Screening for lung cancer, the deadliest in U.S., misses most cases, new study reveals

Because of missed diagnoses, cancer and public health officials are calling for changes in lung cancer screening guidelines.

That conclusion, according to a recent story by Allyson Chiu in The Washington Post, was from a new study published in “JAMA Network Open,” a peer-reviewed journal.

Dr. Ankit Bharat

A majority of the lung cancer patients in this country would not meet the screening criteria as it  exists currently, the Post quoted Dr. Ankit Bharat, the study’s lead author and executive director of the Canning Thoracic Institute at Northwestern Medicine, as saying.

“If we have a more broader screening program, similar to breast and colon, then we would be able to detect substantially more patients at an earlier stage," he added.

 

The story indicates that if screening were made available for anyone between 40 and 80, nearly 94% of lung cancer cases could be detected, preventing at least roughly 26,000 deaths each year — "if even 30% of people get screened.”

 

The study had shown that of approximately 1,000 patients treated at Northwestern Medicine, only 1/3 met the requirements for screening. Eligible were people 50 to 80 who had a history of heavy smoking in the past 15 years, but women, minorities, and people who never smoked “were disproportionately excluded.”

 

Bharat noted that “lung cancer is the biggest cause of cancer deaths in this country. It kills more people than breast, colon, and prostate put together.”

 

The Post piece also quoted Dr. Narjust Florez, a thoracic medical oncologist and co-director of the Young Lung Cancer Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, to the effect that “waiting for symptoms leads to most patients having a Stage 4 diagnosis.”

More information on studies can be found in Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer, aVitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten aimed at male caregivers. My other books are MysteryDates — How to keep the sizzle in your relationship; The Roving I, a compilation of 70 of my newspaper columns; and Grampy and His Fairyzona Playmates, a whimsical fantasy intended for 6- to 10-year-olds that I co-authored with my then 8-year-old granddaughter. Check out my website at https://woodyweingarten.com for details.

Study at UC San Francisco finds 'alarming' hike in advanced prostate cancer across California

An "alarming" surge in advanced prostate cancer across California in the past decade may be linked to changes in guidelines that have reduced routine screenings for the disease.

At least  that's the conjecture in a story by Aidin Vaziri in recent e-editions of the San Francisco Chronicle about a new study at UCSF published in JAMA Network Open.

The study, which according to Vaziri analyzed nearly 388,000 prostate cancer cases between 2004 and 2021, "found that the number of advanced prostate cancer diagnoses statewide increased by 6.7% annually from 2011 to 2021."

Erin Van Blarigan

The Chronicle piece quotes Erin Van Blarigan, ScD, the study's led author and an associate professor professor at  the University of California, San Francisco, as believing "this overall rising trend is alarming and has occurred across age groups, regions of California, races, and ethnicities."

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the United States.

Although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2012 stopped recommending routine PSA testing for all men, citing concerns over  unnecessary treatments, "UCSF researchers suggest that the shift may have missed opportunities to catch aggressive cancers early, when treatments are more effective," the story indicates. 

California does not stand alone. Nationally, advanced cases of the disease have also risen since the screening guidelines changed. But the Golden State's annual climb is 6.7% as opposed to the countrywide percentage of 4.5. 

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

Columnist suggests three strategies that could possibly reduce your risk of contracting cancer

By employing three strategies, you may reduce your cancer risk. 

That, at least, is the opinion of Dr. Jerry Saliman, whose Senior Life column in an earlier-this-month edition of j. the Jewish News of Northern California, focused on those strategies — being on the lookout, catching symptoms early, and paying attention to risky behavioral factors.

Dr. Jerry Saliman

Regarding the first strategy, Saliman writes that unfortunately only four types of cancer screening have received a high-level record recommendation from a U.S. task force: colon, lung, breast, and cervix.

As to the second line of reasoning, the columnist, a Bay Area physician who retired from Kaiser South San Francisco after a 30-year career and now is a volunteer internist at Samaritan House Medical Clinic in San Mateo, suggests that "by catching cancer early, the survival rates may be four times higher compared with later-stage detection."

Saliman adds, about the last strategy, that the American Cancer Society's prevention studies have been crucial in detailing risk factors — including, in the 1950s, being the first to identify smoking as a major reason for cancer. The ACS has since, via its ongoing research, "found that older age and smoking have the highest relative risk for developing any cancer for both men and women."

Additional risks for men, his column says, "are family history of cancer, red meat consumption, alcohol intake, and physical inactivity."

More information on 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 male caregivers.

New report shows more colon cancer cases being found in younger people, Washington Post says

Experts are worried that the proportion of cases of colon cancer has been shifting to those younger than 55 — despite an overall drop in cases of colon and rectal cancer.

According to a story by Teddy Amenabar in yesterday's editions of The Washington Post, the report — from the American Cancer Society (ACS) — also indicates that "more patients are being diagnosed with later stage disease."

The shift toward younger adults, the story says, is shown by the statistics: "One in five new cases of colorectal cancer in the United States occur in people younger than 55 — about  twice the rate in 1995, when 11 percent of cases were in this age group."

Amenabar's piece also says that in "another alarming shift, 60 percent of patients are being diagnosed with an advanced stage of the disease, up from 52 percent in the mid-2000s."

No reason for the shift is addressed in the study. But the findings suggest that "steady progress to reduce the incidence of colon cancer through screening during the past few decades is losing momentum," the article continues.

Dr. Paul Oberstein

Quoted, then, is Dr. Paul Oberstein, a  medical oncologist at the NYU Langone Permutter Cancer Center, who was not involved in the study. He says "there is a bit of a worrisome trend. Something is clearly different among the young, the under 50 population, that does suggest…that the number of cancers is going up."

Also quoted is Rebecca Siegel, senior scientific director at the ACS and lead author of the report. "We know rates are increasing in young people," she says in a statement, "but it's alarming to see how rapidly the patient population is shifting longer, despite shrinking numbers in the overall population. The trend toward more advanced disease in people of all ages is also surprising and should motivate everyone 45 and older to get screened."

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

Biden's wife may use her skin cancer to amp up the push for screenings and the search for a cure

President Biden's wife just underwent a surgical procedure for two common skin cancers, with a third remaining a question mark.

Dr. Jill Biden

According to an Associated Press story by Darlene Superville on Monday, a lesion that doctors found above Dr. Jill Biden's right eye was removed last week "and confirmed to be basal cell carcinoma — a highly treatable form of skin cancer."

A second lesion, from the left side of her chest, was removed after being found while the 71-year-old First Lady was being prepped for the removal of the first. That, too, was confirmed to be basal cell carcinoma.

A third lesion from her left eyelid is being tested.

It is expected the cancers will spur her to amplify her long-time advocacy for "research into curing cancer" and her urging of people to get "regular screenings," Superville's article indicates.

POTUS' wife has been an advocate regarding the disease since 1993, long before her son's death in 2015 from brain cancer.

Her advocacy stems from four girlfriends — "including her pal Winnie, who succumbed to the disease" — being diagnosed with breast cancer. She confirmed in a speech last year that "Winnie inspired me to take up the cause of prevention and education," the AP story reports.

That initial impetus, the article continues, "led her to create the Biden Breast Health Initiative, one of the first breast health programs in the United States, to teach 16- to 18-year-old girls about caring for their breasts. Biden was among the staffers who went into Delaware's high schools to conduct lectures and demonstrations."

Her mother, Bonny Jean Jacobs, and father, Donald Jacobs, died of cancer — in 2008 and 1999, respectively. A few years ago, Superville's piece adds, "one of her four sisters needed an auto-stem cell transplant to treat her cancer."

According to the AP piece, her spokesperson, Vanessa Valdivia, declares that "the First Lady's fight against cancer has always been personal. She knows that cancer touches us all."

"Nothing like 'I've been there, done that' and being personally involved, [agrees] Myra Putin, a First Lady scholar at Rider College," the story notes.

When Beau Biden died in 2016, the current president was vice president. Shortly thereafter, he "helped push for a national commitment to 'end cancer as we know it."

Joe Biden resurrected what was known as the Cancer Moonshot initiative after he became president, and "aded a new goal of cutting cancer death rates by at least 50% over the next 15 years, and improving the experience of living with and surviving cancer for patients and their families," Superville's story explains.

In the years between Joe Biden serving as vice president and running for the top office, both Biden's headed up the Biden Cancer Initiative, a charity. 

More information on advocacy and treatment of the various forms of the disease 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.

Despite Katie Couric's advice, doctors repudiate some ultrasound breast cancer screenings

Many doctors are questioning Katie Couric's new call for ultrasound screenings beyond annual mammograms to detect breast cancer.

A recent online Kaiser Health News story by Michelle Andrews notes that the 65-year-old former co-host of NBC's "Today" show is now pushing those sonograms because they "can sometimes identify malignancies that are hard to spot on a mammogram in women whose breasts are dense — that is, having a high proportion of fibrous tissue and glands vs. fatty tissue."

Dr. Carol Mangione

The KHN article, however, quotes Dr. Carol Mangione, professor of medicine and public health at UCLA who chairs the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts who make recommendations for preventive services after weighing their benefits and harm, as being in doubt. She says clearly, "We don't have evidence that auxiliary screening reduces breast cancer mortality or improves quality of life."

Dr. Sharon Mass, an OB-GYN in Morristown, New Jersey, and the former chair of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' New Jersey section, echoes that sentiment. "On the one hand," Andrews' piece quotes her as saying, "we want to do everything we can to improve detection. But on the other hand, there are lots of costs and emotional distress" associated with false-positive results.

Couric first shared the news of her own breast cancer diagnosis in September.

In addition to regular mammograms, many women are getting 3D mammograms, sonograms or MRIs as supplemental testings. That imaging in those who aren't at high risk for breast cancer, the KHN story says, "may identify potential trouble spots, which can lead to follow-up testing such as breast biopsies that are invasive and raise cancer fears for many patients. But research has found that very often these results turn out to be false alarms."

And that doesn't count the possible extra cost. "An ultrasound screening might cost $250 out-of-pocket while a breast MRI could run $1,084," according to the Brem Foundation to Defeat Breast Cancer," Andrews' story says. 

Meanwhile, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) recently tweeted that she's working in conjunction with Couric on a bill to cover MRIs and ultrasounds for women with dense breasts "without any out-of-pocet costs," the article reports.

What are the real results of added screenings? Studies show, the KHN piece notes, that "if 1,000 women with dense breasts get an ultrasound after a negative mammogram, the ultrasound will identify two to three cancers. But the extra imaging will also identify up to 117 potential problems that lead to recall visits and test but are ultimately determined to be false positives."

Mass' group doesn't recommend supplemental screening for women with dense breasts who don't have any additional risk factors for cancer, the article reports. "Many other professional groups take a similar position."

Dense breasts, the story says, "are relatively common. In the United States, an estimated 43% of women 40 and older have breasts that are considered dense or extremely dense…Women with dense breasts are up to twice as likely to develop breast cancer as women with average-density breasts, research shows."

Other steps instead of extra screening could be helpful, according to Dr. Karla Kerlikowske, a professor of medicine and epidemiology/biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. "If you really want to help yourself, lose weight," she's quoted as saying. "Moderate your alcohol intake and avoid long-term hormone replacement. Those are things you can control."

Additional information on mammograms, sonograms and other screenings 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.

Katie Couric, diagnosed with breast cancer, intends to publish details about her ordeal

Veteran TV anchor/host Katie Couric, now fighting breast cancer, is planning to speak out more about her experience with the disease — and become an advocate for screenings.

According to a story by Claire Fahy in yesterday's editions of The New York Times, when she received the troubling diagnosis on June 21, she "handled it the way she handles any other news event — as a journalist."

Katie Couric

The 65-year-old TV stalwart is quoted as saying, "I actually treated this whole ordeal like a reporter. I went and tried to learn as much as I could."  

Al Rabson, former leader of the National Cancer Institute, "use to call her 'Dr. Couric' because she had amassed so much knowledge," the Times story says. 

Couric, once the host of the "Today Show" and anchor of "CBS Evening News," apparently will publish more about her ordeal, as well as information about breast cancer in general, throughout October, which has long been designated as Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

She also plans to use her experience as a goad to officialdom. The Times quotes her as saying, "Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants for a lot of policymakers and just a lot of women in general to make sure they are up to date on their screenings."

Fahy also quotes Couric to the effect that this bout with the disease isn't her "first rodeo" — her first husband, Jay Monahan, died from colon cancer in 1998, and her sister, Emily, died from pancreatic cancer in 2001.

The Times observes that Couric published an article yesterday noting that the day of her diagnosis was her eighth wedding anniversary. In that piece, she details the specifics of her cancer, including the fact that her dense breasts, not an uncommon condition, made it difficult for mammograms to detect the cancer. 

According to Fahy, the news anchor colorfully describes finding an abnormality in dense breasts "like looking for a snowball in a snowy field."

Her cancer apparently was found by an additional ultrasound.

The National Cancer Institute reports, not incidentally, that almost half the women over 40 in the United States have dense breasts.

Reportedly, one in eight women develop breast cancer, with the survival rate for those whose cancer has not metastasized as 99 percent. Couric's, which was detected early and is labeled as State 1A, hasn't spread to her lymph nodes or anywhere else.

A lot more information about the disease and its history in the United States 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.

Covid could be responsible for a future health-care crisis — not catching cancers early enough

The Covid pandemic has dramatically disrupted cancer screenings, putting thousands of lives in danger.

That's the conclusion of a recent story by Dylan Scott on the vox.com website.

Dr. Steve Serrao

The article quotes Dr. Steve Serrao, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Riverside University Health System in Loma Linda, California, as predicting that "the delayed diagnoses of various cancers and other chronic, life-threatening illnesses…will be the next crisis that overwhelms the U.S. health system."

In regard to the possible surge of advanced chronic diseases, Serrao says, "I don't think our systems are ready."

According to Scott's story, the pandemic "dealt a crushing blow to the preventive services that can catch potential health problems before they become life-threatening."

The piece cites figures from 2020, the most recent year for which complete statistics are available, that show colonoscopies dropped by nearly half from the year before, prostate biopsies fell more than 25 percent, and new diagnoses over all "declined by 13 percent to 23 percent, depending on the cancer."

Dr. Brian Englum

The story also quotes Dr. Brian Englum, a University of Maryland surgeon who co-authored a new study in "Cancer," an American Cancer Society journal, as saying that "I think we are in uncharted territory. There are no examples I know of where we have seen numbers change this dramatically."

Just how bad is the situation? Scott contends that "even a four-week delay in treatment is associated with a 6 to 13 percent higher risk of death."

He also maintains that research has shown that "people who have skipped appointments or didn't get screenings or care may be less likely to seek it in the future, and the problems could compound."

Englum says that while "we've already lost a lot of people," nobody knows "how many of these cases are out there."

More information about waves of disease 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.

Biden pushes program to cut cancer death rate by 50 percent; experts say it just won't work

Experts doubt President Biden's plan to cut the cancer death rate in half will be that effective.

In a story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Gina Kolata in The New York Times today, those experts say his cancer "moonshot" program, which is to take 25 years, simply can't “so profoundly reduce the age-adjusted death rate, which accounts for expectations that older people are more likely to grow ill and die.”

The White House, the article continues, “billed the event as a fresh push by the president to ‘reignite’ the moonshot program” he initiated and presided over as vice president. The new push, it was claimed, would “end cancer as we know it.” 

But Biden did not offer specifics on how his goal would be achieved.

Part of the initiative will be “a campaign to urge Americans to undergo screenings that were missed during the coronavirus pandemic,” Stolberg and Kolata’s piece indicates.
 
In addition, Biden plans to create a new “cancer cabinet” to coordinate multiple government agencies and spearhead the fight against the disease.
 
Danielle Carnival, who worked on the moonshot program during Barack Obama’s administration, will help oversee the supercharged effort.
 
The Times article insists that “more screenings are not the answer — the only cancers for which screening has indisputably lowered the death rate are colon and cervical.”
 

Donald A. Berry, Ph.D.

Death rates for other cancers, like breast, have fallen, “but a large part of the drop, if not all of it, is because of improved treatment,” the story quotes Donald A. Berry, a Ph.D. biostatistician at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center who has spent decades studying these issues.

He also contends that “everybody loves early detection, but it comes with harms” — principally, the article goes on, the harm of finding and treating tumors that do not need to be treated because they are innocuous. “The harms we know, but the benefits of screening are very uncertain,” Berry again is quoted.

If the age-adjusted cancer death rate were to plunge by 50 percent, it would have to be because cancers were being cured, Stolberg and Kolata maintain. "Some treatments, like a drug that treats chronic myelogenous leukemia, have slashed death rates for that disease, but such marked effects in cancer are few and far between."

In contrast, according to their piece, Ellen V. Sigal, founder of Friends of Cancer Research, which works to support cancer research and deliver new therapies to patients, who was briefed on the plan, says, “These are audacious goals, and I have no doubt there will be mechanisms to achieve them.”
 
The article also quotes anonymous senior administration officials who pledged that although no new funding commitments would be announced, there would be “robust funding going forward.” 
 
Biden, it should be remembered, has a personal interest in cancer research; in 2015, his son Beau died of glioblastoma, an aggressive brain cancer. The next year, Obama called on the then-vice president to lead the moonshot program with, according to Stolberg and Kolata, “a goal of making ‘a decade’s worth of advances in cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment’ in five years.”

At the time, Congress authorized $1.8 billion over seven years; roughly $400 million of that money has yet to be allocated. The National Cancer Institute, which oversees the initiative, says it has already spent $1 billion on more than 240 research projects.

The current White House says more than 9.5 million cancer screenings were missed in the United States because of Covid-19.
 
More details on the original cancer "moonshot" 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.

Experts say pandemic lockdowns caused increase in advanced cancers by curtailing screenings

Covid-19 apparently is responsible for many cancers dangerously advancing, physicians have warned, because the pandemic caused a large drop in screenings.

The main reason, according to a recent story in The New York Times by Reed Abelson, is that mammograms and other tests to detect potential cancers were canceled or severely delayed by lockdowns, an action that may have led to undiagnosed malignancies.

"Waves of surging Covid cases," the article says, "shuttered clinics and testing labs, or reduced hours at other places, resulting in steep declines in the number of screenings, including for breast and colorectal cancers, experts have said."

The Times piece quotes Dr. Lucio N. Gordan, president of the Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, one of the country's biggest independent oncology groups, as saying that there is "no question…that we are seeing patients with more advanced" cancers.

Dr. Patrick Borgen

The "fear of Covid was more tangible than the fear of missing a screen that detected cancer," reports Dr. Patrick I. Borgen, chief of surgery at Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, where he also heads its breast center, the story adds.

Borgen believes healthy people "stayed away to avoid contagion," the piece notes.

And when clinics and other places reopened, it goes on, "some patients…could not easily get an appointment because of pent-up demand. Others skipped regular testing or ignored worrisome symptoms because they were afraid of getting infected or, after losing their jobs, they couldn't afford the cost of a test…even patients at high risk because of their genetic makeup or because they previously had cancer have missed critical screenings."

Dr. Barbara L. McAneny

The Times article also quotes Dr. Barbara L. McAneny, past president of the American Medical Association and chief exec of New Mexico Oncology Hematology Consultants, many of whose patients stayed away, even if they did have insurance, because they couldn't afford the deductibles or co-pays. 

"We know cancers are out there," she reportedly says. "We're seeing that, particularly with our poorer folks who are living on the edge anyway, living paycheck to paycheck."

More information about screenings 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.

Can you beat the odds of contracting disease?

Cancer prevention can be bettered by narrowing screenings, doing a Mediterranean diet, tracking genes

Smarter prevention is helping more Americans beat the odds of getting cancer.

That's the gist of a story by Marygrace Taylor in a Parade magazine some time ago — a story that's subdivided into categories that detail smarter screening, knowing your genes, eating Mediterranean, favorably using social media and eliminating from your lifestyle such an impediment to good health as tobacco.

Under the headline "The People vs. Cancer," the article notes that the overall cancer death rate is continuing to drop.

Referring to lung cancer, the piece contends there's growing evidence that "across-the-board testing might not be beneficial." Instead, it suggests, screening for those most at risk might be best.

Parade then quotes Dr. Peter Mazzone, Cleveland Clinic pulmonologist, to the effect that "the goal is to find ways — other than age and smoking history, to identify high-risk patients."

Mazzone had co-authored lung cancer screening guidelines with the American College of Chest Physicians for low-dose chest CT scans.

By specifically utilizing tests such as breath or blood tests that look for certain biomarkers, experts can minimize the harm done to patients (such as unnecessary biopsies), Taylor writes.

Genetic testing, on the other hand, can be enhanced by those who track their family's health history.

The story cites Dr. Charis Eng, director of the Center for Personalized Genetic Healthcare and chair of the Cleveland Clinic's Genomic Medicine Institute, who maintains that tracing a family tree should include determining who had what:

"The most important things are what's the diagnosis, age when diagnosed, family history and familial clustering of a disease."

It's also important to know, she told Parade, how a given disease presented itself. Such as "if a family member has been diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, we think there might be BRCA1 or BRCA2 [mutated gene] in the family."

Eating well, Taylor also indicates, can be a big preventive.

That may mean loading up "on whole grains, fruits and vegetables, nut and beans, olive oil and lean protein like fish." The writer, alluding to a Current Nutrition Reports review, notes that "a Mediterranean-style eating plan has been shown to protect against several types of cancer, including colon, prostate, stomach, esophageal, liver and endometrial cancers."

That diet in postmenopausal women, she adds, also was shown in a Dutch study to "slash the risk for certain breast cancers by up to 40 percent."

The story also quotes Jennifer McDaniel, a registered dietitian and co-author of Prevention Mediterranean Table, as saying that the cancer-fighting effect might also be due to what's not on the diet — foods like processed grains, white bread and rice, red meat and full-fat dairy products.

Why? McDaniel says that eating that way may support a healthy body weight and lower inflammation levels, which in turn help prevent some cancers.

Want to learn about other possible ways to avoid disease? Check out "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

FDA approves 31 new therapies in one year

New screenings and treatments are helping to boost the number of cancer survivors in the U.S.

By 2026, some 20.3 million cancer survivors will be living in the United States — up from 15.5 million a decade earlier.

That, according to a recent article in Parade magazine by Sheryl Kraft, is because innovations in screening and treatment are helping patients beat the odds.

"In just one year," the piece reports, "31 new therapies to treat more than 16 types of cancers were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical and scientific officer for the American Cancer Society, believes that screening can save lives. "Some estimates say that we can decrease the number of colorectal deaths by 12,000 to 20,000 if screening guidelines were followed."

Dr. Jame Abraham

And Dr. Jame Abraham, director of Cleveland Clinic's Breast Oncology Program, notes that hormone therapy might be all that's necessary to treat 70 percent of women with the most common form of breast cancer. 

"That means a large number of patients can safely avoid chemotherapy," the Parade story quotes her as saying. "We can individualize treatment and make sure we are prescribing the right treatment for the right purpose."

It was tough previously to identify which women with early-stage breast cancer were at risk for recurrence, so many had received unnecessary chemo, radiation and hormonal therapy. But a groundbreaking study known as the TAILORx trial found that many women could be saved from "unnecessary side effects like fatigue, hair loss, nausea, vomiting and anemia," the quote continues.

Another new treatment, immunotherapy, which "works by reprogramming a patient's own immune cells to find and attack those cancer cells through the body," also is being held out as innovative — and the American Society of Clinical Oncology's "advance of the year."

Immunotherapy now is being heralded as "extremely promising for treating triple-negative breast cancer, one of the most difficult-to-treat breast cancers," after having already been shown to have "significant results in young patients with a form of leukemia and adults with multiple myeloma (a type of blood cancer) and lymphoma (a type of cancer involving cells of the immune system)."

Yet another new testing method, CancerSEEK — according to the Parade piece, "a simple blood test, which in its research phase was performed on people already diagnosed with cancer," can identify markers for for tumors containing mutated DNA in the bloodstream. 

These markers are associated with eight common cancer types: breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, liver, stomach, pancreatic and esophageal.

Lastly, the story cites a less invasive and faster lung-cancer technique called microcoil localization, "which can pinpoint and remove small bits of affected tissue using a needle inserted through the chest wall to remove the cancer at its earliest stage."

Minimally invasive surgery — instead of the currently popular "lobectomy, which removes a portion of the lung by opening up the chest, followed by radiation and chemotherapy."

More details on new techniques 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.

American Cancer Society vs. U.S. advisory group

Agency and task force disagree on when people should start screening for colon cancer 

Whether U.S. adults should start colon cancer screening at age 45 or 50 is still in doubt.

The most recent guidelines from the American Cancer Society advocate the former, but an influential government advisory group, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, still believes the latter age is perfectly okay.

According to an Associated Press story by Mike Stobbe a while back, the cancer society admits its recommendation of the earlier age "could cause confusion for doctors and patients." 

Both groups, however, apparently recommend six other kinds of screening exams, "from inexpensive take-home stool tests performed every year to colonoscopies done every 10."

Dr. Rich Wender

The best test, the cancer society's Dr. Rich Wender is quoted as saying, "is the test that gets done. All of these tests are good tests, and the choice should be offered to patients."

Most colon cancer occurs, according to the story, "in adults 55 and older, and the good news is rates of cases and deaths have been falling for decades."

Colon cancer, combined with rectal cancer, is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States — the top cause being lung cancer.

Some 140,000 Americans were expected to be diagnosed with colon cancer this year, "and about 50,000 will die from it," Stobbe's piece reports.

Only "about two-thirds of people 50 and older have been following screening guidelines," the article notes, quoting Dr. Marcus Plescia of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials as saying that "it's hard enough to get people to do it at all."

But Dr. Andrew Wolf, lead author of the American Cancer Society study, reportedly said his agency had considered and rejected that reasoning.

More information about conflicting research and findings 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

4 screenings called unnecessary; 2 others advised

Cancer screenings after 70 can do more harm than good, AARP magazine piece indicates

If you've hit 70 — when, according to my primary doc, "you've already won the game" — the need for some cancer screenings may vanish.

In fact, at least four of them might do more harm than good, indicates an article by Candy Sagon in a recent double edition of "AARP: The Magazine."

The unnecessary tests, the piece says, are colonoscopy, mammography, PSA and Pap smear.

In their place are recommended two other tests: bone density scan and abdominal aorta aneurysm screening.

The AARP magazine article charges that "a growing number of health experts [worry that] the overtesting of those who are in their 70s, 80s and even older…could lead to invasive procedures or treatments that leave patients worse off than before, especially among those with serious health problems such as heart disease."

Those fears may have been underscored by a 2014 study published in "JAMA Internal Medicine" that found — after looking at more than 27,00 adults age 65-plus — "too many physicians automatically recommend cancer screening tests for older patients whose precarious health puts them at high risk of dying within a decade."

Dr. Harlan Krumholz

The AARP article quotes Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a Yale cardiologist and researcher known to be an outspoken critic of overtesting, as saying, "On average, those over 75 derive fewer benefits than younger people do."

Women, the piece suggests, should be getting routine bone density scans "beginning at 65 (or earlier, depending on their risk factors)," while men 70 and older need that particular test "to check for osteoporosis."

Regarding the abdominal screening, the article says "men 65 to 75 who have been smoking anytime during their lifetimes should have a onetime ultrasound to screen for an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)" — though the story hedges about whether the screening would benefit women who'd smoked.

As for the colonoscopies, it says a new Harvard study of "more than 1.3 million Medicare patients ages 70 to 79" found the risk of complications to be larger than the cancer risk. Obviously, however, "if you've had a polyp removed or have a family history of colon cancer, you risk is higher, and you should probably be screened. If not, you may be able to finally skip all that lovely laxative prep."

The AARP article cites the opinion of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force when it comes to the mammograms. The USPSTF purportedly found "insufficient evidence" to conclude that mammography past 74 is necessary. It's likely, the agency indicated, that benefits of the screenings at that advanced age are limited.

Not a single medical group apparently recommends PSA screenings for prostate cancer beyond age 75 — even though 41 percent of men in that category still have the test (most often at the urging of their doctors).

If women have, after age 65, had no cancer or precancerous lesions, and have had three negative smears to check for cervical cancer in the previous 10 years, there's no need for one more smear. Unfortunately, the AARP story says at least one study indicates, "most women have become so accustomed to having an annual Pap smear that they have them even after undergoing a hysterectomy."

The benefits and burdens of screenings in general are addressed in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.