Real World Health Care Blog

General

Calling for an Integrative Approach to Pain Management

This week, Real World Health Care continues our series on pain management with an interview with Bob Twillman, PhD, FAPM, Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management. Dr. Twillman is responsible for overseeing federal and state pain policy developments and advocating for those supporting an integrative approach to pain management. He also serves as chair of the Prescription Monitoring Program Advisory Committee for the Kansas Board of Pharmacy. Dr. Twillman previously served as a faculty member at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, where he founded and directed the inpatient pain management program and was a co-founder of the hospital’s Palliative Care Team.

Improving People’s Lives

Bob Twillman, PhD, Executive Director, Academy of Integrative Pain Management

Real World Health Care: Can you describe the mission of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management?

Bob Twillman: Our mission is to improve the lives of people with pain by advancing a person-centered, integrative model of pain care through evidence-guided education, credentialing, and advocacy. In essence, we want to promote an integrative, multimodal, multidisciplinary approach to pain management because we believe such an approach is more effective and more cost-effective in treating all types of pain, both chronic and acute. Our educational opportunities teach clinicians how to provide this kind of care, and our advocacy efforts — which are unparalleled in the pain management sphere — promote policies that encourage provisions of this type of care.

Clinician Training & Challenges

RWHC: Why is it important for clinicians to be well-versed in integrative pain management?

BT: The traditional biomedical approach to pain management doesn’t always work well for a good number of people with pain. We know — and it’s been confirmed by the Institute of Medicine and in the recently-issued National Pain Strategy — that pain is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon, and that an integrative approach is the only safe and sane way to care for people with pain. The only way to achieve the best possible pain control for every person with pain is to use an integrative approach that addresses all aspects of this complex phenomenon, as they play out for each individual person. There is no cookbook for pain care, and one size doesn’t even fit most, so we need to use an integrative approach that permits maximum flexibility in providing care.

RWHC: What are some of the biggest challenges that clinicians face in dealing with patients’ pain management issues?

BT: Undoubtedly, access to all the treatments we need in order to provide integrative pain care is our biggest challenge. Access to integrative non-pharmacological treatments such as acupuncture, massage therapy, biofeedback and others has never been good because insurance reimbursement is poor, causing people with pain to have to pay out of pocket for these treatments — something many of them can’t do. Adjunctive treatments such as physical therapy and behavioral health care might be more readily available, but they also are subject to inadequate insurance coverage that makes true access less than optimal. And now, even the medications that have been so ubiquitous as primary treatments of pain are under fire and both insurers and policymakers are restricting access to those as well. It’s really challenging to provide the kind of care that even key governmental agencies like the CDC have been calling for.

RWHC: How is the Academy addressing these challenges?

BT: AIPM continues to advocate for appropriate access to all of the treatments we need in order to provide comprehensive integrative pain care. Often, that means we have to battle inappropriate restrictions on pain medications, but we also advocate extensively for policies that promote improved access to non-pharmacological pain treatments. Recently, we have been advocating for enhanced Medicare and Medicaid coverage of integrative pain treatments, while also advocating for more opportunities to carry out Medicaid demonstration projects that we believe will show how much can be gained if those treatments were covered. And of course, we continue to educate clinicians about ways they can provide integrative pain care even if they don’t have a large multi-disciplinary staff and insurance coverage for all the treatments they need.

Pain Management Therapies

RWHC: What are the most promising non-pharmaceutical approaches for pain management and why are they important?

BT: Consider what the pain management experts at the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have listed as the five evidence-based, non-pharmaceutical approaches they think every current and former service member with chronic pain should be able to access: chiropractic and osteopathic manipulations, acupuncture, massage therapy, biofeedback, and yoga. And it’s important to note here, in follow up to my previous comment on inadequate coverage, that only some types of chiropractic and osteopathic manipulation are covered by Medicare, and only for some diagnoses. None of the rest of this list of five are covered.

Additionally, we know that many people with pain benefit from physical and occupational therapy and from behavioral health interventions. If we had full access with adequate insurance coverage for these treatments, we would be delighted. Being able to get these treatments for people with pain would mean that more of them would have less pain, better functioning in a number of areas, improved quality of life, and increased likelihood of being able to work. Plus, we would spend less money achieving those improved outcomes.

Opioid Addiction

RWHC: How is the rising opioid addiction issue in America changing how clinicians address and treat their patients’ pain?

BT: For much of the past two decades, pain treatment has been primarily associated with opioid prescribing. While I think increased opioid prescribing was a well-intended attempt by the medical profession to provide better pain care, it may have been misguided due to lack of evidence, lack of access to alternatives, and the influence of a number of market forces and cultural beliefs. Now that this increased prescribing has been implicated in the parallel and sharp increase in overdose deaths involving prescription opioids, policymakers are extraordinarily active in pushing legislation and regulation intended to reduce excessive prescribing. Unfortunately, this is happening in the context of the non-pharmaceutical treatment access problems I outlined previously, without concomitant attempt to improve that access. All of that leaves primary care clinicians, who deliver the majority of pain care in this country, struggling to figure out what to do.

We are hearing from people with pain that some clinicians are responding by either setting an arbitrary dose limit for opioids, or by establishing policies that they will not prescribe opioids, regardless of the circumstances. That may be harming people who benefit from those medications, in service of benefitting those who use opioids inappropriately and in a harmful manner. I think it’s going to be a while before all of this shakes out and we can arrive at a balanced approach that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the harms for everyone.

Pharmaceutical Industry Efforts

RWHC: What should be the role of the pharmaceutical industry in addressing the rising opioid addiction issue in America? How can they work with clinicians and groups like the Academy?

BT: The pharmaceutical industry has been engaged in efforts to make their products safer, by developing abuse-deterrent opioids. These medications make it much harder to abuse prescription opioids by means of altering them to permit snorting or injecting the opioid medication. This is an important step, because it will protect people who misuse these medications — the vast majority of whom are not people with pain. If we are able to do that, then perhaps we won’t see as much of a reactionary backlash that causes people with a legitimate medical need for prescription opioids to have their prescriptions denied or taken away.

The industry can also help us by increasing funding for our education and advocacy efforts. We have so many needs for education — both for new clinicians who are now in school and for experienced clinicians who are in practice — that meeting the need is an enormous and extremely expensive task. Due to mandates for Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) education imposed by FDA, much of this funding has been redirected away from organizations like ours that can provide integrative pain management education — and without discernible benefit. We desperately need FDA to revise the REMS program blueprints so we can teach clinicians about more than just the pharmacology of opioids and so we can teach about non-pharmacological approaches to pain care. It’s really challenging for the industry to adhere to FDA mandates and to go beyond those, but we need to find a way to encourage that to happen.

Assessing Chronic Pain

Our series on Pain Management continues this week with insight on how clinicians assess chronic pain. We spoke with Bryan Jensen, PhD, a clinical health psychology postdoctoral fellow at the VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, where he treats inpatients and outpatients with chronic pain as well as facilitates primary care chronic pain recovery groups. Dr. Jensen recently graduated with his doctorate in clinical psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University, where he focused his clinical and research work serving patients with chronic disease in both inpatient and primary care populations, most notably underserved patient populations and those with high levels of co-morbidities.

Bryan Jensen, PhD, VA Salt Lake City Health Care System

We asked him about his recent Translational Behavioral Medicine article on chronic pain assessment within a translational framework and the challenges facing researchers and clinicians who are studying and treating chronic pain.

Real World Health Care: Can you provide a summary of your recent article in Translational Behavioral Medicine?

How Chronic Pain is Assessed

Bryan Jensen: As researchers and clinicians seek to treat pain, we first need to understand if we are assessing pain accurately. The article is a review of how pain is assessed across the translational continuum. It starts by exploring the basic science of animal models of pain and the types of methods used in that setting to assess pain. Clearly, these methods are not the same methods we use in clinical practice — a rat is not the same as a human — but they must translate. We are starting to understand that older models of pain assessment may no longer be adequate, so we are looking at newer models and seeking to determine a more accurate definition of pain across clinical and research settings. Other translational issues are outlined with a focus on how providers are using pain assessment tools and how they can implement newer evidence-based tools for more evidence based assessment.

The article points to three main areas that hold promise to bridge current gaps. One is using computer adapted technologies to obtain self-reported measures of pain. Because we can’t take a “thermometer reading” of pain, we rely on patients’ assessments. But pain is multi-dimensional, and asking patients to go through a 100-question survey is daunting and time-consuming, so scientists have developed computer programs that evaluate how patients respond to clinicians’ questions and adapt those responses so clinicians can more efficiently and effectively get the information they need. The NIH has been rolling out these tools over the past decade.

The second promising area is lab-based, for example, using a blood draw to look for proxy measures of pain. This is more of a downstream method to assess the patient. These tools still require further research to understand how to directly translate into clinical practice.

The third promising area is observational. In animal models, we poke a rat and watch its response. With very few exceptions — such as needle prick tests for diabetic neuropathy — we’re not going to go poking human patients. But there are observation-based methods that allow clinicians to accurately measure pain and pain behaviors. For example, the University of Alabama at Birmingham developed a pain behavior scale. Unfortunately, it isn’t widely used, even though it has demonstrated excellent validity in terms of helping providers easily and quickly measure pain and pain behaviors like grimacing, holding one’s back, and limping. It really does an excellent job giving a complete picture of a patient’s experience.

Effective Pain Treatment

RWHC: What are some of the important implications for patients and for the field of pain management?

BJ: The whole point of accurate pain assessment is to allow for more effective treatment. If patients are more aware of various pain assessment methods, they can advocate for themselves and request clinicians to widen their scope of assessment. Informed patients always help the clinical process.

The goals are improved assessment and treatment, which would lead to better patient care, higher patient satisfaction, and a reduced burden on patients, their families, and our nation. Economically, the cost of chronic pain is over $600 billion a year. If we can chip away at that, we would be making a huge impact.

Challenges and Opportunities

RWHC: What are the biggest challenges facing researchers when it comes to studying pain assessment, and how can those challenges be overcome?

BJ: From a research perspective, there’s less emphasis on assessing pain than there is on treating pain. The main challenge is a financial one, with fewer research dollars dedicated to studying pain measurement. Another challenge is a theoretical one. There’s been some exciting, cutting-edge research on neurological measures, focused on neurosignatures that act as a thermometer to measure pain, but there’s been some discord in the field as to whether this is a useful pursuit. We also need better uniformity across the literature in terms of methods and measurement. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) has been working for well over a decade to develop consensus and establish best practices for measuring pain in clinical trials, but these best practices aren’t always followed.

RWHC: What are the biggest challenges facing clinicians in assessing pain, and how can those challenges be overcome?

BJ: Making clinicians aware of the latest research is a big challenge. I hear lots of clinicians express that they don’t have the training to fully assess and treat pain — especially chronic pain. Many providers approach treating someone with chronic pain with some trepidation as we have seen political, societal, and clinical swings in the use of opiates and other pain medications. Many clinicians will opt to not treat chronic pain or to seek out clinics with non-opiate policies. This is problematic, because the fact is that some patients do benefit from opiates.

We need more focus on early medical training. Medical schools are just starting to employ an integrated approach to pain, by combining the fields of primary care, psychology, pharmacy and social work. Trainees and residents are now being exposed to a broad-based perspective on how to approach and treat chronic pain, but additional course work is needed.

Clinicians also have a practical challenge. Most cases of pain are managed in primary care practices, and these clinicians are time-strapped. They default to the model of assessing pain by asking patients what their pain is on a scale of one to ten without looking at how pain impacts a patient’s functionality and quality of life. Those quality of life measures, like being able to get back to work or play with your kids, are important goals for treatment.

RWHC: What initially attracted you to this field and what continues to inspire you?

BJ: I initially became interested in the field of pain assessment when my daughter was born. She had an early medical condition — which fortunately turned out to be benign— and I was struck by the integrated team at the Shriner’s hospital who cared for her and our family. Since then, I’ve had wonderful opportunities to do clinical work with chronic pain patients. I continue to be inspired by my patients and the impact pain has on their lives. It’s gratifying to help them go from being essentially disabled to the point where they can regain their lives and take part in meaningful activities.

 

A Big Pain

Editor’s Note: This article in our pain management series originally appeared in Biotech Primer Weekly. For more of the science behind the headlines, please subscribe.

The Science Behind Opiods

Emily Burke, BiotechPrimer.com

The opioid addiction epidemic gained attention at the highest levels of U.S. policy circles this past year, as presidential candidates that disagreed on nearly everything else vowed to make fighting the problem a priority if elected. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to strengthen prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. And no wonder – according to the Center for Disease Control, opioid overdose deaths are at an all-time high – a stark reality that highlights the dark side of a class of treatments serving a vital need. Opioid pain medications manage the severe short-term or chronic pain of millions of Americans. While these medications mitigate needless suffering, joining forces are the government, corporations, and medical community to battle against opioid abuse and addiction.

We wonder: what is the science behind the headlines? So, let’s talk about how pain medications work, the different types on the market, and the approaches to developing less addictive versions of opioid drugs.

Opiods vs. NSAIDS

There are two main categories of pain medications, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Although these two categories of drugs work differently, they do share one thing in common: both are derivatives of natural products. The NSAID Aspirin is a synthetic version of an extract from willow tree bark, and opioids are synthetic versions of opium and morphine, which come from poppy flowers.

Aspirin works by inhibiting an enzyme called cyclooxyrgenase 1 (COX-1). Once stopped, COX-1 is no longer able to produce signaling molecules, called prostaglandins and thromboxanes. Prostaglandins and thromboxanes have a wide variety of functions, including mediating aspects of inflammation (fever and swelling) as well as promoting neuronal response to pain. Other NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen, also work by inhibiting COX-1 or its sister enzyme COX-2.

Opioid pain medications, such as Oxycontin and Percocet, work by binding to mu receptor proteins on the surface of cells in the central nervous system (CNS) —think brain and spinal cord. While the CNS is tasked with relaying pain signals, opioids decrease the excitability of nerve cells delivering the message, resulting in pain relief—along with a feeling of euphoria in some users. 

Lessening the Pain

Short term medical used of opioid pain killers rarely leads to addiction—when properly managed. Due to the euphoria-inducing effects of the drugs, long-term regular use, or use in the absence of pain, may lead to physical dependence and addiction. And because regular use increases drug tolerance, higher doses are required to achieve the same effect, leading abusers to consume pain pills in unsafe ways such as crushing and snorting or injecting the pills. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 44 Americans die every day due to prescription painkiller overdose. At the same time, chronic pain is also a serious problem, affecting approximately 100 million U.S. adults, while millions of others suffer acute pain due to injury or surgery. The medical need for these drugs is very real despite the dark side.

The answer to developing less addictive drugs may be found in a drug that blocks pain without inducing euphoria. These new drugs will need a different mechanism of action than traditional opioid drugs, which bind to the mu receptors of cells inside the CNS. Drugs under development include those that bind to a different type of opioid receptor, the kappa opioid receptor. These receptors are present on sensory nerves outside of the CNS.

Preclinical studies suggest that targeting these receptors could be effective at reducing pain without driving addictive behaviors. A lead candidate, CR845, is currently in Phase 3 clinical testing for post-operative pain and pruritus (severe itching), and in Phase 2 clinical testing for chronic pain. Also under development are compounds that selectively activate cannabinoid (CB) receptors outside of the CNS. CB receptors inside the CNS are linked to the psychoactive qualities of marijuana; those outside the brain are found on white blood cells and have been shown to be involved in decreasing pain and inflammation. A lead CB receptor activator, CR701, is in preclinical development.

Also under development are small molecule inhibitors of ion channels – proteins on the surface of nerve cells that help to transmit pain signals by allowing positively charged calcium ions to enter the nerve. This plays a critical role in sending the pain signal to the brain, yet because it works on nerves outside of the brain, it has less of a potential for addiction.  Phase 1 clinical studies are currently underway of HX-100 for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

Another development is a derivative of capsaicin, a naturally-occurring compound found in chili peppers. Capsaicin has pain relieving properties and has been used as a natural remedy. The lead candidate, CNTX-4975, is a highly potent, synthetic form of capsaicin designed to be administered via injection into the site of pain. CNTX-4975 targets the capsaicin receptor, an ion channel protein on the surface of nerve cells. When CNTX-4975 binds the capsaicin receptor, the influx of calcium ions results in desensitization of the nerves, making them unresponsive to other pain signals. This effect can last for months, and only affects nerves near the site of injection. CNTX-4975 is currently in Phase 2b clinical studies for knee osteoarthritis, and Phase 2 clinical studies for Morton’s neuroma, a sharp pain in the foot and toe caused from a thickening of the tissue around one of the nerves leading to the toes.

Earlier this year, researchers at Tulane University published a paper that shows great promise for the development of effective yet non-addictive pain medications. They have developed a compound that is derived from the endogenous opioid endomorphin. Endogenous opioids are chemicals produced naturally by the body that bind to and activate the mu opioid receptors, resulting in pain relief and mild euphoria without the detrimental side effects associated with opioid drugs such depressed respiration, motor impairment, and addiction. Scientist have tried before to develop safer pain medications based on endogenous opioids, but have not been successful, due to the instability of these molecules. The Tulane team created a derivative of endomorphin that is stable and binds to the mu receptor in such a way that pain relief occurs, but not the negative side effects listed above. Clinical testing is expected to begin by the end of 2017.

An Antidote to an Overdose

Overdosing can be fatal since respiratory failure occurs at high blood concentration levels of opioids. If an overdose is suspected, the individual should be treated as quickly as possible with naloxone—a “competitive antagonist” of the mu opioid receptor. Simply put, a competitive antagonist binds the receptor without activating it. Since naloxone doesn’t activate the receptor, it doesn’t have any pain-relieving or euphoria-inducing qualities; rather, it prevents the opioid drugs from binding. It may also displace opioids that have already bound the mu receptor, aiding in the stoppage of an overdose.

Cocktail Fodder: Runner’s High

Some folks love to run; others avoid it at all costs. This might be explained by inherent differences in sensitivity to the natural opioids called endorphins that are released during exercise. Not everyone experiences the “runner’s high” — feelings of calm and mild euphoria – just like not everyone experiences euphoric feelings from pain medications. These differences may help to explain why some people enjoy exercise and others don’t, and why some people get addicted to opioids—while others can take them or leave them.

 

New Real World Health Care Series to Focus on Pain Management

I remember visiting my grandmother in the hospital in late 1989.  She was in the final stages of pancreatic cancer; her hospitalization was primarily meant to keep her comfortable until her passing.  She had a “button” that added morphine into her IV line.  Although the machine was programmed to deliver only so much morphine within a certain timeframe, she could push that button whenever she needed pain relief.  She never stopped pushing that button.

Krista Zodet, President, HealthWell Foundation

Over twenty-seven years later, the pain associated with and caused by cancer is still a challenge.  In fact, pain seems to accompany many of the diseases we help with at HealthWell and we certainly hear so from our patients.  Even in life outside of HealthWell, I hear from friends and family members stricken with chronic pain related to surgery or an injury and their struggles to manage it productively.

Their stories are powerful and many put into words a pain that I cannot fathom trying to cope with day in and day out.  From minor headaches and injuries, to the effects of major surgeries and chronic disease, pain is an unfortunate fact of life for millions of Americans. It affects more Americans than diabetes, heart disease and cancer combined, according to the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

In a 2011 report, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 100 million adult Americans experience chronic pain every year, costing the nation between $560 billion and $635 billion annually. Much of this pain is preventable or could be better managed, according to the committee that wrote the report, which called on health care providers, insurers and the public to have a greater understanding about pain: Although pain is universal, it is experienced uniquely by each person and care often requires a combination of therapies and coping techniques. It is more than a physical symptom and is not always resolved by curing the underlying condition.

We at the HealthWell Foundation agree with the authors of the IOM report in believing that successful treatment, management and prevention of pain requires an integrated approach that responds to all the factors that influence pain.

We also share the growing concern about the role of opioids in treating pain. In its Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, the CDC notes that opioid pain medication use presents serious risks, including overdose and opioid use disorder. CDC estimate that nearly 2 million Americans age 12 or older either abused or were dependent on prescription opioids in 2014.

Over the next couple of months, we will be focusing on the issue of pain management, including traditional pharmaceutical approaches and non-traditional alternative therapies. We’ll be interviewing top researchers in the field as well as leaders of clinical organizations dedicated to helping patients manage pain.

We invite you to check back to learn more about what’s working in the field of pain control and the challenges researchers and clinicians continue to face, especially in light of the growing issue of opioid addiction. You can also sign up to receive email alerts when new interviews are posted. Just enter your email address under the sign-up message to the right.

NSCLC: The Emerging Role of Liquid Biopsies

Real World Health Care concludes its series on non-small cell lung cancer by speaking with Erica Carpenter, MBA, PhD, Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Carpenter also serves as Director of the Circulating Tumor Material Laboratory in the Division of Hematology/Oncology at the Abramson Cancer Center.

Dr. Carpenter served as senior author on a recent study that suggests for patients with advanced lung cancer, a non-invasive liquid biopsy may be a more effective and suitable alternative to the gold standard tissue biopsy to detect clinically relevant mutations and help guide the course of treatment.

Real World Health Care: Explain your role at the Perelman School of Medicine.

carpenter_erica_businessErica Carpenter: I am Director of the Circulating Tumor Material Laboratory and an Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematology-Oncology at the Perelman School of Medicine. My lab focuses on the identification, capture, and analysis of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA), exosomes and other material shed from cancer patient tumors.  Blood, bone marrow, pleural effusions, and other non-invasively captured patient samples are used to detect biomarkers which will allow: early detection of disease as well as post-therapy monitoring of minimal residual disease, an efficient means of determining clinical and biological response to therapy and, thus, clinical decision making, and cancer genetic phenotyping to drive personalized medicine that obviates the need for serial biopsies in a population of patients for whom these procedures can be difficult, risky, and insufficient.

RWHC: Can you give us an overview of your recent research as it relates to non-small cell lung cancer and liquid biopsies?

EC: While the work described in the Clinical Cancer Research paper is the only NSCLC liquid biopsy study we have completed, we have several studies currently enrolling, including studies on the use of liquid biopsies to monitor and predict response of patients receiving a form of immunotherapy known as checkpoint inhibitors, and characterization of the tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA found in the pleural effusions (excess fluid that sometimes builds up in patients’ lungs) of lung cancer patients as another method for monitoring without an invasive biopsy.

RWHC: Just a few months ago, the FDA approved the first liquid biopsy test for patients with metastatic NSCLC. Why is this an important development?

EC: This is important for a number of reasons. First, the cobas test detects mutations in a gene called EGFR that can be targeted with specific drugs that have been shown to be effective in NSCLC patients with these specific mutations. In addition, liquid biopsies in general can greatly improve sensitivity of mutation detection in metastatic patients. Metastatic disease means that a patient has tumors in multiple sites in the body, and this can make surgical biopsy or fine needle aspirate very difficult to perform without great discomfort to the patient. Metastases can sometimes occur in places like the bone or brain where it is impossible to invasively obtain tumor tissue. Moreover, the genetic profile of a tumor tends to evolve over the course of a patient’s therapy, and it is not unusual for a metastatic patient to exhibit mutational heterogeneity where not all mutations are expressed in all tumor locations. In these cases, it is thought that a liquid biopsy will detect all or most mutations as all tumor sites, whether primary or metastatic, are thought to shed DNA into the blood. Finally, when a next-generation sequencing panel, such as the one used in our study, is applied to a liquid biopsy, comprehensive and clinically actionable data can be obtained with a single blood test, including mutations in multiple genes associated with therapy resistance.

RWHC: Do you think that liquid biopsies will become a standard of care for NSCLC patients? Will they, or should they replace tissue biopsy? Why or why not?

EC: Liquid biopsies are already becoming a routine part of care for NSCLC and other cancer patients here at the Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Medicine. These tests can be incorporated into the blood draw procedure for other standard of care monitoring blood tests and performed at already scheduled outpatient visits, thus causing no additional pain or inconvenience to the patient. We are working to better understand the different ways in which liquid biopsies can be used to better manage the care of these patients. However, while I expect liquid biopsy use for NSCLC and other cancer patients to continue to expand, I do not expect that they will replace tissue biopsy. Next-generation sequencing of circulating tumor DNA cannot provide crucial phenotypic information, such as information about the physical characteristics of the tumor, that are essential for initial diagnosis. Tissue biopsies can also play a unique role in monitoring of patients for the development of neuroendocrine disease, which can be associated with therapy resistance but is not detectable using ctDNA.

RWHC: What challenges need to be overcome to make them a standard of care?

EC: More studies need to be done, and this is an area of active focus for us, to measure whether the use of liquid biopsies has a positive effect on patient outcomes. In addition, clinical ctDNA tests tend to be ordered for detection of mutations that can be therapeutically targeted, or the emergence of mutations that signal the development of therapy resistance. To become a larger part of the standard of care for NSCLC and other cancer patients, we must better understand whether liquid biopsies can be used to effectively monitor patients receiving other important forms of therapy, including recently approved types of immunotherapy.

RWHC: This approved liquid biopsy test detects a specific type of gene mutation that is present in about 10-20 percent of NSCLC patients. Do you think other liquid biopsy tests will eventually be able to do the same for the remaining 80-90 percent of NSCLC patients? If yes, where does the biggest opportunity exist? If no, why not?

EC: In our study, we detected 275 mutations in 45 different genes, with at least one alteration found in the liquid biopsy for 84 percent of patients. Further underscoring the clinical utility of such a comprehensive liquid biopsy approach, 70 percent of patients were deemed to have a relevant clinical trial available on the basis of their ctDNA result, 55 percent of patients had an off-label targeted therapy that could possibly be used, and 31 percent of patients had an FDA-approved therapy available. So, I would say that liquid biopsy tests are already providing meaningful results for the majority of NSCLC patients.

RWHC: Beyond detecting the gene mutation responsible for NSCLC, how can liquid biopsies be used to monitor the progression of the disease?

EC: As I mentioned earlier, circulating tumor DNA tests for NSCLC patients are typically used to detect driver mutations and/or mutations that indicate the development of therapy resistance, some of which can also be therapeutically targeted. However, sometimes the physical characteristics of the tumor, including the number of circulating tumor cells in blood and expression of certain protein markers, can be measured by liquid biopsy and used to monitor disease progression. For instance, an increase or decrease in the number of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) detected in a tube of blood can be an indication of disease progression or response to therapy, respectively. Moreover, these CTCs can be isolated and gene expression measured to detect signatures associated with sensitivity or resistance to certain forms of chemotherapy in other cancers. CTCs can also be used to non-invasively assess expression of a protein known as PDL-1 which has been shown to be associated with a response to a form of immune therapy known as checkpoint inhibitors.

RWHC: How can NSCLC liquid biopsy tests be used to help increase the length of NSCLC patient survival?

EC: This is an area of active study for us. We will seek to measure whether repeat, non-invasive liquid biopsies can be used to detect therapeutic targets when a tissue biopsy isn’t possible, thus possibly enhancing the chance of a clinical response to therapy. Others have shown that a liquid biopsy can detect therapy resistance weeks or even months before standard of care imaging. It will be important to determine whether such early detection, especially when used to guide re-stratification of the patient onto a different therapy, has a positive effect on outcomes. Additionally, one of the most significant predictors of prognosis in NSCLC is the stage of disease at presentation, and our lab is actively focused on determining whether liquid biopsies can be utilized to identify patients with early stage disease.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: EGFR Mutations and Targeted Therapies

Continuing our series on non-small cell lung cancer, this week Real World Health Care speaks with Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Mary B. Soltonstall endowed chair in oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Sequist’s research focuses on studying novel targets and targeted agents for lung cancer treatment, particularly those that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and in detecting and studying the significance of tumor cells circulating in the bloodstream.

Real World Health Care: Tell us about what you do at Massachusetts General Hospital, especially in relation to research and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School

Lecia V. Sequist, MD, MPH, Harvard Medical School

Lecia Sequist: I’m a medical oncologist with a busy practice, seeing and treating patients with lung cancer. I also conduct clinical and translational research on new drugs, looking at the molecular aspects of tumors and biopsies as patients go through various forms of treatment. My focus is on personalizing treatment for each patient.

RWHC: Can you share some highlights of your recent research in non-small cell lung cancer?

LS: Most of my recent research has revolved around EGFR mutations. One of the biggest advances in lung cancer in recent years is that we’ve come to understand lung cancer is not one disease. It’s many diseases. We can now tell the difference between one cancer and another by looking at the tumor genetics. These are not the genes we inherit from our parents, rather they are genes that reside only in cancer cells. These genes are at the core of what causes cancer. By identifying these genes in a lung cancer patient’s tumor, we can be more successful with treatments that target those genes and the proteins they produce.

EGFR mutations were first discovered here at Mass General, right around the time I started in oncology. It was a very exciting time, and ushered in a new era of personalized treatment for cancer. Since those early days, we’ve done a tremendous amount of research with patients who have the EGFR mutation, and we’ve found treatments that work better than standard chemotherapy.

RWHC: What are some of the biggest challenges you face as a researcher studying non-small cell lung cancer?

LS: I think of the challenges in two categories: scientific and societal. From the scientific point of view, we can’t currently identify mutations in every lung cancer, though we’re constantly working to uncover more of them. The group of lung cancer patients who have no identifiable mutation, or who have a mutation with no matching drug therapies at this time, are effectively left out of the “molecular revolution.” For those groups, the challenge is to find alternative approaches. Luckily some of the newer immunotherapies may work particularly well in such patients. Then down the road, we know that targeted therapies eventually “wear off,” in the sense that cancer cells get smart and find ways to work around the roadblocks we put in their path. For example, we saw this with the first generation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) developed to target EGFR mutations. Most patients initially responded, but subsequently developed a resistance after about a year, because they developed a second mutation that prevents the TKIs from binding to the cancer cells. Last year, a new EGFR drug was FDA approved that is able to effectively target this second mutation. Now we’re racing trying to learn how the cancers may get around the newer drug and also looking at strategies to prevent resistance.

From a societal standpoint, one of our biggest challenges in the lung cancer research community is the stigma that still exists around lung cancer. In the United States, we were fortunate to have had a very successful public health campaign around the dangers of smoking over the last generation. Those dangers are important to understand, but one of the unexpected consequences of this was to popularize the opinion that lung cancer is a self-inflicted disease and therefore patients carry some degree of blame. Not only does this end up negatively affecting individual patients, it also cuts into research funding. The fact is, some smokers get lung cancer while others don’t. And more importantly, many lung cancer patients have never smoked. No one deserves lung cancer and research must push forward to stop this, the deadliest of all cancers.

RWHC: What are some of the biggest challenges you face as a clinician treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer?

LS: There are promising treatments being studied in clinical trials, but many patients don’t have access to those treatments because the trials are concentrated in academic centers. Even if patients have geographic access to research studies, clinical trials have fairly high thresholds for eligibility, so if a patient has other medical conditions — which many lung cancer patients have — or if their cancer has certain characteristics, they won’t be eligible for the trial. We need to keep pressure on the pharmaceutical industry to include broader groups of patients in trials so all patients can get access to promising new treatments.

RWHC: What do you think are some of the biggest opportunities for advancement in how we research non-small cell lung cancer and treat people with the disease?

LS: Immunotherapy has really changed the paradigm for non-small cell lung cancer. Years of failed vaccine studies led us to believe that it wasn’t possible to affect the human immune system in meaningful ways against lung cancer. Now that we’ve hit upon a different way to activate the immune system, new discoveries are tumbling out the door every day. Unlike past treatments, immunotherapy has true promise for long-term disease control. There are already three FDA-approved lung cancer immune therapy treatments over the last year and likely many more to come. I think someday we’ll look back on this time and say that this is when the needle really started to move.

RWHC: Why did you get into this field of research? What continues to inspire you?

LS: I was initially drawn to studying lung cancer when I was in training by the doctors who were mentoring me and the patients I met. At the time, there weren’t many treatments available for non-small cell lung cancer, so there was a lot of room for improvement. This was attractive to me as a clinician and a researcher and it has remained a vibrant and ever-changing field. I enjoy being involved in the exponentially increasing number of treatments available and how these new treatments can bring hope to patients. It has ended up being an intellectually stimulating and extremely fulfilling career and I continue to be inspired by the patients I meet every day.

NSCLC: Targeting What Drives People’s Cancer

This week, Real World Health Care talks with Edward B. Garon, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Health. He specializes in hematology and oncology, with an interest in lung cancer and chest malignancies.

Dr. Garon’s research focuses on the testing and development of targeted therapies and immunotherapies in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including the development of a class of drugs known as PD-1 (programmed cell death-1) inhibitors, which allow immune cells to eliminate cancer. We spoke with Dr. Garon about checkpoint inhibitors, immunotherapies and targeted therapies for NSCLC.

Real World Health Care: Describe your role at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, especially as it relates to research of non-small lung cancer.

Edward Garon, MD, UCLA Health

Edward Garon, MD, UCLA Health

Edward Garon: I serve as director of thoracic oncology and conduct both clinical and laboratory research with a focus on translational research to determine lung cancer patient subgroups that are most likely to respond to certain therapies. Instead of looking at NSCLC as one disease, it’s important to personalize therapy and give people the therapies that are appropriate, not just for the disease site origin, but for a disease that’s driven by a particular set of molecular events.

RWHC: What do you think are the biggest challenges relating to NSCLC research and how are those challenges being addressed?

EG: We’ve seen some real progress in NSCLC research, especially in terms of immune checkpoint inhibitors, which unleash a patient’s own T cells to kill tumors. But we’re not yet where we want to be. One of the biggest priorities is identifying more people who will respond to therapies and connecting the right research with the right patient population, especially since targeted therapies currently only apply to a small percentage of the patient population. Although early-phase lung cancer studies in non-metastatic patients have hinted at the potential to use biomarkers to select patients, data from clinical studies have tempered expectations.

RWHC: What do you think are the biggest challenges relating to current NSCLC treatment and how are those challenges being addressed?

EG: In the past 10 years, there has been a push to individualize care for NSCLC, to evaluate individual tumors on individual patients and determine if there are molecular changes or abnormalities in the tumor itself that can dictate whether there are certain therapies that are more or less likely to be effective in any given patient. Treatments for NSCLC have improved somewhat over time, but in patients whose tumors have progressed during or after their initial therapy, the outcomes for additional treatment have been quite poor.

Another challenge for clinicians is the emergence of checkpoint inhibitors, immunotherapies and targeted therapies. We currently have two PD-1 inhibitors available for treating advanced NSCLC, both of which are well-tolerated among patients. The quality and duration of responses to anti-PD-1 therapy can be profound in NSCLC, but some clinicians are not overly familiar with them and how to use them. Much of the experience with these drugs is concentrated in select academic centers. We need wider clinician awareness of which patients are most likely to benefit from therapy, when therapy should be stopped and how toxicity should be managed.

RWHC: Where do you think the biggest opportunities for future advances in NSCLC research and treatment lie?

EG: We will soon see a tremendous amount of data on the combination of checkpoint inhibitors and additional agents. It will be interesting to see both what the data from randomized studies show and how researchers interpret that data in terms of what constitutes a signal and what doesn’t. Careful selection of patients, doses of each agent, and information supporting strategies — concomitant or sequential — is still needed. Another exciting avenue is the potential incorporation of immunotherapy in early-stage disease, locally advanced disease and in first-line therapy for metastatic disease. These agents could become the frontline choice for select patients with stage IV disease versus standard chemotherapy.

RWHC: Why did you get into this field and what continues to inspire you about it?

EG: I became involved in lung cancer as a young physician coming from fellowship training. While there was not a lot of excitement in the field at that exact moment, I saw a good opportunity to be on the leading edge of therapy development. I am fortunate here at UCLA to be part of many of the studies of new drugs that have changed the course of patients’ disease and don’t have the toxicity associated with many chemotherapies. It’s certainly been gratifying to see how new therapies can positively impact patients. Just a few short years ago, NSCLC was seen as a disease that wasn’t particularly immunogenic. Ten years from now, I hope to look back on this exciting time and realize that we have come much farther still.

NSCLC: The Promise of Immunotherapy

As part of our series on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Real World Health Care spoke with Hossein Borghaei, D.O., in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, which is part of the Temple Health System. Dr. Borghaei serves as Chief, Thoracic Medical Oncology; Director, Lung Cancer Risk Assessment; and Associate Professor. He specializes in endobronchial disease, lung cancer, lung metastases, mesothelioma and thymoma and conducts research in molecular therapeutics.

Dr. Borghaei was the lead investigator of the CheckMate 057 study, which helped to introduce a new immunotherapy paradigm in lung cancer treatment.

Real World Health Care: Tell us about your role at Fox Chase Cancer Center, especially as it relates to the research and treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Dr. Hossein Borghaei, Fox Chase Cancer Center

Dr. Hossein Borghaei, Fox Chase Cancer Center

Hossein Borghaei: I’m a medical oncologist by training, with a special concentration in lung cancers. I treat patients at all stages of the disease and have run a number of clinical trials. Some of those trials have been investigator-driven, while others have been funded by the industry. I’m also involved in the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group which does NCI-funded translational and clinical research. I also have a small research lab that does pre-clinical investigations, working with other investigators to find new ways to treat cancer patients with new or existing drugs.

RWHC: Can you share some highlights of your recent NSCLC research?

HB: The most interesting, impactful and attention-getting study I’ve been involved with recently is related to immunotherapy. This was a Phase III study in which we found that non-squamous NSCLC patients can live significantly longer with an immunotherapy drug called nivolumab than they can with single agent chemotherapy. The immunotherapy treatment has been approved, allowing physicians to use it to manage patients when there is a progression of the disease after platinum doublet chemotherapy. We also found that this immunotherapy resulted in fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

We recently presented a follow-up to the study in which we found that, after a two-year time point, nearly double the previously treated non-squamous NSCLC patients and nearly triple the previously treated squamous NSCLC patients were alive compared with those treated with chemotherapy.

RWHC: What do you think are the biggest challenges in NSCLC research?

HB: We need more funding. NSCLC is a disease that affects a large population. It’s the number one cause of cancer deaths in the U.S. and it’s a very difficult disease to treat. Having adequate funding to study NSCLC is important. There are a number of drugs being investigated to treat NSCLC, so we also need patients who can participate in rationally designed clinical trials that can address specific questions and help to bring new treatments to the marketplace. There is certainly a tremendous amount of interest in evaluating new treatment options, but investigators running clinical trials are struggling in some cases to find the right patient population to study.

RWHC: What do you think are the biggest challenges relating to current NSCLC treatment?

HB: One of the biggest challenges relating to treatment comes back to the ability of patients to participate in clinical trials. Many trials are conducted in academic centers like Fox Chase Cancer Center, making it difficult for patients in remote geographic areas to participate. Even for patients who live close to a clinical trial location, they may have co-morbidities such as emphysema or COPD, making it physically challenging to participate.

Another challenge we face as clinical researchers is our ability to obtain biopsies from NSCLC patients. Biopsied tissue from tumors at different phases of the disease is critical for our ability to understand why some treatments work on some patients but not on others, and every biopsy has its risks. I’m hopeful that the emerging field of liquid biopsy — which will allow us to do molecular-level testing on blood samples — will help us overcome this challenge.

RWHC: What do you think have been the most important advances in NSCLC treatment over the past decade?

HB: Molecularly targeted therapies that allow clinicians to personalize cancer treatments have been successful for about 25 percent of lung cancer patients. Our ability to understand what’s going on in a tumor at a molecular level lets us better target specific drugs to treat and manage the disease.

RWHC: Why did you get involved in this field?

HB: As an oncology clinician, I really get to know my patients on a personal level. A cancer diagnosis is life-altering, and as a treating physician, I get to address my patients’ concerns and fears. I find that closeness extremely rewarding. From a research standpoint, there is such a huge need to understand the disease process and so many patients that we can’t yet cure. I want to contribute to our overall understanding of this disease and why it’s so difficult to treat. The research opportunities in NSCLC are almost limitless.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: With Greater Understanding Comes Greater Challenges

This week, Real World Health Care speaks with lung cancer specialist, Gregory Masters, MD, FASCO, attending physician at the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and associate professor at the Thomas Jefferson University Medical School. In addition to being Fellow of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, Dr. Masters is co-chair of the ASCO Committee for Updated Guidelines on Chemotherapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. We talked about some of the challenges facing both researchers and clinicians treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Real World Health Care: What do you see as the biggest challenges facing NSCLC researchers, and how can those challenges be overcome?

Gregory Masters, MD, FASCO

Gregory Masters, MD, FASCO

Gregory Masters: The field of lung cancer treatment is exploding in terms of our ability to understand the molecular biology of NSCLC, immunotherapies, targeted therapies and surgical techniques. We’re improving our ability to treat the disease, but we’re also challenged in terms of clinical trials. There’s a limited amount of time, limited number of patients and limited resources to design and implement those studies. More treatments mean more ways to design trials to compare and evaluate the efficacy of those treatments. So in some senses, the field is a victim of its success.

Collaboration is key, and the Cancer Moonshot program is a great example of this because it focuses on the pooling of data and resources to improve our ability to tackle the many challenges we face. We need the large cancer centers working together with community oncologists and the pharmaceutical industry to design studies, get patients enrolled and evaluate results.

RWHC: What do you see as the biggest challenges facing NSCLC clinicians, and how can those challenges be overcome?

GM: As our understanding of the biology of NSCLC increases, it adds a level of complexity for oncologists to keep up with. This is an issue that becomes more acute when you consider that the same oncologists treating NSCLC are treating other types of cancers as well, and there has been an equal explosion of research in other cancers.

We need to make sure that practicing oncologists have the resources they need for ongoing education. They need to attend relevant meetings and stay up on the latest research. They need to avail themselves of the resources available through the National Cancer Institute. They also need access to clinical trials. The real-life challenge in all of this is finding the time and energy to keep up with the latest research and opportunities. In all honesty, there are often not enough hours in the day.

RWHC: What do you think have been the most important advances in NSCLC research over the past decade? And how are those research advances changing the face of clinical treatments?

GM: The biggest advances have been in our understanding of the molecular biology and molecular genetics of NSCLC, which allow for targeted therapies. Each targeted therapy has a targeted population, which helps us make good on the promise of personalized medicine. Plus, we now have immunotherapies that allow us to “turn off” immune system regulators. In a practical sense, this means that patients who, until recently had few options if they were coming to the end of the line in terms of the ability of chemotherapies to treat their disease, now have new clinical options. Those options not only increase our ability to treat the disease, they give our patients the emotional boost they need to take the next step.

RWHC: Where do you see NSCLC research going in the next decade?

GM: It’s hard to predict. I don’t think anyone would have predicted ten years ago where we are today. But one area of promise is the further characterization of molecular changes in tumors as well as secondary changes in patients who have mutations, such as ALK mutations. This work is exciting and just in its infancy. Another area of promise is in our understanding of the immune system to determine which patients will benefit from a course of treatment and which won’t. We’re also developing a better understanding of the importance of palliative care and quality of life. All cancer patients can benefit from palliative care, but we need to expand the care team to include more people who can help, especially because oncologists are stretched so thin. We need additional resources to help our patients manage their symptoms and provide for a better quality of life.

RWHC: While exposure to cigarette smoke, asbestos and certain chemicals have been linked to NSCLC, many patients have not experienced such exposures. At the same time, other people with high exposure don’t get lung cancer. Does this mean the disease may be linked to genetics or some other factor?

GM: This is a question we’ve been asking for many years. How do we differentiate between environmental factors and intrinsic risk in a patient or a population? It’s the old nature versus nurture debate. We’re certainly improving our understanding of risk factors, but we still do not yet know why some people have a higher risk while other who smoke two packs a day don’t. We need more research in epidemiology and population-based studies. Unfortunately, those studies are hard to do.

RWHC: Why did you get into this field? What continues to inspire you?

GM: Choosing a career can be tricky. I was exposed to some great role models when I first started studying medicine and developed a deep respect for oncologists and the relationships they have with their patients. I continue to have great interest in research and learning more about cancer, but more than that, I enjoy having a positive impact on my patients—seeing them improve and seeing the gratitude of family members who appreciate what I do to help their loved ones. That’s what makes me excited to come to work every day.

American Lung Association: Research Focused on Improving Patient Care and Saving Lives

As part of our series on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), Real World Health Care spoke with Susan J. Rappaport, MPH, vice president for research and scientific affairs, American Lung Association. Rappaport provides leadership and direction in the development and implementation of the American Lung Association public health education and research programs. She works with leading scientists to develop research and scientific policies relevant to lung disease.

Susan J. Rappaport, MPH, American Lung Association

Susan J. Rappaport, MPH, American Lung Association

Here, Rappaport shares insights on how the American Lung Association supports research for NSCLC and other types of lung cancer.

Real World Health Care: How does the American Lung Association fund, or acquire funding, for the research it supports?

Susan Rappaport: The American Lung Association has been funding research for more than 100 years. We receive our support through public donations, including our annual Christmas Seals® campaign, Fight for Air Climbs and LUNG FORCE Walks. We have a long history of connecting with people and communities in support of lung health.

Our organization was founded in response to tuberculosis — the most feared disease at that time. Now, with tuberculosis largely controlled in the United States, we have turned our sights toward defeating lung cancer and working toward a world free of lung disease.

Research is a critical part of our LUNG FORCE initiative, which focuses on lung cancer in women, to raise awareness and more lung cancer research funds. Through LUNG FORCE, we have already invested an additional $1 million in lung cancer research. The Lung Association’s Awards and Grants Program supports a rich array of studies in lung cancer to help improve methods of early detection and develop better treatment options for patients. In the past four years, we have funded more than $4 million in lung cancer research grants and have doubled our investment in lung cancer since 2015. This year, the Lung Association is funding more than $6.5 million in lung disease research.

RWHC: How does the Lung Association determine what research it supports, either through direct funding or through its advocacy work?

SR: It is important to the Lung Association that we fund the best projects available on a host of lung disease issues. We solicit grant applications each year, and successful applicants are identified through a scientific peer review committee system modeled on the one used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These peer review committees are comprised of accomplished and diverse researchers with the necessary expertise to review and assess each proposal. Proposals are funded based on the results of this process, ensuring that we only fund those applications considered of the highest quality, and with the best chance to advance our understanding of diseases, improving patient care and ultimately saving lives.

We know our chances of significant improvement in patient lives and of finding a cure increase when we work together. That’s why we collaborate with other organizations and advocate for increased research funding at NIH.

RWHC: What is the Lung Association currently doing to promote and/or fund research into NSLC? What are your priorities in this area?

SR: Our overall priority is to fund the best research that has the greatest chance of a scientific breakthrough and making a difference in patient care and quality of life. With increased funds available to lung cancer researchers, we attract and retain brilliant, motivated investigators to the field.

As NSCLC accounts for 85 percent of all lung cancer cases, many of the proposed projects do focus on this specific issue. However, the nature of scientific discovery has shown us that answers from one area of research can also work more broadly. Areas that drive our lung cancer research — all of which can address NSCLC — include:

  • Development of new and combination therapies
  • Biomarker discovery and validation
  • Targeted therapies and resistance
  • Screening implementation and novel screening for the non-high-risk population
  • Lung cancer initiation and growth

RWHC: What are the biggest challenges in NSCLC research and how is the Lung Association working to overcome them?

SR: Among our biggest challenges is to be able to fund all the qualified research applications we receive. Each year, we turn away qualified researchers and projects due to the limited availability of funds. LUNG FORCE seeks to raise additional funds for lung cancer research and raise awareness about lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths. Again, we strive to overcome gaps in funding by leveraging our resources, collaborating with other organizations and advocating for increased federal funding for lung cancer research.

RWHC: What would you say have been the most important advances in NSCLC treatment over the past 10 years?

SR: Scientists have discovered somatic mutations — called “driver mutations” — that drive the development of lung cancer. These discoveries, made over the past decade, have transformed how to identify and treat the disease. Now, lung and other tumors can be tested for these mutations.

There are now specific therapies that can address those genetic changes that keep the cancer cell growing. These therapies target the mutations in different ways, are more specific and have fewer side effects. These advances in precision medicine have led to lifesaving discoveries and treatments.

Another sea change in lung cancer treatment is immunotherapy. Cancer cells have found ways to keep the immune system from identifying and destroying them, as they do for infectious invaders. Immunotherapy medicines work to activate a person’s own immune system to recognize and kill cancer cells. So far, immunotherapy has only been approved to treat some forms of NSCLC. Currently, only a minority of patients respond to immunotherapy. However, a large proportion of those who do respond have improved survival.

RWHC: What do you think will be the next biggest advance in NSCLC treatment in the near future?

SR: Our scientific advisors believe that the Lung Association should invest in the following areas, which they identified as having the potential for the most important breakthroughs — all of which can apply to NSCLC:

  • Additional precision medicine in treatment of early-stage lung cancer
  • Precision medicine to identify patients who would benefit from newly developed lung cancer screening, irrespective of smoking history
  • Non-invasive biopsy strategies
  • Comparative effectiveness studies to improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness after treatment

RWHC: Does the Lung Association’s LUNG FORCE research innovation project address NSCLC?

SR: This award will address all types of lung cancer. To better understand the impact of lung cancer in women, the American Lung Association has created a new research award to examine gender differences in lung cancer. Sharad Goyal, M.D., is the first-ever recipient of the LUNG FORCE Research Innovation Project: Lung Cancer in Women Award.

Dr. Goyal’s project focuses on ionized radiation exposure during common cardiology procedures and how that affects the risk of developing lung cancer for women. The project leverages two large population-based data sets that include both cancer and cardiac information. Through analyses of these data sets, Dr. Goyal will evaluate the factors influencing the relative risk of developing lung cancer in a diverse group of people after this type of radiation exposure. This has not been previously studied, and it will take two to three years to complete the analysis.

A Message from Our Sponsor: If you are a Medicare patient with non-small cell lung cancer and you can’t afford your copay or premium, the HealthWell Foundation may be able to help. Check your eligibility for our non-small cell lung cancer fund.