C3: Collaborating to Conquer Cancer

C O L L A B O R AT I N G

T O

C O N Q U E R

C A N C E R

SPR I NG 2017

DENIAL: IT’S NOT JUST A RIVER IN EGYPT

THE SCIENCE OF

MISTAKEN BELIEFS

ABOUT CANCER SCIENCE 12: “NOTHING MORE I CAN ASK FOR” 10: Q&A WITH ROBERT GARCEA, MD 11: C3 MD SUSAN LANA, DVM, MS, ACVIM-ONCOLOGY 16: 6 IMPORTANT STEPS TO PREVENT CANCER

ANSCHUTZ MEDICAL CAMPUS

N3WS YOUNG COLON CANCER PATIENT CAN DREAM ABOUT THE FUTURE Stepping on Legos. Dirty diapers. Temper tantrums.

C U CAN C E R C E NTE R WE LC O M E S N EW LEAD E R S

Functioning on little sleep. These are all things that a mom with a toddler and an infant should be worrying about. But for Gloria Northrup, an unexpected colon

James DeGregori, PhD, has been

cancer diagnosis turned her world upside down and

named deputy director of the

at only 35 she found herself in a fight for her life.

University of Colorado Cancer

“I remember the day my life changed so clearly,”

the associate director for basic

was so bad that I called my husband at work and

research and was also respon-

told him to come home. My sister came to watch the

sible for overseeing multiple CU

boys so my husband could drive me to the ER.”

Cancer Center Shared Resources.

A CT scan at the ER revealed masses in her

N O RTHR UP WI TH HER FA M ILY

Center. DeGregori previously was

Gloria says. “It was September 15, 2015. My pain

DeGregori, professor in the

D E GREGO RI

colon, liver and left lung. Gloria was immediately

Department of Biochemistry and

rushed to a hospital in the metro area.

the Courtenay C. and Lucy Patten Davis

“After my diagnosis I thought about dying a lot,”

Endowed Chair in Lung Cancer Research,

she says. “I wondered who would take care of my boys and watch them grow. I wondered how my husband

is developing new evolutionary models to under-

would cope being a single parent. I wondered if I wanted to be buried or cremated. I wondered who would

stand how aging and smoking promote selection

put my clothes away. I had very little hope of making it through the next months.”

for cancer-causing mutations, leading to cancers.

After meeting with Chris Lieu, MD, director of the CU Cancer Center colorectal medical oncology pro-

Heide Ford, PhD, professor in the Department

gram, Gloria decided to continue her treatment with him. On March 24, 2016, she had a surgery. She was

of Pharmacology, will take over for DeGregori as

then put on Xeloda, a drug that is commonly used during colon cancer treatment and slows the growth

associate director for basic research. Ford’s work

of cancer cells around the body. In July 2016 she did two weeks of radiation on her liver.

focuses on the parallels between normal develop-

“Gloria has come a long way from where she started,” says Lieu. “Currently she still has tumors, but they are totally stable. We will continue to treat with maintenance chemo.”

Despite a grim prognosis in the beginning, the future looks bright for Gloria.

“I feel so hopeful now,” she says. “I can now dream about and plan for the future. My older son starts

ment and tumor progression, and how cancer cells utilize developmental programs to mediate metastatic spread.

“I couldn’t be more excited about the future

kindergarten this fall, and I am celebrating my ten year anniversary with my husband this summer. These are

of CU Cancer Center,” says Dan Theodorescu,

things that I was never sure I would be able to see.”

MD, PhD, director of CU Cancer Center. “We are increasingly recognized as a national and international leader in cancer research, from the

MALARIA DRUG SUCCESSFULLY TREATS 26-YEAR-OLD BRAIN CANCER PATIENT

most basic science discoveries to our ability to

After her melanoma metastasized into brain cancer and then became resistant to chemotherapy and then

deliver cutting-edge, compassionate care. James

to targeted treatments, 26-year-old Lisa Rosendahl’s doctors gave her only a few months to live. Now CU

and Heide are excellent scientists and have been

Cancer Center researchers describe a new drug combination that has stabilized Rosendahl’s disease and

an essential part of our growth.”

increased both the quantity and quality of her life.

“Doctors gave Lisa less than 12 months to live,” says her father, Greg. “We took all our cousins up to Alaska for a final trip kind of thing. Then they came up with this new combination including chloroquine.”

After many surgeries, radiation treatments and chemotherapy, Lisa had started the drug vermurafenib to treat melanoma. The drug had initially pushed Lisa’s cancer past the tipping point of survival. Then the cancer had learned to use a process of cellular recycling called autophagy to pull itself back from the brink.

The anti-malaria drug chloroquine stops autophagy, and adding it to Lisa’s treatment stopped the essential process that Rosendahl’s cancer cells had been using to resist therapy. Without autophagy, Lisa’s cancer started responding to vemurafenib again.

“We have treated three patients with the combination and all three have had a clinical benefit. It’s really exciting – sometimes you don’t see that kind of response with an experimental treatment. In addition to Lisa, another patient was on the combination two-and-a-half years. She’s in college, excelling, and growing into a wonderful young adult, which wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t put her on this combination,” says Jean Mulcahy-Levy, MD, CU Cancer Center investigator and pediatric oncologist at Children’s Hospital Colorado.

“It makes me feel really lucky to be a pioneer in this treatment,” says Lisa. “I hope it helps, and I hope tit helps people down the road. I want it to help.”

2 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

Get more CU Cancer Center news on our blog: www.coloradocancerblogs.org Sign up for our bimonthly newsletter, Colorado Cancer News.

MORE O PTI O N S F O R PATI E NTS

CU CANCER CENTER AGAIN RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE BEST After a rigorous evaluation process, the University of Colorado Cancer Center has earned its best-ever rating and a prestigious grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to support research and operations.

The Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) recognizes the CU Cancer Center as the state of Colorado’s only NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center, one of 47 such centers in the United States, and additionally designates the center a “comprehensive cancer center”, recognizing CUCC’s excellence across all aspects of cancer research and oncology care.

NCI GRANT GIVES FRONT RANGE

“I know each person associated with our center works diligently every day to better understand and

PATIENTS MORE OPTIONS FOR

fight cancer,” says Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of the CU Cancer Center. “This designation shows

CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS

the sum of these efforts – it’s the recognition that each person is doing his or her part resulting in an excel-

At the University of Colorado Cancer Center, patients can enroll in a variety of clinical trials

lent organization.”

Rather than relying on a localized, one-campus system, the CU Cancer Center represents the collabo-

testing promising treatments against a range

ration of members at multiple institutions including University of Colorado Boulder, University of Colorado

of cancers. Many of these treatments are

Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, and Colorado State University (with most CSU members coming from

not yet available to patients receiving treat-

the Flint Animal Cancer Center). Also included in the consortium are CU Cancer Center’s clinical partners

ment at community cancer clinics, outside

University of Colorado Hospital, Children’s Hospital Colorado, and Denver VA Medical Center. Partner

the framework of clinical trials. CU earned a

institutions including University of Colorado Hospital and Children’s Hospital Colorado are consistently

Lead Academic Participating Site (LAPS) grant

in the top tier of U.S. News & World Report rankings.

TREVR MERCHANT

through the National Clinical Trials Network that will allow expanded access to clinical trials at UCHealth sites throughout Colorado including University of Colorado Hospital, Memorial Hospital, Memorial Hospital North, Poudre Valley Hospital and Medical Center of the Rockies.

“When someone gets a cancer diagnosis, the last thing they want is to travel to participate in a clinical trial,” said Anthony Elias, MD, CU Cancer Center investigator and principal investigator for the LAPS grant. “This funding gives CU Cancer Center the chance to give more patients more options, closer to home that can potentially help them live longer with a better quality of life.”

For more information about cancer clinical trials at CU Cancer Center and its clinical care affiliates, please call the Cancer Clinical Trials Office at 720-848-0650.

TUCATINIB (ONT-380) PROGRESSING IN PIVOTAL TRIAL AGAINST HER2+ BREAST CANCER Phase 1 clinical trial data show early promise of the drug tucatinib (formerly ONT-380) against HER2+ breast cancer. “Usually we expect the results of a phase 1 clinical trial to give us data that we can use to guide the results of future treatments. This is a great case in which, for many of these patients, the results were immediate. There are women who are alive today because of this drug,” says Virginia Borges, MD, MMSc, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program and Young Women’s Breast Cancer Translational Program at the University of Colorado Cancer Center.

The 50 women treated on the study had progressed despite a median 5 previous treatment regimens.

Twenty-seven percent of these heavily pretreated patients saw clinical benefit from the drug, with at least “stable disease” at 24 or more weeks after the start of treatment. These data have led to two subsequent Phase Ib studies, resulting in tucatinib earning FDA fast-track status and the expansion of this study, once meant only to demonstrate drug safety, into the “pivotal” trial that will determine approval.

“I think this drug has an extremely high likelihood of being approved for women with HER2+ breast cancer for use after previous treatments,” Borges says. “And it’s going to be an especially important drug due to its ability to control brain metastases. The opportunity to study it as a front-line drug for recurrent triple positive breast cancer could even someday help us prevent or delay these brain metastases.”

Ongoing updates are expected in journals and meetings later in 2017.

3 C3: SPRING 2017

I

f your first John Coltrane album was Live in Seattle, chances are it sounded like

gobbledygook. Of course, your belief that it is nonsense sits across a deep chasm from aficionados on the other side of the chasm who think it’s genius. From where you stand, you can’t imagine the other point of view. There is no ground between here and there, and it seems like there’s very little hope of ever crossing from one side to the other.

Unfortunately, this same chasm

DENIAL: IT’S NOT JUST A RIVER IN EGYPT

divides a doctor from a patient

THE SCIENCE OF

sugar diet will cure metastatic

who believes Big Pharma is hiding a cure for cancer or that a nodisease. And the elephant in the

MISTAKEN BELIEFS

room is that this divide exists now in many places – climate science, vaccines and GMO foods to name only a well-known few.

ABOUT CANCER SCIENCE

BY GA RT H S U N D E M

WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

NAS A

4

BAD SCIENCE “Back in the 1980s there were a handful of studies showing that autologous bone marrow transplantation might be a useful treatment against breast cancer,” says Karyn Goodman, MD, MS, David and Margaret Turley Grohne Chair in Clinical Cancer Research, Associate Director for Clinical Research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. “Suddenly everyone wanted to do it, and big reputable places started offering bone marrow transplant for breast cancer.”

When insurance companies refused to cover the procedure, the process often ended up in court where some cases were decided in favor of patients who wanted insurance companies to pay for the procedure and some in favor of insurance companies that didn’t want to pay.

“Then ten years into it, they finally published the results of a randomized-control trial showing there was no benefit.

In fact, because the procedure was so toxic, it was actually doing harm to patients,” Goodman says.

After nearly 30,000 women received bone marrow transplant for breast cancer, at the 1999 meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, research teams presented six studies examining the results. Five of the six showed no benefit, with treatment-related deaths in 3-15 percent of these cases. But proponents pointed to the sixth study that showed dramatic results.

“People wanted to believe it,” Goodman says. The same way we believe that medicine that tastes horrible must be more powerful than medicine that tastes okay, “people thought that more treatment was better,” Goodman says, and that, “a treatment that was so grueling must be the most aggressive thing you could do to treat cancer.”

Unfortunately, the sixth study that showed benefit had been completely fabricated.

(You can read all about it in the book False Hope: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer.) In this case, the mistaken belief of both doctors and patients was born of bad science.

“I spend a lot of time talking about the history of how we got where we are. . . . I explain that we had to learn how to study these things, and that we are still studying these things.”

–Karyn Goodman, MD

TREV R M ERCHAN T

The thing is, it may be all well and good for that one high school friend of yours to post “evidence” on Facebook that the moon landing was faked, but in the field of cancer science, misunderstanding kills. When a patient chooses to treat aggressive leukemia at a clinic promising a hyperthermic cure – that regulating body heat will fry the disease – that person dies of what could be a treatable condition. When a patient decides to “try other options first” to treat an early-stage cancer, that patient may watch the cancer gain momentum until it outpaces possible treatments.

On the other hand, every person brings unique history, values and goals to cancer care. What right does Western medicine have to insist that an older patient who has fought cancer before must fight it again with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation rather than exploring naturopathy? And what about the patient whose religion includes the belief that receiving another person’s blood would divert the soul to the wrong afterlife? Aren’t we all entitled to our beliefs?

All of a sudden, Western medicine’s “mistaken belief” starts to look more like a “personal truth” and what seemed like two sides of a canyon turns out to be the gradient of a long slope. That said, there are common building blocks to these personal truths, some solid and some a little shaky. Let’s first take a look at these building blocks of adjusted “truth” and then consider what to do with them.

5 C3: SPRING 2017

This distortion seems like a

frustrating anomaly,

a cautionary tale of good science gone bad after escaping the laboratory. But it turns out this is the tip of a

giant iceberg

of scientific misinformation.

Bad science creates specific mistaken beliefs, but it also opens a Pandora’s Box of doubt – if a few studies were faked or botched, then how are we to believe the results of any study? In our Jazz analogy, it’s easy to believe that Coltrane was just making noise when other, less talented musicians of that time period were undoubtedly doing little more than blowing hot air. The existence of real baloney paints everything as baloney, especially when sensationalism is magnified by...

...THE MEDIA! In February 2017, University of Colorado Cancer Center investigator and pediatric oncologist Adam Green, MD, published a study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology with the title “Death within 1 month of diagnosis in childhood cancer: An analysis of risk factors and scope of the problem.” It was a careful and important study, showing among other things that pediatric deaths within one month of diagnosis had been under­ reported – much of what we know about pediatric cancer comes from clinical trial data, and some children don’t have time to enroll in clinical trials. The Cancer Center wrote a news release to accompany the study with the title “Early death from childhood cancer up to 4 times more common than previously reported.”

The UK newspaper The Daily Mail used this news release as the basis for their story titled “Spike in children dying from undiagnosed cancer: Thousands are slipping through the net despite huge gains in pediatric care, report warns.”

Somewhere between the study, the university news release and the story in the popular press, the truth had disintegrated. More precisely, it had not disintegrated but had diverged, splitting into two truths. For Adam Green, death within a month of diagnosis happened more often than we thought, and for readers of The Daily Mail, there had been an unreported spike in kids dying of cancer – our children were in danger, news of the crisis had probably been suppressed, and we were basically only a plague of toads short of the apocalypse. And while the Journal of Clinical Oncology has a circulation of about 35,000, reaching primarily doctors and scientists, The Daily Mail is the United Kingdom’s second-best selling daily paper with a readership of about 4 million.

If truth is measured by the population that believes, we would do well to watch the weather report for falling amphibians.

This seems like a frustrating anomaly – a cautionary tale of good science gone bad after escaping the laboratory. But it turns out this is the tip of a giant iceberg of scientific misinformation. Sitting here at the junction of research and news, we’ve seen careful studies from the CU Cancer Center misinterpreted to imply that eating bitter melon will cure metastatic pancreas cancer and that your daily multivitamin will kill you. How far is it from these stories to the belief that green coffee extract will melt away belly fat (thank you, Dr. Oz), or for that matter, to the belief that the moon landing was faked?

Now we have an ecosystem equipped to farm doubt. Bad science sows the seeds and sensationalist media heaps on the fertilizer. Now let’s add a patient, intelligent and conscientious but blind with fear and learning the language of cancer for the first time.

WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

STOCKSY

6

FEAR & PROTECTION “I had a patient yell at me yesterday, ‘You’re just part of the standard-medicine way of looking at things!’” says Benjamin Brewer, PhD, director of Clinical Psychology Services for the Blood Cancer and BMT Program at the CU School of Medicine. It’s not uncommon and Brewer doesn’t take it personally. He knows that sometimes an important ingredient of disbelief is fear.

“It’s often a defense,” he says, “in some cases patients have trouble confronting the idea that their best chance is to go through this very difficult procedure. It’s understandable because transplants are very hard on people. There’s fear of the palliative pathway and fear of chemotherapy and so the only way out are the non-Western options. Belief in alternative therapies offers a way out of the stress, a very visceral escape when there seem to be no good options.”

This defense leads to what Brewer calls “Googling for beliefs.” Here’s an experiment you can try at home: Go to Google and type in the words “chemotherapy” and “poison.”

Recently, the top result was an article titled “The truth about chemotherapy: Toxic poison or cancer cure?” It had been viewed 40,000 times and shared on Facebook 12,000 times. And the takeaway was pretty clear: “The truth is that chemo is toxic, carcinogenic (causes cancer), destroys erythrocytes (red blood cells), devastates the immune system, and destroys vital organs,” the article writes. In fact, of the first ten Google results, only one, from Cancer Research UK, could be seen as even remotely impartial.

Other titles included “Chemo is toxic poison. I used natural therapy to beat cancer” and “Chemo kills – the facts about chemotherapy and real cancer cures.”

“When you Google ‘chemotherapy is bad’ you end up on the chemotherapy is bad channel,” Brewer says. There is a grain of truth there – chemotherapy is often medically very difficult. But its downside is only part of the story. The other part, often overlooked by sensationalized articles, is that since the first National Cancer Institute clinical trial in 1955, the field of medical science has shown that chemotherapy is often a patient’s best option.

Really, facts and fictions have always swirled around us competing for our belief.

Only, now technology gifts us the ability to thin-slice this collective unconscious, choosing which slivers reach us and which ones do not.

Basically, the Internet allows the truth to turn back in on itself, quarantining opinions like “chemotherapy is bad” from the infection of competing viewpoints. The best way to access any single opinion is through the rabbit hole of a preconceived notion.

Psychologists call this confirmation bias: We believe the evidence that supports our belief, and firewall ourselves from evidence – even strong evidence – that contradicts it.

Don’t believe it? Try Googling “proof of Bigfoot.”

The result is a verdant, robust mistaken belief. And the question becomes what to do about it.

“Belief in alternative therapies offers a way out of the stress, a very visceral escape when there seem to be no good options.” –Benjamin Brewer, PhD

HOW TO UNWIND MISTAKEN BELIEF

TREVR MERCHAN T

The obvious antidote to mistaken beliefs is fact. All you have to do is present rational evidence showing that the person you hope to convince is wrong and that you are right.

“And it’s surprising how completely ineffective that is,” Brewer says. Brewer has seen (and other psychologists have shown) that facts are useless against emotionally charged beliefs.

“If you keep pressing from the scientific view, people can shut down and go the other way quickly,” says Brewer. Instead, “Like a Chinese finger trap, you have to kind of go back a little bit to get out of it.”

7 C3: SPRING 2017

If a patient or a doctor or a scientist or even a branch

shaky foundation, reevaluating the belief that sits

of science has built belief on a it may be worth

at the pinnacle of this tower.

8 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

THINK STOCK

For Goodman, this “going back” often includes the story of how we came to our beliefs about medicine. “I spend a lot of time talking about the history of how we got where we are,” she says. “I explain that we started with surgery, the idea that you could just take a cancer out. And I admit uncertainty – we wanted to help but weren’t sure what would work and so we started experimenting with things like chemotherapy and radiation. I explain that we had to learn how to study these things, and that we are still studying these things.”

Asking a skeptic to immediately adopt “scientific” beliefs is like asking a Dixieland jazz fan to dig the 10-minute version of “Greensleeves” on Coltrane’s 1961 album Africa Brass. It’s just too much of a leap, too fast, and too far.

Instead, it’s as if Goodman sits with this jazz fan while listening to the evolution of John Coltrane’s music, from bar-stomping blues through straight-ahead solos with the Miles Davis Quintet, through his “sheets of sound” collaborations with Thelonius Monk, and then his own explorations through extreme tonality and then modality and then finally, eventually and organically into the great beyond, past the boundaries of previous music theory.

Brewer describes another approach he sometimes takes, not necessarily trying to shift belief but instead helping patients see how existing beliefs might be compatible with new, challenging ideas. “For example, explaining that a transplant is difficult but also highlighting the idea that it’s really someone else’s immune system and not frightening, synthetic chemicals that may provide the long term cure.” This approach is more like pointing out the elements of 50s jazz that are retained in late Coltrane – you can still hear piano, bass, drums and saxophone; you can still understand it as a conversation between musicians; the ensemble and the individual still alternate in importance.

“Sometimes where they are is the only place you can be,” Brewer says.

Both Goodman and Brewer can tell you stories of patients who were killed by their beliefs as much as by their cancer. For Brewer, recently, this was a patient who had chosen to treat leukemia with marijuana and “came to us with a fungal infection from his treatment, what was essentially a mushroom sprouting from his tongue.” But both Goodman and Brewer also admit that medicine must exist within the scaffolding of a patient’s beliefs.

“I’m not going to talk you into anything, I’m just going to let you know what we believe is true, and the process by which that truth was determined,” Brewer says.

In other words, Brewer and Goodman advocate examining the building blocks that underlie belief. If a patient or a doctor or a scientist or even a branch of science has built belief on a shaky foundation, it may be worth reevaluating the belief that sits at the pinnacle of this tower. But if upon inspection, beliefs are built on bedrock – perhaps even the bedrock of religion or culture or nontraditional treatment goals – then what seems odd to some may truly be less a mistaken belief and more a personal truth.

At the end of the day, Coltrane may still sound like gobbledygook and chemotherapy may still sound like poison. And what matters most may not be what you believe, but how you came to your belief.

DINGCANCER ST OC KSY

DEC

Cognitive Biases That Contribute to Mistaken Beliefs

Expectation Bias: The tendency to believe evidence that agrees with your expectations while disbelieving evidence that contradicts it. Basically, you hear what you expect to hear.

Confirmation Bias: Closely related to the

previous bias, the tendency to selectively see evidence that confirms your beliefs or expectations. For example, meeting a creative, left-handed person may reinforce your belief that left-handed people are creative, but meeting a non-creative, lefthanded person does nothing to dampen your belief.

In our evolutionary past, a rustle in the

Availability Heuristic: Your brain gives

grass really could have been a tiger.

undue weight to one emotionally powerful example while disregarding overall numbers. For example, despite hundreds of good reviews, you avoid one brand of car because your brother’s broke down.

And so our brains developed shortcuts, the “rules of thumb” called heuristics and cognitive biases that warn us of danger and allow us to make quick decisions when the difference between life and death is the prickle of hairs at

Continued Influence Effect: Even after

the back of your neck or the ability to

an idea has been proven false, it still continues to influence what you think is true, for example the myth that vaccines cause autism continues to lower vaccination rates even long after the original study was debunked.

know friend from foe. Unfortunately, we can’t turn these heuristics and biases on and off; we can’t decide when these rules are shortcuts and when they are a path into the weeds.

The following heuristics and biases help pave the way for mistaken belief:

Dunning-Kruger Effect: People with the

least skills or knowledge tend to most overestimate their skills or knowledge.

Famously, Dunning and Kruger found that people in the 12th percentile on tests of humor, grammar and logic estimated they were in about the 62nd percentile. “Their incompetence robs them of the ability to recognize it,” they write.

Illusory Truth Effect: Ideas that are stated simply or that are repeated often seem more true.

Survivorship Bias: Basing a decision on

people who have survived or benefitted from a treatment while overlooking the people who did not survive and who are thus less visible.

Subjective Validation: The things you believe must be true because… well, you believe them.

Reactance: The need to resist recom-

mendations that are seen as an attempt to restrict your freedom of choice.

Congruence Bias: The tendency to

test one’s beliefs in ways that reinforce them, without testing alternatives in the same way.

9 C3: SPRING 2017

BY GA RT H S U N D E M

C OURT E SY OF ROBE RT GARC E A

A CONVERSATION WITH ROBERT GARCEA, MD Professor in the Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder and the BioFrontiers Institute

Cervical cancer is directly related to prior infection with human papillomavirus (HPV).

C3: In addition to cost and refrigeration,

Primarily due to PAP screening, the rate of cervical cancer in the United States has

you’ve been studying a third problem

dropped dramatically, and is anticipated to decrease further in the next 20 years due to

associated with vaccine use.

HPV vaccination. However, cervical cancer rates are high in the developing world, where

Garcea: Well, then we became acquainted with

both screening and vaccination are inaccessible. The lab of Robert Garcea, MD, is work-

another chemical engineer, Prof. Al Weimer. Al had

ing to design next-generation HPV vaccines that increase access to vaccination. Here C3

developed a technique for “atomic layer deposi-

talks with Dr. Garcea about his work and about how chance collaborations facilitated by

tion,” which is a method to coat surfaces with

the BioFrontiers Institute’s focus on breaking down the silos of academia are helping

single atomic layers of alum or aluminum oxide.

Dr. Garcea lead a sea change in the way we design and deliver vaccines of all sorts.

“ALD” had been used in applications including fluorescent lighting, but alum is also an “adjuvant”

C3: The current HPV vaccine costs about

C3: But it turns out that cost is only one

commonly used in vaccines to activate the immune

$350 for two doses, making it inaccessible

of the barriers to vaccine use in developing

system. We thought, wouldn’t it be interesting to

for many people around the world, including

countries...

take our thermostable capsomere powders, coat

people without health insurance here in

Garcea: Sure, in addition to cost there’s refrig-

them in precisely defined layers of alum, and then

the U.S. How is your work bringing the

eration. Most vaccines are suspended in a liquid

put on another layer of the capsomere protein?

cost down?

and they have to be kept cold. This formulation

Garcea: In the 1980s, we described what are now

just isn’t practical for use in many developing

C3: So you’re talking about multilayered

called virus-like particles or VLPs, but we never

countries. When my lab moved into the Jennie

vaccines?

thought about making vaccines from them – at

Smoly Caruthers Building, as part of the Boulder

Garcea: Along with cost and refrigeration, a third

the time, most vaccines were made from live or

Campus’s new BioFrontiers Institute, our lab

problem with vaccines is compliance – getting

inactivated viruses. Now VLPs are the basis for

happened to be in a hallway next to chemical

people to come back for their booster. Now we

the current HPV vaccine and several others. But

engineers, and we soon found they come at prob-

have two layers: One priming layer, then the coating

subsequently we also discovered that you don’t

lems in a completely different way than we do. For

of alum that dissociates over weeks or months,

need the whole VLP – the building blocks termed

them, it’s about practicality. In particular, Prof. Ted

which eventually exposes the second layer of

capsomeres [subunits of the viral shell] were just

Randolph had developed a technique for ‘thermo-

capsomere proteins. When we submitted a grant

as good at sensitizing the immune system against

stabilizing’ proteins in a matrix of sugars. Basically,

proposal to the Gates Foundation describing single-

HPV. The important part is that it’s significantly less

instead of suspending proteins in a liquid, Ted’s lab

shot, thermostabilized, inexpensive HPV vaccines,

expensive to manufacture capsomeres than it is

could formulate them in a powder. And that powder

they said, “Why just HPV?” So now we’re looking at

to manufacture VLPs – perhaps a quarter of the

didn’t require refrigeration. We were still working

expanding this technique to other vaccines as well.

manufacturing cost of current methods. In cancer,

with capsomeres and when we brought them over

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

to Ted’s lab, his team was able to quickly make

C3: So HPV is just a start?

Better access to vaccines would keep people in

thermostable capsomere powders that equaled the

Garcea: Science isn’t necessarily linear. It’s hard

developing countries from needing treatments that

ability of the current HPV vaccine to sensitize the

to predict where this kind of thing will go. It may

are simply not realistic.

immune system.

turn out that decades of work aimed at better HPV vaccines become more about a process than a product – a way of making many types of vaccines rather than a single vaccine itself. But the goal remains the same: Better access and more use of vaccines that prevent disease.

10 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

CLINICAL

CARE WILLIAM A. C OT T ON / C SU PH OT OGRAPH Y

MD Veterinary Medicine for Human Health TR EATI N G AN I MALS WITH CAN C E R H E LP S SUSAN LANA D I S C OVE R AN D TE ST TR EATM E NTS F O R H U MAN S

BY E R I K A MATI C H Susan Lana’s path toward healthcare started with

Lana’s description of CSU’s FIint Animal Cancer

an undergraduate degree in medical technology

Center, where she is the chief of the oncology clinic

from University of Iowa and jobs in blood banks and

service, even sounds an awful lot like clinics where

chemistry labs, but she always felt like there was

humans go for treatment.

something more out there.

“We have surgical oncology, radiation oncology

“I was toying with medical school or veterinary

and medical oncology all seeing cases on the same

school,” says Lana. “I also was volunteering at the

schedule and under the same umbrella, a multidisci-

Denver Dumb Friends League and I would take

plinary approach which is unique in veterinary medi-

puppies and kittens on nursing home visits. I found

cine,” Lana says. “If I see a case that needs radiation

that I really liked the puppies and kittens.”

or surgery, we can see that patient in one day, in the

Lana liked the animal interaction so much that she went to Colorado State University, where she earned a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine in 1993.

same room together, and it lets us give our patients

Professor of Oncology,

the very best treatment options that we can.”

Colorado State University, College of Veterinary

Back to osteosarcoma. Even when the primary

She completed a small animal internship at Texas

tumor is surgically removed, the pet patients still

A&M University and returned to CSU for specialty

end up with incurable, metastatic disease. One

training in medical oncology. She then earned

of Lana’s goals is to study her patients’ tumors to

board certification from the American College of

learn why.

Veterinary Internal Medicine and also a Masters in Clinical Sciences.

Like physicians that practice family medicine, many veterinarians cater to pets with a variety of ill-

“We use the material that comes into the clinic,” says Lana. “We look at different treatment modalities, combinations of surgery or radiation combined in our veterinary patients can then be translated

that instead of being a generalist, she could be a spe-

to help human patients.”

“After my first year of vet school, I got a summer

Medicine and Biomedical Science Clinical Oncology Section Head, Flint Animal Cancer Center Principle Investigator, Comparative Oncology Trials Consortia Member, Canine Comparative Oncology Genomics Consortium

with chemotherapy. Some of the things we learn

nesses and conditions. During vet school, Lana found cialist – for her that specialty was medical oncology.

SUSAN LANA, DVM, MS, ACVIM-ONCOLOGY

Studying how cancer grows and can be treated

“We don’t want the treatment to be worse than the disease,” she says. “We outline standard of

in companion animals such as dogs can predict

care, clinical trial options or what it looks like to

fellowship job to work in one of the laboratories

how it may act in people, sometimes much more so

choose none of the above.”

here at the Flint Animal Cancer Center. And loved

than studies in small animals like mice.

it,” says Lana. “I loved the idea of studying cancer.

“There are a couple advantages to working with

Caring for puppies and kittens was one of the reasons Susan Lana became a vet. But the desire

I loved the idea that oncology was a specialty in

companion animals,” says Lana. “They are in our

to use what she learns to help people with cancer

veterinary medicine and that I could treat patients

world, experiencing our same environment and, like

drives her career.

that had cancer.”

people, they develop cancer spontaneously. They

At that point she learned that some of the

have an intact immune system. Their life spans are

cancers affecting veterinary patients are similar to

shorter than humans, with or without cancer, so we

cancers that affect humans. In fact, osteosarcoma

can often come to conclusions more quickly.”

(bone cancer) in humans and canines is very similar

Lana’s research interests include experi-

in its biologic behavior, appearance under the

mental therapeutics and clinical trials. She also

microscope, and even genetically. The realization

implemented and runs the tumor biorepository

opened the doors of translational medicine – that

at the Flint Animal Cancer Center which holds

studying diseases and treatments that affect veteri-

over 20,000 samples. And while Lana focuses on

nary patients can provide useful information about

animals in the clinic, she also works with people,

the same disease in humans, ultimately helping

helping pet parents make sometimes gut wrench-

everyone affected by cancer.

ing decisions with their animal companions’ best

“Studying how cancer grows and can be treated in companion animals such as dogs can predict how it may act in people.”

interests at heart.

11 C3: SPRING 2017

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

“ N OT H I N G M O R E I CA N A S K F O R ” P E R S O NA L I Z E D CA R E H E L P S E N SU R E SA R A H M c R O R I E W I L L S E E H E R YO U N G C H I L D R E N G R OW U P

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX For Sarah McRorie, the time after the birth of her daughter Sloane brought hugs, kisses, new challenges and plenty of “firsts.”

Eighteen months later, it also brought a diagnosis of stage 3 breast cancer.

BY TAY L O R A B A R C A

12 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX YO U N G WO M E N G ET B R EAST CAN C E R TO O

I

t all started with a lump. Shortly after Sloane’s first birthday Sarah started weaning her from breastfeeding.

“About a month and a half after we finished, I noticed what felt like a clogged milk duct in my left breast,” explains Sarah.

“I had heard that it can take up to a year for your breasts to return to ‘normal’ after stopping breast feeding, so I didn’t think much of it and figured I would check in with it later.”

However life with a toddler kept Sarah busy and she forgot to check on the “clogged milk duct.” Then three months later she noticed another jellybean-sized lump in her armpit. Sarah still didn’t connect the dots.

“I mentioned the lump to my mom and she said I should get it looked at right away. I brushed her off,” says Sarah. “A few days later, I mentioned it to my husband and he thought it was weird, too, so then I scheduled an appointment with my primary care provider not thinking much more about it until my appointment about ten days later.”

At her appointment Sarah’s primary care physician did a breast exam and immediately ordered a mammogram.

“She didn’t mention breast cancer. She said she didn’t know what the lump was,” says Sarah. “I guess she didn’t want to scare me? Or maybe she didn’t believe it could be cancer? Or maybe she really didn’t know about breast cancer in patients as young and healthy as me.”

A few days later Sarah checked in for her mammogram. After the procedure the technician would only say that the doctor would be in contact with results and Sarah found herself leaving with more questions than answers. The next day she got these results – Sarah’s primary care physician told her that she needed an ultrasound and needle-guided biopsy.

“The big C was just starting to enter our thoughts but we still didn’t know and didn’t want to worry unnecessarily, so we tried to be positive and enjoy our beautiful 18 month old baby girl,” says Sarah.

A week later she went in for her biopsy and met with a radiologist immediately after.

“She spoke to me in some form of English, I’m sure, it just wasn’t the dialect I could understand at the time. I understood nothing of what she said except I understood her tone. She was serious and I was frightened,” says Sarah. “I rushed out to the car and sobbed as I told Patrick, my husband, what happened. The next day I was at work, trying to keep busy, when my PCP called and literally said ‘I have bad news. I have 15 minutes to talk to you now or you and Patrick can drive up at six and we can talk for as long as you want.’ I told her we would be there at six.”

Sarah was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at just 34 years old.

“When I was told I had breast cancer I felt shock, disbelief, scared beyond imagination,” says Sarah. “And then the questions flooded in: How far had it spread? Is this curable or only treatable? What about our daughter?”

Being a lawyer, Sarah immediately started researching treatment options, doctors, and places where she could get care.

“I interviewed doctors, oncologists and surgeons. I talked with some nice people but no one who I ‘clicked’ with,” explains Sarah. “Nobody dealt with patients like me regularly. All their breast cancer patients were post-menopausal or entering menopause. We felt helpless. I was the youngest person in the waiting room by about 20 years.”

It wasn’t until Sarah heard from a friend about Virginia Borges, MD, MMSc, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program and Young Women’s Breast Cancer Translational Program at the University of Colorado Cancer Center that she finally felt a glimmer of hope.

“I remember my husband and I sat in Dr. Borges’ office and said, ‘why should we trust you?’” says Sarah. “It became very clear that she is one of the very few who specializes in young women’s breast cancer. She got me through not only the physical hurdles of cancer but also the mental ones. She is by far the best person I could have ever asked for to handle my care.”

A R O U G H R OAD Once Sarah connected with Dr. Borges she began a series of tests, scans, MRI’s, blood work, to find out all they could about her cancer. Was it dependent on estrogen or progesterone or the gene HER2? And how far had it progressed?

“Unfortunately post-partum breast cancer is very aggressive for reasons we are still trying to understand,” says Borges. “It drives my team every day to learn more and keep these young women from being diagnosed or even dying from the disease.

Post-partum breast cancer was news to Sarah.

“Dr. Borges was the first one to mention pregnancy-related breast cancer,” says Sarah. “It seems so unusual – cancer that is brought on by pregnancy. Some doctors don’t even know it exists.”

Sarah’s treatment plan included four months of intense chemotherapy, a bilateral mastectomy, and 27 rounds of radiation. This plan would be mentally and physically draining for anyone, but was doubly so for a new mother who was balancing cancer treatment with raising her baby. Luckily for Sarah, she had support.

“My mother immediately retired and moved in with us. With her there we were able to maintain some vestiges of normal life,” explains Sarah. “I continued working through chemo, the best I could, taking days off for treatment and rest, then back in the office during the off week. With my mother’s help, Patrick was able to work full-time.”

13 C3: SPRING 2017

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• PH OT OS C OURT E SY OF SARAH M C RORIE

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sarah with her daughter, Sloane (left), and on delivery day with her husband and new son, Carl.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• For Sarah, Sloane proved to be a shining beacon of light during her darkest days.

“Sloane would rub my head when I couldn’t lift it off the couch.

She let me sob on her shoulder as I rocked her to sleep. Her smile, compassion, and the ugly thought she won’t remember me because she is so little, kept me fighting for my life,” says Sarah.

LO O K I N G TOWAR D S TH E F UTU R E After finishing treatment Dr. Borges put Sarah on an aromatase inhibitor. In addition to regular checkups, this maintenance therapy would last at least five years. After a year of good health and the okay from Borges, the McRories also decided they wanted to try for another baby.

“We consulted with a fetal medicine specialist, a gynecologic oncologist, my regular oncologist, my regular gynecologist, all in order to determine if it was even safe for me to get pregnant again,” says Sarah. “We had to make sure it was safe for me to be off my aromatase inhibitor. Then came questions like whether I should use my preserved fertility options instead of trying naturally, and whether having a baby was worth these risks.”

Dr. Borges and her team gave Sarah the okay to pause the inhibitor just long enough to try to get pregnant naturally.

Do you have an inspirational story? Tell your story at http://story.coloradocancercenter.org or contact Garth.Sundem@ucdenver.edu.

14 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

“I always joke with my patients that they are allowed to have a baby only if I am on the holiday card list and make them promise to bring those babies in,” says Borges. “I consider myself their surrogate grandmother.”

Unlike her first pregnancy it took time for Sarah to get pregnant.

“It did not happen right away like it did with Sloane, and on the last month of trying before we had to go to the preserved fertility options, we got pregnant!” she says. “We cried tears of joy when we got that positive test result and we could not wait to tell Sloane she was finally going to be a big sister!”

Last summer the McRories welcomed their son Carl into the world. A miracle baby that Sarah was never sure she would be able to have.

“If he would have been a girl her name would have been Ginger,” says Sarah jokingly. “He completes our family.”

Sarah is coming up on four years of being cancer-free – a milestone she was not sure she would see.

“Breast cancer was the absolute hardest thing I have ever gone through. I hated not being in control, not being able to enjoy my baby and take care of her myself, not being able to be a normal wife and be a partner in my marriage,” Sarah says.

“But now, when I look into the eyes of my children, I know that every horrible day was worth it. I will be able to watch them ride a bike, drive a car, graduate high school, get married. There is nothing more I can ask for.”

ST RY INSIDE

University of Colorado Fertility Preservation Program Sometimes you are forced to take the bad with the good. There is no doubt that cancer treatment is lifesaving. However, certain treatments and drugs can damage the ovaries or testes, leading to infertility in patients treated for cancer. The University of Colorado Fertility Preservation Program helps cancer patients preserve their fertility before starting treatment so that they may have the opportunity to start or continue a family in the future.

For women and girls, some possible

fertility preservation procedures include: Egg Banking: freezing eggs for future use Embryo Banking: freezing embryos (eggs fertilized with sperm) for future use Medication Treatment

covering the ovaries and other parts of the reproductive system with a protective covering during radiation Ovarian Transposition: moving the ovaries higher in the abdomen with a surgical procedure (generally done in the setting of pelvic radiation) Ovarian Shielding:

THINKSTOC K

The Fertility Preservation Program works with patients to help them understand how their fertility may be affected by treatment, how to talk with their medical team about fertility and how to plan for a family before, during and after they finish treatment. They also discuss options to protect fertility for men and women in their reproductive years, as well as for children who may want the option to start families much later in life.

“We have a unique situation here in Colorado,” says Serena Dovey, MD, director of the Fertility Preservation Program. “The program is the region’s first comprehensive fertility program for cancer patients, and one of the few in the nation that works with men, women, and children.”

Before starting treatment, each patient receives an individualized consultation to discuss their fertility risk related to their treatment as well as options to help protect future fertility.

For men and boys, options include: Sperm banking:

freezing sperm for

future use Testicular sperm extraction:

collecting tissue from the testicle that contains viable sperm cells Testicular shielding: covering the testicles and other parts of the reproductive system with a protective covering during radiation

The Fertility Preservation Program also works with cancer survivors to help them assess their fertility after treatment. For patients who did not have an opportunity to undergo fertility preservation prior to cancer treatment and for those who are unable to conceive using their own eggs or sperm, there may be other options available to have children, including the use of a sperm donor, an egg donor or a gestational carrier.

For questions or to refer a patient, please contact the Fertility Preservation hotline at 303-724-3378.

15 C3: SPRING 2017

Because an adult human has roughly 40 trillion cells, pretty much every possible mutation will occur many times over. So why do the majority of us go through most of our lives without getting cancer? One critical protection is the maintenance of healthy tissues. Healthy tissues favor normal cells over cells with cancer-causing mutations – the good guys win. When our tissues decline in old age, now cells with cancer-causing mutations can be favored, sometimes leading to cancer development. While we cannot avoid aging or completely eliminate cancer risk, we can improve our odds. Healthy lifestyles, including a good diet, exercise and not smoking, promote better maintenance of healthy tissues.

These healthy tissues will then favor normal cells over cancerous ones, at least most of the time. James DeGregori, PhD

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the relationship between drinking alcohol and cancer Most people know that quit-

risk. This research suggests that alco-

ting smoking reduces your

hol consumption, particularly over a

researchers share their

risk of cancer, but tobacco

long period of time, directly correlates

cessation also improves

top lifestyle tips to give

with the risk of developing esopha-

outcomes of people who are

geal cancer, head and neck cancer,

your body the advantage

already being treated for

liver cancer, colorectal cancer, and

cancer. Worldwide there are

breast cancer. For example, women

over 1 billion smokers, and

who consume three or more alcoholic

globally 1 in 10 deaths is

beverages per day are 1.5 times

attributable to smoking.

more likely to develop breast cancer

Stephen Malkoski, MD

compared to non-drinkers.

Kathleen Moreira, BA, CTTS-M

Lyndsey S Crump, MS

CU Cancer Center

over cancer.

Traci R Lyons, PhD

16 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

Healthful nutrition can lower your risk for many cancers. Choose plant proteins such as legumes, nuts, seeds or quinoa, which are anti-inflammatory, rich in fiber, and help you feel full and maintain Skin cancer is more than

a healthy weight. Limit your intake of red meat per week to less than

twice as common as all

18 ounces and treat the meat as a side. Focus on lean chicken,

other cancers combined,

turkey or fish for a lighter meal that has great flavor and healthier fats.

and we know that most skin

And for that virtuous treat to reward you for your nourishing choices?

cancers are caused by expo-

Have a little of what you fancy such as coffee, dark chocolate or an

sure to UV radiation, either

occasional glass of wine. Nourishing the body and mind is part of a

from sunlight, or from use

healthy life and even the feel of indulgence has some benefits.

of tanning beds. So how do

Lisa Wingrove, RD

you stay Sun Safe? We usually recommend staying out of the sun between 10am and 4pm – but that’s quite hard to do, and also ignores

Research suggests that there is a link between fitness and cancer

the fact that you can still get

outcomes. Research also shows that exercise decreases depression,

high doses of UV at other

anxiety, and fatigue, and improves strength and cardiovascular

times of the day, particularly

fitness. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends

in Colorado. The easiest way

that cancer patients take part in a tailored exercise program. 150 minutes

to stay Sun Safe is to wear

of moderate intensity exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per

long sleeves and long pants

week can have a dramatic impact on quality of life. The BfitBwell

when outside, and most

program at the Anschutz Health and Wellness Center is a great option

importantly, get a hat!

for all patients going through treatment. Tom Purcell, MD, MBA

Myles Cockburn, PhD Read more about cancer prevention: www.coloradocancerblogs.org/ category/prevention-control/ Subscribe to our blog for updates on prevention, research, treatment and more.

17 C3: SPRING 2017

S U P P O R T E R

F CUS

“Pink Ladies” Rally for Research C OURT E SY OF JE AN MORRE LL

J EAN MOR R E LL: 28-YEAR SU RVIVOR I S NOW A PI LLAR OF COLORAD O CANCE R PH I LANTH ROPY

BY GA RT H S U N D E M When Jean Morrell’s doctor left the room after

After surgery, chemotherapy and radiation,

delivering her breast cancer diagnosis, the first

Morrell started taking the drug Tamoxifen, meant

thing she did was turn to her fiancé and ask,

as a long-term control against recurrence of the

through tears, if he still wanted to get married.

disease. When she learned that the development

“Of course I do!” he said. At the time, Morrell was

of the drug that would continue to save her life had

Dean of Students at the University of Northern

been funded in part by the American Cancer Society

Colorado. A month after her diagnosis, she took

(ACS), she joined her local Leadership Council.

the written exams for her PhD in Higher Education

Among other activities, the Council decided

Student Affairs Leadership. A month after that,

to hold a Relay for Life event in Weld County to

she passed her oral examinations. The next

support the ACS. In the Relay’s second year, she

month, halfway through her six-month course of

helped organize a team of breast cancer survivors.

chemotherapy, there were 400 guests from 16

They called themselves the Pink Ladies and wore

states at her wedding. Now, 28 years later, Morrell

colorful outfits to match. Now almost 20 years later,

has become a pillar of cancer fundraising for the

the group has raised more for cancer research than

American Cancer Society in Colorado.

any other team at the event.

“I think it was nice to have my focus somewhere

Jean Morrell, breast cancer survivor, UNC Dean of Students Emeritus, and ACS advocate “What if one of those that wasn’t funded could

When Morell retired as UNC Dean of Students,

have led to another cure?” she says. “That’s when

other than cancer,” she says. “I couldn’t sit around

she became a “stakeholder” for the ACS, adding

I got really involved in helping raise money for

thinking about my cancer. I had too many other

a patient’s perspective to the evaluation of scientific

research.”

things going on.”

grant proposals.

At the time of her diagnosis, her cancer had

She joined the board of the ACS’s 12-state

“They’d been calling every year and every year

Great West Division and this year is the immediate

spread to 13 of the 19 lymph nodes. When she

I said I couldn’t do it – stakeholder training was

past chair of that group. Among other projects,

asked her oncologist what her chance of survival

during finals week! When I retired, I joined and twice

Morrell was instrumental in bringing together six

was, her doctor said, “I’ll tell you in 20 years!”

a year I started going to Atlanta to sit in a room with

groups of donors – the 2016 Greeley Gala Paddle

about 20 scientists, evaluating these proposals,”

Raise, 2016 Denver Gala Paddle Raise, Gordon

then. It never dawned on me I wasn’t going to sur-

Morrell says. “It was fascinating – to see the great

Klatt Relay For Life Endowment, Cancer Research

vive,” she says. When she learned much later that

work being done, but also to see that there wasn’t

Racquet.com, Roaring Fork Valley Circle of Hope,

she’d had only a 15 percent chance of survival, she

enough money to fund everything.”

Great West Division Cancer Research Fund,

“Frankly, I’m glad I was as naïve as I was back

gave her oncologist a bottle of wine for not telling

30 percent of the research proposals get funded.

COURTESY OF JEAN M ORRELL

her earlier.

Morrell says that in any given cycle, only about

and Ron and Kathy Brown – to fund a $450,000 Institutional Research Grant at the CU Cancer Center funding the research of young investigators.

In Colorado alone, the ACS also supports 20 multiyear research grants totaling more than $9 million dollars, most of which are hosted at the state’s universities. In the next five years, the ACS plans to double its annual giving.

“It’s just awesome to see the work that’s being done,” Morrell says. “And I see how critical it is to fund as many researchers as we can – young investigators and innovative projects that lead to careers in research and to treatments that save lives.”

If you’re at the Weld County Relay for Life, held every year on the first Saturday in June, watch for the Pink Ladies. Don’t worry – you’ll know them when you see them. And consider a quick thank you to Jean Morrell for decades of work that has

Jean Morrell (bottom right) with the Pink Ladies

funded dozens of projects at CU Cancer Center and elsewhere, leading to new understanding and new treatments against cancer.

18 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG

C O M M U N I T Y

N E W S

AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY FUNDING CU CANCER CENTER RESEARCH The American Cancer Society recently announced its latest round of multi-year grants for cancer research in Colorado, and all the awardees E RIKA MAT IC H

are University of Colorado faculty.

ACS has approved funding for six grants totaling approximately $3.9 million. Five of the grantees are University of Colorado Cancer Center investigators. They are: Jill Litt, PhD, University of Colorado Boulder, $986,000, starting Jan. 1, 2017 and ending Dec. 31, 2020. Litt is investigating cancer prevention from a nutritional and active living perspective.

Traci R. Lyons, PhD, University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, $792,000, starting Jan. 1, 2017 and ending Dec. 31, 2020. Lyons is studying ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or preinvasive breast cancer in young women, who are at high risk for DCIS progression to invasive cancer.

Chad G. Pearson, PhD, at the University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, $792,000, starting Jan. 1, 2017 and ending Dec. 31, 2020. Pearson is studying cancer at the cellular level.

He is researching cell division and what causes the gain and loss of chromosomes in cancer cells (many cancer cells do not have the correct number of chromosomes).

2016 GOLFERS AGAINST CANCER

Jennifer Richer, PhD, University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, $450,000, starting

RAISES 125K FOR CANCER RESEARCH

Jan. 1, 2017 and ending Dec. 31, 2019. The University of Colorado Cancer Center is the recipient of an

The 2016 Golfers Against Cancer Tournament and

Institutional Research Grant from the American Cancer Society. The grant, headed by Richer, provides

Gala were was a major success earlier this year.

funding to junior faculty members who have not yet obtained large national grants, to help jumpstart

The event raised $125,000 for research projects at the University of Colorado Cancer Center.

Golfers Against Cancer is a national organi­ zation founded in 1997 by a group of Houston golfers who lost two close friends to cancer.

their cancer research careers.

Isabel Schlaepfer, PhD, University of Colorado Denver | Anschutz Medical Campus, $792,000, starting Jan. 1, 2017 and ending Dec. 31, 2020. Schlaepfer’s research targets the ability of prostate cancer cells to use lipids for energy.

Courtney Jones, PhD, also is receiving an ACS grant. She is a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of

Motivated to raise money for cancer research,

CU Cancer Center investigator Craig Jordan, PhD. Jones’ research project focuses on leukemia stem

the group created an annual golf tournament

cells, which are a biologically distinct cell type within leukemia that are not killed by current therapies

with a live and silent auction, with proceeds

and contribute to disease recurrence.

going to fund grants for local cancer researchers.

The Denver chapter of Golfers Against Cancer GROHNE FAMILY FUNDS TWO ENDOWED CHAIRS

was founded by Scott Pearson.

IN CANCER RESEARCH

Funds from this year’s event are supporting three research projects at the CU Cancer Center.

Karyn Goodman, MD, MS, Associate Director for clinical

Two of the projects are focused breast cancer

research at the University of Colorado Cancer Center, has

research and the other is focused on

been awarded the David and Margaret Turley Grohne Chair

lung cancer.

in Clinical Cancer. Heide Ford, PhD, University of Colorado Cancer Center’s associate director for basic research, has been awarded the David F. and Margaret Turley Grohne Chair in Basic/Translational Cancer Research.

Goodman is a board-certified radiation oncologist specializing in cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, including malignanF OR D

cies of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, and liver as well

as colorectal cancer. Her work helps to define treatment protocols for combination therapies including radiation, chemotherapy, and novel agents for gastrointestinal cancers. Her research also explores quality of life and late onset side effects that some patients experience long after radiotherapy.

Ford’s work focuses on the parallels between normal development and tumor progression, and how cancer cells utilize developmental programs to spread to areas of the body beyond the primary tumor.

In addition, her work has recently tackled topics such as tumor heterogeneity and the tumor micro­ environment, important issues when investigating therapeutic agents targeting tumor progression.

Margaret and David Grohne, among the CU Cancer Center’s most generous donors, have donated more than $10 million to support cancer research. Their most recent gifts are in support of breast cancer, cancer stem cell and cancer vaccine research.

19 C3: SPRING 2017

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER

S P R I N G 2017

13001 EAST 17TH PLACE, MSF434 AURORA, CO 80045-0511

www.coloradocancercenter.org

C3: Collaborating to Conquer Cancer Published twice a year by University of Colorado Denver for friends, members and the community of the University of Colorado Cancer Center.

(No research money has been used for this publication.)

Editor: Garth Sundem | 303-724-6441 | garth.sundem@ucdenver.edu Contributing Writers: Taylor Abarca, Erika Matich Photos: Trevr Merchant The CU Cancer Center Consortium Members UNIVERSITIES

Colorado State University University of Colorado Boulder University of Colorado Denver INSTI TUTIONS

University of Colorado Hospital Children’s Hospital Colorado Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center Visit us on the web: www.coloradocancercenter.org The CU Cancer Center is dedicated to equal opportunity and access in all aspects of employment and patient care.

T H E

M E S S A G E

Patient Experiences Guide Our Research ancer research can seem like a way for scientists to

C

Second, patients help us pick apart the basic science behind

test their ideas – as if the laboratories and clinics on

these questions. As scientists, we have to go where the answers

the Anschutz, Boulder and Colorado State campuses

are and in the case of cancer, answers are often hidden deep

exist to help researchers see if they’re really as smart as they

inside real, human tumors. Many times the only way to get these

think they are. At the University of Colorado Cancer Center, this

answers is to dive deep into samples provided by patients.

scientist-centered model of cancer research couldn’t be further

Without patients willing to let researchers use their cells or

from the truth. Here we recognize that the only true measure of

tissues, science comes to a standstill.

success is our ability to help patients live longer, better lives, and

kills cancer cells in a dish and then in mice (and sometimes helps

the gracious contributions of patients.

to extend the lives of companion animals, like dogs at CSU!),

Even before research starts, patients help us ask the right questions. For example, some-

FROM THE DIRECTOR DAN THEODORESCU, MD, PhD

Third, patients help us test treatments. After a new treatment

we know that every step of our research absolutely depends on

times seeing patients helps our physician-scientists start to recognize hidden patterns. Maybe a certain cancer tends to evolve in a certain way in response to

“The only true measure of success is our ability to help patients live longer, better lives, and we know that every step of our research absolutely depends on the gracious contributions of patients.”

there comes a time when a treatment’s safety and promise is proven to the point that it can be tested in humans. We can then combine what we learn from our patients with data from patients at other institutions through collaborations like the Oncology

treatment. Or patients have an unexpected side-effect seen only

Research Information Exchange Network (ORIEN), to use the

after months and months of careful follow-ups. Observations

power of numbers to understand who is likely to benefit from

like these can be essential starting points for science. Why does

new treatments. Some of these patients will hope to benefit

a cancer evolve in a certain way, and by predicting how it will

from the treatment, while others know that their courage is an

evolve in response to treatment, could we learn to stay one

essential step toward helping future cancer patients.

step ahead? And maybe recognizing a side-effect could help

At the University of Colorado Cancer Center, we are extremely

researchers ask questions about how a new drug really works

grateful for the patients who choose to walk with us along this path

in the body.

of discovery. We couldn’t get where we’re going any other way.

20 WWW.COLORADOCANCERCENTER.ORG