1. Friends,

A new Web site dedicated to Cancer, ALS and Hospice Care launched today: 3Reasons.org


The site is for A Ride for Three Reasons. 65-year-old cancer survivor Bob Lee of Barrington, IL will ride his bike 6,500 miles across America to support Cancer, ALS and Hospice Care.

Have a look at the site and feel free to contribute. We've raised over $200,000 so far and we're going for $500,000.

-Chris


Visit A Ride for Three Reasons

Posted at 9:42PM on Mar 23rd 2007 by Christopher Kaufman

2. My dear Ms. Donaldson:

Put simply, and with humble due respect to all women dealing and coping with cancer, you are wrong, or perhaps I should say, your doctor is simply not keeping up and s/he is misinformed.

THERE ARE BLOOD TESTS THAT COULD HAVE HELPED ELIZABETH EDWARDS KNOW IF HER CANCER HAD METASTISIZED.

A CTC TEST, aka, a CellSearch test would have told her that tumor cells are shedding from the primary site.

Greg P. correctly pointed out on these webpages this.

Go to Veridex.com's webpages and see what is going on in cancer diagnostics.

TRUE, radiology isn't worth a DAMN, it's too late by the time you can see a tumor, HELLO, you need a cellular test, and the cellular level to give you a super quick heads-up.

See the NEJM, August 2004 by MD Anderson's Cristofanilli, Michigan's Dan Hayes, et al. and ALL the subsequent [at least 20 papers] literature showing concurrent results.

You are doing your readers A HUGE DIS-SERVICE to say there are NO methods to have gotten an early warning sign.

I apologize for any harsh tone, but it's Friday night, and I have watched too many women die from MBC, while luckily helping guide a few women's treatment with this revolutionary CELLULAR method of diagnosing, treating, and MONITORING metastatic cancer, whether breast, prostate, or colorectal [both soon to have FDA approval]

see http://www.immunicon.com/research/papers.html

or

http://veridex.com/NewsEvents.aspx?id=14&type=0

Posted at 11:56PM on Mar 23rd 2007 by Theo de Chaumont-Quitry

3. It has never been shown that any laboratory or radiographic test improves treatment outcome. If that is a good reason, then patients should never have any x-ray studies or laboratory tests performed, because they have never been proven to improve outcomes. This goes for estrogen receptors, DNA analysis, bacterial culture and sensitivity tests, CA-125 levels, CT scans, MRI scans, bone scans, and every other test. It even goes for the practice of making a tissue diagnosis before definitively treating the cancer.

An entire generation of academic oncologists has been trained in the paradigm of the empiric, randomized trial to select the best regimen for the average patient and an entire generation of practicing oncologists have been trained to use these empiric regimens in the management of their patients. Trained to make extensive use of expensive, latest-generation radiographic tests and second-look surgeries to measure tumors before and during therapy to monitor and document "response" or "progression," despite the absence of even a shred of evidence that such radiographic and surgical documentation does anything at all to improve outcome beyond that which could be obtained by monitoring treatment results with history, physical, and simple blood tests.

Whatever benefit that may arise from the CellSearch technique will not likely happen because of the clinical investigation culture epitomized by fraternal organizations which mindlessly continues its attempts to disparage, denigrate and bury long-needed improvements in the individual management of cancer patients. However, the information is there and intellectual curiosity demands its knowledge, to whoever that appropriate person is.

With the absence of effective laboratory tests to guide physicians, many patients do not even get a second chance at treatment when their disease progresses. Spending six to eight weeks to diagnose treatment failure often consumes a substantial portion of a patient's remaining survival, not to mention toxicities and mutagenic effects.

There are molecular and cellular tests available to weed out those cancer patients that chemotherapy wouldn't have any benefit, what chemotherapy works the best for those that chemotherapy would benefit, and further monitor treatment success or disease progression.

Until the controlled, randomized trial approach has delivered curative results with a high success rate, the choice of physicians to integrate promising insights and methods, remains an essential component of cancer treatment advocacy.

Posted at 9:32AM on Mar 24th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski

4. I have been following the Circulating tumor cell (CTC's) research for about 7 years. There seems to be little doubt that in women with metastatic breast cancer CTC's need to monitored. First to prognose where the disease is going and secondly to determine if treatment is effective. The most recent work demonstrates that CTC monitoring is significantly better than radiology and can do that at earlier in the course of treatment. That will enable Oncologists to change protocols that are ineffective.
The reason why Cell Search (the only CTC test I know of) is not catching on is that women are not demanding it. Why is that so? Firstly, because Oncologists are not trained to think out of the box (in surgery, e.g. you have to) and are stuck in protocol treatments. Secondly, as a retired practicioner I know that potentially terminal patients put too much faith in their physicians. Its a very natural phenomena. If you think you are going to die and you think someone can save you, its hard (maybe impossible) to be critical.

Posted at 3:39PM on Mar 24th 2007 by G.P.Guidry

5. Does anyone know how Elizabeth Edwards' cancer was staged initially in 2004? Was she in stage III then? I have a burning need to know this question since she and I have the "same" type cancer, etc. I know all C. is different, etc. but hers breast cancer was never publically reported as to its stage. Thank you.

Posted at 9:07PM on Mar 24th 2007 by nancy7777

6. Most oncologists are highly trained and attempt to help cancer patients every day.

CTC testing is still investigational. Let science be our guide, not emotion. Results are pending:

The application of this technology has not been proven to affect outcomes in patients with metastatic cancer. There are no conclusive data to indicate that knowledge of this prognostic factor can be used to alter the therapy that is offered to patients and improve outcomes. While this testing may have potential for use in patient monitoring, there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of this technology as a marker of disease progression. Additionally, no head-to-head trials have demonstrated
that this technology is equal to or better than any existing tumor markers in its efficacy and clinical utility.
This technology has not been demonstrated to affect overall health outcomes for patients with metastatic cancer and is therefore considered experimental, investigational and unproven.

http://www.cigna.com/customer_care/healthcare_professional/coverage_positions/medical/mm_0262_coveragepositioncriteria_circulating_tumor_cells_testing.pdf

No, it's not necessary to post a follow up stating that insurance companies are evil. They cover many, many proven tests. The data is just not there yet.

Posted at 10:00PM on Mar 24th 2007 by hchcec

7. The goal of oncologists is to strive for a complete remission that lasts a long time (a durable complete remission). Unfortunately, the vast majority of remissions that are achieved are partial remissions. Too often, these are measured in weeks to months and maybe, sometimes, in years. Some types of cancer do not show any meaningful response to chemotherapy.

The chemotherapy regimen chosen by most conventional oncologists is based on the type of cancer being treated. However, there are factors other than the type of cancer that can be used to determine the ideal chemotherapy drugs that should be used to treat an individual patient.

At present, medical oncologists prescribe chemotherapy according to "fixed" schedules. These schedules are standardized drug regimens that correspond to specific cancers by type or diagnosis. These schedules, developed over many years of clinical trials, assign patients to the drugs for which they have the greatest statistical probability of response.

Patients with cancers that exhibit multidrug resistance will likely receive treatments that are wrong for them. A failed attempt at chemotherapy is detrimental to the physical and emotional well being of patients, is financially burdensome, and may preclude further effective therapies.

Patients, physicians, insurance carriers, and the FDA are all calling for predictive tests that allow for rational and cost-effective use of chemotherapeutic drugs.

Posted at 3:02PM on Mar 25th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski

8. No one is suggesting insurance companies are evil. The real issue is how Oncology as a specialty has evolved and how we train Oncologists in the US. Many of the advances have come from Europe. For example, when "lumpectomy" was introduced by the Italians there was ABSOLUTE disbelief within the American Oncology community. Its now routine. Why is that so? In the mid 80's Soan Kettering realilzed that not one major advance had in cancer treatment orginated there. (they actually majorly changed their focus to an Immunology aproach for some years after that conclusion.) One has to ask if the Ameriacan system is training the immagination out of our Oncologists?

Posted at 3:02PM on Mar 25th 2007 by G.P.Guidry