Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Hospitals are adopting a policy to improve their finances: making medical care contingent on upfront payments. The move was prompted by a spike in patients who don’t pay their bills, but the uninsured and underinsured are likely to be hardest hit.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
(Blogger Note: Not cancer related but this is wayyy cool - the power of social media hard at work)James Karl Buck helped free himself from an Egyptian jail with a one-word blog post from his cell phone.
Submitted by Dr.Kattlove’s Cancer Blog
Yesterday, I read the obituary of Jerome Grossman M.D., a man I knew over 40 years ago. He was my intern on the Medical service at Montefiore Hospital in the Bronx. Jerry then left Montefiore for Boston after that year to pursue a career in computers and medicine and became well known, not only for computerizing medical care, but also as an expert in hospital administration. He died of kidney cancer.
I have lost many close friends to cancer, perhaps a sign of my advancing age. Cancer is mainly a disease of older people and the leading cause of death for people under the age of 85. Over half of all cases are diagnosed in people over age 65 and half of all deaths from cancer happen in people over the age of 73. And, we are all living to these ages and past them, because of the cardiologists, who have kept us living longer with their cholesterol-lowering statins, aggressive treatment of our hypertension and quick repairs if our coronary arteries clog.
I just checked out some graphs the National Cancer Institute (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/sections.html). The cardiologists have been great for those of us older folk, The death rate from heart disease is plummeting. But we haven’t seen much change in our chance of dying of cancer. In younger people, the news is good. Their death rate from cancer is dropping. But, the numbers are small – from 85 per 100,000 to 60 per 100,000. For those of us in the over 65 bracket, there hasn’t been any major change and the numbers are much higher – 1000 per 100,000. This translates into a percentage of one percent per year. So, as the number of old people increase, so will the number of people dying from cancer.
The Susan Komen Foundation, an organization dedicated to fighting breast cancer, has as one of its goals, ending the disease altogether. That isn’t going to happen. As we age, our cells begin to fail us, develop quirks in their DNA, and lose control over their growth regulation. Ever have a stuck accelerator pedal in your car? Cancer is the same thing, but slower. So unless we stop taking our statins and anti-hypertensives and return to eating steak for dinner every night, cancer is going to be our most likely mode of exit from this world.
This isn’t a pleasant thought. Of course having good genes is helpful, but not in our power to change. But, you can help put off cancer by getting your screenings, eating well (and less), and exercising.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Social media on the Internet are empowering, engaging, and educating health care consumers and providers. While consumers use social media — including social networks, personal blogging, wikis, video-sharing, and other formats — for emotional support, they also heavily rely on them to manage health conditions.The Internet has evolved from the information-retrieval of “Web 1.0” to “Web 2.0,” which allows people who are not necessarily technologically savvy to generate and share content. The collective wisdom harnessed by social media can yield clinical insights well beyond the knowledge of any single patient or physician. The outcome of this development is “Health 2.0” — a new movement that challenges the notion that health care happens only between a single patient and doctor in an exam room.Using examples, this report describes how the Web is becoming a platform for convening people with shared concerns and creating health information that is more relevant to consumers. Social networks, ranging from MySpace to specific disease-oriented sites, are proliferating so rapidly that new services are already under development to knit communities together to enable health consumers to move more efficiently through the networks.The report details how innovative collaborations online are changing the way patients, providers, and researchers learn about therapeutic regimens and disease management. It examines the benefits and concerns regarding Health 2.0 and it also includes an extensive listing of health media resources.According to the report, the growing demand for transparency and openness will drive the evolution of social media in health. A growing array of tools will become available that are increasingly mobile, as well as personal health data storage in commercial products like Microsoft Health Vault, Google Health, and others. The author concludes that the ongoing demands of a consumer-driven health marketplace will inspire innovation in applications that integrate clinical, financial, and ratings information.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Young adult cancer survivor Tina Jezuit – i[2]y regional co-chair for Eastern Pennsylvania – has had more than her fair share of health problems. The 31-year-old Jessup resident has dealt with a diagnosis of osteo-sarcoma in 1988, which left her with a chemotherapy-damaged heart. After suffering a stroke in February of 2007, she was rendered cognitively impaired and unable to walk. After 14 months of intense therapy, the signs of her past battle are remarkably minimal.In addition to a small leg brace she wears for balance, she proudly sports a slashing red scar on the left side of her upper chest, the insertion point of a defibrillator and pacemaking device implanted just above her heart. She named the device “Charlie,” after the voice of Charlie on the TV show “Charlie’s Angels.”“Every morning I say, ‘Good morning, Charlie,’” she said, “and he says, ‘Good morning, Angel,’ by letting me know that everything’s working OK in there.”When health issues forced her to retire from her job at the Social Security Administration office on Lackawanna Avenue, Ms. Jezuit dedicated herself full time to cancer and heart-health advocacy and awareness. She’s in the process of coordinating numerous local benefits, including “Cancerpalooza,” an event that will benefit several cancer organizations, and a memorial scholarship named after her paternal grandfather, Stanley A. Jezuit Sr.She also serves as a local team leader for the American Heart Association’s Heart Walk.Two seasons.Her year, she joked, is divided into two seasons: “heart season” and “cancer season.”
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
i[2]y’er Josef Eliezrie recovers from leukemia after a donation from a very similar Israeli man. Great story! Stupid cancer!.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Two studies showed no memory impairments as a result of chemotherapy.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!
Cure! Cure! Cure!
By Matthew Zachary
Life is about choice. Remission is not a cure. Survivorship is all that matters.
So the new hotness in cancer care is young adults affected by cancer, aged 15-39. Why? Because survival rates have not improved in 30 years (source: NCI, Closing The Gap) and, for the large part, *all* of the strides, progress and advancements we’ve made since Elvis died do not benefit this oft-forgotten orphan generation of patients, their families and caregivers. Granted it’s only 6% of all incidence and 10% of all survivorship (source: NCI SEER 2006) but we’re people too. And we vote. (For Sanjaya perhaps but we vote, dammit!)
To point out a possibly lesser understood factoid, it should be noted for the record that this population of “young adults” encompasses not just people diagnosed in their late teens, 20s or 30s, but long-term childhood cancer survivors as well, who comprise almost 1/3 (roughly 350,000) of the current young adult survivorship population (~1,100,000) currently living with, through and beyond cancer in the United States. In fact, if you add to this, current boomers and seniors who *were* diagnosed under 40, we’re looking at about 3M people.
Why include long-term pediatrics? Because they’re people too!
Seriously, though… while progress in pediatric cancer has been made in the past 20 years, it has also failed miserably and is only now – in contribution, support and execution of recent staggeringly shocking public health reports – getting it’s head in the game and seeing cancer no longer as a death sentence but for what it really is for children; a life sentence with no real “cure” in the traditional “magic bullet fairy dust” sense.
People like to say “cure with consequence” or “cure’s collateral damage” but, for many long-term pediatric survivors, when the doctor says, “You’re cured. Go home.” - that’s not the end of the story – a euphemism I use repeatedly.
This life sentence is, of course, better than the death sentence it used to be but with progress comes consequence. Article after article in national press continues to expose the notion that “cure” is not the end of the story. Yet somehow, that message isn’t seeping down to the general public who continue to let us survivors know as a matter of course that “It’s Over! You’re Finished! Get on with your life and stop complaining!” Ain’t that the truth?
Survivors in their late teens, 20s and 30s, whether you’re a long-term survivor or newly diagnosed, are not like Aunt Sally and Grandpa Sam, who successfully completed their 30-year studied, age-appropriate, clinically-trialed-to-death adjuvant cancer treatment, slapped on their pink ribbons, free t-shirts and wristbands, raced/walked/strode for a cure, sat around a pale hospital support room in a circle of chairs with other boomers and seniors of their same cancer type and Kum Ba Yah’d themselves in perpetuity to closure.
No, we’re different. Much, much different.
So here we are. Young adults are finally the buzz in onco-town. Woo hoo! Now what? No one knows. It’s one thing to put out all these great - but scary as hell - public health reports about these gross inequities facing young adults across all verticals within the cancer continuum but it’s an entirely different thing to act on them.
The aforementioned “cure” which now appears for many to be more about quality of life and not quantity of life is changing the way we think about cancer and demanding semantic accountability on behalf of the organizations who keep promising us Disney World in a syringe. This Cinderella “cure” is – now more than ever (think how Pinkishly nauseating October is getting) – shoved down our throats, promoted and preached by “establishment” cancer groups who either (1) don’t get it, (2) don’t want to level with their donors, (3) don’t know how to talk truth to the public or (4) live in a multicolored, perfume-scented and robust fantasy land with unicorns and rainbows like it is the year 1977.
Racing for the Cure. Relaying for the Cure. Golfing for the Cure.
Cure! Cure! Cure!
The problem is that no one defines what “cure” means.
I’ve said this over and over and over and no one has stepped up to the plate. Get in the “hot seat” and tell us! It’s almost an embarrassing comment on a broken system that continues to dupe the ever more financially compromised pockets of the American donor.
Yes we want a “cure.” Who doesn’t want to see epidemic diseases marginalized, eradicated and tossed the way of polio and small pox. (What do you mean polio and small pox are still around?) Crap. We’re screwed.
Well, at least if they’re still here, are they killer diseases or, like allergies, asthma, diabetes, glaucoma and HIV, are they chronic conditions that enable us to not die right away but perhaps enjoy a somewhat compromised-yet-tenable quality of life? They’re not? Good.
So how is this any different than cancer? It’s not. Cancer is a chronic condition. This is not just my personal opinion - it’s public health data.
Cancer is now actually considered a chronic condition by the National Cancer Institute and the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.
Whoop dee doo. Does this matter? Somewhat. Should you care? Maybe.
The definition of chronic condition means “no cure.” Live with it, make the most out of it and focus on quality and not quantity.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Getting cancer and not dying is not a “cure.” Surviving cancer only to hope you don’t get it again (whether a recurrence or secondary) is not a “cure.” Being disease free is not a “cure.” Which brings up the elephant in the room and a topic surely destined for an entirely different tirade – is that we continue to treat the symptoms of cancer but never actually address why we get it in the first place. Environment, pesticides, hormones, pollutants, toxins, blah blah blah. If you ask me, cancer is here to stay. It’s not something we can stop, only something we can manage.
And on that positive note, I shall conclude this tirade with an excerpted quote of a partially-great article published in 2005 by author Mike Adams entitled, “The Cure Con: how you’re being deceived by charities that claim to be racing for the cure for cancer and other chronic diseases.”
“Everywhere you go, someone asks you for money to help find the cure for some disease. It’s the race for the cure! It’s the telethon for the cure! It’s the walk or run for a cure! At grocery stores, cashiers ask if you want to donate a dollar to help find the cure. Other retailers want to sell you fashion-minded colored bracelets that raise money to find the cure. There’s always someone who wants your money in exchange for the hope that your dollar will somehow help them “find a cure” for some awful disease.
“I have a very big question to ask about all of this. This has literally been going on for decades. Researchers have been searching for a cure for cancer since the late 1960s, and for other diseases since at least the 1970s. At that time, they said cures were right around the corner; it was just a matter of a few more dollars; then they would have the cures available. Well, here we are, 30 or 40 years later, with still no cures. We’ve been running this race for decades, funding it with literally billions of dollars. If all this money has gone to the race to find cures for these diseases, then where are the cures?”
Stupid Cancer. Survivors rule. Remission is not a cure.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by Dr.Kattlove’s Cancer Blog
Many oncologists believe that we can cure more patients’ cancers if we can just give the patients high enough doses of chemotherapy. For years, it has been a maxim in oncology that the more chemotherapy you give, the more cancer you kill. A colleague of mine, who didn’t believe this, compared this theory to the situation of a person in a foreign country trying to make himself understood by shouting instead of speaking the native’s language.
This week’s Journal of the National Cancer Institute carried an article written by European investigators that confirmed my colleague’s skepticism. The researchers treated patients with a type of lung cancer called small cell cancer, with very high doses of chemotherapy and compared them with a group that received standard doses. By the end of 4 years, over 80% of patients in either group were dead. The only thing the high dose patients got out of their treatment was more toxicity.
Small cell lung cancer is a type of lung cancer that is very different from the garden variety that we usually see. It comes from a different cell than the typical lung cancer (adenocarcinoma or squamous cell) and only about 10-15% of lung cancer patients have this type. It is also special in that it almost always spreads from the moment it begins. This means that surgery is generally not helpful, because it will likely come back somewhere outside the lung. Treatment is usually with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Although the cancer usually comes back in spite of all this, some patients whose cancer is found early are cured.
My colleague’s sense that you need to use chemotherapy that “spoke” to the cancer reminds me of an elderly patient I saw with small cell lung cancer. He certainly would not have been a match for high doses of chemotherapy so I treated him with the gentlest regimen that in good conscience, I could give him. After 2 years, there was no sign of the cancer. The chemotherapy spoke the right language to his cancer.
High dose chemotherapy was once the darling of the field. About 15 years ago many patients with breast cancer were treated with massive doses of drugs. The doses of the drugs were so high that the patients needed to have their bone marrow cells saved and given back after the treatment or they would have died of bone marrow failure. Physicians and patients alike were so passionate about the procedure that insurance companies were sued if they refused to pay for this very costly ($100,000) procedure. Then the clinical trials were completed and showed that high dose chemotherapy was no better than the standard regimens.
Still, hope springs eternal in oncology –after all without hope, many of us would have dropped out of the field. Now, breast cancer patients are given “dose dense” treatment. This means that the patients receive standard doses of chemotherapy, just more often. So far, over 3-4 years, it looks like this treatment has a slight edge over conventional treatment, but at a big expense in both money and toxicity.
Is this the final answer? A little better – or perhaps not better at all?
I suspect my skeptical colleague would say that maybe we’re not speaking louder, just speaking faster and that doesn’t work either.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
The trend around treating skin care side effects from cancer treatment is growing:
About 64% of all people diagnosed with cancer will be alive 5 years after diagnosis (versus 53% in the 80s and 50% in the 70s).
All types of cancer treatment cause skin side effects, including radiation, chemotherapy, and new “targeted” therapies, like EGFRs:
* “Chemotherapy damages rapidly diving cells, a hallmark of cancer cells. In the process, healthy cells that are also rapidly dividing - such as skin cells - are also damaged.” (Women & Cancer, Spring 2006, “How Your Skin Responds to Cancer Treatment” by Dayna Deuter, p. 35)
* “About two weeks after radiation therapy begins, the skin begins to redden and becomes very dry and itchy. Occasionally, it may peel…” (Informed Decisions: The Complete Book of Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Recovery, 2nd ed., Harmon J. Eyre, MD, et. al., p. 186.)
Since the onset of cancer care, there has never been a skin care line specifically created to ease the effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy until now…introducing Lindi Skin. Developed by CEO Lindy Snider and a team of doctors and scientists - and with the input of cancer patient focus groups, Lindi Skin has pioneered a new category in skincare. Combining the latest medical information with innovative skin care ingredients, the brand delivers one-of-a-kind superior products aimed at infusing a bit of control back into patients’ lives.
With its mission to meet the overwhelming needs of people in treatment, Lindi Skin develops highly effective products that will help patients go through their most troublesome time. Specifically formulated with a proprietary blend of natural ingredients that calm, cool, pamper and hydrate cancer-compromised skin, Lindi Skin helps to restore skin to a more normal appearance.
The collection of soothing balms, body washes and lotions, face serums, eye hydrators, lip balms and skin coolers was created to help improve patients’ quality of life - both physically and emotionally.
“These products, although great for any skin type, are specifically designed to help those in cancer treatment,” explains Snider. “Patients tell us things like, ‘just because I have cancer, it doesn’t mean I stopped being me!’” Lindy continues, “Patients are in treatment because they believe they will survive. They want to live as normally as possible. We help them do that and give them tools they need to fight back.”
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Everywhere you go, someone asks you for money to help find the cure for some disease. It’s the race for the cure! It’s the telethon for the cure! It’s the walk or run for a cure! At grocery stores, cashiers ask if you want to donate a dollar to help find the cure. Other retailers want to sell you fashion-minded colored bracelets that raise money to find the cure. There’s always someone who wants your money in exchange for the hope that your dollar will somehow help them “find a cure” for some awful disease. I have a very big question to ask about all of this. This has literally been going on for decades. Researchers have been searching for a cure for cancer since the late 1960s, and for other diseases since at least the 1970s. At that time, they said cures were right around the corner; it was just a matter of a few more dollars; then they would have the cures available. Well, here we are, 30 or 40 years later, with still no cures. We’ve been running this race for decades, funding it with literally billions of dollars. If all this money has gone to the race to find cures for these diseases, then where are the cures?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Pennsylvania Patient Builds Machine Harnessing Radio Waves To Attack CellsFor most, a cancer diagnosis can be devastating. But, as CBS News contributor Benno Schmidt reported on The Early Show Monday, for John Kanzius, it was a call to action. Kanzius isn’t a doctor. He doesn’t even have a college degree. Yet, observes Schmidt, the device he invented has impressed a notable researcher and inspired his hometown, Erie, Pa., to the point where it gave him a key to the city in April. Asked by Schmidt what made him think he could cure cancer, Kanzius replied with a laugh, “What made me think I couldn’t cure cancer? Nobody else was doing it!” A former radio and TV engineer and one-time station owner, Kanzius, who suffers from leukemia, hated his chemotherapy and saw its devastating effect on others. “I ran into some of the same patients over and over again and, to see their smiles disappear within a few weeks, and then watch their hair disappear and then, clinging to their mothers asking, ‘What’s wrong with me?’ was heartbreaking.”
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by Dr.Kattlove’s Cancer Blog
When I was starting out in medicine, I often heard people say about someone who developed cancer that she was a nice person and that’s why she was struck by this devastating disease. I’ve also heard other factors invoked as contributing, such as stress, anger, pessimism, or some other personality factor that could lead to cancer.
In my experience, none of this held true. My practice consisted of nice people, rotten people (rare, I admit), passive people, aggressive people, optimists, pessimists – you get the picture. But I admit this isn’t a very scientific survey. Still I remained convinced that personality played no role in whether a person developed cancer and her survival from this disease.
I distinctly remember a young man, a dentist with a cancer of the pancreas. This wasn’t your typical pancreatic cancer, but a less aggressive type called islet cell cancer. But, it was rather large, and after all, cancer is cancer. His wife and he were sure his positive attitude and fighting spirit would carry him through his battle with the cancer, and that he would live to see his children grow up. I wasn’t so optimistic. It was a big cancer and seemed to have grown quickly. Unfortunately, I was right. Aggressive surgery and chemotherapy along with his fighting spirit were no match for the cancer and after several months, he succumbed.
I am reminded of this by an elaborate study just published by some Dutch researchers. They wanted to see if a woman’s personality affected her chances of getting breast cancer. In 1989 and 1990, they sent out personality questionnaires to 25,000 women living in Nijmegen, Holland. Nearly 10,000 of them answered the questionnaires about traits such as anger, anxiety, optimism, pessimism, depression, etc. Then they followed the women until 2003.
During that period, 217 of the women developed breast cancer. When the researchers looked at the personality profiles of these women compared to those that didn’t develop cancer, they found no difference. Their personality profiles were identical. No difference in pessimism, optimism, anger, depression, whatever.
This is good news. If you get breast cancer, it’s not because of your personality. Nothing you need to change.
On the other hand, if you want to lower your risk, it would help to keep your weight down - even if it makes you a little grumpy.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
ORANGE - Yosef Eliezrie, 21, knew he wouldn’t survive leukemia without a perfect match.A year and a half ago, a precious container of bone marrow arrived at Children’s Hospital of Orange County from an anonymous donor and Eliezrie underwent a transplant.Today, Eliezrie returned to the hospital, this time in good health and with a new friend – Moshe Price, his bone marrow donor all the way from Israel.Eliezrie of Yorba Linda and Moshe of Jerusalem discovered they had much in common when they spoke by telephone after waiting the required one year to communicate.Both are Orthodox Jews and study the Torah as full-time students. They are only a couple of years apart in age.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
University of Mississippi researchers have concluded a study that indicates an ingredient in green tea dramatically inhibits breast cancer growth — in mice. The antioxidant EGCG (epigallocatechin-3- gallate) helps prevent cells from becoming damaged and prematurely aged and the combination of green tea and EGCG might be beneficial in fighting some cancers.
Senior researcher Dr Gu stated, “In this study we have demonstrated that the frequent ingestion of EGCG significantly inhibits breast tumor growth, VEGF expression and tumor angiogenesis in mice. We believe our findings will help lead to new therapies for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer in women.” For more information about the study, read Ingredient Found in Green Tea Significantly Inhibits Breast Cancer Growth in Female Mice.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Looking to the future and haunted by the recent past, breast cancer survivor Kylie Minogue told a Sunday Mirror reporter she dreams of getting married and becoming a mother amid worries about a cancer recurrence.
Diagnosed with breast cancer three years ago, she celebrates her 40th birthday this year and says of surviving breast cancer,
“It’s not over. The ‘voyage’ doesn’t end suddenly. That’s why it’s so difficult to talk about it.”
With time, fears about the threat of cancer recurrence do fade slightly, but thoughts of cancer seem to forever lurk just beyond the dark shadow of the mind. Even though it is difficult to talk about, talk is what keeps the light on. For the entire interview, read Cancer battle not over: Kylie Minogue.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
Eating 1.8oz (50g) of processed meat a day - the equivalent of one sausage or three rashers of bacon - raises the likelihood of the cancer by a fifth, research shows.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
A 7 year old with cancer was robbed of his bag, containing his PSP, medication, and homework, on the day before his birthday, while on his way to chemotherapy. Its times like this where I hate the world.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
NEW YORK - Black children with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymph system also known as Hodgkin’s lymphoma, appear to be more likely to have relapses compared with their white counterparts. However, the overall 5-year survival rate is essentially the same for both groups, researchers report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.Dr. Monika L. Metzger of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and colleagues point out that some studies have indicated that black children who have childhood cancers may have a survival disadvantage compared with white children.To investigate further, the researchers conducted a review of 262 white and 65 black patients. Sixty percent of the black children came from poor areas compared with 45 percent of the whites; and 32 percent of the black children were covered by private insurance compared with 50 percent of the whites.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by Dr.Kattlove’s Cancer Blog
A few days ago I reported on a study of women who needed breast radiation after lumpectomy for breast cancer. The study found that 15 days of radiation was just as effective as the traditional 25 days, making it possible for women to get on with their lives earlier.
But there is a technique that gets the treatment over with in 5 days. It is called brachytherapy (brachy from Greek meaning short). Several doctors used this approach when I was in practice. They would place thin tubes through the lumpectomy site and then fill the tubes with radioactive seeds. This would deliver radiation to the local area of the original tumor without involving the entire breast. And, it was over in a few days.
Sounds good, but I never sent my patients for this because the doctors doing the procedure never had any data that showed whether it really worked. Nor did they tally up the complications like infections, scarring, pain, etc. So I opted for the traditional approach of 25 days of external beam (radiation from outside the breast) although now, I would go for the 15-day technique.
But in my report of a few days ago, I neglected to mention the hot new brachytherapy technique called Mammosite. This is a device that is made by the Cytyc Corporation and approved by the FDA in 2002. It was approved because the FDA thought it was just like the brachytherapy devices that were used when I was in practice.
Unfortunately, just like those brachytherapy devices of my practice days, there are no truly scientific data on either the effectiveness or toxicity of Mammosite. Yes, there are several reports on handfuls of patients who received this treatment and did well but there have been infections, scarring, and recurrences and we don’t know if Mammosite is better, worse or the same as the traditional external beam approach.
But, Mammosite is popular, simply, because it is quick – 10 treatments – two a day for five days. And it is simple. After surgery, a balloon is inserted into the lumpectomy cavity and filled with salt water. The balloon is connected to a thin tube that extends outside the breast. Twice a day, for five days, the radiation oncologist puts a radioactive seed through the catheter into the expanded balloon for a short time and then removes it.
Is it safer than traditional radiation? Who knows? I searched the literature as best I could and found no articles where thousands or even hundreds of women were studied in trials comparing Mammosite and traditional therapy. In fact, I found no trials where even a few women were studied this way. Maybe there are some in progress. But none have been published.
So, would I recommend Mammosite? Not if you are my patient.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by Dr.Kattlove’s Cancer Blog
One of the most challenging complaints from patients in my practice came from older women who had been treated for breast cancer. Their complaint; “Dr. Kattlove, I can’t stand these hot flashes anymore”. And I would say, “Well, you know, hormone replacement therapy isn’t recommended in women who have had breast cancer”.
Not good enough. These women were miserable. And so, I, as well as some of my partners would slip these women their hormones. Sometimes I felt like a crack dealer. Still feeling a little guilty (although none of these women suffered any ill effects and were definitely grateful) even after leaving practice, I was cheered by a study published in 1997 that found no increase in cancer recurrence in over 50,000 women who had received hormones after treatment for breast cancer.
But alas, that was what we call an observational study. There was no control group of women who didn’t get hormones. The study authors just compared their results with national averages of what should be expected. But we know that isn’t the most scientific way to study an issue.
So, in 1997 two groups of researchers, one from Great Britain and the other from Sweden did the study the right way. They prescribed hormones for half of their patients with treated breast cancer and hot flashes and no hormones for the other half with the same history. And wouldn’t you know it, the British group found that the women on hormones had a higher rate of breast cancer recurrence, while the Swedes found no difference in recurrence rate between the two groups. Go figure.
But here is the good news. Just this week, the Brits published a second paper with a longer follow-up of their two groups. They still found more breast cancer recurrences in the women who got the hormones, but it turns out that most of the recurrences were local – in the breast - and could be handled easily. When it came to spread outside the breast and death, there was no difference between the two groups.
Now this doesn’t completely reassure us that hormones are entirely safe for women who have had breast cancer. An excess of local recurrences is still a problem, even though it only occurred in the British study. But, knowing this and the results of the Swedish study we can at least say to women that hormone therapy won’t kill them.
Many of my patients would have replied that they were already dying from the hot flashes. The risk from hormones was no big deal.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
The Stupid Cancer Fund is a national campaign supporting the I’m Too Young For This! Cancer Foundation and it’s mission to end isolation and improve quality of life for young adults affected by cancer. The past 30 years of “progress” have failed our generation so there’s no reason to think the next 30 years will be any different unless change happens now. We’re too young for this! Are you in? Take care of your own and give!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
Submitted by The Stupid Cancer Blog
A few days of fasting might help protect patients from some unpleasant and dangerous side-effects of cancer chemotherapy, researchers reported on Tuesday. The researchers stressed that people should not try this on their own yet but said the findings might lead to a way to use chemotherapy to more effectively kill tumors while sparing healthy cells
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
