Dr. Len's Cancer Blog

An article in the current issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute provides a clue as to how many skin cancers could be prevented in those at high risk by using drugs that are common and readily available.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in the United States today.  In 2008, over 1 million people will be diagnosed with either basal cell (BCC) or squamous cell skin cancers (SCC) or malignant melanoma. 

Basal and squamous cell cancers are very common, usually easily treated, and infrequently lead to death.  Melanoma, on the other hand, is less common but more malignant and unfortunately if not caught early can spread throughout the body. 

All of these cancers have been tied to sun exposure, which is one of the reasons the American Cancer Society and many other health-related organizations urge people to practice sun-safe behaviors.

You learn as a doctor to never say never. 

This past Wednesday I was a member of a panel that was brought together by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to review the clinical indications for using PET scans in cancer.

While trying to make decisions regarding the effectiveness and benefits of PET scans in various cancers, I made a discovery that was a surprise to me: something that I previously thought was a far out theory for cancer treatment may in fact be plausible after all.

Today marks the American Cancer Society’s 2008 Great American Eat Right Challenge. 

It is a time to remind all of us of the importance of healthy eating, healthy weight, and healthy exercise in reducing our risk of cancer.  It is also a day to “call to action” the American people to take what they know and finally do something about their ever increasing waistlines.

I guess I get a bit cynical from time to time about this subject.  The results of a survey recently completed by the Society don’t do much to improve my frame of mind on this topic. 

It appears that tackling our diets and getting off our duffs just isn’t at the top-of-mind for many of us.

A study in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine addresses a question that has interested me for some time: does vitamin D really reduce the risk of death for the general population?

The study, from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, examined data from a national health survey performed in the United States from 1988 through 1994.

The studies did back up the claim that vitamin D deficiency is associated with an increased risk of death in the general population, but did not show that it reduced deaths from all types of cancer. 

Perhaps even more important to me was an observation in the report that suggested there may indeed be an increase in death rates for women who have higher levels of vitamin D in their blood.

A study just released in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is getting a lot of media attention.

The research, from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas took a look at what happened to about 2800 women with breast cancer who were treated at the center from 1985 through 2001.  All of the women had primary breast cancer of various stages, and all of them had some form of adjuvant therapy.

The goal of the study was to find out how many women had their breast cancer recur 5 years or more after they completed their adjuvant therapy.  What it also pointed out, to me at least, was that some commonly held beliefs about the outlook for women with breast cancer aren’t always correct.

This week’s article in the Annals of Internal Medicine about the benefits and risks of screening for prostate cancer is certainly going to fuel the debate about whether or not men younger that the age of 75 should be routinely screened for this disease. 

However, for men 75 and over, according to the government experts, the question has been answered: don’t bother.

But is that the best answer for you?

I returned from vacation yesterday to a rash of comments and concerns about the use of cell phones and whether they caused cancer.

The news stories picked up on a memo written by the director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, where he advised the faculty and staff of the cancer center that he was concerned there was an increased risk of cancer linked to cell phone use based on his review of the evidence.

When I took a more careful look at the memo and the supporting information, I didn’t find any new science on the subject.  It was essentially one more person adding their opinion that there was a risk to using cell phones. 

What the memo didn’t say was that there are others—equally expert—who do not agree with the conclusions that cell phones cause cancer.

How often have you heard the phrase, “If the world were perfect…?”

We don’t live in a perfect world, but a recently published study in the medical journal Circulation shows what would happen if we lived in a perfect world when it comes to the impact of universal, effective medical prevention on the incidence of cardiovascular disease.

The heart of the question is what would happen if we did everything right as a country when it comes to undertaking preventive strategies, in this case for cardiac disease, and would we save any money if we did so?

There is something that fascinates the public about the possibility of treating cancer with a vaccine.  Perhaps that explains why so many abstracts and journal articles about the latest cancer vaccine research find their way into our newspapers, magazines and television reports.

A research article appearing today in the British medical journal The Lancet describes a clinical trial which investigated whether a vaccine called vitespen could improve the survival of patients with primary kidney cancer. 

Unfortunately, the study points out—yet once again—that we may be hopeful that cancer vaccines will work, but we are a long way from success.

What is even more startling about this report is the editorial which discusses the results.  The author of the editorial made some not-so- kind comments about how vaccine companies distort reports of vaccine trials, and how investigators make inappropriate claims regarding their research.

There is a revolution going on in prostate cancer surgery over the past several years since the introduction of robot assisted surgery in 2000. But the question that has not been answered to date in a meaningful way is whether or not all the hype about the robot is in fact born out by the evidence.

A recent article in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, along with an accompanying editorial, suggests that the advantages of the robot may be real in some respects, but may not be so great when it comes to the most important outcome, which is whether or not a man’s prostate cancer is effectively treated.