Showing posts with label cancer cure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer cure. Show all posts

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Cancer Cure?

No there is not a cancer cure. We need to keep remembering that. We are told by our doctors that there is no evidence of disease or some thing along those lines - which just boils down to "we are not capable of finding it yet". If your doctor tells you that you are cured, please find a new one asap.

In this day and age should there be a new definition of cured of cancer? I'm not sure. I have friends who tell me they are cured. I try to figure out what they are talking about. Seriously, where did this cured business come from? I want to question their position on this but in some ways do not want to know.

"Upon completion of treatment, one of only two scenarios exist. Either all cancer cells are annihilated by surgery, chemo or radiation never to return or some of the little cells escaped and plan to mount a future counteroffensive. The trouble is that technical limitations thwart our ability to measure small volumes of cancer cells. Blood work, imaging like PET scans and CT scans or physical exams are simply too crude at present to predict, always and accurately, whether cancer will recur. And so, like Schrodinger’s cat experiment, a quiet cat placed in an opaque box is assumed to be both alive and dead at the same time. You just don’t know. Likewise, cancer cells after treatment are assumed dead, but we go on testing to discover any signs that the disease may have returned. CT scans. Blood work. Physical exams. Ad nauseum. Only time will tell."

So as good patients we go to our doctors for years and do what they say. But we know we are not cured.

"A couple caveats here. First, we generally observe patients for five years. After that point, for most diseases, the curves are flat, meaning that we anticipate few further cancer deaths. Thus, the doctor’s five-year survival is equivalent to a layperson’s “cure.” So when docs uncomfortably utter the word “cure," it’s usually after five years from diagnosis. At that time, we generally feel confident that the disease is gone. Secondly, these are dry boring statistical models. So we know where the group will plot out. Each individual patient, however, that’s another story.

Early on, we don’t know, with any certainty, who will be cured. That’s where the term “remission” comes in: when there’s no sign of any cancer, but it is still too early to tell. When the clock strikes 12 on the fifth anniversary of your diagnosis, voila, “remission” magically transforms to “cure.” Sort of like a reverse Cinderella moment.

And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly in a time of rapidly evolving treatments, all published data is at least five years out of date because you have to wait that that long to collect the data following the treatment performed. Treatment options change a lot during five years."

Five years out are we cured? No we are not. So we stop going to our doctors and promise to come back if anything changes.

And even though we know all of the above, there are still a few more caveats.

"Finally, outliers exist. Unfortunately, patients with early-stage disease can recur and die and those with late-stage disease can outlive their predicted expiration date."

So what do we do? We are supposed to live life as if we are cured. We are supposed to like our new normal. But we are not cured and at this point have no chance of being cured. We can just  be happy with remission free survival and no evidence of disease. But not a cure.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Cures

In the past few days I have learned of treatment breakthroughs for Multiple Myeloma and for Multiple Sclerosis - I have two friends which this will benefit. Both of them are very happy to learn about the progress.

The Multiple Myeloma (MM) news is that they have now found a treatment using immunotherapy which seems to put almost everyone into remission. MM is not curable but if patients can be put into long term remission with this new treatment, it looks like it is a step towards a cure. This news was announced at the ASCO conference last weekend.

"ASCO Perspective
“While it’s still early, these data are a strong sign that CAR T-cell therapy can send multiple myeloma into remission,” said ASCO Expert Michael S. Sabel, MD, FACS. “It’s rare to see such high response rates, especially for a hard-to-treat cancer. This serves as proof that immunotherapy and precision medicine research pays off. We hope that future research builds on this success in multiple myeloma and other cancers.”"


The Multiple Sclerosis (MS) news is that using nanoparticles. MS is not curable either but they have now found a way to alter a switch that regulates an immune cell. 

"“I discovered a small binary switch, controlled by a LIF, which regulates inside the immune cell itself. LIF is able to control the cell to ensure it doesn’t attack your own body but then releases the attack when needed.

“That LIF, in addition to regulating and protecting us against attack, also plays a major role in keeping the brain and spinal cord healthy. In fact it plays a major role in tissue repair generally, turning on stem cells that are naturally occurring in the body, making it a natural regenerative medicine, but also plays a big part in repairing the brain when it’s been damaged.

“So I thought, this is fantastic. We can treat auto-immune disease, and we’ve got something to treat MS, which attacks both the brain and the spinal cord. So you have a double whammy that can stop and reverse the auto-immunity, and also repair the damage caused in the brain.”"

I think this news is great. Amazing even. I am glad to see such medical research. These two instances represent big steps towards a cure for those disease. But I am bummed that there is no research yet that will help me.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

$107 Billion on Cancer Drugs

I did not make up that number. That is how much was spent on cancer drugs world wide last year. Is it really worth it? Does it sound normal to take a drug that costs $10,000 per month? And that $107 billion reflects a 11.5% surge from new drugs introduced last year.

recent study was done for the National Institute for Health revealed a lot of questions, not a lot of answers. And the real question is are cancer patients getting their money's worth. The main goal of any cancer drug should be a longer life - which would be a cure. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see it. Why else would we want these drugs? Its nice when they reduce pain and make us feel better as well but we really hope that we will live longer.

"The report from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics highlights 70 new cancer treatments, treating more than 20 types of tumors, all approved in the past five years. In the United States, where cancer drug spending was $37.8 billion last year, those new drugs alone account for $9.4 billion of the increase since 2010.""


"... Not all approved cancer drugs are alike. Some may provide profound benefits, lengthening life by years; others may significantly shrink a tumor, but increase patients' chances of survival only by small amounts.

Prasad's work has found that the high prices of new cancer drugs don't reliably reflect their novelty or how well they worked in trials. One of his studies, published last year in JAMA Internal Medicine, examined 36 drugs that were approved between 2008 and 2012 based on early indicators that they were working, such as evidence that they shrank tumors. Such measures are meant to speed up drug approvals, but there's no guarantee that a drug that temporarily stops a tumor from growing will extend lives. Only five of the 36 drugs in his study lengthened patients' lives, despite a median of more than four years of follow-up study."


So why are we spending all this money if most of them don't make us live longer? That's not worth $107 billion.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Cancer Moonshot Conference

I am not sure what to think about the Cancer Moonshot Conference. I just found out about it. A one-day conference that will bring together researchers, patients, and more to encourage collaboration and hopes to double the pace of cancer research. The conference will take place June 29 and then reports are due in August.

So? Big whoop! Seriously, my first thought was what is the point of having a conference? People do not need to be physically brought together to promote discussions. A lot can be done virtually if managed correctly. So why spend the money?

Travel and hotels are expensive. If you want to have a full day conference, you need to pay for two hotel nights or people will start leaving at 4 pm to get to their flights. If you build in some downtime, people will talk more informally and really get to know each other.

To be really beneficial, if you are going to spend the money, make it a three day conference. Make attendance mandatory if people are going to participate in the moonshot.

And about that moonshot, I understand the urge to cure cancer. I've been waiting a long time. And how are you going to do it without money? The White House asked Congress for $1 billion and only a little bit has been approved.

How are you going to double the pace of cancer research? Some things can't be rushed - like waiting for tumor growth on a research mouse. You really can't speed that up. I guess you can get people to collaborate and talk to each other more.

Is the Biden Moonshot the end of Nixon's War On Cancer"? That might help get rid of all those stupid war terms for people with cancer. Would we then end up with space terms for cancer? 'Orbiting through chemo'?

Sunday, May 8, 2016

More Thoughts On Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are a very important part of medical research and drug development. But they are not as safe as you may think.

This week's Parade Magazine showed up in my Sunday paper as usual. The front page was covered with a picture and headline on a cancer 'miracle cure' for cancer.  The article goes on for multiple pages and  tells the story of a woman who was close to death when she found a clinical trial that saved her.

She was one of the lucky ones. She found a great clinical trial and it saved her. But the magazine also notes:

"...clinical trials can be risky. According to Center Watch, a research-information firm, about 1 in 30 participants in drug trials suffers a serious side effect and 1 in 10,000 dies." 

However you do get free treatment and additional medical supervision. 

I cannot overstate the benefits to clinical trials. No one wants me in a clinical trial because I have too many health issues. But I am sure there are many other healthier people out there who could and should participate in clinical trials. So go find one here.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Breast Cancer Research Topics

In the middle of pinktober, after Metastatic Breast Cancer Day (October 13), I have some thoughts on breast cancer research I would like to share:

My first wish is that more money, time, and focus would be on metastatic breast cancer research. Breast cancer does not kill, metastatic or late stage breast cancer kills. The proportion of funds spent on metastatic breast cancer is minuscule. This needs to change or more and more women (and men) will continue to die from this disease.

My second wish is that more research would be done on DCIS to determine which cases are more likely to develop into potentially fatal disease vs. those which will remain benign. The vast majority of cases of breast cancer which are diagnosed are DCIS. Many of these patients are subjected to extensive surgery without really knowing if it was necessary or not. This needs to change.

Finally a cure for cancer would be quite welcome as well. According to Star Trek, a cure for cancer was discovered in the 21st century.....

Monday, June 1, 2015

Hope

The one thing we all have to keep at all times is hope. Yes, hope. We all must continue to believe there is a rosier life out there for us.

But for a cancer patient, we must keep our hopes alive. What do I hope for?
  • A cure for cancer
  • My cancers do not come back
Two hopes. Nothing fancy. Two little phrases. Very simple. I work on these two hopes differently.

First I read medical research but do not obsess about it. I read about on going research and upcoming developments. I read about doctors' opinions of the research as well. I know not all research is going to help me. Some of the research may not pan out. Some of it will pan out but wont be available to patients for another 10-15 years.

But all of it gives me hope. I can see progress in the works to make sure fewer people go through medical misadventures, heal better, have a better prognosis, and lead healthier lives, even with a cancer diagnosis.

Second I do everything I can to make sure my cancers do not come back or reappear elsewhere in my body. I try to take care of myself. I go to the (damn) doctor as often as I should. I take my prescriptions. I go for suggested tests and other fun misadventures. I get exercise. I eat right (mostly). I do my best.

By being proactive in my health, it allows me to feel comfortable that I am doing all I can to make sure my cancers do not reappear. Or if they do, they will be caught early.

Hope is optimism and I need to keep it close in my life.

Monday, March 30, 2015

Its Movie Time!

Tonight is the premier of "Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies" on PBS at 9 pm. The book was long and the movie actually is in three 2-hour parts airing through Wednesday night. I blogged about this a while back, I also read the book a couple of years ago. During the past week, I have also watched several trailers as well. Now the Tivo is set up to record it as it is on too late for me.

I am looking forward to this movie, or mini-series. But I do have a few reservations:
  • It was a long book and while it was fairly entertaining, it was long. It wasn't a book to sit down and read on the beach. It took some thinking and digesting. I would read a few chapters and ponder them for a few days or a week and then read more.
  • Although I reassured some in my other blog post, it does concern me that it is it is about cancer, which is not the most cheerful of topics. And sometimes I am just not in the mood to watch cancer-cancer-cancer.
  • Sometimes I have problems watching other people going through their cancer journeys. I have found some stories to be too drama filled, or sad, or have me wondering 'what were these people thinking?' when they or a family member were diagnosed with cancer.
  • If it is six hours of doctors talking about medical breakthroughs, I am not sure I will make it through. 
  • There is no way I am going to stay up (with a cold, on a weeknight, three nights in a row) until 11 pm.
So it may take  me a few days or a week or so to watch the entire six hours. I do hope to watch it and enjoy it. I will probably blog about it again when I am done.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Breakthroughs and costs

Several drug companies are poised to bring significant breakthroughs in cancer treatment. One woman is referenced as going from stage IV lung cancer, a deadly place to be, to being cancer free after several months of treatment.

And here's the but. Who can afford $100,000/patient/year/drug. And if the drugs are used in combination that number could be $300,000/patient/year. No one can afford that. And we can't ask the insurance companies to pay that much. They would be bankrupt - as well as all the patients.

Put it this way, ten  years of treatment is $1,000,000 per drug. So every ten years, a pharma company is a million dollars richer.

So what are we to do?

The world is changing. We are getting to a place where a cure for cancer is closer to a reality. However the pharma industry's business plans bring us expensive cures. While we need the cure for cancer, we need a new business model which allows for affordable treatments.

As the world changes, the industries concerned need to change as well. These industries are health insurance, pharma manufacturers, and individual patients. Yes we all need to change and adapt to the new world where a cure for cancer is a reality and not a dream

Friday, September 19, 2014

The Pessimistic Side of Curing Cancer

Two blog posts caught my eye this week on the problems with finding a cure for cancer. There is lots of hoohaa going on with we can cure cancer. There is even the deadline(?) of 2020 to find a cure for breast cancer. But here is a look at the other side of finding a cure for cancer.

The first article is on "Coming Together to Fight Cancer" that lists the five issues involved:
  1. Cancer is not one disease. Its many diseases. 
  2. There is a lot of effort going into treatment - chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Those are not cures. And a lot of the diagnostic advances (CT/PET scans) are also cancer causing tools.
  3. Modern life styles are contributing to cancer rate increases - 10 fold in the last century.
  4. There is not a lot of political will behind it. Politicians only care about the things that get them votes. They may say they support curing cancer, but is there budgetary support behind those words?
  5. Apathy. Those touched by cancer range from rabidly vigilant to fairly laid back on their stance on finding a cure for cancer. But the lack of action prevails.
The next article refers to cancer as "An Unstoppable Killer: New Research Shows Cancer Cant Be Eradicated". Think of it this way. Cancer cells have been known to form going back millennia on the simplest of beings. So if they form on very simple organisms, could they be part of the intrinsic basis of life? If so, can we cure cancer without destroying some of the very basics of life? There is a lot more detail in the article itself so please read it.

Now all that being said, what can we do if we can't eradicate cancer? We can help lower the rates of cancer by returning to simpler lifestyles without chemicals, synthetic food made of chemicals, no tobacco use, more exercise, etc.

What if we tried that? In Australia, there used to be soaring rates of skin cancer. Now there has been a dramatic decline. Why? They started promoting sun screen use, put shades over public pools, encourage people to wear hats etc. That doesn't sound hard does it? A few little changes can make a big difference.

Remember the big hole in the ozone? With the decline in use of aerosols and pollution reductions with the Clean Air Act, the ozone hole is in showing signs of repair.(I read it somewhere this week but of course I cant find it now.)

So lifestyle changes may be able to help decrease cancer rates. If we can't cure it, maybe we need to focus  on decreasing its presence.
So instead of spending billions on expensive medications that might extend a patients life by up to six months, what if those billions were spent on promoting healthier lifestyles and

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Cancer death rates down but...

Cancer death rates are down for the more 'popular' cancers in general in the last few decades. But then the old 80/20 rule kicks in and these cancers get most of the research and as a result the 'unpopular' cancer death rates aren't really going anywhere.

So here's an article on how colon cancer rates are down. It used to be the most common cancer killer in the US. Now it is dramatically down because of screening - those lovely colonoscopies that we all love so much.

However as this Australian article points out the cancers that are not as common, don't have ribbon decorated walks, runs, months, etc, often don't get as much funding and the death rates haven't budged. These cancers include:

Although these numbers refer to Australia and the video includes the comment that people leave the country for elsewhere for treatment for these under researched cancers, I think that the proportion is probably similar elsewhere. And the point is still valid - the cancers that do not receive the research dollars are the ones where the death rates have not declined.

Another area where research dollars are lacking is in metastatic cancer - cancer which has spread and cannot be cured. For example, a very small portion of breast cancer research dollars goes to metastatic breast cancer research. Yes metastatic breast cancer is incurable but if there was more research, patients might live longer and more comfortably.

It seems to me that cancer research gets to the point of here are clues on its origin but less information and research is done on how its spread. I know researchers are trying to find how to stop metastases and there is a long way to go.

So while the big picture may get a nice rosy hint in the news headlines, there are details behind it which aren't quite as bright.
 

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Dear Medical Researchers

Dear Medical Researchers:

This is what I want from you, besides a cure for cancer.
  1. A medication with these side effects: weight loss, the ability to get 8 hours of consecutive sleep, and anti-depressant.
  2. A cure for the common cold. This should be easy after a cure for cancer.
  3. Medical tests that do not come with a 'pinch', a burning sensation, or being stuck with needles or any other 'ouchie'.
  4. A dictionary that instantly translates 'doctor-speak', either the mumbo jumbo of big words or the vagueness of a non-answer, into normal human English.
  5. Thrift - I want inexpensive treatments that will not line the pockets of pharmaceutical companies or others so that the term 'medical bankruptcy' will become obsolete.
That's not a very long list so it shouldn't be that difficult. 

Thank you.

A patient.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Breast cancer news on my mind

Every so often, I end up with a browser full of open tabs on stories that interest me. Today I have three tabs open on breast cancer stories that I might as well blog about before either my browser crashes or I close it and lose all my tabs or I forget and close the tabs and forget about the stories. Three days later I'll say to myself 'what the hell happened to that story I meant to blog about?'

I'm so smart I could do this do all the time - lose the stories I wanted to blog about. Its my high level of technical skills that I have. Anyway here we go:

1. There is a new injection developed in the UK which would prevent 75% of the cases of DCIS from spreading. I find this interesting on two levels. First, "The same approach could be used to tackle other cancers, as well as other diseases caused by genetic flaws." And "Much more research is needed but, eventually, women with DCIS or genes that put them at high risk of breast cancer could be given a six-monthly jab to keep the disease at bay."

Positive progress? Yes!

2. More progress is that genomic tests are being developed to show which women will respond to chemotherapy for breast cancer. Very helpful in the world of overtreatment.

"In particular, the study tested two prominent genomic tests – MammaPrint and BluePrint – in order to ascertain if these tests indeed can offer better information about the molecular subtype of a woman’s breast cancer. The conclusion of the study revealed that, “when patients’ tumors were analyzed with these tests, 24% of the tumors were reclassified to a more accurate type when compared to traditional lab tests,” ....

Dr. Beitsch characterized the findings are significant, that they could improve the treatment approach for breast cancer: “These results should be encouraging to patients and their physicians. Physicians are now better able to determine whether a woman has the type of cancer that will respond to chemotherapy, or whether she can safely be treated with surgery and hormonal treatment alone.”"

More progress in my book!

3. However a less than positive article talks about how in England, the land of the National Health Service, that 450 deaths from breast cancer could be saved each year if the socio-economic factors that exist between the most affluent women and the 'most deprived' (what a lovely term) were removed. What this says to me is that the NHS isn't that great, reinforcing my previous opinions, if this disparity exists. I believe the affluent in England do go to private doctors and dentists to get the better care than the general population....

4. Finally, the downer article of the day. Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer under 50 (like me) are more likely to develop a second cancer in their liver or reproductive organs. One argument on this would be that younger women will live longer after diagnosis and then have more years to develop another cancer. But blah, blah, blah.

Now I can clear out my browser tabs and read more interesting articles - like how much snow we got and how cold it is out side. Can you say -20F windchills and a foot or so of new snow?

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Cancer and the common cold, take 852

I have been  known to whine blog about the lack of cure for both the common cold and cancer. I first actually blogged about this in March 2008 (http://carolinemfr.blogspot.com/2008/03/cancer-vs-common-cold.html) if you have been reading along. I mean they both basically suck and neither has a cure.

The common cold is just going to make you miserable for a short while; cancer will make you miserable for a longer period and is more likely to put you in your grave.

But now some rocket scientist medical researchers said "What if we start treating cancer like the common cold?". To my chemo and fibro fogged brain, this sounds like a bit of a stretch. But I can understand the semi logic here. If you have two things you cannot cure, what if you reversed what you were doing and tried something different? Its that old saying if you keep doing something over and over again, what makes you think you will get a different result? Or something like that.

So what they did was reprogram a patient's T cells and put them back in and voila the cancer goes away. You can watch the video here:


Or you can read the whole article here. I find it very cool. Right up there with tumor paint that I had blogged about a few weeks ago.

So maybe cancer research is going in the right direction, now that they turned around.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

And it won't cure you

I wonder how doctors are communicating to patients about the benefits of late stage chemotherapy. A study (because we need more studies) last year showed that 69% of late stage lung cancer patients and 81% of late stage colorectal cancer patients did not understand that their treatment was not likely to cure them. Obviously there is some kind of communication gap here.

The question is are the doctors communicating but the patients aren't hearing it or are the doctors not communicating? I am not too sure.

I think the patients want to hear the good news and may not really hear what the doctors are telling them - that it will only gain them a few more weeks or months of life at best. Would you really want to hear that? Probably not.

Also, the doctors have a fine line to walk. When one treatment stops working or its time to restart treatment due to disease progression, what do they say to the patient? This treatment option at best will last six months and then if your disease stabilizes, you can expect another six months after that? Or do you omit that part?

What do patients want to hear? I have a friend who told her doctors no numbers and didn't know her cancer staging for about three years after diagnosis - even through surgery and chemo. It took her a long time to want to hear.

Another friend is restarting chemo this week. She finished chemo for the third time last November. Her latest PET scan shows progression so her doctor is putting her back in treatment for six months. After three months she will have another PET scan to see if the chemo is working. And then what? If the treatment works she will just wait and have another scan every three months. If it doesn't work, the unsaid will happen. I think she is finally realizing that chemo only buys her more time. But I'm not sure she would admit it.

But if it was you, would you want to know that your treatment will only extend your life for a few more weeks? That it won't cure you? I think I would want to know the numbers and understand that it wouldn't cure me.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

The American Cancer Society has just published its latest statistics for 2013. I always scan through this document every year because I find it full of little cancer tidbits and factoids that are interesting from the patient point of view. You can view the document here.

The best little factoid this year's statistics provide is that cancer deaths are down 20% since 1991 when they peaked. This is the result of many advances and programs:

- smoking reduction since the 1960's
- screenings - mammograms, colonoscopies
- treatment options - radiation, chemotherapy protocols, hormonal treatments, and more.

 

While this is good news, we still have a long way to go in treatment, prevention, and cure.

Monday, December 10, 2012

DNA mapping

Hmmm.... I like this concept of mapping the DNA of  cancer patients. Actually the UK's National Health Service has announced a plan to map the DNA of 100,00 patients with rare diseases and cancers. (And the immediate comments on the article are how did the British government come up with the 100 million pounds to pay for this during the time of austerity.)

Politics and financing (and squabbling) aside I think this is a good idea. I have always wondered why I have been lucky enough to have cancer twice while the rest of my family remains healthy. If my DNA would tell something about it, I would welcome the opportunity to learn more about me.

Actually I would not be surprised if a lot of the secrets of us less than healthy people could be discovered in our DNA. Now that the price has dropped significantly to between 5 and 10 thousand pounds, it is getting within the range of affordability (come on, work with me if some cancer drugs can cost upwards of $100,000/year this is affordable). Maybe a little more money should be spent on looking at why some people seem to get the ailments. (I could be their poster child.) Instead of just throwing money at a cure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

They must have a really big crystal ball

The title of an article published by the BBC screams "Cancer Death Rates Set for a Dramatic Fall" by 2030. Yup. I believe it. Not until I see it. Thats 18 years from now. There are still some cancers increasing in incidence. People are still dying from cancer. Cancer rates are increasing in third world countries as well.

They state that there will be a 17% drop in the death rate due to advances in treatment and decreases in smoking rates. They predict that the death rates will drop from 170/100,000 deaths to 142/100,000 deaths. Here is the little chart showing their data in a very simplified form.

Let's put some numbers to this to see how it looks on this side of the pond.

US 2012
Predicted Deaths
%+/-estimated 2030
death rate
All cancers577,190-17%479,067
Breast cancer39,920-28%28,742
Bowel/Colon51,690-23%39,801
Kidney13,570-17%11,263
Oral7,850+22%9,577
Liver20,550+39%28,565
Lung160,340-8%14,7513
Ovary15,550-42%9,019
Pancreas37,390-3%36,268
Prostate28,170-16%23,664

So if my numbers are correct (I was not the stellar math student and claim chemo brain so there is so margin for error) while it is exciting that there is an expected 42% drop in ovarian cancer death rates, that really only 6000. This would be 100,000 fewer deaths in the US in 18 years. Or a drop of 5555 less each year. At that rate it will take 86 more years to end cancer deaths in the US. That is too long as far as I am concerned. Most of us can expect to be here in 2030 but probably very very few will be here in 2116.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Goal Setting

While I admire goal setting and see it as a great strategy for getting things done. Goals need to be attainable. If you overestimate what can be accomplished, you set yourself up for failure. This means letting down yourself as well as everyone else who was relying on you.

If you set a goal of "I will lose 20 lbs before bathing suit season". Well that's good. But are you trying to do it in 2 weeks or in 3 months. The 3 month time frame is much more realistic as healthy weight loss is around 2-3 lbs/week. Attainable is 3 months, unattainable is 2 weeks - and if you don't lose it, will you be depressed and eat more?

The National Breast Cancer Coalition, or BreastCancer2020.org, was formed in 1991 and in 2010 added the aim of ending breast cancer by 2020. If you read their website now it looks like they are going after politicians.

From their blueprint:

"What does the end of breast cancer by 2020 mean? By January 1, 2020, we must understand how to prevent people from getting breast cancer in the first place and how to prevent them from dying from the disease.

NBCC will have a strategic plan in place to achieve its mission, will have implemented much of it, and will have obtained support and partnership from leadership among all key stakeholder groups."


If you read their 2012 progress report, which they say progress has been made but you need to read this report with their 2011 report. To me, it looks like a lot of spin. They are 20% through their deadline but I didn't see 20% progress.

Now MD Anderson in Texas has announced they are launching a new $3 billion war on cancer where they have assembled a team of specialist with two goals. They want to reduce the number of deaths from a group of cancers by 2020.

"...Dr. Ronald DePinho, president of the large cancer treatment and research center, is launching this project in two parallel tracks: "One is to apply the existing knowledge, to make a near-term impact in this decade," he said.

"The second is to also say, 'We do not know everything we need to know to ultimately cure the disease.'"


The cancer center calls the program "an unprecedented effort to dramatically accelerate the pace of converting scientific discoveries into clinical advances that reduce cancer deaths."

"The Moon Shots Program signals our confidence that the path to curing cancer is in clearer sight than at any other time in history," DePinho says.

Doctors at MD Anderson believe that dying from cancer can eventually be as rare as dying from pneumonia. And DePinho believes this can happen sooner rather later for patients suffering from the following five types of cancer:
  • lung cancer
  • melanoma
  • triple negative breast cancer and ovarian cancer (which are very similar on the molecular level)
  • prostate cancer
  • acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome & chronic lymphocytic leukemia (blood cancers)"
Is this goal a little more attainable? I don't know.  I admire both sets of goals. But what if they don't attain them? 2020 is 7 years and just about 100 days away. Can they do it? How many of us will be let down and discouraged if they don't?

Those who are living with cancer hold on for the dream of the cure for cancer. It has been talked about for decades and centuries and by putting these very short deadlines on it, will it make a difference?

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Allow me to be whiney

Its my blog so I can be whiney if I want. If you don't like whininess then just go away for the day. I am going to be whiney today because I still have a cold. Back on March 20, 2008, I blogged about Cancer Vs. The Common Cold and indicated that I was waiting for a cure for cancer and a cure for the common cold. That's plenty of time. I am on day 7 of another evil cold here and I still feel like crap. This is not fair. I am sick of being sick.

I DEMAND a cure for both the common cold and cancer. I am going to be a demanding, whiney brat about this. Its time. Plenty of money has been spent on research for both of them and I do not believe there is an evil conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies to hide any cures they have because they make so much money on the medications and treatments for both.

I am not being a good patient at this point. I am living on tylenol (no aspirin products for me because I am on anti inflammatories for my back), no decongestants (because between being allergic to decongestants and no thyroid - I can't take anything that says don't take if you have a thyroid disease), herbal tea with lemon and honey, cough medicine, and whininess.

I can't even whine to the cat because he is vacationing at my parents house - not yet returned after our vacation last week. I am whining to my husband but he makes fun of my squeaky voice.

I know if I go to the doctor she will just tell me to drink plenty of fluids, take tylenol, and wait it out. Whine, whine, whine, grr.

I Started a New Blog

I started this blog when I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007. Blogging really helped me cope with my cancer and its treatment. Howe...