Cancer research

The life expectancy of people with cancer has gone up because of these researchers. 40 years ago getting most cancers was a death sentence, a quick death sentence. These researchers are unsung heroes.

Coach wrote:

The life expectancy of people with cancer has gone up because of these researchers. 40 years ago getting most cancers was a death sentence, a quick death sentence. These researchers are unsung heroes.

Much of the progress against cancer in recent decades has stemmed from successes in the areas of prevention and control.

What is that quality of life for those folks who are awarded a few extra years? Ever been thru multiple rounds of chemo, radiation etc? Let me start a 5K and throw you a few grand for an answer. I ran a 2:25 at NYC once, never smoked and do not have a family history of cancer, yet my wife's father died 30 years ago of the same thing and I am approaching the same diagnosis/terminal date he experienced. 30 years and we are in the same boat only I have higher health care cost and perhaps higher thread count sheets in my semi private room.

Trying to stick it out to see my daughter graduate and get married but probably won't be able to walk the aisle with her.

Sorry to hear about your diagnosis. A great film to watch is called Food Matters.

Not saying you got the cancer from diet , but diet can help.

Some cancers are having more success. If you don't mind, what cancer is it?

very sorry to hear about your diagnosis. I hope the prognosis takes a turn for the better for you.

just wanted to weigh in with a slightly different perspective on a couple of these issues, though.

"multitudes of charities throwing donations at you and even more government grants to fund your research....but NEVER ever questioned where the money is going or has gone" is not realistic. I've had NCI grants and private cancer foundation as well [not an MD -- i'm a psychologist], and (a) it's very competitive, and (b) they most definitely follow up on what happens with the research and how the money was spent.

As to not making headway, I think that depends a lot on type of cancer, as well as what's meant by cure or progress. My main focus is cigarette smoking cessation, and there's been a lot of headway over past 50 years in that regard [granted, not all because of cessation research -- much or most credit to public health campaigns, taxes on cigarettes, etc. etc.], with resulting positive effect on lung cancer rates among other diseases.

Also, I had testicular cancer in 2001 and survival rates had improved tremendously by then compared with 30 or 40 years earlier, thanks to research.

Best wishes and good luck with your medical care,

Dave

I have never experienced cancer but I have watched some of my family members fight their respective diseases. Ten years ago my aunt died of lung cancer addicted to painkillers as her treatments burned her lungs. My mother, also a smoker, recently survived her second lung cancer surgery and we are grateful that she is still around. Her treatment was very different. My sister just finished her 3rd chemo treatment for a form of lymphoma. Her prognosis isn't great but doctors say her cancer is treatable. The cocktails she's taking are apparently different than others. That's the beauty of how research has progressed, you can treat people differently based on their specific disease and genetics.

Sorry about your plight and I understand why you're angry but research has come along way and will continue to get better, if not for you than for your children.

I disagree about entities 'throwing' money at researchers. I heard from one researcher who said they spend about 80% of their time writing grant proposals, and maybe one in 20 of those might get funded. This person is chair of a department at an NCI center. To me, this is a huge waste of their time and knowledge.

Cancer is complex. Some breast tumors differ from cell to cell, and drug resistance can develop relatively quickly (after a few treatment cycles). That said, having spoken with a pediatric oncologist, they said that most of the gains in the past 20 years were due to scheduling and dosing, so new drugs are not always what show improved outcomes.

For me, one of my three lymphomas, Hodgkin's lymphoma, has a high cure rate using drugs that have been around for decades. However, if Hodgkin's returns it is difficult to treat with drugs, in which case stem cell transplants can be life saving, and in my case, curative for Follicular lymphoma that has no known drug cure. Transplants though are high risk, often due to infections .... beating the cancer but succumbing to an infection is not uncommon. So drugs and complimentary treatments are both important.

My personal interests, which many of you runners might identify with, is how does the timing of exercise affect cancer treatments? We all probably have a pre-race routine: meal the night before, plus coffee, water, bathroom, and stretching the morning of a competition. There really isn't this for cancer treatments, but could it help, or harm? An excellent review was recently published if you can get access: Exercise Is Medicine, But Does It Interfere

With Medicine?

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-essr/Abstract/2017/07000/Exercise_Is_Medicine,_But_Does_It_Interfere_With.3.aspx

From the article: Future Perspectives

"This review highlights the physiological changes to acute and chronic exercise that have, in our opinion, a well-founded potential for a direct effect on drug pharmacokinetics (PK). This review provides an update of the most influential Exercise-PK interactions and introduces the topics of subacute and chronic exercise adaptations that also could affect PK. The magnitude of the exercise-induced changes in many of these variables is extreme compared with the changes observed in disease or injury states that many drugs are prescribed to treat, which makes it all the more surprising that Exercise-PK interactions have received such limited attention.

As we encourage exercise in more at-risk and special populations that also are ingesting drugs regularly (e.g., cancer patients, psychiatric patients), the rationale for appropriately titrated drug doses becomes all the more important, particularly for drugs with narrow therapeutic windows. Moreover, the extreme physiological perturbations to acute exercise typically experienced on a regular basis by athletes pose lots of questions about drug efficacy and safety for this population as well. This brief review should motivate others to explore Exercise-PK interactions with a view to clarifying and improving drug efficacy and safety."

Immunotherapies look to be promising since cancers develop ways to avoid detection by our immune systems. Reprogramming our own immune system to overcome this, or using immune cells from donors in new ways are also being developed. Steve Keith, the women's XC & Track coach at Vanderbilt just had a second stem cell transplant using something relatively new called a haplo transplant, which used half strands of his brother's DNA (if I understand this correctly). Additionally, lactate at the lactate threshold also affects Natural Killer cells, part or our innate immune system that responds quickly to cancerous cells. Exercise plays a preventative role in cancer, but perhaps too intense exercise for too many years might have the opposite affect on immune cells, we just don't know yet. Stress can be good as we adapt to it, but chronic stress can exhaust subsets of the immune system.

Lastly, I do think some charity runners grossly misunderstand their funding efforts. There is some fudge room on these figures, but here's an example. A large marathon charges charities $400 just for the charity bib (registration is separate), and a charity may require a minimum of $3,000 be raised by the runner for the bib. One payment processor associated with events charges 12%, deduct a charity funded race kit, bus to the start, maybe a group dinner, start line coffee, etc. and perhaps another $100 +/- is spent. According to The American Cancer Society's (ACS) 2014 IRS Form 990 (Part II line 4a / Part I line 12) they spent ~ 17% on research.

https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/online-documents/en/pdf/policies/acspc-045866.pdf

The percentage goes up if prevention and support programs are included (62%). Doing the math: $3,000 - $360 (processor) - $400 (charity bib charge) - $100 (miscellaneous) = $2,140 x 17% = $363.80 toward RESEARCH, using ACS in this example. That's only 12% of the $3,000 minimum actually going to research. However, the more one raises the better the net is, but this isn't including the costs, if any, of getting to and from and staying in a marathon city. I'd rather see more research labs with direct deposits, but then again, most people wouldn't know who to send their money to, so cancer foundations can serve a purpose.

By the way, Brian Druker, M.D., who was instrumental in development of the best cancer drug to date, Gleevec, is a runner. He's also Director of the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health Sciences University, and yes, it's that Knight, Nike co-founder Phil Knight. It was interesting reading not too long ago some of the anti-Nike posts on LetsRun while at the same time seeing ads on the homepage of LetsRun for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society that had Dr. Druker's picture in them.

We're all in this together!

Ken Martin

Survivor: Hodgkin's, Follicular, and Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphomas

2013 Allogeneic stem cell transplant recipient

3:57.81 mile

2:09:38 marathon

exercise-oncology advocate

50% of the money that I donate goes to cancer research. To me this is the best way to find a cure. I pick a reputable organization that has a very high rating and appears to have some success over the years. The organization claims that 100% of the funds donated goes to cancer research. Are some of the researchers well paid? Probably. Is there waste in the organization? Probably. But I do believe they have made progress and will continue to make progress. I

My question to you is, what is the alternative? For someone that wants to help find cures, what is a better way to find a cure?

There is no cure, will not be a cure found in my short lifetime or hopefully you're long live time.

Point I was striving for was that billions have been spent on research and billions more will be spent and who is held accountable. If we went to a research chemist/MD and proposed a 50% pay cut if a cure not found would they leave their profession? I am not saying they are milking the system. What if we capped NBA salaries at 100K a season, how many would keep playing. Could a one & done pro survive on 100k? what else could they do? Every year salaries rise at a faster rate than results.

Yes, I am bitter. I am a shell of a man and refuse to look into a mirror and hesitate to have friends visit expecting to see the "old" me. Wishing cancer on anyone is the worst.

Moco Runner wrote:

The organization claims that 100% of the funds donated goes to cancer research.

Did you verify this?

My question to you is, what is the alternative? For someone that wants to help find cures, what is a better way to find a cure?

Put engineers in charge of cancer research programs. Biomedical people have had their chance and largely failed. They have spent more than a half a trillion dollars over 50 years for marginal improvements. The cancer death rate has hardly budged.

In a war on cancer, the cancer has won. It is time to bring in more engineers who are trained to actually solve complex problems instead of just studying them.

I think we should be crowd-sourcing research in some way. Award massive prizes for major gains, not just awarding $$ ahead of time.

First off, I wish you the best in your cancer battle. It is undoubtedly draining and hard to stay positive with no cure in sight, but there is always hope as there are cancer breakthroughs all the time (yes not cures, but as you know there will likely never be a single "cure" for cancer as unfortunately that is not how the disease works). My father had diffuse large B cell lymphoma last year and I know how hard it was for him so I really do wish you the best. Im curious (don't feel the need to answer this if you don't want to), what type of cancer do you have and what therapies have you tried?

In regards to the theme of this thread however, I would say that cancer research has been so unfruitful because of the nature of the research being conducted. Cancer as a disease is incredibly complicated with hundreds of signaling pathways, thousands of proteins, and many thousands of mutations all working together to cause cancer. It is essentially a different disease for every person that gets it and for this reason alone it is incredibly hard to treat. On top of this, we don't know what many of these mutations will do (in terms of protein expression, response to therapies, etc.). And this is all on top of the fact that there are an unknown amount of genes and mutations that could affect how someone develops cancer/responds to treatment that scientists have not even discovered.

Unfortunately cancer research isn't one of those areas where you can find one drug that will treat everybody as differing mutations (even within the same cancer "type) can cause a wide variety of responses from complete remission to complete resistance. Clinical trials often don't work because of these reasons, not because they are completely invalid- I assure you that thousands of hours of work have gone into every clinical trial and real promise has been shown in animal models before it gets tested on humans.

Now in regards to how much researchers get paid, most people working in a lab get payed a decent amount (nothing crazy) but generally all full time staff have md's or phd's. This means that they spent a lot more time in school and spent a lot more money than the average person (which means less time to earn money over the course of their career). They are also more knowledgeable in that area, so I think it is reasonable that they make more money than the average joe. The people who make a lot of money in labs are generally the heads of the lab or principal investigators who can make several hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions I suppose at large research universities. This is generally because they have the ability to get many grants that add equivalent value to the institution (in terms of recognition, monetarily through donations, etc.). Also researchers don't just deposit the money from chairities and grants into their own bank accounts, that's honestly a bit ridiculous, although I understand why you are cynical.

I'm sure you already know most of this and are just venting because you are frustrated at the lack of results and I completely get where you are coming from. I would look into any promising immunotherapy/personalized medicine trials if you can as I think those are the research areas with the most promise in the future.

I wish you the best of luck

Ken Martin ,

Glad to hear you are still with us !

Was thinking about you the last few years and was afraid to google your name .

You were the most versatile runner we have ever had - keep that spirit !

Been dealing with prostate cancer the last 5 years (am 56 now ) , but the cure is sometimes worse than the disease .

In no way I equate with what you are going through , but I will never be the same . Running is pretty much done - incontinence , peripheral neuropathy , psoriasis ( aka irradiated skin ) .

You know the deal .

To other poster looking to see daughter graduate ; keep fighting .

God Bless

I really feel for you friend. I hope you make it to walk your daughter down the aisle, I really do. Hang in there!

moneymoneymoney wrote:

What is that quality of life for those folks who are awarded a few extra years? Ever been thru multiple rounds of chemo, radiation etc? Let me start a 5K and throw you a few grand for an answer. I ran a 2:25 at NYC once, never smoked and do not have a family history of cancer, yet my wife's father died 30 years ago of the same thing and I am approaching the same diagnosis/terminal date he experienced. 30 years and we are in the same boat only I have higher health care cost and perhaps higher thread count sheets in my semi private room.

Trying to stick it out to see my daughter graduate and get married but probably won't be able to walk the aisle with her.

There are several massive obstacles to finding cures for cancer.

1. The FDA prevents promising therapies from being tested unless they are represented by Big Pharma. You and I cannot find a "cure" in the garage and present it to the FDA for testing.

2. Big Pharma has a major financial disincentive to find a cure. Why cure a disease with one or two treatments when you can patent a drug to "manage" it and sell that drug to the patient for the rest of his or his lifetime.

3. Big Pharma can't patent natural plants and herbals, so there is no financial incentive to research promising herbs, like cannabis, for example, as possible cancer cures.

4. Big Charity claims to seek cures, but if you look at their financial statements, they often spend more on administration (i.e, salaries and perks) than they do on research. Even the research portion of their claimed spending is suspect because research can hide many non-research expenditures.

5. The FDA further stands in the way of research by preventing patients from taking experimental drugs, even when the drug has been proven to be safe for humans.

Read this before you donate any money to the American Cancer Society.

http://gothamgr.com/how-american-cancer-society-uses-your-money/

I'll chime in - this summer I've been an intern in a fairly large cancer research lab and have learned a ton about it. Ken - I actually work near Dr. Druker!

I'd say cancer is research has expanded our biological knowledge greatly and spurred the incredible improvements in sequencing technology and analysis(and other fields too... That's what happens when lots of smart people get together). At the very least cancer research is the space race if biology in terms of semi-related impacts

Cancer is still a tough disease to fight, but plenty advances have been made in terms of knowledge and treatment... 10 years ago we were light years away from where we are now. A few forms of cancer are "cured" and early

detection/education has saved many lives.

I think precision treatment is super promising, but the insurance companies often won't pay for full DNA or RNA sequencing, or other useful assays. It's also hard for clinic trials to get off the ground when they are treating patients who have exhausted "standard of care" treatments. Regulatory requirements are also a huge roadblock... Look up the WINTHER clinical trial. Immunotherapy also presents a recent advances that can translate to improved outcomes.

I don't know if I really added anything of value, but I think it's unfair to say that the researchers aren't doing anything.

Best of luck to the OP.

Every point you made is ill-informed and sophomoric. Point 5 also contradicts your points 2 and 3 by suggesting that there are indeed good treatments available.

moneymoneymoney wrote:

Unlimited funding for a job that requires zero results. Multitudes of charities throwing donations at you and even more government grants to fund your research.....but NEVER ever questioned where the money is going or has gone.

As a postdoc in biomedical research trying to start my own lab in 2-3 years, let me say..lolol. Please direct me to all these funding agencies you speak of here!