Surviving with Cancer
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-05/surviving-cancer
With more than 11.1 million cancer survivors in the United States today, researchers and doctors are grappling with the challenge of helping patients maintain or regain a sense of well-being. But with increased survival rates another challenge has arisen -- how are we going to fund increasing expensive, personalized and long-lived treatment regimes.
Guests
Dr. S. Ward Casscells
John E. Tyson Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Public Health, and Vice President for External Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. He is the former Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs).
Ellen Sigal
chair and founder of Friends of Cancer Research, a cancer research think tank and advocacy organization.
Dr. Louis Weiner
Director, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center and Chair of the Department of Oncology at Georgetown University Medical Center
Dr. Julia Rowland
Director of the Office of Cancer Survivorship, National Cancer Institute
Program Highlights
A cure for cancer is the holy grail for doctors working in oncology, but that's unlikely in the near future. Cancer patients are increasingly living longer and better lives. Guest host Susan Page and panelists discuss what this means for our approach to the disease, and for those living with it.
The Definition of "Cancer Survivor"
For many years, the definition of a cancer survivor was someone who had been alive and disease-free following cancer for five years. But that changed in 1986 with the creation of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. The new group felt that it wasn't O.K. for an individual to have to wait for five years to call him or herself a cancer survivor. So they proposed a change that would allow an individual to call himself a cancer survivor from the moment of diagnosis, according to Dr. Julia Rowland. About 12 million people in the U.S. are currently called "survivors," and about 15 percent of them have been alive for 20 years.
What Is Helping People Live Longer?
About 40 years ago, the survival rate for those diagnosed with any type of cancer was about 50 percent. Today, it's about 66 percent, according to Dr. Louis Weiner. Doctors are able to detect and treat cancers at an earlier stage, when it's easier to treat them, Dr. Weiner said. In addition, doctors have been more successful at effectively managing the diseases of people whose cancers may not be curable by surgery or other treatments.
Investments in Research
There have also been extraordinary investments in biomedical research at institutes like the NIH and National Cancer Institute in recent years. It costs $500 billion each year to fight cancer, said Dr. Ellen Sigal. But as our national politics have been paralyzed in recent months by fears over budget deficits, doctors and researchers worry about cutbacks to necessary funding. "There's considerable concern...that there will be insufficient support to do the work that's necessary to keep these advances coming and to be able to identify molecular targets, to have tailored medicine, that this is going to be a new challenge for us," Dr. Rowland said.
Some Challenges Facing Survivors
While most of the individuals treated for cancer do return to the workforce, survivors worry about discrimination in the workplace based on their illness. The Americans With Disabilities Act protects cancer survivors from discrimination, but it can happen. Guest host Susan Page asked the doctors if patients who have survived cancer are often "haunted" by fears that the cancer will return. "If you looked at one thing that's common across all individuals who are diagnosed with cancer, it's that fear of recurrence," Dr. Rowland said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
US stand with OWS
and other screwed veterans
OCCUPY NAVY
OCCUPY MARINES
OCCUPY TOGETHER
or go the Soylent Green I. plan.
Time ti fight for ourselves now?
The story of prostate cancer is in some terms a replay of my Dad's illness. Unfortunately he died in 1991 at 77.
Although he was very proactive concerning his health, he managed to find the most incompetent Urologist and Oncologists in Philadelphia.
My experience with my mother's cancer was that the oncologists were extremely aggressive -- much more aggressive with their recommendations than my mother wanted to be -- which created mistrust. In addition, I imagine that it increases the amount of total treatment and the total cost of treatment. How can we mitigate physicians' push to "do everything" even in cases where it might be inappropriate or unwanted?
Scientists and physicians need to do a much better job educating the public about science and medicine. Few people understand the new health care legislation, basic medical terminology and how vital NIH funding and philanthropy is to our research and medical initiatives.
The reason we have been unable to do more for pancreatic cancer is that we do not check for it until there are symptoms. My latest experience with my own Oncologist (breast cancer) has been that he has no grounds to prescribe an Ultrasound (or any other pancreatic test) because I have no symptoms. Well, I have had breast cancer, my father died of pancreatic cancer, his sister had pancreatitis, and his other sister has a questionable "spot" on her pancreas.
Dear Pink Floyd (not a very original screen name),
What does your political agenda have to do with a show about cancer, a subject that deeply touches many people in a personal and emotional way?
I understand you wanting to broadcast your personal agenda, but you could have chosen a more appropriate forum.
Best of wishes to you and everyone you know.
lindsay
"The reason we have been unable to do more for pancreatic cancer is that we do not check for it until there are symptoms."
Many cancers are silent (i.e., no symptoms.) Pancreatic seems to spread easily / be tenacious even when spotted "early on." I am not sure why. The one year and five year survival rates are dreadful, and I think it must be more than lack of early diagnosis. (The "dreadful" aspect is why I have not looked into it at depth for now.)
I know someone diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a few months ago, and things seemed to go well initially, but now they aren't.
A terrible flip of the coin that I blame more on the cancer than the doctors.
Why it is so pernicious is the more interesting question, as that's the only route to a better outcome in my opinion.
Are there simple predictors or diagnostic tests for the disease that would be feasible to use in a large or a targeted population at a cost health insurance companies would pay for?
I was so happy to hear Dr. Casscells acknowledge
co the circumstances that contribute to his well being and possibly also to his long term survival