May 16, 2008

Wishful Thinking and Procrastination Play Role in Delays of Cancer Treatment

Tara Parker-Pope discusses a Tower Cancer Research Foundation survey of 500 cancer survivors that showed more than half of them delaying treatment for two months or more after having symptoms. Fifteen percent delayed treatment for one to five years.

Some delayed treatment because of lack of medical insurance, or insufficiency of coverage.

But others had emotional reasons for the delay: a third of them put it down to procrastination, and the most commonly cited reason was that they were hoping the symptoms would just go away. Fear also played a role. Many patients simply did not want to be told the worst. These feelings are obviously natural, but acting on them can prevent the early diagnosis and treatment that saves the lives of so many cancer patients.

March 21, 2008

Lawsuit Settled in Missed Colon Cancer Diagnosis

Recently on this blog, we discussed the difficulty of diagnosing colon cancer and the problems that can ensue from rushing the colonoscopy procedure.

A lawsuit over just such a missed diagnosis due to a hastily-performed procedure has been settled between the Endoscopy Center in Nevada, one of its doctors and a former patient who now is unlikely to survive the next five years. From the article:

Kevin Rexford, a 46-year-old pharmacist, said Dr. Clifford Carrol, one of the clinic’s owners, missed a obvious colon cancer diagnosis three years ago. The alleged failure allowed the cancer to spread throughout his body and he now has only about a 10 percent chance of living five more years. Rexford is married with two young children....Experts who were paid to review the case on Rexford’s behalf said Carrol took only three minutes — half the minimum recommended time — to examine Rexford’s colon for cancer during a Jan. 28, 2005, procedure. His missed diagnosis allowed the cancer to progress to an incurable stage, the experts said.

The consequences of such haste are clearly severe and patients should be aware of the risks, as we said in our earlier post.

The Endoscopy Center has also been in the news recently because it was shut down earlier this month because it was linked to six cases of hepatitis C.

March 7, 2008

Easy-to-Miss Lesions Most Likely To Turn Cancerous

A new study of colonoscopy suggests that flat, hard-to-spot lesions in the colon are the most likely to become cancerous.

American doctors have been aware of these lesions for a couple of decades. But until recently, there was little reason to think that they were dangerous when occurring in America, although studies done in Japan did reveal dangers. This new American study showed that flat or indented lesions were five times as likely to be cancerous than as polyps, which are much easier for doctors to spot.

From the article:

People who have just had a colonoscopy should not rush to schedule another one just to look for the flat growths, doctors said.

“I don’t think people have to panic that they’ve somehow been neglected and had poor care,” said Dr. David A. Rothenberger, deputy chairman of surgery at the University of Minnesota.

But he and other experts emphasized that people should see a doctor any time they have persisting symptoms that could indicate colon cancer, like rectal bleeding or a change in bowel habits — no matter how recently they had a colonoscopy. The test is highly reliable, but not perfect, doctors say.

Furthermore, some doctors have a hard time spotting even polyps: as the article says, a December 2006 study showed that some doctors are 10 times better than others at finding pre-cancerous polyps, and the difference largely had to do with whether the doctor took care doing the procedure or attempted to rush things.

Unfortunately, it is always difficult and often impossible to find a doctor's track record on this issue. Again, from the article:

The difficulty facing patients is how to be sure their doctors are doing a good job. Professional groups have issued guidelines about the best way to perform a colonoscopy, but they are recommendations, not rules. The groups also urge doctors to track their own success rates at finding precancerous growths to see how they measure up to standards, but even if they do keep track, the doctors do not have to share the data with anyone. And many people are loath to ask about it. The doctor wielding the scope is the last person most patients would want to offend.

“The patient really has no way to act as an informed consumer,” Dr. Smith said. “You can’t call up a facility and say, ‘By the way, is my doctor any good?’ or, ‘Tell me who the best one is.’ ”

It is important to remember that not all doctors are offended by questions about their track records, and that giving offense is less important than safe-guarding your own health. This is especially true if you have a choice of which doctor to go to, because that way you will not be stuck with a health care provider who might have been offended by your inquiries.


February 8, 2008

Scientists Conceal Raw Data from Cancer Studies

Most scientists are extremely unwilling to part with the raw data of the studies they perform on cancer and other life-threatening illnesses.

The author of the article speculates that this reluctance is due to convenience and careerism, specifically the fear of having others (especially layfolk) analyze their work and possibly find flaws in it. This may be an uncharitable speculation but it is difficult to disagree with, especially when one considers the pathetic reasons scientists cite for hiding their data. From the article:

Dr John Kirwan, a rheumatologist from the University of Bristol in England, has studied researchers’ attitudes on sharing data from clinical trials. He found that three-quarters of researchers he surveyed, as well as a major industry group, opposed making original trial data available. It is worth restating this finding: most scientists doing research on how best to help those in pain, or at risk of death, want to keep their data a secret.

Dr. Kirwan went on to ask his subjects why. Their reasons were entirely trivial: one cited the difficult of putting together a data set (wouldn’t this have to be done anyway in order to publish a paper?); another was concerned that the data might be analyzed using invalid methods (surely a judgment for the scientific community as a whole). This is something of a clue that the real issue here has more to do with status and career than with any loftier considerations. Scientists don’t want to be scooped by their own data, or have someone else challenge their conclusions with a new analysis.

As the author points out, however, new analyses are exactly what cancer patients (and patients in general) need. We all need all the information available that pertains to our health, so we can look at it and think about it and use it to safeguard ourselves. This reluctance to part with information is contrary to the spirit of scientific openness and inquiry. It is also unsafe and unfair to patients.

January 25, 2008

Pill Reduces Ovarian Cancer Risk

Oral contraceptives significantly reduce risks of ovarian cancer in women, says a new large-scale study. The pill has been linked to reduction in breast cancer rates as well, but not so large as the reduction in ovarian cancer rates.

The risk reduction persists up to thirty years after a woman stops taking the pill, although it declines with time. The risk reduction is also stronger in women who take it for long periods of time.

Furthermore, as the linked article says:

The proportional risk reduction for every 5 years of use was 29 per cent up to 10 years of stopping use, 19 per cent for 10 - 19 years after stopping, and 15 per cent for 20 - 29 years after stopping.
November 29, 2007

New Factors for Breast Cancer Risk for African-American Women

When breast cancer experts recently reassessed their risk-evaluation formulas, they found that they were significantly underestimating the risks for African-American women.

This reevaluation is likely to result in changes in counseling for women in this demographic, including more recommendations to go for mammograms and more encouragement to sign up for studies of breast cancer. This last change is highly important, as assessments of lower risk based on the old formulas meant that African-American women were not selected for studies such as prevention trials. More mammograms and participation in studies will lead to more early detection and prevention, hopefully reducing the number of women who believe themselves to be perfectly healthy and are then blindsided by a breast cancer diagnosis.

Reassessments like this highlight the necessity of researching diverse populations, to make sure that patient care is not compromised by ignorance of group-specific risk factors.

The abstract of this study can be found here: Projecting Individualized Absolute Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in African American Women

August 17, 2007

Cancer Panel Critiques U.S. Government for Lack of Illness-Prevention

The President's Cancer Panel--consisting of Lance Armstrong, Dr. Margaret Kripke and Dr. LaSalle D. Leffall--says, in its new report, that the U.S. government should be doing more to promote environments and lifestyles that prevent cancer and other diseases.

Part of the report's argument is that most federal funding for cancer research goes towards genetic and microbiological solutions, and that macro-solutions involving environmental and social factors are neglected. This is part of a general problem in the philosophy of health care in the U.S., the report says: we are overly focused on treatment rather than prevention.

Of course treatments are important, but the report is right in its criticism of the neglect of the concept of a healthy lifestyle in U.S. health care. Making such lifestyles possible would require social changes as well as personal changes--which may be one reason why the government and our society finds it more convenient to focus on treatment, as treatment will not require systemic overhaul of society. It is more tempting to try and simply patch people up with treatments rather than take the time and effort to ensure that fewer people get sick in the first place.

Here are some examples of environmental and social factors that the report considers responsible for poor American health: lack of fresh food access, lack of access to healthy food in general (for those in poorer socioeconomic conditions), large subsidies to producers of corn and so which are processed into foods that contribute to various diseases, lack of opportunity to exercise and lack of health insurance.

August 3, 2007

Cancer Patients Face Confusing Obstacles and Inconsistent Treatment

A diagnosis of cancer puts a patient in an extremely frightening and vulnerable position. Unfortunately, there is often little aid for people in this situation. Instead, they are presented with bureaucratic hurdles and confusion about whose advice to follow.

For an example, one could look at the July 29th, 2007 New York Times Magazine section which had an article describing the story of one such cancer patient named Karen Pasqualetto.

There are several insights that can be gleaned from such experiences. First, there is the need for patients to seek second and third opinions—a need that usually goes unfulfilled because most people do not have the insurance or financial resources to cover this.

Second, patients need to educate themselves on standards of care, because otherwise they probably will not be getting it—particularly if they are not white or are low-income. See the National Healthcare Disparities Report from 2005 for disparities related to race and socioeconomic status. The ScienceDaily also has an article about racial bias resulting in poorer treatment for African-American patients.

Third, there are enormous advantages to having a team of doctors who speak to each other rather than a bunch of disconnected specialists who offer competing and contradictory advice. Patients should encourage communication between doctors as much as possible.

Fourth, visiting centers for the study of particular kinds of cancer can be extremely helpful, especially when dealing with the more obscure varieties of the disease. These centers have the aid and cooperation of several doctors, so the opinions given there are more likely to reflect a consensus of experts.