x

Blog

Unique Opportunity for Patients and Advocates!

Here is a unique opportunity for patients to have their voices heard, BEFORE a clinical trial gets approved. Many thanks to Dr. Julie Gralow (@jrgralow) from the University of Washington for asking for advice from our community. 

Patient Survey Regarding Follow-up of Early Stage Breast Cancer

 

We are seeking patient input through this survey to help in planning a national clinical trial designed to determine how to optimally screen for breast cancer recurrence.

One goal in the long-term follow-up of breast cancer patients is the early recognition and treatment of potentially curable disease recurrence. Most of the time, the first indication that breast cancer has returned is that a woman develops new symptoms, such as pain.  There are blood tests, called tumor markers, that can be performed that may indicate that cancer has returned before symptoms develop. However, sometimes these tests can increase for completely unrelated, non-cancer reasons. Some examples of these tests are CEA, CA27.29, and CA15-3.

The large organizations of cancer doctors in the U.S. do not recommend that tumor markers be tested on a regular basis to see if a patient’s cancer has returned, because no study has ever shown that earlier detection of breast cancer recurrence prolongs survival or improves outcome. National guidelines for follow-up and management of early stage breast cancer recommend that patients undergo regular history and physical examination along with annual mammography, but they state that blood and other imaging tests should not be done routinely (including tumor markers). Trials evaluating more intensive follow-up of breast cancer patients done in the 1990s, when we had different ways of looking for cancer recurrence and different treatment options, did not show a benefit for including blood or imaging tests in breast cancer follow-up. These trials did not include blood tumor markers. Today, some physicians check tumor markers in their breast cancer patients on a regular basis hoping that early detection of recurrence might help, but there is no evidence to support this practice. There could be harm to the patient from routinely checking tumor markers if an elevation due to a non-cancer cause occurs (a false positive value) and it leads to unnecessary scans and biopsies. Additionally, not all breast cancer recurrences are associated with an elevation in blood tumor markers, so a normal tumor marker result might not mean that there is no cancer recurrence (a false negative result). The fact is that we do not know what the true benefits and harms of using tumor markers to screen for breast cancer recurrence are, or if a patient’s outcome and survival would be better if treatment is started at the time the tumor marker increases instead of waiting until symptoms develop.  Research is necessary to develop optimal breast cancer follow-up strategies.

SWOG, in partnership with members of the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Trials Network, is currently designing a clinical trial evaluating the testing of tumor markers (CEA, CA15-3, CA 27.29) in patients with stage II and III breast cancer.  The primary goal of the study will be to determine whether early initiation of treatment at the time of tumor marker-detected breast cancer relapse can improve survival.  Patients who have recently completed surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy would be invited to participate. Approximately 10,000 patients would be involved. All patients would be asked to have their blood drawn every 3 months for 5 years. The blood would be sent to a central laboratory for testing and storage. Serum tumor marker assays would be performed at the central laboratory, with patients and physicians blinded to the results. To study a question like this in a sound scientific manner, we need to compare two groups of patients – one receiving “standard” follow-up and one receiving “experimental” follow-up.  “Standard” follow-up would use currently accepted guidelines … that is, ordering imaging and blood tests only if a new symptom that could be due to breast cancer develops, with treatment starting at that time. The “experimental” follow-up group would be informed of elevated tumor marker levels, if this occurs. This would result in undergoing imaging tests such as CT, PET, or bone scans to evaluate for recurrence with treatment being started at the time of tumor marker elevation. Decisions about the actual treatment in either case would be up to the patient and her physician.

Dr. Lynn Henry from the University of Michigan is the Principal Investigator on the study.  Dr. Julie Gralow is the  the senior PI for this study and SWOG Executive Officer.

We are asking for your help at this time, to better understand patient attitudes and acceptance of such a trial, and get input as to what would be important to patients related to long-term follow-up.

TAKE THE SURVEY!

[SURVEYS 1]

Comments

DrAttai

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

This is a great opportunity for patients and advocates to comment on the design of a national clinical trial before the trial has opened! I hope that the community takes advantage of this opportunity.

Liza B

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thank you for reaching out to us. I deeply appreciate the collaborative, participatory approach. My answers are in. Liza

Nancy's Point

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thank you for the opportunity. Completed the survey. And it's nice that it's quick and easy too I might add!

Julie Gralow

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thanks so much to all who have responded. Partnering in clinical trial design will ensure we do studies that help address the key issues that are important to patients! And thanks to Alicia, Jody and Dr. Attai for allowing us this great opportunity!

BlondeAmbition

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thanks for the opportunity. I'm curious why this study doesn't account for age and/or whether women were pre/post-menopausal at the time of their diagnosis? Similarly, wouldn't variances in recurrence and/or metastasis also be linked to particular subtypes of breast cancer (i.e. triple negative, ER+ and so on?) Maybe I'm missing something, but I'd think those would be important factors in using the data to make recommendations for the general population.

Alicia

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Hi there! Thanks for your questions. From what I understand, this trial is still in the design phase. I'll make sure to share your questions and see if I can get answers for you. Thanks -- Alicia

DrAttai

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Usually these studies enter a large variety of patients and in the registration process, age, cancer type / subtype, and many other factors are recorded. Then during the data analysis, individual factors are analyzed to see if there are trends or statistically significant differences. Target accrual is 10,000 women - one of the reasons that they need so many patients is to try to get information on a large variety of sub-populations (age, tumor type, etc).

Julie Gralow

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Yes, all important factors to consider! We would plan to collect information about the patient, the cancer, and treatments received to try to identify predictors of recurrence, location of recurrence, etc.

JodyMS

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

This is yet another reason why I love working with all of you on #BCSM. We make things happen:) Kudos to all of you, jody

jsimha

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Hi there, I am a bit confused. If we know that tumor marker tests are inaccurate, why would you propose to do blood tests every 3 months for 5 years and treat women as soon as tumor markers show elevation? Your introduction helped me to understand that we already know the answer to this question or is there doubt? Am I misunderstanding? Thanks, Joy

Julie Gralow

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thanks for the question. We certainly don't want women without a cancer recurrence to get treated, and will have to make sure we design the study to prevent that from occurring! In the group that will be told they have a tumor marker elevation, we will advise the patient and physician to obtain scans (PET, CT, bone scan) and/or perform biopsies to document recurrence. In most cases (we estimate more than 90% based on prior studies evaluating specificity of these tumor markers) there will be cancer found. We also know from prior studies that tumor markers are elevated at least 6 months before any symptoms or other indication of cancer recurrence developments. The study is asking if finding the cancer earlier and therefore starting treatment earlier helps patients live longer.

jsimha

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thanks for the prompt reply. Will you measure the emotional cost of having regular testing? I remember when I was newly diagnosed and asked to do tumor marker tests every three months for the first two years after treatment, I found it emotionally taxing to be screened so frequently. The long wait at the doctor was a financial issue as I was self employed and the Oncologist always ran late. In addition, the stress that I felt waiting for the other shoe to drop was really difficult to deal with. Now that I am an almost 19 year survivor, I am so glad that I do not screen regularly. I hope the study will measure the cost of such interventions.

DrAttai

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Yes - most studies now have a quality of life questionnaire built in as it is recognized how important this aspect of care is. Emotional cost of testing would be addressed in the quality of life aspect of the trial.

Julie Gralow

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

This is one of the big research interest of Dr. Julia Rowland, head of the NCI Office of Cancer Survivorship. She'll be advising us on the study, so you can be sure we will include emotional and psychosocial aspects.

Liza Bernstein

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

I was so inspired by this partnership/dialogue, I wrote a post about it! Was not surprised to see that others echoed my concerns about the emotional and psycho-social aspects of long-term survivorship.

G Lopez

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Amazing results can happen when you spend more time designing the appropriate questions instead of just assuming things. Thanks for giving priority to the patients' perspectives.

Julie Gralow

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Read your great post - which included your answer to question 5. Thanks for your thoughtful response! We do need better "tools" of all kinds to deal with the aftermath of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Oliver Bogler

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

This is a fantastic new development in trial design and great that the community can participate. From my perspective I would urge the trial leaders to include men in their design. While screening the general male population for breast cancer doesn't make sense, using better ways to follow men with the disease for recurrence does. This is particularly true of younger patients, where the long-term survival is not well understood due to the rarity. Thanks for giving us all a chance to be heard.

Lori

Date: 11 Apr, 2013

Thanks so much for putting this out there! I am exactly this patient! 7 years after treatment, following 15.3 all along, we saw it rise. From Nov '09 - Sept' 11 I had quarterly blood draws, countless scans and off-the-charts anxiety. One doc advised I get back on tamoxifen, another advised watchful waiting, and a third that I stop taking the test! I was diagnosed w/bone mets when it FINALLY showed up on an old fashioned CT scan. Really look forward to following this study!

Respond