Fortune magazine

[beckyg]

Curtis picked up Fortune magazine yesterday at Wal-Mart--the cover article is something like "Why we are losing the war on cancer, and how to win." In some ways it is a pretty depressing article--it basically says that apart from a few kinds if cancers (mostly childhood cancers and leukemias) most of the improvement in survivial rates across the board for cancer in the last 30 years has come from improved detection. In 1970, about 50% of people diagnosed with cancer lived 5 years. Now that number is up to 63%, with most of the difference being people diagnosed earlier than they used to be.

However, the interesting part was what was said about how to fix the problem. The article says that the real problem is how research is funded--that researchers get grants for studies that answer very narrow questions . The funding just isn't there for people who want to look at cancer systemically, so this is why clinical trials and so many of the drugs coming out are about incremental changes--this drug shirnks tumors in 12% of patients rather than in 10% like the stabdard therapy. Being in academia myslef, I know very well this is the way researtch money goes out--agencies funding research like hard science to come out, with all the loose ends tied up, and you can't do that if your scope is too big. But they point out in the article that we didn't make the strides we have on the last 30 years against heart disease by tying up all the loose ends before changing treatment. We know that not everyone with high cholesterol or hypertension will have a heart attack, but we treat those things because they are big risk factors. We don't do the same with cancer--nothing changes until the science is "well understood".

The other thing I found interesting was that several of the doctors compared cancer to AIDS in this way. There really was no good control over AIDS until they found the right "cocktail" of drugs. I don't know how many drugs are in that cocktail, but it is a pretty big set, I think. The researchers interviewed believe that the key to cotrolling cancer is going to be cocktails of drugs--maybe 6 or more drugs at a time. Thi9s again is were research protocols are causing a problem--if you test 6 drugs on human studies and they have bad reactions, it is hard to figure out where the problem is. I am not knocking Scientific Method--I am a scientist at heart and I think it is important to understand as much as possible. I just wish we could find a better balance. I think there is plenty of money out there for cancer research--I just don't think it is being spent as well as it could be.

Anyway, read the article if you are interested. I think I hit most of the highlights here.

Becky

[Hebbie]

Becky,

Thanks for the tip -- I'll have to pick up a copy of the magazine.

Something you said caught my attention though -- I posted about chemosensitivity testing a while back that my oncologist did at the request of one of his patients. I remember him saying that they had recommended a chemo "cocktail" of several drugs -- rather than the standard 2. Whatever it was -- it worked right out of the gate. It knocked his 3B NSCLC into remission.

Certainly gives us all something to think about!

[Guest Karen C]

Becky, this is really really interesting. Thanks for passing it on. I'm going to pick up a copy of that magazine.

Karen C.

[beckyg]

Heather,

The article made me think the same thing. I am on a mission this afternoon to find out more about cehmosnsitivity testing. I hadn't been very interested befreo because I have had so many chemo drugs now--it didn't seem worthwhile to pay for someone to tell me that none of those would work on my tumor since I already know that. But if one of those labs will test my tumor and find a combination of 5 drugs that will work--that would absolutely be worth it.

Becky

[Hebbie]

Beck,

I believe that Carleen had posted a list of several labs that did the testing -- that might be a good starting point!

Keep us posted!

[Elaine]

Becky,

Thanks for the heads up.

I too am (was) a part of academe and also wrote several grants. One thing that grantors want to see is results that are measurable--even in areas where it is virtually impossible to measure with any accuracy ( I am in humanities and eduation).

While, I can understand the need for accountabilty, having watched some grant money wasted away, there are just some things that can't be measured easily.

Thus in my short stint at researching cancer treatments etc., what I have been struck with the most is the seemingly narrowness of the research--the copycatness of it (I invented a word!!)--This drug is much like this other drug and this drug does this little compared to the little this other drug does etc. etc. ad infunitm.

It's no wonder we have gotten nowhere, slowly. To measure the impact of 6 drugs compared to these other 5 drugs and these 12 supplements etc would be hard to do and costly.. But how far is anyone getting the way things are now?? Not very, it seems.

Add to that, companies must always worry about profits and stockholders etc.

What it boils downs to, as has been said many times here, is the need for early detection in lc. I hope the NCI trial now underway shows that lives can be saved in a COST EFFECTIVE way with routine scans. COST EFFECTIVE is something the medicos etc need to see and believe. If, not, then there will be no early screening and things will stay as is.

Thanks again.

Elaine

[Ry]

While I was sick and stuck at home with daytime tv, the author was on the Today show. It was very interesting. He said we are still essentially where we were in 1971 there hasn't been as much progress as people believe.

Rochelle

[Guest]

Considering how much money has been spent on Cancer Research since President Nixon declared the war on cancer 1974 has been very disturbing considering the results. At that time we were told that we would have the cure in 5 years. It never happened. Then it would be the late 1980's. Never happened. Then it would be the end of the century and that never happened. I just recently read that it would be in 2015. The 5 year survival rate today isn't much better than it was many years ago. By the year 2015, 6,160,000 Americans will died of Cancer while we sit and wait for the CURE (11yrs x 560,000). Cancer Research isn't going to reduce the 6,160,000 deaths. The emphasis should be PREVENTION. Of the 28 cancers, the leading for deaths each years is Lung (160,000), Colon (57,000), Breast (40,000) & Prostate (40,000) which represents combined 53% of all cancer deaths. Lets take 1/2 or more of the Billions spent on Cancer Research and have a massive testing & prevention program for those at risk for Lung, Colon, Breast & Prostate. This is what will reduce cancer deaths not Cancer Research. While we wait for the magic bullet which may never come we must educate Americans on how to reduce the risk of cancer and test those at high risk. Ex: everyone who has smoked 2 packs a day for at least 20 years regardless of age should be tested for lung cancer. Personally, I'm losing my trust and confidence in Cancer Research. Americans must do all they can to reduce there risk of cancer and to detect it early. Depending on Cancer Research or the Government is a big mistake.

[john]

Another thought is maybe some of the presumptions are wrong. There is a 4 time nobel prize winner that has been ostricized because his views don't follow the current theories.

His name is "Peter Duesberg". The aneuploidy theory of cancer is the topic. Search the web w/ "aneuploidy"

Aneuploidy is the wrong number of chromosomes. The current theory of cancer is that it is caused by multiple small mutations. That it involves tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes.

Aneuploidy could explain the cause of chemoresistance and other things that the current theories do not explain

[beckyg]

Guest:

I agree that it is disturbing how little progress has been made with all the money that has been spent. I know i have a strong bias, but I am really unwilling to agree with you about putting all the eggs in the prevention basket. I never smoked. I was 30 years old when I was diagnosed. Nobody would ever have considered me "high risk" for cancer, especially lung cancer. So my only hope is cancer research. I think the problems with cancer research are the ones brought up in the article--too much effort is focused on very small improvement; not much is being done looking at the big picture, and when someone has a new idea they have a really hard time getting funding to investigate it properly. Another thing discussed at great length in the article is the known fact that mice are not very good models for humans in testing cancer drugs. What works wonders in mice often has no effect on humans. The reverse is very likely also true, so it's likely that lots of drugs that might have been effective in humans have been discarded because drug companies and the FDA still hold mouse trials as an important step for approval.

Becky

[teresag]

http://mcb.berkeley.edu/faculty/BMB/duesbergp.html

[Elaine]

Becky,

You are right--not all eggs should go in one basket. Early detection, research and prevention are all good and necessary "baskets."

Focusing on prevention and early detection would not exclude helping those of you who did not smoke and have LC. You got it somehow and it needs to be detected early no matter how one gets it.

Granted, I have not read the article, but it is clear that something other that what is being done now needs to be done. There's an article I read a year or so ago about how conservative universities really are--not in terms of politics, in terms of fostering real change. Going against the grain in an academic environment is not usually welcomed or encouraged.

And if we leave it up to big business, well--..... Don't know about that one....

I think our researchers and academes need to be courageous and bold. That is hard, anywhere, I koow.

Elaine

There's a cartoon--two patients getting chemo--one thinks, "If only I was a mouse" or something to that effect.

[Guest phyllisb]

Hi, I also think the chemosensitivity testing is a wonderful idea. I have learned so far not to rely on just one chemo drug to work. I also think that the drug companies put out a lot of money for cancer research, but they only want to hear positive things about their drugs. Good reports mean higher stock prices. I have also been surprised at the anti-rfa response I have had from the five oncologists I have asked re it. I think the money is in the chemo drugs not alternative therapies. Even a slight improvement in a person's survival rate is enough for the drug companies. It would be nice if doctor's were more open minded about the best interests of the patient and consider chemosensitivity testing along with surgery, radiation, rfa, etc. A more wholistic aggressive approach instead of patients having to do research when both time and money is such a precious commodity.

[karen335]

Thank you all for posting. Phyl, you are right, the onc's don't want to discuss RFA. There is no money in it for them. This RFA could be a start of curing a lot of different cancer's and more cost effective.

I read an article in our town newspaper that autopsies are no longer being performed like they used to be back in the 60-70 and even 80's. It used to be a state law and there were requirements for autopsie. That has gone by the way side. One of the main reasons for autopsies was reseach and finding cures for unknown diseases, cancer, diabetes and other chronic or not ilnesses. The article said they are relying on CT's, MRI's and other machine tests. Not as much on tissue research for the cure and causes. They are wasting tto much money and reseach is a joke anymore along with the FDA and all of the buerocracy (sp?). It is pathetic and sad we all have to suffer because of the greed of money...

Sorry to vent. This is just part of my opinion and I don't mean to offend anyone...

God Bless and prayers for all of us from So. California,

Karen