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:

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:

Final Word on Avastin, and Why We Need Better Physicians

Today’s breaking breast cancer news is on Avastin. The FDA has just announced, formally, that it will rescind approval for the drug’s use in people with metastatic breast cancer. Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg writes this her statement:

I know I speak on behalf of the many physicians that have been involved with this issue here at the Food and Drug Administration and elsewhere in saying that we encourage patients, and those who support them, to ask hard questions and demand explanations concerning the drugs that are recommended to treat serious illnesses.

On this much I agree with Dr. Hamburg – that patients and others, including doctors who prescribe treatments to patients with likely incurable illnesses, and all medical conditions, for that matter, should ask hard questions.

Others have already, immediately expressed that the FDA did the right thing. Because they think the FDA’s decision was rational, and it was. Likely there’ll be an editorial in the paper I usually read, celebrating the victory of reason over anecdote. The WSJ, whose words tend to align more with business interests, will likely be critical. Opponents of health care reform will, inappropriately and mistakenly, use this as an example of rationing, which it isn’t.

The fact is that many, and possibly most, medical treatments are given in the absence of studies to justify their use. So you might ask, instead, why give chemotherapy to most stage IV cancer patients. Or why give it in the adjuvant setting? Apart from some tumors, like some kinds of lymphoma and leukemia, and common breast and testicular cancers, and a few others, when carefully measured the benefit is often slim.

What I think is that Avastin is a scapegoat of sorts, a costly drug not particularly worse than many others, nor better, and that helps a small minority of women with a lethal disease for reasons their doctors can’t predict or explain.

We experiment, on insurance and Medicare dollars, with so many costly treatments. Bone marrow transplants, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient, for example, are given to some with little formal proof of benefit for the approved indications. But there’s a lobby for these treatments. Support comes from hospitals profiting from transplant procedures and, more subtly, from academic physicians who’ve built careers in that field and write papers about their benefits, complications and management. I might cite other complex, costly and unproved examples in oncology, surgery and other fields of medicine, but that’s not the real point for today.

What I wonder is, ironically, because the data on Avastin were collected so carefully, that its lack of effectiveness over a population of women was better-documented than has been the lack of evidence for other drugs and regimens. Besides, there’s no group of hospitals and doctors whose profit and livelihood, respectively, depends on giving Avastin to just a few people with metastatic breast cancer. There was just Genentech, an easy big-Pharma target, and a few women, pleading for continued access to a drug that’s helped to keep them alive.

(I wonder, also, had those patients who testified been men, would their words have been taken more seriously?)

Meanwhile, doctors can keep giving Avastin to patients with other forms of cancer, for which its efficacy is not so different as you might think. Like any drug, this drug’s response varies from patient to patient for every tumor type that it might be given. And the physicians can still give Avastin, as the commissioner points out in her decision, to women who can pay for it, by circumstances of their particular insurance, or good fortune of wealth. But some of these women’s families will be hurt hard by this FDA decision. Most are in the 99%.

And so maybe what we really need are better doctors, not only in oncology, who would carefully monitor patients when they give any and every medical treatment and stop it if it’s not working, and continue only if it helps, and would communicate and obtain informed consent through meaningful discourse.

If we had that, we’d save a lot of money, and get better care.

Related Posts:

President Obama Talks About Smoking and Tobacco

Today’s ML comes straight from the Oval Office. President Obama talks about smoking, and how hard it is to stop, and what can be done to reduce the use and long-term health consequences of tobacco.

What I like about this Presidential health advisory:

He credits the ACS, which is sponsoring a smokeout today.

He’s clear about the problem’s scope: “Today 46 million Americans are still hooked, and tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable, early deaths in this country.”

He doesn’t deny his own history. His experience lends credibility to his words; he understands how hard it is to stop smoking once you’ve begun.

He considers a solution: “We also know that the best way to prevent the health problems that come from smoking is to keep young people from starting in the first place.”

He reflects on the power of tobacco companies, which are fighting requirements for candid warning labels on their products.

All in 1 minute and 34 seconds!

Related Posts:

iPod Therapy – Why Not Prescribe It?

Yours truly, the author of Medical Lessons, is listening to music while she writes. A live version of the Stones’ “Silver Train” has just come on, and she’s happily reminded of something that happened 30 years ago. Distracting? Yes. Calming? Yes. Paradoxically helps to keep me on track? Yes.

My iPod keeps my mind from wandering further. And it lifts my mood.

And so here, on my blog, which is not peer-reviewed or anything like that, I put forth the medical concept of “iPod therapy.”

“When you’re weary, feeling small…” Music can help.

Today’s news reports that 1 in 5 Americans take drugs for psychiatric conditions. That sounds like a lot to me, but I’m no pharmaceutical surveyor. Of course many people need and benefit from medical help for depression and other mental illnesses.

But, in all seriousness, I wonder how many people might use music like a drug to keep them relaxed, happy, alert…

Why not prescribe music? It works for me, n=1.

Maybe doctors should be recommending iPods, or radios, or Pandora to some of their patients who are feeling down. I hope an academic psychiatrist somewhere, without ties to Apple or Pandora or Bose or other relevant party is coordinating a careful, prospective study of this promising and relatively inexpensive intervention.

As best I can tell, music is non-addictive. Except that if I had to live without it, I’d start humming, or maybe singing, which might be detrimental to those who live near.

Related Posts:

Magic Johnson is Alive 20 Years after Announcing He Had HIV

Yesterday’s Washington Post Sports has a clip from CNN, 20 years ago, when basketball star Magic Johnson announced on TV that he had HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The date was Nov 7, 1991.

“Where were you when Magic made his announcement? What were your thoughts on Johnson and HIV/AIDS that day and how have they changed?” asks Matt Brooks in his column.

I can’t quite recall where I was. Probably I was at the hospital working, possibly even taking care of a patient with HIV. But I do remember thinking how much courage it must have taken for him to come out with it.

He understood, likely, that he would die soon, and his doctors probably thought the same. There were only two antiviral drugs approved for HIV back then. There was so much stigma, and fear.

Today you can see and listen to him in an interview on ESPN.

It’s great to see Magic Johnson back in the news, even if it’s (just) in a sports sections, and to be reminded that he’s alive, doing OK. The condition we thought was a death sentence has become a chronic illness, with so many drugs available for treatment it’s hard to keep track.

Related Posts:

Visiting the Scar Project Exhibit

On Friday I visited the Scar Project exhibit at Openhouse, on Mulberry Street just south of Spring. Photographer David Jay offers penetrating, large, wall-mounted images of young people with breast cancer.

The photos reveal women who’ve have had surgery, radiation, reconstruction or partial reconstruction of the breasts. Some are strikingly beautiful. Some appear confused, others confident. Some look right at you, defiant or maybe proud. Some, post-mastectomy, adopt frankly or strangely sexual postures. Others hide a breast, or turn away from the lens.

This collection is not for everyone. The photos of ravaged bodies of women with cancer might be upsetting, if not frankly disturbing, to some who look at them. Not everyone chooses to do so.

The women’s scars and expressions are telling. Though not representative, these images reflect wounds not often-shown in medical journals, or elsewhere.

Related Posts:

On Alcohol and Breast Cancer, Guilt, Correlations, Fun, Moderation, Doctors’ Habits, Advice and Herbal Tea

Few BC news items irk some women I know more than those linking alcohol consumption to the Disease. Joy-draining results like those reported this week serve up a double-whammy of guilt: first – that you might have developed cancer because you drank a bit, or a lot, or however much defines more than you should have imbibed; and second – now that you’ve had BC, the results dictate, or suggest at least, it’s best not to drink alcohol.

The problem is this: If you’ve had BC and might enjoy a glass of wine, or a margarita or two at a party, or a glass of whiskey, straight, at a bar, or after work with colleagues, or when you’re alone with your cat, for example, you might end up feeling really bad about it – worse than if you had only to worry about the usual stuff like liver disease and brain damage, or if you could simply experience pleasure like others, as they choose.

The newly-published correlative data, in the Nov 2 issue of JAMA, are clear. The findings, an offshoot of the Nurses’ Health Study, involve over 105,000 women monitored from 1980 until 2008. The bottom line is that even low levels of alcohol consumption, the equivalent to 3-6 drinks per week, are associated with a statistically significant but slight increase in breast cancer incidence. And the more a woman drinks, the more likely she is to develop breast cancer.

All things considered, it might be true that alcohol is a breast carcinogen, as Dr. Steven Narod calls it in the editorial accompanying the research study. Still, there’s no proof of cause and effect: Other factors, like consuming lots of food or perhaps some yet-unidentified particularity about living in communities with abundant food and alcohol, are potential co-variables in this story. But what if it is true?

From the editorial:

These findings raise an important clinical question: should postmenopausal women stop drinking to reduce their risk of breast cancer? For some women the increase in risk of breast cancer may be considered substantial enough that cessation would seem prudent. However, there are no data to provide assurance that giving up alcohol will reduce breast cancer risk.

How I see it is this: Everything’s best in moderation, including enjoyment of one’s life. You work, you rest, you have some fun.

This evidence is not like the strong data linking cigarettes to smoking that officials sat on for a few decades under the influence of the tobacco industry. This is a plausible, mild, and at this point well-documented correlation.

I don’t deny the sometimes harmful effects of alcohol; no sane physician or educated person could. But if you have a glass of wine, or even a second, so long as you don’t drive a car or work while affected, I don’t see it as anyone’s business but your own. More generally, I worry about how much judging there is by people who behave imperfectly, and how that can make individuals who are good people in most ways feel like they don’t deserve to be happy or enjoy their lives.

Women, in my experience, are generally more vulnerable to the put-downs of others. And so my concern about the BC-alcohol link is that this will, somehow, be used, or have the effect of, making survivors or thrivers or women who haven’t even had breast cancer feel like they’re doing the wrong thing if they go to a party and have a drink. And then they’ll feel badly about themselves.

Really I’m not sure what more to say on this loaded topic, except that it points to the deeper and broader ethical dilemma of doctors who are not all perfect examples of moderation, expecting and asking other people to change their personal habits when they themselves like to go out and have fun, and drink, at parties, or have wine in the evenings over dinner in the privacy of their homes.

How shall I resolve this post?

Last night I sipped Sleepytime tea, manufactured by Celestial Seasonings, before reading a book. The stuff is said to be 100% natural, with “a soothing blend of chamomile, spearmint and lemongrass.” I tried it first a few weeks ago and, by a placebo effect or through real chemistry, it helps me sleep more soundly.

I’ve absolutely no idea what are the effects of “Sleepytime tea” on breast cancer. It might help, it might hurt, or it might do nothing at all.

Related Posts:

A Poster for Healthy Eating, 1940s Style

A curious diagram appeared in the most recent NEJM, in a perspective on U.S. dietary guidelines. It’s a USDA food wheel from the early 1940s. With Twitter-like style, it says: “For Health…eat some food from each group…every day!

The details are rich: “butter and fortified margarine” constitute 1of the 7 groups. Further inspection-worthy, IMO.

Related Posts:

Brief Report: Annual Meeting of the Metastatic Breast Cancer Network

The Metastatic Breast Cancer Network held its fifth annual meeting in Baltimore over this past weekend. Most of the nearly 300 registrants were women living with MBC.

The lively group of women coalesced in the face of unexpected, pre-seasonal wintry weather. At an evening reception they stood, sat, waited for drinks and lined up for buffet food. Some lingered, chatting at round tables for well over an hour beyond the party’s official end-time. Over breakfast and lunch breaks the next day, there was plenty of reconnecting, hugs and catching up.

Like other medical conferences, there were plenary and breakout sessions on the educational program. You could choose, for example, between panels on “Treatment of Bone Metastases,” “Role of Surgery in Soft Tissue Mets” and “Managing Side Effects.”  Later, fuzzier and perhaps more intense sessions covered “Role of the Caregiver,” “Nutrition and Wellness” and a “Living with MBC.” Plenary talks ranged from introductory, light remarks to hour-long lectures on breast cancer immunotherapy, clinical trials and epigenetics. I took extensive notes.

Two highlights from this noteworthy gathering:

In introductory remarks shortly after 9AM, MBCN Board member Shirley Mertz recalled attending her first conference of this group, and the feelings she experienced upon meeting other women in similar straits. Her message was this: “Take a look around, you are not alone.”

Late in the day Dr. Stephen Baylin, a professor of oncology and medicine, prefaced his talk as follows: “It’s a privilege – talking with you, hearing what the disease is like, hearing your questions.” He was standing at the podium of Turner Auditorium at Johns Hopkins. “Please teach me,” he said – rare words emanating from the front of a prestigious medical school lecture hall.

Indeed, there’s a lot a doctor might learn at a conference like this. I did, for sure.

Related Posts:

Arizona Cheerleaders Cause Community Stir With Breast Cancer Awareness Shirts

This story, shared today by Debbie Woodbury, warrants ML Annals of Pink inclusion:

The Arizona Republic reports on a divided community in Gilbert, AZ. At issue is the high school cheerleading team’s plan to wear pink tee shirts with the slogan: “Feel for lumps – save your bumps” on the back. The group’s intention was to raise awareness and funds for the Susan G. Komen Foundation. 

The school’s principal said no to the controversial outfits due to their “unacceptably suggestive” content.

What strikes me, among other interesting aspects of this story and what it reflects about BC awareness in 2011, is how the arguments (so needless!) about fundraising play out so differently, depending where you live and the newspapers you might read.

Related Posts:

Mammograms Could Save More Lives Than You Might Think

I’m wondering is how to bring mainstream health journalists and women who are, lately, choosing not to have mammograms, to their senses about a persuasive but flawed argument put forth by a Dartmouth epidemiologist and others in a crew of seemingly like-minded, hopefully well-intentioned, some perhaps tenure-seeking and others grant-needing, circulatory bias-confirming academics who meet and discuss and write about the so-called dangers of mammography.

Maybe some doctors and journalists think they’re doing the right thing by informing a naïve body of women who, in the words of an LA Times writer today, think only correlative and simple thoughts.

From Screening mammograms save fewer lives than you think:

If you or someone you know discovered she had breast cancer thanks to routine mammography screening, and if you or that friend with breast cancer got treatment and today is cancer-free, it’s natural to assume that the mammogram was a life-saver.

But odds are, it wasn’t….

First things first: the title makes an assumption about what I, or you, or any reader, thinks.

Second, the story offers two factoids: first – that over 75% of women diagnosed with BC by screening mammography wouldn’t have died from the cancer if they hadn’t had mammography; and second – that no more than 25% of those same women can rightly credit a mammogram for saving their lives. But this is just one stat, or falsehood, based on the true, assumption-free relationship between 75% and 25%.

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, who recently likened mammography-taking to gambling, plays freely with impressive-sounding information sources. He and his coauthor used data from the NCI. Seemingly hard to argue with those kinds of numbers. But they used old data, again, and employ numerous assumptions (what the authors call generous, but I wouldn’t) to render calculations and “prove” their point published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

The manipulative tone is set in the paper’s abstract:

“…We created a simple method to estimate the probability that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her life saved…

Simple? Don’t you believe it.

There’s a Well post in the New York Times today covering the same Archives of Internal Medicine article. Not surprisingly, this draws positive feedback in the comments and Twitter-chatter. Some of the more understandable discussion comes from women with metastatic disease whose tumors were missed by screening mammography. Notably, neither paper quotes an oncologist.

Here in the U.S. where we do spend too much on health care, we all know women whose breast tumors were missed by screening mammograms. This happens, and it’s awful, but it doesn’t and certainly shouldn’t happen so often as some doctors seem to think. Extrapolating from personal observations to draw conclusions about a procedure’s value is flawed reasoning, either way.

I agree with many of Dr. Susan Love’s school, and most of the NBCC agenda, and others that say breast cancer prevention would be better than treatment. How could I not?

But until there’s a prevention for BC, which I’m sorry to report is unlikely to happen before 2020, especially because it’s really 15 or 20 or maybe even more diseases that would, presumably, need distinct methods of prevention, and until there are better, less damaging and less costly remedies, mammography may be the best way for middle-aged women to avoid the debilitating and lethal effects of late-stage disease. And for society to avoid the costs of that condition and its treatments, which are huge.

—-

post shortened 12/18/12

Related Posts:

3 Differences between Prostate and Breast Cancer Screening

Days ago, the USPSTF issued a new draft for its recommendations on routine PSA measurements in asymptomatic men. The panel’s report is published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The main findings are two: first, the absence of evidence that routine PSA testing prolongs men’s lives, and second, that PSA evaluation may, on balance, cause more harm than good.

Not surprisingly, there’s been considerable coverage of this by the media, and some controversy. For decades, many men have had their PSA checked, knowingly or not, by their physicians. The PSA test  measures the level of Prostate Specific Antigen, a protein produced and sometimes secreted by prostate cells, normal, inflamed or malignant, into the bloodstream.

As an oncologist, I don’t find the panel’s recommendations surprising. There’s never been strong data to support the hypothesis that routine PSA testing reduces mortality for men in any age group. Prostate cancer is often indolent, a slow-growing kind of tumor for which a “watch and wait” approach may be best, especially when it occurs in elderly men who are most likely, even in the absence of treatment, to die of another cause. The complication rate of prostate surgery is fairly high, although this “cost” of screening likely varies, depending on the skill of the surgeon. Still, and understandably, there are men who swear by this measurement, whose lives have been, in some cases, saved by early detection of a high-grade tumor upon screening.

For today, I’d like to consider some key differences between breast and prostate cancers, and the potential value of screening:

1. Breast cancer tends to affect younger patients than prostate cancer.

Based on SEER data, the median age of a breast cancer diagnosis in the U.S. is 61 years. The median age of death from breast cancer is 68 years. For prostate cancer, the SEER data show a median age of 67 years at diagnosis, and for death from prostate cancer, 80 years.

So the potential number of life-years saved by early detection and intervention is, on average, greater for breast cancer than for prostate cancer.

2. Screening for breast cancer has improved over the past 25 years.

Because the blood test for PSA hasn’t changed much in decades, it’s reasonable to consider studies and long-term survival curves based on data going back to the 1980s.

Mammography, by contrast, is much safer and better than it was 25 years ago, for various reasons: increased regulation of mammography facilities (more care with the procedure, better training and credentialing of technicians) according to the FDA’s Mammography Quality Standard Acts Program ; development of ultrasound methods to supplement mammograms in case of suspicious lesions (lessens the false positive rate overall); the advent of digital technology (lessens the false positive rate in younger women and others with dense breasts); more breast radiology specialists (expertise).

The data reviewed by the USPSTF in issuing their 2009 recommendations for BC screening were decades old, and, as I’ve considered previously, irrelevant to modern medical practices. A recent article in the NEJM points to the problem of the panel’s reliance on the Age trial for women in their 40s. That trial involved the obsolete method of single-view mammography.

3. Mammography involves a woman’s consent (in the absence of dementia – a separate ethical issue).

A woman knows if she’s getting a mammogram. She may not ask sufficient questions of her doctor, or her doctor may not answer them well, but in the end she does or doesn’t enter into a radiology room, volitionally. She decides to get screened, or not. She can choose to have a mammogram every year, or every other year, or not at all.

There’s no ethical problem, as reported for some men, of patients learning they have an abnormal PSA, after blood was drawn indiscriminately, without their knowing the test was being performed.

This perspective might, and should, later extend to consider additional differences between these two kinds of malignancies (each of which is really a group of cancer subtypes), a fuller discussion of the impact of treatment on survival for each type, and the relative risks of screening due to differential complication rates of biopsies and other procedures.

To be clear, there’s no perfect screening test for either cancer type. Far from it. But the merits and risks of each procedure should be weighed separately, and with care.

All for today.

Related Posts:

What Is a Cancer Metastasis?

A metastasis refers to a lump of cancer cells that’s physically separated from the original tumor. A metastasis can be local, like when colon cancer spreads to a nearby lymph node in the gut, or distant, as when lung cancer cells generate tumors in the adrenal gland, liver, bone or brain.

Sometimes metastases cause serious damage in the organs where they’ve settled. For instance, brain “mets” can result in impaired thinking, personality changes, blindness or seizures. Liver metastases, if large enough, can result in hepatic (liver) failure. Bone mets can lead to anemia and other blood cell deficiencies if the marrow becomes filled with malignant cells instead of normal ones.

A common source of confusion is that when cancer moves from one body part to another, it’s still referred to by its site of origin.  For example, if breast cancer spreads to the liver or bone, it is still called breast cancer and most often treated as such. In general it’s the type of malignant cell, rather than the affected organ, that guides therapy.

Notes on usage: The plural is “metastases.” When someone has metastatic disease, that means their cancer has spread from the primary site to another. Oncologists don’t usually apply these terms to leukemia or lymphoma.

Related Posts:

More on DCIS

More, a magazine “for women of style & substance,” has an unusually thorough, now-available article by Nancy F. Smith in its September issue on A Breast Cancer You May Not Need to Treat.

Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) in the breast, histopathology w/ hematoxylin & eosin stain, Wiki-Commons image

The article’s subject is DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in Situ). This non-invasive, “Stage O” malignancy of the breast has shot up in reported incidence over the past two decades. It’s one of the so-called slow-growing tumors detected by mammography; a woman can have DCIS without a mass or invasive breast cancer.

While some people with this diagnosis choose to have surgery, radiation or hormonal treatments, others opt for a watchful waiting strategy. The article quotes several physicians, including oncologists, who consider the surveillance approach favorably and otherwise.

In 2009 the NCI sponsored a conference on diagnosis and management of DCIS. The participants issued a helpful, albeit technical, consensus statement.

The bottom line is that optimal treatment for DCIS remains uncertain because doctors don’t yet know the natural course of this early-stage breast malignancy. The ClinicalTrials.gov website lists active and ongoing studies.

 

Related Posts:

Two Faces of Pancreatic Cancer

Early this week I was saddened to hear of a former colleague’s death from pancreatic cancer. Dr. Ralph Steinman, a physician-researcher at the Rockefeller University, received a Nobel Prize for his work on the innate immune system. For many, news of Ralph’s death at 68 years arrived synchronously with word of his award.

Yesterday we learned that Steve Jobs, Apple creator and leader, died at 56 years from a neuroendocrine tumor of the pancreas. The tech-based, Twitter-type tributes reveal the breadth of this man’s influence on our world.

These two men faced completely different forms of cancer in the pancreas. This news underscores the importance of pathology in cancer diagnosis and treatment. For a patient to make an informed treatment decision, which might be to decline treatment, a patient needs to know what kind of cancer they have, what is the prognosis, and how might therapy change the course of the particular illness.

Jobs had a neu­roen­docrine tumor. According to the NCI, islet cell tumors of the pan­creas are quite rare, with esti­mates of between 200 and 1000 new cases per year. These can be dis­tin­guished from other cancers by special stains and mol­e­cular tests. Just months ago, the FDA approved two new drugs for treatment of neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas: Afinitor (Everolimus) and Sutent (Sunitinib).

This kind of cancer can arise in almost any body part, but it’s most commonly found in endocrine (hormone-secreting) organs. In the pancreas, it can develop from islet cells that manufacture hormones such as insulin. Symptoms may occur if the tumors secrete active hormones, with effects elsewhere in the body, or if they cause pain by expanding and pressing on nearby nerves, vessels or ducts. These tumors tend to grow slowly and the prognosis is relatively good; doctors may advise some patients to hold off on treatment until symptoms occur.

The usual form of pancreatic cancer is of the exocrine cells, those that produce and secrete digestive enzymes into the bile duct and small intestine. According to the American Cancer Society, there are over 44,000 new cases of pan­creatic cancer yearly in the U.S. It tends to occur in the elderly and is slightly more common in men. Cig­a­rette smoking is one of the few certain dis­posing factors; the causes are largely unknown. The prognosis for this kind of pancreatic disease remains poor, on average. Standard treatments, according to the NCI, include surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and palliative care.

Related Posts:

Glad to Spot a Pink Ribbon

This morning I walked into a Starbucks and noted a woman wearing a little pink ribbon on the lapel of her suit. She appeared to be in a meeting, speaking seriously with a small group of people dressed for business.

How great is that, I thought, that she wears the pink ribbon unabashedly, in this October of 2011. She sees nothing wrong with raising awareness about breast cancer, or expressing her concern about this killer of women. Kudos!

In some circles now it’s fashionable to bash pink symbols, to say how breast cancer shouldn’t be prettified, or commercialized, or overblown. What I’d say is, of course, the disease isn’t beautiful, or good, or inherently profitable, or to be perceived as a gift. It’s none of those things.

But we take for granted, lately, how open people are about breast cancer and its complications. Twenty years ago, and even ten, many women I knew took their treatments silently. Few disclosed their illness to others in the community. Many lacked open sources of information or support. For some, breast cancer was a source of shame.

Times have changed, indeed.

Related Posts:

NEJM Publishes New Review on Breast Cancer Screening

With little fanfare, the NEJM published a feature on breast cancer screening in its Sept 15 issue. The article, like other “vignettes” in the Journal, opens with a clinical scenario. This time, it’s a 42 year old woman who is considering first-time mammography.

The author, Dr. Ellen Warner, an oncologist at the University of Toronto, takes opportunity to review updated evidence and recommendations for screening women at average risk for the disease. She outlines the problem:

Worldwide, breast cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in women and is the leading cause of deaths from cancer among women, with approximately 1.3 million new cases and an estimated 458,000 deaths reported in 2008.(1)

On screening:

The decision to screen either a particular population or a specific patient for a disease involves weighing benefits against costs. In the case of breast-cancer screening, the most important benefits are a reduction in the risk of death and the number of life-years gained….

She breaks down the data for mammography by age groups:

For women between the ages of 50 to 69 the evidence is clear, she says. For those over 70, there are little data to support breast cancer screening. There’s a consensus that screening isn’t appropriate for women with serious coexisting illnesses and a life expectancy of less than 5-10 years.

For those between the ages of 40-49, Warner challenges the revised 2009 USPSTF recommendations on several counts. She critiques those authors’ weighting of data from the Age trial of 161,000 women, emphasizing the use of an antiquated (single view) mammography technique and flawed statistics. She considers:

…However, this change in remains highly controversial,22, 23 especially because of the greater number of years of life expectancy gained from preventing death from breast cancer in younger women. According to statistical modeling,19 screening initiated at the age of 40 years rather than 50 years would avert one additional death from breast cancer per 1000 women screened, resulting in 33 life-years gained.”

What I like about Warner’s analysis, besides its extreme attention to details in the data, is that she’s not afraid to, at least implicitly, assign value to a procedure that impacts a young person’s life expectancy relative to that of an older person.

She goes on to consider digital mammography and the Digital Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST [NCT00008346]) results. For women under 50 years, digital mammography was significantly more sensitive than film (78% vs. 51%).

The article is long and detailed; I recommend the full read including some helpful tables, with references to the major studies, and charts.

In concluding, the author, who admits receiving grant support from Amersham Health (a GE subsidiary), consulting fees from Bayer and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, returns to the hypothetical patient, and what might be said to a woman in her 40s who lacks an outstanding risk (such as a genetic disposition or strong family history):

…Mammography screening every 2 years will find two out of every three cancers in women her age, reduce her risk of death from breast cancer by 15%. There’s about a 40% chance that further imaging (such as a sonogram) will be recommended, and a 3% chance for biopsy with a benign finding….

In my opinion (ES) this is key – that the chances of a false positive leading to biopsy are only 3% for a woman in her 40s. If those biopsies are done in the radiology suite with a core needle, every 2 years for women of average risk, the costs of false positives can be minimized.

Related Posts:

New York City Mayor Bloomberg Promotes Healthy Lifestyle Choices

In the city where I live, it’s hard to buy a muffin at a Starbucks without stepping back from the counter and reconsidering. Swallowing 460 calories for a minimal-nutrient breakfast seems foolish.

So I eat fewer muffins than I used to. The posted nutritional tidbits, however imprecise, on the contents of pieces of quiche, slices of pizza and cups of thick soup, stick with me when I travel, and at home.

That’s me, just n=1.

Yesterday the mayor gave a speech at the U.N. He’s quoted in today’s WSJ health blog:

In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg rattled off New York’s achievements: a tough anti-tobacco campaign that made cigarettes, at about $11.20 a pack, the most expensive in the nation and led to a reduction in adult smoking rates to 14%  in 2010 from 22% in 2002 (the national rate is 19.3%). A ban on artificial trans fats. Calorie labeling in restaurants. Ad campaigns linking soda consumption to obesity, and a national salt-reduction initiative.

No wonder, he noted, that life expectancy for New Yorkers has risen faster and is higher than for Americans overall, having increased 1.5 years to 79.4 years from 2001 to 2008.

These are just correlative findings. But they support, circumstantially and in my mind, for one, that public policy can impact human behavior and health.

Related Posts:

newsletter software