Dr. Len's Cancer Blog

Just because it’s “natural” and looks like it might work to prevent cancer doesn’t mean it will work to prevent cancer.

That’s the message of today’s announcement from the National Cancer Institute and the Southwest Oncology Group (which is a national research group that does clinical trials in cancer) that they are telling the over 35,000 men participating in a prostate cancer prevention trial to stop taking their pills.

Maybe occasionally there is a glimmer of truth to the saying, “I’m from Washington and I’m here to help you.” 

Today, the Social Security Administration unveiled a new initiative to make it easier for people with certain serious medical conditions to get their Social Security disability benefits promptly and with a lot less hassle.

Called “The Compassionate Allowances Initiative,” this new program is due to the efforts of the Hon. Michael Astrue, the Commissioner of Social Security, and his staff to finally bring some streamlining to a process that has been frustratingly and agonizingly slow for so many patients and their families for so many for decades. 

Today, the Lancet—a well respected and authoritative British medical journal known among many for sometimes highlighting controversial topics to promote discussion—included a letter to the editor which concluded that Senator McCain had a 24% chance of surviving 10 years after his treatment for melanoma in 2000.

The author of the letter goes on to say that with regard to future risk, another data source suggested that the risk of dying from melanoma is constant over time, meaning that there is no expectation that the majority of deaths from melanoma occur shortly after the disease is diagnosed.  The author calculated that risk of death at essentially 12% per year for the foreseeable future of a McCain presidency. He then cut that to 6% given the Senator's negative lymph node dissection.

The letter is short, the statistics complicated, and in my personal opinion, they lead the reader to an incorrect conclusion.

Recently I wrote a blog about the effectiveness—or lack thereof--of some of the newer tests and treatments that are being marketed to cancer doctors and their patients.

An article in the current issue of the New England Journal, however, is a step in a better direction, namely a test that appears to help guide us to use our expensive (and effective) targeted therapies for patients who will benefit from them the most.

The test, which measures a change in a gene called K-ras in patients with colorectal cancer, appears to be able to predict which patients with advanced disease have the most chance of benefitting from a drug called cetuximab, which is commonly known as Erbitux.

Presidential elections aren’t the only things that interest pollsters. 

You may not know this, but periodic nationwide surveys done by respected government and private organizations have a substantial influence on how we assess the success of our health care system and how we direct our financial resources to address real or perceived problems.

But I have a longstanding bias that some of these surveys don’t reflect the state of affairs in the United States when it comes to accurately determining how many people in this country actually do what they tell the pollsters they do when it comes to cancer screening.

A research article written by two of my colleagues at the American Cancer Society’s Behavioral Research Center confirms my suspicion: at least in a part of the African American community served by federally qualified community health centers, what the patients tell the pollsters doesn’t fit with what the medical records reveal.

Do you really believe that red wine—and only red wine among the alcoholic beverages—really reduces the risk of lung cancer?

Last week’s research report that smokers who drink red wine had a substantially decreased risk of developing lung cancer drew such a conclusion.  And the media climbed right on the bandwagon.

But I am not so certain that we can reasonably make that connection, and would suggest that until the data is replicated with an even larger study we should be cautious in suggesting that smokers should suddenly switch their adult beverage of choice to red wine from what I suspect is the more typical beer, bourbon and scotch.

We are now aware of where the excesses of the financial system have led us.  But I am also becoming increasingly concerned about excesses that I am seeing in claims regarding cancer research, diagnostics and treatment.

I have talked frequently about what I call the “hope and hype” cycle that was so prevalent when I started my oncology career back in the early 1970’s.  Lots of promises were made about miracles just around the corner, and unfortunately I was left to explain to patients and their families that these were more the fabric of dreams than based on solid expectations.

I am now seeing situations where claims are being made that to me are reminiscent of that “hope and hype cycle” which was so prevalent back in the 1970’s and 80’s.

I want to bring to your attention a correction which may be minor, but nonetheless important if you are considering getting the breast cancer genetic/prediction test discussed in my blog on October 8.

I noted in the blog that the cost of the test was $625.  My statement was based on a press release issued by the company.  I have the statement in my hand, and the price is clearly $625.

When the Washington Post reported on the test, it said the cost was $1,625.  Obviously, this is considerably greater than I wrote in my blog.

We are entering exciting times when it comes to the impact of genetics on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. 

However, my colleagues’ discussions over the past 24 hours about a new test that claims to predict a woman’s risk of breast cancer have me thinking these exciting times may be more like the Old Wild West where “anything goes” than some meaningful movement forward in our battle against cancer.

I knew I was in trouble this past Friday when I walked into our American Cancer Society offices in Atlanta and immediately met one of my male colleagues who was bedecked in a bright pink tie and a blue and pink striped shirt.  Guess I missed the memo telling us that Friday was a “Think Pink” day here at ACS.

But that wasn’t the worst of it. 

What really got me going during the day was a series of emails that crossed my computer screen describing a number of promotions that tied the “think pink” theme to a variety of products that in my opinion probably don’t belong on anyone’s list for fighting breast cancer.