I am devoted to my fitness tracker, having used it for several years to remind me to be active, monitor my diet and improve my sleep. Now the New York Times tells me it doesn’t make a difference, at least when it comes to the weight loss part of the program. And I might agree, if only the evidence they relied on told the whole story. In my opinion, it did not.
Unfortunately, some of the science on which the Times’ reporter based his comments had a possible flaw that may influence the conclusion that fitness trackers not only don’t encourage weight loss, but improbably may lead to less weight loss when using the device.
That, my friends, would be a real bummer. However, if you had evaluated that research closely you may have been aware of the problem. From where I sit, I don’t think many folks have made that effort. And I remain unconvinced that the research supports the conclusion that fitness trackers–when used in typical real-life situations–don’t make a difference in keeping us engaged in our health including as an adjunct in weight loss programs.… Continue reading →
In 2011 with much fanfare the National Cancer Institute announced that lung cancer screening decreased deaths from lung cancer by 20%. In 2013, the American Cancer Society (among other organizations) published well-thought-out guidelines recommending high quality screening along with shared decision making so eligible patients could understand the risks and benefits of screening. In 2015 the Medicare program announced that lung cancer screening would be covered, along with the shared decision component.
With all of that evidence and support, one would think that lung cancer screening would see rapid uptake in the United States in an effort to reduce deaths from this all-too-frequent cause of cancer death.
If you thought that, you would be wrong. So the logical question is why? In the face of all this evidence, why are high risk current and smokers not being screened, and how do we make it right?
That question is the result of a spate of recent articles (links 1,2,3) in journals from the American Medical Association, along with a somewhat “direct” editorial that highlights the need to better understand how lung cancer screening works and the need to inform health professionals and their … Continue reading →
A report in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows that too few women with recently diagnosed breast cancer and at high risk of a BRCA genetic mutation received appropriate genetic counseling and testing for the mutation—a missed opportunity not only to improve treatment for these patients, but also to prevent some breast, ovarian and other cancers in the first place.
This study makes the difficult point that when it comes to routine screening for genetic abnormalities in women (and men, for that matter) who may be at increased risk, we simply aren’t doing the job. The situation may well be worse than this report suggests, especially considering that in some areas of the country Medicare doesn’t even cover preventive testing for the BRCA mutation. And this is more than 20 years after the test was first discovered and placed into clinical practice.
I guess sometimes it takes a long time for the way we care for our patients to catch up with the science that we know works. But twenty years??? Uh, that seems like a long, long time.… Continue reading →
A full waiting room. To most of us, it’s a bad sign, as we anticipate the excruciatingly dull minutes ahead. But at a meeting I attended this past week, it was a sign of hope, of progress; of making a difference.
I was in Washington DC to attend the annual scientific session of the Melanoma Research Alliance (MRA) in Washington DC, an organization that is only eight years old. When this group first met, it was made up of a relative handful of melanoma researchers and clinicians who came together to figure out what they could do to discover and promote more research and better treatment options for patients with melanoma.
The people behind the effort were Michael Milken and Debra and Leon Black. For them the mission was personal: Mr. Milken was a prostate cancer survivor who wanted to devote his energies to accelerating discoveries in cancer care. The Blacks are also well known in financial circles, and Ms. Black was (and remains) a melanoma survivor.
At the time, the landscape for patients with advanced melanoma was bleak. There were a couple of available treatments, but they really didn’t have much of an impact on improving or extending … Continue reading →
The American Cancer Society has now released its newly updated Breast Cancer Screening guideline in the Journal of the American Medical Association
This guideline—which was last updated in 2003—reflects the American Cancer Society’s best thinking on breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. They are not intended for women at high risk, such as those with genetic abnormalities (BRCA as an example), a personal history of breast cancer or a history of radiation therapy prior to age 30. That guideline is available on our website at www.cancer.org.
So let’s get right to the heart of the matter: what are the new recommendations?
- Women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 (Strong recommendation*)
1a) Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (Qualified recommendation*)
1b) Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually. (*Qualified recommendation)
1c) Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (Qualified recommendation*)
2) Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life … Continue reading →
I just noticed this blog celebrated its 10th anniversary this September. So I hope you won’t mind me taking this opportunity to share some observations and reminiscences of what it’s been like to document by blog a decade of the changing landscape of cancer.
The first blog was published on September 9, 2005 when I introduced the blog and my vision for what i hoped it would represent.
The blog originated with a concept developed by our media relations team. Social media was just coming into prominence, and the Society was looking at ways to get into this space. Bob Lutz, a senior executive at General Motors at the time, was the model: he wrote a regular blog himself, and was pretty open in sharing his thoughts. It was clearly not one of those ghost written, pre-packaged types of things. How he found the time to do a blog was an interesting question, but the concept was intriguing: if we could have one of our senior folks write something similar, perhaps it would get some recognition in this rapidly expanding means of communicating.
So we ventured into the space and I started writing “Dr. Len’s Blog”. One of … Continue reading →
It has been said that with knowledge comes understanding.
A research paper and editorial published in this week’s issue of JAMA Oncology may have brought knowledge, but if you read various media reports I am not so certain it has clarified understanding. And the distinction is important, because when a woman is confronted with the diagnosis of a “Stage O” breast cancer (aka ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS), the decisions she makes about treatment can have far-reaching and long lasting impact for her and those who care about her. [more]
First, some brief background: DCIS was rarely diagnosed before the advent of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Perhaps it was found incidentally when a breast biopsy was done for another reason, or perhaps a woman or her physician felt a mass that turned out to be DCIS. Once mammography became more widespread in the 1970’s, we began to see a marked increase in the number of women diagnosed with DCIS. Today, the American Cancer Society estimates that in 2015 slightly more than 60,000 women in the United States will be diagnosed with this lesion (compared to 234,190 women who will have a more typical invasive breast cancer).
The situation … Continue reading →
It’s no secret that genomics is cutting edge science. It is exciting, it is changing the way we think about ourselves and the medical care we receive. But with all the “gee whiz” aspects of what we are discovering every day about our genetic code, it may be surprising to learn that one of the most important parts of our new tool kit may be sitting right there in front of us gathering more dust than attention.
This revelation came while attending a conference this past week sponsored by a group called HL7. HL7 develops standards for the exchange, integration, sharing, and retrieval of electronic health information in the healthcare setting. They convened this particular meeting to better understand how we can more effectively integrate genomic data into health care delivery and research so we can full advantage of the information from genomic-derived science that is coming at us like a tsunami.
What stood out amidst all of the topics discussed-and what achieved the greatest consensus among the conferees-was the role that the tried-and-true basic family history can play in helping us understand how the information provided by genomics fits together with real life. That’s correct: the old fashioned … Continue reading →
Fate can work in mysterious ways.
A couple of months ago I was invited to participate in a symposium conducted by the National Cancer Policy Board at the Institute of Medicine in Washington DC. The topic was cancer in dogs, and how we might find ways to benefit dogs, their owners and science to better inform the treatment of cancer in humans through what is called “comparative oncology”. It was an unusual topic in my experience and that of my colleagues, so I eagerly anticipated learning about something I hadn’t given much consideration to in the past.
Little did I know at the time how personal this journey was going to be for me and my family.
Shortly after I accepted the invitation, we received sad news: our Golden Retriever Lily-who has been a member of our family for 11 years-developed swelling in her face. Our vet saw her the next day and told us she had lymphoma. The outlook without treatment wasn’t good, and with treatment wasn’t much better.
Tears flowed in our home that evening.
A week later we found a mass on Lily’s back leg. Another trip to the vet, another needle biopsy, and another … Continue reading →
When it comes to personalized/precision medicine we should never forget it’s all about the people, particularly the cancer survivors whose very lives depend on us getting it done quickly and getting it right.
That was the message from a discussion I had the privilege to moderate on Monday evening with cancer survivors and representatives of advocacy organizations, professional associations, government agencies, and industry at a session held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), now wrapping up in Chicago.
There has been an incredible amount of big science presented at this meeting that relates very directly to the care we provide cancer patients. Some of that science has immediate application to cancer care. On several occasions, acknowledged experts opined in front of thousands of physicians, other scientists, and health professionals that new treatments-particularly immunotherapy-were new standards of care in the management of patients with certain cancers.
Running in parallel to the development of new approaches to the treatment of cancer is the science that is helping to define and personalize which patients would benefit most from which treatments. As an example, for the new immunotherapy drugs there are biomarkers that may eventually … Continue reading →