Science blogger deflates sensationalism of "Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice" story - Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog

"....So we have one popular account that is badly written and makes exaggerated claims. There is also a university press release, the source for the sloppy popular account, that doesn't contain the egregious stupidities but does tend to inflate basic research studies into an unwarranted clinical significance. And then, of course, there are the actual peer reviewed papers that describe the research and rationale, and also the reservations, on DCA. It's like a game of telephone: you can actually trace the account from the sober science paper to the enthusiastic press release to the web account with its extravagant claims of a simple, cheap cure for cancer, and see how the story is gradually corrupted. It would be funny if the final result wasn't going to dupe a lot of desperate people.

But there is a germ of truth to the story, in that DCA does have potential.
...
We should be urging further investigation of this promising drug with the beginning of clinical trials, but it's far too early to be babbling about "cancer cures". There have been lots of drugs that look great in the lab and have excellent rationales for why they should work, but the reality of cancer is that it is complicated and diverse and there are many more pitfalls between a drug that poisons cancer cells in a petri dish and a drug that actually works well in the more complex environment of a human being."

Predicting longevity and curing cancer — quackery, or mere exaggeration? > Facts & Fears > ACSH (re: DCA)

.....In another example of scientific distortion at least bordering on quackery that has infiltrated the media, a Fox News LiveScience blog chastises big pharma for their alleged reluctance to engage in cancer research involving a chemical known as dichloroacetate (DCA), due to their inability to patent it, thereby eliminating the profit motive. The piece chronicles the work of Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, a cancer researcher at the University of Alberta, whose claims that DCA can kill cancer cells are based solely on test tube experiments, animal testing and an extremely small clinical trial he conducted, which was composed of only five patients. Though even he admitted that “with the small number of treated participants in our study, no firm conclusions regarding DCA as a therapy…can be made,” he still attacks pharmaceutical companies for not investing in further research.

But not so fast. As Gary Schwitzer points out on his site, healthnewsreview.org, wherein he links to another blogger’s exposé of the DCA-conspiracy theory, the claims regarding DCA as an effective cancer treatment have been largely exaggerated: since there have been no clinical trials using the chemical, there is no basis for the researchers to allude to a cure.

And even if the claims were true, pharmaceutical companies actually could obtain protection via a “use patent.” This permits patent protection for old products (or drugs) where a new use has been discovered, explains ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom. “So this whole story is chock full of misinformation," he observes. "What is more likely is that Dr. Michelakis approached drug companies and they were just not interested.”...."

media: Is Big Pharma Ignoring a Potential Cancer Cure? - FoxNews.com (DCA/University of Alberta)

"......A new drug model

Small trials and case studies won't be enough, however, to prove DCA works. Further investigation into the drug's efficacy is necessary, and without the help of Big Pharma, it will have to happen in an unusual way.

"This could be a social experiment where the public funds these trials," Michelakis said. "After discovering the effect of DCA on cancer cells, I consider this the second-biggest achievement of our work: when we showed that you can bring a drug to human trials without a lot of money. If others were inspired" — his group is beginning to establish collaborations with some prominent cancer hospitals —"this could be a major achievement. Eventually the federal bodies like the National Cancer Institute would see there is enough evidence, and then they'll help with funding."

"It represents a new attitude and a new way of thinking," he added......"

full free access: Dual Pathway Inhibitor Shows Broad Activity in Multiple Tumor Types - Medscape

full free access: Informa Healthcare -Review Clinical burden of venous thromboembolism

Conclusions:

Even among high-risk groups it is not possible to identify individuals who will go on to develop VTE, and, therefore, thromboprophylaxis is a recommended component of the management of high-risk patients. Ensuring patients receive safe, effective, easily administered antithrombotic therapy both in hospital and post-discharge, for a sufficient length of time, should be central to any strategy to reduce incident or recurrent VTE and minimise the risk of long-term complications.

Patient's Opinion: Molecular Profiling

Both Jean Mckibben and Debbie Bozsa post on ACOR (Mailing List - Ovarian Cancer) about molecular profiling at The Clearity Foundation and their website:www.clearityfoundation.org multiple times this year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I had my 4^th debulking surgery on 3/3/11 for my 5^th recurrence. Initially, I did not think about to do molecular profiling because I thought it will need a lot paper work, energy and money to do it.  When you go through lot of treatments for ovarian cancer, you feel that every minute counts down your life, and you just want to spend time and money for something enjoyable. Jean encouraged me to do the molecular profiling when we exchanged email privately.  I sent in my request for the test on 3/16/11, and I got my partial result in a month, and the final result on 5/16/11. I highly recommend the test. After my surgery, my chemotherapy choice was Doxil or Topotecan.  I tried Doxil first, and then molecular profiling showed I am benefit from Doxil, not benefit from Topotecan. Now my doctor treats me with the confidence based on those biomarkers. My CA125 has been going down with 2 treatments although I have skin rash and lesions due to the side effects of Doxil.

When you go to Clearity Foundation web site, there are 3 parts.

1. Caris Life Science: They do Target Now biomarkers for drugs including: paclitaxel/docetaxel, cisplatin/carboplatin, trastuzumab, letrozole, tamoxifen, doxorubicin, topotecan/irinotecan and temozolomide. They will tell you from which drug you may benefit, which not, based on your biomarkers. There is an 11 page report sent to your doctor, including biomarker description and reference. They send the bill to insurances and patients. 

2. Clarient, Inc:  They do more tests for biomarkers to compare your biomarkers to other ovarian cancer patients in their Diane Barton Database. Dr. Laura Shawver, the founder of The Clearity Foundation, will email the result to you and call you to explain the result, and may suggest some new target therapy or clinical trials. The Clarient test will be paid by Clearity Foundation. 

3. The Clearity Foundation: They help people to pay the test cost if patients have no insurance or their insurances do not pay for the test.  They have a one page grant application for patients to complete, and can approve the application by email in one day.  People working at The Clearity Foundation are very friendly and helpful. Please call 1-855-856-0654 if you have any question.  

Please know that molecular profiling is different from tumor sensitivity or resistant assay.  Tumor sensitivity or resistant assay uses fresh tissue to culture tumor cells, add different chemo drugs, and then sees which chemo drug  kills them (cancer cells).  When I had my 3^th debulking surgery for my 4^th recurrence one year ago, my doctor sent for a tumor resistant assay. However, I did not get any result from the test because my tumor cells did not grow in their cell culture. The molecular profiling test uses tumor samples from biopsy or surgery in paraffin sections. The samples do not need to be fresh, can be a few years old. They do special staining to find biomarkers."

Yi

Physicians’ Group Targets Inappropriate Tests, Treatments « news@JAMA

The top 5 lists will be distributed to all alliance physicians in their respective primary care specialties. The alliance is also planning to produce videos for patients that explain the rationale for the recommendations by showing that risks outweigh benefits for these interventions for at least some patients, and make clear the link between overuse and health insurance premium hikes.

Genetic Alliance Webinar - Suffering from Information Overload? Know When to Trust It or Trash It

Genetic Alliance Webinars offer information and discussion on a variety of topics, including hot-button issues in genetics and advocacy, public policy, and organizational development. Genetic Alliance presents a new webinar at least once a month.
Suffering from Information Overload? Know When to Trust It or Trash It
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12 noon - 1:00 PM

How Will States and the Feds Align Medicaid and Subsidized Health Care? The Commonwealth Fund

Breast Cancer Risk Calculator Updated for Asian-Americans - NIH Research Matters - National Institutes of Health (NIH)

"...The new model can assess risk separately for American women who identify themselves as Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander or other Asian. Compared with the AABCS, the researchers found, the original assessment tool overestimated risk for Chinese and Filipino women, and underestimated risk for Hawaiian women....."