I had trouble sleeping this morning, so I got up and took a look at the tweets on my smartphone that focused on yesterday's sessions at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

There were literally hundreds of bits of information that covered the span of sessions, from science to quality of life to other topics of interests. I wondered how much of the information we have heard over the past several days will actually make a difference in the lives of cancer patients in the days and months ahead. And while sitting in a less well-attended session hearing an update on another once promising approach, the sad reality struck me squarely: not much.

This is the premier clinical cancer meeting in the country, if not the world. Thousands of doctors and researchers come to this meeting to learn the latest information about clinical cancer research and cancer treatment. There are thousands of abstracts presented and discussed, and constant chatter about the newest drug or the newest test or the newest way to diagnose cancer. The drug companies, the lab test companies, the computer companies are all here to advance their drugs and their tests and their wares. There are receptions, dinners, private meetings all over the place. There are sessions where literally thousands of doctors sit and listen to the top ranked research presentations, which represent the best of our science. There is certainly no lack of buzz, or excitement, or opportunity to learn. This is truly a festival of information about what is new in cancer treatment.

And then I go to a session late on Monday afternoon tucked in a back corner of this vast complex known as McCormick Place and hear a group of presentations reflecting on ten years experience with drugs that we thought blocked blood vessel growth to tumors. There are a couple of hundred people in the room, and the presenters acknowledge that the initial promise of those drugs hasn't been realized. In fact, they note, there are even still controversies over how the drugs actually work. But no one is there to give the story prominence, since it is "yesterday's news."

I can't help but think about the excitement that surrounded these drugs ten years ago when they were to "great new thing." I recall sitting in one of those megasessions where thousands hung on the words that one of these drugs significantly prolonged survival in colorectal cancer. Then, the news was greeted with sustained applause. Today, there is barely a whisper among those listening to the latest information. More...

Yesterday I wrote a blog discussing how meetings like the current annual gathering of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) gives me a chance to think about big picture questions.

Well, there is another side to the experience that is also interesting and important, such as getting information that helps put together pieces of a larger puzzle, and perhaps even gives closure to a nagging question. When you have one of those "Aha!!!" moments, it can truly solidify your thoughts and maybe even save a few lives in the process. In this case, the same presentation that led to yesterday's comments about the emerging complexities of the diagnosis of cancer also produced another enlightening moment.

Dr. Levi Garraway is a highly regarded genomics researcher from Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston who presented a lecture on the topic of how genome sequencing is bringing new insights to the biology and treatment of cancer. As part of his presentation, Dr. Garraway offered information on areas where genomics has already offered us definitive information that has direct implications in understanding cancer.

The #1 item on Dr. Garraway's list was a topic of intense interest to me and several of my skin cancer colleagues.

According to Dr. Garraway, genetic analysis of cancers from patients with melanoma show an overwhelming number (my words) have a signature genetic marker proving their melanomas were caused by ultraviolet (UV) radiation. He elaborated that there have been questions in the scientific literature as to whether or not this was the case, and acknowledged that we have had to rely on relatively indirect research to prove the case that melanoma is caused by UV light. However, he continued, because of genomics it is now essentially "case closed" and essentially proven: melanoma is caused by exposure to UV light. More...

One of the things I enjoy about coming to meetings like the current annual session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is that it gives me a chance to give thought to some larger questions that face cancer care. A presentation I attended Friday afternoon on the impact of genomics on cancer diagnosis and treatment in the future has offered just such an opportunity.

Most of you I suspect give little thought to the actual processes that we use to diagnose cancer. One has a tumor somewhere in the body, the doctors take a specimen, send it to the pathologist and the pathologist makes the diagnosis. Simple and straightforward. Get it done and get on with treatment.

But in fact it isn't so simple and straightforward. And in the world we live in, it is getting more and more complex.

Looking at cancer tissue under the microscope is something that has been done for over a century. More recently, we have seen the advent of special additional tests that tell us for example whether or not a cancer such as breast cancer is hormone sensitive or whether it has other markers such as HER2. We can send specimens of the cancer to a lab to find out whether or not it is more or less aggressive and we can even do tests to find out whether or not--for example--a woman with a breast cancer really needs to take traditional cancer chemotherapy. There are even special stains that can be applied to tumor tissue through a variety of techniques that can further refine the characteristics of a particular tumor and help us determine what kind of cancer it may be, or what subgroup of a family of cancers, such as lymphoma, a particular cancer fits in to.

All of that is well and good, but unfortunately that simple explanation does neither justice to how doctors diagnose cancer, nor does it say much about the problems that can occur in making cancer diagnoses, especially with all of the new tests that are available. I suspect that many physicians will agree that simply looking at the tissue under the microscope just doesn't tell us anymore all the things we should know about a particular individual's cancer. More...

This is the stuff of science fiction, a dream, something you could envision but were skeptical it could be done. But now it has been done, and raises the question of whether we are headed "back to the future" in the treatment of cancer.

The drug in question here is called T-DM1. It is an "antibody drug conjugate" between trastuzumab--which is a monoclonal antibody drug commonly used today to treat selected women with aggressive breast cancer--bound to a derivative of another more traditional cancer chemotherapy drug called maytansine.

Maytansine was a cancer chemotherapy drug evaluated in the 1970's and found to be effective in treating breast cancer, but its side effects were so severe that it could not be used clinically. As a result, it became a laboratory curiosity, banned from patient care.

Trastuzumab is one of the really positive stories of the modern targeted therapy era. It is an antibody drug that has effectively treated women with advanced breast cancer that is positive for HER2, which results in a protein "key" being formed on the surface of certain breast cancer cells. Trastuzumab attaches to that key and aborts the internal processes of the HER2 positive breast cancer cells. About 30% of women with breast cancer are HER2 positive, and those women tend to be younger and have more aggressive forms of the disease. Not only does trastuzumab help treat advanced breast cancer in these women, it has had a remarkable impact on reducing recurrences after primary treatment when  used as part of adjuvant therapy in HER2 positive breast cancer.

But there are serious side effects from the drug combinations that are used with trastuzumab in these circumstances. And then there are the limited treatment options availalable once the HER2 breast cancer recurs, which happens all too frequently.

Fast forward, and the chemistry wizards found a way to bind the trastuzumab to the maytansine derivative. The theory was that the trastuzumab could hone in on the breast cancer cells with the HER 2 receptor, and that the attached chemotherapy drug could find its way into the cancer cell where it could do its damage. And because the delivery of this antibody-drug conjugate was so specific to the breast cancer cells that have this HER2 receptor on their surfaces, a lot of the adverse effects previously seen in using both drugs might be reduced. Think of a cargo rocket making a delivery to the space station, then docking with the space station, and moving the cargo into the space station.

Sounds simple, but it's not. More...

As I write this, I am returning from a trip to Los Angeles where I participated yesterday in a panel discussion on the topic of cancer prevention and early detection. The occasion was the 2012 Global Conference sponsored by the Milken Institute. (If you are not familiar with this conference, it is probably one of the premier finance and investing conferences in the country, if not the world. And the luminaries in attendance--both as attendees and speakers--were a testament to the influence of the Institute and its founder, Michael Milken.)

I was on this panel through an invitation from the Melanoma Research Alliance and its chief executive, Wendy Selig, a former colleague of mine when she was at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.  Other participants included Dr. Stephen Gruber, who is the recently appointed director for the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, Dr. Sancy Leachman who is the director of melanoma and cutaneous oncology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, and Sherry Lansing who is the CEO of a foundation of the same name and a well-known cancer research advocate (she is very well known in the entertainment industry as the former head of Paramount Pictures and one of the people who conceived of Stand Up To Cancer which has done much to transform the landscape of cancer research in this country).

What made this event more interesting was that the audience was made up of those same financial and investing folks I mentioned above. As you might imagine, almost all the sessions were devoted to topics very relevant to their professional interests. The topic of the session I participated in was a bit off the usual target of the meeting. This session was not about investing--it was about health. I must admit that I was surprised at the number of attendees who joined us for our discussion, and even more pleasantly surprised that they remained engaged throughout our 90 minutes.

In what would have otherwise been a fairly typical recitation of facts about how cancer prevention and early detection can reduce the burden and suffering from cancer, a theme emerged: we as professionals are not doing our best in clarifying our advice about the prevention and early detection of cancer through cancer screening.

When you are sitting in a room with some very intelligent people realizing that our lack of clarity and conflicting recommendations on advising people what they need to do about their health, you begin to understand that we are facing a dilemma that could have a significant impact on how successful we are going to be in getting people to take action to reduce the risk of cancer or finding it early. More...

One of the things I enjoy about what I get to do every day--besides working for a wonderful organization, committed volunteers and very special colleagues--is that I am able to get a broad overview of the world of cancer research, diagnosis and treatment, among other topics. Over time, one gets to incorporate that input into a larger vision of where we have been, where we are and where we are headed.

Sometimes that "larger vision" is challenged with new information that makes you think a bit about whether you need to readjust your thinking about the state of cancer research and treatment. Recently I attended a meeting where just such a challenge occurred.

The meeting was convened by the Institute of Medicine, and brought together stakeholders to be informed and discuss the current status of genomics and drug discovery in cancer. To a more specific point, it provided insights from a variety of viewpoints on the current status of genomics as a science and how that science and knowledge will be translated to the care of patients, with the obvious goal of reducing the burden and suffering from cancer.

What I heard--while reinforcing some of my usually optimistic thoughts--actually was troubling. As we look to the future of that translation, it was clear (at least to some of the presenters) we are headed for some speed bumps. How we handle those speed bumps could define the progress we make in cancer treatment over the next decade or even longer. More...

I have a confession to make:

As soon as I finished reading the Annual Report to the Nation yesterday as I was preparing to write my blog, I got up from my desk and took a walk for 20 minutes.

What, might you ask, compelled me to do this?

The answer is what made me take a walk is the same reason I am writing this follow-up commentary to yesterday's blog: Sitting at my desk all day may kill me. It may be doing the same for you. More...

Sometimes science is not as convenient as we would like it to be. We want answers, we want clarity, we want direction--especially when it comes to the treatment of patients with cancer.

So when I read two articles and an editorial released Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, I was struck as to how studies seeking to answer similar questions could come to different conclusions. And, as I struggled to explain the research findings to reporters prior to their release to the general public, I found myself searching for words that would adequately explain the message of the research. Quite frankly, determining that message proved to be difficult. More...

Welcome to the New Year!

And as has been the case for many years in the past, the American Cancer Society takes the New Year opportunity of providing the nation with the latest estimates of cancer incidence and deaths, along with a measure of how well we are doing in reducing the burden of cancer in the United States.

The data is contained in two reports released today by the Society: the consumer oriented Cancer Facts and Figures 2012 and the more scientifically directed Cancer Statistics 2012. Both are available online. 

It is never "good news" to realize that the burden of cancer in this country is immense. And with the country gaining in population and age, the extent of that burden is inevitably going to increase. But this year's report does contain some welcome information, namely that cancer death rates have declined in men and women of every racial/ethnic group over the past 10 years, with the sole (and unfortunate) exception of American Indians/Alaska Natives. In addition, the Society now estimates that a bit more than one million cancer deaths (1,024,400 to be exact) have been avoided since 1991-1992.

That one million number is actually more significant than it seems. Many of the people in that 1 million never heard the words "you have cancer." Maybe they had a colon polyp removed before it became cancerous, maybe they stopped-or never started-smoking. Maybe they had a pap smear that found a pre-cancerous lesion. And then there are the patients who have benefitted from the advances in cancer treatment that have occurred over the past number of decades.

But the 1 million number also means that these are people who have hopefully remained active and engaged in life, loved by their families, productive in their communities. In economic terms, the return on investment on avoiding those one million deaths may likely be incalculable. In human terms, it is an amazing accomplishment. More...

The announcement today from Canada that women should severely curtail their use of screening mammograms for the early detection of breast cancer and discontinue regular clinical examinations and self-breast examinations was interesting in and of its own. But the editorial that accompanied that announcement-from a long-time avowed skeptic of the benefits of screening mammograms-took the debate to a new level. Whether that level was higher or lower is a matter of personal interpretation, but in the editorial was the statement that abandoning breast cancer screening is the most effective way we have to reduce the risks of breast cancer. The statement, highlighted in an accompanying press release (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-11/cmaj-nbc111611.php) was, in short a stunner.

What is even more amazing is that there hasn't been much reaction to that statement. And keep in mind that just two days earlier, the medical journal The Lancet published a letter from an international  group of experts in breast cancer screening who raised the issue of an organized anti-mammography campaign orchestrated in part by the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, headed by none other than the physician who wrote the editorial. But from where I sit-a place that is usually the epicenter of these discussions-there has in fact been very little reaction. No media, no frantic calls, no running to man the barricades. Essentially, nothing.

I find that hard to understand for a story with this degree of impact. Maybe we are all just worn out from the screening debates, after several years of indecision about the benefits of mammograms, the frequency of pap tests, and the big debate recently about whether or not prostate cancer screening really saves lives.

For me and others I know, there is increasing concern that the value of screening for the prevention and early detection of cancer will get lost in the morass of conflicting comments, and that we might be at risk of turning off the public to the benefits of screening for cancer, and perhaps lives will be lost in the process. And that would be shameful. More...