillance works just as well as invasive treatments.

By the way, about 90% of women with DCIS won’t get invasive breast cancer!

If you can’t wait to find out more about DCIS, check out this post or get the DCIS Dilemmas ebook. Stay tuned for more about these projects and other findings about DCIS!

COMET study team

Some members of the COMET Study team

Patient Thoughts on Medical Tests for Research

Here is a guest post I wrote earlier this year for METAvivor called “How Do People Feel about Bone Marrow Exams?” It was based on a study with Bonnie King from Stanford. While this may be one of the more gruesome-sounding medical procedures that some patients go through, it is not necessarily unique.

Too often, researchers think about all of the cool data they can collect during a clinical trial or research study, without thinking about what is would be like to experience all of those test procedures. Well, patients think about it, and often wonder what is wrong with the researchers!

I’m always perplexed when I hear about “adherence” issues in clinical trials. It used to be called “compliance” but that wasn’t as accurate, and brought up more negative connotations for the research community.

The fact is, for patients, endurance is the best term.

– Deborah Collyar

Staying in a clinical trial, or on any prolonged treatment plan, is an endurance test. There are many unpleasant, and sometimes risky, things that you have to do but hopefully you will get something out of it at the end. Patients hope for positive responses to treatment, or even remission, but that is not always possible.

x-ray film of the brain computed tomography

This is one of many reasons why it is important for those of us who represent patients to be involved in research discussions, from conceptual design to trial completion. We ask questions, such as, “Why do you need x number of these tests? Are they absolutely necessary to answer the questions in this study? What else could be done? Have you thought about asking the patient?”

Let’s work together to make the experience of participating in clinical trials as smooth as possible. Trial participants contribute so much already – they deserve to respect and consideration when we ask them to do things for research.

 

Patients Want Their Data Shared

Patients also want to be:

  • Respected for their contributions to science and medical advances. Those contributions include samples from their bodies (biospecimens), information (data), experiences (input), and sometimes their very lives.
  • Protected from harm and misuse of sensitive data about themselves, their family, and/or their culture or ethnicity.

As long as we are respected and protected, we will participate in clinical research and learning healthcare systems so researchers can find better ways to treat and prevent diseases and medical conditions.

What & Who

This post focuses on data from past “legacy” cancer clinical trials. The Patient AdvocateProtectionCommittee in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology drafted a resolution to add the patient voice to the groundswell of support for data sharing.

Why?

  1. People who join cancer clinical trials are often asked to donate their tissue and data for future research.
  2. When patients give consent for research, they expect their information to be shared.
  3. Unfortunately, many hospitals, clinics, academic centers, or research groups will not release information to other researchers, even though patients gave their consent.
  4. This does not honor or respect patients who want to contribute to research.

Your Call to Action

  • Please read the resolution, sign on, and share it with your networks and organizations. While this resolution deals with cancer, its intent is to help all medical conditions.
  • Include patients in data sharing activities.

“Today, oncologists and cancer researchers realize that they can’t [advance cancer progress] alone… What’s required today extends beyond any individual or any individual discipline, beyond medicine itself… It requires somewhat of a change in mindset. It requires a lot more openness – open data, open collaboration and above all, open minds.

– Vice President Joe Biden, ASCO Speech

Thank you!

Getting Real about Patients & Clinical Trials

I’ve been asked countless times to write about patients and clinical trials. Guess it’s time to share what I’ve learned, along with other patient advocates, as we work beside researchers in the proverbial trenches. Just so happens that this post coincides with April Fool’s Day – hope that’s not an omen!

Why this series?

This is the first in a series on Patients & Clinical Trials (CT). Why? Because clinical trials are really the only tried & true way we get new diagnostics, treatments, and preventive approaches to people. For all diseases and health conditions.

But the research system isn’t very good at it, even after 70+ years. It’s not for lack of trying – BILLIONs have been spent on tweaking existing structures, but perplexing problems persist.

Heads up on CT activities

Other themes will also emerge, based on over 20 years of changing research and medicine culture (or at least trying to). In the meantime, here are some of my activities in the CT world:

Event Inscription on Sign

Other activities:information-orange-circle_fkMzuUIu_L

  • The California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), part of ICER, released their recommendations from the February meeting for new drugs in diabetes and asthma.
  • CTTI just released materials from an expert meeting about the issues surrounding FDA streamlined approvals for new antibiotic drug development. A summary will be posted soon. You can also read a past post called Antibiotic Resistance – It’s Complicated!
  • Cures Within Reach focuses on ways that existing drugs can be used for other purposes. More from this group in a guest blog post here soon!
  • Two DCIS studies are being funded by PCORI to help answer treatment questions for this pre-cancer, and learn how women feel about them. You can also read a past post called When is ‘Carcinoma’ Not Cancer?
  • The Center for Medical Technology Policy (CMTP) is working on recommendations to allow patients to switch treatments in a clinical trial if their cancers keep growing.
  • The Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance (MBCA) is creating a summary of their February meeting from the Research Task Force to Advance Progress.
  • The NC ProCESS project on prostate cancer has convened a patient advisory board to help communicate effectively with prostate survivors in their study.
  • Two groups I’m working with (MRCT and the NCI NCTN Biospecimen Banks) are discussing how to handle the challenges of giving individual research results to patients.

You can also read past CT posts about:

There are many other clinical trial happenings – these are just some of the ones in which I’m involved! Yes, it’s heavy on cancer, but remember that cancers cover the gamut from rare diseases to millions of people.

Updates will be posted regularly. Let me know what you’d like to hear about. TTFN.

All content © 2016 by Deborah Collyar unless otherwise specified. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided a link back to this page and proper attribution is given to me as the original author.

A Plan for Real Research Improvements

Looks like 1,772 of us posted public comments about medical research informed consents to the NPRM docket! I realize this sounds obtuse, but bear with me through this post – please!

So, What’s the Big Deal?

The final regulation will affect millions of patients, researchers, institutions, and companies. These rules last changed in 1991. You know, before the internet existed for mere mortals. Just after my first cancer, while I was still a Silicon Valley computer executive. When Terminator 2 was new. Before my son was born. But I digress. Background on research informed consents is in this post.

Important Points for Patients

Unfortunately, informing patients about research has too often become a check box as CYA (cover your aspirations) for institutions. Big business. Instead of a straight-forward PROCESS that tells people what to expect so they can agree (consent) to take part in research (or not). Seems simple, right?

Rather than lament, my comments explain how systemic changes should happen. But don’t hold your breath. BTW, I had to write a preamble due to the 5000 character limit. That ticked me off (!), so I wrote this introduction:

“My individual comments are listed in the attached letter, although as founder of Patient Advocates In Research (PAIR), I have helped thousands of patient advocates partner with the research system for over 20 years (and am personally a survivor of multiple cancers).

Since you have received so many concerns from researchers and IRB members, it seems appropriate to add to the sparse patient perspective that appears in the NPRM public comments. Here are a few key points, in addition to my attached letter:

  • It is past time to embrace technology that can help deliver a modern approach to informed consent for trial participants, instead holding fast onto antiquated mindsets, procedures and reliance on paper forms.
  • This is too important to limit comments to 5000 characters, hence the attachment. I have participated in far too many informed consent committees to rely on an ‘executive summary’ approach to comprehensively address the NPRM.
  • Please eliminate the terms “human subject” and “research subject” from all federal regulations. My premise and recommendation is attached.
  • Informed consent is a process, and should be acknowledged as such in federal regulations. The form is a check box.
  • The NPRM, HIPAA, and any other related regulations should NOT be viewed in isolation, but rather WITH the rest of healthcare. Regulations should state that all agencies should work together in an adaptive infrastructure to ensure rules are kept up to date in our changing world.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Common Rule, which is of utmost importance in protecting research participants (i.e. people) while fostering research. In this historic shift to modernize the Common Rule, the NPRM should create an adaptive infrastructure that allows for evolving science while supporting responsible participant partnership, choice, and engagement. Please view my comments in the attached letter as a complete package.”

The Whole Letter

Pages from NPRM public comments 1-6-16PLEASE read the details in this pdf. It’s not long, and posits a new adaptive approach to create an open, welcoming research system. We can actually push this forward with your help!

So, What’s Next?

You can see the 1,772 comments here – if you know the Comment Tracking Number (mine is 1k0-8n8m-6xee), you don’t have to look through all of them.

I have no idea how the comments will be used, but they promise to read and consider them. The research community has waited for years to get changes to the Common Rule. No one knows when the final rule will take effect, but it’s a safe bet it won’t be before 2018.

Please join the discussion about making research accessible and open – make it REAL for PEOPLE!

All content © 2016 by Deborah Collyar unless otherwise specified. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided a link back to this page and proper attribution is given to me as the original author.