Involving Advocates in Cancer Research

Advancing childhood cancer research through young investigator and advocate collaboration

Cancer advocates and researchers share the same goal of driving science forward to create new therapies to cure more patients. The power of combining cancer researchers and advocates has become of increased importance due to their complementary expertise. Therefore, advocacy is a critical component of grant structures and has become embedded into the Stand Up 2 Cancer (SU2C) applications. To date, the optimal way to combine these skillsets and experiences to benefit the cancer community is currently unknown. The Saint Baldrick's Foundation (SBF)-SU2C now called St. Baldrick's Empowering Pediatric Immunotherapies for Childhood Cancer (EPICC) Team is comprised of a collaborative network across nine institutions in the United States and Canada. Since SU2C encourages incorporating advocacy into the team structure, we have assembled a diverse team of advocates and scientists by nominating a young investigator (YI) and advocate from each site. In order to further bridge this interaction beyond virtual monthly and yearly in person meetings, we have developed a questionnaire and conducted interviews. The questionnaire is focused on understanding each member's experience at the intersection between science/advocacy, comparing to previous experiences, providing advice on incorporating advocacy into team science and discussing how we can build on our work. Through creating a YI and advocate infrastructure, we have cultivated a supportive environment for meaningful conversation that impacts the entire research team. We see this as a model for team science by combining expertise to drive innovation forward and positively impact pediatric cancer patients, and perhaps those with adult malignancies.

Significance

Questionnaire results show both advocates and YI's see this structure to be valuable and beneficial. YI's communicated their research to a non-scientific audience and learned advocate's experience. This was their first advocacy experience for most YIs. Advocates learned more about the research being conducted to provide hope. They can also aid with fundraising, publicity and lobbying. This collaboration improves science communication, designing patient-friendly clinical trials and sharing experience across institutions.

Patient Advocates and Researchers as Partners in Cancer Research: A Winning Combination

Inclusion of advocates as partners in research is now required by numerous international funding agencies. The role of advocates has expanded in recent years to include all areas of research, including basic cancer research, translational research, and clinical trial design and development. The involvement of advocates as partners in cancer research can be challenging for the advocate and for the researchers, but this collaboration is beneficial to all involved. Herein, we will define patient advocacy, explore advocate engagement, and share information on programs that train advocates and researchers to work together as partners.

Patients as biomedical researchers

Advancements in biomedical research are highly dependent on critical thinking and problem solving. When quality of life and life-saving interventions rely on biomedical discoveries, every perspective is valuable. Therefore, a key contributor to the progress of health-related research is missing when patient representation is deficient in the biomedical research workforce.

Cancer Informatics for Cancer Centers: Scientific Drivers for Informatics, Data Science, and Care in Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer

Cancer Informatics for Cancer Centers (CI4CC) is a grassroots, nonprofit 501c3 organization intended to provide a focused national forum for engagement of senior cancer informatics leaders, primarily aimed at academic cancer centers anywhere in the world but with a special emphasis on the 70 National Cancer Institute-funded cancer centers. This consortium has regularly held topic-focused biannual face-to-face symposiums. These meetings are a place to review cancer informatics and data science priorities and initiatives, providing a forum for discussion of the strategic and pragmatic issues that we faced at our respective institutions and cancer centers. Here, we provide meeting highlights from the latest CI4CC Symposium, which was delayed from its original April 2020 schedule because of the COVID-19 pandemic and held virtually over three days (September 24, October 1, and October 8) in the fall of 2020. In addition to the content presented, we found that holding this event virtually once a week for 6 hours was a great way to keep the kind of deep engagement that a face-to-face meeting engenders. This is the second such publication of CI4CC Symposium highlights, the first covering the meeting that took place in Napa, California, from October 14-16, 2019. We conclude with some thoughts about using data science to learn from every child with cancer, focusing on emerging activities of the National Cancer Institute's Childhood Cancer Data Initiative.

Patient engagement in cancer research from the patient's perspective

Patient engagement in cancer research involves the inclusion of patient voices into research to ensure knowledge generated will improve the lives of all cancer patients. Patients involved in research have an interest in science, an experience with cancer and want to work directly with researchers to ensure patient concerns are heard. There are many opportunities for patient engagement in laboratory and clinical research, throughout the lifecycle of the project from conception to completion. Researchers and patient advocates can take practical steps to ensure their engagement is effective and meaningful. Adding the patient voice in research honors those who have died, so future cancer patients have access to new therapies to live longer and better lives.

Barriers to Participation in Therapeutic Clinical Trials as Perceived by Community Oncologists

PURPOSE

Despite considerable research on the barriers to enrollment in cancer therapeutic trials, few studies have elicited barriers from the perspective of community physicians, who provide the majority of cancer care. The purpose of this study was to characterize barriers to and facilitators of cancer therapeutic trials as perceived by oncologists in community practices.

METHODS

Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted with oncologists at six community sites affiliated with City of Hope National Medical Center from March to June 2018. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, 4 (20%) were women, 13 (65%) had > 10 years of practice experience, and 16 (80%) reported that < 5% of their patients were enrolled in a therapeutic trial. Participants identified four system-level barriers: lack of appropriate trials for community-based settings, insufficient infrastructure support, restrictive eligibility criteria, and financial limitations; three physician-level barriers: lack of awareness of available trials, lack of knowledge of trial details, and lack of time; and two patient-level barriers: patient burden and negative beliefs/attitudes toward research. Efforts aimed to increase trial availability, clinical trial support personnel, and physician knowledge were identified as major facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Community oncologists face numerous complex, multifaceted barriers to cancer therapeutic trial enrollment. Although expanding clinical research beyond the academic setting allows access to a larger and more diverse patient population, increasing generalizability and relevance of trial findings, there remains a substantial need for new strategies to improve cancer research delivery in the community.

Connecting Students with Patients and Survivors to Enhance Cancer Research Training

The professional training of cancer researchers in the basic sciences rarely involves interactions with patients. To provide nascent cancer scientists with an appreciation for and experience in interacting with the people most vested in their work, we created a program at Cornell University in which cancer researchers in training engage with the local patient community. Through this program, trainees gain a broader understanding of cancer, beyond the fundamental biology, and learn to effectively communicate scientific information to the public. We find that trainees and community members both benefit from interacting with one another and learning together about cancer using a common language.

A New Framework for Patient Engagement in Cancer Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Studies

For the past two decades, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported the involvement of patient advocates in both internal advisory activities and funded research projects to provide a patient perspective. Implementation of the inclusion of patient advocates has varied considerably, with inconsistent involvement of patient advocates in key phases of research such as concept development. Despite this, there is agreement that patient advocates have improved the patient focus of many cancer research studies. This commentary describes our experience designing and pilot testing a new framework for patient engagement at SWOG, one of the largest cancer clinical trial network groups in the United States and one of the four adult groups in the NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Our goal is to provide a roadmap for other clinical trial groups that are interested in bringing the patient voice more directly into clinical trial conception and development. We developed a structured process to engage patient advocates more effectively in the development of cancer clinical trials and piloted the process in four SWOG research committees, including implementation of a new Patient Advocate Executive Review Form that systematically captures patient advocates' input at the concept stage. Based on the positive feedback to our approach, we are now developing training and evaluation metrics to support meaningful and consistent patient engagement across the SWOG clinical trial life cycle. Ultimately, the benefits of more patient-centered cancer trials will be measured in the usefulness, relevance, and speed of study results to patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

Patient stakeholder engagement in research: A narrative review to describe foundational principles and best practice activities

BACKGROUND

Health research is evolving to include patient stakeholders (patients, families and caregivers) as active members of research teams. Frameworks describing the conceptual foundations underlying this engagement and strategies detailing best practice activities to facilitate engagement have been published to guide these efforts.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this narrative review are to identify, quantify and summarize (a) the conceptual foundational principles of patient stakeholder engagement in research and (b) best practice activities to support these efforts. SEARCH STRATEGY, INCLUSION CRITERIA, DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We accessed a publicly available repository of systematically identified literature related to patient engagement in research. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify relevant articles and abstracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 990 potentially relevant articles of which 935 (94.4%) were excluded and 55 (5.6%) relevant. The most commonly reported foundational principles were "respect" (n = 25, 45%) and "equitable power between all team members" (n = 21, 38%). Creating "trust between patient stakeholders and researchers" was described in 17 (31%) articles. Twenty-seven (49%) articles emphasized the importance of providing training and education for both patient stakeholder and researchers. Providing financial compensation for patient stakeholders' time and expertise was noted in 19 (35%) articles. Twenty articles (36%) emphasized regular, bidirectional dialogue between patient partners and researchers as important for successful engagement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Engaging patient stakeholders in research as partners presents an opportunity to design, implement and disseminate patient-centred research. This review creates an overarching foundational framework for authentic and sustainable partnerships between patient stakeholders and researchers.

Critical Aspects of a Sustainable Clinical Research Program in the Community-Based Oncology Practice

Increasing enrollment into clinical trials is a top priority across the field of oncology. Because the vast majority of those afflicted with cancer receive their care in the community, creating strong clinical research programs in the community-based setting is important. This article comprehensively outlines the most important elements of creating and sustaining a successful community-based research program. Establishing a clear mission and defining the scope of the research program in collaboration with key physicians and administrative leadership are critical to success. Standard operating procedures should detail operational processes. Ensuring sound financial planning and protected physician time are crucial for a healthy program. Providing mentorship opportunities to investigators and other team members will provide necessary guidance for junior investigators and long-term program stability. Prioritizing provider and patient volunteer engagement through education and awareness will potentially improve enrollment and research ownership. Incorporating administrative and clinical research staff and health care providers, including physicians, advanced practice providers, and pharmacists, will result in a multidisciplinary and unified approach and may also promote research as a routine part of patient care. Regular safety and scientific meetings will reduce regulatory complications and, most importantly, improve patient care. Other keys to a successful program include establishing a diverse trial portfolio, collaboration between different institutions, and ensuring appropriate technological infrastructure. Serial programmatic review provides opportunities to refine suboptimal practices and recognize successful strategies. Community-based research programs are critical to improve access to optimal cancer care. Implementation of successful programs is possible with a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach.

Promoting Scientist-Advocate Collaborations in Cancer Research: Why and How

Advocates bring unique and important viewpoints to the cancer research process, ensuring that scientific and medical advances are patient-centered and relevant. In this article, we discuss the benefits of engaging advocates in cancer research and underscore ways in which both the scientific and patient communities can facilitate this mutually beneficial collaboration. We discuss how to establish and nurture successful scientist-advocate relationships throughout the research process. We review opportunities that are available to advocates who want to obtain training in the evaluation of cancer research. We also suggest practical solutions that can strengthen communication between scientists and advocates, such as introducing scientist-advocate interactions at the trainee level. Finally, we highlight the essential role social media can play in disseminating patient-supported cancer research findings to the patient community and in raising awareness of the importance of promoting cancer research. Our perspective offers a model that Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates have found effective and which could be one option for those interested in developing productive, successful, and sustainable collaborations between advocates and scientists in cancer research. Cancer Res; 78(20); 5723-8. ©2018 AACR.

Focusing on the "Person" in Personalized Medicine: The Future of Patient-Centered Care in Radiation Oncology

Numerous efforts in radiation oncology aim to improve the value of clinical care. To evaluate the success of these efforts, outcome measures must be well defined and incorporate the beliefs of the patients they affect. These outcomes have historically centered on rates of tumor control, overall survival, and adverse events as perceived and reported by providers. However, the future of patient-centered care in radiation oncology is increasingly focusing on the "person" in the population and the individual in the studies to more closely reflect the ideals of personalized medicine. Formally known as patient-centered outcomes, this metric encompasses parameters of patient satisfaction, engagement, and treatment compliance. Evaluations that investigate the safety and efficacy of treatments are increasingly soliciting participation from patients within a model of shared decision making that improves patients' knowledge, satisfaction, physical and emotional well-being, and trust in providers. Modern clinical trials that embrace this approach may even focus on patient-reported outcomes as the primary end point, as opposed to time-honored physician-reported events. The authors explore the growing role of patient-centered care, the incorporation of shared decision making, and the relevant body of existing and developing literature on this topic in radiation oncology. The authors report recent discoveries from this area of study and describe how they can not only support high-quality, high-value patient care but also enhance recruitment to clinical oncology trials, both of which are challenging to achieve in today's relatively resource-strapped environment.

Stakeholder views on participant selection for first-in-human trials in cancer nanomedicine

BACKGROUND

Participant selection for first-in-human (fih) trials involves complex decisions. The trial design makes it unlikely that participants will receive clinically relevant therapeutic benefit, but they are likely to experience risks of various magnitudes and types. The aim of the present paper was to describe and discuss the views of investigators and ethics committee members about the choice of trial participants for fih trials in cancer nanomedicine.

METHODS

We drew insights from an exploratory qualitative study involving thematic analysis of 46 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in Europe and North America involved in fih nanomedicine trials. The present work draws on subset of 21 interviews with investigators and ethics committee members who have either conducted or reviewed a fih cancer nanomedicine trial or are planning one.

RESULTS

Investigators and ethics committee members are aware of the ethics standards for recruiting patients with end-stage cancer into fih trials, but they nonetheless question the practice and provide reasons against it.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is a standard and ethically accepted practice to enrol patients with end-stage cancer and no treatment options into fih trials of investigational chemotherapeutic molecules, doing so can threaten the validity and generalizability of the trials, thereby weakening translational research. Another possibility is to stratify and include patients with less advanced disease who demonstrate certain biomarkers or cancer genotypes and who have a disease profile similar to that tested in preclinical studies. The latter approach could be a step toward personalized medical research and targeted drug development. Such a patient selection approach requires multi-stakeholder discussion to reach scientific and ethics consensus.