Caring About Cancer Patients

PANCREAS CANCER NEWS

04/10/2013 19:52:00

PIONEERS OF PROGRESS

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network will fund more than $5 million in research grants this year. Learn about the exciting and innovative projects we are funding. TO READ MORE CLICK HERE.

SUPPORTING INNOVATION

An extraordinary gift from Tempur-Pedic in memory of Tim Miller and another given in memory of Skip Viragh will fund our inaugural $1 millionRAN grants. TO READ MORE CLICK HERE.

A SURVIVOR’S STORY

When Michael Lippe was first diagnosed with cancer five years ago, he found the right clinical trial and treatment to extend his life. Today, he spends quality time with his family and continues to look forward.

TO READ MORE CLICK THE UNDERLINED WORDS ABOVE.

Cervical Cancer is an International Issue

02/20/2013 22:33:00

A lot has happened in the area of cervical cancer this past year. The American Cancer Society, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all released virtually identical screening guidelines, leading to less confusion and higher acceptance from health care professionals and the public.

Thanks to screening, cervical cancer is not very common in the U.S., with about 12,340 new cases of invasive cervical cancer expected to be diagnosed in 2013. Unfortunately the same is not true around the world, where more than half a million women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year. It is actually the 2nd largest cancer killer among women in most low- and middle-income countries.

Sadly, this disease threatens to undermine the important gains worldwide that have been made in sexual and reproductive health, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDs and other infectious diseases. For women in many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, cervical cancer is often detected late, when there is little hope for successful treatment. And it can be devastating to the whole family, both emotionally and financially.

The good news is that a lot has been happening in global cervical cancer. Indeed, many underserved societies have been actively advocating for improved cervical cancer control policies. In response, governments are increasingly making the HPV vaccine available through their health systems and are supporting new cervical cancer screening methods appropriate for their needs and resources.

FOR MORE ON THIS TOPIC CLICK HERE: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/expertvoices/post/2013/01/30/cervical-cancer-is-an-international-issue.aspx

Cancer Death Rates Declining But Disparity for African Americans Still Exist

02/20/2013 22:01:00

When I blogged on Jan 14, 2013 that the mortality rate for cancer had declined, I was elated, but cautious. I was cautious because I was not sure that the mortality rate for African Americans (AA) was equally successful. I was right to be cautious. While there has been improvements in AA death rate numbers, it is not time for total celebration. The American Cancer Society had this to say on this matter:

"The great news is that overall cancer death rates have steadily decreased for African American men and women. In fact, the most recent data show that death rates dropped faster for African American men than men in any other racial or ethnic group. That's caused the disparity in cancer death rates between African American and white men to shrink considerably. Cancer death rates among African American women are declining at a similar rate as those of white women. Despite these declines, however, death rates for all cancers combined remain 33% higher in black men and 16% higher in black women, compared to white men and women."

To read more on this topic CLICK HERE.

For more information on African Americans and cancer CLICK HERE.

Danstock: 4 Bands 2 Raise $ 4 Cancer Research

02/04/2013 20:05:00

Danstock

Local bands join forces to honor a longtime member of Chicagos music community and raise funds for melanoma research at the Lurie Cancer Center.

Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013

Thursday, February 7, 2013 (doors open at 6:30 p.m.)
Lincoln Hall
2424 N. Lincoln Avenue, Chicago
Dan Stock, an active member of Chicago's music community for more than a dozen years, is bringing local bands together to raise money for melanoma research at the Lurie Cancer Center--the same disease that he is battling himself. As part of the rock band, Bruiser, and a producer at Uptown Recording, Dan has worked with a long list musicians. Dan has produced records for the four bands who are donating their time to perform at Danstock. Purchase tickets here

Is a Clinical Trial Right for You?

02/04/2013 19:51:00

Peggy Gilbertsen, RN, is the Lurie Cancer Center's Clinical Trials Recruitment Coordinator, a newly-created position within the Clinical Research Office (CRO). An experienced oncology research nurse with a long history at the Lurie Cancer Center, Peggy is developing a clinical trials education program for patients, caregivers and community members.

What are clinical trials? In cancer care, clinical trials are studies that are designed to answer questions about new ways to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. Some trials study how certain behaviors or activities such as yoga, exercise, and meditation affect quality of life and wellness. Cancer trials test a wide range of innovative cancer therapies and often provide patients with the most advanced and promising treatment options. Clinical trials may include:

New drugs or vaccines
New ways to do surgery
New ways to give radiation
New combinations of therapies and treatments
New ways to manage the side effects of cancer treatments

Ask your doctor if a clinical cancer trial is right for you, or your loved one. If you would like to talk to a registered nurse about clinical trials at Northwestern, e-mail Peggy Gilbertsen or call her at 312-695-1102. Learn more about cancer trials at Northwestern .

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON A CANCER EXPERIENCE BUY THE NEW BOOK 'MEMOIRS OF CANCER' HERE.

STOP THE SILENCE WALK/RUN FOR BREAST CANCER

02/04/2013 19:36:00

In 2012 Sisters Network hosted its Annual National African American Breast Cancer Conference. The 13th annual conference was held in Houston, Texas, April 12-15.

The conference provided an informative platform, designed specifically for AA BC survivors to broaden the scope of knowledge that addresses the breast cancer survivorship crisis affecting African American women across the nation.

HOWEVER .....

In preparation for our 20 year anniversary celebration in 2014, Sisters Network® Inc. will not host a national conference in 2013. We invite you to join us in Houston, TX on Saturday, April 13, 2013 for Stop the Silence® 4th National African American Breast Cancer 5K Walk/Run. Early Bird Registration begins October 1, 2012!

Register online before April 6th, 2013

http://www.stopthesilencewalk.org/

Crunching Numbers: What Cancer Screening Statistics Really Tell Us

01/14/2013 15:20:00

Over the past several years, the conversation about cancer screening has started to change within the medical community. Be it breast, prostate, or ovarian cancer, the trend is to recommend less routine screening, not more. These recommendations are based on an emerging—if counterintuitive—understanding that more screening does not necessarily translate into fewer cancer deaths and that some screening may actually do more harm than good.Much of the confusion surrounding the benefits of screening comes from interpreting the statistics that are often used to describe the results of screening studies. An improvement in survival—how long a person lives after a cancer diagnosis—among people who have undergone a cancer screening test is often taken to imply that the test saves lives. But survival cannot be used accurately for this purpose because of several sources of bias.Sources of BiasA graphic illustrating lead-time bias. Click to enlargethe image and to read the full caption. (Image from O. Wegwarth et al., Ann Intern Med, March 6, 2012:156)Lead-time bias occurs when screening finds a cancer earlier than that cancer would have been diagnosed because of symptoms, but the earlier diagnosis does nothing to change the course of the disease. (See the graphic on the right for further explanation.)Lead-time bias is inherent in any analysis comparing survival after detection. It makes 5-year survival after screen detection—and, by extension, earlier cancer diagnosis—an inherently inaccurate measure of whether screening saves lives. Unfortunately, the perception of longer life after detection can be very powerful for doctors, noted Dr. Donald Berry, professor of biostatistics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center."I had a brilliant oncologist say to me, 'Don, you have to understand: 20 years ago, before mammography, I'd see a patient with breast cancer, and 5 years later she was dead. Now, I see breast cancer patients, and 15 years later they're still coming back, they haven't recurred; it's obvious that screening has done wonders,'" he recounted. "And I had to say no—that biases could completely explain the difference between the two [groups of patients]."Another confounding phenomenon in screening studies is length-biased sampling (or "length bias"). Length bias refers to the fact that screening is more likely to pick up slower-growing, less aggressive cancers, which can exist in the body longer than fast-growing cancers before symptoms develop.A graphic illustrating overdiagnosis bias. Click to enlarge the image and to read the full caption. (Image from O. Wegwarth et al., Ann Intern Med, March 6, 2012:156)Dr. Berry likens screening to reaching into a bag of potato chips—you're more likely to pick a larger chip because it's easier for your hand to find, he explained. Similarly, with a screening test "you're going to pick up the slower-growing cancers disproportionately, because the preclinical period when they can be detected by screening—the so-called sojourn time—is longer."The extreme example of length bias is overdiagnosis, where a slow-growing cancer found by screening never would have caused harm or required treatment during a patient's lifetime. Because of overdiagnosis, the number of cancers found at an earlier stage is also an inaccurate measure of whether a screening test can save lives. (See the graphic on the left for further explanation.)The effects of overdiagnosis are usually not as extreme in real life as in the worst-case scenario shown in the graphic; many cancers detected by screening tests do need to be treated. But some do not. For example, recent studies have estimated that 15 to 25 percent of screen-detected breast cancers and20 to 70 percent of screen-detected prostate cancers are overdiagnosed.How to Measure Lives SavedBecause of these biases, the only reliable way to know if a screening test saves lives is through a randomized trial that shows a reduction in cancer deaths in people assigned to screening compared with people assigned to a control (usual care) group. In the NCI-sponsored randomized National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), for example, screening with low-dose spiral CT scans reduced lung cancer deaths by 20 percent relative to chest x-rays in heavy smokers. (Previous studies had shown that screening with chest x-rays does not reduce lung cancer mortality.)However, improvements in mortality caused by screening often look small—and they are small—because the chance of a person dying from a given cancer is, fortunately, also small. "If the chance of dying from a cancer is small to begin with, there isn't that much risk to reduce. So the effect of even a good screening test has to be small in absolute terms," said Dr. Lisa Schwartz, professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and co-director of the Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group in White River Junction, VT.For example, in the case of NLST, a 20 percent decrease in the relative risk of dying of lung cancer translated to an approximately 0.4 percentage point reduction in lung cancer mortality (from 1.7 percent in the chest x-ray group to 1.3 percent in the CT scan group) after about 6.5 years of follow-up, explained Dr. Barry Kramer, director of NCI's Division of Cancer Prevention.A recent study published March 6 in the Annals of Internal Medicine by Dr. Schwartz and her colleagues showed how these relatively small—but real—reductions in mortality from screening can confuse even experienced doctors when pitted against large—but potentially misleading—improvements in survival.Tricky Even for Experienced DoctorsTo test community physicians' understanding of screening statistics, Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Steven Woloshin (also of Dartmouth and co-director of the Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group), and their collaborators from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany developed an online questionnaire based on two hypothetical screening tests. They then administered the questionnaire to 412 doctors specializing in family medicine, internal medicine, or general medicine who had been recruited from theHarris Interactive Physician Panel .The effects of the two hypothetical tests were described to the participants in two different ways: in terms of 5-year survival and in terms of mortality reduction. The participants also received additional information about the tests, such as the number of cancers detected and the proportion of cancer cases detected at an early stage.The results of the survey showed widespread misunderstanding. Almost as many doctors (76 percent of those surveyed) believed—incorrectly—that an improvement in 5-year survival shows that a test saves lives as believed—correctly—that mortality data provides that evidence (81 percent of those surveyed).Recent Screening Recommendation Changes

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its mammography recommendations in 2009.
Several health organizations proposed changes to cervical cancer screening guidelines in March 2012.
The USPSTF issued a draft recommendation that asymptomatic men at average risk of prostate cancershould not be routinely screened with the prostate-specific antigen test.

About half of the doctors erroneously thought that simply finding more cases of cancer in a group of people who underwent screening compared with an unscreened group showed that the test saved lives. (In fact, a screening test can only save lives if it advances the time of diagnosis and earlier treatment is more effective than later treatment.) And 68 percent of doctors surveyed said they were even more likely to recommend the test if evidence showed that it detected more cancers at an early stage.Doctors were three times more likely to say they would recommend the test supported by irrelevant survival data than the test supported by relevant mortality data.In short, "the majority of primary care physicians did not know which screening statistics provide reliable evidence on whether screening works," Dr. Schwartz and her colleagues wrote. "They were more likely to recommend a screening test supported by irrelevant evidence…than one supported by the relevant evidence: reduction in cancer mortality with screening."Teaching the Testers"In some ways these results weren't surprising, because I don't think [these statistics] are part of the standard medical school curriculum," said Dr. Schwartz."When we were in medical school and in residency, this wasn't part of the training," Dr. Woloshin agreed. "We should be teaching residents and medical students how to correctly interpret these statistics and how to see through exaggeration," added Dr. Schwartz.Some schools have begun to do this. The University of North Carolina (UNC) School of Medicine has introduced a course called the Science of Testing, explained Dr. Russell Harris, professor of medicine at UNC. The course includes modules on 5-year survival and mortality outcomes.The UNC team also recently received a research grant to form a Research Center for Excellence in Clinical Preventive Services from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. "Part of our mandate is to talk not only to medical students but also to community physicians, to help them begin to understand the pros and cons of screening," said Dr. Harris.Drs. Schwartz and Woloshin also think that better training for reporters, advocates, and anyone who disseminates the results of screening studies is essential. "A lot of people see those [news] stories and messages, so people writing them need to understand," said Dr. Woloshin.Patients also need to know the right questions to ask their doctors. "Always ask for the right numbers," he recommended. "You see these ads with numbers like '5-year survival changes from 10 percent to 90 percent if you're screened.' But what you always want to ask is: 'What's my chance of dying [from the disease] if I'm screened or if I'm not screened?'"— Sharon Reynolds To hear Drs. Schwartz and Woloshin discussing what patients should ask their doctors about cancer screening in more detail, listen to "Questions to Ask Your Doctor about Cancer Screening."

U.S. Cancer Deaths Continue Long-Term Decline

01/14/2013 15:16:00

According to the latest national data, overall death rates from cancer declined from 2000 through 2009 in the United States, maintaining a trend seen since the early 1990s. Mortality fell for most cancer types, including the four most common types of cancer in the United States (lung, colon and rectum,breast, and prostate), although the trend varied by cancer type and across racial and ethnic groups.

The complete "Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2009" appeared January 7 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.The report also includes a special section on cancers associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV) that shows that, from 2008 through 2010, incidence rates rose for HPV-associated oropharyngeal,anal, and vulvar cancers. HPV vaccination rates in 2010 remained low among the target population of adolescent girls in the United States.

Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates, 2000–2009Increase

kidney
pancreas
liver
thyroid
melanoma
myeloma

Decrease

prostate
lung
colorectal
stomach
larynx

Increase

thyroid
melanoma
kidney
pancreas
leukemia
liver
corpus and uterus

Decrease

lung
colorectal
bladder
cervix
oral cavity and pharynx
ovary
stomach

Increase

melanoma
liver
pancreas

Decrease

lung
prostate
colon and rectum
non-Hodgkin lymphoma
kidney
stomach
myeloma
oral cavity and pharynx
larynx
leukemia

Increase

pancreas
liver
corpus and uterus

Decrease

lung
breast
colon and rectum
leukemia
non-Hodgkin lymphoma
brain and other nervous system
myeloma
kidney
stomach
cervix
bladder
esophagus
oral cavity and pharynx
ovary
gallbladder

—Bill Robinson

Positive results of a pivotal pancreatic cancer treatment clinical trial

12/07/2012 22:31:00

Celgene Corporation (Celgene) conducted a phase III clinical trial with the intent to show that the combination of its chemotherapy drug, ABRAXANE®, with gemcitabine would improve overall survival in patients with untreated, metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma when compared with gemcitabine alone. Use of gemcitabine alone has been the standard of care for pancreatic cancer.

In the study, ABRAXANE in combination with gemcitabine demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in overall survival compared to gemcitabine alone. The complete overall survival statistics are not yet available. However, this information suggests that ABRAXANE plus gemcitabine is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Additional information will be posted on our website once Celgene releases the full data in support of this trial.

ABRAXANE was approved for breast cancer in 2005 and last month was approved for a type of lung cancer. It is a form of the chemotherapy drug paclitaxel that is modified by the addition of a human protein called albumin.

After the full data is released, Celgene will take this data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval in pancreatic cancer. Until this time, because ABRAXANE is currently approved for the treatment of other cancers, physicians may choose to prescribe it for a pancreatic cancer patient if they feel it is the patient’s best option.

The results of this clinical trial provide a new tier of hope to the pancreatic cancer community. This news illustrates that trials give patients access to state-of-the-art treatment that may be their best option, and they help speed scientific progress toward therapeutic breakthroughs. Clinical trials are the only way to make progress toward better treatments.

If you have any questions about the results of this clinical trial or ABRAXANE, our Patient and Liaison Services (PALS) program can provide you with additional information. Contact one of our trained staff PALS Associates at 877-272-6226, Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time or email pals@pancan.org to learn more.

The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network recommends that all patients to consider clinical trials when exploring treatment options. For more information about ongoing clinical trials or any other questions about pancreatic cancer treatment or diagnosis, please contact a PALS Associate.

Cancer is finally cured in Canada, but....

12/05/2012 23:05:00

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150635846921971

If you can't open this video go to the link above.

Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest.Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest. The fact that the international drug & medical industry have no interest is because the cure is really cheaper than a chocolate bar and it won't get them to gain any profits at all. Besides, if people had the cure so easily, how will these medical companies make money out of that?Length: ‎3:19

Cancer is big financial business in the United States. What do you think we should do to get the cure here?