On the cancer front

06/06/2010

Most people forget that 1/more than half the people in the US who develop cancer survive five years or more, and that 2/nonmelanoma skin cancer and lung cancer (not breast or prostate) are still the prevalent cancers in this country. Here are two important cancer stories from this week’s New York Times, in case you missed them.

Important leap forward in treating a certain type of lung cancer and melanoma:
Scientists Cite Advances on Two Kinds of Cancer, by Andrew Pollack, June 5,2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/health/research/06cancer.html?hpw

A (very) little bit of cancer (or none) can be a good thing:
A scare, a scar, a silver lining, by Nicholas D. Kristof, June 4, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/opinion/06kristof.html?hp

Comments

Citizen K. link

06/08/2010 10:38

Speaking as a cancer survivor and as one who has done plenty of cancer volunteer work, I have to say that it's easy for a New York Times' columnist with money and insurance to find inspiration in a lucky break. His process alone -- without the cancer -- would come close to breaking many families.

Last November, I fell and broke my wrist. After the emergency room, the surgery, the followup visits, and the rehab, the pre-insurance bills totaled about 25K. Think about cancer surgery followed full-blown chemo and radiation would run and you might see why many of us regard the new health care law as a success even if it's not single-payer.

Kristof has a point about one thing, though: Don't smoke. Lung cancer would be almost nonexistent if it weren't for smoking. He's got a point about sunscreen, too, especially for children.

Kathleen Scott link

06/09/2010 13:03

A gGood reminder, Paula, to practice prevention. There is no such thing as a good cancer.

Nance link

06/23/2010 19:42

I saw the article on the breakthrough's in treatment. I have a friend who is a cancer survivor who is wholly cynical about cancer research and the ACS, believing that there simply isn't the incentive to treat cancer successfully because the segment of the population needing cancer meds at any given time is inadequate to generate the kinds of profits that drug companies insist upon if they are to capitalize R&D. If so, that hurts to know! In light of the possibility that she's right, I am grateful for every little bit of progress that squeaks through the system undeterred.