October 19th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
No Comments »
Even though I live in DC it was my first visit to the Department of State. I was surprised by the level of security (I passed through 2 metal detectors to get to the conference) and the multitude of languages spoken by the attendees. Many were wearing headphones, which were connected to a translator service. The lectures were rapidly translated into the various languages of the audience members (the way it would for the United Nations meetings), though I enjoyed the ability to listen directly to the speakers in my native tongue.
I was able to interview a keynote speaker, Joe Harford, Ph.D., the Director of the Office of International Affairs, of the National Cancer Institute. Here’s what he had to say:
Dr. Val: Why is the risk of breast cancer (in the US) greater now than in previous generations?
Dr. Harford: The main cause of the increase is related to changes in reproductive patterns within the population as a whole. Women who have fewer children (and later in life) tend to have higher risk of breast cancer. This is associated with hormones – the breast is a hormonally responsive organ and breast cells that convert to tumor cells also have hormone receptivity. Pregnancy and breast feeding are protective for breast tissue. Women can check out their risk for developing breast cancer by filling out this
short, online assessment tool at the NCI.
Read more »
July 20th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews
2 Comments »
This is part 2 of an interview with urologist Mark Schoenberg. Please click here for part one of the interview.
Dr. Val: How is bladder cancer treated?
Dr. Schoenberg: Bladder cancer can be grouped into two categories: non-invasive disease and invasive disease. About 80-90% of the time the cancer is formed by the cells of the inner lining of the bladder, ureters, and kidneys and is non-invasive. This type of bladder cancer doesn’t spread or invade the bladder wall, so it doesn’t threaten the life of the patient, but it can recur.
Non-invasive cancers are usually removed surgically via a scope that is inserted into the bladder via the urethra, and then afterwards there are a variety of medicines that can be infused into the bladder. Those medicines are like a kind of weed killer for bladder cancer.
Unfortunately up to 20% of patients have invasive tumors at the time that they are diagnosed. Once the bladder cancer has spread outside the bladder wall, surgery is needed to remove the primary tumor and then IV chemotherapy and sometimes radiation therapy are needed to treat the life threatening, metastatic disease.
Dr. Val: Is there any way to screen for bladder cancer?
Dr. Schoenberg: Unfortunately at this time urine tests for bladder cancer are very expensive, and they don’t detect cancer reliably. However, many researchers (including myself) are currently on a hunt for specific bladder cancer markers that are inexpensive and reliable. Once we find such a marker or group of markers, it would make sense to begin screening — at the very least — high risk groups such as smokers or people with occupational exposures to chemicals.
Dr. Val: What are the most promising advancements in bladder cancer treatment? Is there new research in the pipeline that could improve its diagnosis or treatment?
Dr. Schoenberg: There are two different areas of research interest in bladder cancer. The diagnostics arena — finding cancer more efficiently, effectively, and less invasively — and the therapeutics arena — developing new tools, drugs, and agents to get rid of cancer cells.
On the diagnostic front, molecular diagnostic researchers are looking at abnormal cancer proteins and DNA that can be detected in urine samples. Because of this research, in the next 5-10 years it wouldn’t surprise me if we no longer had to rely on cystoscopes for the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Also we’d like to develop molecular and genetic profiles in order to risk-stratify people more successfully (i.e. figure out who is at greater risk for bladder cancer, and make sure they get tested).
On the treatment front, there are a number of companies developing targeted therapies for bladder cancer. It’s possible that these therapies will reduce the risk of progression and recurrence in people with bladder cancer.
Unfortunately, bladder cancer has only attracted a fraction of the research dollars that other cancers have in patients in the same demographic (like pancreatic cancer). In fact, NIH funding for bladder cancer research is pitifully small and shrinking, despite the fact that there are 600,000 Americans who have bladder cancer right now. Not only that, but bladder cancer is one of the most expensive cancers to treat – because it requires repeated cystoscopies, catheter-based infusions, repeat surgeries, and sometimes chemo and radiation. Bladder cancer treatment costs Americans about 1 billion dollars a year.
Dr. Val: Why isn’t bladder cancer receiving the research funding it deserves?
Dr. Schoenberg: Successful cancer groups have highly visible champions for the disease – like Lance Armstrong for testicular cancer, or Susan G. Koman for breast cancer. Research funding seems to be strongly influenced by highly visible people getting out there and making a ruckus. We need powerful spokespeople to help Diane Quale at the Bladder Cancer Association Network to get the word out.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
July 16th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Celebrity Interviews, Patient Interviews
No Comments »
Bob Schieffer is broadcast journalism’s most experienced Washington reporter. He has covered Washington for CBS News for more than 30 years, and has been the anchor for Face The Nation (one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television) since 1991. I had the privilege of interviewing him about his bladder cancer at the CBS studios today. It is Bob’s sincere hope that his story will inspire others to seek medical help at the first sign of bladder cancer, and also gain comfort from knowing that they are not alone.
This is part two of our interview series. Click here for part one.
Dr. Val: Do you have any advice for patients facing bladder cancer?
Schieffer: Bladder cancer is a very insidious disease, you can have it for a long time without knowing that you have it. At the first sign of blood in the urine, you need to go to the doctor. I think men are often reluctant to go to the doctor, and their tendency may be to attribute blood in their urine to a muscle strain of some kind. But waiting is a dangerous proposition. When I think of my own situation, I realize that even waiting another week or two could have put me into a whole different risk category and I might not be where I am today.
Cancer research is such an evolving field – that if you can keep yourself alive today, there may be a cure tomorrow. That’s the good news about this. The bad news is that we spend about as much on cancer research in a year as we do on one day in Iraq. I don’t know anyone in the cancer community who doesn’t believe that if we invested enough money in it we’d find cures.
Dr. Val: Was it hard for you to speak publicly about your cancer?
Schieffer: Tony Snow and I became really good friends, and we both felt that we had an obligation to talk about our conditions in order to promote cancer awareness. Hamilton Jordan was also a good friend of mine, and he devoted his life to raising awareness. He survived 5 cancers though the 6th one got him. I was a very private person before all this started, and when Hamilton found out I had cancer he called me and said that I really needed to get out and talk about it because I have the opportunity to have an impact on so many people.
As it turned out, I went on Don Imus’ radio show one morning and talked about it, and soon afterwards Wolf Blitzer asked me to be on his show on CNN. I must have received 600 emails from people thanking me for talking about my situation – some were glad to know how to recognize potential bladder cancer, and others told me they no longer felt alone in their cancer experience because they knew that I was going through it too. At that point, I thought to myself that speaking out about my cancer might have been the most important thing I’ve done so far as a journalist. If one person goes to see their doctor when they first notice blood in their urine, then I may have had a part in saving a life.
Bladder cancer is a “below the belt” disease and people are reluctant to talk about it. I think it’s really important to help people get past this barrier. It is nothing to be ashamed of, there’s nothing wrong with you as a person – it’s just that a certain percent of us are going to get bladder cancer.
Dr. Val: How do people get plugged in to the cancer community to get the help they need?
Schieffer: What I’ve noticed is that when you get cancer, you become acqainted with everyone else who has it. There’s a kind of natural networking that occurs when you participate in meetings and events. However, I’d encourage people affected by bladder cancer to go to the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. The founder, Diane Quale, left her job as an attorney to create the advocacy group after her husband was diagnosed with bladder cancer. She has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the cause, although sadly her husband lost his battle with bladder cancer a few weeks ago.
Hamilton Jordan told me this, “You have to take control of your disease. Nobody is going to be more interested in it than you. It’s your life, so you’re the one who has the most invested in this. Just Google ‘bladder cancer’ and learn as much as you can about it.”
When you go to a doctor, especially with cancer, it’s invaluable to get a second opinion. I got a second opinion from a wonderful physician at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Mark Schoenberg. And Dr. Schoenberg told me this: “A doctor is like a good craftsman. A good craftsman is always happy to show his work to other craftsmen. It’s the guy who isn’t really sure what he’s doing who doesn’t want to discuss his work with somebody else in the field.”
Dr. Val: What’s your bottom line about cancer?
Schieffer: Cancer is not something to be embarrassed about. It’s something that happens to us and needs to be dealt with. When the doctor tells you that you have cancer, it is not the death sentence that it once was. Cancer research is advancing every day and we’re finding new ways to fight the disease. There’s no need to say, “I have cancer — this is it” but rather, “I have cancer and what do I need to do about it?” And then you have to do it.
*Visit the bladder cancer center at Revolution Health*This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
June 20th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Announcements
No Comments »
I recently met with Tim Turnham, CEO for the Colon Cancer Alliance, to find out what’s been going on in his neck of the woods. He presented me with one of the best non-profit marketing pitches I’ve seen in a long time. His team is organizing a series of races designed to raise support and awareness for colon cancer. The theme? Running the race in your boxer shorts. The title:
The UNDY 5000: A Brief Run To Fight Colon Cancer (see image of Indy 5000 flags made of boxer shorts)
Become an UNDY 5000 sponsor today… because time is short.
I love it.
If you or your organization would like to sponsor a race, check out this website or contact Fran Campion Watson, Director of Events at the Colon Cancer Alliance. Phone: 202-731-0122.
I hope that proceeds will go towards research that will help friends like mine who are battling colon cancer.
For more information about colon cancer (from one of the nation’s prominent researchers) check out Dr. Heinz Josef Lenz’s colon cancer curriculum at Revolution Health.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
April 23rd, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews, News
5 Comments »
Imagine that you were diagnosed with cancer, and were told that you had one of two treatment options: 1) you could receive a one time dose of a medicine that will go directly to the tumor cells and kill them only, having very few noticeable side effects or 2) you could undergo months of exposure to toxic chemicals that will kill the tumor cells and many other healthy cells as well, resulting in hair loss, bowel damage, nausea, and vomiting. Which would you choose?
Unfortunately, choice number one may no longer be an option for lymphoma patients due to government funding cutbacks, and the development of such treatments for other cancers is in jeopardy as well.
Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is a relatively new approach to cancer treatment, new enough that the government is having difficulty categorizing it correctly. (RIT involves targeting cancer cells with special antibodies that carry tiny, lethal radiation doses to individual cells.) In fact, drugs like Bexxar and Zevalin have been misclassified by CMS as “supplies” rather than medications, and so the reimbursement allowed doesn’t come close to covering the cost of the therapy. Although there are many new targeted therapies under development, investors are worried that the drugs will never be used in patient care because the country’s number one payer (Medicare) is unwilling to cover their costs. Other health insurers often follow the government’s lead when it comes to treatment coverage policies. If no one will pay for the cost of the drug, then ultimately no one can afford to make it available.
Similar funding problems are beginning to limit access to diagnostic nuclear imaging modalities like PET scans, PET CT, cardiac SPECT scans, and bone scans. Reimbursement levels that do not cover the cost of the imaging drugs means that facilities cannot afford to offer these diagnostic technologies to patients, and centers are slowly reducing the number of tests they offer. Nuclear imaging studies are often critical in diagnosing heart problems, infections, and early detection of cancer. Senator Arlen Specter had his cancer recurrence diagnosed at the very earliest stages thanks to PET scanning technology. Early treatment offers him the best possible prognosis, but he is in a dwindling group of people who have access to this imaging modality.
I spoke with Dr. Peter Conti, professor of radiology at the University of Southern California, and former president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, from Spain this week – as he is attending the 6th International Workshop for Nuclear Oncology, a lymphoma conference where the crisis in reimbursement for targeted cancer therapies is being discussed, along with exciting advances in treating patients with lymphoma. The two different RIT drugs (Bexxar and Zevalin) for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are in jeopardy of not being available to Medicare patients due to proposed cuts in reimbursement. Recent plans to cut payment for these drugs have been halted by a temporary moratorium from Senator Kennedy. Here’s what Dr. Conti had to say:
“Let’s face it, lymphoma is not as high profile as other cancers such as breast, colon, or prostate. However, we’ve found a fantastic treatment option for it, and there are implications for the more common cancers, but that treatment option is being denied to lymphoma patients because facilities cannot cover the costs of offering it. I’d like the entire cancer community to rise up in support of lymphoma patients so that Congress will tell Medicare to fix the funding problem. If this doesn’t happen, it’s only a matter of time until novel RIT treatments are no longer an option and we’ll be stuck in the dark ages of non-specific chemotherapy and radiation treatments that harm the good cells with the bad. Personalized, targeted therapy is the future – and we’re missing the opportunity to further develop these novel therapies due to budget cuts.”
I reached out to the current president of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Dr. Alexander J. McEwan, for comment:
“Molecular imaging offers critical tools for the early detection, diagnosis and treatment of many life-threatening diseases, including cancer. SNM recommends that CMS establishes appropriate reimbursement for all forms of nuclear and molecular imaging and radioisotope therapies at levels that allow optimum access and improved outcomes for all patients.”
Denial of RIT to lymphoma patients may be the first sign of a new trend limiting the development of high tech therapeutic innovations. Will America’s research engine run out of gas before we figure out how to treat cancer without side effects? Should we buy one more tank to get us over the crest of the targeted therapy hill? This is a judgment call that affects all of us at a time of great need and limited resources. What’s your take?This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
