Dr. Len's Cancer Blog

There are some things that are hard to believe, like a prediction that Martians will land in Atlanta tomorrow.

Even harder to accept is the fact that some folks, including people in positions of substantial responsibility--such as mayors, governors and other politicians—don’t believe that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful.

It is, and the evidence is very clear that exposure to second-hand smoke causes illness and death.  

One of the remaining issues regarding the harms of second-hand smoke has been the question of how much lung cancer risk exists for non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace.

It was a small statistic in a straightforward report.  But its impact and implications are potentially huge:

From 2000 to 2005, the percentage of women age 40 and over who received a mammogram within the previous two years fell from 76.4% to 74.6%, or 1.8%.

1.8% doesn’t seem like much, so why all the fuss?

Because in real terms, this means that thousands of women may have undetected breast cancer and will potentially miss the opportunity to save their lives.

Last February I wrote a blog about the decrease in the number of people dying from cancer in the United States from 2002 to 2003.

This was the first time since records have been kept that such a decline was ever seen, despite the fact that we have a population in this country that is growing and becoming older.

One of my conclusions from that posting was the following:

 “Probably the most important ‘next question’ is whether we believe this decline in the number of cancer deaths will continue.  The obvious answer is that we hope so.  The honest answer is we don’t know.”

Now we do know the answer to that question, and we can say with certainty that, for the second consecutive year, the absolute number of people dying from cancer in this country has continued to decrease.

And, my friends, that is wonderful news.

I want to follow-up on the blog I posted earlier today about the Erbitux announcement.

No, I haven’t heard from the company, so there is no further information to report as to the effectiveness of Erbitux in the “first line” treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

What is interesting is that I am not the only one having some difficulty today about how companies report the information from their clinical trials.

How pharmaceutical companies and the media handle stories of importance to cancer patients can have great impact, particularly on the emotions and decisions that patients and their families face when trying to make a decision on what is the best treatment is for their particular illness.

Imagine my surprise today when I heard a headline on a national TV show this morning that one of the newer targeted therapy drugs had proven effective in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, and I couldn’t get the facts behind the news.

How many times have you or someone you know complained about the time you spend in the doctor’s office waiting for an appointment or a test of some sort?

There are even folks who let it be known that their time is valuable, too—and if the doctor can’t keep the appointment on time, maybe they (the patient) should send the doctor a bill for their wasted time in the office.

An article in this week’s Journal of the National Cancer Institute takes that concept one step further, and shows that for cancer patients, at least, the time spent in the doctor’s office, the hospital, and getting to and from various appointments has real value. 

In fact, the article suggests that if we invested more effort in finding cancers early and developing better treatments for cancers, more people would be able to spend more of their time doing what they would rather be doing that having to sit in an office or lying in a hospital bed getting medical care.