MetARP 2024: Janice and Connor
MetARP partners Janice Cowden and Connor Purdy
From the Patient Advocate Perspective
Janice Cowden
In June, I had the pleasure of being paired with Dr. Connor Purdy, a breast cancer researcher, through the MetARP program at the Metastasis Research Society's (MRS) 20th Biennial Congress in London, England. While the MetARP program was not new to me, having attended the Metastatic Breast Cancer Research Conference (MBCRC) since 2018, and participating as a patient advocate contributor during the creation of MARP, this was my first official participation as a patient advocate in the program.
My previous collaborations with Dr. Hillary (Stires) Andrews and Josh Newby were instrumental in helping to shape the MetARP program to foster partnerships between metastatic breast cancer (MBC) researchers and patient advocates. However, this firsthand experience brought new insights and connections.
Connor and I first met at the Researcher-Advocate breakfast in London after exchanging several emails before the conference. We quickly found common ground, including our ties to Purdue University, where Connor completed his undergraduate degree and where I grew up. Our shared personal connections to cancer fueled our mutual passion for cancer research. Additionally, we both have ties to Colorado, where Connor works at the Anschutz Medical Campus in the Cancer Biology Program at the University of Colorado—close to where my daughter and grandson live. This proximity presents an excellent opportunity for future lab visits.
During the MRS meeting, Connor introduced me to other members of his lab, strengthening our advocate-researcher connection. Since returning from London, I’ve connected with one of his lab partners to review a grant application and provide a letter of support.
I shared my metastatic breast cancer story with Connor and discussed my seven years of experience as a research patient advocate. This role has allowed me to collaborate with basic, translational, and clinical researchers from various institutions. Thanks to an introduction by Josh Newby at the MBCRC conference in 2021, my experience collaborating with researchers has led to multiple in-person lab visits, virtual lab meetings, and ongoing connections with researchers at Baylor.
During the conference, Connor and I took numerous opportunities to discuss his current research projects. He thoroughly explained his research presented during the poster session and graciously answered all my questions. Although new to collaborating with patient advocates, Connor asked insightful questions and effectively communicated his research in understandable terms. This was an excellent bidirectional learning experience for both of us.
My experience with the MetARP program and my partnership with Connor have been immensely rewarding. I look forward to potential future lab visits and collaborative opportunities, confident that our continued partnership will contribute positively to the field of metastatic breast cancer research.
From the Research Prospective
(Stephen) Connor Purdy
At the beginning of my research career, I had very little idea what “cancer” was. I just knew it was a disease that both my grandmothers had, and a disease my mother overcame. However, it wasn’t until 2015 I started doing research during my sophomore year at Purdue University, that I really started to understand what “cancer” is, and appreciated how complex of a disease it really was. At this point, I quickly developed an affinity for trying to figure out the everyday “puzzles” that cancer research imposes. After 3 years of undergraduate research, I joined the Cancer Biology program at University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, where I have been studying ways to prevent/treat metastatic breast cancer.
I have loved research, but over the years I have noticed that it becomes very easy to lose perspective. I, and many others in research, easily get caught up in the science, trying to figure out these “puzzles” in the lab. While I think the scientific curiosity that can drive cancer research is a good thing, I do not think it is as large of a driving force as understanding the impact our research can have on current or future patients and their families. When experiments are working, the morale in lab is high; but when experiments are not going the way we hope, the morale can drop. I think the right mindset can really benefit and improve the resiliency of those in the lab.
This is where patient advocacy programs, such as MetARP, can have a significant impact on research. I was fortunate enough to participate in MetARP at the Metastatic Research Society meeting this year. Janice Cowden and I were paired up as a patient advocate and researcher pair, respectively. She and I both shared our stories and how we got to where we were. We had a shared frustration in how negative data often goes unpublished, which can lead to others wasting a lot of time and money doing the same experiments as others may have already done.
For researchers new to patient advocacy, it will not take you long to realize how passionate patient advocates are. Janice and others were incredibly curious and astute, even if they did not fully understand the science jargon that so many of us unfortunately use. In addition to ensuring research is intentional, these patient advocacy programs really improve the communication skills of researchers. I think researchers spend too much time writing manuscripts for an expected audience of other researchers, and not enough time communicating their results to other very important groups that can help drive research such as patient advocates, politicians, or donors. I am incredibly grateful to be a part of MetARP, and I am excited for my next opportunity to work with Janice, whether that be on my own research or another patient advocacy program (hopefully both!).