Even With Changes, NCI Always Moving Forward

The Director’s Update in the October 4, 2005 edition of the NCI Cancer Bulletin highlights some of the leadership changes at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and how these changes will help NCI maintain its forward progress toward the 2015 goal to eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer by the year 2015.

NCI Director Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach started the article by stating:

>Last week brought with it an important change at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), with my appointment as interim commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by President Bush. And as I said at the time, I will maintain my position as NCI director and my ultimate commitment to the 2015 goal.

>To ensure that the many ambitious initiatives and programs we have launched to reach that goal continue to progress, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has asked Dr. John Niederhuber, who recently came to NCI as deputy director for translational and clinical sciences, to serve as the NCI chief operating officer to handle much of the institute’s day-to-day management.

Dr. von Eschenbach closed his remarks by saying:

>While their missions may differ somewhat, NCI and FDA, along with the other government health agencies, share a common goal of improving public health. I am committed to leading FDA through this time of transition and fulfilling my responsibilities to NCI.

>Change is never easy, but with good people and a dedication to success, I have no doubt we can come through it for the better.

Read Dr. von Eschenbach’s article in the October 4, 2004 edition of NCI Cancer Bulletin.

Posted by Dusty Weaver on October 4th, 2005
Posted in: Policy & Advocacy News | No Comments »

NCI Director Featured in First “Understanding NCI” Teleconference Series

The National Cancer Institute’s Office of Liaison Activities first monthly teleconference in a new “Understanding NCI” series was a resounding success. Over 100 members of cancer advocacy organizations, survivors, family, and friends participated in the teleconference which included a question and answer period. NCI Director Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach spoke about “Eliminating Suffering and Death Due to Cancer by 2015: The Future of Cancer Research.” The call was moderated by Mr. Doug Ulman who chairs the NCI Director’s Consumer Liaison Group (DCLG). He also addressed the question “What is the role of the advocacy community in the future of cancer research?” DCLG Member Col. (Ret.) Jim Williams set the tone for the teleconference with remarks on “What I’ve learned about cancer research as an advocate and member of the DCLG.”

This teleconference is available in its entirety by calling toll-free 1-866-443-2931. The instant replay will be available until October 20, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. (EST). For more information on this and other teleconferences in the series please go here.

Posted by Dusty Weaver on October 4th, 2005
Posted in: Policy & Advocacy News | No Comments »

Comparing bowel preparation for colonoscopy — do you need a gallon?

“The procedure was nothing at all . . . it was the prep that was awful.” A common response to colonoscopy which we hear many times.

Recent randomized research showed low volume sodium phosphate solution cleaned the bowel as effectively and was much higher in patient acceptance than the large volume PEG solutions.

In an effort to compare both effective bowel cleansing and patient acceptance, researchers randomized colonoscopy patients to prepare for the test with sodium phosphate solutions, polyethylene glycol,or senna solutions. Sodium phosphate solution is marketed in the US as Fleet’s PhosphoSoda. Polyethylene glycol or PEG is available as Colyte, Golytely, and Nulytely. Senna is an herbal preparation that is dissolved in clear liquid. Both sodium phosphate and senna require much less volume of liquid be drunk than PEG.

Body weight, blood pressure, and blood chemistry were measured before and after the bowel preparations. Patients completed a questionnaire after the colonoscopy listing side effects and rating their satisfaction with the method of bowel prep. Gastroenterologists rated each preparation as clean, suboptimal or dirty.

170 patients were randomized to 3 groups. Group 1 prepared with sodium phosphate solution, Group 2 with PEG, Group 3 with a senna solution.

There were no significant differences in body weight changes or laboratory tests among the three groups. Side effects during the prep were not sigificantly different except for more cramping in the senna group.

Overall cleansing was the same for the groups. However the senna-prepared group had the highest level of fecal contamination (17.8%).

When asked if they would like the same method of preparation again, more patients in the sodium phosphate group said yes (59%). The fewest senna-prepared patients agreed (6.8%).

A team of gastroenterologists from Turkey reported their results in the October, 2005 issue of *Digestive Endoscopy* (Volume 17 Issue 4 Page 290). They concluded:

When compared with respect to their efficacies in colon cleansing, safety of application, ease of usage, and side-effects, no significant differences were noted between sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol and senna solutions. Nevertheless, due to its greater tolerability, requirement of a shorter period of time in colon cleansing, and lower cost, we recommend the use of sodium phosphate in bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy.

[Read an abstract of the study in *Digestive Endoscopy.*](http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1443-1661.2005.00547.x)

[Read a similar study done in India in 2002, not including senna](http://www.indianjgastro.com/article.asp?issn=0254-8860;year=2002;volume=21;issue=6;spage=219;epage=21;aulast=Reddy;type=0)

Posted by Kate Murphy on October 4th, 2005
Posted in: Research & Treatment News | No Comments »