The four tumors in my neck grew by an average of about 20% from Jan. 16 to Mar. 11—and that’s after they shrank by about 20% between Sept. 27, when I got my first dose of the bispecific antibody petosemtamab, and Jan. 16. Existing published data shows that “Of the patients who responded [to petosemtamab], the median DOR was 6.0 months.” I’m a bit under the six-month mark, and three neck tumors are substantially larger:

* 38 x 27 mm -> 43 x 33 mm

* 29 x 16 mm -> 35 x 18 mm

* 22 x 14 mm -> 29 x 21 mm

(I don’t understand how radiologists evaluate a three-dimensional object like a tumor with two-dimensional measurements,[1] but radiologists are, like pathologists, part of the hidden, antisocial,[2] subterranean section of the medical system, rarely interacting with humans (or light), sleeping by day and waking by night, and subsisting on a diet primarily of human blood, supplemented by small mammals when none is available.[3] So I’ve not gotten a chance to ask what’s up with the two-measurements thing when there ought to be three.)  

No tumor is yet impinging on critical structures, which is nice, although one is poking out of my neck, which is less nice. One oddity is that my lung tumors are stable and one even seems to have resolved, despite the growth of the tumors in my neck. Dr. Sacco, my oncologist at UCSD, said she’s never seen a patient’s lung and neck tumors diverge in response like mine. If that means anything, I don’t know what.

So now Bess and I back to scrambling for a new trial—and “scrambling” is the right word, despite all of our effort to avoid having to scramble. Most trials mandate a 30-day washout period,[4] and I got my last petosemtamab infusion on March 13, and thus a goal is to receive the new trial drug by Monday, April 15. I thought I had two good options for a Seagen trial of an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC): one at UCSD at one at MD Anderson (“MDA”) in Houston. I thought (incorrectly, it appears) that UCSD would host Seagen’s “A Study of SGN-PDL1V in Advanced Solid Tumors,” but there are two issues: one is that there are actually two different Seagen trials that I’m eligible for. The other is that there’ve been delays in opening a Seagen trial at UCSD. My tumors are growing too fast to wait around to see when it might open. Some trial sites report years’ worth of delays for something as finicky as “the drug company doesn’t like the hospital’s supplier of saline,” or something equally ludicrous. Maybe an astrologer told Seagen now isn’t an auspicious time?

Adding to the complexity, “PDL1V” is one Seagen trial. The other is SGNTV-001, which is the innovaTV 207 trial. SGNTV appears to be the trial available at UCSD.

You may have read the above paragraphs and thought: “Seagen trial one, Seagen trial two, who cares?” But the difference may be critical to whether I live or die. Few people understand how maddening and challenging the clinical-trial system can be, which is part of the reason I’m describing what’s happening to me. The SGNTV trial is one that, back in August or September, a research oncologist who hosted an SGNTV trial site told us wasn’t looking so good.

We listen carefully to oncologists and take what they say seriously. But data from 2022 says that “Tisotumab Vedotin Shows Promising Efficacy and Manageable Toxicity Profile in Phase 2 Study of SCCHN:” “Results from the phase 2 innovaTV 207 study (NCT03485209) showed a confirmed objective response rate (ORR) of 16% and an overall disease control rate of 58%, along with a tolerable safety profile.” By the standards of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (R / M HNSCC), 60% is pretty good. An abstract from 2023 reports that “15 pts with SCCHN were treated” and “Confirmed ORR was 40%.” “Stable disease” also qualifies as “pretty good” by R / M HNSCC, and “ORR” doesn’t include patients who have “stable disease.” “Stable disease” is anything that is plus or minus thirty percent in size from the original. The disease control rate of petosemtamab was around 70%, and petosemtamab is arguably the most promising drug for what I have.

Should I try for PDL1V, or SGNTV? Although finding an open trial site is a challenge, so is ranking the trials. PDL1V is being held at MDA, where I also established care back in November (I wrote about that in “Finally, some good tumor news, but, also, hacking up blood is probably bad”). But the physician with whom I established care there is out of town until Mar. 25. MDA has, let us say, not made it easy to consult with someone else about a PDL1V trial slot. Waiting two weeks and then finding out that there isn’t a slot available at MDA could be fatal. Bess and I are working to figure out if we can talk to someone else at MDA about a PDL1V trial slot. None of the other 12 places I established care are hosting either of these trials, so we’re back to searching on clinicaltrials.gov for other host sites and trying to beg our way in quickly.

Is SGN-PDL1V likely to be better than SGNTV-001? PDL1V began in 2022, and SGNTV began in 2018, so PDL1V is newer. Are clinical trials like graphics cards, in that newer is better? I don’t know. The oncologist who said SGNTV didn’t look great said so in 2023, but more data has presumably been generated between September and now.

The third drug is NT219. We’re trying to get an appointment at Cedars-Sinai hospital in LA to learn more about it. There’s hardly any published data about NT219. UCSD had an NT219 trial, but that’s not open any more. Has NT219 failed? On clinicaltrials.gov, no sites are listed as recruiting. Drug companies keep early data close to their chests. The best bet is to talk to a clinical investigator involved in the trial and hope they drop an information nugget, or make a vague hand motion indicating whether a drug is doing well or poorly. Many, but not all, are loath to say, “My observation is that x% of patients are responding to the drug,” and the ones who do play a heavily weighted role in my deciding how best not to die.

“Not dying” is hard. I’ve got an appointment at a PDL1V site in Salt Lake City, Utah, at South Texas Accelerated Research Therapeutics (START)—Rocky Mountain. The organization’s name may be “South Texas” but that the site is in Utah. I’m also working on getting into START—San Antonio. The variability among hospitals in terms of intake and acceptance is massive—both START sites, like UCSD, have made getting appointments and getting into their systems straightforward. It’s almost as if they realize they’re a research institution and want research subjects. I can’t decide if it’s mostly individual initiative within the systems that accounts for differences, or if organizational culture between different hospital organizations accounts for how patient-friendly versus patient-hostile hospital sites are. A lot of clinical trial insiders complain about the difficulty of patient recruitment, and, given how hard it is to get into a study after saying “Hey, I’d really like to be in this study,” I have a few ideas as to why.

If I were in charge of clinical trials, I’d be working hard to make patient intake easy—a subject I talk about in “Puzzles about oncology and clinical trials.” Those puzzles continue to puzzle. Among businesses that sell to consumer, there’s a rabid obsession with user interface and user experience (UI/UX), because getting those wrong can lead to outcomes that range from “make less money” to “go bankrupt.” In a lot of medical situations, there seems to be no conscious, deliberate effort at improving UI/UX or intake. And after a decade and a half of promises about health-record sharing via electronic medical records (EMRs), I still wind up sending a ton of PDFs to intake coordinators, who then, I assume, manually attach them to the local EMR. One PDL1V site, UC Davis, requires that all records be faxed to them. This is not a joke. The records they request run to 100+ pages. UC Davis, as the name implies, is part of the University of California system—as is UCSD. I’d imagine they’d be able to pull records from another UC hospital, but no. Fax or die. Faxing it is.

You may think that me describing the clinical-trial process is pointlessly, tediously boring, but I’m doing it most of all for other people in similar situations. Don’t give up! Persevere despite the struggle. You are not alone. The system should be fixable, and, though I personally can’t fix them, I can explain my experience and thus hopefully shed light on the process in a way that helps others.

Between late December and March, life had slowly slid into a new normal. Although I’m not physically well compared to where I was before the cancer recurrence, I had more energy than I did in that bleak period of surgical recovery and systemic chemotherapy. A low bar, but one I managed to shuffle over. I’ve managed to do a lot of writing, and to help Bess do a lot of writing. I’ve been emailing advice and guidance to other people with cancer who are navigating clinical trials. I’ve been trying to live a positive, meaningful life.

It feels like my Interregnum Is over, and I’m back to wondering If this Is It. I know, intellectually, that I may be able to survive the month-long washout period, and that the next trial drug may work. But I also know that the month-long washout period may be long enough to get bone or brain metastases. The next trial drug may not work. And, even if it does, after the PDL1V trial, there is no other highly promising trial that I’m aware of. There are some okay trials in phase 1a, but most 1a trials don’t really work. NT219 requires that participants have had no more than two systemic lines of therapy, and SGNTV has the same requirement. So doing PDL1V means I won’t be able to do the other two. I might have to move to New Jersey for a drug called RAPA-201.

There are a huge number of issues to track, and limited information. We’re seeking more information but often not getting it. Life is usually an incomplete-information game. It’s more statistics and less calculus. Sometimes, one makes life-or-death decisions based on incomplete information. 

I recently read an interesting though flawed memoir called The Trading Game, by Gary Stevenson, and the narrator describes the eponymous game that helps get him a job as a currency trader:

The trading game was supposed to be a simulation of trading, but actually, it was just a numbers game.

It ran using a special deck of seventeen numbered cards: some higher, some lower. In case you ever want to play it yourself, the full deck of cards was a -10, a 20, and all the numbers 1 through 15. Each player is dealt their own card, which they could look at, and then another three cards are placed, face down, in the center of the table. The game works by players essentially making bets against each other on what will be the total numerical value of the eight cards in the game (each of five players has one card, plus the three in the middle).

Conceptually, you can think of it like this: you are all buying and selling some asset and the total value of that asset is the sum of the cards in the game. You only have certain information (your own card); more information (the cards in the middle) is revealed as the game goes on. If you have a high card, say the 15, or the 20, then that gives you inside information that the total will probably be quite high, so you want to make “buy” bets that it’s a high total. If you have a low card like the -10 you probably want to make “sell” bets that the total is low. If you get a middle card like a 6 or a 7, then I guess you’ll have to make something up.

The betting system Is mainly what made the game a “trading game,” Ie It was designed to mimic the way that traders make bets in the markets: “price-making” and “price-taking” using “two-way markets.”

I feel like I’m playing the clinical-trial game. Instead of numbers on cards, I know there’s a large pot of hidden efficacy data that I can’t access. It’s siloed in databases run by hospitals or drug companies. Occasionally, some of that data is released publicly, and it becomes common knowledge. Often, however, I don’t know whether a given clinical trial is -15, or 20, or, most commonly, somewhere in between. Petosemtamab was close to a 20—maybe a 15 or something. I’m trying to trade on what public data exists, and what I can glean from conversations with oncologists, to make the optimal decision.

The analogy is inexact, but I wonder what happens to the people who don’t fully realize the kind of “game” that’s being played with their lives. If their oncologist even brings up the option of clinical trials (few actively refer patients to studies), it’s probably to whatever happens to be available at the hospital where they practice, regardless of the quality of the drug.

And the FDA doesn’t care; the FDA’s goal is to make itself look good, or as not-bad as possible, regardless of the number of people who fill the invisible graveyard while waiting for potential treatments to fatal disease. People running the trials are at the mercy of the incentives set by the FDA within the system. Some individuals within the system are amazing, and that fact is part of the reason I’ve been telling people with head and neck cancer to establish care at UCSD if doing so is feasible and reasonable. My top-level feeling, though, remains what I wrote about in “Who cares about your healthcare? What’s commonly overlooked in the ‘health’ care system:” no one is going to care as much as you and your family.

If you’ve gotten this far, consider the Go Fund Me that’s funding ongoing care. As you can infer, I probably have a lot of flights in my future.

---

[1] Bess read this and said that radiologists look at the two longest vectors. But that leaves a lot of room for the third axis, doesn’t it?

[2] I kid: I assume radiologists are as social as any other sort of doctor, though I can’t be sure because I hardly ever interact with them.

[3] Although I was kidding about the antisocial thing, this part is serious.

[4] During the washout period, I’ll ideally also be “screened” for study eligibility—CTs, MRIs, PET scans, labs, palm reading, awaiting drug-company sponsor approval. Not having to go through the process of waiting for appointments to establish care at new cancer centers can shave a few weeks off the process.