Jennifer C. King, PhD, is the Chief Scientific Officer for the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer. She is a cancer research scientist turned patient advocate who offers a unique perspective: striking a balance between understanding the impact and mechanisms of new treatments and being able to explain what it all means to the greater cancer community. She uses her training to lead cutting-edge research initiatives to improve the lives of those living with or at risk for lung cancer.
As a translational oncology researcher, Dr. King has studied new molecular targets for cancer therapeutics and developed oncology mouse models at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA. She has worked in the nonprofit space for more than a decade, overseeing Conquer Cancer Foundation's research grant programs and portfolios, working in health IT and data governance for CancerLinQ,® and co-founding a patient-facing health data-sharing nonprofit, SHARE& For Cures.
Dr. King serves on multiple advisory boards and workgroups for national organizations such as the
American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, the National Lung Cancer Roundtable, and various pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies.
Dr. King earned a PhD in biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a BS from Duke University. She is a member of the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.
In the current oncology clinical trials landscape, many barriers remain to clinical trial enrollment that affect both the oncologist and the patient.1 Among these are trial locations, strict eligibility
requirements, insufficient resources to support appropriate clinical trial education and screening, as well as patient and provider attitudes about trials.
In lung cancer, we now have four approved immunotherapy drugs (all anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors) and the number of clinical trials for combinations of these and other new immunotherapies is
exploding. A quick search of clinicaltrials.gov for the generic term “immunotherapy” and a condition of cancer resulted in 820 actively recruiting studies. In addition, immunotherapy is being considered
earlier in the treatment paradigm. Results of a study by Forde and colleagues provided early evidence that this type of drug could work even in a pre-surgical setting.2 The implication is that it is critical for clinicians and patients to have conversations about IO clinical trials at every point in the treatment process—not just when patients with late-stage lung cancer have few options left. How do physicians and patients keep up with and make sense of this changing environment?
Fortunately, there are new tools and services that can help facilitate conversations and education about clinical trials. Companies such as Antidote (www.antidote.me) and Smart Patients (smartpatients.
com/trials/search) are structuring and annotating clinical trial data from clinicaltrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute. These new search tools allow for simplified, patient-friendly language in searches and results as well as the ability to search for things like a specific molecular target or immunotherapy drug.
At Lung Cancer Alliance (lungcanceralliance.org), we use a combination of online tools and telephone-based navigation to educate and empower patients to have informed conversations about clinical trials with their healthcare team. Our trained treatment and trial specialists consider patients’ treatment histories, walk them through online tools, provide access to a molecular testing program if
needed, research the most appropriate treatment, and send options for discussion with their physician along with general education about trials. In our follow-up, we’ve found that three quarters of
patients go on to have a conversation about trials with their physician, including many who have not had those conversations before. In addition, half of those conversations lead to the patient connecting
with a trial investigator. We find that this personalized discussion and education, which can be provided virtually through the phone and online, can demystify clinical trials and provide new options for
the oncologist and patient to consider together.
As oncologists struggle with having enough hours in the day, telehealth-based services like this—provided by advocacy organizations or elsewhere—can help address barriers such as
patient education, proper trial selection, and screening so that we can improve patient enrollment in clinical trials.