Former 'Seinfeld' star urges universal health care

'Veep' multiple Emmy winner Julia Louis-Dreyfus reveals that she's fighting breast cancer

Julia Louis-Dreyfus

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, 56-year-old multiple Emmy-winning star of "Veep" and "Seinfeld," has breast cancer.

The actress disclosed her diagnosis on Twitter yesterday "in a signed message snapped on personal stationery," according to a Huffington Post story by Sara Boboltz.

Her note began, "1 in 8 women get breast cancer. Today, I'm the one."

She also took the opportunity to plug universal health care: "The good news is that I have the most glorious group of supportive and caring family and friends, and fantastic insurance through my union. The bad news is that not all women are so lucky so let's fight all cancers and make universal health care a reality."

Actress Deborah Messing, who again is starring in the TV sitcom "Will and Grace," tweeted that "you are incredible to use this moment as an opportunity to support others."

And actress Anna Kendrick tweeted, "I don't think I realized how much I love this woman, who I don't know. Love her more for speaking up for others in this moment."

Christina Applegate, an actress who had a double mastectomy in 2008 after she was diagnosed with breast cancer, said Louis-Dreyfus could contact her if she wanted to talk.

Former vice president Joe Biden, whose son Beau died of cancer in 2015, tweeted that "we Veeps stick together. Jill and I, and all of the Bidens, are with you, Julia." 

Just under 240,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year.

Louis-Dreyfus, who did not immediately announce what treatments she's contemplating, won her sixth consecutive Emmy for playing bumbling politico Selina Meyer on "Veep," a political satire, earlier this month, a record. 

Her latest award came the day before her diagnosis. 

More information on the disease, as well as reactions to diagnoses, 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.

2nd opinions, knowing right questions are key

Hospital network offers cancer patients, especially those in advanced stage, four tips

Sometimes good information comes from unexpected places.

Like an old ad.

Case in point: I just found a piece on a Time magazine website that was reprinted from Cancer Treatment Centers of America,  a network of five hospitals in five states.

It contends that "breakthroughs unimaginable a generation ago are now saving lives as a matter of course."

And it suggests "four things every cancer patient must do."

They are: Get a second opinion, find the right doctors, know the questions to ask, and stay strong for the fight.

Regarding second opinions, the piece maintains that those consults provide an opportunity "to better understand additional needs like nutritional planning, the management of side effects, and the power of family support during cancer treatment.

Dr. George Daneker Jr.

The piece quotes Dr. George Daneker Jr., CTCA's chief medical officer, to the effect that "more advances in cancer treatment have been made in the past five years than in the past 50" but initial diagnoses are not always right. 

Twelve percent of patients are actually misdiagnosed, the article says.

As to finding the right docs, it notes that "fully one out of five patients who receive a cancer diagnosis learn their disease is already advanced stage [and] frequently require more comprehensive care from a dedicated team that should include a medical oncologist, surgical or radiation oncologist [if appropriate], registered dietitian, naturopathic oncology provider, and other clinicians."

When it comes to knowing what to ask, the CTCA lists 10 questions it considers crucial, including "What happens if a treatment approach doesn't work for me?"

Staying strong may not be an easy task, the article inidicates, because "69% of cancer patients have health issues beyond their cancer…and fully eight out of ten people living with cancer are also malnourished."

The treatment centers also assert that "the one consistent enabling truth in the fight against cancer throughout the years has always been this: Knowledge is power."

I certainly concur.

And in that regard, I'd like to promote my VitalityPress book, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," which I aimed at male caregivers and which I'm convinced is chock full of information that can become powerful knowledge.

Mistaken diagnoses plague patients, doctors

DNA 'fingerprinting method' might lower risk of lab errors on thousands, N.Y. Times says

Lab mixups and mistaken diagnoses (both positive and negative) may be happening to thousands of patients each year.

That's what Gina Kolata indicated recently in The New York Times.

Her article focuses on how to avoid those errors — a "high-tech solution: a way to fingerprint and track each sample with the donor's own DNA." 

But it's costly: About $300 per sample. So labs are reluctant to employ them.

Dr. John Pfeifer

Kolata, however, quotes Dr. John Pfeifer, vice chair of clinical affairs in the pathology and immunology department at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis as saying, "All the process improvement in the world does not get rid of human errors…Millions get biopsies every year. Is society going to say, 'Yeah, mistakes happen but we're not going to look for them?"

When the fingerprinting method is used, the lab tries to match the DNA from a swab taken from a patient's mouth. If it doesn't match, that signals a lab mix-up.

Errors, according to Kolata, "may lead a patient down a life-altering path, to a grueling treatment that was unnecessary, or to the neglect of a cancer that may or may not prove deadly."

Pfeifer actually reviewed more than 13,000 biopsy results from men evaluated for prostate cancer at a number of labs. The results were supplied by the chief exec at Strand Diagnostics, the company that's marketing the fingerprinting method.

More information about research into lab results 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.

'Triple negative breast cancer' treatment studied

African scholarship student is working on potential cure for a subtype of cancer for blacks 

A Sierra Leonean student reportedly is developing an alternative breast cancer treatment for black women.

Sandra Musujusu

According to a recent story by Taryn Finley on the Huffpost website, the research of Sandra Musujusu, a student at the African University of Science and Technology in Abuja, Nigeria's capital, is focusing on "triple negative breast cancer, which is actually the aggressive subtype of breast cancer that is common with women from African ancestry."

The Huffpost piece references an article in the Nigerian Tribune that reported the research centering on "the development of biodegradable polymers for treatment of breast cancer."

A variety of African publications have been sanguine about Musujusu's research potentially leading to a cure.

She apparently is using macro molecular science as her basic tool.

Breast cancer, the Huffpost story indicated, "is the most commonly diagnosed caner among women around the world. In 2012, there were 1.7 million new cases worldwide, according to World Cancer Research Fund International."

An online article on the Rollingout website says that "about 1 in 8 U.S. women "will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime, according to breastcancer.org."

The National Cancer Institute has reported that approximately 1,211,690 black people have a history of cancer.

In the United States alone, the Huffpost story notes, "black women with breast cancer have the highest mortality rate than any other race, according to the Susan G. Women Foundation."

And the National Cancer Institute has said approximately 1,211,690 black people have a history of cancer.

Musujusu is a World Bank scholarship student.

More information about breast cancer and black women 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.

Prediction: Price of drug therapies will skyrocket

New FDA-approved cancer gene therapy to cost $475,000 for a single course, reports say

Are pharmaceutical companies gouging the public?

Very possibly, as evidenced by a new gene therapy for childhood leukemia that will cost almost half a million dollars for a single course.

Reports yesterday about Federal Drug Administration approval for Novartis' Kymriah, which is the first gene therapy for cancer that it's okayed, say it will cost at least $475,000.

Although some oncologists have described the CAR-T drug as revolutionary, critics fear the price tag could pave the way for future drug costs to skyrocket.

According to a story by Catherine Ho in the San Francisco Chronicle, the way the treatment works is this: A patient's cells are extracted from his or her blood, then sent to a site where they'll be genetically modified. The altered cells are then re-infused into the patient's body.

The FDA this week approved Kymriah as a treatment for childhood B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, a cancer of the blood and bone marrow that's the most common childhood cancer.

The National Cancer Institute has estimated 3,100 patients up to 20 years old are diagnosed with the disease annually. Although the survival rate is 90 percent, that figure drops to as low as 10 percent for those who relapse after a bone marrow transplant. It is that subset of patients who are eligible for cell therapy, whose rate of success is said to be between 70 and 80 percent.

Only a few hundred children and young adults are expected to be treated with Kymriah each year.

Bruno Strigini

A Guardian story, supplemented by Associated Press reporting, said that Bruno Strigini, Novartis' head of oncology, has explained that the high cost of the treatment is an attempt to balance patient access to the drug with ensuring a return on the company's investment.

The Guardian piece also cited a Novartis statement to the effect that the company "was collaborating with Medicare on a plan in which the government would only pay for the treatment if patients responded to them by the end of the first month."

Side effects of the drug include high fevers, diarrhea, vomiting, delirium, loss of balance, and difficulty speaking and understanding.

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

Aggressive, 'just-in-case' treatments unnecessary

New test can shield breast cancer patients from unneeded treatments, study indicates

A new tumor test can help identify which breast cancers don't need extra treatment.

According to a recent KQED morning edition piece by Joe Neal and Patti Neighmond, "more and more studies are showing many small, early tumors don't present a danger."

The public-radio report, under the rubric "Shots: health news from NPR," indicated that a study published in JAMA Oncology suggested that it's possible "to distinguish fairly precisely between 'ultralow-risk' tumors that are unlikely to cause problems and those that are more aggressive and likely to spread."

Which translates into some patients being able to, according to the piece, "avoid unnecessary treatments."

The MammaPrint diagnostic test, used by researchers in the United States and Sweden, apparently can measure a tumor's genomic "fingerprint" and compare it with survival time after a tumor is removed.

The NPR story reported that the researchers said "they were able to pinpoint patients who had a very low risk of death from breast cancer — even up to 20 years after the first diagnosis."

Dr. Laura Esserman

The piece quoted Dr. Laura Esserman of the University of California, San Francisco, the lead author of the study, as saying what it means is that "we don't have to be aggressive upfront and treat you with everything, just in case."

The test results, it continued, "build on findings of a 2016 report using the same test that  showed 46 percent of women with certain genetic profiles could actually skip chemotherapy with little consequence to their long-term survival."

According to Esserman, it appears that about 20 to 25 percent of tumors being diagnosed today may be ultralow-risk and not require treatment after surgery.

The tumor test, which isn't covered by all insurance companies, is not cheap. It costs $4,200.

Many more details about much more research on breast cancer can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, geared to caregivers.

Smaller studies can mean missed side effects

Pharmaceutical companies can't find patients for trials of experimental cancer drugs 

Dr. Peter Bach

Too few patients are available to cover all the clinical cancer drug trials being conducted.

That, at least, is the conclusion of a recent story by Gina Kolata in The New York Times.

Her article notes that the problem "is caused partly by companies hoping to rush profitable new cancer drugs to market, and partly by the nature of these therapies, which can be spectacularly effective but only in select patients."

There currently are more than 1,000 immunology trials underway, for example.

But Kolata says "immunotherapy trials have proliferated so quickly that major medical centers are declining to furnish patients to them. The Yale Cancer Center participates in fewer than 10 percent of [those] it is asked to join." 

The writer cites words of Dr. Peter Bach, director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: "I think there is a lot of exuberant rush to market. And we are squandering our most precious resource — patients."

Dr. Roy Herbst

She also quotes Dr. Roy Herbst, the Yale center's chief of medical oncology, to the effect that the companies sponsoring the trials aren't addressing new research questions but are merely "trying to get proprietary drugs approved."

Some companies are working on experimental drugs that attack and block mutations that tumors need to grow and thrive. The mutations sought by those targeted therapies, however, are extremely rare so pharmaceutical companies "may be forced to undertake a worldwide search for subjects that can last for years."

It took Pfizer three years, for example, "to locate 50 lung cancer patients who carried a rare aberration called ROS1, found in just 1 percent of patients."

Many new trials involve a limited number of patients, which can be risky.

Bach, according to Kolata, maintains that "the smaller the study and the shorter its duration, the more likely that what looks like an effect in a trial might simply be the result of chance" — which "leaves some of us evidence geeks wondering if it works."

Dr. Scott Ramsey

The writer also quotes Dr. Scott Ramsey, an oncologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, that "in tiny studies, serious side effects can be missed."

Details of many clinical trials 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.

Can 40 percent of cancers be prevented?

Vast majority of cancer-causing mutations due to random DNA errors, new study indicates

"Two-thirds of cancer mutations are due to random DNA copying errors, study says."

That's the bulk of a slightly scary headline at the top of a recent "To Your Health" section of The Washington Post website.

In a story by Laurie McKinley, the study — published in "Science" magazine — cancer-causing mutations occur when normal cells divide. 

Humans, according to the piece, "have trillions of cells, which are constantly regenerating by dividing and making new cells. But each time DNA is copied, the scientists said, an average of three random mistakes will occur. While most are harmless, a small number affect genes that will promote cancer."

Bert Vogelstein

The Post article indicates that two Johns Hopkins University researchers — Bert Vogelstein, a cancer geneticist, and Cristian Tomaetti, a mathematician — were able in their study to separate the randomness factor from the other main contributors to cancer: inherited genes and environmental factors such as smoking and obesity.

Cristian Tomasetti

Results, after analyzing  "genome sequencing and epidemiological data for 32 types of cancer," assigned the mutations thusly: 66 percent, DNA-replication mistakes; 29 percent, environmental factors; 5 percent, heredity.

Variations depended on what kind of cancer they were talking about. According to the story, for example, "random DNA-replication mistakes account for about 77 percent of critical mutations in pancreatic cancer, and virtually all childhood cancer."

But "more than two-thirds of the mutations in lung cancer were due to environmental factors, mostly smoking."

McGinley's piece noted that "the new research builds on a 2015 study that highlighted the role of 'bad luck' — random DNA errors — in developing cancer. That study drew vehement protests from some cancer physicians and researchers who worried it would encourage people to take a fatalistic approach to cancer rather than trying to reduce their cancer risk by maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly, eating a good diet and avoiding cigarettes."

The Hopkins researchers have claimed "their earlier work was widely misinterpreted," the article continued — and emphasized that the new study "was consistent with estimates that 40 percent of cancers can be prevented."

Vogelstein insisted said that "science needs to find better ways to detect cancer early, when there is a good chance of curing it."

According to the story, critics of the 2015 study "disliked the 'bad luck' explanation and complained that the study was limited to the United States and didn't include the most common cancers — breast and prostate."

Insights into cancer mutations — especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes — 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.