Another Take on Not Smoking, the Law and Tolerance

The New Yorker published a story this week, on smoking, that caught my attention. It’s by none other than F. Scott Fitzgerald. The author died in 1940 at the age of 44, after a ruinous period of addictions including alcoholism, debts and other problems.

F. Scott Fitzgerald (June, 1937), photo by Carl van Vechten

Thank You for the Light dates to 1936. The main character is a woman: “Mrs. Hanson was a pretty, somewhat faded woman of forty…” She sold girdles and craved cigarettes. Smoking had the power to “rest and relax her psychologically.” He describes her growing frustration at not being able to take a drag in offices where she did business.

The story suggests that although public and workplace smoking wasn’t illegal back then, it was frowned upon in cities like Chicago. The protagonist longs for past years and places where she could chat and share a drink or cigarette with clients after work. Times had changed, she reflects.

In Fitzgerald’s words:

…Not only was she never asked if she would like to smoke but several times her own inquiry as to whether anyone would mind was answered half apologetically with ‘It’s not that I mind, but it has a bad influence on the employees.’

This vignette offers a 1930s perspective on what some call social health – that an individual’s behavior might be influenced by neighbors’ and coworkers’ attitudes. In this story, the woman finds solace in a church. I won’t give away the ending.

The short read lingers. What’s unsettling, still, is whether the socially-driven ban on smoking helped or harmed the woman.

According to the New Yorker’s Page-Turner, the magazine rejected Fitzgerald’s story when he submitted the piece. The writer’s granddaughter recently uncovered it. This time around, it passed muster.

 

Related Posts:

A Closer Look at the Details on Mammography, in Between the Lines

Recently I wrote a review of Between the Lines, a helpful handbook on bio-medical statistics authored by an acquaintance and colleague, Dr. Marya Zilberberg. In that post, I mentioned my concern about some of the assumptions and statements on mammography. One thing I liked the book, abstractly, is the author’s efforts to streamline the discussion so that the reader can follow the concepts. But simplification and rounding numbers, “for ease of presentation” (p. 29) can mess up facts, significantly in ways that some primary care doctors and journalists might not appreciate. And so I offer what I hope is a clarification, or at least an extension of my colleague’s work, for purposes of helping women understand the potential benefits and risks of mammography.

In the section on mammography (pp. 28-31), the author rounds down the incidence of breast cancer in women between the ages of 40 and 50 years, from “1 in 70” (1.43%) to “1 in 100” (1%). As any marketing professional might remind us, this small change represents a 30% drop (0.43/1.43) in the rate of breast cancer in women of that age group. This difference – of 30%, or 43%, depending on how you look at it – will factor into any calculation of the false positive (FP) rate and the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test.

For women ages 40-49 Have breast cancer Don’t have breast cancer
If estimate 1 in 100, 1.0 % 100 9,900
If estimate 1 in 70, 1.43 % 143 9,857

Keep in mind that these same, proportional difference would apply to any BC screening considerations – in terms of the number of women affected, the potential benefits and costs, for the 22,996,493 women between the ages of 40 and 49 counted in the 2010 U.S. Census,

My colleague estimates, fairly for this younger age group of women (who are relatively disposed to fast-growing tumors), that the screening technology (mammography) only picks up 80% of cases; 20% go undetected. In other words – the test is 80% sensitive; the false negative, FN, rate is 20%. In this same section, she considers that the FP rate as 10%. Let’s accept this (unacceptably high) FP rate for now, for the sake of discussion.

As considered in Between the Lines:

If FP rate is 10%, prevalence 1 in 100 Really have BC Don’t have BC Total
Mammography + 80 990 1,070
Mammography – 20 8,910 8,930
Total 100 9,900 10,000

But the above numbers aren’t valid, because the disease affects over 1 in 70 women in this age bracket. Here’s the same table with a prevalence of 1 in 70 women with BC:

If FP rate is 10%, prevalence 1 in 70 Really have BC Don’t have BC Total
Mammography + 114 986 1,100
Mammography – 29 8,871 8,900
Total 143 9,857 10,000

In this closer approximation to reality, the number of true positives is 114, and false positives 986, among 1,100 abnormal screening results. Now, the PPV of an abnormal mammogram is 114/ (114+986) = 10.4%. So the main statistical point – apart from the particulars of this discussion –  is that a seemingly slight rounding down can have a big impact on a test’s calculated and perceived value. By adjusting the BC rate to its prevalence of approximately 1 in 70 women between 40 and 49 years, we’ve raised the PPV from 7.5% to 10.4%.

Here I must admit that I, too, have rounded, although I did so conservatively very slightly. I adopted a 1 in 70 approximation (1.43%) instead of 1 in 69 (1.45%), as indicated on the NCI website. If we repeat the table and figures using a 1 in 69 or 1.45% prevalence rate and 6% FPS, the PPV rises a tad, to 10.5%.

Now, we might insert a different perspective: What if the false positive rate were 6%, as has been observed among sub-specialist radiologists who work mainly in breast cancer screening?

If FP rate is 6%, prevalence 1 in 70 Really have BC Don’t have BC Total
Mammography + 114 591 705
Mammography – 29 9266 9,295
Total 143 9,857 10,000

As you can see, if we use a FP rate of 6% in our calculations, the total number of FPs drops to 591 among 10,000 women screened. In this better-case scenario, the PPV of the test would = 114/ (114+591) =16%. Still, that’s not great – and I’d argue that public health officials, insurers and patients should be pushing for FP rates closer to 2 or 3% – but that’s irrelevant to my colleague’s point and her generally instructive work.

My second concern has to do with language, and making the consequences of false positives seem worse than they really are. On page 29, the author writes: “ So, going back to the 10,000 women being screened, of 9,900 who do NOT have cancer… 10%, or 990 individuals will still be diagnosed as having cancer.” The fact is, the overwhelming majority of women with positive mammograms won’t receive a cancer diagnosis. Rather, they’ll be told they have “an abnormal result, or a finding that suggests the possibility of cancer and needs further evaluation,” or something along those lines. It would be unusual in practice to jump from a positive mammogram straight to a breast cancer diagnosis. There are steps between, and every patient and journalist should be aware of those.


Finally, if I were to write what I really think, apart from and beyond Between the Lines – I’d suggest the FP rate should be no higher than 2 or 3% in 2012. This is entirely feasible using extant technology, if we were to change just two aspects of mammography practice in the U.S. First, require that all mammograms be performed by breast radiologists who get extra training and focus in their daily work almost exclusively on breast imaging. Second, make sonograms – which, together with mammograms, enhance the specificity of BC screening in women with dense breasts– universally available to supplement the radiologists’ evaluations of abnormal mammograms and dense breasts in younger women.

By implementing these two changes, essentially supporting the practice of sub-specialists in breast radiology, we could significantly lower the FP rate in breast cancer screening. The “costs” of those remaining FPs could be minimized by judicious use of sonograms, needle biopsies and other measures to reduce unnecessary surgery and over-treatment. Over the long haul, we need to educate doctors not to over-treat early stage disease, but that goes far beyond this post and any one woman’s analysis of mammography’s effectiveness.

All for now,
ES

Related Posts:

Three Reasons to Celebrate the Supreme Court’s Decision on Obamacare

I’m thrilled about today’s SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court upheld the gist of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Am I surprised? Yes, like pretty much everyone – I didn’t anticipate Chief Justice Roberts’ clever argument about the individual mandate.

What I see in this is first, a win for patients, who now are more likely to get health care if and when they need it – preventive and otherwise. L’Chaim!

Second, it’s a win for the Obama administration and the Democrats. And although I went to journalism school at Columbia University and was told that “real journalists don’t share their opinions,” I do: I’m a registered, reliable, primary-voting Democrat. The ACA is, so far, President Obama’s signature achievement. This SCOTUS decision supports the President’s goal of simultaneously reining in health care costs and expanding coverage to all. It raises the likelihood of President Obama’s re-election. Cheers!

Finally, and at a deeper level, the decision reflects the power of one man’s thoughtfulness to change the outcome of a seemingly bleak situation. (This can happen in oncology and other kinds of medicine, when most of the doctors or specialists on a case throw up their hands or say “it’s impossible because of blah, blah, blah,” and they might refer to some old published studies on old drugs, or something like that.) What Chief Justice Roberts did was think out-of-the box, carefully and within a legal framework. Like a good, smart doctor, morally grounded and, perhaps, influenced by compassion (hard to tell), the Chief Justice figured out a legally acceptable way for his court to do the right thing. By his wisdom, he will have saved more than a few lives. Bravo!

Related Posts:

Reading Between the Lines, and Learning from an Epidemiologist

Early on in Between the Lines, a breezy new book on medical statistics by Dr. Marya Zilberberg, the author encourages her readers to “write, underline, highlight, dog-ear and leave sticky notes.” I did just that. Well, with one exception; I didn’t use a highlighter. That’s partially due to my fear of chemicals, but mainly because we had none in my home.

I enjoyed reading this book, perhaps more than I’d anticipated. Maybe that’s because I find the subject of analyzing quantitative data, in itself, dull. But this proves an easy read: it’s short and not boring. The author avoids minutia. Although I’m wary of simplified approaches – because as she points out, the devil is often in the details of any study – this tact serves the reader who might otherwise drop off this topic. Her style is informal. The examples she chooses to illustrate points on medical studies are relevant to what you might find in a current journal or newspaper this morning.

Over the past year or two, I have gotten to know Dr. Zilberberg, just a bit, as a blogging colleague and on-line associate. This book gave me the chance to understand her perspective. Now, I can better “see” where she’s coming from.

There’s a lot anyone with an early high school math background, or a much higher level of education, might take away from this work. For doctors who’ve attended four-year med schools and, of course, know their stats well (I’m joking, TBC*), this book provides an eminently readable review of basic concepts – sensitivity, specificity, types of evidence, types of trials, Type II errors, etc. For those, perhaps pharmacy student, journalists and others, looking for an accessible source of information on terms like “accuracy” or HTE (heterogeneous treatment effect), Between the Lines will fill you in.

The work reads as a skinny, statistical guidebook with commentary. It includes a few handy tables – on false positives and false negatives (Chapter 3), types of medical studies (Chapter 14), and relative risk (Chapter 19). There’s considered discussion of bias, sources of bias, hypothesis testing and observational studies. In the third chapter the author uses lung cancer screening scenarios to effectively explain terms like accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic testing, and the concept of positive predictive value.

Though short, this is a thoughtful, non-trivial work with insights. In a segment on hierarchies of evidence, for example, the author admits “affection for observational data.” This runs counter to some epidemiologists’ views. But Zilberberg defends it, based on the value of observational data in describing some disease frequencies, exposures, and long-term studies of populations. In the same chapter, she emphasizes knowing – and stating – the limits of knowledge (p. 37): “…I do think we (and the press) do a disservice to patients, and to ourselves, and to the science if we are not upfront about just how uncertain much of what we think we know is…”

Mammography is, not surprisingly, one of few areas about which I’d take issue with some of the author’s statements. For purposes of this post and mini-review, I’ll leave it at that, because I think this is a helpful book overall and in many particulars.

Dr. Zilberberg cites a range of other sources on statistics, medical studies and epistemology. One of my favorite quotes appears early on, from the author directly. She considers the current, “layered” system of disseminating medical information through translators, who would be mainly physicians, to patients, and journalists, to the public. She writes: “I believe that every educated person must at the very least understand how these interpreters of medical knowledge examine, or should examine, it to arrive at the conclusions.”

This book sets the stage for richer, future discussions of clinical trials, cancer screening, evidence-based medicine, informed consent and more. It’s a contribution that can help move these dialogues forward. I look ahead to a continued, lasting and valuable conversation.

 —

*TBC = to be clear

Related Posts:

How Much Do You Want Your Doctors To Say About Risks of Treatment?

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I was working as a board-certified oncologist. The initial decisions most patients face – which doctor to see, what kind of doctor to see, and at which medical center to see them – were basically non-decisions. I knew, within an instant of my diagnosis, who I’d ask to be my oncologist, surgeon and plastic surgeon. Those choices were straightforward, because I knew what those physicians were like in terms of how they cared for patients, their knowledge and other aspects of their practices and personalities.

The harder decisions were what treatment to take, or not, for my early-stage breast cancer. I was perhaps the most informed cancer patient who could walk into an oncologist’s office. I was familiar with the different regimens. I knew that adjuvant chemotherapy would, roughly and over the long haul, reduce my odds of recurrence by a third. I was aware that, if I opted for a lumpectomy, radiation treatment would reduce the local recurrence rate but was unlikely to affect my long-term survival. I understood that dose-intense regimens were more likely to make me sick and more likely to cause problems down the road.

And yes, in the back of my head I knew that chemotherapy can cause another cancer. Did I think about that possibility? The best answer is, probably, not so much. I was coping with the present.

But that knowledge did influence the decision I made to take a relatively “light” dose of chemotherapy. I was lucky, also, in that I understood my pathology. My tumor, at 1.5 cm, with a negative sentinel node and generous expression of hormone receptors, was a good-prognosis tumor. I was 42 years old, and wanted to live for a few more decades if I survived my spine surgery (another story). I chose the minimal amount of chemo that had been shown in clinical trials to reduce the odds of recurrence.

Last week, I wrote a piece for the Atlantic on how doctors and patients talk about the risks of chemotherapy, or not, and whether patients listen or necessarily want to listen. The reason I put it out there is because I’ve seen doctors shy away from this part of the conversation about cancer treatment. I’m a firm believer in informed consent, and in patients’ access to as much information as they choose to have. If you get chemotherapy, you have the right to know about these risks, and to ask your doctor about them.

I’ve been there with patients who’ve said: “please, don’t tell me this. I can’t deal with it.” Some might even consider it cruel to tell patients with a serious, urgent and treatment-needing condition details of all the possible side effects. Many ask, “what would you do, doctor, if it were someone in your family?” And if they like and respect you, they go with your recommendation.

This kind of paternalism, when a doctor assesses the risks and benefits, and spares the patient’s “knowing” seems anachronistic. But it may, still, be what many people are looking for when and if they get a serious illness. Not everyone wants a “tell me everything” kind of physician. What do you think?

Related Posts:

This Week’s Triple, Tough Dose of Real Stories on Women with Cancer

Dear Readers,

It’s been a tough week on the breast cancer front.

Many in the community first learned that Ellen Moskowitz, a former leader at the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network (MBCN), died. Ellen was a funny, articulate woman who lived with MBC. When I interviewed her for an article on the value of a day designated to awareness about metastatic disease, she kept me laughing.

Robin Roberts, a co-host of Good Morning America who was treated for breast cancer less than 5 years ago, announced that she’ll be getting a bone marrow transplant for MDS. The blood condition is, in some cases, a complication of chemotherapy. I wrote a piece about this for the Atlantic Health. This unfortunate news reminds us an aspect of cancer treatment some of us would rather put out of our heads. The main message – which I hope came through editing – is that all cancer patients should take careful notes on their planned treatments and ask their doctors about the long-term consequences of therapy. Not all chemo is the same; the risks vary among regimens and doses. The reality is that some of us – patients and doctors – prefer not to think about late, long-term, possible effects of treatment, like secondary tumors, when there’s a life-threatening condition in hand. This doesn’t mean chemo isn’t the right choice. Often it is, but it should be weighed out, carefully.

Finally, we learned that Dr. Susan Love, a breast surgeon and professor at UCLA, and leader of an Army of Women, has leukemia. Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book is a reference my friends and patients turned to in the 1990s, before the Internet was so loaded with cancer info, and many still do. She has, through that book and through her Foundation, besides through her work as a surgeon, helped an army of women to heal, and more.

My thoughts are with each of these remarkable women, and their loved ones, now.

ES

Related Posts:

On Sheryl Crow’s Report that She Has a Meningioma, and Singing Loud

This morning CNN fed a headline: Sheryl Crow: ‘Brain Tumor is a Bump in the Road.’ This concerned me, not only because I’m a huge fan, but because in 2006, she began treatment for breast cancer at age 43. “Singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow says she has a brain tumor,” says the first line of the CNN story. I was concerned. It seemed liked she’d been getting a little bit closer…to feeling fine.

Fortunately, the LATimes and People magazine got Crow’s story right. Their headlines, and text, emphasize the benign nature of Crow’s newly-diagnosed condition, a meningioma. Most meningiomas are benign, local expansions of the cells that line the brain and spinal cord. These growths occasionally cause neurological symptoms. Some patients have surgery to relieve or avoid complications of these non-malignant growths, but many don’t need intervention. When I was an oncology fellow I learned that meningiomas were relatively frequent in women with breast cancer, but that association turned out to be untrue. The “lesson” back then was that if a scan shows a brain mass in a woman with breast cancer, you shouldn’t assume it’s a brain met, because meningiomas were not rare in women with a history of breast cancer. According to the NCI website today, meningiomas are more common in women than in men.

Singing ‘Rock and Roll,” on top of a piano

Cancer scares aside – I’m glad that Sheryl Crow’s brain mass is benign, and that she can keep on singing if she chooses. I’ve seen her twice in concert, and she’s amazing. I have several favorite songs of hers, but the most memorable moment from a performance I’ve seen was when she got up on top of the piano at Radio City and sang Led Zeppelin’s Rock and Roll. I wish I could do that! She’s a powerful woman, for sure.

—-


Related Posts:

EMILIA Trial: T-DM1 Appears Helpful in Women with Her2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

This weekend the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), to which I belong, is holding its annual meeting in Chicago. Some of the biggest buzz has to do with a new breast cancer drug called T-DM1. ASCO just lifted embargo of the relevant abstract.

The new agent is a hybrid of an old monoclonal antibody, Herceptin, that’s chemically attached to DM1, a traditional kind of chemotherapy. The chemo part, DM1 – also known as emtansine – is manufactured by ImmunoGen. It’s derived from maytansine, a compound that binds tubulin, a protein critical for microtubule formation in dividing cells. According to the NCI website, this chemical, which has antibiotic properties, was extracted from an Ethiopian plant, Maytenus serrata.

T-DM1 was designed by linking the DM1 compound to the trastuzumab (Herceptin) antibody. Trastuzumab is old news in breast cancer. It binds a signaling molecule, Her2, that’s expressed at high levels in approximately 1 in 5 breast tumors. The FDA approved Herceptin for use in patients with metastatic, Her2+ breast cancer in 1998 and, for some women with localized, lymph node positive disease, in 2006. In this new, hybrid drug, the antibody works like a tagged, toxic messenger. In effect, the antibody delivers and inserts the chemo into the malignant cell, where it causes cell death.

The new data, from the Genentech-sponsored EMILIA trial, were presented today:

The Phase III study evaluated 991 women with metastatic breast cancer. All participants had tumors with high levels of Her2 (confirmed in a central pathology lab, for the trial). All had disease that progressed despite treatment with Herceptin and, in most cases, other drugs too. After randomization, 978 women received either of two treatments: the experimental agent, T-DM1, every 3 weeks, by intravenous infusion, or a combination of two pills, “XL” – Xeloda (capecitabine) and Tykerb (lapatinib). Median follow-up was just over 1 year – not bad for a study of MBC, but not great, either.

The big news is this: Among the patients who got the experimental drug, T-DM1, the median time until disease progressed was 9.6 month; for those who took the XL pill combination, it was 6.4 months. This different was statistically significant. Although a difference of 3 months may not sound like much – and isn’t – each regimen in the study held the women’s disease in check for over half a year.

It’s striking that T-DM1 was used as a single agent. Most chemotherapy drugs, like those for HIV, work best in combination; it could be that we’ll see more powerful results in a few years, once we learn how to optimally combine drugs for women with Her2+ breast cancer.

As far as overall survival, the initial results seem quite favorable. Among women on the study for 2 years, 65 percent were alive who received T-DM1; among those taking the XL regimen, 47 percent were alive at 2 years. (The statistical details for this comparison are not available; evidently it was of weak significance.) The problem is – if only a few patients were analyzed “so far out” on the survival curves, the difference observed between the two study arms might be random. Still, and independently of the comparison, survival of 65 percent at 2 years in this patient group is (sadly) impressive, especially if it comes by a single agent with comparatively few side effects.

The main T-DM1 toxicities were low platelets and abnormal liver function, which were, reportedly, reversible. The XL combination caused more toxicity, overall, including diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome and nausea.  A much greater fraction of women on the XL arm (53 and 27 percent, respectively for Xeloda and lapatinib) needed dose reductions, as compared to the T-DM1 (16 percent had dose reductions due to toxicity). Evidently hair loss isn’t an issue for women who get T-DM1, which is nice.

My main, initial concerns are two:

First, the study, though randomized, is not “blinded,” and can’t be.  It’s impossible for women who are getting an intravenous drug, and their doctors, not to know that they’re not on the pill study arm. Although there were independent evaluators of progressive disease, which is a far more subjective measurement than overall survival, progression free survival can be influenced by the doctors’ and patients’ knowing they’re getting the T-DM1. That said, the initial, observed difference in overall survival – a clear, objective measurement – is impressive.

If these trial results, published in abstract form, pan out, and the quality of patients’ lives is maintained, that’d be helpful to as many as 1 in 5 women with MBC. It is plausible that an antibody like Herceptin that targets the tumor cells could, in fact, “deliver” the chemo effectively into the cancer cells with relatively low toxicity. And if the women are feeling better, which is hard to know from an abstract, great.

My second concern is how this drug will mesh with others now available and in the pipeline for patients with Her2+ disease. In a December, 2010 editorial in the JCO, two clinical investigators wrote: “the unique aspect of T-DM1 is clearly its high clinical activity by itself, without the need of concomitant additional systemic chemotherapy.” They’re right. The question – as considered by those authors – is how T-DMI will be used in the context of expanding treatment options for women with Her2+ breast cancer. This is an expensive (price not yet known) monoclonal antibody-conjugate that’s necessarily given by infusion. Testing this drug against all the other current and up-and-coming alternatives, in varying combinations and doses, will be tricky. The trials alone will cost big bucks, besides toxicity and women’s lives.

These EMILIA results are promising for some women with MBC and, possibly, patients with other cancer forms in which Her2 is expressed. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to help those women with breast cancer whose tumors that lack Her2+.

I’ll write soon about this new class of oncology drugs – antibodies conjugated to chemotherapies, as a group.

All for now,

ES

Related Posts:

I Hope My Doctors Aren’t Blogging Too Much

Today’s ACP Internist reports that nearly 1 in 8 doctors has a blog. This news comes from a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

First, the study’s flawed from a methodological standpoint: The investigators, based at the CDC, used data from a 2009 DocStyles survey of 1750 primary care physicians, pediatricians, obstetrician/gynecologists, and dermatologists in the U.S. According to the paper, this sample was drawn from the Epocrates Honors Panel. So they’re a technically-oriented bunch. Besides, the survey didn’t include oncologists, cardiologists, neurologists, radiologists or surgeons, among other physician-types.

Red flag: “Physicians who completed the survey were paid an honorarium of US $55–US$95.” This tells me that the doctors who participated have time on their hands and could use an extra $75 or so; it’s unlikely they’ve got thriving practices.

Blogging was defined as “posting commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video on a website which serves as an online journal.” The featured result was that 13% of the paid, internet-using physicians in the study said they blogged in the prior six months. The 226 bloggers tended to be young and male.

Seriously –

It’s unlikely that 1 in 8 doctors in the U.S. are blogging. I say this not just because the study’s flawed, but because almost all the physicians I know and trust with my health care don’t have time to write, unless they’re taking notes for a book, or do so as a hobby. They might, for example, blog about video games, or vegan recipes. But as far as their work is concerned, most non-shift doctors are lucky to see and examine all their patients, finish their notes and answer patients’ phone calls and get home by 11 PM.

In my view as a patient, if you’re a doctor and you blog for fun, there’s no issue. Blog away, and mind HIPPA. But if you’ve got anything else to do with your time, like –

  • reading medical and scientific literature
  • enjoying time with friends, family and others in your community
  • resting
  • exercising
  • spending one extra minute with each of your patients
  • re-checking primary data and calculations before publishing research
  • watching a movie
  • having lunch with colleagues
  • gardening
  • bowling, if that’s your thing…
  • <insert your passion>

– live your life! Spend time wisely.

I want my doctors to be happy, up-to-date, and rested.

Besides, what’s the point of so many busy, needed health professionals writing about their experiences or opinions, except if it’s for their own satisfaction?

 

Related Posts:

Remembering a Warm-Hearted Patient

When I was a resident I worked in a general medicine clinic. One afternoon each week, I’d get more dressed than usual and split off from my inpatient team around noon to go see patients in another building, outside of the hospital.

flickr image, HikingArtist

Today, I’m reminded of a man I saw there and treated for two years. His name was Mr. Sunshine.* The first time I met him, it was in the midst of a noisy, crowded and windowless waiting room.

“Mr. Sunshine?” I called out, as loudly as I could from the receptionists’ desk. I’d skimmed through his chart including partial notes of a recent hospitalization. It was 1988, long before we stopped calling patients by their names in public areas. He stood up and greeted me with a broad smile. He shook my hand before I guided him to a smaller, quieter windowless room for his examination. He carried a medium-sized suitcase.

Mr. Sunshine had heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and peripheral vascular disease. He’d had a heart attack or two, and possibly a stroke. He was a large man. As I recall, he came from North Carolina but had lived most of his life in Brooklyn. After some brief, standard but sincere chit-chat about who we each were, I asked him why he was there in the clinic. “I’m sick,” he said. “I think maybe I should be in the hospital.” That was, essentially, his chief complaint.

Being the diligent resident that I was, I attempted to get through a review of systems (ROS) – the drill by which doctors run through a lot of questions as fast as possible, starting like this: “Do you get headaches, earaches, have trouble hearing, double vision, blurred vision, sinus congestion, a runny nose, frequent sore throats, swollen glands, cough, pain on swallowing…” Keep in mind, this was before most doctors had sheets for patients to answer these questions in advance, on a checklist, or NPs to ask the questions for them. If you were lucky, and smooth, and the patient wasn’t “difficult” – or really sick, you could get through a complete ROS in under 1.5 minutes.

Mr. Sunshine said he was tired and short of breath most of the time. He pulled from his suitcase a crumpled, large brown bag with more than 20 medication vials and vitamins. There was a set of pajamas inside, and other stuff including a toothbrush.

I didn’t admit Mr. Sunshine to the hospital that day, but we bonded. He stayed as my patient in the clinic for two years, always treating me with respect while I adjusted and tried to reduce his meds.

Once he asked me if he might ask me a question.

“Sure,” I told him.

“Are you Jewish?” he asked.

“Yes, I am.”

He nodded.  I lacked the nerve to ask him why he wanted to know. He told me he sang at his church.

When I moved on to become a fellow in hematology and oncology, Mr. Sunshine asked if he could still be my patient. I told him that in my new position I’d be working in another clinic, and only with patients who had either cancer or serious blood disease. He didn’t have cancer, or sickle cell anemia, or anything like that.

“If I get leukemia, will you be my doctor?” he asked me.

“Yes,” I told him. “But it’s a good thing you don’t have that now,” I said, adding: “I wish you the best, Mr. Sunshine.”


(*The patient’s name was not Mr. Sunshine, but it was equally evocative of his disposition.)

I’ve been thinking lately, what makes you recall some patients. I hope he’s doing OK, wherever he is now. Same for all my patients, really. I wish I could tell them.

Related Posts:

10 Newly-Defined Molecular Types of Breast Cancer in Nature, and a Dream

Breast cancer is not one disease. We’ve understood this for decades. Still, and with few exceptions, knowledge of BC genetics – information on tumor-driving DNA mutations within the malignant cells – has been lacking. Most patients today get essentially primitive treatments like surgical hacking, or carving, traditional chemotherapy and radiation. Some doctors consider hormone therapy as targeted, and thereby modern and less toxic. I don’t.

Until there’s a way to prevent BC, we need better ways to treat it. Which is why, upon reading the new paper in Nature on genetic patterns in breast cancer, I stayed up late, genuinely excited. As in thrilled, optimistic..The research defined 10 molecular BC subgroups. The distinct mutations and gene expression patterns confirm and suggest new targets for future, better therapy.

The work is an exquisite application of science in medicine. Nature lists 31 individuals and one multinational research group, METABRIC (Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium), as authors. The two correspondents, Drs. Carlos Caldas and Samuel Aparicio, are based at the University of Cambridge, in England, and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Given the vastness of the supporting data, such a roster seems appropriate, needed. The paper, strangely and for all its worth, didn’t get much press –

Just to keep this in perspective – we’re talking about human breast cancer. No mice.

The researchers examined nearly 2000 BC specimens for genetic aberrations, in 2 parts. First, they looked at inherited and acquired mutations in DNA extracted from tumors and, when available, from nearby, normal cells, in 997 cancer specimens – the “discovery set.” They checked to see how the genetic changes (SNPs, CNAs and/or CNVs) correlated with gene expression “landscapes” by probing for nearly 29,000 RNAs. They found that both inherited and acquired mutations can influence BC gene expression. Some effects of “driver” mutations take place on distant chromosomal elements, in what’s called a trans effect; others happen nearby (cis).

Next, they honed in on 45 regions of DNA associated with outlying gene expression. This led the investigators to discover putative cancer-causing mutations (accessible in supplementary Tables 22-24, available here). The list includes genes that someone like me, who’s been out of the research field for 10 years, might recall – PTEN, MYC, CDK3 and -4, and others. They discovered that 3 genes, PPP2R2A, MTAP and MAP2K4 are deleted in some BC cases and may be causative. In particular, they suggest that loss of PPP2R2A may contribute to luminal B breast cancer pathology. They find deletion of MAP2K4 in ER positive tumors, indicative of a possible tumor suppressor function for this gene in BC.

Curtis, et al. in "Nature": April 2012

The investigators looked for genetic “hotspots.” They show these in Manhattan plots, among other cool graphs and hard figures, on abnormal gene copy numbers (CNAs) linked to big changes in gene expression. Of interest to tumor immunologists (and everyone else, surely!), they located two regions in the T-cell receptor genes that might relate to immune responses in BC. They delineated a part of chromosome 5, where deletions in basal-like tumors marked for changes in cell cycle, DNA repair and cell death-related genes. And more –

Cluster Analysis (abstracted), Wikipedia

Heading toward the clinic, almost there…

They performed integrative cluster analyses and defined 10 distinct molecular BC subtypes. The new categories of the disease, memorably labeled “IntClust 1-10,” cross older pathology classifications (open-access: Supplementary Figure 31) and, it turns out, offer prognostic information based on long-term Kaplan-Meier analyses (Figure 5A in the paper: Supplementary Fig 34 and 35). Of note, here, and a bit scary for readers like me, is identification of an ER-positive group, “IntClust 2” with 11q13/14 mutations. This BC genotype appears to carry a much lesser prognosis than most ER-positive cases.

Finally, in what’s tantamount to a 2nd report, the researchers probed a “validation set” of 995 additional BC specimens. In a partially-shortened method, they checked to see if the same 10 molecular subtypes would emerge upon a clustering analysis of paired DNA mutations with expression profiles. What’s more, the prognostic (survival) information held up in the confirmatory evaluation. Based on the mutations and gene expression patterns in each subgroup, there are implications for therapy. Wow!

I won’t review the features of each type here for several reasons. These are preliminary findings, in the sense that it’s a new report, albeit a model of what’s a non-incremental published set of observations and analysis; it’s early for patients – but not for investigators – to act on these findings. (Hopefully, this will not be the case in 2015, or sooner, preferably, for testing some pertinent drugs in at least a subset of the subgroups identified.) Also, some of the methods these authors used came out in the past decade, after I stopped doing research. It would be hard for most doctors to fully appreciate the nuances, strengths and weaknesses of the study.

Most readers can’t know how skeptical I was in the 1990s, when grant reviewers at the NCI seemed to believe that genetic info would be the cure-all for most and possibly all cancers. I don’t think that’s true, nor due most people involved with the Human Genome Project, anymore. The Cancer Genome Atlas and Project should help in this regard, but they’re young projects, larger in scope than this work, and don’t necessarily integrate DNA changes with gene expression as do the investigators in this report. What’s clear, now, is that some cancers do respond, dramatically, to drugs that target specific mutations. Recently-incurable malignancies, like advanced melanoma and GI stromal tumors, can be treated now with pills, often with terrific responses.

Last night I wondered if, in a few years, some breast cancers might be treated without surgery. If we could do a biopsy, check for the molecular subtype, and give patients the right BC tablets. Maybe we’d just give just a tad of chemo, later, to “mop up” any few remaining or residual or resistant cells. The primary chemotherapy might be a cocktail of drugs, by mouth. It might be like treating hepatitis C, or tuberculosis or AIDS. (Not that any of those are so easy.) But there’d be no lost breasts, no reconstruction, no lymphedema. Can you imagine?

Even if just 1 or 2 of these investigators’ subgroups pans out and leads to effective, Gleevec-like drugs for breast cancer, that would be a dream. This can’t happen soon enough.

With innovative trial strategies like I-SPY, it’s possible that for patients with particular molecular subgroups could be directed to trials of small drugs targeting some of the pathways implicated already. The pace of clinical trials has been impossibly slow in this disease. We (and by this I mean pharmaceutical companies, and oncologists who run clinical trials, and maybe some of the BC agencies with funds to spend) should be thinking fast, way ahead of this post –

And given that this is a blog, and not an ordinary medical publication or newspaper, I might say this: thank you, authors, for your work.

Related Posts:

Boobstagram Collects and Displays Breast Photos, Says Aim is to Boost Cancer Awareness

Boobstagram (Twitter)

I’m not sure what to make of Boobstagram. The French company breaches most cancer culture norms, if such exist. A headline in the UK’s Daily Mail reads: Women capture their cleavage on Instagram to raise awareness of cancer and encourage regular exams. And that pretty much sums it up.

The idea is for women to take photos of their breasts, send them in, and raise awareness about the importance of healthy breasts.

You can look and “like” Boobstagram on Facebook. Over 20,000 have registered their appreciation for the site, so far. The timeline reveals that Boobstagram opened a FB account last November and first uploaded images late in February. The About page starts with this message: Send us your boobs at boobstagram@… When I visited yesterday, at around 7PM EST, over 9,000 people were “talking” about Boobstagram on FB. Boobstagram’s Twitter following is on the small side, relatively, perhaps because it’s an image-oriented source of awareness.

Instagr.am, for those readers who use Blackberries or might be otherwise out-of-the-loop, is a phone app that lets you take and share photos in a flash. Coincidentally, Facebook recently purchased Instagram for $300 in cash, plus.

On its main website, the company’s tag line is translated into English: “Showing your boobs on the web is good, showing them to your doctor is better.” The explanation continues:

…The fight against cancer is long-standing…We cannot all become doctors or surgeons. But we can all take part in prevention, for ourselves, for our friends and family and for others. But how?

…How to avoid the pitfall of moralism ? How to build a popular communication matching with the up-to-date scientific knowledge ? And how to create a rather fun prevention campaign when most campaigns use fear ?<sic>

Capiche? Not sure I do. (Please forgive me if I mix languages and messages, for the moment.) This topic’s ripe, pre-blended. And sort-of fun, as things go here.

Fact is – once I’d narrowed the post topic selections to either Boobstagram or a recent report on 10 distinct genetic breast cancer variants, I chose Boobstagram. The Nature paper is very important work. Fox News called it a landmark study, correctly from what I’ve read elsewhere. I should read up on the new genotypes, and learn how those relate to old-fashioned BC subtypes, and the prognosis and potential for targeted therapies directed to each. And so should, I suppose, breast cancer patients and their loved ones who wish to make informed decisions. Practicing oncologists should know all about that paper by now, digested it entirely.

Business Insider covered Boobstagram, but overall there’s not been a whole lot of attention in the U.S. HuffPo U.K. was on it, but not here, where I might post if I choose. I’m not sure if I will, or should –

This company, founded by two men, seems to be having some fun with cancer, women’s breasts and phones. Is it exploitative? I’m not sure whether to laugh, cry, or blow it off as boys behaving badly. Or girls behaving badly. Or both, together, normally.

It’s sexist, yes – but so’s an ordinary half-time show during a football game, or a pair of 4-inch heels. Besides, many tolerate infantilizing and commercializing events in the context of BC awareness, as Gayle Sulik points out. Those campaigns – some tawdry, some tasteful, and usually bright pink – rake in money for research and patient care. Is Boobstagram so different? Strictly off-limits?

Seriously, what if the website brought in 180 million Euros through ads next year, and the company founders gave it all to the IARC and a few really solid cancer research agencies? Maybe next year their American friends will open a similar platform to raise money for the strapped NCI.

Are we too uptight? Or is the problem simply that the French website lacks meaningful relevance to any cancer cause?

The almost-obvious, pat and probably correct answer, would be to call out Boobstagram for what it’s worth: a farce. There’s no hint that this company has a specific plan or funds to support cancer research or help patients in any meaningful way. I can’t support it. But maybe – and this is a stretch – in the long term cultivating love, or admiration… of women’s breasts raises their value, and reminds us of the tragedy that is breast cancer.

Prevention would be a lot better than cutting, or lopping them off.

WDYT?

Related Posts:

A JAMA Press Briefing on CER, Helicopters and Time for Questions

This week the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, held a media briefing on its current, Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) theme issue. The event took place in the National Press Club. A doctor, upon entering that building, might do a double-take waiting for the elevator, curious that the journalists occupy the 13th floor – what’s absent in some hospitals.

CER is a big deal in medicine now. Dry as it is, it’s an investigative method that any doctor or health care maven, politician contemplating reform or, maybe, a patient would want to know. The gist of CER is that it exploits large data sets – like SEER data or Medicare billing records – to examine outcomes in huge numbers of people who’ve had one or another intervention. An advantage of CER is that results are more likely generalizable, i.e. applicable in the “real world.” A long-standing criticism of randomized trials – held by most doctors, and the FDA, as the gold standard for establishing efficacy of a drug or procedure – is that patients in research studies tend to get better, or at least more meticulous, clinical care.

The JAMA program began with an intro by Dr. Phil Fontanarosa, a senior editor and author of an editorial on CER, followed by 4 presentations. The subjects were, on paper, shockingly dull: on carboplatin and paclitaxel w/ and w/out bevacizumab (Avastin) in older patients with lung cancer; on survival in adults who receive helicopter vs. ground-based EMS service after major trauma; a comparison of side effects and mortality after prostate cancer treatment by 1 of 3 forms of radiation (conformal, IMRT, or proton therapy); and – to cap it off – a presentation on PCORI‘s priorities and research agenda.

I learned from each speaker. They brought life to the topics! Seriously, and the scene made me realize the value of meeting and hearing from the researchers, directly, in person. But, NTW, on ML today we’ll skip over the oncologist’s detailed report to the second story:

Dr. Adil Haider, a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins, spoke on helicopter-mediated saves of trauma patients. Totally cool stuff; I’d rate his talk “exotic” – this was as far removed from the kind of work I did on molecular receptors in cancer cells as I’ve ever heard at a medical or journalism meeting of any sort –

Haider indulged the audience, and grabbed my attention, with a bit of history:  HEMS, which stands for helicopter-EMS, goes back to the Korean War, like in M*A*S*H. The real-life surgeon-speaker at the JAMA news briefing played a music-replete video showing a person hit by a car and rescued by helicopter. While he and other trauma surgeons see value in HEMS, it’s costly and not necessarily better than GEMS (Ground-EMS). Helicopters tend to draw top nurses, and they deliver patients to Level I or II trauma centers, he said, all of which may favor survival and other, better outcomes after serious injury. Accidents happen; previous studies have questioned the helicopters’ benefit.

The problem is, there’s been no solid randomized trial of HEMS vs. GEMS, nor could there be. (Who’d want to get the slow pick-up with a lesser crew to a local trauma center?) So these investigators did a retrospective cohort study to see what happens when trauma victims 15 years and older are delivered by HEMS or GEMS. They used data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), which includes nearly 62,000 patients transported by helicopter and over 161,000 patients transported by ground between 2007 and 2009. They selected patients with ISS (Injury severity scores) above 15. They used a “clustering” method to control for differences among trauma centers, and otherwise adjusted for degrees of injury and other confounding variables.

“It’s interesting,” Haider said. “If you look at the unadjusted mortality, the HEMS patients do worse.” But when you control for ISS, you get a 16% increase in odds of survival if you’re taken by helicopter to a Level I trauma center. He referred to Table 3 in the paper.  This, indeed, shows a big difference between the “raw” and adjusted data.

In a supplemental video provided by JAMA (starting at 60 seconds in):

When you first look, across the board, you’ll see that actually more patients transported by helicopter, in terms of just the raw percentages, actually die.” – Dr. Samuel Galvagno (DO, PhD), the study’s first author.

The video immediately cuts to the senior author, Haider, who continues:

But when you do an analysis controlling for how severely these patients were injured, the chance of survival improves by about 30 percent, for those patients who are brought by helicopter…

Big picture:

What’s clear is that how investigators adjust or manipulate or clarify or frame or present data – you choose the verb – yields differing results. This capability doesn’t just pertain to data on trauma and helicopters. In many Big Data situations, researchers can cut information to impress whatever point they choose.

The report offers a case study of how researchers can use elaborate statistical methods to support a clinical decision in a way that few doctors who read the results are in a position to grasp, to know if the conclusions are valid, or not.

A concluding note –

I appreciated the time allotted for Q&A after the first 3 research presentations. There’s been recent, legitimate questioning of the value of medical conferences. This week’s session, sponsored by JAMA, reinforced to me the value of meeting study authors in person, and having the opportunity to question them about their findings. This is crucial, I know this from my prior experience in cancer research, when I didn’t ask enough hard questions of some colleagues, in public. For the future, at places like TEDMED – where I’ve heard there was no attempt to allow for Q&A – the audience’s concerns can reveal problems in theories, published data and, constructively, help researchers fill in those gaps, ultimately to bring better-quality information, from any sort of study, to light.

Related Posts:

New Article on Mammography Spawns False Hope That Breast Cancer is Not a Dangerous Disease

This week’s stir comes from the Annals of Internal Medicine. In a new analysis, researchers applied complex models to cancer screening and BC case data in Norway. They estimated how many women found to have invasive breast cancer are “overdiagnosed.” I cannot fathom why the editors of the Annals gave platform to such a convoluted and misleading medical report as Overdiagnosis of Invasive Breast Cancer Due to Mammography Screening: Results From the Norwegian Screening Program. But they did.

Here are a few of my concerns:

1. None of the four authors is an oncologist.

2. The researchers use mathematical arguments so complex to prove a point that Einstein would certainly, 100%, without a doubt, take issue with their model and proof.

3. “Overdiagnosis” is not defined in any clinical sense (such as the finding of a tumor in a woman that’s benign and doesn’t need treatment). Here, from the paper’s abstract:

The percentage of overdiagnosis was calculated by accounting for the expected decrease in incidence following cessation of screening after age 69 years (approach 1) and by comparing incidence in the current screening group with incidence among women 2 and 5 years older in the historical screening groups, accounting for average lead time (approach 2).

No joke: this is how “overdiagnosis” – the primary outcome of the study, is explained. After reading the paper in its entirety three times, I cannot find any better definition of overdiagnosis within the full text. Based on these manipulations, the researchers “find” an estimated rate of overdiagnosis attributable to mammography between 18 -25% by one method (model/approach 1) or 15-20% (model/approach 2).

4. The study includes a significant cohort of women between the ages of 70-79. Indolent tumors are more common in older women who, also, are more likely to die of other causes by virtue of their age. The analysis does not include women younger than 50 in its constructs.

5. My biggest concern is how this paper was broadcast – which, firstly, was too much.

Bloomberg News takes away this simple message in a headline:  “Breast Cancer Screening May Overdiagnose by Up to 25%.” Or, from the Boston Globe’s Daily Dose, “Mammograms may overdiagnose up to 1 in 4 breast cancers, Harvard study finds.” (Did they all get the same memo?)

The Washington Post’s Checkup offers some details: “Through complicated calculations, the researchers determined that between 15 percent and 25 percent of those diagnoses fell into the category of overdiagnosis — the detection of tumors that would have done no harm had they gone undetected.” But then the Post blows it with this commentary, a few paragraphs down:

The problem is that nobody yet knows how to predict which cancers can be left untreated and which will prove fatal if untreated. So for now the only viable approach is to regard all breast cancers as potentially fatal and treat them with surgery, radiation, chemotherapy or a combination of approaches, none of them pleasant options…

This is simply not true. Any pathologist or oncologist or breast cancer surgeon worth his or her education could tell you that not all breast cancers are the same. There’s a spectrum of disease. Some cases warrant more treatment than others, and some merit distinct forms of treatment, like Herceptin, or estrogen modulators, surgery alone…Very few forms of invasive breast cancer warrant no treatment unless the patient is so old that she is likely to die first of another condition, or the patient prefers to die of the disease. When and if they do arise, slow-growing subtypes should be evident to any well-trained, modern pathologist.

“Mammograms Spot Cancers That May Not Be Dangerous,” said WebMD, yesterday. This is feel-good news, and largely wishful.

A dangerous message, IMO.

Addendum, 4/15/12: The abstract of the Annals paper includes a definition of “overdiagnosis” that is absent in the body of the report: “…defined as the percentage of cases of cancer that would not have become clinically apparent in a woman’s lifetime without screening…” I acknowledge this is helpful, in understanding the study’s purpose. But this explanation does not clarify the study’s findings, which are abstract. The paper does not count or otherwise directly measure any clinical cases in which women’s tumors either didn’t grow or waned. It’s just a calculation. – ES

Related Posts:

What Does it Mean if Primary Care Doctors Get the Answers Wrong About Screening Stats?

Last week the Annals of Internal Medicine published a new report on how doctors (don’t) understand cancer screening stats. This unusual paper reveals that some primary care physicians – a majority of those who completed a survey – don’t really get the numbers on cancer incidence, 5-year survival and mortality.

An accompanying editorial by Dr. Virginia Moyer, a Professor of Pediatrics and current Chair of the USPSTF, drives two messages in her title, What We Don’t Know Can Hurt Our Patients: Physician Innumeracy and Overuse of Screening Tests. Dr. Moyer is right, to a point. Because if doctors who counsel patients on screening don’t know what they’re speaking of, they may provide misinformation and cause harm. But she overstates the study’s implications by emphasizing the “overuse of screening tests.”

The report shows, plainly and painfully, that too many doctors are confused and even ignorant of some statistical concepts. Nothing more, nothing less. The new findings have no bearing on whether or not cancer screening is cost-effective or life-saving.

What the study does suggest is that med school math requirements should be upped and rigorous, counter to the trend. And that we should do a better job educating students and reminding doctors about relevant concepts including lead-time bias, overdiagnosis and – as highlighted in two valuable blogs just yesterday, NPR Shots and Reporting on Health Antidote – the Number Needed to Treat, or NNT.

The Annals paper has yielded at least two unfortunate outcomes. One, which there’s no way to get around, is the clear admission of doctors’ confusion. In the long term, this may be a good thing, like admitting a medical error and then having QA improve as a consequence. But meanwhile some doctors at their office desks and lecterns don’t realize what they don’t know, and there’s no clear remedy in sight.

Dr. Moyer, in her editorial, writes that medical journal editors should carefully monitor reports to ensure that results aren’t likely misinterpreted. She says, in just one half-sentence, that medical educators should improve teaching on this topic. And then she directs the task of stats-ed to media and journalists, who, she advises, might follow the lead of the “watchdog” HealthNewsReview. I don’t see that as a solution, although I agree that journalists should know as much as possible about statistics and limits of data about which they report.

The main problem elucidated in this article is a failure in medical education. The cat’s out of the bag now. The WSJ Heath Blog covered the story. Most doctors are baffled, says Fox News. On its home page, the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice links to a Reuters article that’s landed on the NIH/NLM-sponsored MedlinePlus (accessed 3/15/12). This embarrassment  further compromises individuals’ confidence in doctors they would and sometimes need rely on.

We lie, we cheat, we steal, we are confused… What else can doctors do wrong?

The second, and I think unnecessary, problematic outcome of this report is that it’s been used to argue against cancer screening. In the editorial Dr. Moyer indulges an ill-supported statement:

…several analyses have demonstrated that the vast majority of women with screen-detected breast cancer have not had their lives saved by screening, but rather have been diagnosed early with no change in outcome or have been overdiagnosed.

The problem of overdiagnosis, which comes up a lot in the paper, is over-emphasized, at least as it relates to breast cancer, colon cancer and some other tumors. I  have never seen a case of vanishing invasive breast cancer. In younger women, low-grade invasive tumors are relatively rare. So overdiagnosis isn’t applicable in BC, at least for women who are not elderly.

In the second paragraph Dr. Moyer outlines, in an unusual mode for the Annals, a cabal-like screening lobby:

 …powerful nonmedical forces may also lead to enthusiasm for screening, including financial interests from companies that make tests or testing equipment or sell products to treat the conditions diagnosed and more subtle financial pressures from the clinicians whose daily work is to diagnose or treat a condition. If fewer people are diagnosed with a disease, advocacy groups stand to lose contributions and academics who study the disease may lose funding. Politicians may wish to appear responsive to powerful special interests…

While she may be right, that there are some influential and self-serving interests and corporations who push aggressively, and maybe too aggressively for cancer screening, it may also be that some forms of cancer screening are indeed life-saving tools that should be valued by our society. I think, also, that she goes too far in insinuating that major advocacy groups push for screening because they stand to lose funding.

I’ve met many cancer agency workers, some founders, some full-time, paid and volunteer helpers – with varied priorities and goals – and I honestly believe that each and every one of those individuals hopes that the problem of cancer killing so many non-elderly individuals in our society will go away. It’s beyond reason to suggest there’s a hidden agenda at any of the major cancer agencies to “keep cancer going.” There are plenty of other worthy causes to which they might give their time and other resources, like education, to name one.

Which leads me back to the original paper, on doctors’ limited knowledge –

As I read the original paper the first time, I considered what would happen if you tested 412 practicing primary care physicians about hepatitis C screening, strains, and whether or not there’s a benefit to early detection and treatment of that common and sometimes pathologic virus, or about the use of aspirin in adults with high blood pressure and other risk factors for heart disease, or about the risks and benefits of drugs that lower cholesterol.

It seems highly unlikely that physicians’ uncertainty is limited to conceptual aspects of cancer screening stats. Knowing that, you’d have to wonder why the authors did this research, and why the editorial pushes so hard the message of over-screening.

Related Posts:

Harsh Words, and Women’s Health at Risk

I’ll open with a confession –

Women’s health has never really been at the heart of ML. Your author has, historically, relegated subjects like normal menstruation, healthy pregnancy and reproduction and natural menopause to her gynecologist friends. Sure, I learned about the facts of life. I even studied them in med school and answered questions, some correctly, along the way. By now, I’ve lived through these real life-phases directly. But these topics never drew me. That’s changed now.

Women’s care – and lives, in effect – are jeopardized on three fronts:

First, on birth control. Last week the Senate narrowly tabled a move to limit insurers’ responsibility to cover contraception. The vote on the so-called “conscience” amendment was 51-48. What this tells us is that essentially half of that powerful group either agrees with limiting women’s access to birth control or sees it as dispensable in the context of political aims.

The very fact that the proposal reached the Senate floor is disturbing. Without access to birth control, women –  including teenagers, people with significant medical problems that can be exacerbated by pregnancy, those who can’t afford to feed another child, and some who are already troubled or otherwise might not be ready or prepared to have children – are much more likely to become pregnant. It shouldn’t take a doctor to articulate this obvious point, and I can’t understand why so many are silent on it, but since so few physicians and the AMA in particular hasn’t issued any statement on this, I’ll stick my neck out and say it clearly: Lack of contraception puts women and their conceivable future-kids at risk for health problems that could be avoided.

The language surrounding the amendment is problematic, besides. Who are the anti-birth control legislation-writers to imply that “conscience” is involved in withholding contraception, and not the other way around? It’s like the “pro-lifers” who’ve implied that the rest of us aren’t.

Second, on access to safe abortions. I respect that some people think it’s wrong to terminate a pregnancy. But I also know that plenty of women, especially young women, get pregnant who don’t want to be pregnant. Regardless of who’s “responsible” – and any reader of this blog knows I’m no sucker for finger-pointing and behavior blame games – the bottom line is that if abortions become out-of-reach, women will suffer hemorrhage, life-threatening infections, permanent infertility  and premature deaths.

Hard to know how many women had ill effects or died from botched abortions before January, 1973, when the Supreme Court issued its decision on Roe vs. Wade. Like most women of my generation, I know of those unfortunate outcomes only indirectly. Still, I can’t rid my brain of the scary, unclean place Natalie Wood visits with a wad of cash in the 1963 movie Love with the Proper Stranger, or the tragic outcome when actor Gael García Bernal takes his pregnant love to an abortionist in the film Crime of Padre Amaro, set a decade or so ago in Mexico. But the real scoop comes from older physicians and nurses, here and now. When I was in med school in the 1980s, they told me stories of women and girls showing up in the emergency room bleeding, pale… dead.

As outlined by editorialists and writers elsewhere, mergers of Catholic hospitals with other medical centers threaten to reduce or eliminate access to abortions in some rural areas. In states like Texas, the physical and emotional rigmarole to which pregnant women are subjected prior to an abortion – including mandatory listening to a description of the fetal organs and a discussion loaded make what might be a tough decision unbearable, especially if the woman lacks confidence.

Which leads me to the third point of vulnerability – that women should be able to obtain care without intimidation or emotional abuse.

When Rush Limbaugh spoke last week, he wasn’t just talking about one Georgetown Law student. He was speaking to and about millions of young women who are sexually active. He called them sluts and insinuated they are like prostitutes. Adding insult to verbal injury, he said he’d like to watch videos of the sex. You could say who cares, he’s just some right-winged showman blowing off steam and misogyny. But this is a man who speaks to conservative leaders and feeds ideas to many households in America. Scary that the Republican front-runners, men who would be President of the United States next year, didn’t call Rushbo out. Rather, they let it go. As they might your daughter’s health, or access to birth control, or to a safe abortion.

In this new climate of shame, it’s easy to imagine a girl in some communities might feel really, really bad about herself simply for being sexually active. Whether she’s 17 years in high school, or 21 years in college, or 25 and maybe a department store clerk – and possibly lonely or confused – she may be embarrassed to ask for birth control. The Scarlet C, Robert Walker aptly called it yesterday.

The paradox is that this kind of rough talk, posturing and in some states, puritanical law-making, make it more likely that a sexually active young woman will become pregnant. And if she does become so, now, she may delay seeing a doctor because she fears his or her moral judgment about her behavior. And that leads to less healthy outcomes, and more deaths – fetal and maternal.

This is a serious health issue. I wish more doctors would speak out about it.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Related Posts:

New Studies on Colon Cancer Screening by Colonoscopy and Fecal Blood Testing

Last week the NEJM published two major papers on screening for colon and rectal cancer. The most notable finding supports that colonoscopy – when done properly and not necessarily often – saves lives.

The NCI estimates that doctors will find over 103,000 colon and 40,000 rectal cancers, and the number of deaths will exceed 51,000 this year in the U.S. According to the ACS, colorectal cancer ranks third as a cause of cancer mortality in men and in women. In light of these numbers, the potential for screening to reduce deaths and costs of treating people with advanced disease is great.

Both analyses are unfortunately – almost dauntingly – complicated. An accompanying editorial, by Drs. M. Bretthauer and M. Kalager lends some perspective.

colon adenoma pathology, H&E stain, (Wiki Commons: "Nephron")

The first report comes from a group of researchers led by Ann Zauber, PhD, a biostatistician at MSKCC. This team examined long-term outcomes among 2602 adults who had adenomatous polyps removed between 1980 and 1990, followed by colonoscopy recommended at varying intervals in a trial. With a median follow-up of 15.8 years, there were only 12 deaths from colon cancer in the study population – essentially half the number expected by comparison with SEER data.

The main limitations I see in this report are two. First, what might be considered a good thing – the high compliance rate: 81% of those with adenomas underwent some follow-up colonoscopy. And second – along a similar vein – that the colonoscopies were performed by highly-trained physicians at academic centers in a trial that mandated a certain degree of thoroughness and quality. Some criticism of the work is that the findings won’t translate to the community at large, as mentioned in the editorial and in the paper itself. That’s because some “real world” gastroenterologists don’t perform the procedure so carefully. Apart from the trial, many people are genuinely hesitant about having colonoscopy out of concern about its unpleasantness and also costs. Compliance with colonoscopy recommendations runs low.

These are valid concerns. But they don’t abrogate the value of the procedure. Rather, they point to the need for rigorous training of doctors who do colonoscopy, for close monitoring of facilities where it’s done (and in path labs, where the specimens are evaluated), and for insurance or a national health plan to enable patients, if they choose, to have this potentially life-saving screening test covered.

The second study, from a group in Spain, examined the relative merits of checking stool samples for blood every two years vs. colonoscopy every ten years in over 50,000 people. The preliminary finding – after just one “round” of colonoscopy in those assigned to that trial arm, is that a higher proportion complied with fecal blood testing than with colonoscopy. Among those who underwent colonoscopy, cancers and adenomas were found in a greater fraction. But the absolute number of cancers detected was essentially the same in each group, because more people assigned to fecal screening completed the task.

My take from these reports, combined, is that periodic colonoscopy has the potential to halve the number of deaths from colon cancer in the general population. But it’s an unpleasant, invasive and expensive test that does carry some risks. The quality of the test – both in terms of its thoroughness and risk of complication – would depend, in part, on the training and experience of the doctor who performs the test. So, as with mammography, I favor heavy regulation and careful certification of physicians who perform these procedures.

As to how colonoscopy relates to fecal blood testing as a screening method at the population level, and the optimal start and frequency of either test, those remain uncertain. Dr. Zauber, it turns out, heads the NCI-funded National Colonoscopy Study. This ongoing work will, hopefully, shed light on how testing for blood in stool samples compares with colonoscopy in colon cancer screening and, ultimately, costs and mortality from late-stage disease.

Related Posts:

Counterfeit Drugs, A New Concern for Patients

This week the FDA issued an alert about fake Avastin. The real drug is a Genentech-manufactured monoclonal antibody prescribed to some cancer patients. Counterfeit vials were sold and distributed to more than a dozen offices and medical treatment facilities in the U.S. This event, which seems to have affected a small number of patients and practices, should sound a big alarm.

Even the most empowered patient – one who’s read up on his drug regimen, and engaged with his physician about what and how much he wants to receive, and visited several doctors for second opinions and went on-line to discuss treatment options with other patients and possibly some experts – can’t know, for sure, exactly what’s in the bag attached to his IV pole.

Counterfeit Avastin (images from FDA)

Scary because patients are so vulnerable –

The problem is this. If you’re sick and really need care, at some point you have to trust that what you’re getting, whether it’s a dose of an antibiotic, or a hit of radiation to a bone met, or a drug thinner, is what it’s supposed to be. If vials are mislabeled, or machines wrongly calibrated, the error might be impossible to detect until side effects appear. If you’re getting a hoax of a cancer drug in combination with other chemo, and it might or might not work in your case, and its side effects – typically affecting just a small percent of recipients – are in a black box, it could be really hard to know you’re not getting the right stuff.

What this means for providers is that your patients are counting on you to dot the i’s. Be careful. Know your sources. Triple-check everything.

The bigger picture – and this falls into a pattern of a profit motive interfering with good care – is that pharmacists and doctors and nurses need time to do their work carefully. They need to get rest, so that they’re not working robotically, and so that they don’t assume that someone else has already checked what they haven’t. And whoever is buying medications or supplies for a medical center, let’s hope they’re not cutting shady deals.

This issue may be broader than is known, now. The ongoing chemo shortage might make a practice “hungry” for drugs. And with so many uninsured, some patients may seek treatments from less-than-reputable infusion givers. The black market, presumably, includes drugs besides Avastin.

If I were receiving an infusion today, like chemo or anesthesia or an infusion of an antibody for Crohn’s disease, I’d worry a little bit extra. I mean, who will check every single vial and label and box? Think of the average hospital patient, and how much stuff they receive in an ordinary day – including IV fluids that might be contaminated with bacteria.

It’s scary because of the loss of control. This circumstance might be inherent to being a patient – in being a true patient and not a “consumer.”

Related Posts:

73 Cents: A Film on Regina Holliday’s Work, and Patient Advocacy Through Art

Yesterday I took a field trip to meet Regina Holliday, an artist and patient advocate. She fielded questions after a screening of 73 Cents, a short film about why she painted a mural by that name in the days after her husband died with metastatic kidney cancer. He was 39 years old.

At the time of her husband Fred’s diagnosis, both she and her husband held several jobs but he lacked health insurance. In a video, Holliday describes how his diagnosis and care were delayed.

“73 Cents” refers to the price, per page, Holliday needed to pay to get a copy of her husband’s chart when he entered a new medical facility. According to the film, she was told she’d have to wait 21 days to get his records, even though he was acutely ill and dying. Now a widow with two young sons, she pushes for patients’ rights to access to their health  records and, more generally, for a patient-centered approach to medical care.

The film-makers’ point: The unreasonable price of the medical records, combined with the delay in receiving them, exemplifies unnecessary harms patients encounter in an outdated, disjointed health care system.

Holliday has several ongoing projects, including the Walking Gallery. In that, she represents health care stories on the backs of people’s jackets. The idea is to take the message of the mural – which is one patient’s story, and necessarily static – and take it further.

Related Posts:

Oh, No Methotrexate!

structure of MTX (PubChem; NCBI)

I was astonished to learn that methotrexate supplies are running short. This chemotherapy may soon be unavailable to patients who need it. And it’s not just kids with leukemia, as the Times story highlights effectively.

Methotrexate is an old, bread-and-butter cancer kind of drug, a basic ingredient in standard regimens for many tumor types. I’ve personally administered this medication to patients with breast cancer, lymphoma, leukemia, head and neck tumors, ovarian cancer, colon cancer and people whose tumor cells spread to the brain. Doctors prescribe this drug, also, in a few non-malignant conditions, like rheumatoid arthritis.

Methotrexate has been used in cancer wards for over 50 years. And like other beyond-patent meds, it’s become less profitable to manufacture MTX compared to much costlier new agents. Hard to perceive this shortage as anything but a tragedy – that the business of health care renders valuable, inexpensive drugs out of reach.

Related Posts:

newsletter software
Get Adobe Flash player