Cancer Decisions - Free Newsletter

HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

Over my long career in the field of cancer I have seen many theories arrive in a blaze of glory only to be discredited and quietly discarded a short time later. By going to primary sources and carefully studying the scientific literature, I aim to provide my readers with the best possible synopsis of the current state of knowledge in the sphere of cancer prevention and treatment. My goal, and that of my organization, Cancer Communications, Inc., is to maintain the sort of consistent, reliably objective analytical standard that will allow my readers to make truly informed decisions.

In the past 30 years I have written and published extensively on the subject of cancer and its treatment, and have compiled a comprehensive series of more than 200 individual reports on different cancer diagnoses - The Moss Reports - each one of which examines both the standard treatment options that are likely to be offered for a particular cancer diagnosis, and the possible alternative and complementary approaches to that disease.

If you would like to purchase a Moss Report for yourself or someone you love, you can do so securely from our Web site (www.cancerdecisions.com), or by calling 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

PHONE CONSULTATIONS

I also offer phone consultations to clients who have bought a Moss Report. A phone consultation can be enormously helpful in drawing up a treatment strategy and getting one's options clearly prioritized. One client offered the following comment:

"For the past two and a half years I have battled breast cancer by natural and alternative methods, having done an in-depth research of all the options. Dr. Moss' support and the knowledge he has compiled have been an endless source of comfort. When I have reached different stages of my illness and I have found myself at a crossroads, I have called upon the advice of Dr. Ralph Moss as one of the only true sources of genuine information and personal care. Without his input, I would have been lost. He has done for me more than many of the private doctors that I have consulted and I certainly have experienced a deep feeling of care on a personal basis. That has been invaluable. I thank him from the bottom of my heart." - C.A.

To schedule an appointment for a phone consultation, please email: Jacquie@cancerdecisions.com, or call 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

We look forward to helping you.

CURRENT TOPICS

Our Current Topics reports are a series of in depth discussions focusing on subjects of importance in the field of cancer prevention and treatment. These reports, averaging 30 pages in length, can be purchased and downloaded directly from our Web site, www.cancerdecisions.com.

Choose from the following:

On Guard - Gardasil (A discussion of the anti-cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil)
Do Antioxidants and Chemotherapy Conflict?
Mammography, Biopsy and the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Herceptin or Deceptin? (An evaluation of the use of Herceptin in breast cancer)
Avastin: Your Money Or Your Life. (A clear-eyed look at the targeted drug Avastin)
The Politics of Hope: Andrew von Eschenbach and the Decline of the National Cancer Institute
The Mexican Cancer Clinics in the Era of Evidence-Based Medicine

AUDIO NEWSLETTER

To hear the audio version of the newsletter, please click or go to:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/audio/CD122307.mp3

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PODCAST

To hear the letter podcast on iTunes, please visit:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=215899747

If you do not have iTunes, you may also access our feed at:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/mossreports.rss

CHEMOTHERAPY FOR LUNG CANCER IN OLDER PATIENTS – INEFFECTIVE AND COSTLY

In another blow to the use of chemotherapy in the treatment of lung cancer, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in people 65 and older has a minimal impact on survival.

Rebecca M. Woodward, PhD, a former research associate at Harvard University, used US government data to calculate the life expectancy of patients after they received a diagnosis of lung cancer. She and her colleagues combined survival data with information from the government's Continuous Medicare History Sample File to calculate lifetime treatment costs.

Over the 15 year period between 1983 and 1997, the life expectancy for older NSCLC patients improved by an average of 0.6 months, or just 18 days. But the cost of treating such patients skyrocketed by $20,157 per patient. Medical economists judge the cost-effectiveness of a treatment by the standard yardstick of how much money it would take to increase survival by one year. The cost of treating lung cancer in this patient population comes to $403,142 per life-year. The more advanced the cancer, the more expensive each day or week of increased survival. Specifically, it costs $143,614 per life-year for localized lung cancer, $145,861 for regional lung cancer and a whopping $1,190,322 for metastatic NSCLC. Almost all the 18 days of extra survival achieved between 1983 and 1997 occurred in patients with localized cancer.

Cigarette smoking is of course the major cause of non-small cell lung cancer. Smoking cessation programs have an average price tag (in 1995 dollars) of $2,587 per life-year saved. Thus, preventing lung cancer is more than 100 times more cost effective than treating it! (Cromwell 1997)

Rebecca Woodward and her colleagues believe that the treatment of lung cancer should be reevaluated. "Given the number of patients affected and dollar values involved, a clear analysis and frank discussion of what has transpired in the big picture of cancer care is necessary to establish the background for our medical, political and economic discussions. Our results indicate that marked improvement has not occurred to date in the case of spending on non-small cell lung cancer treatment for those aged 65 and older," Dr. Woodward said.

The researchers also said caution should be used before encouraging more intensive care for patients with lung cancer without considering the impact that such interventions might have in terms of the cost, and the potentially deleterious effect of treatment on patients' quality of life.

Not everyone is ready for a frank discussion of chemotherapy's failures, however. Some authors have commented that recent advances in treating lung cancer - particularly two FDA approved drugs, Iressa and Tarceva - have radically altered this picture by making the treatment of NSCLC more effective.

"Treatment and supportive care have dramatically improved, as witnessed by arriving at second- and third-line treatments," Joseph Aisner, MD, chief medical officer at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey told the online journal, Hem/Onc Today (Brinson 2007).

But have these drugs really brought about a "dramatic improvement" in the treatment of lung cancer? In one clinical trial, the median survival in Tarceva-treated patients was 6.7 months compared with 4.7 months for patients in the placebo group; i.e., the actual gain in survival was 2 months. The time to pain progression was 2.79 months in the Tarceva-treated group vs. 1.91 months in the placebo group, a gain of about 3 weeks. And progression-free survival averaged 2.23 months in the Tarceva-treated group vs. 1.84 months in the placebo group, amounting to a gain of just 12 days. So at best we can expect that the addition of Tarceva may add an average of 2 months to the survival of patients with NSCLC, with a concomitant increase in adverse effects. (Whether the elderly population will respond in similar fashion remains to be seen.) As to Iressa, a 2004 clinical trial found "no added benefit" in survival when Iressa was compared to standard chemotherapy alone (Herbst 2004).

The failure of chemotherapy in NSCLC reminds us that there is still an urgent need for effective preventive strategies as well as for a vigorous exploration of non-conventional approaches to treating the disease.

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Brinson, Brandy. Lung cancer treatments may not be cost-effective. Spending on treatment in the United States has risen but survival has not improved. Hem/Onc Today, December 2007. Accessed December 14, 2007 from:
http://www.hemonctoday.com/200712/lung.asp

Cromwell J, Bartosch WJ, Fiore MC, Hasselblad V, Baker T. Cost-effectiveness of the clinical practice recommendations in the AHCPR guideline for smoking cessation. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. JAMA. 1997;278:1759-1766.

Woodward RM, Brown ML, Stewart ST, et al. The value of medical interventions for lung cancer in the elderly. Cancer. 2007 1;110(11):2511-8.

For our previous newsletter on Tarceva, see:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/062704.html

**NOTE** To view this page in a more printable format, please CLICK HERE.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.