Daily Archives: September 16, 2019

IASLC 2019 World Conference on Lung Cancer

So it gets better. Not only did I travel to Italy this summer, I also attended the 2019 World Conference on Lung Cancer in Barcelona, serving on a group panel addressing ways to improve clinical trials, along with my peer/good friend Janet Freeman Daly.

Janet is a scholar among advocates/activists and she presented compelling data. My territory is the more emotional piece, pulling on years of boots on the ground experience. I had no slides. My speech was written the night prior to our panel. I would imagine there was no presentation even remotely similar at this conference with 7500 attendees.

Of course, I was preaching to the choir as almost half of the people in the room were fellow advocates. Ideally, this message would reach a broader audience (I’m shooting for the plenary session next year). As it was, I received a standing ovation, some tears, quite a few hugs. And requests that I share my speech online, so folks, here it is.

*And no, I’m not a doctor. But I was tickled to be called one.

What would you do to stay alive?

Chances are, almost anything. 

If, as I was, you were diagnosed with lung cancer at the age of 45, you might have most of one lung removed, not by vats, but rather a good old fashioned lower left lobectomy, followed by four rounds of adjuvant chemo—a notoriously nasty doublet of cisplatin and taxotere. 

You would do these things because of your husband, your children, your parents, your siblings. You would do these things because the youngest of your children has not yet turned eight. You would do these things because, at 45, there is so much left undone. And you would do these things because you don’t just like life, you love it.

That desire to live might not diminish even as your cancer returns and metastasizes to your right lung. You might well hang onto hope right up until the moment you ask if it is time to get your affairs in order and the answer is yes—best guess, three to five months in which to do so. 

Dazed acceptance takes the place of desire as you say your goodbyes. And then something quite unexpected happens. You learn that the re-staging biopsy revealed that your cancer is positive for a newly identified oncogenic driver in lung cancer, an EML4-ALK fusion. 

By chance there is a phase I clinical trial for an ALK inhibitor at the very hospital where you receive your treatment. One other person has enrolled but quickly died, in part from side effects from the experimental therapeutic. 

You know that you are also dying. However, on this day you discover that you have not lost hope. The trial is a long shot but maybe, just maybe, it will extend your life by several months. Your greatest anxiety is that your decision to enroll may hasten your death. But you can’t not try, and so you do.

You end up being the 4th person in the world with non small cell lung cancer to take the first ALK inhibitor. 

Eleven years and two more phase 1 trials later, you are still alive. You have lived long enough to see your youngest graduate cum laude from Phillips Exeter Academy. In two weeks, he will enter his fourth year of study at MIT.

In November you will turn 60, and your oldest child 35. None of this was imaginable. None of this would have happened without both the opportunity as well as your personal decision to enroll in clinical trials. 

Your life is full and you feel abundant gratitude in regard to your good fortune. You are aware that for many, your continuing survival is a miracle.

However, you know differently. This was no miracle. It was a combination of medical science and much blood, sweat and tears. 

I succinctly describe my clinical trial experience this way: it has been my privilege and my burden. 

Since October 1 of 2008, I have spent more than a decade as a participant in clinical trials. First in human, early cohorts, all of them. Each time I’ve had approximately a 70% resolution of my cancer and all told, six years of stability. My quality of life has  been, for the most part, extraordinary. However, that is not to say there have been no side effects. Most have been manageable, but some have been extreme, from liver toxicity to cognitive deficits.  I have borne these and not let them get in the way of an incredibly full life. However, the challenges are not to be minimized. 

Every year I max out my deductible in January. Many are under the impression that clinical trials are free—in the trials I have been in, drug has been provided by the sponsor as well as the cost for occasional procedures—for instance, echocardiograms in my current trial. All other medical procedures have been billed to my insurance, which means I am paying the copay. And the non medical expenses—travel, lodging, meals, parking—have all come out of pocket. My pocket. 

Trials are time consuming—consuming in general. My marriage of 24 years ended six years ago—in large part because my then husband found our lives too cancer centric. The financial fallout of divorce has been that my own income is limited—with far too much of it allotted to my medical care.

The emotional burden of the ups and downs of literally living while dying has taken its toll on not just me, but my three children. Uncertainty has a permanent place at our table. 

And then there are the astounding number of scans I’ve undergone—not because they were clinically indicated but rather because they were mandated by the one size fits all protocol of clinical trials. To wit: even though my cancer, invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma, is confined to my lungs, I have now had sixty abdominal CT scans, ten of which were PET. More than one hundred spiral CT scans of my lungs, ten of which were also PET. 42 Brain MRI’s. And sundry x-rays, bone scans, full body PET scans in addition. This in an individual with highly mutable cells. 

Several years ago I requested that the scanning schedule be amended from every six weeks—not standard of care—to every three months. Not just for me but for every participant who had been enrolled for twelve months or longer. And that attention be paid to individual diagnoses. That someone such as myself, with no brain METS, should not be required to undergo such frequent brain MRIs. Keep in mind that in addition to being exposed to unnecessary radiation, I paid copays on those 60 abdominal CT scans and 42 brain MRI’s. 

When my request was ignored by the sponsor, I made the risky decision to become noncompliant, refusing to have anymore abdominal CT scans and also declining injected contrast with MRI’s of my brain, as I was concerned about the possibility of gadolinium retention. Sadly, a year later my MRI was in fact positive for gadolinium—what is referred to as a brain stain, so I now have heavy metal in my cerebellum—a finding with poorly understood consequences. 

Oddly, there has been a push to humanize the role of clinical trial participants, by euphemistically referring to them as partners. As I have written in a blog titled ‘Don’t call me partner’, this is not a partnership of equals, and in fact, is a relationship that at times is abusive. 

That’s right. I am grateful but also angry. Angry because this potentially abusive relationship is codependent. You need me but I need you too. Desperately. 

Therefore, there is nothing to be done but to work on this. 

I would begin by suggesting that there should be some sort of bill of rights or manifesto for participants in clinical trials. A sort of contract that would acknowledge, recognize and even honor the fact that the ultimate purpose of clinical trials involving human beings is not to advance science or to enrich shareholders—it is to address human suffering brought about by disease. 

Recognize that we are not truly volunteers. We didn’t choose this course, we were chosen. A terminal illness is a terrible thing and we all understand that desperate times call for desperate measures. Clinical trials are not some extreme form of community service—we are enrolling because we are hoping that our lives shall be extended. If our contribution helps others, that is a bonus, but do not make us feel that wanting to live should be anything but our primary motivation.

Healthy ‘volunteers’ in clinical trials are almost always compensated for participation. Why? Because they wouldn’t volunteer otherwise. And yet those of us with cancer are not only not compensated, we generally pay to participate, in the form of deductibles and other out of pocket expenses. In my more than decade of participation I have never even had my parking comped, a not unreasonable expectation as more frequent visits are required per protocol. Ideally, I, like those ‘healthy volunteers’, should be compensated for my time. And any argument that doing so might constitute inducement is ridiculous—I am induced only by my impending mortality. Compensation would merely serve to lessen my financial burden to some degree.

Remember, always remember, that I am a human being. And that when you describe me as either compliant or noncompliant I do not feel respected. 

Know that participation in a clinical trial comes with a certain loss of autonomy. Do not abuse this by favoring the collection of data over my individuality. If a scan or MRI is not clinically indicated, then do not expect me to get one just for the sake of science.

Be aware that not only must I qualify for a trial, I am always at risk of being booted. Whether it is progression itself or a comorbidity that develops once on trial. I had a terrifying scenario several years ago where it appeared I might have developed pancreatitis. When I called my oncologist her first words were ‘I hope it’s not pancreatitis as it would preclude you from participation in any other trials.’ and then she asked me to come in for testing. I refused. Telling her that I may be in a tight situation (I used saltier language) if I had pancreatitis but it was a tight situation with options. If I came in to be tested I would simply be in the tight situation—minus options. This sort of scenario should not exist. 

And lastly, realize that clinical trials are a social contract. Understand and honor my sacrifice in the same way you would a soldier. 

Which brings me to my final ask. 

A year ago I developed resistance to my third ALK inhibitor. In my years of participation in clinical trials I have collected not only side effects and bills, I also have a coterie of resistance mutations. Had it been up to me, I would have pulsed my treatment right from the start, as even to a layman, it made sense that if you take an inhibitor daily, resistance is inevitable. 

However, in this sense I was compliant. And now, eleven years after starting my first phase I clinical trial, I am at the end of the branch. 

There will likely be no 4th generation ALK inhibitor. Certainly not in time for me and perhaps not at all. Why? Because there is no financial incentive. What was 4-6% of those diagnosed with lung cancer has been cleaved and cleaved again by the time you get to resistance with a third gen. 

I am a veteran of these wars. An outlier. And yet, now I must live with the knowledge there is no next treatment.

It is likely that I have now been on this third gen ALK inhibitor longer than anyone else. I am one person. However, as an advocate and activist, I feel the weight of all those who are just behind me. And I ask, what are you going to do when they too develop resistance to a third gen? How will you tell a 35 year old with three kids that there is nothing else to do? 

It is my suggestion that as a part of this social contract, we should not be abandoned. It is a poor return on an investment, it is bad science, and it certainly is not in the best interest of humanity. 

Demand, as I shall be, that our government mandate some sort of umbrella clinical trial to study those of us who are outliers. Honor our contribution. You’ve helped bring us this far, now see just how far we can go. Do not leave us on the battlefield after we have fought so valiantly. Bring us home.

Thank you.