Is Cancer Research and Treatment Moving From Evolution To Revolution?

Discussion at a meeting of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) held in conjunction with the MD Anderson symposium mentioned above echoed a theme that I truly believe in: we have plenty of money "in the system" already to accomplish what we need to accomplish. How we parcel out that money is the issue. We waste so much, and we are charged so much, for things that don't work or aren't needed that to me it borders on the obscene. If we were more effective and efficient at what we do and how we do it, I firmly believe we could pay for what we need to pay for. As an example, I was asked this week about a recent draft report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality which reviewed the effectiveness of various tests to determine the origins of cancers where no primary site can be determined. The report came to the conclusion that these tests may work reasonably well when we already know what the primary cancer is, they have not really been demonstrated to show that they make a true difference in the outcomes of cancer treatments for patients when the primary source is unknown. How many of these tests are done, and at what cost, is not known to me. But if a test doesn't make a real difference (meaning substantially improving the quality or duration of life by directing a doctor to make a specific treatment choice) then why do it at all? One would not be wrong to ask the question of whether the test is even needed as we move from a world of the light microscop...
Source: Dr. Len's Cancer Blog - Category: Cancer Authors: Tags: Breast Cancer Cancer Care Colon Cancer Lung Cancer Media Medications Other cancers Prostate Cancer Research Treatment Source Type: blogs