A Lung Cancer ePatient Story

Last Friday, November 7, I spoke at Virginia Mason Medical Center’s Grand Rounds on the topic of “Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers.”  Grand Rounds is a common teaching tool in medical facilities that helps healthcare providers stay current and provide the best possible care.   In our one-hour session, my pulmonologist Dr. Steven Kirtland talked about the epidemiology of non-smoker lung cancer (its frequency, possible causes, patient demographics), I shared my epatient story, and my oncologist Dr. Joseph Rosales talked about lung cancer mutation testing and targeted therapies.   You can see my 20-minute presentation below.

———————————————–

 

Standing in line at Starbucks

© Janet Freeman-Daily

 

In Seattle, home of Starbucks, everyone drinks coffee. Can YOU tell which of them has lung cancer? In this picture, it’s the person on the far right: me.

In March 2011, I was healthy, a bit overweight, and exercising regularly. However, I’d had a nagging cough for a few months. To make my husband happy, I mentioned the cough to our doctor. Two months, two rounds of antibiotics, one x-ray, and a bronchoscopy later, I spent a very anxious four days waiting for biopsy results.

When I heard, “lung cancer,” I could barely believe the diagnosis. I called my sister to tell her the news, poured a big glass of wine, and lost myself in a favorite science fiction movie.

I had never lived with smokers, never worked in a smoking environment, never smoked anything (except a salmon). I knew nothing about lung cancer.  The facts I found online were not encouraging.  As we moved through the various staging procedures, my family and I experienced increasing levels of fear:

  • “It’s OK, it’s just one tumor. VATS surgery will probably take care of it.”
  • “Well, OK, lymph nodes are involved, but still inside one lung. We can remove the lung, right?” (OMG)
  • “There’s a lymph node between the lungs, severe inflammation and obstructive pneumonia. Stage 3a. No surgery.” This is serious. After my mediastinoscopy, my sister left the hospital convinced I was dying.

I was reassured to hear Dr, Rosales say he considered me curable. I was eager to start aggressive lung cancer treatment. But the universe, it seemed, objected to the treatment plan. The interior of my tumor had died and become colonized by bacteria. Even though we finally found an antibiotic that knocked out the infection, my recovery took weeks. During that time, I developed a clot on my PICC line and required daily self-injected blood thinner. Heaven forbid I should be a boring, vanilla cancer patient! I worried my lung cancer was growing while I waited to start treatment.

I hit bottom a few days after my second bronchoscopy. I awoke at 3 AM coughing up a lot of blood, and Dr. Kirtland told me to go to the ER.  I was released later that morning, just in time to drive 30 miles to my first radiation treatment.  The linear accelerator was down two hours for repairs, but I did eventually get zapped.  My husband and I drove to a nearby restaurant for a very late lunch, and came out to find our car had a flat tire.  Not a very reassuring start.

The next few months revolved around my daily appointments. Perhaps the toughest part was telling my autistic adopted son that he might lose another mother to cancer.  My bucket list became laser-focused on helping him prepare to live on his own.  Despite fatigue and severe esophagitis, I was able to attend my niece’s wedding a month later.  You haven’t lived until you’ve had Ahi tuna encrusted in coffee beans–pureed for a liquid diet.  At one point I was taking ten different meds to control pain and side effects.  My butt was dragging, my blood values tanked after one full dose of chemo, and I broke out in hives during my second red cell transfusion. But gradually, I started feeling better.

It all seemed worthwhile when my first post-treatment CT scan showed my lymph nodes had resolved and the primary tumor had shrunk about 90%. I wanted that tumor OUT, if possible.  I had 15 appointments in 16 days to determine if the surgery would be an acceptable risk–we only had a short window in which to do surgery before radiation changes would make it too risky.  Juggling that schedule generated a lot of additional stress —  my family’s life revolved completely around my cancer.  I wished Virginia Mason had a Lung Cancer Navigator to coordinate all the appointments between seven different professionals at four different facilities, communicate results, explain terms and options in more detail, and ensure timely follow-up.  The last procedure, a PET scan, showed a hot spot on my collarbone.  Dr. Kirtland quickly arranged an MRI scan for the next morning, and a surgical open biopsy on the following day.  To find the tiny suspicious lymph node, the surgeon used an innovative combination of FDG tracer and a Geiger counter.   Two nodes contained cancer.

Grand Rounds 4

I was now a metastatic lung cancer patient. The panic bowled me over like a 50-foot wave.  Alone at home, I became a puddle of hopelessness–for about an hour.  Then I shifted gears and got busy asking questions in an online lung cancer forum.  The support I received there was essential for maintaining hope while I processed my new diagnosis.  They helped me accept there was no point undergoing a risky lung surgery with a tough recovery when it wouldn’t cure me.

Together Dr. Rosales and I decided to start a new chemo after a couple of months, to give me time to recover from my first line treatment. I appreciated that he listened to my concerns about the delay, and that he was careful not to give me an expiration date that might take away hope. I didn’t want to die before applying for my Boeing pension, so I asked how long I had left.  Dr. Rosales estimated about two years.

In the next ten weeks, my mother died, I started taking prednisone for radiation pneumonitis, and a new three-inch tumor grew very visibly on my collarbone. My extended family gathered for what we thought might be my last Thanksgiving.  I had no desire to celebrate Christmas that year.  My most memorable gifts were a newly-installed power port and a hint that my hair was coming in curly.

In my online lung cancer forum, I learned about a clinical trial called the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium Protocol. It tested lung cancer tumor tissue for mutations in ten different genes. I consulted with my Virginia Mason doctors, but they hadn’t heard of it.  I found the trial listing on clinicaltrials.gov, then contacted the trial sites until I found one accepting patients. The University of Colorado Cancer Center agreed to test my existing biopsy samples even though I could not fly to Denver due to concerns my hollow primary tumor might cause a pneumothorax.  My entire team was disappointed when all tests were negative.  I continued networking with experienced lung cancer patients, and when Dr. Rosales and I discussed chemo options, I suggested Avastin based on some new research.  We mutually agreed on Alimta plus Avastin–he was willing to be more aggressive in my treatment because he knew I understood the risks.

Ten days after I started the new chemo in January, my collarbone tumor was visibly shrinking. I was extremely encouraged despite a sudden worsening of my pneumonitis and my new appreciation for ‘roid rage.  Still, I was glad to finish chemo after six rounds–I was losing my voice frequently, and towards the end I felt like I always had the flu.  I began to understand how some people could decide to stop cancer treatment.  But I couldn’t argue with the results:  all the original tumors were gone, the new tumor had shrunk 90%, and no new tumors appeared. We  decided to treat this one remaining tumor as an oligo-recurrence and go for a possible cure — radiation therapy might knock my cancer out for good.  My skin burned raw, but I made it through.

The next PET scan showed no activity around my collarbone. Yay!  However…it also showed two new nodules in my “good” lung, both outside the radiation field.  Seems I progress whenever I stop chemo.  Another bronchoscopy was scheduled two weeks out, after my husband and I returned from a weekend with my nephew in Denver.

Grand Rounds 5

© University of Colorado Cancer Center (used with permission)

 

Here’s where the tone of my story changes.

Months before, one of my online lung cancer friends told me of a new mutation called ROS1. I fit the profile of typical patients who had it, and a Phase 1 ROS1 trial still had slots left, but only a lab in Boston could test for it. No one at Virginia Mason knew about it.  On my last full day in Denver, I realized the University of Colorado Cancer Center was not far from my nephew’s house.  I might be able to personally thank the people who had helped me get my previous mutation testing done. I sent an email Sunday afternoon, and was amazed to get an email back that evening saying I could meet the next day with Dr. Bunn, the Center’s Director. He told me they could now test for additional mutations, including ROS1. I gave him permission to test my remaining slides.

A week later, Dr. Kirtland performed a bronchoscopy on the larger of my new nodules. He got a good sample, but couldn’t find any cancer cells. The biopsied nodule could be inflammation, BOOP, or cancer. The other nodule was too small to biopsy.

The very next day, Dr. Bunn emailed me to say I had “an impressive ROS1 rearrangement” and University of Colorado had an opening in a crizotinib trial for me, if I wanted it. Crizotinib is a twice-daily pill that targets cells expressing certain mutations, including ROS1. It produced a terrific response rate in the initial trial with substantially fewer side effects than chemo for most patients. He also said I could join the trial later if I didn’t have active cancer now. I was so excited that I almost screwed up forwarding the email to Dr. Rosales.

The following morning, Dr. Rosales called, also excited by my ROS1 news. If the new nodule was cancer, he agreed I should enter the ROS1 trial rather than start taking Alimta.

That afternoon, Dr. Kirtland called. He had taken my case to the Tumor Board, and their consensus said the biopsied nodule was radiation changes. I was to restart prednisone.  (My husband asked, “What will he give ME when YOU restart steroids?”)  In a month I would have a CT to determine if the nodules responded to prednisone, or continued growing.  I’d come to accept that living with stage IV lung cancer brought uncertainties, but that didn’t make the waiting easier.

The CT scan showed the larger nodule had not changed, but the smaller nodule had grown nearly fifty percent. The good news was that I could once again ramp down off prednisone.  The bad news was that the smaller nodule was likely cancer–I needed to either restart Alimta, or join the crizotinib trial.

Grand Rounds 6

I was on the phone the next morning to the University of Colorado, inquiring about how to join the ROS1 trial. Their doctors said I might be able to join the trial without having another biopsy.  Virginia Mason medical records and radiology really hustled to pull my records together.  After four days, I was flying to Denver with the intention of staying until I was accepted into the trial, and wondering why the heck I was traveling a thousand miles away from my home and family to try an experimental cancer treatment that might not work.  My concerns were not eased by the delays caused by Hurricane Sandy, which shut down the trial sponsor Pfizer’s headquarters in New York City during my screening period.  My acceptance into the trial came at the last possible minute.

I took my first crizotinib pill two years ago last Thursday. My first scan eight weeks later showed both nodules were gone, indicating they likely were both cancer.  As of last Monday’s scan, I have had No Evidence of Disease (known to cancer patients as “NED”) for 22 months and counting. I may be able to stay on this drug for months or years longer. Yet targeted therapies like the one I take do not offer a permanent cure. In time I’ll probably develop resistance to the drug.  There IS no cure for metastatic lung cancer.  No one can say how long I will live.  Sometimes that weirds me out.  Yet I’m hopeful that when this trial drug stops working, another clinical trial will be a good match for me.

Grand Rounds 7

It’s an odd existence, living from scan to scan in eight-week increments. I still sometimes experience scanxiety, as we patients call it.  I often hide out in the bedroom for days before a scan so my scanxiety doesn’t bite anyone.  There is no logical reason for this feeling.  My scans have been clean for months, and I have no symptoms that would indicate the next scan should be any different.  If I do have a recurrence, I know I have some treatment options.  Even if I had no treatment options, I am not afraid of dying.  Apparently my subconscious simply overpowers my conscious positive thoughts.  It probably doesn’t help that whenever I’m leaving for a scan, my son hugs me hard and says, “Please don’t die Please don’t die Please don’t die.”

Several events conspired to give me severe scanxiety a year ago. It felt like a panic attack. Not only was the timing near the anniversaries of my two cancer recurrences, but a friend on a targeted therapy had developed brain mets weeks after a brain MRI, a neighbor had died when her lung cancer spread to her brain covering, and the online ROS1 buddy who had first told me about my clinical trial appeared to be progressing after two years on crizotinib.  A network of lung cancer patients provides invaluable support, but it requires accepting that friends will die frequently.

Grand Rounds 8

I feel overwhelmingly grateful for everything and everyone that has helped me survive as long as I have: medical science that discovered new ways to treat my condition, compassionate healthcare providers at Virginia Mason and in Denver, insurance that paid for most of my care, family and friends who supported me, a knowledgeable online lung cancer community, and all the prayers and good wishes lifting me up throughout my cancer journey.  I’m acutely aware that many lung cancer patients do not have these supports and opportunities.

Being given a second chance at life, however long it might be, tends to give one a different perspective. Seeing the sunset paint Mount Rainier fills my heart.  Chatting with my sister over a latte keeps me smiling for a week.

A second chance at life also makes one introspective. Why was I spared when others died?  Why does my mutation have an effective treatment when others don’t? Why am I able to see one of the best lung cancer doctors in the world when many patients can’t afford proper treatment? Why am I still here?

I had been blessed with gifts that helped me survive my cancer journey thus far. In my previous career of aerospace engineering, I was a “translator” of sorts: I researched science and technology developments and helped others understand their benefits.  Thanks to these skills,  I’m able to understand lung cancer treatments and research. I’m able to explain what I’ve learned, both verbally and in writing, in everyday terms. And I’m able to advocate for myself with healthcare providers.

I have chosen to use these gifts to help other lung cancer patients by going public with my lung cancer in my blog, in online forums, and in public speaking.  Most patients don’t know about the new treatments like the one I’m taking–even some doctors don’t know. Lung cancer patients need more than compassion. They need information about second opinions, mutation testing, side effects, treatment options, and clinical trials.  They need HOPE.

Lung cancer people     Breast Cancer People

Going public has also helped more people understand that ANYONE with lungs can get lung cancer—and NO ONE deserves to die from it. Lung cancer kills about as many people as the other top four cancers combined, yet it receives fewer federal research dollars per death than any of them.  Why is that?  Are lung cancer patients not worth saving?  The answer becomes clear when you google the words “lung cancer people.” No throngs of ribboned supporters; few smiling survivors.  You see diseased lungs, death … and smoking.  Lung cancer has an image problem.  The first question I hear when I mention my disease is: “Did you smoke?” People blame patients for getting lung cancer. The breast cancer community has changed how the world sees their disease. The lung cancer community must do the same.  We’ve all done things that impact our health.  Yes, it’s healthier not to smoke.  But it’s not a sin that warrants the death penalty.

puffy feet

© Janet Freeman-Daily

 

Precision medicine allows me to live with lung cancer as a chronic illness instead of a death sentence. True, it’s not the same life I had Before Cancer. I can’t do the active sports that I used to do.  Chemotherapy left me with peripheral neuropathy and cognitive changes.  Radiation scarred my lungs and damaged the nerve bundle for my right arm. A year of steroids packed on the fat while decreasing muscle tone.  Crizotinib causes edema and graces me with antisocial gut behaviors. Some combination of side effects keeps my red blood cell count just below normal. When I exercise on the treadmill, I can’t get manage a brisk walk for more than 30 seconds without breathing fast and hard.

Image Credit: Stephanie Jarstad

Image Credit: Stephanie Jarstad

I’m not complaining, mind you–I’m happy to be alive and have a relatively normal life on targeted therapy. It even allowed me to play a casual game of softball in Cheney Stadium at my 40th high school reunion. The moment I put the glove on my left hand, my body recalled those years on the softball diamond. After some initial fumbles, I could catch, throw, pitch and hit. And I got to first base before the ball did.  I could not have even reached first base while on chemo.

As a three-year lung cancer survivor, I’ve already lived beyond my prognosis. I will stay with targeted therapy and other clinical trials as long as my quality of life makes it worthwhile. Lung cancer research has found more new treatments in the past few years than ever before, and the pace of discoveries is accelerating.  As people begin to realize that ANYONE can get lung cancer (including never smokers like me), the stigma will hopefully begin to fade, and research funding will increase.

We lung cancer patients deserve hope, and a cure. Every one of us.

Technology for Coordinating Care — #hcldr chat 10/28

Lung cancer and other acute/chronic health conditions require care teams with more than one healthcare professional, sometimes located in more than one care facility.  To provide the best care for the patient, these teams often must coordinate with the patient as well as caregivers, family members, care facilities, and community services.  How can technology platforms (like smart phones and social media) help with this process?

#HCLDR Chat will tackle this topic, Platforms for Community-Wide Care Coordination, in their next chat on Tuesday, October 28, at 8:30 PM Eastern Time.

I hope you’ll join the #hcldr chat and share YOUR thoughts on this important subject.  We’ll be discussing the following topics:

  • T1: What are the most important challenges patients, family members & caregivers face in coordinating care?
  • T2: What challenges do care teams (clinicians, lay health workers, managers) face in coordinating care?
  • T3: What are examples of where social media and other technologies have supported care coordination?
  • T4: How can social media & other technologies help coordinate care for publicly insured, rural & other underserved communities?

I (@JFreemanDaily) will be participating as a guest in this chat, along with other members of a panel who will be presenting at the upcoming Workshop on Interactive Systems in Healthcare (WISH) 2014 which will be co-located with the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Annual Symposium on November 15, 2014 in Washington, DC.   The responses gathered in the #hcldr chat will be included in our WISH panel discussion.  The other panelists participating in the chat are:

  • Katherine Kim, PhD, MPH, MBA (@kimkater): health informaticist, researcher and Assistant Professor at University of California, Davis
  • Charles Boicey, MS, RN-BC, CPHIMS (@N2InformaticsRN): Enterprise Analytics Architect for the State University of New York, Stony Brook Medicine
  • Susan Hull, MSN, RN (@SusanCHull): nursing executive , founder and CEO of WellSpring Consulting
  • Anna McCollister-Slipp (@annamcslipp): diabetes epatient, co-founder of Galileo Analytics

My Take on This

This is a topic of great interest to me.  I can see many care coordination needs that might be addressed with technology platforms.  Here are some snippets from my own experience as a lung cancer patient.

Having multiple care providers at different facilities is a common situation with lung cancer.  When I was undergoing my first line of treatment, I met regularly with seven healthcare providers in four different facilities:  a pulmonologist and infectious disease doctor in a major medical center, a medical oncologist and infusion nurse in a local clinic, a  radiation oncologist and nurse in a different local clinic, and a contractor that provided supplies for my PICC line.  Even though the doctors all belonged to the same medical center, each facility had different scheduling software and limited or no access to my electronic medical records at the other facilities.  Care coordination was mostly done by telephone and fax.  My husband and I tracked my daily appointments on a wall calendar at home.  If the infusion nurse giving me my chemo needed to ask a question of the radiation oncology nurse who has seen me when I received my radiation treatment 30 minutes earlier, they played phone tag in between patients.  Having a common platform accessible to all team members that showed my appointment schedule and treatment notes and allowed even brief instant messaging (e.g., “give Janet 1L IV fluids after her chemo today”) would have been very helpful.

Having a device that could display my current health conditions and meds, then connect an emergency medical tech or doctor to my oncologist (even when out of cell phone range) would be pretty nifty.  Currently I keep a two-page summary of my lung cancer treatment history and contact info with me on a USB Medic Alert bracelet when I travel.  This presumes whoever finds me unconscious has a PC with a USB port and a PDF reader handy. My epatient friend Casey Quinlan had her medical record access info tattooed as a QR code on her chest.

I have learned the value of keeping a complete set of my medical records at home in case I need them.  While I can access some of my medical records online at the two medical centers where I currently receive care, right now I can only see lab results, and (at one facility) scan reports.  When my tumor tissue underwent mutation testing at an NCCN facility, an oncologist’s office at the same facility couldn’t find the test results without my sleuthing to find a specific number on a faxed copy of the test report–fortunately I had requested one previously.  There’s GOT to be a better way to transmit current medical records rapidly between facilities than faxing or emailing scanned documents!

Metastatic lung cancer patients like me–especially those who are eligible for targeted therapies, aggressive treatment, or clinical trials–find second opinions can be life saving.  When a patient takes a turn for the worse or a clinical trial has limited openings, the second opinion may occur on short notice.  For me, pursuing a second opinion for my lung cancer today would mean going to a 3-foot-deep file cabinet drawer and gathering a stack of CDs containing relevant CT, PET, and MRI scans and other medical records (clinic notes, pathology reports, lab results, chemo summaries, radiation treatment summaries, etc).   If I were to include all the records I’ve generated in over three years of lung cancer treatment, the stack of CDs would be over 4 inches thick.  The radiology scan files are too big to be transmitted electronically and still preserve the ability to view the data, so I’d take those CDs with me.  All those other records provided by my care center exist as a few unsearchable pdf files containing hundreds of images of hardcopy documents.   For those records, I’d save the second opinion doc from having to read every single page of the huge file; instead, I’d ask which files they need to see, and print hardcopies to take instead (I keep the most important of these in a 3-ring binder).  If I had a week, I could request CDs of the specific files from the medical records department and wait to receive them via snailmail.

Some patients may use medical devices such as my CPAP machine that generate medical data useful to the care team.  However, it may be difficult or impossible to pass that data to a healthcare provider in a different location, or even access the data if the device employs proprietary designs.  My CPAP has a removable SD disk that can be read by most card readers in PCs.  However, I’d have to download the software to read it, and I can’t capture the data I read so I can transmit it to anyone.  “Interoperability” doesn’t really exist with medical devices yet.  I may be hallucinating from too much chocolate, but I’d love to see a platform that provides an interface to different medical devices and electronic medical records so they can network the way my Fitbit shares data with my LoseIt! diet app on my smartphone.

I’d also love to see care coordination solutions designed for those who do not have reliable access to the Internet.  Not all patients live in areas where broadband Internet or cell phone coverage is available, and not all patients can afford to pay for Internet service or devices that access it.  Yes, they could go to the library, but who wants to put sensitive personal medical info on a screen and unsecure computer for everyone to read?

Speaking as a system engineer, creating a secure technology platform that meets all the requirements and desirements without causing more complications in the already messy digital medicine world will require out-of-the-box creativity.  Maintaining data security and HIPPA privacy is essential.  Forcing already overloaded healthcare workers to use yet another interface, or forcing facilities to invest in a new standardized medical records system without providing the funds and training to implement it, are both non-starters.  The motivation for change will have to come from demonstrating that a new technology platform improves care quality and access, reduces cost and workload, and is readily adopted by patients and carers alike.

The first step in solving this problem is to capture the requirements; I hope the #hcldr chat on 10/28 will contribute to this effort.

Care Coordination Challenge graphic (UC Davis)
Image credit: UC Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing

#LCSM Chat Topic 10/23: How can we help new stage IV #lungcancer patients consider 2nd opinions, mutation testing and clinical trials?

The following post is reblogged with permission from today’s #LCSM Chat blog.

———————————————————-

Most patients experience a period of stunned disbelief or shock when they hear a diagnosis of “metastatic lung cancer.”  For those who are offered treatment options, the first few months revolve around medical appointments.  Others may only be told to go home and get their affairs in order.  Patients and family members may be in denial, or trying to process what all those dismal survival statistics mean for their future. It might be the first time the patient or a family member has had to confront the possibility of death for themselves or a loved one.

Some patients (or their caregivers) may be empowered, engaged and researching options, but many don’t have the physical or emotional energy to do so.  At this point, few patients are thinking about second opinions, mutation testing, or clinical trials.

The problem with waiting for metastatic lung cancer patients to become empowered and engaged is that the majority won’t live a year if they can’t access the newest treatment options. However, if they get educated about their options, consult with a knowledgeable oncologist, and are eligible for newer treatments or clinical trials, their lifespan may be years longer.

You might ask, how could this be true?

The landscape of personalized medicine and new lung cancer treatments is changing fast, and more stage IV lung cancer patients are living longer.  Unfortunately, due to the pace of that change, not all healthcare providers who treat lung cancer are current on the newest treatment options. Some oncologists do not test their patients’ adenocarcinoma lung cancer tumors for EGFR or ALK, even though NCCN and other respected guidelines recommend it.  Even research oncologists at NCCN facilities can’t track every new clinical trial for lung cancer.  And, sadly, some healthcare providers simply believe that because metastatic lung cancer is not curable, there’s no point in treating it.

The fact is, most metastatic lung cancer patients (or their trusted caregivers) will need to become engaged and empowered if the patients want a better chance at survival.  Many will need help to do this, either online or offline.

The #LCSM Chat on October 23 will explore how the lung cancer community might help metastatic lung cancer patients become interested in and knowledgeable about second opinions, mutation testing, and clinical trials. Your moderator Janet Freeman-Daily (@JFreemanDaily), a stage IV lung cancer patient who currently has No Evidence of Disease in a clinical trial, will offer the following topics for discussion:

T1:  How can we help a stage IV lung cancer patient understand the need for 2nd opinion when their doctor offers no treatment?

T2:  How can we help a stage IV adeno lung cancer patient consider EGFR & ALK mutation testing if their doctor has not done it?

T3:  How can we help a stage IV lung cancer patient consider targeted therapy clinical trials if they have a targetable mutation?

We look forward to seeing you in the chat! To participate in the chat, remember to include #LCSM in all your tweets, or use a tweetchat tool like tchat.io with that hashtag (more on that here).

Why I’m Behind on My Patient Advocacy Projects

Today is a relatively typical day.  I’ve been up for 2.5 hours.  I haven’t tackled any major projects yet. Why?

6:50–7:20 AM
Wake up a few minutes before the alarm, take anti-reflux pill, check email, get up, step on scale, be bummed (again) about my post-cancer-treatment weight gain, resolve to spend at least 30 minutes on the treadmill this afternoon, brush cats

7:20-8:20 AM
Get dressed, help with family breakfast, help son get ready for school, help hubby with shopping list, eat breakfast (had to wait an hour after taking anti-reflux pill), log food intake in LoseIt! (only 360 calories for breakfast–yay!), take cancer pills, check Twitter, pet cats

8:20-8:45 AM
Load dishwasher, have several writing ideas flood into my head while washing big pots, clean up mess I made on the counter while distracted by writing ideas, realize my chemobrain has forgotten all writing ideas, play with cats

8:45-9:20 AM
Check Facebook while drinking milk/coffee, look at pile of urgent family paperwork, decide I should start on a lung cancer advocacy article, go see what cat is playing with, write blog post instead (with feline oversight)

But the day is young, the cats are now napping, and coffee is kicking in.  I still have hope I shall actually accomplish something today.

Oh, look, the hummingbird feeder is empty …

 

Why Aren’t Never Smokers Screened for Lung Cancer with LDCT?

As you’ve probably heard, 25% of lung cancer patients worldwide are never smokers.  Like all lung cancer patients, the majority of never smoker LC patients are diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer, even though they often have no real symptoms.  How come lung cancer screening guidelines don’t suggest never smokers get screened for lung cancer?

Well, it’s all a matter of risk reduction.

Medical practitioners (and those who pay for their services) do not like to run a medical test when the patient might be put at risk for little benefit.  This is a concern if a test is not 100% accurate and follow-up procedures for a positive result are potentially invasive.  This is the situation with LDCT screening.  With today’s technology, a lung cancer diagnosis can only be confirmed with a biopsy, which is invasive and does carry some risk.  And, lung biopsies are not guaranteed to detect a cancer, even if one is present.  Lung cancer screening with low dose CT might generate a false positive (meaning the test says the patient has lung cancer when they really don’t). False positives could result in unnecessary invasive follow-up procedures with some risk to the patient.

For this reason, LDCT screening is only recommended for those who are at HIGH RISK for lung cancer. At this time, “high risk for lung cancer” means current or past heavy smoking history and age 55 to 75. These risk factors were not chosen due to stigma or discrimination. To date, these are the only two risk factor scientifically demonstrated to have a HIGH correlation with lung cancer in several studies. A very large clinical trial (the National Lung Screening Trial, or NLST) showed people who had these risk factors were likely to benefit from lung cancer screening with LDCT despite the risks of false positives.

For these patients at high risk for lung cancer, the benefits of screening outweigh the risks.  LDCT screening reduced their lung cancer deaths by 20% compared to screening with x-rays, simply by detecting the lung cancer before it spread and getting it treated early.  By the way, NO deaths due to LDCT screening occurred in the 53,000+ participants enrolled in the NLST.

Since lung cancer occurs in a low percentage of the never smoker population, the risk of screening doesn’t make sense for never smokers unless they have another high risk factor.

We know of other risk factors associated with lung cancer–radon gas in homes, air pollution, previous cancer treatments (especially radiation treatment to the lungs), exposure to certain hazardous materials, even an inherited gene.  However, analysis to date hasn’t shown any of these factors have as strong a correlation with lung cancer, possibly because it’s harder to track those risk factors in a controlled study.  As we learn more about how lung cancers get started, and how they differ from each other, we are likely to discover more HIGH risk factors that can be validated by objective analysis.

This definition of “high risk” and this method of screening are just the first steps in early detection for lung cancer. As more high risk factors (like the inherited version of the T790M gene) are validated by objective studies, people who have those risk factors should also be included in covered lung cancer screening, whether or not they have a smoking history.

As more accurate and less expensive lung cancer screening technologies become available, testing will become more accessible to everyone.  Someday–hopefully in our lifetimes–accurate lung cancer screening will be as easy as a blood test or spitting into a test tube, without the need for a biopsy.

So keep supporting more research!  We need accurate, affordable early detection of lung cancer in never smokers.

Why Advocates Seem to Talk So Much About Lung Cancer Screening

On Thursday, September 25th, 8PM ET/ 5PM PT, #LCSM Chat will discuss the existing barriers in lung cancer screening in late 2014.

Recently I’ve heard some lung cancer patients say they feel abandoned by lung cancer advocacy groups.  These patients think the groups are focusing too much on early detection with lung cancer screening, and have abandoned those who already have the disease.

As a metastatic lung cancer patient, I don’t feel abandoned.  I feel lung cancer advocacy has never been more vibrant or successful than it’s been in the past year.  In the past year, lung cancer advocacy has featured:

  • Wide-spread national media coverage about lung cancer: Valerie Harper on “Dancing with the Stars” and other national shows, national news coverage of testimony on Capitol Hill about the need for lung cancer research funding, the “Turquoise Takeover” of prominent landmarks, and Molly Golbon’s cancer journey documented on NBC, for example.
  • Print and online articles discussing the need to eliminate lung cancer stigma and featuring the hope offered by new treatments and clinical trials.
  • More advocates, patients, doctors, and researchers posting and collaborating with the #LCSM hashtag on Twitter.
  • An increase in lung cancer bloggers compared to last year.

The focus of lung cancer advocacy hasn’t shifted away from research or treatments.  By my count, there are more new treatment options offered or announced this year for a wider range of lung cancer types than in any previous year: two new FDA-approved targeted therapies,  immunotherapy trials for all lung cancer types, an innovative new trial for squamous cell LC, a new study of Young Lung Cancer, new targeted drugs for mutations, newly-discovered mutations … the list is long.

Lung cancer screening with LDCT is a big deal because it is projected to save 18,000 lives PER YEAR by catching lung cancer before it spreads.  That’s more lives than most new targeted lung cancer treatments will save in a year.

We’re seeing more public discussion of lung cancer screening than treatments for four reasons:

(1) Lung cancer screening with LDCT gained major support at the end of 2013.
In December 2013, the US Preventative Services Task Force recommended lung cancer screening with LDCT.  As a result, the ACA now requires private insurance plans to cover LDCT as of January 2015.

(2) LDCT is becoming more available.
More hospitals and clinics are beginning to offer LC screening with LDCT, and are advertising that fact.

(3) The need for support is urgent.
The majority of lung cancer patients are over age 65.  In February, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) began evaluating whether to provide insurance coverage for LC screening with LDCT.  CMS will decide in November.   We must act NOW.

(4) Individual advocates have a chance to make a difference that will save lives.
The CMS decision is being made by a branch of the US government.  Our voices are needed to ensure those over 65 have access to LC screening, since most of them have Medicare as their primary insurance.  Lung cancer advocacy organizations are leading the charge.

The lung cancer community is still dedicated to raising awareness for ALL lung cancer patients and increasing research that will allow more lung cancer patients to be cured or to live with lung cancer as a chronic illness.   Advocating for LC screening is just one way to help more patients survive.  It’s part of the 2014 sea change in lung cancer.

Are insurance computer glitches contagious?

Recently I received a $4000+ bill from University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) for my December 2013 PET/CT scan and labs. When I receive any bill from UCH, it means my healthcare insurance didn’t pay for something.  The same procedures have been covered completely for all previous UCH visits (most recently in October 2013), and my health insurance coverage has not changed in years. I called UCH, and was told my insurance carrier said I did not have coverage at the time the procedure was performed.  My carrier, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL), helped me resolve the problem by calling UCH directly while I was on hold (thanks for the outstanding customer service, BCBSIL). Together BCBSIL and UCH determined the UCH computer showed the wrong BCBSIL member number for me–not just a digit or two wrong, but completely wrong. I decided to raise the issue when I’m back in Denver on January 27, and put it aside for now. It was probably just a data entry error.

But then …

Today I read this Huffington Post article from January 10, 2014. It tells of a woman who signed up for a new Obamacare Anthem policy in December through an insurance broker, but her hospital was unable to confirm that she had insurance coverage. The story caught my attention for two reasons: the UCH computer has always shown my insurance coverage as being “Anthem,” and this woman’s insurance issue happened about the same time as mine.  Fortunately, her issue was also resolved in her favor.

Now, however, I’m wondering if computer glitches associated with the online healthcare exchanges might be affecting computerized insurance records of longstanding customers. I have no proof, and no way to investigate this theory, but the thought is unsettling.