Tag: Cancer

Health/Women
Posted on

Skip mammograms, quit breast self-exams, and maybe lighten up on 'defensive medicine' while we're at it

by Fran Johns

All those mammograms, self-exams and dutiful attention to catching breast cancer at the very first sign? Forget it. Might even do more harm than good.

As summarized by Associated Press writers Stephanie Nano and Marilynn Machione late Monday,
Most women don’t need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task forcesaid Monday. It’s a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society‘s long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn’t be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.

“The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn’t likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department.

Maybe, just maybe, a clearer look at breast cancer screening could be accompanied by a good look at a little of the other possibly unnecessary and extraordinarily pricey “defensive medicine” going on around the country. What a fine way that would be to hold down costs and save a lot of time and angst. In another recent article (November 5) published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press reporter Steve LeBlanc wrote of how the costs of “defensive medicine,” along with malpractice insurance and lawsuit awards, are adding significantly to the soaring costs of health care.

LeBlanc illustrates the issue with a story that rings sadly true:

Dr. James Wang says he tries to tell his patients when medical procedures aren’t necessary. If they insist, though, he will do it – not so much to protect their health as his own practice.

After being sued for allegedly failing to diagnose a case of appendicitis, Wang says he turned to what’s known as “defensive medicine,” ordering extra tests, scans, consultations and even hospitalization to protect against malpractice suits.

“You are thinking about what can I do to prevent this from happening again,” he said, adding that he did nothing wrong but agreed to a minor settlement to avoid a trial.

We have, LeBlanc explains, doctors battling malpractice premiums and lawyers saying malpractice suits discourage bad medicine — meanwhile, the costs of it all add up to some ten percent of health care expenditures.

We the public, healthy and sickly alike, are caught in the middle. Could we not somehow declare a truce? We’ll quit rushing to sue, lawyers back off from chasing ambulances, doctors go about the business of practicing medicine according to patient need rather than fear of consequences. Seems like a good idea to me, but I’m not holding my breath.

I’m also not having any more mammograms any time soon.

New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50 – Yahoo! News.

General interest/Health
Posted on

Leaving Cancer Alone

by Fran Johns

We don’t talk a lot about not treating cancer. But as mentioned recently in this space, leaving it the heck alone is an option that merits consideration, particularly in the case of breast and prostate cancers detected very early on.  Now comes further news, reported by New York Times health writer Gina Kolata, of studies showing that some other cancers might also go away by themselves.

Call it the arrow of cancer. Like the arrow of time, it was supposed to point in one direction. Cancers grew and worsened.

But as a paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted last week, data from more than two decades of screening for breast and prostate cancer call that view into question. Besides finding tumors that would be lethal if left untreated, screening appears to be finding many small tumors that would not be a problem if they were left alone, undiscovered by screening. They were destined to stop growing on their own or shrink, or even, at least in the case of some breast cancers, disappear.

The Times article cites studies of testicular, cervical, kidney and other cancers that suggest some, left untreated, might simply go away; the trick now is to begin identifying which these would be.

I don’t know anyone who would opt out of treatment when it is likely to offer restored health. But especially for older populations, the choice of not treating a small cancer could be more frequently and seriously discussed.

Cancer cells and precancerous cells are so common that nearly everyone by middle age or old age is riddled with them, said Thea Tlsty, a professor of pathology at the University of California, San Francisco. That was discovered in autopsy studies of people who died of other causes, with no idea that they had cancer cells or precancerous cells. They did not have large tumors or symptoms of cancer. “The really interesting question,” Dr. Tlsty said, “is not so much why do we get cancer as why don’t we get cancer?”The earlier a cell is in its path toward an aggressive cancer, researchers say, the more likely it is to reverse course. So, for example, cells that are early precursors of cervical cancer are likely to revert. One study found that 60 percent of precancerous cervical cells, found with Pap tests, revert to normal within a year; 90 percent revert within three years.

And the dynamic process of cancer development appears to be the reason that screening for breast cancer or prostate cancer finds huge numbers of early cancers without a corresponding decline in late stage cancers.

If every one of those early cancers were destined to turn into an advanced cancer, then the total number of cancers should be the same after screening is introduced, but the increase in early cancers should be balanced by a decrease in advanced cancers.

That has not happened with screening for breast and prostate cancer. So the hypothesis is that many early cancers go nowhere. And, with breast cancer, there is indirect evidence that some actually disappear.

A sister who is six years older than I was diagnosed with breast cancer at 72, had a mastectomy and is cancer free. Six years later I was diagnosed with breast cancer, had a mastectomy and am cancer free. Last week I visited a college classmate who had been diagnosed two weeks ago with breast cancer; she had a mastectomy and is cancer free. Cancer free is good. But what if — just what if — one of those cancers might have disappeared without major surgery?

Disappearing tumors are well known in testicular cancer. Dr. Jonathan Epstein at Johns Hopkins says it does not happen often, but it happens.

It is harder to document disappearing prostate cancers; researchers say they doubt it happens. Instead, they say, it seems as if many cancers start to grow then stop or grow very slowly, as has been shown in studies like one now being done at Johns Hopkins. When men have small tumors with cells that do not look terribly deranged, doctors at Johns Hopkins offer them an option of “active surveillance.” They can forgo having their prostates removed or destroyed and be followed with biopsies. If their cancer progresses, they can then have their prostates removed.

Almost no one agrees to such a plan. “Most men want it out,” Dr. Epstein said. But, still, the researchers have found about 450 men in the past four or five years who chose active surveillance. By contrast, 1,000 a year have their prostates removed at Johns Hopkins. From following those men who chose not to be treated, the investigators discovered that only about 20 percent to 30 percent of those small tumors progressed. And many that did progress still did not look particularly dangerous, although once the cancers started to grow the men had their prostates removed.

In Canada, researchers are doing a similar study with small kidney cancers, among the few cancers that are reported to regress occasionally, even when far advanced.

One of the things we post-mastectomy women were talking about last week was how we might handle a recurrence. The reality is, as we have all already proved: you live long enough, you get stuff. Maybe someone at Johns Hopkins (or elsewhere; Kaiser San Francisco would suit me fine) will undertake a study in which older women with small breast cancers can opt for “active surveillance” rather than major surgery. Should I qualify, I would enroll. To this admittedly untrained and unscientific survivor it seems a study whose time has come.

Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How? – NYTimes.com.

General interest/Health/Money
Posted on

Cancer, Viruses & Informed Consent

by Fran Johns

A commentary about cancer screenings and surrounding questions posted yesterday brought a thoughtful reader response: “Science, including public health,” wrote davidlosangeles, “is an evolving process.”  Unquestionably so.

What we the consuming public need to understand is not the science as much as the personal responsibility. Today’s New York Times features another story on the front page of the Business section (some of us still follow old-fashioned newsprint) by Duff Wilson about “Research Uproar at a Cancer Clinic”, namely the highly regarded Carle Foundation Cancer Center in Urbana, IL. It’s another instance of respected professionals questioning each others’ respectability — or protocols, or carefulness, to use gentler terms than are actually being used. One of the issues raised is that of informed consent, and here is where we the consuming public come in. Whether we are cancer patients, CFIDS sufferers or mostly healthy people susceptible to the usual ails, it is incumbent upon the individual to know what he or she is agreeing to, and to know as much as possible about the projected outcome. We’re all in a giant clinical trial here on the planet. Nobody really knows about the outcome, but participation in mini-trials along the way can be valuable and is certainly laudable. Just know what you’re doing.

I am a continuing participant in the Women’s Health Initiative study now well into its second decade, though the primary issues are over and done with. I didn’t try any new hormone replacement therapies or drastic lifestyle changes, mainly because I’m pretty wimpish, but I read every word of the small print in the reams of documents that came along and tried hard to appreciate what the pitfalls and premises were. It was a valuable study, and hopefully will continue to turn up usable data.

Other studies are underway, and more will undoubtedly begin, regarding the current hoopla over XRMV, and H1N1. And heaven only knows how many other viruses, techonological advances, genetic possibilities and scientific wonders are out there to create great harm or great benefit.

Since the benefits are to the buyers, it’s appropriate that the buyer beware.

California/General interest/Health/Politics & Causes
Posted on

Cancer Gurus, CDC – Whom can you trust?

by Fran Johns

In the news of the past several days are reports that the American Cancer Society is about to concede that screenings for breast and prostate cancer — long touted as the holy grail of preventive medicine — have instead led to a great deal of over-treatment, and worse. Plus admission by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that their pooh-poohing of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome has left a lot of folks suffering, perhpas needlessly, for decades.

Who in the world is there left to trust?

I do trust my physicians at Kaiser, and continue to hope the crafters of our elusive health reform bills are looking in Kaiser’s direction. My breast cancer was detected through a regular mammogram. How frequent these screenings should be is still a matter of debate, but in my case early detection led to a quick mastectomy, a small price to pay for living happily a few more years after. (The ever-after business is not a principal to which I subscribe.) On the other hand, small as my tumor was, who’s to say it might have sat there harmlessly a few more years untreated? Please don’t get me wrong; I would not have opted for waiting to see. Just wondering.

I’m not so sure about prostate cancer screening. But since what seems nearly every man I know over 65 has been diagnosed with prostate cancer after a routine screening, it’s possible to wonder about this too. An October 21 New York Times article cites a new analysis by Dr. Laura Esserman, a professor of surgery and radiology at the University of California, San Francisco and director of the Carol Frank Buck Breast Cancer Center and Dr. Ian Thompson, professor and chairman of the department of urology at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio that “runs counter to everything people have been told about cancer: They are finding cancers that do not need to be found because they would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone.” We the healthcare consumers aren’t getting any breaks. Here’s a whole new dilemma to mull over and decide upon: to screen or not to screen, to treat or not to treat. In one group of gentlemen friends I know, others newly diagnosed with prostate cancer are invited to hang out for an hour or so and listen to the pros and cons of the various treatment options — because within the group are men who have gone down at least 4 or 5 different paths.

Another re-evaluation, this one a little more sinister, centers around the dismissive attitude long held by the venerable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, guardian of our national health and welfare where things like viruses and other causes of infectious disease are concerned. In a Times op ed piece titled ‘A Case of Chronic Denial‘, Hillary Johnson reports on a recent study in the journal Science about a virus found in prostate cancers which will be referred to here by its shorter name, XRMV. It now turns out that there may be a link between XRMV and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, more commonly referred to these days as CFIDS, and the work now going on in this area of research could be significant in treatment of the latter. Having had a number of friends and family members suffering from CFIDS, I admit to being among those who occasionally thought it might be partly in one’s head, but also aware of the degree of misery and disability CFIDS can bring.

This space is not a health authority. It is, rather aimed at those of us 50-somethings and over, many of whom have trusted many of the above. Trust is good. Open-mindedness is better. Questioning might be best of all.

General interest/Health/USA
Posted on

Modeling how to die

by Fran Johns

My remarkable friend Mary died yesterday, after showing us how to do it. Not when, mind you, because she was far too young and energetic — just how. How to question and oppose, to look at options, and eventually to accept the fact that life is fine and finite and go with grace into whatever lies ahead.

Diagnosed with pancreatic cancer barely a year ago, Mary began what would be a studied exploration of traditional and experimental interventions to see if she might wrangle some extra quality time on the planet that she had carefully nurtured throughout her life. Almost as importantly – most importantly to her host of concerned friends – she and her husband Tom signed up on CaringBridge. Immediately, her host of friends also signed on, forming a sort of cybercircle around the family.

As the journey progressed, they would post pictures and notes about their travels and travails, filled with exuberant photos, irrepressible humor and a clear-eyed view of our shared mortality. Friends and relations would sign in with their own comments. Sometimes the latter would include off-beat ideas for something else to fling in the face of the disease; more often they would be notes about how Mary and Tom were brought spiritually into other circles when they couldn’t be physically present. Sometimes they would be long and rambling; more often they would be simple affirmations of how the couple and their family were being held close in so many hearts.

It was an extraordinary gathering. With their three grown children and a few others on site, there was relatively little taking-of-casseroles over these months, though Mary was always the first to show up with a giant jug of homemade chicken soup whenever some affliction struck at my house (and many others.) The cybercircle kept us regularly informed, assured us that we were part of the journey, and served, I believe, as a constant reminder to Mary and Tom that dozens and dozens of their friends were at their virtual side along the way. It helped that both of the central characters – and they were central characters in all the best senses – were thoughtful and eloquent writers.

While preparing for a new round of treatment not long ago, Mary and Tom learned that her tumors had returned with a vengeance. So instead of setting out for one adventure they settled in for another. Hospice was called in, their children gathered even closer. Postings in cyberspace documented the passage of those days, from occasional sunset walks into the nearby hills to readings of comments from friends, as Mary grew weaker, that might win what Tom described as the ultimate honor, “the coveted arched eyebrow.”

As she died, Mary’s family fluffed the pillows and administered “magic drops and potions, all of which helped only sort of.” Afterward, Tom opened the window as a friend had prompted, ” to free her spirit, not that she needed any help from me” and hung their Revolutionary War era ‘Liberty’ flag out front.  And sent a final note into cyberspace for the ever-expanding circle of friends: “All hail, Mary, so very, very full of grace.”

General interest
Posted on

Drugs, Perils and Trust

by Fran Johns

Oh great. Now I’ve got to worry about lung cancer.

Recently released findings on hormone replacement therapy now show it nearly doubles the risk of dying of lung cancer for those women who followed this regimen. Already we’ve learned that HRT is linked to increases in breast cancer, heart disease, stroke and who knows what else. It’s giving me a headache.

Hormone replacement therapy was, some 30 or more years ago, generally accepted as being the be-all and end-all for postmenopausal women. No hot flashes! Limitless energy! Avoid cancer! Resist heart disease! Live long and prosper! That was more or less the message. My good physician, now long dead of drug-related causes himself but a wise and decent man he was, enlisted the aid of his nurse, who was also a friend of mine, to convince me to begin HRT. Addictable to anything that comes down the pike and resistant to drug-taking in general, I protested. But they and the general public belief that these drugs (estrogen and progestin) were the answer to every woman’s prayers, convinced me. I took them daily for years, then once weekly, when the formulae were perfected.

I quit in 2006 for the best of reasons: breast cancer.

I am absolutely certain my doctor wanted only the best for me. But I’m still somehow a little comforted now by the knowledge that Kaiser does not let drug company representatives meet with its physicians. Most of us trust our doctors. Some people whom they trusted convinced a lot of doctors, 30+ years ago, that HRT was a wonderfully promising regimen. Oh, doctors also read reports and journal articles, and listened to presentations, and early studies did indicate that HRT was a wonderful thing. I presume even the drug makers sincerely felt — hoped, at least — they were doing good. They had wives and mothers, after all. (Most people in those workplaces at the time were male, I suspect.) But maybe, just maybe, a few more studies would have been in order.

Now we’ve got studies. And a lot of interesting new information thanks to the Women’s Health Initiative. It was the first ever major effort to look at the most common causes of death, disability and poor quality of life in postmenopausal women. WHI was launched in 1991 and covered 161,808 generally healthy women; without yours truly they’d have only had 161,807. In the effort to help the WHI folks collect data on cardiovascular disease, cancer and osteoporosis, we made regular visits to designated clinics for 5 years, giving blood, getting weighed, filling out forms, answering questions. For another 10 years we filled out annual reports (and I think some participants did more; I was purely a control-group person because I didn’t want to alter my HRT regimen and knew I hadn’t enough will power to stick to some rigorous, data-producing diet.) A lot of us died along the way, thus the data. I remain a participant in a follow-up study that runs until 2010.

I await with interest the next release of findings. Some of the questions are along the lines of ‘On a scale of 1 to 10, how happy are you?’ so somebody’s watching for quality of life connections to things like exercise and marital status. And drugs. I know there are great things being done with drugs, but this profit margin business combined with what we keep finding out does give me pause. (I loved the survey question that asked whether, when I entered a room, I thought people were talking about me. There’s a story here.)

But whatever they’re finding out, it’s carefully done, covers a long period and a relatively huge bunch of women, and bless their hearts. Meanwhile, if you’re on HRT, you might want to talk to your doctor. What we didn’t know proved it could hurt us.

1 2