A very worthwhile op ed in the Wall Street Journal on cancer treatment

The weekend Journal has this very fine article –

Why We’ll Never Cure Cancer – WSJ.com – Your odds of survival depend heavily on your physician

You may not be able to access the article through the link – it may be in the subscriber-only section. If you can’t, I have posted the entire article in the post continuation -just hit the link below –

Here’s an excerpt –

Recently the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Cancer Society trumpeted a 2% annual decline in cancer mortality rates as proof that the progress we are making in cancer research is benefiting patients. I think they’re celebrating the glass being 1/50th full.

To be sure, scientists have made tremendous scientific advances in prevention, early detection and management of cancer. But these organizations should decry the inability of the health-care system to deliver these advances to the patients who need them.

The article goes on to give examples, such as colon, breast, and prostate cancer. It’s written by a Sloan Kettering physician.

Read more

Fine article on stem cell research

There’s an excellent article/interview on MercatorNet (a website based in Australia and New Zealand) on adult stem cell research vs. embryological stem cell research. The interview is with an American physician and researcher. I left a comment on the website about my own autologous stem cell transplant. MercatorNet – Adult stem cells still trump embryonic … Read more

The New York Times on research and treatment for lymphoma, and the various forces determining treatments

Here is a feature article from the NY Times that I think is important for anyone coping with cancer to read – whether or not it’s my cancer, lymphoma. Because the Times only allows free access to their articles online for one week after the publishing date, I am going to post the link and the entire article. If the Times lawyers want to write me, that’s fine. Note that my lymphoma Dr., Andrew Zelenetz, is briefly quoted. The Times also had another shorter related article today, Tom Faranda’s Folly: The Times on Lymphoma and two therapies but read the one below first.

Market Forces Cited in Lymphoma Drugs’ Disuse – New York Times

The patients’ stories sound nearly impossible.

After an hourlong infusion, Linda Stephens, 58, has been cancer-free for seven years. Dan Wheeler, three years. Betsy de Parry, five years. Before treatment, all three had late-stage non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, and a grim prognosis.

All three recovered after a single dose of Bexxar or Zevalin, both federally approved drugs for lymphoma. And all three can count themselves as lucky.

Not just because their cancers responded so well. But because they got the treatment at all.

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is the fifth most common cancer in the United States, with 60,000 new cases and almost 20,000 deaths a year. But fewer than 2,000 patients received Bexxar or Zevalin last year, only about 10 percent of those who are suitable candidates for the drugs.

“Both Zevalin and Bexxar are very good products,” said Dr. Oliver W. Press, a professor at the University of Washington and chairman of the scientific advisory board of the Lymphoma Research Foundation. “It is astounding and disappointing” that they are used so little. The reasons that more patients don’t get these drugs reflect the market-driven forces that can distort medical decisions, Dr. Press and other experts on lymphoma treatment say. A result can be high costs but not necessarily the best care.

The drugs have not been clinically proven to prolong survival, compared with other therapies. But patients are more likely to respond to them than standard treatments, and trials to test whether the drugs do have a survival benefit are nearly complete.

Other, more thoroughly tested lymphoma drugs are preferred as first-line treatments. But doctors often repeatedly prescribe such drugs even after they have lost their effectiveness — and when Bexxar and Zevalin might work better.

One reason is that cancer doctors, or oncologists, have financial incentives to use drugs other than Bexxar and Zevalin, which they are not paid to administer. In addition, using either drug usually requires oncologists to coordinate treatment with academic hospitals, whom the doctors may view as competitors.

As a result, many doctors prescribe Bexxar and Zevalin only as a last resort, when they are unlikely to succeed because the cancer has advanced. “Oncologists use everything in their cupboard before they refer,” Dr. Press said. “At least half the patients who get referred to me have had at least 10 courses of treatment.”

Read more

Astonishing story about the misdiagnosis and treatment of a disabled girl

Here’s an amazing story from a New Zealand/Australian website – MercatorNet. Has to be read to be believed. The beginning is excerpted below; hit the link for the whole story. MercatorNet – Escaping from Peter Pan’s prison by Anne McDonald Three years ago, a six-year-old Seattle girl called Ashley, who had severe disabilities, was, at … Read more

Breast cancer drug study cancelled

Here’s something that’s sure to be contentious and can probably be legitimately argued either way. Breast Cancer Drug Study Canceled – washingtonpost.com The federal government yesterday canceled a $100 million study designed to test a new generation of drugs to prevent breast cancer in women at risk for the disease. The National Cancer Institute took … Read more

Health update

My CBC done last Friday was good – maybe too good, since my white count and most of the components were above the normal range, which sometimes indicates having an infection. WBC was 13.8 (normal range 4-11) and absolute neutrophil component 11.8 (normal range 1.5-8.8). AND my cough has come back. SO I called my … Read more