Lung Cancer in South Carolina...

  • will be diagnosed in approximately 3,900 SC citizens in 2011.
  • will tragically take the lives of approximately 2,910 South Carolinians in 2011, as well.
  • is grossly underfunded, unidentified, and stigmatized.
  • is ravaging and must be cured.
Showing posts with label American Cancer Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Cancer Society. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

USA Today reports: Using CT scans to screen for lung cancer may carry risks

Lung cancer screenings may carry hidden dangers, researchers announced Saturday at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting in Orlando.

The National Institutes of Health is running a large study to find out if screening patients with CT scans can save lives. Some doctors are already offering the screenings in the hopes of finding tumors early, when they might be more curable. Lung cancer kills more people than any other tumor, with 215,000 new cases a year and 162,000 deaths, according to the American Cancer Society.

But the scan's results aren't always clear or easy to interpret, leading to false alarms.
People who are screened have a 21% chance of being unnecessarily frightened by findings that initially seem suspicious, but turn out to be benign, says lead author Jennifer Croswell.

Yet the exams, performed with CT scans, can produce more than just anxiety, according to Croswell's report, a pilot study for the ongoing National Lung Screening Trial, which includes 50,000 patients.

Suspicious findings can lead to invasive follow-up exams, such as biopsies or even surgeries in which doctors crack open the chest to access to the lungs, Croswell says.

Out of 1,600 smokers and ex-smokers in the study who had the CT scans, 40 had real cancer, but eight had unnecessary surgery for non-cancerous conditions.

Yet Croswell can't say whether the screenings actually helped anyone. That's because the larger study hasn't gone on long enough to show whether screening saves lives, she says. And because lung surgeries are risky, she says it's possible for the screenings themselves to cause death.

CT scans also expose people to radiation, which increases the risk of cancer, says Peter Bach, a pulmonologist at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Other research has suggested that tumors found through screening could be much less lethal than lung cancers that are found because they cause symptoms, so that finding these slow-growing cancers may not help anyone. Also, longtime smokers or ex-smokers could die of other causes, such as heart attacks or strokes, long before their cancer becomes a threat.

In fact, people who get CT scans are 100 times more likely to get a false alarm then they are to die of lung cancer, says Bach, the author of a 2007 study on lung cancer screening.

The American Cancer Society does not recommend lung screenings and they are not covered by insurance, Bach says. Insurers do cover follow-up tests and lung cancer treatments.

Go here to see what other readers think.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Lung Cancer Alliance Calls American Cancer Society's Claim of Progress Selective

Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA) said that the American Cancer Society's claim of "progress in cancer fight" earlier this week was based on "selective culling of statistics and ignores the dismal truth that we have made very little progress on the most lethal cancers, including lung cancer, which causes one in every two cancer deaths, or in metastatic cancer of any kind."

LCA President & CEO Laurie Fenton Ambrose agreed that progress has been made with certain cancers such as breast, prostate and colon which have widely accepted screening tests for early detection and ACS deserves credit for promulgating information to the public on the importance of these tests.

"But this is not time to be celebrating when half of all cancers still have survival rates of less than 50% and when we are facing a 45% increase in the overall number of new cancer cases by the year 2030," she said, citing a recent report on the upcoming tidal wave in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

"There could be no stronger wake-up call," she said. "We can't continue to tout selected changes in incidence and mortality rates over a limited number of cancers over a limited period of time. We have to step back and look at the big picture and try to figure out why we have not done better and where we have to go from here."

Read more.


Thursday, May 21, 2009

The State reports: A taste of help to keep cancer patients' pounds up

The statistic is shocking: Severe malnutrition and weight loss play a role in at least one in five cancer deaths. Yet nutrition too often is an afterthought until someone's already in trouble.
A move is on to change that, from hospitals that hire fancy gourmet chefs to the American Cancer Society's dietitians-on-call phone service.

With cancer, you've got to "bring a lot more nutrients to each spoonful of food," Certified Master Chef Jack Shoop is learning. A former restaurateur, he's newly in charge of the kitchen at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America in Philadelphia.

Don't underestimate the added temptation should the result resemble Bon Appetit: "The visual heartiness, and the actual heartiness, of these foods has to be understood for them to embrace it," Shoop insists.

Tempting the palate is a huge hurdle: At diagnosis, up to a quarter of patients already have their appetite sapped, and most treatments can bring side effects that worsen the problem. Aside from the well-known nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, some cancers inhibit absorption of the nutrients patients force down. Not to mention strangely altered taste, mouth sores, dry mouth, difficulty swallowing and constipation.

About half of all cancer patients eventually suffer serious weight loss and malnutrition, a wasting syndrome called cachexia where they don't just lose excess fat but vital muscle. A healthy person's body adjusts when it doesn't get enough calories, slowing metabolism to conserve nutrients. A cancer patient's body doesn't make that adjustment; metabolism even may speed up.

The National Cancer Institute estimates cachexia is the immediate cause of death for at least 20 percent of cancer patients, although advanced cancer might have eventually claimed many of them.

How much weight loss is too much? The institute defines patients as at-risk when they've lost more than 10 percent of their usual weight. Other research suggests that patients who lose more than 5 percent of their pre-cancer weight have a worse prognosis than people who can hang onto the pounds.

For their best shot at doing that, the American Cancer Society urges patients to ask to be assessed by a registered dietitian up front, right at diagnosis. While that's common at designated cancer centers where dietitians work on-staff, it's not routine elsewhere and surveys suggest just a third of patients have access to cancer nutritionists where they're being treated.

"Patients who are well-nourished as they're going through treatment have shorter hospital stays, are better able to tolerate treatment," not to mention have better quality of life, says Colleen Doyle, nutrition chief at the society, which offers nutrition advice through its hot line at 1-800-ACS-2345.

Desperate patients often hunt their own nutrition advice on the Internet but can't tell the good from the bad. The No. 1 Web-perpetuated myth: that sugar feeds tumor cells. Not true, says Maureen Huhmann, who chairs the American Dietetic Association's oncology nutrition group. In fact, protein-packed milkshakes and smoothies can literally be lifesaving for some patients.

"I don't want people to start losing weight because they cut foods out of their diet when they don't really need to," says Huhmann.

Then there are people overweight when diagnosed who delight at shedding pounds - until they learn they're not just losing fat but muscle, too.

"You can be overweight and even obese and still be malnourished. It's a dilemma," says Carolyn Lammersfeld, the Cancer Treatment Centers' nutrition director who works with Shoop, the chef, to help patients find palatable options.

Typically, a cancer patient needs as much as twice the protein of a healthy person and about 10 percent more calories. Some tumors bring bigger nutritional threats than others: Gastrointestinal and lung cancers tend to cause more weight loss than breast cancer.

Anti-nausea medications developed in the past decade bring relief to many patients, although they're not always covered by insurance. Among options are a synthetic version of an ingredient from marijuana; cancer experts don't promote smoking marijuana although some advocates claim it helps. Doctors also can prescribe appetite stimulants and, for worst cases, feeding tubes.

But eating by mouth is best, and dietitians can offer tips to help: Snacking throughout the day instead of trying to force down large meals can help, and high-fat or high-fiber foods make nausea last longer.

In his Philadelphia hospital cafeteria, Shoop gives taste tests to introduce patients to healthful foods they may never have tried: Quinoa, a grain with the same amino acids of meat, or Arctic char, a salmon-like fish but less fatty.

Doing his own butchering allows Shoop to make stocks and sauces with the bones to add even more protein to meat dishes. Garnish with mushrooms, he advises, for a bit more.

And he teaches caregivers how to add 400 extra calories and 20 grams of protein to a simple smoothie, milkshake or oatmeal - using whole milk or yogurt, some protein powder, and grinding up fruits, nuts and flax seed.

"If you're not getting answers, keep searching," says Lammersfeld. "People need to know that weight loss and not being able to eat is not a good thing during cancer treatment."

Friday, May 15, 2009

May's Issue of Woman's Health Magazine reports: When a Fit Body Fails You

Being active, not smoking, and eating right can go a long way toward protecting you against lung cancer. But it's not always enough.

Emily Miner gave up smoking at age 6. "I was on a camping trip with my cousins," the 39-year-old Californian recalls. As the family sat around the campfire, her uncle lit a cigar. Intrigued by the sharp scent of the smoke, Emily persuaded him to let her try it. "I took a huge puff and turned green," she says. "That was it for me."

Thirty years later, Emily was a picture of healthy living: She ran a family winery in Napa Valley with her husband, Dave, had two young daughters, and was training for a half—marathon. So the discovery that a deadly disease was ravaging her was nothing short of shocking.

It started out as back pain, a recurring twinge. When an MRI showed a tumor on her spine and spots on her lungs, Emily and her oncologist assumed it must be breast cancer that had spread, a diagnosis not unknown in young, healthy women. No one was prepared for the biopsy result, which showed that Emily had lung cancer that had metastasized to her spine.

The number of lung cancer deaths among American women has grown by 600 percent since 1950. The disease is highly fatal, killing more women each year than breast and all gynecologic cancers combined. Today, one in every 16 women will develop lung cancer. And though the increase in its incidence is most likely due to a surge in the number of women smokers, nonsmokers aren't immune, says Michael Thun, M.D., vice president emeritus and research director of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society.

"No one's risk is zero," Emily says emphatically. "Look at me."

Read more.

Monday, May 11, 2009

The New York Times: Doctor Sounds Alarm Ahead of Tobacco Vote

For three decades, Dr. David M. Burns has written and edited some of the seminal work on tobacco science and the hazards of modern cigarettes: surgeon general’s reports, National Cancer Institute monographs, World Health Organization studies.

And he is hardly a dispassionate scientist. As a pulmonologist who has cared for hundreds of smokers who died of lung cancer, he is an unabashed campaigner against smoking.

That is why, with the Senate just weeks away from a vote on landmark legislation to regulate tobacco, Dr. Burns, 61, is now willing to sidestep the protocols of peer-reviewed science. He wants to sound one more alarm about the dangers of smoking.

Dr. Burns says he has new information, based on two years of study, indicating that cigarettes — even the supposedly safer ones — pose a much higher risk of lung cancer than before the surgeon general first declared them a health hazard in 1964.

He said the risk of a smoker’s developing lung cancer may be twice as high as it was then, even though tar and nicotine have been reduced.

Read more.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Moonlight and Magnolias Gala - sponsored by the American Cancer Society of Greenville








Moonlight and Magnolias Gala - Saturday, May 9th - Downtown Greenville

Your support of the American Cancer Society’s mission of health awareness, research, education, advocacy and service is vitally important. At the Moonlight & Magnolias Gala, we honor and celebrate cancer survivors who benefit from your generosity in beating this dreaded disease. These survivors inspire us with their courage, strength, and zest for life.

Visit with these marvelous individuals and hear their inspiring stories in the “Voices and Faces” section on their website: http://www.moonlightandmagnolias.com/index.php

Suggested Blogs

Kick Butts Today!