One hundred years.

That is a long time. And although thriving, remaining relevant and engaged for 100 years is a remarkable accomplishment for any organization, the American Cancer Society today takes pride not only in reflecting on the accomplishments of the last 100 years but also in our commitment to continue the fight, and make this century cancer's last.

A lot will be written about the remarkable accomplishments of the Society over the past century. The American Cancer Society takes pride in the fact that it has been able to serve millions of people during that time. It has put its mark on numerous improvements in the science and treatment of cancer. We have made incredible strides in understanding cancer, what causes it and what influences it, including the role of tobacco and overweight/obesity. We have funded 46 Nobel Prize winners at some time during their careers, frequently when they needed a start to develop their theory which led to great discoveries. And we have funded numerous investigators who have made other important and lifesaving contributions to understanding cancer and reducing its burden.

But the list is not complete. There is still too much we don't understand about cancer, its causes, and its impacts on patients, their families, their communities. We have come to a "tipping point" in the cycle where we have unlocked the genetic code of cancer and are just beginning to transform that information into lifesaving treatments. We wrestle with the early detection and prevention of some cancers, at a time when we thought--incorrectly, as it turns out--that simply finding cancer early was enough. We struggle with finding a way to get access to lifesaving or life comforting treatments to those who are diagnosed with cancer but don't have the resources to follow their journey in the best way possible. We have millions of survivors, yet understand too little about the problems they face long term, let alone being able to provide them with a system of care to respond to their needs. We have made remarkable progress in keeping children with cancer alive, free of disease into adulthood, but we haven't acknowledged the terrible price some of them have to pay from the side effects of their treatments. More...

April is National Minority Health Month.

That's the "dry" statement. The impact statement is that-unfortunately-for many in this country, this is more than a phrase. It's a reality that their health and their health care are in crisis. And the sooner more of us understand this, the sooner we can make a genuine effort to implement effective strategies that will address the sad state of affairs many people find themselves in when it comes to their health, and preventing and appropriately treating their diseases.

This is about more than high blood pressure and diabetes. It's about heart disease and stroke and cancer and the list goes on. This is about neighborhoods were residents don't have a place to walk or may even have fear of walking outside their homes. This is about people living in communities where they can't find affordable, fresh vegetables and healthier foods. This is about not having access to a regular source of medical care, or getting timely treatment for conditions such as breast cancer which many of us take for granted. It is about assuring equitable and quality treatment once diagnosed. This is about the lack of trained health professionals from these communities who have roots and understanding of their cities, towns and neighborhoods where they might be able to make a real difference in the lives of so many people. More...

Since we have started the conversation about eHealth tools in my previous blog this week, I thought it might be worthwhile to explore some of the other applications and internet based programs that may be useful to cancer patients.

As I wrote in early February, I have become (and remain) infatuated with apps that have helped me track my activity and my diet. They have made a big difference for me and others I know, and continue to keep me motivated and on target. The larger question, however, is whether we can harness electronic media to help us live healthier lives, get better control of our health, or if we have an illness or disease, become more informed and more empowered.

For some diseases-like heart disease and diabetes-there appear to be no shortage of such efforts either to prevent illness or help manage illness once it occurs. However cancer is a different animal: it is not one disease but over 200. And it is far from uniform, even within particular cancer diagnoses. We have a lot to learn about cancer, its treatment, helping care givers and improving quality of life for cancer patients among many other topics. But actually harnessing social media and the internet to help our patients remains in very early stages of development for cancer compared to some other more common and perhaps more straightforward situations such as heart disease and diabetes.

So imagine a world where a patient has access to immediate information about their disease, its treatment, the side effects of the drugs, and how they can better manage the inevitable problems that arise during the diagnosis, treatment and recovery from cancer treatment. And further imagine harnessing that information to learn more about the disease and the treatments, the patients' reactions to the drug and the illness, how to connect caregivers, and then uploading that information in a useful digest so health care professionals can spot progress or problems, and help their patients in a more effective manner than is available through a short visit to the office.

That is the type of future we should all hope for. But we are not there yet, and we have a long way to go. The American Cancer Society is proud of its electronic health media offerings, which include our web information at www.cancer.org, our Cancer Survivors Network which links survivors from across the country to help guide each other with information and support, our "WhatNext" service which matches patients with other patients who have similar situations and demographics to learn more about their illness and treatment, and validate their own experiences with their cancer, and finally (and not least) our Circle of Sharing where patients can enter their information about their illness, let friends know how they are doing, and otherwise participate in their process of care.

All of those are good and worthy efforts. But what else is available and where can you get information? And more important, what is the current status of eHealth in cancer care, especially compared to other diseases?

Some answers to both questions were recently provided by an organization called e Health Initiative, or more fondly eHI. eHI is a collaboration among committed stakeholders from industry and non-profit sectors which brings together hundreds of organizations who are interested in promoting eHealth and making it a feasible and effective part of our health care in this country. (I have a special place in my heart for eHI, since the American Cancer Society has been involved with them for a number of years and I currently serve on their Leadership Council and board of directors).

The reports I referred to above are available on their website, and include one review of currently available eHealth programs from a variety of sources around the country. The second report was commissioned by the California HealthCare Foundation to address the availability and utilization of mobile health applications by underserved populations being treated for cancer, but in fact serves as a guide to the current status of mobile health in the larger context of cancer care. More...

The positive news continues: cancer death rates have continued to fall in the United States, for men and women, maintaining a trend that began in the early 1990's. That's the essence of a report released today by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The report, titled in part "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2009" also features a special section on the burden and trends in Human Papilloma virus (HPV) associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. Unlike the continuing decline in cancer deaths in the United States, we could be doing a much better job of getting young folks vaccinated against HPV and reducing the incidence and death rates from several HPV-associated cancers, according to the authors of the report and an editorial that accompanied the report.

This report comes out every year. It is a summation of what we know about the trends in incidence rates for the most common cancers in the United States among both men and women as well as the trends in death rates from those cancers that lead to the highest mortality in the general population as well as specific ethnic groups. It is in a real sense a report card on our progress, which in large part is good but in a number of cancers, not so good.

The good news is what we have come to expect: since the year 2000, the overall cancer death rates have continued to decline 1.8% per year in men, 1.4% in women and 0.6% per year in children. That may not sound like much, but when you consider the fact that this is an average change seen every year, those numbers begin to add up. More...

 We are on a search for truth, but will we ever find it? That summarizes how I feel after reading an article in today's New England Journal of Medicine, which once again raises the question of how much screening mammography contributes to the progress we have made in reducing deaths from breast cancer in the United States, and by inference, in other parts of the world.

The research paper-written by Dr. Gilbert Welch and Dr. Archie Bleyer, two highly regarded researchers-concludes that over the past 30+ years, screening mammography has contributed modestly, at best, in the progress we have made in decreasing death rates from breast cancer.  In contrast, based on their analyses, the doctors conclude that much of the gains we have seen are due to better treatment. An additional observation is that 31 percent of the women diagnosed and treated for breast cancer in 2008 - that's more than 70,000 women - were in fact treated unnecessarily, since if left alone or not diagnosed their cancers would never have caused them a problem during their lifetime. In contrast, they say, these women have endured surgery, perhaps radiation and chemotherapy, all of which have serious consequences and in fact did not contribute to their health or their longevity.

 This is not the first research that has been done on this very important-and very emotional--topic nor is this the first time that the question of "over diagnosis" and "over treatment" of breast cancer has become part of the national debate over the value of early detection of breast cancer.

 As the authors acknowledge, there has been a considerable body of research that has tried to answer the question regarding the value of mammography, and assess the "harms" of screening mammograms (which, for the patient may include repeat examinations such as additional mammograms, ultrasound and MRI, and for some women, breast biopsy in order to determine whether or not a suspicious lesion is in fact cancer). There have also been a number of studies-some of which are included in an online table which accompanies the Welch and Bleyer report-which try to determine how many women were treated for their breast cancer without health benefit.

 So let's acknowledge two basic principles:

 One: Many experts agree with the principles espoused in this current report. Yes, some women do have to undergo additional studies to determine if something seen on a screening mammogram is in fact a cancer.

 Two: many experts acknowledge that we do treat some women who would otherwise have done perfectly well had we not found their breast cancers in the first place. More...

I find myself sitting here to write a blog in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month, and frankly it's not as easy as I anticipated. And I am asking myself why that is.

We have made considerable progress in the early detection of breast cancer. I have commented frequently about the differences in breast cancer detection, treatment and survival today and when I started my medical training and career in the 1970's.

Early detection is clearly a success story if the measure of success is whether or not we can find breast cancer when it is "small" in most women. Our technology lets us do that with mammography techniques that are far more accurate and sophisticated than they were a few decades ago. Much of our discussion today centers around what role newer approaches, such as MRI, ultrasound, and most recently 3-D mammography have in early detection of breast cancer.

Our treatments are much more refined than they were in 1970, as well. We now have lumpectomy and radiation as a valid replacement for many mastectomies. We have sentinel node biopsy instead of axillary node dissection, which for some women adds nothing but long term misery caused by swelling of the arm. We have hormone-related treatments, chemotherapies, and biologic therapies that can prevent cancer from recurring; and we have an increasing number of promising approaches to treat the disease if it does come back.

We have genetic tests that can help pinpoint women at higher risk of developing breast cancer, and others that can help some women and their doctors decide whether or not they need to receive chemotherapy as part of their adjuvant (preventive) treatment after primary treatment with surgery.

We certainly have increased awareness of breast cancer beyond anything imagined in 1970. It's hard to imagine, but back then, cancer was not discussed in polite company (really). Some women did everything they could to hide their disfigurement and even what they thought was their "shame." Today, breast cancer is discussed openly and frankly (most of the time), and the voice of advocates is being heard at levels never dreamed of decades ago.

So with all this progress, why shouldn't I be celebrating our successes? More...

I find myself sitting here to write a blog in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month, and frankly it's not as easy as I anticipated. And I am asking myself why that is.

We have made considerable progress in the early detection of breast cancer. I have commented frequently about the differences in breast cancer detection, treatment and survival today and when I started my medical training and career in the 1970's.

Early detection is clearly a success story if the measure of success is whether or not we can find breast cancer when it is "small" in most women. Our technology lets us do that with mammography techniques that are far more accurate and sophisticated than they were a few decades ago. Much of our discussion today centers around what role newer approaches, such as MRI, ultrasound, and most recently 3-D mammography have in early detection of breast cancer.

Our treatments are much more refined than they were in 1970, as well. We now have lumpectomy and radiation as a valid replacement for many mastectomies. We have sentinel node biopsy instead of axillary node dissection, which for some women adds nothing but long term misery caused by swelling of the arm. We have hormone-related treatments, chemotherapies, and biologic therapies that can prevent cancer from recurring; and we have an increasing number of promising approaches to treat the disease if it does come back.

We have genetic tests that can help pinpoint women at higher risk of developing breast cancer, and others that can help some women and their doctors decide whether or not they need to receive chemotherapy as part of their adjuvant (preventive) treatment after primary treatment with surgery.

We certainly have increased awareness of breast cancer beyond anything imagined in 1970. It's hard to imagine, but back then, cancer was not discussed in polite company (really). Some women did everything they could to hide their disfigurement and even what they thought was their "shame." Today, breast cancer is discussed openly and frankly (most of the time), and the voice of advocates is being heard at levels never dreamed of decades ago.

So with all this progress, why shouldn't I be celebrating our successes? More...

(Author's note: The following blog was posted today on the "Science Update Blog" hosted by Cancer Research UK, where you can read it in its entirety. My thanks to Cancer Research UK and especially to Oliver Childs who made this opportunity available.)

Expert opinion: a US perspective on beating cancer

Posted on September 6, 2012 by Oliver Childs

Dr Len Lichtenfeld is deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. We invited Len to share his thoughts about our shared challenge of beating cancer.

As well as giving his unique perspective on the US's "war on cancer", Dr Len writes about the similarities and differences between the US and UK in our approaches to preventing, detecting and treating the disease:

It has been a long slog since we started our war on cancer here in the United States in 1971.

At times I am not certain that this has been so much of a war as opposed to a series of skirmishes that occasionally have produced incredible moments of optimism. But there have been a fair share of frustrations as well along the way. Our science and our care have made significant progress, but sometimes we find ourselves asking, "What have you done for me lately?"

I think it is important to reflect on the progress that we have made on several fronts in detecting cancer earlier, treating it more effectively and providing quality of care for those who find themselves caught in the jaws of illness, especially for those whose journey has not been successful. More...

Like many of you, I have been reading the various news stories about Lance Armstrong, especially one this past weekend in a major newspaper, which went into great detail about the allegations surrounding Lance Armstrong's cycling career.

But what I didn't see in all of that coverage was much mention of the other side of the man, the side that I witnessed up close and personal one Friday in Texas a couple of years ago, the side that has led me to share my thoughts with you today.

I saw something that day that I had never-let me repeat, never-seen before. It was a moment that has forever influenced my opinion of Mr. Armstrong, even as these various charges have swirled about him these past couple of years. And the impression it created was indelible.

I am not here to hash/rehash the incriminations. I am here to stand up and say that no matter what the truth is regarding the allegations, this is a man who has forever changed the cancer landscape for millions of people in this country and around the world. This is a man who lent his prestige and his personal power to a cause that was dear to him, in what I believe a heartfelt and selfless effort to make the lives of others more comfortable, and more meaningful. This is a man who has offered hope to those in emotional and physical pain, and no matter what he may or may not have done, no one should ever dismiss or forget his accomplishments for our humanity. More...

Earlier this week I had the opportunity to attend and participate in a conference "Turning the Tide Against Cancer Through Sustained Medical Innovation" in Washington DC. . The conference organizers brought together a stellar list of experts (present company excepted) to discuss the coming revolution in cancer care through personalized medicine, as well as the barriers and risks we face as science moves us forward towards what I consider a brave new world of cancer research and treatment.

With all of the intellect that was present at that meeting-and there was a lot-there was a theme that crystallized for me and others as the day progressed: we have developed incredible science and incredible opportunities to understand and treat cancer. But with all of the issues that have to be dealt with, the reality is that there is no singular leader-organization or individual-who has the clout and the heft to accelerate all the changes that need to happen if the vision of personalized medicine is going to be a success. More...