Do Adults Need Physicians to Tell Them to Exercise?

According to a new CDC report, only 1 in 3 doctors advise their adult patients to exercise. The survey-based findings are limited, in part, because they rely on people’s recollection of whether they’d visited a physician in the previous year and what they were told. Nonetheless, the study revealed some clear trends:

1. In 2010, 32.4% of adults who’d seen a health care professional were advised to begin or continue with exercise or other physical activity. That fraction’s up significantly from 2000, when a slim 22.6% of patients recalled their doctors telling them to get a move on.

2. Among folks over 85 years, nearly 29% say they were told to exercise. That number’s nearly doubled since 2000, when only 15.3% of elderly patients reportedly received this kind of advice.

3. Adults with diabetes were told to increase their activity more often than those with high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Compared with healthy weight adults, obese people were twice as likely to have been told to exercise by a physician or other health professional.

An underlying message is that doctors should be prodding their patients to exercise. From the report:

Research points to the benefits of physical activity for reducing the risk of chronic health conditions (1–4). Engaging in regular physical activity can reduce medication dependence, help maintain functional independence, and improve the quality of life for older adults (5,6). Physicians and other health professionals can be influential sources of health information, and exercise counseling by primary care physicians has been shown to increase patients’ participation in physical activity (6–9).

There was discussion about this yesterday on Twitter, stemming in part from a USA Today article on the report. And here’s the essence of the short-form debate:

Some suggested that doctors don’t tell patients to exercise because they, themselves, are overweight. Or it’s because they don’t feel comfortable recommending for others what they don’t do themselves. While this might explain some physicians’ behavior or discomfort with the topic, it can’t explain that of the majority.

So why don’t more doctors prescribe exercise for their patients?

Reasons I wonder about include a lack of time for “non-essential” communication, especially in clinics. In specialists’ offices, the omission of exercise could have to do with the visit’s purpose. A gastroenterologist or internist who evaluates a patient for a problem like diarrhea, say, might not think to ask about exercise. For some doctors it might be, problematically, an attitude issue – that they just don’t care that much, or think it would be a waste of time to discuss the matter of exercise.

Whatever the reasons are that most doctors don’t bring up the issue, one might ask this: Why do adults need doctors to tell them about the health benefits of regular exercise? After all, it’s common knowledge – the kind of thing taught in elementary school, like nutrition should be – that regular exercise is good for most people. As we age, being out of condition makes every task in life, like walking a few blocks, harder.

In an ideal world, we’d have most adults exercising regularly, and doctors who’d occasionally intervene and counsel patients about what they shouldn’t do because of a particular medical condition, like arthritis or heart limitation. I guess we’re not there yet –

All for this week,

ES

Related Posts:

NIH Sponsors New Website to Help Patients Understand Clinical Trials

This week the NIH launched a new website, NIH Clinical Research Trials and You. In a Feb 6 press release, NIH Director Dr. Francis S. Collins said “The ability to recruit the necessary number of volunteers is vital to carrying out clinical research.” The idea behind the website is to help patients understand how clinical research works, and what it’s like to participate.

The site offers a menu of “basics” about clinical trials, addressing topics like:

  1. What are clinical trials and why do people participate?
  2. What is clinical research?
  3. Who participates in clinical trials?
  4. What do I need to know if I am thinking about participating?
  5. What questions should I ask if offered a clinical trial?
  6. How am I protected?
  7. What happens after a clinical trial is completed?
  8. How does the outcome of clinical research make a difference?

There’s an imperfect glossary of terms, a selection of patients’ and investigators’ stories, information for kids in research, and other resources including a link to the clinical trials database:  ClinicalTrials.gov.

Related Posts:

Thank You, Rachel and Susan

Yesterday morning, two women who were active in the on-line breast cancer community died.

Rachel Cheetham Moro (1970 – 2012) was a critical thinker who vigorously supported BCAction and the NBCC’s 2020 deadline. She was a generous and thoughtful on-line friend to many women in the metastatic and more general BC community, where she used the handle @ccchronicles. Her blog provided a running, witty commentary on breast cancer news and trends. Interspersed, she detailed occasional and lately, more frequent visits to the hospital, a Florida vacation, and reflections on her earlier years. In a recent post, she included this wonderful high school photo.

high school photo, from the Cancer Culture Chronicles

Dr. Susan Niebur was a mother in her late 30s, an astrophysicist and blogger who generously shared her experiences at her Toddler Planet blog and elsewhere, including on Twitter as @whymommy. She dealt with inflammatory breast cancer starting in April, 2007. In recent months she wrote less frequently, but  positively somehow, while taking radiation treatments for painful bone mets, going in and out of the hospital and, most recently, receiving hospice care at home.

Susan Niebur in 2011, Toddler Planet

Each of these women inspired many people I know. They were brave and open, and helped others to understand what it’s like to face progressive, metastatic disease. Their words didn’t only affect people with breast cancer, but influenced also their loved ones, and individuals who face all sorts of limiting illness.

Thank you, both, for what you’ve taught me about life.

ES

Related Posts:

Study Finds Wide Variation in Reoperation Rates after Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer

The Feb 1 issue of JAMA includes a major report on the practice of lumpectomy in the U.S. The study examined what happened to 2,206 women at four medical centers who opted for breast-conserving surgery at the time of breast cancer diagnosis. The main finding was that after lumpectomy, nearly one in four women had another operation to remove cancerous cells in the breast. Among all the breast cancer patients who began with a lumpectomy, 8.5% wound up with a mastectomy.

These are staggeringly high rates of re-operation in women who opted for small procedures to begin with. Many of the women who had additional procedures did so for concern over having “clean margins” – that upon removal of a tumor, the edges of the specimen don’t reveal malignant cells. Re-excision for patients with negative margins varied by hospital; at one medical center the re-excision rate was 1.7%, at another it was 20.9%. Analysis by surgeon revealed huge variation, with re-excision rates ranging between 0 and 70%. The incidence of positive margins was 14%.

What further clouds the story is that among women who did have positive margins, meaning that cancerous cells were evident along the edge of the lump removed, nearly 15% didn’t have a second procedure. The big picture is that there was little pattern – or reason evident, at least at the collective level – for the surgeries and decisions to re-operate after lumpectomy for breast cancer.

The study, funded by the NIH, was sufficiently large to merit concern. It involved careful chart and pathology review of the specimens through a consortium of four medical centers around the country: the University of Vermont, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Group Health in Washington State and the Marshfield Clinic in Wisconsin. And it reflects current practice; the surgeries took place between 2003 and 2008.

Lumpectomy is a very common procedure – and a significant issue, in terms of costs, and risks, and decisions women make every day upon receiving a new BC diagnosis. An estimated 60-70% of newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients choose breast-conserving surgery. So we’re talking about 160,000 or so lumpectomies per year in the U.S. (very approximate, ES: 2/3 of 240,000 new BC cases).  The variable results affect cosmetic outcome – the very reason many women choose lumpectomy to begin with and, potentially, the rate of BC recurrence.

The authors discuss: “Our finding…suggests that patients under similar clinical conditions are likely to undergo reexcision based on the treating surgeon and not just the clinical characteristics.” They offer possible explanations, including differences in surgical training, surgeons’ confidence in their operative techniques, how tumors are assessed in the operating room, and variation in how pathologists review specimens and “call” the margins positive or negative.

All of this meshes with my experience – knowing women who’ve had breast-conserving surgery and then got mixed information about the results and what to do next. You’d think lumpectomy would be a standard procedure by now, and that decisions about what to do after the procedure, surgically speaking (let alone decisions about chemo, hormonal treatments and radiation) would be straightforward in most cases.

Related Posts:

Cyberchondria Rising – What is the Term’s Meaning and History?

Yesterday the AMA news informed me that cyberchondria is on the rise. So it’s a good moment to consider the term’s meaning and history.

Cyberchondria is an unfounded health concern that develops upon searching the Internet for information about symptoms or a disease. A cyberchondriac is someone who surfs the Web about a medical problem and worries about it unduly.

Through Wikipedia, I located what might be the first reference to cyberchondria in a medical journal: a 2003 article in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. A section on the new diagnosis starts like this: “Although not yet in the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘cyberchondria’ has been coined to describe the excessive use of internet health sites to fuel health anxiety.” That academic report links back to a 2001 story in the Independent, “Are you a Cyberchondriac?”

Two Microsoft researchers, Ryen White and Eric Horvitz, authored a “classic” paper: Cyberchondria: Studies of the Escalation of Medical Concerns in Web Search. This academic paper, published in 2009, reviews the history of cyberchondria and results of a survey on Internet searches and anxiety.

Interesting that the term – coined in a newspaper story and evaluated largely by IT experts – has entered the medical lexicon. I wonder how the American Psychiatry Association will handle cyberchondria in the upcoming DSM-5.

 

Related Posts:

The ‘Journal’ Asks, Should Patients Have Identification Numbers?

Today’s Wall Street Journal includes a special Big Issues health care section. A post on their blog caught my attention: Should Patient Have Electronic Identification Numbers?

The idea is that people who use health care would each be assigned a universal patient identifier, or UPI. This unique number would link to a person’s health records. In principle it would facilitate transfer of a patient’s medical history between doctors, hospitals and, likely, insurance companies. There are arguments pro – mainly having to do with efficiency and patient safety; and against – mainly having to do with privacy.

My issue is that it reminds me of Auschwitz. But apart from that particular association, labeling people with numbers seems dehumanizing – what’s already a big negative in modern health care. I/we need to realize that already we have numbers. Most people have social security numbers. I have several hospital ID numbers and insurance company numbers.

As for privacy, that’s history, or an illusion. If someone wants to know something about almost any person here in the U.S, they can find it. We inhabit a grid.

The debate reminds me of when I was an oncology fellow, and I treated a woman from Central America who had breast cancer. After she underwent a biopsy at our hospital, I reviewed the slides with the pathologist and wrote orders and injected her with chemotherapy. For 15 years or so I followed her in the clinic, and at some point, maybe 5 years after her diagnosis, she told me that her name was not what I’d thought or what her chart said it was. She’d used a cousin’s name and insurance card to get the care she needed.

More recently, I was with a relative who had an MRI. Upon registering at the radiology facility, he had to show a state-issued picture ID besides his insurance card. The issue was clear: with some 50 million or so Americans uninsured, and others without the ready means to cover co-pays, some people are assuming other patients’ identities to get the care they want or need.

The costs to insurers and hospitals of patient identity fraud – what in some instances I might liken to a hungry person stealing a loaf of bread – may underlie this topic’s appearance in the WSJ.

Related Posts:

Regorafenib, an Experimental Pill Tested in Colon and Rectal Cancer Patients, on Conference Agenda

Tomorrow the American Society of Clinical Oncology* will host its 9th annual GI Cancers Symposium. Bloomberg and the LA Times have already reported findings of a paper, still in abstract form, to be presented on Saturday.

The drug of interest is regorafenib, a pill that loosely inhibits quite a few kinases – enzymes critical in cell signals that control growth of normal cells, tumors and blood vessels. The experimental med, manufactured by Bayer, is also known as BAY 73-4506. The new data emerge from an international, randomized Phase III trial that goes by a loaded acronym: CORRECT.

The study included 760 patients with advanced colon or rectal cancer whose tumor progressed after receiving standard treatments. Participants received either the study drug or BSC (best supportive care) and a placebo. According to the paper, BSC includes antibiotics, pain meds, radiation for bone mets, steroids and some other treatments. The median survival in patients who received the Regorafenib was 6.4 months, compared with 5.0 months in patients who got the placebo. This difference, of 1.4 months in the median, was statistically significant. The “disease control rate” – a term that warrants separate explanation – was 44% in the regorafenib group c/w 15% in the placebo group.

The most frequent high-grade toxicities reported so far include a skin reaction affecting patients’ hands and feet, fatigue, diarrhea, elevated bilirubin in the blood, and high blood pressure. (Question to ask the oncologist who’s presenting these data at the meeting – was the elevated bilirubin from liver damage or hemolysis? With all the $millions spent on this trial, surely someone’s followed up on that detail.)

The language of the report and investigators’ comments are reminiscent of some regarding Avastin for advanced breast cancer. According to a media release: “…a subset of patients in the trial have responded particularly well to regorafenib, continuing to have stable disease for a relatively long time; research is ongoing to find ways to identify these individuals.” There are no biomarkers known to check for Regorafenib responsiveness.

What’s odd is that, according to the abstract, # LBA385, all patients entered the study between May, 2010 and March, 2011. This means some subjects were evaluated for less than a year, and the longest observation period for any patient on the trial is 20 months. Seems early to draw meaningful conclusions about the long-term toxicity and possible benefits of a cancer drug, especially for tumor types, like colorectal cancer, that don’t generally grow fast (c/w a condition like acute leukemia).

The list of investigators’ disclosures regarding ties to industry is too long to post here. You can find them at the tail end of the release. The FDA has assigned Fast Track status to this drug, according to Bayer.

*I am an ASCO member.

—-

Related Posts:

Weight Loss Strategies – What Should Doctors Say to Patients?

Yesterday’s Times offered two distinct perspectives on weight loss. One, a detailed feature on gastric surgery by Anemona Hartocollis, details the plight of a young obese woman who opts for Lap-band surgery. In this procedure, surgeons wrap a constricting band of silicone around the stomach so that patients will feel full upon eating less food than they might otherwise. Allergan, the company that manufactures the device, admits to these complications on its website.

The other, a discussion of resolutions and will-power by John Tierney, considers strategies for sticking to diets, exercise regimens and other good intentions for the new year. Within this piece lies a distracting story of an obese (375 pound) hedge fund manager whose gastric band failed to keep his appetite in check. When he landed a project in Las Vegas and feared regaining weight, he aimed high – to lose 100 pounds, outfitted his hotel suite with a gym, and hired a personal trainer to stay nearby and keep him on track in terms of meals and exercise. This costly “outsourcing” of will-power is, obviously, not an option for most people.

Tierney does offer some reasonable suggestions – like setting realistic goals, weighing yourself daily, Tweeting your weight, logging into a weight-loss website, not freaking out if you blow your diet one day, etc.

Both articles are well-worth reading.

But here’s the thing – how do doctors fit into this picture? In the last few years that I was practicing hematology, I saw a few patients who had B12 deficiency after gastric bypass surgery. These patients turned out to have multiple problems after their stomachs were cut so they’d eat less food. For some it was helpful; I saw individuals who lost over 150 pounds. Still, the surgery was huge and risky. I can’t fathom having recommended it to a patient whom I cared for, unless perhaps I’d personally witnessed her struggling to lose weight for over, say, 8-10 years.

Because most people, if inspired or starved, can lose weight. This may sound cruel, but what if the doctors recommending the procedure don’t have sufficient confidence in their patients?

The Lap-band is sold as a safer alternative, but upon reading the story (an anecdote, but telling), you have to wonder what are patients’ expectations of the procedure, and how well do they understand the likely risks and benefits. Who are the doctors who tell them about the procedures, and what are their ties with industry (besides the obvious link of surgeons who do the surgery and recommend it).

Like patients with cancer, patients with obesity may feel desperate. But unlike cancer, obesity is almost always a function of choices we make, and for which I think we have to hold people responsible.

Doctors, maybe, should expect more of their patients. “Yes, you can lose 30 pounds over the next 2 years,” one might say. And they might talk about strategies, Tierney-style or otherwise, based on the patient’s preferences and personality. “Come into my office once each month for a weigh-in” might be very effective in persuading patients to shed pounds. A technician could do the monthly measurement in the office or medical home, and the doctor or nurse might follow-up with an encouraging email. Imagine that!

So why don’t more general practitioners, including pediatricians, offer this sort of weight-loss approach? Is it too simple a strategy that doctors don’t find it interesting? Or not sufficiently profitable for the office or medical center?

No answers, just thoughts upon reading, for today –

Related Posts:

ACS Issues Annual Report on Cancer Stats: Some Key Findings, and Notes on Survivorship

ACS (annual report header)

This week the ACS released its annual report on Cancer Facts and Figures in the U.S. The journal Cancer analyzes and considers the data in a helpful articleSome of the key and mainly positive findings have been covered elsewhere:

Between 1990 and 2008, death rates from cancer in the U.S. declined rather steadily, overall, by 22.9% in men and 15.3% in women. More recently, between 2004 and 2008, the incidence of cancer has declined slightly in men (0.6% per year) but it’s been stable in women. During this most recent period for which complete data are available, the overall death rates continued to drop – by 1.8% in men and by 1.6% per year in women.

This is generally good news. Still, the total number of people in the U.S. who will receive a new cancer diagnosis in 2012 is estimated at 1,638,910. Some 577,190 people will die of a malignancy, which approximates to 1,500 cancer deaths per day in the U.S. Cancer is second only to heart disease as the cause of death in North America. Most cancers, some 77%, arise in people aged 55 or older; conversely, approximately 23% arise in people under 55 years of age. The NIH estimates that in 2007, direct health expenditures for cancer in the U.S. totaled $103.8 billion.

Some notes on survivorship:

The latest estimate is that 12 million people are alive in the U.S. after a cancer diagnosis. This number includes people who are undergoing treatment and many who are in remission. Another encouraging detail: from 1975-77, the overall 5-year survival was just 49%. Now, between 2001 and 2007, overall 5-year survival stands at 67%. In other words, in 1975, just over half of cancer patients died within 5 years of their diagnosis; by 2007, two thirds of cancer patients were alive at 5 years.

The report includes a critical section on a few kinds of cancers for which the rates are increasing. These include cancer in the oropharynx (mouth and throat) associated with human papillomavirus (HPV); esophageal cancer (adenocarcinoma type), melanoma and tumors of the pancreas, liver, bile duct, thyroid, and some kinds of kidney cancer. The Cancer journal has a separate article on these.

The full and detailed document, at 68 printed pages, deserves close review in many particulars. Next week I’ll go over the new data for breast cancer.

All for now,

ES

Related Posts:

A Note on ‘Trial by Twitter’ and Peer Review in 2012

Nature just published a feature: Trial by Twitter. The piece considers the predicament of researchers who may find themselves ill-prepared to deal with a barrage of unsolicited and immediate on-line “reviews” of their published work. The author of the Nature News piece, science journalist A. Mandavilli, does a great job covering the pros and cons of Twitter “comments” on strengths and weaknesses of studies from the perspective of researchers whose work has been published by major journals.

She writes:

Papers are increasingly being taken apart in blogs, on Twitter and on other social media within hours rather than years, and in public, rather than at small conferences or in private conversation.

What I’d add is this:

Openness isn’t just about criticism. It can be a positive factor in bringing to light the work of small-lab researchers whose findings contradict dogma or conflict with heavily-financed work by leaders in a field. Through twitter and blogs, non-mainstream threads of data can gain attention, traction and, with time and merit, grant support.

Scientists who publish in major journals should be able to handle the flak. If their work is correct, it’ll stand through open peer review.

—-

Related Posts:

Blood and Hip Surgery: New Study Supports Fewer Transfusions

Under the radar, over the holiday week, the NEJM published a report on transfusion requirements in older adults who surgical hip repair. The main finding is that most patients, including the elderly and those at risk for cardiac complications of the procedure, don’t benefit from getting so many red blood cell transfusions as is commonly prescribed.

The study, funded by the NHLBI, involved more than 2000 adults over 50 years of age who underwent hip surgery. Overall the patients were quite elderly, with a mean age above 80 in each group. The trial included patients with heart disease and risk factors for cardiac complications. Participants were randomized to receive red blood cells if their hemoglobin fell to a level below one of either two thresholds: 10 or 8 gm/dl. What happened is that, at the time of discharge from the hospital and by 60 days after the procedure, the rates of death, coronary syndrome and other complications were the same.

An accompanying editorial weighs in on the study and conclusion, that a standard threshold for ordering transfusions in the context of major hip surgery might be lowered. Reducing transfusions would lower demands on the blood supply, lessen the costs of administering these infusions, and reduce complications from infected or otherwise-damaging pints.

The study is important because it bolsters the evidence that too many units of blood are administered routinely.  Sometimes with good reason, busy surgeons recommend a threshold for what’s almost an automatic order that blood to be given. If there is such a threshold in a SICU (surgical ICU), operating room or elsewhere, this report suggests it’s often too high.

It would be better, for sure, if transfusions were ordered on a case-by-case basis, with input by a doctor who would assess each patient’s baseline level of hemoglobin and other relevant factors. For example, a patient who’s been anemic for years may tolerate a lower hemoglobin level than someone who’s never been anemic before, or whose lung function is marginal.

Still, the main take is that many patients undergoing surgery need less blood than their doctors realize, and that we can safely, overall, reduce the number of transfusions ordered for many patients, even in those who are older and with risk of heart disease.

What patients might do: if you’re going to have major surgery, talk with your doctor about whether you might need blood and how the surgeon will decide if you need blood or not, and how much. If you have a strong preference to avoid transfusion, let your doctor know about that and discuss how you might avoid getting unnecessary pints.

Related Posts:

Noting the Death of Christopher Hitchens from Esophageal Cancer

The author is saddened to learn that Christopher Hitchens died late yesterday evening at the age of 62, roughly a year and a half after receiving a diagnosis of esophageal cancer. He was a prolific and articulate man; I respected him for his words.

His essays on the language and cancer might be of particular interest to some readers of this blog.

The NCI reports there are some 17,000 new cases of esophageal cancer in North American each year; it’s not a common tumor, and most cases arise in men. The annual number of deaths from esophageal cancer approaches 15,000 in the U.S. These numbers are telling: it’s not an easy disease to have, or to treat.

——

Related Posts:

Why Should Physicians Blog or Use Twitter?

Is a question I ask myself almost every day. When I started this blog, it was partly a response to what I perceived an unbalanced attack on the value of breast cancer screening by the mainstream news outlets. Why it’s continued is, mainly, that I find it liberating and, in a strange way, fun. As I’m no longer practicing, this wide-open world of shared facts, some questionable, and new ideas keeps me alert and, maybe, in-touch.

Today several physicians tell of the benefits of social media for physicians. One post by my colleague Kevin MD is titled Bury Bad Doctor Reviews With a strong Social Media Presence. Kevin has, previously and elsewhere, described the potential value of blogs that encourage nuanced discussion of health care news. What he reveals, today, is that blogs can be a way for doctors to put forward a positive image of themselves and their practices. Closer to home, orthopedist Howard J. Luks, MD writes to the point: on social media, health and marketing.

But if that’s what doctors’ blogs are about, why don’t we just call it PR?

As I’ve said before, I do see value in academics blogging, especially if they’re not afraid to question, and don’t simply kiss up to authors who’ve published articles in major journals. I can see how Twitter from a trusted source like the CDC could be a rapid way to disseminate information about a new viral strain, an urgent need for blood donors, or a real public health emergency.

But for most practicing physicians, I just don’t see how they have time for it. Unless it’s like a hobby, or better – an open notebook – a way of recording your thoughts on what you’ve seen and learned in the day. That kind of blog can be great, even useful, for patients and other docs. The main thing is that the purpose of physicians’ and hospitals’ websites or blogs should be clear.

Recently I saw a tweet by @jamierauscher about whether she thinks to inform her docs about her use of social media. That’s a separate topic.

Later.

Related Posts:

Quote of the Day: On Death Panels and the Insurance Industry, From Dr. Donald Berwick

Dr. Donald Berwick left his position last week as head of CMS. He said this, as quoted in the WSJ’s Washington Wire, yesterday:

“Maybe a real death panel is a group of people who tell health care insurers that is it OK to take insurance away from people because they are sick or are at risk for becoming sick.”

I couldn’t agree with him more.

All for this week,

ES

Related Posts:

Learning From the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, At a Distance

There’s a ton of BC and women’s health news this week. But yours truly is, among other things, not in San Antonio where is the 34th annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

NTW, quite a few major news outlets are covering this business closely and carefully, as are some bloggers I know. Upon reading the news, I was simultaneously impressed by the number of new drugs for metastatic breast cancer that are being tried, and daunted upon realizing how difficult (read: IMPOSSIBLE) besides costly it’ll be to sort out these drugs used in so many combinations. Rather than recapitulating the data, some of which was published on-line this week in the NEJM, and most of which are still preliminary, I thought I’d just list some of the drugs being tested, and add a bit about how they’re administered and might work:

Entinostat is an oral histone deacetyalase (HDAC) inhibitor that’s not yet available in the US by any prescription off protocol.

Everolimus is a tablet (i.e. a pill) designed to inhibit an enzyme called mTOR. It’s sold for use in some cancers under the brand name Afinitor.

Exemestane is a tablet that reduces estrogen production. It’s an aromatase inhibitor sold as Aromasin. (This drug was approved by the FDA in 2005; it’s not quite so new, but is being tested in distinct settings, mainly in women with early-stage BC.)

Pertuzumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds Her2, in a distinct way from Herceptin.

Obviously this is but a partial list of drugs discussed at the meeting. Still, it’s heartening to this one oncologist to review even a short list of diverse new agents that might arrest the disease.

The history of the SABCS is interesting.  From the organization’s website:  the first meeting was held in November 11, 1978 during what’s said to have been “Breast Cancer Awareness Week.” The original conference’s sponsors included the Cancer Therapy and Research Center (CTRC, at UT San Antonio), the Texas Division of the ACS, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) and the Bexar County Medical Society. Some 141 physicians and surgeons attended what’s described as one-day course.

It grew…

Now, the SABCS hosts a 5-day program with physicians, scientists, patients, advocates, reporters…from around the world. It’s jointly-sponsored by the CTRC and American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and the Baylor College of Medicine.

The Alamo (WC image)

Next year, maybe I’ll go to the 35th annual event, and see what’s really happening in San Antonio.

Related Posts:

The BC Sisterhood Takes on Sex After Cancer and What Oncologists Don’t Say

A hit in the women’s breast cancer Twitter league came my way from the Breast Cancer Sisterhood®. Brenda Coffee, a survivor and founder of the Survivorship Media Network, offers a serious post on What Your Oncologist Doesn’t Tell You About Sex.

There’s a music video, Don’t Touch Me that’s annoying but depressingly right on how some women feel in menopause –  a frequent and under-discussed aspect of chemo or hormonal therapy for BC, followed by a grounded and unusually frank discussion about what happens to women after cancer treatment, menopause and sex.

Brenda’s right; none of this was included in my med school curriculum or oncology fellowship. Although, in fairness and quite seriously, this was a subject on mine and some other oncologists’ radar long ago. Cancer treatments can have lasting effects on sexuality in men and women.

Worth checking out Brenda’s network and her candid post. You can follow her @BCSisterhood on Twitter.

Related Posts:

Thinking of Someone with MBC in the Hospital Now

My fingers stopped this morning for a while when I came upon a reference to @whymommy. Last thing I read about her condition, she was at home having a tough but cozy Thanksgiving at home. Now she’s in the hospital and in her words, OK.

Susan is a woman in her 30s with metastatic breast cancer. People, including me, have described Susan as an astrophysicist, mom, wife… But the main thing is she’s a person.

Each counts.

Hope she gets to go home soon and feels better –

#EndBC

Related Posts:

A Good Personal Health Record is Hard to Find

Over the weekend I developed another bout of diverticulitis. Did the usual: fluids, antibiotics, rest, avoided going to the ER, cancelled travel plans.

One of my doctors asked a very simple question: is this happening more frequently? The answer, we both knew, was yes. But I don’t have a Personal Health Record (PHR) that in principle, through a few clicks, would give a time-frame graph of the bouts and severity of the episodes over the past several years.

The last time this happened, and the time before that, I thought I’d finally start a PHR. Like most compulsive patients, I keep records about my health. In the folder in my closet in a cheap old-fashioned filing box, the kind with a handled top that flips open, I’ve got an EKG from 15 years ago, an OR report from my spine surgery, copies of lab results that the ordering physicians chose to send me, path reports from my breasts, a skin lesion or two, and, more recently a colonic polyp, bone density studies from 2004, EMGs and more, essentially miscellaneous results.

None of the records I have are digital.

A few years back I considered using Google Health. But their service, as I understood it, involved scanning documents and uploading them to the Cloud, or paying someone else to do so. That sounded like a hassle. But even had I done that, I wouldn’t have been able to, say, see a graph of my hemoglobin since 1986, or something as simple as my weight changes over time. When Google Health folded a few months back, I was disappointed. At the same time, I breathed a sigh of relief that I hadn’t invested my personal and limited energies into putting my records there.

But now what?

I searched for a PHR, again on-line, and found some commercial stuff, mainly targeting doctors’ offices and larger health care systems. Medicare’s information on Managing Your Health Information Online offers bullet-point explanations on Why Use PHRs?

But I needed no convincing. What I need is software, or a platform, that’s user-friendly and secure. Ideally mine would mesh with my physicians’ records, but my doctors use a variety of record systems. So it’s up to me to integrate the data, if anyone will. The problem is there’s little out there, as best I can tell, that’s intended for patients. Most IT companies are, for now, focused on getting doctors to sign on.

So I’ll start an Excel spreadsheet, today, on my PC. There must be a better way.

Related Posts:

New Music from an Orchestra of Radioactive Isotopes

For the weekend –

A tweet led me to a fantastically inventive kind of music. The Radioactive Orchestra comprises 3175 radioisotopes. From the website: “Melodies are created by simulating what happens in the atomic nucleus when it decays from its excited nuclear state…Every isotope has a unique set of possible excited states and decay patterns…”

image from the Radioactive Orchestra project

The project, sponsored by a Swedish nuclear safety organization, KSU, encourages visitors to select among the graphed isotopes, listen and learn. You can try composing music on your own, or you can check out a production by DJ Alex Boman on YouTube:

Super-cool.

h/t: Maria Popova, @brainpicker, who picked up on this last August at Brainpickings. And to @JohnNosta, who sent yesterday’s tweet.

—-

Related Posts:

Cervical Cancer Screening Update: on Pap Smears, Liquid-based Cytology and HPV

The latest issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine contains 2 noteworthy papers on cervical cancer screening. The first, a systematic review of studies commissioned by the USPSTF, looked at 3 methods for evaluating abnormalities in women over 30 years:

high-grade cervical cell dysplasia (Dr. E. Uthman, Wikimedia Commons)

1. Conventional cytology (as in a Pap smear; the cervix is scraped and cells splayed onto a microscope slide for examination);

2. Liquid-based cytology (for LBC, the NHS explains: the sample is taken as for a Pap test, but the tip of the collection spatula is inserted into fluid rather than applied to slides. The fluid is sent to the path lab for analysis);

3. Testing for high-risk HPV (human papillomavirus). Currently 3 tests have been approved by the FDA in women with atypical cervical cells or for cervical cancer risk assessment in women over the age of 30: Digene Hybrid Capture 2 (manufactured by Quiagen), Cobas 4800 HPV (Roche) and Cervista HR HPV (Hologic); another Roche Diagnostics assay, Amplicor HPV, awaits approval.

These HPV assays use distinct methods to assess DNA of various HPV strains.

There’s a lot of jargon here, and I have to admit some of this was new to me despite my nearly-due diligence as a patient at the gynecologist’s office and my familiarity as an oncologist with the staging, clinical manifestations and treatment of cervical cancer. Who knew so many decisions were made during a routine pelvic exam about which manner of screening?

The main points I took away from this paper:

1. Liquid-based cytology is similar to conventional Pap smear cytology for detecting high-grade dysplasia (abnormal cells) and cervical cancer.

2. It seems that at some medical centers, and possibly overall, there’s a lower proportion of inadequate cell specimens when practitioners skip the slides and use the liquid method. This means that fewer women need be called back for another procedure.

3. Finding HPV sequences in the cervix yields many false positives, in terms of malignancy.

The researchers conclude that further studies are needed to sort out how HPV testing can improve or supplement cervical cancer screening. The main limitation is that many young women are infected with potentially cancer-causing strains of HPV, but most don’t get cervical cancer. When cervical cancer does develop that’s usually later on, a decade or longer after the relevant viral infection.

The second Annals article, a helpful narrative review, considers the practical implications of the above findings. The authors state that over 40 types of HPV can infect the cervix. They review that progression to cancer occurs along these 4 steps: HPV transmission, acute infection, persistent infection causing precancerous changes and eventually, in a subset of those infected, invasive cervical cancer.

Figure 1 is remarkably clear:

Prevalence of high-risk HPV and incident cases of cervical cancer in the U.S., 2003–2005. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data for incident cases among females aged 15 to 19 years and 50 to 64 years.

The graph shows that the prevalence of HPV infection is highest among teens and women in their early 20s, and decreases in older women. By contrast, the incidence of cervical cancer rises steadily in women over 30 years and remains elevated among women in their 40s. The authors show, separately, that the rate of cervical cancer in older women is low.

The central point is that high-risk HPV infection and associated inflammation of the cervix are common in young women, but cervical cancer is rare among those under 30 years. The investigators conclude that cervical cancer screening in women younger than 20 years may be harmful. They also state that evidence supports discontinuation of cervical cancer screening in most women who are over 65 years old.

Two asides on this otherwise non-bloggy topic –

It’s great that the Annals provides the full text of these papers open-access, free of charge to the public.

Amazing how well-accepted is the concept of some viruses causing cancer, today. This was a heretical idea 25 years ago in academic medicine; now it’s dogma.

Related Posts:

newsletter software
Get Adobe Flash player