Tag: Cancer

Doctor Versus Doctor

Apr 27, 2012• 13

By Jim deMaine

I felt sad when I went to make rounds in the hospital.

One of my patients, a colleague, had been readmitted in poor condition for recurrence of a primary lung sarcoma.

I spent a few minutes examining Dennis and chatting. He then, with a quizzical look, said, “Jim, I’m going to have to sue you. I know I’m dying. My wife Alice and the kids are still pretty young.” He saw my look of surprise and added, “You know, I don’t have much life insurance or other very significant funds for them to live on. It’s nothing personal. I know you’ve given me good care, but my wife is upset and tends to blame you for the outcome. I guess the hospital and others will be named.”

There wasn’t much more for me to say at the time except, “Dennis I can find another attending for you if you’d like.” He replied, “No, I want to stay with you.”

Dennis was a well liked family doctor. About five years earlier a “coin lesion” was discovered on a chest X-Ray. This 2cm spot in the right upper lobe had a smooth rounded border and didn’t contain calcium. A CT scan showed no enlarged lymph nodes and no other spots elsewhere. A needle biopsy of the spot was not diagnostic. We knew the spot was new because an X-Ray five years earlier was normal. He hadn’t traveled to an area where Valley Fever or other fungal infections were common.

Rethinking Cancer Guidelines

Apr 27, 2012• 1

By James Salwitz, MD

Universal treatment standards will be the basis of future medical care. In oncology, a leading organization for the development of such guidelines is the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). This national consortium of 21 National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers publishes state of the art recommendations. Modified continuously, these are internationally respected guidelines and cover more then 97% of cancers.

The 17th Annual NCCN Conference was held in Hollywood, Florida last month. Cancer guidelines were updated in several significant ways.

The general movement of the last 20 years has been to reduce the amount of surgery for breast cancer. The NCCN recommends that during breast saving surgery (lumpectomy) the surgeon test the first lymph node (“sentinel”). If there is no cancer in the first one or two nodes, then no more nodes need to be removed. The NCCN also stated, that if breast cancer patients have small cancers and normal blood tests, they do not need a bone scan, or CT scan.

In lung cancer patients, several procedures received new support. It is recommended that doctors use ultrasound-guided biopsy to sample lymph nodes in the middle of the chest (mediastinum) instead of surgery. The new guidelines also support the use of non-invasive surgery (Video Assisted Thorascopic Surgery, VATS) instead of open surgery to treat lung cancer. The use of VATS for lung cancer has increased more than 300% in recent years. The pathologic name for an increasingly common form of lung cancer was changed. Formally, called “bronchioalveolar”, it will now be called “adenocarcinoma in situ.” Finally, the NCCN emphasized the need for accurate genetic testing for “ALK”, before using the drug that targets this mutation, crizotinib.

Sending Some Love to Our Bodies

Apr 20, 2012• 7

By Linnea Duff

When first diagnosed with cancer, I felt as if my body had not only let me down, but actually turned on me. Some of my own DNA had gone rogue, grabbed some prime real estate in my lungs, and set up headquarters. Even when forcibly evicted, the rebel cells kept returning. Their numbers grew, and soon recruits were colonizing new neighborhoods.

Attempting to slow the spread of cancer has required unyielding vigilance. Emotionally and spiritually, I believe this has resulted in an unforeseen benefit; a chance for personal growth.

Physically, it has taken quite a toll. My body has been a battleground and I am scarred inside and out. This could potentially be distressing, as we live in a beauty and youth oriented society where great measures are taken to avoid the imperfections associated with aging and disease.

I am not afraid of getting old. I hope to hell I do. And I made peace with myself some time ago. Not only is all forgiven (the whole cancer thing), I have an abiding affection for this body of mine. We’ve been through a lot together, and somehow, some way, we both just keep on going.

Must be love.

Paying an Arm and a Leg for a Month of Life?

Apr 19, 2012• 110

By Peter Ubel

Imagine for a moment that you are an oncologist caring for a 53-year-old man with metastatic cancer, a person whose tumor has spread to lung and liver.

With standard chemotherapy, this man can expect to live around 12 months. That standard treatment isn’t all that expensive in today’s terms, only $25,000 and his insurance company will pick up the entire tab since he is already maxed out on his yearly deductible and co-pays.

But wait! Before prescribing the standard treatment, you find out there is a new chemotherapy on the market, one that costs $75,000 (in other words, fifty thousand dollars more than usual care) and has no more side effects than that standard treatment.

How much longer would patients like this have to live, on average, for you to feel that this new chemotherapy is warranted?

That’s not an easy question to answer. But it’s not an impossible one either. Clearly if the treatment would provide only, say, 1 day of additional survival on average, that would not amount to $50,000 well spent. Just as clearly, if this man could expect 10 years of additional life, no one would deny him this new treatment.

So when, between 1 day and 10 years, does it become a tough call whether to prescribe this new treatment?

The Drug Shortage Wars

Apr 9, 2012• 6

By Sanjay Bansu, MD

“I should have gotten cancer last month,” she told me.

That was the first thought from my patient after she’d heard the news: her ovarian cancer would remain untreated for weeks, due to a critical shortage of the chemotherapy agent doxorubicin. Like her, several thousand patients have been affected by critical shortages of chemotherapy agents like doxorubicin (Doxil) and methotrexate—common medicines that are essential backbones of cancer chemotherapy. But hundreds of other people have also been affected by critical shortages of pills around the country—limiting the supply of critical ICU medications like intravenous versed, or tuberculosis drugs like isoniazid.

Why are these shortages happening, and what can be done about them?

The state of the problem

Doxil and methotrexate are among 287 drugs in “critical shortage” in the United States, according to the University of Utah’s Drug Information Service, which has been tracking the problem. Shortages have been mounting in recent years, up from about 74 in 2005.

At present, the US Food and Drug Administration and independent researchers have tracked the status of major drug shortages occurring throughout the country. The FDA keeps an online catalog of these shortages. What this catalog reveals is that among 178 drugs that were in shortage during the year 2010, a vast majority (132) were sterile injectable drugs. These are generally cancer drugs, anesthetics used for patients undergoing surgery, as well as drugs needed for emergency medicine, and electrolytes needed for patients on IV feeding.

Is My Cancer in the Wrong Body Part?

Mar 4, 2012• 2

By Elaine Waples

Recently, our city hosted the fifth annual national marathon to fight breast cancer. This is not part of the Komen “race for the cure” but rather a grassroots effort that mushroomed from its inception five years ago into the impressive event it is today. Thousands of people participate as runners, volunteers, and cheerleaders clad in the signature color. I must admit, seeing some grown men run twenty six miles wearing pink tu-tus is both awe inspiring and a testament to dedication over self-image.

Its supporters include corporate sponsors, vendors, and exhibitors, and (no surprise) pharmaceutical companies. Its originators are a local TV celebrity breast cancer survivor and a cancer physician at Mayo clinic. It promises to donate 100% of the money to breast cancer research or care. To date, the event has raised millions of dollars and has met its contribution promise. It’s all very worthy, noble and heartwarming.

So why do I get an embarrassingly annoyed feeling when the pink parade makes its way through my neighborhood? After all, isn’t it a victory that so many people today recognize the need for education and awareness about a terrible disease that kills 40,000 women a year? Of course it is. And I have met many women breast cancer survivors who have become warm wonderful friends and I am thrilled for the overwhelming support they have.

The frustration seems even more puzzling in light of the fact that I am a cancer survivor myself. I was diagnosed in 2010 with advanced primary peritoneal ovarian cancer, the most lethal of all gynecological cancers with an alarmingly small overall survival rate. So for the past two years of chemotherapy and difficult treatment, I have struggled to suppress what feels like a petty sentiment about all the pink attention. If I just own up to it, I feel left out and I really want a parade with everyone wearing teal in support of ovarian research and care. My cancer! My body part! A cure for me!
Continue reading…

The Fall of a Pink Giant?

Feb 26, 2012• 5

By Rachel Kerestes

The move a few weeks ago by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood, the quick reversal after widespread backlash, recent staff resignations and ongoing controversy exposed a weakness in a brand many once thought unassailable. But women’s health may be better off for it.

As the self-described “global leader of the breast cancer movement,” Komen carries the weight of the breast cancer brand on itsshoulders. And women—the brand’s core constituency—took to the social media airwaves to decry what they perceived as hypocrisy by Komen. The breast cancer brand, many women argued, is built on supporting and improving women’s health and defunding Planned Parenthood flies in opposition of that mission.

Komen fell into the classic trap of seeming inauthentic to its audience. Despite pursuing an aggressive strategy to lay claim to the title of sole women’s health brand, thus allocating other causes and conditions to the margins, the foundation seemed surprised to find that it was viewed as representing the voice of women’s health.

Now that the dust is settling the question of damage remains. Will this misstep loosen breast cancer’s grip on its leadership position? And if so, is what’s bad for the breast cancer brand good for women’s health?

Make no mistake—breast cancer is the biggest brand in the history of disease. Everyone from the NFL to Yoplait to American Airlines attempts to get a piece of that brand equity each October by pink-washing themselves in solidarity. As the face of the breast cancer movement, the Komen Foundation is the main benefactor of all that attention raising an estimated $35 million each year from marketing partnerships.

Can the Blind Lead the Seeing?

Jul 29, 2011• 13

By AMY BERMAN

Many of you know that eight months ago I was diagnosed with Stage IV inflammatory breast cancer, which has spread to my spine. My incurable diagnosis means that I live with a chronic disease, just like millions of older adults. Life continues to be fairly routine with work, play, friends, and family. One of my routines occurs on the first Monday of each month, when I visit the Maimonides Cancer Center for an infusion of drugs designed to slow the cancer’s impact on my bones. The center is cheerful. The staff greets me by name and hands me a buzzer that vibrates when I am next, the same buzzer you get at your local Olive Garden. Each month I see many of the same people receiving their treatments. I have already figured out who likes Dr. Phil, the local news channel, or a good book as they dutifully absorb their chemotherapy regimen.

One woman in particular caught my eye, perhaps because she is elderly and frail—just the kind of person that the Hartford Foundation is dedicated to helping. She appears to be in her eighties. Standing less than five feet tall, she walks in slowly and carefully, a pink crocheted cap on her head, accompanied each time by her son. Over the course of her infusion, her color fades. She leaves more frail than she came in. Each visit, she is visibly worse.

Of course I know that chemotherapy almost always causes short-term debilitation. But looking at this older woman, I can’t help but wonder. Did her clinicians talk to her and her son about her prognosis and the relative benefit of the chemotherapy? Did they understand the risks and benefits of aggressive versus palliative treatment? Maybe they do understand, and the chemotherapy will cure the cancer after months of misery, making it all worthwhile. But maybe not.

The Role of Conflicted Science in the Cell Phone-Cancer Link

Jun 1, 2011• 1

By MERRILL GOOZNER

Dr. Len over at the American Cancer Society is raising legitimate questions about the early release of findings by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer (hat tip to Gary Schwitzer’s HealthNewsReview). The actual study — drawn from an analysis of “hundreds of scientific articles ” — won’t be published in Lancet Oncology “for a few days,” according to IARC. Says Dr. Len:

Unfortunately, drawing broad and sweeping conclusions based on a press release and a news conference leaves many of us wondering just what the evidence shows that led to the conclusion announced today that “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” may be possibly cause cancer in people.

The evidence, when it appears, will be murky. A few years ago, I spent several months reviewing some of the evidence in this troubling field, largely from a conflict-of-interest perspective. The global telecommunications industry funds much of the science. Even when government agencies fund research, the results are difficult to interpret. The studies invariably involve looking for a very small number of negative health outcomes (brain cancers) in very large populations. Two researchers, looking at the very same set of epidemiological facts, will often come to different conclusions. And, as often as not, those conclusions correlate with whether the the researchers are independent or whether they are on industry’s payroll.Continue reading…

Not Colon Cancer

Jan 19, 2011• 22

By DAVIS LIU, MD

My mother’s oncologist ordered the blood test, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), to check for the recurrence of colon cancer. The good news was that there was no evidence of recurrence. The bad news was that she didn’t have colon cancer.

She had breast cancer.

Though she was feeling better, the chemotherapy and radiation had taken its toll. For the past couple of months, she had experienced constant nausea and vomiting. During and after treatment, her hands and feet felt like they were on fire. Many times she wanted to give up and quit. Yet she persevered and felt emotionally stronger after the ordeal. She started to feel like herself again. Life began to have some normalcy. Until an insurance bill appeared asking for hundreds of dollars.

Apparently over the past year, her oncologist had routinely ordered the CEA test multiple times as part of her cancer follow-up. When she called to contest the charge, the insurer told her to talk to her doctor. She didn’t know this test was unnecessary until the bill. And until she called me, her son, a primary care doctor.

She asked her oncologist about the repeated blood tests. He simply shrugged. No apologies. No explanation. No acknowledgment of the error. Didn’t he get the lab results of the CEA? Shouldn’t he have been aware that the test was not relevant for her care?