Advancing Breakthroughs in Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian Cancer Research Program is one of the oldest programs. This program started in 1997, so it's 27 years old, right. First 15-20 years we focused more on basic sciences and some translation research because we didn't have a huge amount of appropriation. So basic science is easier, it needs less amount, so we focused on that. As soon as we received more money, then we added clinical trials on top of it so now we have the entire spectrum. Now even though it's a small pot of money but there are lot of outcomes. We achieved a lot through this program.

CDMRP review process has two tier process: peer review and programmatic review. So, in peer review, we receive the full applications. Reviewers go through the scientific merit of the applications and give the scores and critiques. So, after that it goes through the programmatic review. CDMRP's programmatic panel is very, very unique. It consists of scientists as well as consumer advocacy groups. They come with different backgrounds. Somebody may be basic scientists, somebody may be clinicians, somebody immunotherapy, so all different types of expertise. And then we have patient advocates who have lived through—because every program requires different types of patient advocates—for ovarian cancer we look for people who have lived through, who are survivors. They bring the perspective and then they give us input that how we can strategize.

If you ask a patient who's currently going through treatment what they would really like to see, what would make a difference for them, the very first thing every one of them is going to say, even though not going to affect her life, is, "We need a detection test." We all know that that's the holy grail and we probably are not going to see one detection test because there's so much heterogeneity in it, but that would be their ultimate goal. Quality of life issues, we struggle with those. Because the longer women are living with recurrences, the more quality of life issues there are. And I think also survivorship issues. I'm a long-term survivor and I face health issues every day that are related back to when I had ovarian cancer. Those are the kind of things we'd like to see brought to the table.

The OCRP is a phenomenal program. It has a lot of ability to overcome some of the stringency of other granting agencies. The prioritization of the work is very different and the commitment to early-career people is outstanding. And I don't think people understand that, certainly the public doesn't understand that, and the scientific community doesn't understand that. And the struggle, particularly in the ovary world, is how do we get this message out? We have to get this message out to be able to get the biggest and the brightest and the best to understand the opportunities that they have in the program and then hopefully we can build the critical mass to continue trying to gain more appropriations to support the research, because the outcome is phenomenal.

So far, we funded 550, kind of, awards, and there are so many publications and patents also we received. If I start talking about it, it will take like days, okay. But a couple of awards that I'm really proud of. One is a test called OVA1® test. It's a first in vitro diagnostic multivariate index assay for proteomic biomarkers, and it has been cleared through FDA. So, it is in market. It helps physicians to determine whether there is a pelvic mass, and whether it is benign or malignant. So, it's a detection thing. So, this is already in market and people have already started using it. There is another device that Dr. Jennifer Barton's group actually invented it called a falloposcope. It's an optical imaging subsystem, which is capable of performing optical and fluorescence imaging, and an optical coherence tomography channel to provide minimally invasive detection of ovarian cancer. There is a book written by Dr. Mary Daly, who was funded by ovarian cancer, Ovarian Cancer Risk-Reducing Surgery: A Decision-Making Resource. So, this book is intended to assist women with BRCA1 and 2 gene, or a family history of ovarian cancer, in determining whether to undergo prophylactic surgery. It is publicly available with no cost. So, this these are the major thing that we gave back to the society.

And the thing that I really treasure—it’s close to my heart—there's a drug called rucaparib. It's a PARP inhibitor, came from Dr. Elizabeth Swisher and Scott Kaufman. So, this was supported by OCRP partially, since we didn't have enough fund for clinical trial earlier. It has gone through pre-clinical phase, clinical phase 1 and 2, and it has already gone through FDA, accelerated, so it is in market. The best part is that we are talking about military Servicemen or military personnel, right, they are actually using that drug for them, so it's a full circle. So, it gives you a satisfaction that it started from the program and now it is going back to the community.

What's really striking, when we sit on this programmatic committee component, is we all are there representing multiple different viewpoints, and have multiple different expertise. And the discussions that we have based on value added, goals to return on investment, are far greater with the sum of parts than anything that we could have independently or anything that we could write and just submit. It's still eye opening to me each time I come, because there's viewpoints I haven't considered. Especially from our consumer advocates, very important.

And I would encourage any woman who has ovarian cancer to get involved, to think about it. And she may say to herself, "I don't have a science background." They don't need a science background. They need to be able to bring the patient's voice to that table. They need to be able to say, "Hey, wait a minute, this looks good on paper, but how's it going to affect me?" You ought to try to give back while you're still helping yourself.

You know, we take care of these patients. We operate on them, we give therapy, we do all this stuff, and so it's hearing their stories here, and then relating them to our experience with our own patients, I think, is the most impactful for me. And I know we're making progress and it's kind of nice to, you know, as you sit on the panel for a while you go, "Oh wow, we funded that! Here's the paper!" You know, or here's the next step, or you know it's moving the field forward. Those kinds of things are quite impactful.