Presentation given at the August 2012 Princeton site review for the Physical Sciences Oncology Center (PS-OC) grant from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Some of these slide may not be self-explanatory, so contact me if you have questions, or post them on the discussion in the LinkedIn NCI Office of Physical Sciences - Oncology group at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4536998&trk=anet_ug_hm. NOTE: I have a whole series called "Words that Matter". This series features common terms that different fields interpret in entirely different ways.

1. 1

2. 2

3. There
are
important
consequences
to
not
ge4ng
valid
answers
to
cancer
advances.
Here
are
a
few
from
a
pa<ent
perspec<ve.
Please
remember
the
next
<me
you
look
at
Kaplan-­‐Meier
curves,
they
represent
real
people.
3

4. Enrolling
Pa<ents
in
Clinical
Trials
10/17/09
People
who
have
never
been
exposed
to
the
intricacies
of
cancer
treatment
or
the
oncology
medical
process
are
overwhelmed
by
the
language
used
and
the
decisions
that
must
be
made.
PAIR:
Pa<ent
Advocates
In
Research
4

5. Making
Sense
of
Genomics
while
Protec<ng
6/11/12
People
It’s
<me
to
encompass
all
of
the
different
‘systems’
that
make
up
one
human!
It
clearly
hasn’t
worked
to
segment
out
grants
and
studies
to
the
point
of
looking
at
one
small
piece
of
the
overall
human
puzzle.
Let’s
look
at
how
each
part
throughout
the
human
system.
©
PAIR:
Pa<ent
Advocates
In
Research
5

6. It’s
also
clear
from
the
‘outside
looking
in’
that
physicists
and
biologists/cancer
researchers
(and
pa<ent
advocates!)
ask
‘Why’
&
challenge
assump<ons.
Some
also
bring
up
uncomfortable
issues
and
are
never
sa<sfied.
It’s
now
<me
to
focus
on
how
to
take
new
thinking
and
data
from
different
fields
and
focus
on
ac<ons
and
steps
that
can
lead
us
to
beber
results
for
people.
I
don’t
mean
to
insult
anyone,
but
I’m
changing
the
quip
“it’s
the
economy,
stupid!”
to
help
us
focus
on
the
end
results
we’re
really
aeer.
6

7. I
have
a
whole
series
of
words
that
are
commonly
used
by
everyone,
but
mean
very
different
things.
Here
is
an
example
of
how
the
medical/scien<fic
community
thinks
about
cure
(5
year
survival
rate)
vs.
how
pa<ents
and
people
hear
the
word.
We
need
to
STOP
using
the
word
“cure”
un<l
we
are
much
closer
to
the
public
defini<on.
7

8. So,
I
thought
I
would
extend
my
series
into
the
differences
in
terminology
between
biology
and
physics,
with
the
intent
to
help
build
beber
understanding
of
why
this
is
so
important.
BTW,
the
biology
meanings
are
the
first
line
under
each
word,
and
the
physicist
meanings
are
at
the
bobom
in
case
it
wasn’t
clear.
;-­‐)
8

9. 9

10. 10

11. Here
is
a
first
abempt
to
further
define
and
correlate
the
processes
that
biology
and
physics
use.
NOTE:
THESE
MAY
NOT
BE
ACCURATE!!!!
I
would
like
to
work
with
some
of
you
to
actually
develop
this
as
a
tool
that
might
help
PS-­‐OCs
communicate
more
effec<vely
together,
and
to
the
external
communi<es
that
need
to
be
involved.
11

12. There
seems
to
be
a
major
emphasis
in
the
NCI
PS-­‐OC
program
on
‘new
ideas’,
but
aeer
hearing
4
days
of
intense
and
wonderful
discussions,
I
think
it
would
be
beber
to
focus
on
how
to
CONNECT
ideas
that
have
already
been
published
out
there
somewhere
together
in
new
ways
so
we
can
actually
MOVE
the
BALL
forward
toward
results
for
people.
It
is
also
clear
that
the
physics
world
may
not
understand
just
how
different
specific
types
of
cancers
are
in
rela<on
to
each
other.
While
we
hear
that
cancers
have
common
pathways,
the
way
tumors
work
and
interact
with
their
environment
can
be
very
different
in
various
parts
of
the
body.
In
other
words,
we
can’t
just
take
an
observa<on
or
experiment
from
one
kind
of
cancer
and
automa<cally
assume
that
it
works
that
way
in
every
kind
of
cancer.
I
was
also
shaken
a
bit
by
the
terminology
used
to
describe
leeover
cells
in
the
body
that
might
develop/have
resistance
to
exis<ng
cancer
therapies
(regarding
Mul<-­‐
Drug
Resistance
known
as
MDR).
We
need
to
come
up
with
a
beber
term
than
‘survivor’
cells
quickly
before
this
becomes
yet
one
more
unfortunate
misnomer.
12

13. Just
some
points
that
need
to
be
said
out
loud
so
we
don’t
have
to
live
with
the
consequences
of
hidden
assump<ons!
13

14. These
were
some
ideas
that
can
up
during
the
4
day
discussions
that
seemed
important
to
follow
up.
14

15. This
is
how
I
see
the
value
of
the
Princeton
PS-­‐OC.
15

16. These
were
ideas
that
came
to
mind
that
the
Princeton
PS-­‐OC
could
pursue.
16

17. These
ideas
came
up
from
the
4
days
of
discussion
(including
the
Interna<onal
Workshop)
that
need
to
be
pursued
by
the
larger
community
of
physicists
and
oncology
scien<sts/clinicians.
I’m
par<cularly
interested
in
what
you
think
about
these
ideas,
and
how
we
might
start
to
develop
them.
#1
seems
like
a
no-­‐brainer,
frankly.
And
#2
is
completely
doable
with
those
of
us
who
have
direct
pa<ent
community
network
capabili<es.
17

18. Since
so
much
money
is
being
spent
on
the
NCI
TCGA,
it’s
<me
for
the
PS-­‐OC
network
to
ask
for
the
addi<onal
data
they
need
to
do
something
with
it.
Frankly,
this
seems
like
the
only
way
the
huge
sums
spent
on
TCGA
will
get
us
anywhere!
18

19. Thanks
for
your
interest.
Please
send
comments
to
me
at
Deborah@tumor<me.com
-­‐
Or
-­‐
post
them
at
the
LinkedIn
NCI
Office
of
Physical
Sciences
–
Oncology
group
at
hbp://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4536998&trk=anet_ug_hm.
19