Recently a new strain of triple negative breast cancer was found in Ghanian women. This is a strain that is not found elsewhere. The result - a new treatment needs to be developed.
It is a fact that different groups - ethnic and racial - are diagnosed with different diseases or types of diseases at different rates. For example Ashkenazi Jewish women develop breast cancer at a higher rate than other women.
But I have never heard of a new variant of cancer being diagnosed by geographic area.
This opens a whole new direction for cancer research. Women from different parts of the world could be influenced by their local genetic, food, and environmental factors which could skew research results. I don't know how much this is taken into account by the pharmaceutical industry.
I do know that drugs are developed and tested world wide and then start getting approvals from the FDA and its counter parts in other countries. To be eligible for these clinical trials, patients have to meet specific criteria. The rates of clinical trial participation vary from city to city, state to state, and country to country, for a variety of reasons. But this means it is possible that patients who do not meet the criteria could have specific variances in their disease that are not noted.
Am I making sense? Sometimes I wonder.
The point I am trying to make is does current cancer research focus on the big groups that fit into the clinical trial criteria and not take into account the little subgroups that are now being discovered?
Showing posts with label cancer research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer research. Show all posts
Its all about the language
Who calls it a relapse when cancer recurs? I didn't know anyone did. It has a different connotation. But maybe in Australia its common.
There is a new bit of medical research (because we have to keep those researchers working) in Australia where they found a gene that half of women with estrogen positive breast cancer have. If women have the gene, they could alter the timing of chemotherapy.
Basically a basic blood test could determine if patients have the gene.
"The test would be used to determine when cancer cells are most vulnerable to chemotherapy, which would be used to kill them off and prevent a relapse.
At present patients with this type of cancer typically receive anti-oestrogen therapy and generally respond well. Within 15 years, however, half develop drug resistance, followed by relapse and death."
How's that for putting it morbidly? Nice - huh?
"Scientists believe the anti-oestrogen therapy weakens the BCL-2 gene, which protects the cancer.
The idea would be to test all patients and correctly time the use of chemotherapy to kill off the cancer and prevent a relapse when the gene is sufficiently weak."
So its much more specific.
But its a theory now and has to go through testing and trials and don't go holding your breath because it will be quite a while.
I just wish that they could be a little nicer in their phrasing and skip the damn word 'relapse'.
There is a new bit of medical research (because we have to keep those researchers working) in Australia where they found a gene that half of women with estrogen positive breast cancer have. If women have the gene, they could alter the timing of chemotherapy.
Basically a basic blood test could determine if patients have the gene.
"The test would be used to determine when cancer cells are most vulnerable to chemotherapy, which would be used to kill them off and prevent a relapse.
At present patients with this type of cancer typically receive anti-oestrogen therapy and generally respond well. Within 15 years, however, half develop drug resistance, followed by relapse and death."
How's that for putting it morbidly? Nice - huh?
"Scientists believe the anti-oestrogen therapy weakens the BCL-2 gene, which protects the cancer.
The idea would be to test all patients and correctly time the use of chemotherapy to kill off the cancer and prevent a relapse when the gene is sufficiently weak."
So its much more specific.
But its a theory now and has to go through testing and trials and don't go holding your breath because it will be quite a while.
I just wish that they could be a little nicer in their phrasing and skip the damn word 'relapse'.
Can we undo my surgery please?
When I had my breast cancer surgery the sentinel node was tested and came back with microscopic traces of cancer. It was then deemed necessary to have an Axillary Node Dissection where they take out a lot of lymph nodes in your arm pit to see the possibilities that the cancer has spread further in your body. Mine came back negative. But the damage was done.
When that many lymph nodes (20 in my case) are taken, the lymph system in your arm in permanently compromised and the risk of lymphedema is greatly increased. That would be my problem.
Now there is a new study (because the researchers needed to keep working), that says that if the sentinel node is positive, the better outcome for a patient is to have axillary node radiation instead of an axillary node dissection. There appears to be the same or lower risk of recurrence and the risk of lymphedema is substantially reduced.
This is clearly in the category of now they tell me. Damn. I have lymphedema which complicates my life - and has no cure.
I guess this is what research is all about - figuring out how to improve treatment so that they can prevent complications and reduce risks from previous treatment standards.
When that many lymph nodes (20 in my case) are taken, the lymph system in your arm in permanently compromised and the risk of lymphedema is greatly increased. That would be my problem.
Now there is a new study (because the researchers needed to keep working), that says that if the sentinel node is positive, the better outcome for a patient is to have axillary node radiation instead of an axillary node dissection. There appears to be the same or lower risk of recurrence and the risk of lymphedema is substantially reduced.
This is clearly in the category of now they tell me. Damn. I have lymphedema which complicates my life - and has no cure.
I guess this is what research is all about - figuring out how to improve treatment so that they can prevent complications and reduce risks from previous treatment standards.
A cancer database
The proverbial 'they' always talk about cancer patients and success stories either in generalities full of percentages with lots of big words - 37% of patients with diagnosis A tend to show positive responses to treatment protocol Q while 82% show positive responses to protocol ZB37. Then you hear stories about individuals who had this outcome or that one.
But what if it could all be consolidated into a big pie where it could be dissected and analyzed? Then the data could be better understand and prognoses could be better predicted. Patients might even handle treatment better. Who would have thunk? Individualized medicine could be better understood and more wide spread. Cancer research will become easier and faster.
Public Health England is going to do exactly that - develop a huge public cancer database. I think this is a great idea. Statistical analysis aside (as well as statistical paralysis) it would provide so much information about existing patients that the benefits are unimaginable.
Now England is a much smaller country than the US with approximately 350,000 new tumors diagnosed each year so its is more manageable. In the US, the number is 1.6 million so it would be that much more difficult.
But what if it could all be consolidated into a big pie where it could be dissected and analyzed? Then the data could be better understand and prognoses could be better predicted. Patients might even handle treatment better. Who would have thunk? Individualized medicine could be better understood and more wide spread. Cancer research will become easier and faster.
Public Health England is going to do exactly that - develop a huge public cancer database. I think this is a great idea. Statistical analysis aside (as well as statistical paralysis) it would provide so much information about existing patients that the benefits are unimaginable.
Now England is a much smaller country than the US with approximately 350,000 new tumors diagnosed each year so its is more manageable. In the US, the number is 1.6 million so it would be that much more difficult.
What if Chemo came the last resort instead of the first wave of treatment?
That would be awesome. Right now most cancers are automatically treated with chemo, radiation and surgery. But with the development of individualized treatment and molecular medications, chemotherapy may be going the way of the past.
This is a huge advance in cancer treatment and looks like it is not so far fetched. When I first saw this article I was very surprised but glad to see it.
It had never occurred to me that cancer could be treated with out chemotherapy. In my mind I was leaning towards chemo regimens that were not as harsh on the patient than in the past.
So optimism reigns in cancer land these days.
By the way yesterday's procedure went pretty well, some pain as a result but that should go away in a day or two. I'm taking it easy today and back to work tomorrow.
This is a huge advance in cancer treatment and looks like it is not so far fetched. When I first saw this article I was very surprised but glad to see it.
It had never occurred to me that cancer could be treated with out chemotherapy. In my mind I was leaning towards chemo regimens that were not as harsh on the patient than in the past.
So optimism reigns in cancer land these days.
By the way yesterday's procedure went pretty well, some pain as a result but that should go away in a day or two. I'm taking it easy today and back to work tomorrow.
I am way behind
Yesterday was National Cancer Survivors Day. How did I miss it? I should get to celebrate twice or something. But I wish it didn't have the S word in the title. How about National People Living With Cancer Day?
Also, this weekend was the ASCO conference. I usually read what is announced each day and now have to catch up.
Here are a few details so far:
Also, this weekend was the ASCO conference. I usually read what is announced each day and now have to catch up.
Here are a few details so far:
- Extending Tamoxifen to ten years from five years reduces risk of reccurence by 15%
- Sorafenib Shows Benefit in Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer
- Surveillance in Breast Cancer Survivors: First Do No Harm - which discusses over testing after treatment ends.
- Innovations in Breast Cancer Drug Development: The Neoadjuvant Breast Cancer Workshop
- First the news summaries listed here: http://chicago2013.asco.org/daily-news/latest?field_cancer_topics_tid=All&field_daily_news_article_categor_tid=All
- Next read the ASCO Daily News which are at the very bottom left of this page: http://chicago2013.asco.org/daily-news
Komen disparities again
Of course, Nancy Brinker, founder and president of the Komen Foundation for the Cure (because they trade marked 'for the cure') had to grab onto the Angelina Jolie announcement. She latched onto the disparities of availability of the BRCA test and affordability of breast cancer treatment for lower income women.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
Anyway I digress. She was very proud to announce that Komen has donated a whopping $34 million dollars for BRCA research since their start, out of the total $755 million research investment.
$34 million is peanuts for them.
In their fiscal 2012, Komen raised $342 million. In one year. So if you do a little math, their total BRCA research investment is 1/10th of their total annual revenues. It only took them 30 years to reach that number (they started in 1982). What they have donated to research over 30 years, would take them just over 2 years to reach at their current revenues.
So Komen doesn't really fund research. They fund community programs and also spend a lot of money on pinkification. I guess if you don't think they fund research this is okay. I think we all thought they funded research.
Why do I blog about Komen? Because they just irritate me so much. They are a really good example of a poorly run organization which has problems with putting their foot in their mouth regularly and they might have just done it again.
All Ms. Brinker's post did for me was highlight more discrepancies in what they do vs what we all thought they did.
If you want to help fund cancer research do not donate to Komen, send your money elsewhere.
Why doesn't this surprise me?
Anyway I digress. She was very proud to announce that Komen has donated a whopping $34 million dollars for BRCA research since their start, out of the total $755 million research investment.
$34 million is peanuts for them.
In their fiscal 2012, Komen raised $342 million. In one year. So if you do a little math, their total BRCA research investment is 1/10th of their total annual revenues. It only took them 30 years to reach that number (they started in 1982). What they have donated to research over 30 years, would take them just over 2 years to reach at their current revenues.
So Komen doesn't really fund research. They fund community programs and also spend a lot of money on pinkification. I guess if you don't think they fund research this is okay. I think we all thought they funded research.
Why do I blog about Komen? Because they just irritate me so much. They are a really good example of a poorly run organization which has problems with putting their foot in their mouth regularly and they might have just done it again.
All Ms. Brinker's post did for me was highlight more discrepancies in what they do vs what we all thought they did.
If you want to help fund cancer research do not donate to Komen, send your money elsewhere.
What is so 'feel good' about cancer?
I'm working on this one. I haven't come up with much. There was a recent article in the New York Times about our feel good, pinkification war on breast cancer that has never done much for me.
There is also that year 2020 breast cancer deadline which I find just stupid. Seriously in 7 years there will be a cure? We have come a fair distance in the past seven years but that doesn't seem to have us in a position to be done in the next 7. Some pretty little blue bird of happiness will have to drop something off unexpectedly that will do the trick, get through FDA testing and all that, and then drug companies will still gouge the patients for a $10,000 a year for the medication (because of all the research they had to do).
I saw a video recently about cancer researchers dancing - even in bowties - because of how happy their research makes them.
There was an article in the local paper on a local woman who was a cancer researcher and how she felt about contributing to solving cancer.
I am glad they all like their jobs but it doesn't do much for me in the end. Maybe I'm cynical or maybe I'm just tired and cranky.
There is also that year 2020 breast cancer deadline which I find just stupid. Seriously in 7 years there will be a cure? We have come a fair distance in the past seven years but that doesn't seem to have us in a position to be done in the next 7. Some pretty little blue bird of happiness will have to drop something off unexpectedly that will do the trick, get through FDA testing and all that, and then drug companies will still gouge the patients for a $10,000 a year for the medication (because of all the research they had to do).
I saw a video recently about cancer researchers dancing - even in bowties - because of how happy their research makes them.
There was an article in the local paper on a local woman who was a cancer researcher and how she felt about contributing to solving cancer.
I am glad they all like their jobs but it doesn't do much for me in the end. Maybe I'm cynical or maybe I'm just tired and cranky.
Cancer treatment in stealth mode
I find this fascinating. Stealth mode makes me think of spies, CIA, cold war, KGB, NSA, guerrilla warfare, covert operation and all that.
I found an article on Smithsonian.com, The War on Cancer Goes Stealth, which explains in detail what exactly they are doing - tricking cells, sneaking past the sentries, etc. I know it needs more testing and many researchers will be busy with this for a long time but treatments targeting individual cancer cells so patients can avoid chemotherapy and enjoy a good quality of life.
Here is a TED talk explaining it more with links to more talks on it here.
This intrigues me to no end. And convinces me I should have paid more attention in biology and chemistry (physics not so much) so I could understand it better. And it shows hope for a new wave of treatment that are not as harmful to the patient.
My only concerns are - how soon will this happen and how much will it cost?
Its about time
Finally, they have done enough research (because the researchers always need to be sure and there are plenty of them out there) to say that there is no connection between breast cancer and thyroid cancer.
For years there have been questions on this. Basically women are more likely to get both. Breast cancer is the most common woman's cancer (I think) and thyroid cancer is most common in young women and growing in incidence. Both are hormone (endocrine) related cancers so I guess it seemed they were connected.
Standard procedure has been for women with both to be tested for Cowden's syndrome which is a genetic condition that has both cancers are indicators. I was tested and I do not have it.
So basically this tells us that all medical research can be proven wrong over time. Can you name one thing that 'they' have not told us was good for us and now is bad or was bad for us and now is good? Which is why everything always needs more research.
For years there have been questions on this. Basically women are more likely to get both. Breast cancer is the most common woman's cancer (I think) and thyroid cancer is most common in young women and growing in incidence. Both are hormone (endocrine) related cancers so I guess it seemed they were connected.
Standard procedure has been for women with both to be tested for Cowden's syndrome which is a genetic condition that has both cancers are indicators. I was tested and I do not have it.
So basically this tells us that all medical research can be proven wrong over time. Can you name one thing that 'they' have not told us was good for us and now is bad or was bad for us and now is good? Which is why everything always needs more research.
A Teen Idol
Here is my teen idol. His name is Jack. He is fifteen (15). And he invited a simple test that will detect pancreatic cancer early on. It may also be used to detect other cancers such as ovarian and lung cancers. All these cancers have one thing in common - they are hard to detect early enough to be treatable.
I first read about him on Opposing Views. I thought it was too good to be true but he is the lead story on Smithsonian.com. We need more Jacks. We need more blood tests to detect more ailments. Especially ones that are 90% accurate like his test is.
Here's a surprise!
Researchers lie exaggerate benefits and play down side effects in describing their results. I am SHOCKED I tell you, shocked! And I'm sure its not just for breast cancer drugs.
A recent study in the Annals of Oncology (which you can't read online unless you pay big bucks) found this. I found this describing it:
"Reports on Breast-Cancer Drugs Are Often Biased, Research Finds
Researchers often exaggerate the benefits and play down the potentially toxic side-effects of breast-cancer drugs in clinical trials, according to a new study published in the Annals of Oncology. One way they do this is by emphasizing some secondary benefit of the drug, even if it failed to achieve the primary objective (such as, say, lengthening the life of the patient). High toxicity findings frequently go unmentioned in abstracts and conclusions—perhaps, the authors suggest, “to make the results more attractive.”
The researchers looked at 164 randomized clinical trials from 1995 to 2011 and found evidence of bias in reporting toxicity in 67 percent of those trials. While they note that the pharmaceutical industry is “increasingly influential” in the sponsorship of such trials, they didn’t find any association between industry involvement and bias.
So what do the authors propose be done? Journal editors, regulators, and reviewers should apply “a critical eye to trial reports” to ferret out instances of bias, they say—implying that they have been failing in that responsibility up to now."
Well is anyone else shocked here? First we must insist researchers take lie detector tests. Next markers are not allowed to put their spin on any results. Finally, editors, regulators and reviewers should smarten up.
Doh! Really. This does not surprise me at all. I don't put blame on editors, regulators and reviewers. I am sure they are working with what is presented to them. Is it their job to decipher research? Unless they are scientists I am not sure they are qualified. No the onus goes back to the researchers who run the studies to make sure the data is presented correctly.
A recent study in the Annals of Oncology (which you can't read online unless you pay big bucks) found this. I found this describing it:
"Reports on Breast-Cancer Drugs Are Often Biased, Research Finds
Researchers often exaggerate the benefits and play down the potentially toxic side-effects of breast-cancer drugs in clinical trials, according to a new study published in the Annals of Oncology. One way they do this is by emphasizing some secondary benefit of the drug, even if it failed to achieve the primary objective (such as, say, lengthening the life of the patient). High toxicity findings frequently go unmentioned in abstracts and conclusions—perhaps, the authors suggest, “to make the results more attractive.”
The researchers looked at 164 randomized clinical trials from 1995 to 2011 and found evidence of bias in reporting toxicity in 67 percent of those trials. While they note that the pharmaceutical industry is “increasingly influential” in the sponsorship of such trials, they didn’t find any association between industry involvement and bias.
So what do the authors propose be done? Journal editors, regulators, and reviewers should apply “a critical eye to trial reports” to ferret out instances of bias, they say—implying that they have been failing in that responsibility up to now."
Well is anyone else shocked here? First we must insist researchers take lie detector tests. Next markers are not allowed to put their spin on any results. Finally, editors, regulators and reviewers should smarten up.
Doh! Really. This does not surprise me at all. I don't put blame on editors, regulators and reviewers. I am sure they are working with what is presented to them. Is it their job to decipher research? Unless they are scientists I am not sure they are qualified. No the onus goes back to the researchers who run the studies to make sure the data is presented correctly.
Go P53! Rah Team P53!
[But before I begin this morning you will note the little new badge to the right-->
where you can vote for my blog for one of the best breast cancer blogs of 2012. Click on the little link and then find my blog and vote for it. When I last checked it was on the top of page 6 when sorted alphabetically. I have no votes yet so I'm feeling a little lonely - but it only started yesterday.]
Anyhow we are on Team P53 now. Here's a bit of an explanation of who P53 is and why we want to be on their team:
"Normal healthy cells have a mechanism that tells them to die if their DNA is too badly damaged to repair. Cancer cells have grotesquely damaged DNA, so ordinarily they would self-destruct. A protein known as p53 that Dr. Gary Gilliland of Merck calls the cell’s angel of death normally sets things in motion. But cancer cells disable p53, either directly, with a mutation, or indirectly, by attaching the p53 protein to another cellular protein that blocks it. The dream of cancer researchers has long been to reanimate p53 in cancer cells so they will die on their own."
P53 has been known about for about 20 years. It was Science Magazine's (don't laugh) Molecule of the Year in 1993 and even had the cover for a month. (Really! So its already cool so we want to be on its team.)
It was also called, in an editorial, “a cure of a terrible killer in the not too distant future.” So even its hero status has been known for a long time. This is the Joe Namath-Bobby Orr-Yogi Berra-Neil Armstrong-Nelson Mandela-Mick Jagger-Winston Churchill-Dr Salk-Mother Theresa MVP of the year protein. We want to be on the team P53.
Right now there are three drug companies - Merck, Sanofi, and Roche - about to begin testing a new drug each that will work on a wide variety of cancers - breast, lung, prostate, and liver - that will work with P53 to help reanimate it so the cancer cells die off.
"Great uncertainties remain, but such drugs could mean new treatments for rare, neglected cancers, as well as common ones. Merck, Roche and Sanofi are racing to develop their own versions of a drug they hope will restore a mechanism that normally makes badly damaged cells self-destruct and could potentially be used against half of all cancers"
So the thought is that in the future, the organ where the cancer is based will become less important than its molecular make up.
This will have a very significant impact on a range of issues related to cancer. One result, the philanthropy and awareness efforts surrounding different types of cancer will shift their goal and pool their resources. Groups that now focus on a single type of cancer, such as the Komen-for-a-Cure pink cult will become a way of the past (and we never thought we could get rid of them) as research is pooled and focus on the genes and molecular impact. So team P53 will not even have pink cheerleaders.
I'm all for Team P53 here. Please join me.
You can read the full article here.
where you can vote for my blog for one of the best breast cancer blogs of 2012. Click on the little link and then find my blog and vote for it. When I last checked it was on the top of page 6 when sorted alphabetically. I have no votes yet so I'm feeling a little lonely - but it only started yesterday.]
Anyhow we are on Team P53 now. Here's a bit of an explanation of who P53 is and why we want to be on their team:
"Normal healthy cells have a mechanism that tells them to die if their DNA is too badly damaged to repair. Cancer cells have grotesquely damaged DNA, so ordinarily they would self-destruct. A protein known as p53 that Dr. Gary Gilliland of Merck calls the cell’s angel of death normally sets things in motion. But cancer cells disable p53, either directly, with a mutation, or indirectly, by attaching the p53 protein to another cellular protein that blocks it. The dream of cancer researchers has long been to reanimate p53 in cancer cells so they will die on their own."
P53 has been known about for about 20 years. It was Science Magazine's (don't laugh) Molecule of the Year in 1993 and even had the cover for a month. (Really! So its already cool so we want to be on its team.)
It was also called, in an editorial, “a cure of a terrible killer in the not too distant future.” So even its hero status has been known for a long time. This is the Joe Namath-Bobby Orr-Yogi Berra-Neil Armstrong-Nelson Mandela-Mick Jagger-Winston Churchill-Dr Salk-Mother Theresa MVP of the year protein. We want to be on the team P53.
Right now there are three drug companies - Merck, Sanofi, and Roche - about to begin testing a new drug each that will work on a wide variety of cancers - breast, lung, prostate, and liver - that will work with P53 to help reanimate it so the cancer cells die off.
"Great uncertainties remain, but such drugs could mean new treatments for rare, neglected cancers, as well as common ones. Merck, Roche and Sanofi are racing to develop their own versions of a drug they hope will restore a mechanism that normally makes badly damaged cells self-destruct and could potentially be used against half of all cancers"
So the thought is that in the future, the organ where the cancer is based will become less important than its molecular make up.
This will have a very significant impact on a range of issues related to cancer. One result, the philanthropy and awareness efforts surrounding different types of cancer will shift their goal and pool their resources. Groups that now focus on a single type of cancer, such as the Komen-for-a-Cure pink cult will become a way of the past (and we never thought we could get rid of them) as research is pooled and focus on the genes and molecular impact. So team P53 will not even have pink cheerleaders.
I'm all for Team P53 here. Please join me.
You can read the full article here.
Squish the life out of them
Of all the weird cancer treatments I have heard, this one takes the cake. Or crunch. Here it is:
Squish the malignant cells back into normal size and they revert back to normal breast cancer cells.
I am sure squish is the technical term here and you will only 'feel a pinch'.
This study was presented at the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco recently so it wasn't done by Dr Jekyll with Igor as an assistant in the dungeon basement of an Eastern European castle.
Before you channel a mammogram machine gone bad, its done at the cell level.
Venugopalan and collaborators grew malignant breast epithelial cells in a gelatin-like substance that had been injected into flexible silicone chambers. The flexible chambers allowed the researchers to apply a compressive force in the first stages of cell development.
Over time, the compressed malignant cells grew into more organized, healthy-looking acini that resembled normal structures, compared with malignant cells that were not compressed. The researchers used time-lapse microscopy over several days to show that early compression also induced coherent rotation in the malignant cells, a characteristic feature of normal development.
Notably, those cells stopped growing once the breast tissue structure was formed, even though the compressive force had been removed.
[Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-12-revert-breast-cancer-cells.html#jCp]
But I am sure you will still only 'feel a pinch'.
Squish the malignant cells back into normal size and they revert back to normal breast cancer cells.
I am sure squish is the technical term here and you will only 'feel a pinch'.
This study was presented at the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco recently so it wasn't done by Dr Jekyll with Igor as an assistant in the dungeon basement of an Eastern European castle.
Before you channel a mammogram machine gone bad, its done at the cell level.
Venugopalan and collaborators grew malignant breast epithelial cells in a gelatin-like substance that had been injected into flexible silicone chambers. The flexible chambers allowed the researchers to apply a compressive force in the first stages of cell development.
Over time, the compressed malignant cells grew into more organized, healthy-looking acini that resembled normal structures, compared with malignant cells that were not compressed. The researchers used time-lapse microscopy over several days to show that early compression also induced coherent rotation in the malignant cells, a characteristic feature of normal development.
Notably, those cells stopped growing once the breast tissue structure was formed, even though the compressive force had been removed.
[Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-12-revert-breast-cancer-cells.html#jCp]
But I am sure you will still only 'feel a pinch'.
Five New Breast Cancer Controversies
At the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium last week, there are five new breast cancer discoveries controversies. I know a couple of people who was there and hope to hear more from them but this is what I have for opinions so far:
1. Claim: Chemobrain starts before starting chemotherapy.Results were presented to show that in a study women who had not gone through chemo were showing the symptoms - which can also be caused by worry and fatigue. Hello, if you are diagnosed with cancer, have surgery, and are facing chemotherapy perhaps you might be a tad bit worried and tired?
My take on this is that first of all this study was done by people who don't believe chemo brain is real. Symptoms of chemobrain could also be the same as those caused by worry and fatigue. But the difference with chemobrain is the symptoms do not go away once you stop stressing and get some rest. There is a difference.
2. Claim: Taking Tamoxifen for ten years is better than five years. First of all this isn't new. This is just a new study that they are showing results. My take is that more testing is needed as it goes against what has previously been shown.
3. Claim: Doubling the dose of fulvestrant is better. I have no opinion here as I do not know anything about this drug.
4. Claim: Twice as long is not better with Herceptin. My take is this is only confirming previous research.
5. Claim: Avastin isn't indicated for breast cancer. My take is this is not new. This has been resolved a while back.
Let me just say I am not a doctor or researcher, I am merely a patient. I admit I am not perfect so I could be wrong and these are my opinions.
So overall, We have one new claim that I, and many other women with chemobrain, disagree with completely. One claim I can't say anything about. And three claims is that I say are not new.
Hmmm.... I think I need some more proof to show that these are truly new and breakthroughs in some way. But I am not buying most of these.
1. Claim: Chemobrain starts before starting chemotherapy.Results were presented to show that in a study women who had not gone through chemo were showing the symptoms - which can also be caused by worry and fatigue. Hello, if you are diagnosed with cancer, have surgery, and are facing chemotherapy perhaps you might be a tad bit worried and tired?
My take on this is that first of all this study was done by people who don't believe chemo brain is real. Symptoms of chemobrain could also be the same as those caused by worry and fatigue. But the difference with chemobrain is the symptoms do not go away once you stop stressing and get some rest. There is a difference.
2. Claim: Taking Tamoxifen for ten years is better than five years. First of all this isn't new. This is just a new study that they are showing results. My take is that more testing is needed as it goes against what has previously been shown.
3. Claim: Doubling the dose of fulvestrant is better. I have no opinion here as I do not know anything about this drug.
4. Claim: Twice as long is not better with Herceptin. My take is this is only confirming previous research.
5. Claim: Avastin isn't indicated for breast cancer. My take is this is not new. This has been resolved a while back.
Let me just say I am not a doctor or researcher, I am merely a patient. I admit I am not perfect so I could be wrong and these are my opinions.
So overall, We have one new claim that I, and many other women with chemobrain, disagree with completely. One claim I can't say anything about. And three claims is that I say are not new.
Hmmm.... I think I need some more proof to show that these are truly new and breakthroughs in some way. But I am not buying most of these.
Stop changing your mind. You are confusing (and scaring) the patients.
They keep changing their minds. These are the evil 'them' who are out to confuse all the patients they cant kill off. They just released a new study that breast cancer patients should have ten years of tamoxifen, and not five. I thought I was done with it. I was on tamoxifen for 2 years and am just finishing up on Femara for another three. I would be done in January. But will ask my oncologist if there is any reason to go back on Tamoxifen.
Truth be told, I would be perfectly happy to have one fewer daily medication to take and was starting to look forward to the end of Arimidex which is currently scheduled for January.
In an evil little psychotic way, I am glad to read that even the oncologists are confused by this. You can read on below but the gist of it is women who took tamoxifen for 10 years had a 12% rate of dying from breast cancer ove rthe 15 year study compared with at 15% risk for those who took a placebo after the first five years. Howevr about 3% of women who took tamoxifen developed endometrial cancer.
"“It’s going to be practice-changing, in my view, immediately for pre-menopausal women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Eric Winer, chief of women’s cancers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was attending the San Antonio cancer conference where the results were presented Wednesday. Those who have “estrogen-receptor positive” breast cancer, the type that responds to tamoxifen, will probably be advised to continue taking tamoxifen for an additional five years, he said.
Younger breast cancer patients who stopped taking tamoxifen years earlier may be counseled to start taking the drugs again.
On an individual level, breast cancer patients will need to weigh their tamoxifen options carefully.
On an individual level, however, breast cancer patients will need to weigh their options carefully. Endometrial cancer is a real concern, but it is usually more common in women over age 60. Patients should also realize that “the benefit isn’t huge, it’s modest,” Winer said.
Some women can’t tolerate tamoxifen and are eager to get off the drug as quickly as possible. They might have hot flashes, moodiness, and vaginal dryness making sex very painful. “About 10 to 15 percent of women don’t like being on it,” Winer added, “and unfortunately, younger women seem to have more of these side effects.”
Those with small, non-aggressive tumors with no spread to nearby lymph nodes might consider taking tamoxifen for only five years if they’re plagued by side effects since their risk of recurrence is very small. Those with larger, more aggressive tumors, however, might feel more compelled to stay on the drug for a decade.
For women whose breast cancer was diagnosed after menopause, the picture gets even more complicated. They’re usually given newer drugs called aromatase inhibitors (Arimidex, Femara, Aromasin) in addition to or instead of tamoxifen for a total of five years of treatment. Post-menopausal patients at Dana-Farber typically get two years of tamoxifen followed by five years of aromatase inhibitors.
“I’ve long believed that these extra years of treatment would help,” said Winer. That’s because with estrogen-receptor positive cancers, half of all recurrences happen beyond five years of diagnosis.
The new study found that 21 percent of those taking tamoxifen for 10 years had a recurrence during the study compared with 25 percent taking tamoxifen for the shorter period. The biggest differences in recurrence rates were seen between 10 and 15 years after the cancer diagnosis.
“That was confusing to some of the oncologists at the meeting,” Winer said, but it could have to do with tamoxifen’s cancer-preventing benefits lasting for up to five years after women stop taking the drug.
Post-menopausal breast cancer patients could be given the option to take estrogen-blocking drugs for longer, but oncologists might be left in a quandary about which drugs to give and for how long.
“Should these patients be given 10 years of treatment with an aromatase inhibitor? Should they have 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor followed by 5 years of tamoxifen? Would more than 10 years of tamoxifen be even better than 10 years? No data exist to support any of these options,” wrote Dr. Trevor Powles, an oncologist at the Cancer Centre
London in England, in an editorial that accompanied the study."
This article is full of all sorts of 'warm fuzzy' news. Did you notice the statistic about recurrence rates highest between 10-15 years after diagnosis? I'm overjoyed.
This may have been a long awaited study but all it did was confuse and scare the patients and make them all want to call their oncologist right away and ask what impact this has on their treatment.
Truth be told, I would be perfectly happy to have one fewer daily medication to take and was starting to look forward to the end of Arimidex which is currently scheduled for January.
In an evil little psychotic way, I am glad to read that even the oncologists are confused by this. You can read on below but the gist of it is women who took tamoxifen for 10 years had a 12% rate of dying from breast cancer ove rthe 15 year study compared with at 15% risk for those who took a placebo after the first five years. Howevr about 3% of women who took tamoxifen developed endometrial cancer.
"“It’s going to be practice-changing, in my view, immediately for pre-menopausal women with breast cancer,” said Dr. Eric Winer, chief of women’s cancers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was attending the San Antonio cancer conference where the results were presented Wednesday. Those who have “estrogen-receptor positive” breast cancer, the type that responds to tamoxifen, will probably be advised to continue taking tamoxifen for an additional five years, he said.
Younger breast cancer patients who stopped taking tamoxifen years earlier may be counseled to start taking the drugs again.
On an individual level, breast cancer patients will need to weigh their tamoxifen options carefully.
Some women can’t tolerate tamoxifen and are eager to get off the drug as quickly as possible. They might have hot flashes, moodiness, and vaginal dryness making sex very painful. “About 10 to 15 percent of women don’t like being on it,” Winer added, “and unfortunately, younger women seem to have more of these side effects.”
Those with small, non-aggressive tumors with no spread to nearby lymph nodes might consider taking tamoxifen for only five years if they’re plagued by side effects since their risk of recurrence is very small. Those with larger, more aggressive tumors, however, might feel more compelled to stay on the drug for a decade.
For women whose breast cancer was diagnosed after menopause, the picture gets even more complicated. They’re usually given newer drugs called aromatase inhibitors (Arimidex, Femara, Aromasin) in addition to or instead of tamoxifen for a total of five years of treatment. Post-menopausal patients at Dana-Farber typically get two years of tamoxifen followed by five years of aromatase inhibitors.
“I’ve long believed that these extra years of treatment would help,” said Winer. That’s because with estrogen-receptor positive cancers, half of all recurrences happen beyond five years of diagnosis.
The new study found that 21 percent of those taking tamoxifen for 10 years had a recurrence during the study compared with 25 percent taking tamoxifen for the shorter period. The biggest differences in recurrence rates were seen between 10 and 15 years after the cancer diagnosis.
“That was confusing to some of the oncologists at the meeting,” Winer said, but it could have to do with tamoxifen’s cancer-preventing benefits lasting for up to five years after women stop taking the drug.
Post-menopausal breast cancer patients could be given the option to take estrogen-blocking drugs for longer, but oncologists might be left in a quandary about which drugs to give and for how long.
“Should these patients be given 10 years of treatment with an aromatase inhibitor? Should they have 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor followed by 5 years of tamoxifen? Would more than 10 years of tamoxifen be even better than 10 years? No data exist to support any of these options,” wrote Dr. Trevor Powles, an oncologist at the Cancer Centre
London in England, in an editorial that accompanied the study."
This article is full of all sorts of 'warm fuzzy' news. Did you notice the statistic about recurrence rates highest between 10-15 years after diagnosis? I'm overjoyed.
This may have been a long awaited study but all it did was confuse and scare the patients and make them all want to call their oncologist right away and ask what impact this has on their treatment.
A very 'helpful' study designed to confuse us all
I am sure that this morning's headlines (aside from Thanksgiving food, foot ball, parades, and giving thanks) will be full of the news that a new study has been released which says that 'Mammograms lead to unneeded treatment'. Gee thanks.
The study looked at test results from 1976 to 2008. The article makes two 'helpful' points:
In my mind, that is the real target. Finding ways to determine if a cancer is deadly or a cancerous tumor that is slow growing or will be reabsorbed by the body. That would be a whole new focus of research.
The study looked at test results from 1976 to 2008. The article makes two 'helpful' points:
- mammograms do not help find late stage breast cancers any sooner so the death rate from them has not gone down by much
- Between 70,000 and 80,000 women are treated annual for breast cancers that would never kill them
In my mind, that is the real target. Finding ways to determine if a cancer is deadly or a cancerous tumor that is slow growing or will be reabsorbed by the body. That would be a whole new focus of research.
Mother Nature and Medical Research
We often hear about medical research being at the 'mouse test' stage. This stage is actually usually after many years of research which needs to be followed by more research. These mice have been inbred, overbred, mutated, and who knows what (I always feel sorry for the mice). Unfortunately hurricane Sandy is responsible for the loss of years of research.
As NYU medical center was evacuated and power systems failed, many mice and other cells and tissue samples met with their demise. This means many research programs will be set back by years. Damn.
A lesson to be learned here is that no matter what is put in for back up systems and redundancy to safeguard research and materials a natural disaster can get around it. I am sure they had generators and back up electrical for incubators etc. But who knew labs would be flooded, caretakers could not get in for days, etc? It may have been unforeseen before the end of October, but now we know.
Our real lesson to learn is that you can't mess with Mother Nature.
As NYU medical center was evacuated and power systems failed, many mice and other cells and tissue samples met with their demise. This means many research programs will be set back by years. Damn.
A lesson to be learned here is that no matter what is put in for back up systems and redundancy to safeguard research and materials a natural disaster can get around it. I am sure they had generators and back up electrical for incubators etc. But who knew labs would be flooded, caretakers could not get in for days, etc? It may have been unforeseen before the end of October, but now we know.
Our real lesson to learn is that you can't mess with Mother Nature.
Living with cancer stories
Cure magazine has posted a lengthy article on new treatments for ER positive breast cancers and featured two of my fellow bloggers in it. The first one they introduce is Jill Cohen who's blog is 'Dancing with Cancer, Living with Mets; the New Normal'. I have always admired Jill as she has passed all the statistics with living with Stage IV breast cancer since 2002 - thats ten years. Ann Silberman is the other blogger who writes 'Breast Cancer? But Doctor I Hate Pink!' and writes about living with stage IV breast cancer in a very humorous way.
Back to the article, it is full of descriptions of how the hormonal drugs work and some new combinations and, more importantly, new advances. Click here for a timeline showing the progress of how research has changed the face of treating Estrogen positive breast cancers including the approval in 2012 for a new treatment for metastatic breast cancer.
I always like to read optimistic stories that show the progress that is being made in treatment of breast and other cancers. And reading others' blogs as they cope with their treatment helps me cope as well.
Back to the article, it is full of descriptions of how the hormonal drugs work and some new combinations and, more importantly, new advances. Click here for a timeline showing the progress of how research has changed the face of treating Estrogen positive breast cancers including the approval in 2012 for a new treatment for metastatic breast cancer.
I always like to read optimistic stories that show the progress that is being made in treatment of breast and other cancers. And reading others' blogs as they cope with their treatment helps me cope as well.
Combating Cancer Cell Communication
One of the latest theories in cancer research is that its not about the cancer cells themselves but its about the environment in which they live - the tumor micro environment - where all these cells, proteins, and whatchamacallits hangout and communicate. How they communicate, how evil cancer cells trick good cells into doing bad things - like turning into cancer cells or creating blood supplies for tumors - and how those triggers could be altered to make them kill off the bad guys (cancer cells).
There is a lot of science involved but if you read this article slowly with a cup of coffee and then think about it, it makes a lot of sense and shows a lot of progress in what is going on in cancer research.
This kind of research, while complicated for the layperson to understand at first, has been going on for a while. I heard Dr Susan Love speak a couple of years ago and she was talking about it then. The tumor micro environment is the area of interest.
What is in the 'neighborhood' of the tumor that made regular cells turn into cancer cells? If you take the average kid and put them in a 'good' neighborhood chances are they will be a good kid. But if you take the average kid and put them in a 'bad' neighborhood, full of gangs and drugs, how long will they stay good? The chances are greater they will be pulled into the 'bad' forces in neighborhood. Is this true in the tumor's neighborhood? Are there bad influences there?
This area of research is very interesting to me and think that this is called progress.
There is a lot of science involved but if you read this article slowly with a cup of coffee and then think about it, it makes a lot of sense and shows a lot of progress in what is going on in cancer research.
This kind of research, while complicated for the layperson to understand at first, has been going on for a while. I heard Dr Susan Love speak a couple of years ago and she was talking about it then. The tumor micro environment is the area of interest.
What is in the 'neighborhood' of the tumor that made regular cells turn into cancer cells? If you take the average kid and put them in a 'good' neighborhood chances are they will be a good kid. But if you take the average kid and put them in a 'bad' neighborhood, full of gangs and drugs, how long will they stay good? The chances are greater they will be pulled into the 'bad' forces in neighborhood. Is this true in the tumor's neighborhood? Are there bad influences there?
This area of research is very interesting to me and think that this is called progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
