Fight Colorectal Cancer

How soon should average risk people get another colorectal cancer screening after they have a normal colonoscopy?

No sooner than 10 years, the American Gastroenterological Association recommends as part of the Choosing Wisely campaign.

The AGA’s list of Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question includes:

1. Use the lowest possible effective dose of acid reducing medicines to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
2. After a negative, quality colonoscopy, don’t repeat colorectal cancer screening by any method for 10 years.
3. After removing 1 or 2 small (less than 1 centimeter) adenomatous polyps without signs of cellular change (dysplasia), don’t repeat the colonoscopy for at least 5 years.
4. After two endoscopies without dysplasia, people with Barrett’s esophagus shouldn’t have another upper endoscopy for at least 3 years.
5. Patients with abdominal pain shouldn’t have a repeat CT scan unless there are major changes in symptoms or clinical findings.

AGA’s list is based on current published recommendations for the time between colonoscopy and endoscopy in people with low risks for cancer.

The Choosing Wisely campaign wants doctors and patients to talk together about tests and treatments that are supported by evidence, don’t duplicate other tests or procedures, are free from harm, and are truly necessary.

Ask your doctor, “Do I really need this test?” and “Do I need it now?”

Oncologists have joined eight other physician specialty organizations in the Choosing Wisely® campaign with a list of the Top Five Cancer-Related Tests, Procedures, and Treatments That Many Patients Do Not Need.

Choosing Wisely asked each of the specialist groups to come up with a list of five things doctors and patients should question in order to improve evidence-based care, avoid tests or treatments that don’t help, and reduce the burden of health care costs. Here are the Top Five lists from the other groups.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology  built the Top Five List for Oncology, based on work that ASCO’s Cost of Care Task Force has been doing for several years to identify diagnostic tests or treatments that are commonly ordered, expensive, and of unproven value.

While the Top Five list is based on evidence for effective cancer care, its recommendations are not written in stone. They are guidelines for patients, families, and doctors to begin a conversation about tests and treatments and costs in order to make good decisions about the best care for each individual.

Briefly the Top Five list recommends

1. Stop active cancer treatment when patients are too ill to benefit, aren’t eligible for a clinical trial, previous treatments haven’t worked, and there are no more standard treatment options.
2. Don’t use advanced imaging tests (CT, PET, bone scans) for early prostate cancer which has a low risk of spreading.
3. Don’t use similar imaging tests for early breast cancer that has a low risk of spreading.
4. Don’t use PET, CT, bone scans or biomarkers to follow-up breast cancer patients without symptoms after treatment intended to cure them.
5. Don’t give medicines to stimulate white cells in patients with a low risk of developing low counts with fever.

More specifically the Top Five for Oncology published ahead of print in the Journal of Clinical Oncology April 3  are: Read the rest of this entry »

Perifosine was no better than a placebo in improving survival time for people with late-stage colorectal cancer according to a news release from Keryx Biopharmaceuticals.

Despite success in a smaller Phase II clinical trial, the X-PECT Phase III trial failed to meet its primary objective — longer survival time.

X-PECT randomized 468 patients to receive either:

• Xeloda® (capecitabine) plus perifosine, or
• Xeloda plus a placebo

Although final details were not provided, the perifosine group did not live longer than the patients who got a dummy pill.

Patients in the trial had refractory colorectal cancer, tumors that had already gotten worse on at least two standard chemotherapy regimens. Had perifosine helped increase survival time, it would have been a significant new treatment for patients who have exhausted all their standard treatment options.

Based on these results, Keryx will not be pursuing FDA approval for perifosine for refractory colorectal cancer.

While we have reached the end of Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, the fight against colorectal cancer must continue. 

This past March, colorectal cancer advocates:

• Urged Congress to support colorectal cancer research and prevention at Fight Colorectal Cancer’s Call-on Congress
• Made calls to their legislators in support of H.R. 4120
• Got Colorectal Cancer Awareness proclamations in 19 states and cities
• Rang the NASDAQ Closing Bell

This is only a part of the fight though. We must use the momentum of the past month to further our efforts throughout the rest of the year. We must now work even harder and raise our voices even louder to continue to demand a cure for colon and rectal cancer.

Please help us keep our efforts going throughout the year with a donation today, even a $10 or $15 donation will make a major difference. Help make every month a colorectal cancer awareness month!

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) says that declining budgets at the National Institutes of Health a crisis standing in the way of bringing cancer research to patient’s lives.

For the past ten years, NIH budgets have been essentially flat.  Factoring in rising research costs, flat funding means a loss of nearly $6 billion dollars in purchasing power.

AACR is calling on its members and the advocacy community to work even harder with Congress to invest in medical research.  The AACR board of directors said,

Therefore, the AACR announced this morning that it plans to redouble its efforts to engage with Congress to make research funding a higher national priority, raise public awareness of the importance of continued investment in cancer research, and call on its 34,000 members and broader advocacy community constituencies to join together to help better explain and illustrate the value of cancer research and biomedical science to the economic health and well-being of this nation.

AACR President Judy E. Garber, MD, MPH said,

We already see the effects on our most precious resource, young investigators. This is potentially disastrous, as we are relying on them to ensure the continuing pipeline of new discoveries that will have ever greater impact on the welfare of patients and the public health.

AACR is holding its 2012 annual meeting in Chicago this week – Accelerating Science: Concept to Clinic.