I was reading my emails this morning and came across one
from the Foundation for Women’s Cancers, announcing September as Gynecologic
Cancer Awareness Month. Their social media campaign centered on the hashtag
above, with a focus on clinical trial awareness and participation. It
got me thinking again about the enterprise of clinical trials, and just how
much goes in to clinical trial enrollment.
Just this morning I was on clinicaltrials.gov looking at
trials related to dietary interventions and breast cancer. There were 92 trials
listed, all actively enrolling, and this was in breast cancer alone. As a layperson,
I might look at this list and think of it as a menu—a confusing yet
all-inclusive menu—and all I would need to do is choose one. But with each
link, one would discover that it is not a menu; it is a listing. The difference
is that not all of the things listed are accessible to you. It might be because
the trial is enrolling in Los Angeles, and you live in Boston. Or, it might be
for a particular subtype of breast cancer, but not the one your loved one has.
But just as likely, it might be enrolling in the Boston metro, but it is not
open in your own institution. Suffice to say that “actively enrolling” is not
synonymous with “available to you.” This in and of itself can be quite a
frustrating thing—for both patients and their providers, especially when our
own patients come in with these search lists, inquiring why don’t we offer such and so clinical
trial.
But just as much as trial availability is an issue, the
notion of experimental treatments continues to be a hindrance for some
patients. Experimental implies unproven, and offering something unproven means
that proven treatments are not available, suggesting that one is terminal. It
is a discussion I have had at least once per week when discussing trial
options. However, perhaps with the emergence of terms like, “personalized
therapy” and “immunotherapy,” the public consciousness is beginning to
understand that there is promise to experimental treatments, and as many of our
organizations and societies state, “for many, the best option for treatment is
on a clinical trial.”
I sense that for women with gynecologic cancers, the promise
of better treatments is something they have embraced as much as we have. Five
years ago, when I offered a clinical trial it was with a look of dread. Now, it
seems that the option of a trial comes as frequently from my own patients as it
does from me. For women who have recurred, they want to know what else is
available. Perhaps it is because of the wide availability of medical
information thanks to Dr. Google or the many ways social media educates and
engages patients, my own patients appear keenly aware that for them, the
“already available” therapies don’t offer much.
This was the case with Alex. She had been referred to me
after a first recurrence of ovarian cancer—one that recurred six months after
the end of carboplatin and paclitaxel. She understood her standard options and
also knew that at six months, standard wasn’t very good. So, she came to see me
specifically for clinical trials. I reviewed several options we had available,
and we both chose one particular trial. I gave her the informed consent to read
and made clear that she understood the experimental nature of the treatment and
that I could not guarantee any outcome.
“Alex, when I speak of outcomes, what does that mean to
you?” I asked.
She answered, “Doc, if you’re asking me if I hope I can be
cured, the answer is yes. Ask anyone in my situation, they’d rather not have
cancer. But, I also know that’s not realistic. So, what I hope for is quality
of life and a long life—not longer, but long. I want to live and live well. I
don’t want to be nauseous or bald, both of which I went through the first time,
and if a non-chemotherapy clinical trial regimen can do that for me, then I am
willing to try it.”
Looking back, we were both fortunate. She wanted to do
something outside of standard of care, and I was in a place where we had the
options. She hoped for the best, but realized that a clinical trial holds no
guarantee for “success,” whichever way it is defined.
Clinical trials require so much, but in the end, they have
to be available. I applaud the Foundation for Women’s Cancers for highlighting
the importance of trials, and join them in their push for more trial options
for not only my own patients, but for all patients with cancer. Wherever there
is a patient asking for a trial opportunity, the worst response any of us can
give is “sorry, there isn’t anything available.”
#sharethepurplelove
No comments:
Post a Comment