The Pessimistic Side of Curing Cancer

Two blog posts caught my eye this week on the problems with finding a cure for cancer. There is lots of hoohaa going on with we can cure cancer. There is even the deadline(?) of 2020 to find a cure for breast cancer. But here is a look at the other side of finding a cure for cancer.

The first article is on "Coming Together to Fight Cancer" that lists the five issues involved:

1. Cancer is not one disease. Its many diseases. 
2. There is a lot of effort going into treatment - chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Those are not cures. And a lot of the diagnostic advances (CT/PET scans) are also cancer causing tools.
3. Modern life styles are contributing to cancer rate increases - 10 fold in the last century.
4. There is not a lot of political will behind it. Politicians only care about the things that get them votes. They may say they support curing cancer, but is there budgetary support behind those words?
5. Apathy. Those touched by cancer range from rabidly vigilant to fairly laid back on their stance on finding a cure for cancer. But the lack of action prevails.

The next article refers to cancer as "An Unstoppable Killer: New Research Shows Cancer Cant Be Eradicated". Think of it this way. Cancer cells have been known to form going back millennia on the simplest of beings. So if they form on very simple organisms, could they be part of the intrinsic basis of life? If so, can we cure cancer without destroying some of the very basics of life? There is a lot more detail in the article itself so please read it.

Now all that being said, what can we do if we can't eradicate cancer? We can help lower the rates of cancer by returning to simpler lifestyles without chemicals, synthetic food made of chemicals, no tobacco use, more exercise, etc.

What if we tried that? In Australia, there used to be soaring rates of skin cancer. Now there has been a dramatic decline. Why? They started promoting sun screen use, put shades over public pools, encourage people to wear hats etc. That doesn't sound hard does it? A few little changes can make a big difference.

Remember the big hole in the ozone? With the decline in use of aerosols and pollution reductions with the Clean Air Act, the ozone hole is in showing signs of repair.(I read it somewhere this week but of course I cant find it now.)

So lifestyle changes may be able to help decrease cancer rates. If we can't cure it, maybe we need to focus  on decreasing its presence.
So instead of spending billions on expensive medications that might extend a patients life by up to six months, what if those billions were spent on promoting healthier lifestyles and

Cancer death rates down but...

Cancer death rates are down for the more 'popular' cancers in general in the last few decades. But then the old 80/20 rule kicks in and these cancers get most of the research and as a result the 'unpopular' cancer death rates aren't really going anywhere.

So here's an article on how colon cancer rates are down. It used to be the most common cancer killer in the US. Now it is dramatically down because of screening - those lovely colonoscopies that we all love so much.

However as this Australian article points out the cancers that are not as common, don't have ribbon decorated walks, runs, months, etc, often don't get as much funding and the death rates haven't budged. These cancers include:

Although these numbers refer to Australia and the video includes the comment that people leave the country for elsewhere for treatment for these under researched cancers, I think that the proportion is probably similar elsewhere. And the point is still valid - the cancers that do not receive the research dollars are the ones where the death rates have not declined.

Another area where research dollars are lacking is in metastatic cancer - cancer which has spread and cannot be cured. For example, a very small portion of breast cancer research dollars goes to metastatic breast cancer research. Yes metastatic breast cancer is incurable but if there was more research, patients might live longer and more comfortably.

It seems to me that cancer research gets to the point of here are clues on its origin but less information and research is done on how its spread. I know researchers are trying to find how to stop metastases and there is a long way to go.

So while the big picture may get a nice rosy hint in the news headlines, there are details behind it which aren't quite as bright.
 

The Pessimistic Side of Curing Cancer

Two blog posts caught my eye this week on the problems with finding a cure for cancer. There is lots of hoohaa going on with we can cure cancer. There is even the deadline(?) of 2020 to find a cure for breast cancer. But here is a look at the other side of finding a cure for cancer.

The first article is on "Coming Together to Fight Cancer" that lists the five issues involved:

1. Cancer is not one disease. Its many diseases. 
2. There is a lot of effort going into treatment - chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Those are not cures. And a lot of the diagnostic advances (CT/PET scans) are also cancer causing tools.
3. Modern life styles are contributing to cancer rate increases - 10 fold in the last century.
4. There is not a lot of political will behind it. Politicians only care about the things that get them votes. They may say they support curing cancer, but is there budgetary support behind those words?
5. Apathy. Those touched by cancer range from rabidly vigilant to fairly laid back on their stance on finding a cure for cancer. But the lack of action prevails.

The next article refers to cancer as "An Unstoppable Killer: New Research Shows Cancer Cant Be Eradicated". Think of it this way. Cancer cells have been known to form going back millennia on the simplest of beings. So if they form on very simple organisms, could they be part of the intrinsic basis of life? If so, can we cure cancer without destroying some of the very basics of life? There is a lot more detail in the article itself so please read it.

Now all that being said, what can we do if we can't eradicate cancer? We can help lower the rates of cancer by returning to simpler lifestyles without chemicals, synthetic food made of chemicals, no tobacco use, more exercise, etc.

What if we tried that? In Australia, there used to be soaring rates of skin cancer. Now there has been a dramatic decline. Why? They started promoting sun screen use, put shades over public pools, encourage people to wear hats etc. That doesn't sound hard does it? A few little changes can make a big difference.

Remember the big hole in the ozone? With the decline in use of aerosols and pollution reductions with the Clean Air Act, the ozone hole is in showing signs of repair.(I read it somewhere this week but of course I cant find it now.)

So lifestyle changes may be able to help decrease cancer rates. If we can't cure it, maybe we need to focus  on decreasing its presence.
So instead of spending billions on expensive medications that might extend a patients life by up to six months, what if those billions were spent on promoting healthier lifestyles and

Cancer death rates down but...

Cancer death rates are down for the more 'popular' cancers in general in the last few decades. But then the old 80/20 rule kicks in and these cancers get most of the research and as a result the 'unpopular' cancer death rates aren't really going anywhere.

So here's an article on how colon cancer rates are down. It used to be the most common cancer killer in the US. Now it is dramatically down because of screening - those lovely colonoscopies that we all love so much.

However as this Australian article points out the cancers that are not as common, don't have ribbon decorated walks, runs, months, etc, often don't get as much funding and the death rates haven't budged. These cancers include:

Although these numbers refer to Australia and the video includes the comment that people leave the country for elsewhere for treatment for these under researched cancers, I think that the proportion is probably similar elsewhere. And the point is still valid - the cancers that do not receive the research dollars are the ones where the death rates have not declined.

Another area where research dollars are lacking is in metastatic cancer - cancer which has spread and cannot be cured. For example, a very small portion of breast cancer research dollars goes to metastatic breast cancer research. Yes metastatic breast cancer is incurable but if there was more research, patients might live longer and more comfortably.

It seems to me that cancer research gets to the point of here are clues on its origin but less information and research is done on how its spread. I know researchers are trying to find how to stop metastases and there is a long way to go.

So while the big picture may get a nice rosy hint in the news headlines, there are details behind it which aren't quite as bright.
 

Dear Medical Researchers

Dear Medical Researchers:

This is what I want from you, besides a cure for cancer.

1. A medication with these side effects: weight loss, the ability to get 8 hours of consecutive sleep, and anti-depressant.
2. A cure for the common cold. This should be easy after a cure for cancer.
3. Medical tests that do not come with a 'pinch', a burning sensation, or being stuck with needles or any other 'ouchie'.
4. A dictionary that instantly translates 'doctor-speak', either the mumbo jumbo of big words or the vagueness of a non-answer, into normal human English.
5. Thrift - I want inexpensive treatments that will not line the pockets of pharmaceutical companies or others so that the term 'medical bankruptcy' will become obsolete.

That's not a very long list so it shouldn't be that difficult. 

Thank you.

A patient.

Breakthroughs and costs

Several drug companies are poised to bring significant breakthroughs in cancer treatment. One woman is referenced as going from stage IV lung cancer, a deadly place to be, to being cancer free after several months of treatment.

And here's the but. Who can afford $100,000/patient/year/drug. And if the drugs are used in combination that number could be $300,000/patient/year. No one can afford that. And we can't ask the insurance companies to pay that much. They would be bankrupt - as well as all the patients.

Put it this way, ten  years of treatment is $1,000,000 per drug. So every ten years, a pharma company is a million dollars richer.

So what are we to do?

The world is changing. We are getting to a place where a cure for cancer is closer to a reality. However the pharma industry's business plans bring us expensive cures. While we need the cure for cancer, we need a new business model which allows for affordable treatments.

As the world changes, the industries concerned need to change as well. These industries are health insurance, pharma manufacturers, and individual patients. Yes we all need to change and adapt to the new world where a cure for cancer is a reality and not a dream

And it won't cure you

I wonder how doctors are communicating to patients about the benefits of late stage chemotherapy. A study (because we need more studies) last year showed that 69% of late stage lung cancer patients and 81% of late stage colorectal cancer patients did not understand that their treatment was not likely to cure them. Obviously there is some kind of communication gap here.

The question is are the doctors communicating but the patients aren't hearing it or are the doctors not communicating? I am not too sure.

I think the patients want to hear the good news and may not really hear what the doctors are telling them - that it will only gain them a few more weeks or months of life at best. Would you really want to hear that? Probably not.

Also, the doctors have a fine line to walk. When one treatment stops working or its time to restart treatment due to disease progression, what do they say to the patient? This treatment option at best will last six months and then if your disease stabilizes, you can expect another six months after that? Or do you omit that part?

What do patients want to hear? I have a friend who told her doctors no numbers and didn't know her cancer staging for about three years after diagnosis - even through surgery and chemo. It took her a long time to want to hear.

Another friend is restarting chemo this week. She finished chemo for the third time last November. Her latest PET scan shows progression so her doctor is putting her back in treatment for six months. After three months she will have another PET scan to see if the chemo is working. And then what? If the treatment works she will just wait and have another scan every three months. If it doesn't work, the unsaid will happen. I think she is finally realizing that chemo only buys her more time. But I'm not sure she would admit it.

But if it was you, would you want to know that your treatment will only extend your life for a few more weeks? That it won't cure you? I think I would want to know the numbers and understand that it wouldn't cure me.

Cancer and the common cold, take 852

I have been  known to whine blog about the lack of cure for both the common cold and cancer. I first actually blogged about this in March 2008 (http://carolinemfr.blogspot.com/2008/03/cancer-vs-common-cold.html) if you have been reading along. I mean they both basically suck and neither has a cure.

The common cold is just going to make you miserable for a short while; cancer will make you miserable for a longer period and is more likely to put you in your grave.

But now some rocket scientist medical researchers said "What if we start treating cancer like the common cold?". To my chemo and fibro fogged brain, this sounds like a bit of a stretch. But I can understand the semi logic here. If you have two things you cannot cure, what if you reversed what you were doing and tried something different? Its that old saying if you keep doing something over and over again, what makes you think you will get a different result? Or something like that.

So what they did was reprogram a patient's T cells and put them back in and voila the cancer goes away. You can watch the video here:


Or you can read the whole article here. I find it very cool. Right up there with tumor paint that I had blogged about a few weeks ago.

So maybe cancer research is going in the right direction, now that they turned around.

Breast cancer news on my mind

Every so often, I end up with a browser full of open tabs on stories that interest me. Today I have three tabs open on breast cancer stories that I might as well blog about before either my browser crashes or I close it and lose all my tabs or I forget and close the tabs and forget about the stories. Three days later I'll say to myself 'what the hell happened to that story I meant to blog about?'

I'm so smart I could do this do all the time - lose the stories I wanted to blog about. Its my high level of technical skills that I have. Anyway here we go:

1. There is a new injection developed in the UK which would prevent 75% of the cases of DCIS from spreading. I find this interesting on two levels. First, "The same approach could be used to tackle other cancers, as well as other diseases caused by genetic flaws." And "Much more research is needed but, eventually, women with DCIS or genes that put them at high risk of breast cancer could be given a six-monthly jab to keep the disease at bay."

Positive progress? Yes!

2. More progress is that genomic tests are being developed to show which women will respond to chemotherapy for breast cancer. Very helpful in the world of overtreatment.

"In particular, the study tested two prominent genomic tests – MammaPrint and BluePrint – in order to ascertain if these tests indeed can offer better information about the molecular subtype of a woman’s breast cancer. The conclusion of the study revealed that, “when patients’ tumors were analyzed with these tests, 24% of the tumors were reclassified to a more accurate type when compared to traditional lab tests,” ....

Dr. Beitsch characterized the findings are significant, that they could improve the treatment approach for breast cancer: “These results should be encouraging to patients and their physicians. Physicians are now better able to determine whether a woman has the type of cancer that will respond to chemotherapy, or whether she can safely be treated with surgery and hormonal treatment alone.”"

More progress in my book!

3. However a less than positive article talks about how in England, the land of the National Health Service, that 450 deaths from breast cancer could be saved each year if the socio-economic factors that exist between the most affluent women and the 'most deprived' (what a lovely term) were removed. What this says to me is that the NHS isn't that great, reinforcing my previous opinions, if this disparity exists. I believe the affluent in England do go to private doctors and dentists to get the better care than the general population....

4. Finally, the downer article of the day. Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer under 50 (like me) are more likely to develop a second cancer in their liver or reproductive organs. One argument on this would be that younger women will live longer after diagnosis and then have more years to develop another cancer. But blah, blah, blah.

Now I can clear out my browser tabs and read more interesting articles - like how much snow we got and how cold it is out side. Can you say -20F windchills and a foot or so of new snow?