Maryland Congressman who led second Trump impeachment trial reports that he has lymphoma

Jamie B. Raskin, a key member of the House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, is again fighting cancer.

The 60-year-old Democrat Congressman from Maryland, who'd also led the second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, announced yesterday that he is being treated for lymphoma.

Rep. Jamie Raskin

According to a story by Steve Thompson in The Washington Post, Raskin reported that “after several days of tests, I have been diagnosed with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma, which is a serious but curable form of cancer. Prognosis for most people in my situation is excellent after four months of treatment.”

Raskin, who won reelection last month with more than 80% of the vote, said he expects to work during the outpatient treatment of chemo-immunotherapy — though physicians have cautioned him "to reduce unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus, the flu and other viruses."

Thompson's story quotes him from a press release, joking, "“I am advised that [the treatment] also causes hair loss and weight gain (although I am still holding out hope for the kind that causes hair gain and weight loss).”

Raskin has battled cancer before. Radiation and chemo helped him in 2010 get rid of Stage 3 colon cancer.

In the final session of the select committee, Raskin was the one who voiced the committee's referral of four criminal charges against Trump to the Department of Justice.

More information about life-threatening diseases and treatments can be found in Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer, a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Actor Jeff Bridges, hospitalized five weeks, beats both Covid and lymphoma at virtually same time

Oscar-winning actor Jeff Bridges says his getting Covid made his lymph-system cancer seem like "a piece of cake."

According to recent online HuffPost story by Mary Papenfuss, Bridges — who survived has both the virus and the lymphoma, which is now in remission — thought he was "gettin' close to the pearly gates."

Jeff Bridges, wife and Oscar

The 71-year-old thespian said on his handwritten blog that he contracted the coronavirus during his cancer treatments, which ultimately — and dramatically — shrunk a 9x12-inch tumor "to the size of a marble."

The pandemic, Papenfuss' article states, caused him "moments of tremendous pain" causing him to cry out  "throughout  the night."

Extra oxygen reportedly was necessary for the actor to just walk around. The HuffPost story quotes Bridges as saying the sound of reminded him "of Darth Vader."

Covid-19, the HuffPost piece quotes the mid-September Bridges website post, "kicked my ass pretty good, but I'm double vaccinated and feeling much better." 

The vaccine, he suggested, was linked to his speedy improvement, with all his treatments now being "in the rearview mirror."

Bridges, who won the best actor Oscar in 2010 for "Crazy Heart" and had been nominated for half a dozen other Academy Awards, had been hospitalized for five weeks, he wrote, because his immune system was "shot from chemo."

His wife, Susan Geston, not incidentally, also was hospitalized — although only for five days — because she contracted Covid.

Bridges was elated, he indicated, to be released in time to walk Hayley, his daughter, down the aisle for her wedding and to dance with her "without oxygen."

More information about disease treatments can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Once you hit 80, odds say you'll live past 90

Risk factors for another cancer jump up if you've already had one kind — or if one of your kin has

Is it possible to live cancer-free?

The answer is a resounding yes, at least according to a recent non-bylined article in the AARP Magazine, whose subhead reads in part, "Age is a risk factor for cancer, but the chances of developing a fatal cancer may actually begin to decline at age 70."

It also contends that "once you hit 80, our chance of living to 90 and beyond goes way up."

The article isn't totally positive, however.

It says, for instance, that "women who have had breast cancer are more at risk for another type of breast cancer, and other cancers."

And it notes that "a Stanford University study showed that people diagnosed with six or more basal cell carcinomas have more than three times the odds for developing future cancers, such as breast, colon and prostate cancer as well as leukemia and lymphoma — likely due to an underlying  problem in genes that repair DNA."

In short, having one kind of cancer makes a woman or man prone to other kinds. 

And if you smoked, it says, "you're at increased risk for not only lung cancer but also a dozen other cancers, including oral, cervical, bladder and pancreatic."

Your family medical history can also increase your risk.

Heather Hampel

The AARP piece quotes Heather Hampel, associate director of the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, as saying that if you have a family history of cancer you should coordinate with a genetic counselor who can put your results in perspective and recommend an action plan.

"Women who carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, for example, have up to a 72% chance of developing breast cancer and 44% chance of ovarian cancer by age 80," the article states.

But, even though in the general population women have only about a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer, and "though those statistics sound scary, genetic testing can help doctors guide you on the best ways to prevent cancers, or diagnose this earlier, when they are treatable," the AARP mag further   quotes Hampel.

More information about risks can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at caregivers.

'Gaping hole' is found in U.S. health system

N.Y. Times article exposes major economic hardships that some cancer caregivers are facing

America's health system is badly flawed because it's making caregivers of patients with cancer and other diseases work much too hard to negotiate it — especially economically.

Aaron E. Carroll

That's the basic conclusion of a recent The New York Times article by Aaron E. Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine.

In the piece, Carroll says his friend, international fraternity CEO Jim Fleischer's story about a rare cancer taught him about the problem in our health system.

Despite his friend having "great insurance" and "enough money" and getting "excellent care," he discovered the "impossibility and hardship faced by…friends and family members who are caregivers."

The situation, Carroll writes, is "hugely disrupting and expensive. There's no system for it. It's a gaping hole." 

The writer cites as an example that following his surgery and chemotherapy, his friend's wife, mother-in-law, friends and co-workers needed to take lots of time off to care for him and take him to appointments.

Carroll also suggests that "if it was this hard for [Jim], it's probably unbearable for many others with fewer resources. People can be financially ruined by illness — and health insurance won't fix that."

Last year, the Times piece notes, "it's estimated that more than 1.7 million people faced a cancer diagnosis. The year before, America spent more than $147 billion caring for people with cancer. But that doesn't include the costs outside of health care."

This year, the article continues, "the National Cancer Institute will spend more than $5.7 billion on cancer research. Almost none of that will investigate how to support the families of those who have the disease."

Researchers in the past have estimated the "economic burden for caregivers for patients with lung and colorectal cancer," Carroll says. "They reported that the average cost to a caregiver in the initial phase of treatment was more than $7,000," with an additional $20,000 spent after treatment on so-called continuing care.

Another study cited caregiving costs for breast cancer at $38,000, lung cancer at $72,000, for ovarian cancer $66,000, for lymphoma $59,000.

Carroll concludes that it's crucial to recognize "that the efforts of caregivers are probably just as important to health as the drugs and procedures the medical system provides."

More details about the issues that helpmates have can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Feds ignore complaints, fears of many women

FDA declines to ban breast implant that's linked to cancer but intends to increase information about risks

The FDA has decided not to ban a type of breast implant linked to a rare cancer — at least for now.

According to a story by Laurie McKinley in last week's editions of The Washington Post, the decision, which came a month after a dramatic hearing in which many women expressed fears, complained about the implants and called on the Food and Drug Administration to execute such a ban, the agency plans instead to "increase efforts to collect and disseminate information about risks involving the device."

A joint statement by Amy Abernethy, FDA principal deputy commissioner, and Jeff Shuren, director of the agency's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, maintains that the FDA doesn't believe the textured implant "meets the legal standard for being banned at this time, based on available data and information."

Other countries have either banned or restricted sales of similar products "because of concerns about what's called breast implant-associated anapestic large cell lymphoma, or BIA-ALCL," McKinley's story contends.

The FDA also notes that "while textured implants make up as much as 80 percent of the market share in some other countries, they represent only 10 percent or less of the implants sold in this country," the Post article continues.

Federal officials also say they don't have "definitive evidence" demonstrating that the implants cause  "'breast implant illness,' a constellation of auto-immune problems that includes joint and muscle pain and allergies and fatigue — a topic that was repeatedly raised at the March hearing." But they do add, according to McKinley's piece, that evidence supports "that some women experience systemic symptoms that may resolve when their breast implants are removed."

Diana Zukerman, PhD

That admission has led Diana Zukerman, a PhD and president of the National Center for Health Research, to claim it's "the closest the FDA has come to acknowledging breast implant illness," which, she insists, is "definitely progress."

Historically, the agency tends to be reluctant to ban devices — having done so only twice, with powdered surgeons' gloves and prosthetic hair fibers.

The FDA has, however, "said it is considering requiring implants to carry what's called a boxed warning — the agency's strongest safety warning. And it may require doctors and patients to sign checklists of risks to make sure women have the necessary information to make an informed decision."

McKinley's story states that "bout 400,000 women a year get implants in the United States — 75 percent for cosmetic reasons and most of the rest for breast reconstruction about cancer surgery."

For more information on implants and reconstruction, check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

DNA trials may end mammograms, colonoscopies

Doc expects blood tests that predict cancer recurrences to have major effect on millions

In the not-so-distant future, a single blood test may be able to locate cancer.

Dr. Salvatore Iaquinta

At least that's the prediction of Dr. Salvatore Iaquinta, "Highway to Health" columnist for the Marin Independent Journal and a surgeon at Kaiser Permanente San Rafael.

Noting in a recent piece headlined "Closing in on cancer" that "we already have blood tests to monitor for cancer recurrences," Iaquinta forecasts the end of mammograms and colonoscopies.

Biomarkers "that expose the presence of otherwise invisible recurrences," he indicates, are already known for "certain ovarian, prostate, breast, liver and pancreatic cancers."

The same applies to some thyroid cancers.

But researchers at Johns Hopkins, he notes, have now "announced their success developing a 'liquid biopsy' — a blood test to screen for cancer DNA."

And "for patients with colon cancer, the screening test found about 90 percent of all stage 2, 3 and 4 cancers."

Iaquinta adds that it was almost as important that false positives didn't result.

And although the experimental tests for breast, lung and ovarian cancers didn't fare as well, they did find "at least 45 percent of stage 1 cancers for each of these tumor types," he writes.

Researchers at Stanford, the doctor maintains, "have done the same sort of profiling with some types of lymphoma."

And the "Institute of Cancer Research in London also found a tumor DNA for breast cancer and has announced they can detect recurrent disease eight months before standard tests reveal it."

In the meantime, a different group at Stanford "used a similar test to detect the effect of chemotherapy on women being treated for breast cancer. They found that a blood test could predict how the tumor was responding to treatment within two weeks of the start of treatment, far earlier than the standard methods."

The experimental process is not yet available to the general public and is still expensive, Iaquinta explains, "because of the cost of DNA sequencing. But like everything else tech, the price will come down as scientists find easier, faster ways to run the tests."

He concludes that "the ability to detect multiple cancers from a simple blood draw will have a profound effect on millions, and ultimately billions, of lives."

More information about experimental drugs and treatments can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at caregivers.

Cell experiment shows 'extraordinary' promise

Can new gene therapy change patient's own blood into a cancer killer? Quite possibly

Turning your own blood into cancer killers may now be possible.

According to a new study reported recently by the Associated Press, more than a third of very sick lymphoma patients showed no sign of the blood cancer six months after a single treatment of an experimental gene therapy.

Findings of the study, the story by Marilynn Marchione indicated, were made by the treatment's maker, California-based Kite Pharma, which purportedly "is racing Novartis AG to become the first to win approval of the treatment, called CAR-T cell therapy," in the United States.

The treatment could become the nation's first approved gene therapy, the AP article indicated.

Side effects appear to be manageable.

There are risks involved, of course. "Three of the 101 patients in the study died of causes unrelated to worsening of their cancer," the story said, "and two of those deaths were deemed due to the treatment," which was developed at the National Cancer Institute and licensed to Kite.

Dr. Roy Herbst

One independent expert, Dr. Roy Herbst, cancer medicines chief at the Yale Cancer Center, was quoted as calling the results "extraordinary" and "extremely encouraging."

He suggested, though, that follow-up studies were needed to make sure the benefit doesn't wane over a longer period of time.

New research and treatments are an integral part of "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Rare malignancies of immune system studied

Implants may bring a new disease to cancer patients with mastectomies, N.Y. Times says 

Can breast cancer implants give a woman who's had a mastectomy another cancer?

According to a recent article by Denise Grady in The New York Times, the answer is a definite yes.

The new cancer, it indicates, may not be breast cancer "but a rare malignancy of the immune system —  caused by the implants used to rebuild her chest."

The disease, anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, is a cancer that's "been linked to implants with a textured or slightly roughened surface, rather than a smooth covering," the piece says.

Although the federal Food and Drug Administration first reported a link between implants and the disease in 2011, an FDA update in March linked nine deaths to the implants and helped raise awareness, Grady's article notes.  

The FDA has also received 359 voluntary reports of implant-associated lymphoma from doctors or patients around the world.

That number, the story says, "is expected to rise as more doctors and pathologists recognize the connection between the implants and the disease."

As of now, however, no implants have been recalled — and "what's inside the implant, silicone or saline, seems to make no difference."

Between 2000 and 2016, the number of U.S. breast augmentations rose 37 percent — "and reconstruction after mastectomy rose 39 percent," Grady writes.

"Annually, nearly 400,000 women in the United States get breast implants, about 300,000 for cosmetic enlargement and about 100,000 for reconstruction after cancer, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons," the story adds.

Lymphoma, if detected early, is often treatable and rarely fatal — although its symptoms "usually include painful swelling and fluid buildup around the implant. Sometimes there are lumps in the breast or armpit."

Dr. Mark W. Clemens II

In cases with bad outcomes, the Times quotes Dr. Mark W. Clemens II, a plastic surgeon and expert on the disease at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, "it was usually because they were not treated or there was a major delay in treatment, on the level of years."

Clemens believes that as late as 2015, "only about 30 percent of plastic surgeons were routinely discussing the cancer with patients," the Times piece says.

The newspaper also notes that what causes the disease isn't known. "One theory," Grady's story postures, "is that bacteria may cling to textured implants and form a coating called a biofilm that stirs up the immune system and causes persistent inflammation, which may eventually lead to lymphoma."

Clemens noted that researchers are also looking for mutations that might contribute to the disease.

More information about women's difficulties after reconstruction can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Clinical trial on lymphoma is suspended

Cancer researcher's work put into question by his failure to file timely report on deaths

It's no secret that new research can frequently contradict old — even when the latter has only been public for a few days or weeks.

But now comes a new wrinkle: Researchers may be invalidating their work by failing to file appropriate reports.

Or, at best, bringing their tests into question.

Case in point: An early-stage clinical trial sponsored by the National Cancer Institute on an experimental drug, ibrutinib, that involved lymphoma of the central nervous system, a blood cancer that to date had no effective treatment and was often deadly.

According to a story this week by Laurie McGinley in The Washington Post, the lead researcher failed to tell authorities in a timely manner that "two patients had died of fungal infections that might have been caused by the experimental treatment."

That failure, which led to the researcher being suspended "until he undergoes additional training," meant the trial was suspended — despite what McGinley's story called its "impressive results" in which eight of the 18 patients enrolled in the study "continue to be in complete remission, including six whose disease had not responded to previous treatment — a situation that usually causes death within a matter of months."

Dr. Francis Collins

The reporting lapses were reported by Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director; Dr. Doug Lowe, NCI director; and other officials.

The study, which was begun in 2013, centered on ibrutinib being used in conjunction "with a cocktail of chemotherapy medications. In addition, steroids were used to reduce swelling in the patients' brains."

The principal investigator, Kieron Dunleavy, had reported concerns — after the second fatality — and "ordered CT scans in other patients in the trial to try to catch fungal infections early, before they became deadly," but he allegedly delayed filing "an official 'unanticipated problem' report" for months.

That kind of report is supposed to be filed within 24 hours of suspecting a problem caused by the treatment.

When the Federal Drug Administration — which regulates trails — learned of the problem, it "conducted a review that concluded there also were several other adverse events that weren't promptly reported," McGinley's story indicated.

Collins said "that it appeared that the combination of ibrutinib and steroids 'seemed to place patients, many of whom have compromised immune systems, at an enhanced risk of infection,'" the article said.

Information on research, and how it often flip-flops, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.