Ketamine, typically used to kickstart and maintain anesthesia use, could be an option for treating patients with ovarian cancer whose pain is difficult to treat.

“Although the data for ketamine do not include a large number of placebo-controlled trials, there are [findings from] smaller studies suggesting that ketamine may be beneficial when used appropriately for patients with very difficult-to-control pain symptoms,” said Christopher J. Pietras, MD, director of palliative care and assistant clinical professor at the UCLA School of Medicine, in an interview with 

. “These patients would already be on very high doses of opioids and nonopioid adjuvant medicines, like gabapentin,” he added.

® State of the Science Summit™ on Ovarian Cancer, Pietras presented on the possible use of ketamine in palliative care for those with ovarian cancer. He said that while larger studies are needed, in the few that are available, ketamine may be promising. However, it is still too early for a conclusion to be made.

“Therefore, ketamine should only be used in a select group of patients who have uncontrollable pain, despite highly esca&shy;lated opioids and other medications, and in patients who do not have traits that would make them more likely to have [adverse events],” he said. “This includes patients who might feel confused and those who have anxiety, as those are the most ommon [adverse events] with ketamine.”

This was adapted from an article that originally appeared on 

Pietras Presents Pillars of Palliative Care in Ovarian Cancer

Articles

Ketamine May Benefit Those With Difficult Pain From Ovarian Cancer

Many patients with cancer know the feeling well: fear starts to creep in as their follow-up scan approaches, and then once the imaging is over, the wait begins before the results come in.

The term “scanxiety” was coined to describe this fear around imaging, and recently at the Abramson Cancer Center’s 10th Focus on Lung Cancer Conference, Andrew R. Haas, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, discussed ways patients can cope.

Haas mentioned that there are 2 instances that will often trigger scanxiety: before a cancer diagnosis — when a physician tells a person that something looks “suspicious” on their scan and they need to wait for more information – and after someone has been diagnosed and treated for cancer, and they have to go in for frequent scans – usually every 3 to 6 months – to see if the disease has progressed.

“As patients come to see me, the first thing they want to know is what their scans show,” Haas said. “You can feel the tension in the room and cut it with a knife waiting for that conversation about the CT scan. How individuals cope with that is where the difference lies. Seeking the right treatments for that anxiety is crucial.”

Haas’ first tip is to maintain as much normalcy as possible leading up to the scan, be it exercising, creating art or just enjoying time with friends and family.

“Do those things that you typically do. This can benefit you socially, as well as mentally,” he said.

When it comes to socialization, Haas emphasized that those experiencing scanxiety should not block themselves off from loved ones, though he recognized that this might be a difficult step.

“It’s kind of just that feeling of living on edge,” he said. “When patients feel this way, they often isolate themselves from their family members, because they maybe know that they’re feeling like this and don’t want their family to see them like this.”

Haas said that it is important for patients to communicate with their caregivers and loved ones about how they are feeling, and if there are any ways that they can be supported. However, he also recognized that family members may not be able to make all the pain go away, and that many benefit from seeking professional psychosocial help.

“It’s not a failure to recognize that you’re having struggles. The important thing is that you recognize it and get help,” he said.

Also, in line with finding the right help, Haas emphasized that building a trustworthy care team — including oncologists, nurses, navigators, therapists and more – is essential, and that patients should be comfortable coming to their practitioners with any questions or concerns that they have.

Asking health care providers questions is particularly important in the age of the internet, where there is a slew of information available at people’s fingertips. Some of this information can be informative and truthful, while other information is not, and instead, only provokes more fear.

“Be mindful what you read, whether you’re (in the stages of) pre-cancer or after cancer,” Haas said. “There’s a lot of information on the web, and a lot of that information may not be reliable and cause anxiety.”

And, if possible, Haas recommends not giving patients much time to scour the internet between getting their scans done and having them read by their physician — limiting the timeframe when anxiety can build.

“Try to make your CT scan and the time to talk to your doctor as short as possible,” he said.

Ultimately, patients who experience scanxiety should never go through it alone. Talking with family members, health care professionals or even a support group can help to lift that weight off their shoulders.

“Finding others who are going through the same processes and anxieties can be very helpful,” Haas said. “You’re not alone.”

An expert discusses tips on how patients with cancer can manage their "scanxiety."

Scanxiety Tips from an Expert

Although JAK inhibitors are a proven effective treatment for patients with myelofibrosis, a type of myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), they may come with a severe downside; in particular, a 16-fold increase in the chance of developing a B-cell lymphoma, according to recent research published in the journal 

Researchers examined 626 patients with MPNs who were diagnosed and treated at the Medical University of Vienna between 1997 and 2016. Of these patients, 69 with myelofibrosis were treated with a JAK1/2 inhib&shy;itor for lymphoma development, which included ruxolitinib (Jakafi), gandotinib, fedratinib, or momelotinib.

Four of these patients (5.8%) developed a B-cell lymphoma compared with 2 patients (less than 1%) who were not treated with a JAK inhibitor.

In a similar assessment of 929 patients with MPNs, including 216 mye-lofibrosis cases, 3 (9.7%) of 31 patients treated with JAK1/2 inhibition developed a lymphoma compared with 1 patient (0.54%) in the control group.

The lymphomas that arose in the study included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and high-grade B-cell lymphoma not other-wise specified.

Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib, offered a statement that in a large study, they found no correlation at all between their drug and aggres&shy;sive lymphoma.

“An extensive review of the ruxolitinib global safety database, which includes nearly 80,000 patient-years, does not reveal an association between ruxolitinib therapy and lymphomas. We are continuing to evaluate the analysis, but would note that the analysis was not adequately controlled and did not account for factors such as prior treatment exposure, time since MPN diagnosis, or the point at which the JAK1/2 inhibitors were initiated in the patients’ disease course.”

To better understand the potential correlation between JAK inhibition and lymphoma, study author Ulrich Jager, MD, head of the Division of Hematology and Haemostaseology at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria, said that prospective evaluation of these data in larger clinical trials is needed. He also suggested that his colleagues in the hematology/ oncology space report when their patients who are treated with JAK inhib&shy;itor therapy go on to develop lymphoma.

Although JAK inhibitors are a proven effective treatment for patients with myelofibrosis, a type of myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), they may come with a severe downside; in particular, a 16-fold increase in the chance of developing a B-cell lymphoma, according to recent research published in the journal Blood.

JAK Inhibition in Myelofibrosis Treatment May Cause Aggressive Lymphoma in Small Percentage of Patients

Recent research at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) found that not everyone benefits equally from US lung cancer screening guidelines because the trial that led to the guidelines did not include fair representation from all racial/ethnic groups across the nation. 

Findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which led to the guidelines, supported screening based on age and smoking history.

However, crafting guidelines that fairly represent African Americans is particularly important, as they have the highest lung cancer mortality rate compared to other races, according to the researchers. “Screening programs tailored to high-risk patients of minority race/ethnicities could help to reduce this 

 and save even more lives,” they wrote.

In the retrospective analysis, published in 

, the researchers assessed the demographic characteristics, baseline low-dose computed tomography scan findings, and detected lung cancers in an inner city, minority-based population at UIC (500 screenings compared with those of the National Lung Screening Trial (more than 26,000 screens).

Overall, the demographic characteristics from UIC and the National Lung Screening Trial were not similar. For example, there were more African American (69.6% vs. 4.5%) and Hispanic or Latino (10.6% vs. 1.8%) screens at the university compared with the trial.

The UIC group included a higher percentage of current smokers than the trial arm (72.8% vs. 48.1%). The researchers mentioned that individuals who are classified as low-income or having low education are more likely to smoke, which is the biggest risk factor for lung cancer.

“When you look at communities that are low-income or live in poverty, such as the South Side of Chicago, you’re going to find a lot more smokers, and maybe people who don’t access care as much, or who access care too late,” study author Mary Pasquinelli, MS, APRN, a nurse practitioner from the department of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in an interview with 

The UIC screens also resulted in a higher percentage of positive scans than the trial (24.6% versus 13.7%), and a higher percentage of diagnosed lung cancer cases (2.6% versus 1.1%).

Ultimately, the UIC group demonstrated a higher lung cancer detection rate (2.6% vs. 1.1%); and consistent with the goal of screening, both groups showed that more than half of lung cancer cases were detected at an early, curable stage.

“We’re looking to decrease health disparities, and when we compared our findings to the national trial, we found twice as many positive screens and twice as much cancer,” Pasquinelli said.

Moving forward, the researchers hope their findings can spark a change in lung cancer screening guidelines, ultimately improving outcomes.

, we’re really trying to get patients involved with primary screening for cancer, so we can find it early when it’s most curable,” Pasquinelli said. “We’re hoping that the future of lung cancer screening criteria will be keeping up.”

A version of this article was originally published by 

Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines Exclude People Who May Need It Most

The trial that led to national screening guidelines&mdash;which recommend screening based on age and smoking history&mdash;did not include fair representation from all racial/ethnic groups. 

Minorities Not Adequately Represented in Lung Cancer Screening Guidelines

Surveillance of potentially cancerous skin lesions is key in early detection and treatment of the disease, which vastly improves outcomes.

Since 20 %to 30% of patients with stage I or II primary cutaneous malignant melanoma will face a recurrence, it is crucial that this patient population — along with their caregivers – can spot something on their body that should be seen by their dermatologist or oncology team, according to a study presented at the Oncology Nursing Society Annual Congress.

“We felt it was important to conduct this project because it was almost self-evident that patients’ health support teams were playing a huge role in detecting melanomas. And we were doubtful that existing melanoma education programs were being designed with this in mind,” Andrea Fry, AOCNP, FNP-BC, NYU Langone Health, said in an interview with 

Fry and her team conducted 10-minute interviews with 20 patients being treated for melanoma at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center. Participants were asked about warning signs of melanoma; how to do a self-exam; and had a prompted discussion based on 20 different images of skin lesions. After showing the patient a picture of a lesion, the researchers would ask, “Would you bring this lesion to the attention of your dermatologist, and why?”

They were also asked if they were given sufficient education from their healthcare providers on skin surveillance and suspicious lesions, whether or not they wanted to take an active role in their surveillance, and if their health support team (family members, spouse, etc.) currently assisted them in skin surveillance. This question, which may not be discussed as frequently, was particularly important, Fry said.

“At least one half of a patient’s cutaneous surface can’t be seen by that patient, for example, the back, buttocks and scalp,” she said. “To add another set of eyes to surveillance solves that problem.”

More than half of the participants (55%) reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that they had received sufficient education from their healthcare providers on melanoma, self-skin surveillance, and characteristics of suspicious lesions.

However, those that said the opposite reported they strongly disagreed, disagreed or were uncertain that prior education from their healthcare providers on melanoma had been adequate.

“I think this is just indicative of how uneven melanoma education has been conducted across this population. Some providers are making it part of their practice and others are not. Some providers are doing a better job of it than others,” Fry said. “Clearly there’s room for improvement.”

All patients reported that they wanted to take an active role in their skin surveillance, and that they found the education session to be useful, and most of them expressed that they would like to have education beyond what they received in the melanoma education program.

“It’s always a good thing when patients are involved in their own healthcare and want tools to do so,” Fry said, noting that the goal is not to turn patients into diagnosticians, but to help them be more aware of when they should have something checked out by their physician.

Moving forward, Fry is hoping that these findings will help improve patient education, while also involving caregivers and loved ones, as they are on the “front lines” of their own surveillance.

Fry A. Strategy for Improving Surveillance Education of Melanoma Patients and Their Health Support Teams. Presented at: ONS 43rd Annual Congress; May 17-20, 2018; Washington, DC. Poster 532. 

http://epo.epostersonline.net/ons2018/node/2521

Exploring the Need for Better Melanoma Surveillance

Head and neck cancer survivors have about a 45% higher suicide ratio compared to all other cancers, according to research recently presented at the 2018 Cancer Survivorship Symposium. (Pancreatic cancer was the only other malignancy to have higher suicide ratios compared to head and neck cancer, which was significantly prevalent among men.) This ratio is disproportionately high, and merits attention by the medical community.

“We were not surprised that the burden of suicide was high among survivors of head and neck cancer,” said study author Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, BDS, MPH, CHES, instructor in the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at St. Louis University, in an interview with 

 “The surprise, however, was what we found when we compared head and neck specifically to the other common cancers in the US. Yet, we found it is indeed a top two cancer site for suicide. That was the surprise.”

Researchers examined the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and gathered information on cancer deaths that were confirmed to be from suicide from 2000 to 2014. There were a total of 4,769 suicide-related deaths in an overall pool of about 4.6 million people, yielding an incidence rate of 23.6 suicides per 100,000 person-years.

One possible explanation for the findings is that survivors of head and neck cancer face significant and unique quality of life issues, such as facial disfiguration, taste change or, when it comes to swallowing, survivors face pain or a lack of ability to do so.

“There are so many ways in which head and neck cancer survivorship is unique, and that unfortunately takes a toll on some survivors and tilt them toward hastening their death,” Osazuwa-Peters said.

These findings bring light to a pressing problem in this patient population, and will hopefully pave the way for more awareness and potential change in practices. For example, Osazuwa-Peters noted that while National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) guidelines focus a great deal on depression, there is little about suicide.

“There are several other factors than depression that could drive a cancer survivor into suicide, and we are not addressing these very much because, from a clinical perspective, the focus has heavily been on depression,” he said.

Other contributing factors Osazuwa-Peters mentioned were pain, fear of recurrence, loss of employment, and financial toxicity.

“That means that if we continue to screen for depression in our cancer survivors using the existing screening tools, we will continue to have survivors who do not show any clinical red flags for depression, yet end up taking their lives,” Osazuwa-Peters said. “We need to tackle the suicide problem by screening specifically for suicide. The clinical guidelines for cancer care should incorporate such a screening as a part of standard practice.”

The work in this area is not yet finished, and there are still questions that remain unanswered.

Osazuwa-Peters said that he would like to have data on suicidal ideation, and deaths of other causes besides suicide. He would also like to see how often survivors attempted suicide.

“If we had that data, we could use it to prevent more suicides in the future,” he said. “No man or woman, boy or girl, brave enough to fight cancer should be allowed to slip away because he or she decided life is not worth fighting for. If you can fight cancer, you can fight anything!”

Head and neck cancer survivors have about a 45% higher suicide ratio compared to all other cancers.

Suicide Screening Needed for Head and Neck Cancer Survivors

Though survivorship care plans are recommended for patients with cancer, adoption has been slow, in part, because the time required for physicians to implement these plans is not always reimbursed by insurance. Two congressmen, who are also cancer survivors, recognize the problem and are doing something to try to change that.

Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) and Ted Poe (R-TX), co-chairs of the Congressional Cancer Survivors Caucus, introduced H.R. 5160, known as the Cancer Care Planning and Communications (CCPC) Act. If passed, the bill would make cancer care plans more available to patients on Medicare by creating a billing code that would reimburse providers for their time and resources used to create the care plans.

“What they can bill for now is the face-to-face time to give the plan to the patient. But that doesn’t account for the behind-the-scenes teamwork that goes into crafting the plan,” Shelley Fuld Nasso, CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS), said in an interview with 

Now, Nasso encourages patients, survivors, caregivers and advocates to call their local Congress member to vote “yes” on the bill.

The care plan would include information on the treatment a patient was given, including potential adverse effects (AEs) to look out for. Lee Jones, a patient-turned-advocate, explained that having such a plan would have been immensely helpful when he was going through cancer treatment. Jones was diagnosed in 2004 with stage 3 colon cancer, and then had half of his liver resected 2 years later.

“With the immunotherapy drugs that many people are getting these days, side effects are much more severe and complicated than those patients faced back in the day when they were just getting chemo,” he said.

Crafting cancer care plans is a crucial step in providing each patient with the individual care that is best for them. This can improve outcomes, according to Donald (Skip) L. Trump, M.D. FACP, CEO and Executive Director of the Inova Schar Cancer Institute in Virginia.

“The data show clearly that personalized and coordinated care leads to better outcomes—including longer survival,” he said in a press release. “Cancer care is more complicated&mdash;and successful; it is critical that physicians and patients be full partners in their treatment, that the overall plan of treatment and post-treatment care be fully developed and communicated. That’s what the Cancer Care Planning and Communications Act is promoting.”

&#8203;&#8203;&#8203;&#8203;&#8203;&#8203;

Two congressmen, who are also cancer survivors, proposed the Cancer Care Planning and Communications (CCPC) Act, which would create a Medicare billing code that would reimburse providers for their time and resources used to create survivorship care plans for patients with Medicare.

Proposed Bill Would Reimburse Providers for Creating Survivorship Plans for Patients with Medicare

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Rubraca (rucaparib) as a maintenance therapy for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, according to Clovis Oncology, the company that manufactures the drug.  

The approval of the PARP inhibitor is based on findings from the phase 3 ARIEL3 trial, which showed that maintenance Rubraca improved progression-free survival (PFS) by more than 10 months compared to placebo for patients with BRCA-mutant, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.  

“FORCE is happy to see additional treatment options for women with ovarian cancer.  FORCE participated in the recruitment efforts for ARIEL3 and is excited about the positive results. We are particularly happy to see PARP inhibitors being increasingly offered in the maintenance setting where they have the potential to help even more women survive longer with fewer side effects,” said Sue Friedman, DVM, Executive Director, Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), in an interview with our sister publication, CURE magazine.

For patients with germline or somatic BRCA mutations, there was a 77 percent reduction in the risk of progression or death with Rubraca compared to placebo. Moreover, the median PFS with Rubraca was 16.6 months compared with 5.4 months for placebo. Similar PFS benefits were observed in patients with BRCA wild-type tumors and those with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) or low to high loss of heterozygosity (LOH).

In ARIEL3, patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to Rubraca or placebo treatment. Those who were given Rubraca received 600 mg of it orally twice a day. All trial participants had at least two prior lines of platinum-based therapy, as well as platinum-sensitive cancer, meaning progression was seen six or more months after their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen.

Participants included: 196 with BRCA-positive disease; 354 who were HRD-positive, which could include BRCA-mutant or BRCA-wildtype with high LOH; and 564 all-comers in the intent-to-treat population.

In the BRCA-mutant group, by blinded independent central review (BICR), which was a secondary endpoint, the median PFS with Rubraca was 26.8 months compared with 5.4 months for placebo. The overall response rate (ORR) was 38 percent for Rubraca versus 9 percent with placebo. Seven patients on the PARP inhibitor had a complete response (CR), compared to none on placebo.

In the HRD group, the investigator assessed PFS was 13.6 versus 5.4 months for Rubraca and placebo, respectively. In the BICR assessment, the median PFS was 22.9 months with the PARP inhibitor versus 5.5 months with placebo. The ORRs were 27 percent (10 CRs) and 12 percent ( zero CRs) for Rubraca and placebo, respectively.

An exploratory analysis looked at outcomes specifically in 158 patients with BRCA wild-type tumors with LOH high and 161 with low status. In the LOH high group, the median PFS was 9.7 months with Rubraca versus 5.4 months with placebo. In the LOH low group, the medians were 6.7 and 5.4 months for Rubraca and placebo, respectively. By BICR, for Rubraca and placebo, respectively, the medians were 11.1 versus 5.6 months for the LOH high group and 8.2 versus 5.3 months for the LOH low group.

The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were: anemia/decreased hemoglobin (19 percent), increase in ALT/AST (10 percent), neutropenia (7 percent), asthenia/fatigue (7 percent), thrombocytopenia (5 percent), vomiting (4 percent) and nausea (4 percent).

These adverse events led to treatment discontinuation for 13.4 percent of patients in the Rubraca arm versus 1.6 percent for placebo. Three patients developed treatment-emergent myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia with Rubraca versus none for placebo.

Rubraca was initially granted approval in December 2016, to be used as a single-agent therapy for patients with ovarian cancer with a deleterious BRCA mutation after they already had treatment with at least two chemotherapies.

“After today’s FDA approval, Rubraca joins Lymparza (olaparib) and Zejula (niraparib) as possible maintenance treatment options for recurrent platinum sensitive ovarian cancer. This is important as Rubraca has a somewhat different side effect profile and increases the number of drugs available for treatment in this chronic disease,” Rick Boulay, M.D., chief of gynecologic oncology at Lehigh Valley Health Network, said in an interview with CURE.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Rubraca (rucaparib) as a maintenance therapy for women with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer who are in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, according to Clovis Oncology, the company that manufactures the drug.

FDA Approves Rubraca for Ovarian Cancer Maintenance Treatment

Cancer can be overwhelming and difficult to navigate. From the point of diagnosis to beyond the final treatment, survivors need resources to help them navigate through their cancer journey. That's where survivorship planning comes in.

Oncology nurse at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Nancy Corbitt, BSN, RN, says, “We define a survivor as a person who was just diagnosed with cancer — whether they’re stage 1 or stage 4.” Survivorship literature, says Corbitt, “talks a lot about people who cured their disease and moved on, but I believe strongly that anyone diagnosed with cancer deserves the resources I have to offer them.”

At the first of seven Anaplastic Anemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (AAMDS) conferences, Corbitt recently spoke about the available tools and resources for people in all stages of their cancer journey. She notes that it is important to have a survivorship care plan in place, especially as fewer people are dying from the disease.

For many patients, knowledge — and access to that knowledge – is key. In her presentation, Corbitt referenced the information and resources available via the 

, on topics that range from living well during treatment, finding support during treatment, moving on and being healthy after treatment, understanding recurrence and more.

“We want to focus on empowering patients to take charge of their own care,” Corbitt said. To do this, she added that when it comes to available resources, patients need to educate themselves. “Look for resources, be it books, the internet or support groups.”

Today, technology is a valuable resource in the cancer journey of many patients, offering a means to reach out to others who might be in a similar situation, as well as easy access to information regarding their treatment and potential side effects.

Technology may also help patients with uncomfortable conversations, like those about sexual dysfunction, that often come with many cancer diagnoses. “A lot of people don’t want to talk about that,” Corbitt said. “So at least if I bring it up, people will listen.”

Through the University of Maryland Medical Center’s patient portal, for example, patient-focused modules provide a resource for patients who may be facing sexual dysfunction, as well as fear of recurrence, healthy living and mindfulness. “It’s something they can do at home,” Corbitt said.

While there is an abundance of resources and support programs for patients with cancer, Corbitt says, it is equally important to care for and empower caregivers, too.

“Caregiver burden is a real problem that we need to address,” Corbitt said. “It’s OK to take an hour for yourself and care for yourself, and I think a lot of caregivers feel guilty or that they cannot leave the person they are caring for. That’s something we need to focus on.”

One of the resources that Corbitt recommends is the National Cancer Institute’s booklet titled, “

,” which offers tips and guidance for caregivers on asking for help, caring for themselves, and going to medical visits with their loved ones.

Unfortunately, for many Americans, cancer is not an affordable disease to have. To address this, Corbitt also discussed resources that can help patients and their families get through this costly and stressful time.

Nowadays, most cancer centers have financial navigators that will work with survivors to help them better understand the costs they may face, in addition to their insurance payments and policies, drastically reducing the stress of facing financial difficulties.

For many survivors, the stress does not end after their last treatment. Post-cancer survivorship can bring a host of new anxiety-inducing circumstances, such as seeing the doctor less frequently and fear of recurrence.

“What we do is send the end of treatment summaries to not only the survivors, but to the community providers so that they know what’s going on,” Corbitt said.

End of treatment summaries describe what medications and treatments a patient received. A survivorship care plan, which patients also receive at the end of their treatment, guides patients through healthy habits, as well as surveillance plans for any possible recurrences — something many survivors fear.

“A lot of patients face fear of recurrence. One patient said to me, ‘Every three months, I have to get a scan done, and every three months I get afraid the cancer is going to come back,’” Corbitt said.

But, by seeking help and resources throughout every stage of cancer, survivors and caregivers can be empowered to move through their cancer journey more confidently.

From diagnosis to post-treatment, survivors should have access to resources that help them navigate through their cancer journey.

The Importance of Survivorship Planning

Ponatinib (Iclusig), a drug that is used to treat leukemia, may also have potential in treating small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT), according to a study published in 

is extremely rare, and mostly affects young women.

While most ovarian cancers are diagnosed after menopause at an average age of 63 years, according to the American Cancer Society, the average age of SCCHOT diagnosis is 24 years old. It has been diagnosed in babies as young as 14 months old. Traditionally treated with surgery and/or chemotherapy, SCCHOT has a 2-year survival rate under 35%, according to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Researchers found that ponatinib, which is currently approved to treat chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) subtypes, delayed tumor growth and reduced tumor volumes in 2 patient-derived xenograft models and 1 cell line xenograft model by as much as 58.6%.

"Current treatment for this devastating cancer has such poor response rates and extreme toxicity that we must find better therapeutics," lead author Jeffrey Trent, PhD, FACMG, president and research director of the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), said in a press release. "Our work identifies a new treatment strategy that could provide these young women with improved benefit."

SCCOHT formation and growth is driven by a genetic mutation that turns off the SMRCA4 gene, which was previously associated with lung, brain, and pancreatic cancers, researchers found. These tumors rely on receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) cellular pathways, which ponatinib blocks—explaining why this drug shows promise for this patient population.

"We identified Iclusig [ponatinib] as the most effective clinically approved RTK inhibitor," said Jessica Lang, PhD, TGen post-doctoral fellow and co-lead author on the study, in the release. "It holds the potential for rapidly improving outcomes for these young patients."

The researchers hope that their findings will lead to larger clinical investigations of the agent, and ultimately review by the Food and Drug Administration.

"Evaluation of a panel of selective RTK inhibitors highlighted ponatinib as the most potent tested agent in SCCOHT cell lines," co-lead author William Hendricks, PhD, assistant professor in TGen’s Integrated Cancer Genomics Division, said in the release. "Clinical investigation of this FDA-approved oncology drug is warranted in SCCOHT."

A drug used to treat leukemia may also have potential in treating small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (SCCOHT).

Brielle Urciuoli