oral cancer

Rodeo rider raising awareness of chewing tobacco and oral cancer

Source: www.krcrtv.com
Author: Danielle Radin

 

chewing-JPG

REDDING, Calif. – The Redding Rodeo kicked off Wednesday night with events like barrel racing, cattle roping and mutton busting.

Professional barrel racer, Carly Twisselman said chewing tobacco is prominent at rodeos. She’s teamed up with the Oral Cancer Foundation to try to change that.

“We want to show children that you can follow your dreams, be who you want to be, pursue being a rodeo athlete and not chew tobacco,” said Twisselman.

Twisselman competes in rodeos across the country and sees chewing tobacco time and time again.

She’s teaching children chewing tobacco is not the ‘cool thing to do.’ She also wears letting on her sleeves every race that reads, “Be smart, don’t start.”

She also has a brother who chews and had a health scare from it.

“My brother’s had signs of cancer of the mouth from chewing,” said Twisselman. ”  “I just think that’s the wrong message we should be sending to this children.”

According to the oral cancer foundation, there will be about 48,000 new cases of oral cancer in 2016 in the United States. 75 percent of all oral cancer patients use tobacco.

They estimate nearly 10,000 people in the United States will die from oral cancer in 2016.

 

In an era of rapidly proliferating, precisely targeted treatments, every cancer case has to be played by ear.

Source: www.nytimes.com
Author: Sidhartha Mukherjee

 

15oncologist1-superJumbo-v5Illustration by Cristiana Couceiro. Photograph by Ansel Adams, via the National Archives, College Park, Md.

 

The bone-marrow biopsy took about 20 minutes. It was 10 o’clock on an unusually chilly morning in New York in April, and Donna M., a self-possessed 78-year-old woman, had flown in from Chicago to see me in my office at Columbia University Medical Center. She had treated herself to orchestra seats for “The Humans” the night before, and was now waiting in the room as no one should be asked to wait: pants down, spine curled, knees lifted to her chest — a grown woman curled like a fetus. I snapped on sterile gloves while the nurse pulled out a bar cart containing a steel needle the length of an index finger. The rim of Donna’s pelvic bone was numbed with a pulse of anesthetic, and I drove the needle, as gently as I could, into the outer furl of bone. A corkscrew of pain spiraled through her body as the marrow was pulled, and then a few milliliters of red, bone-flecked sludge filled the syringe. It was slightly viscous, halfway between liquid and gel, like the crushed pulp of an overripe strawberry.

I had been treating Donna in collaboration with my colleague Azra Raza for six years. Donna has a preleukemic syndrome called myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, which affects the bone marrow and blood. It is a mysterious disease with few known treatments. Human bone marrow is normally a site for the genesis of most of our blood cells — a white-walled nursery for young blood. In MDS, the bone-marrow cells acquire genetic mutations, which force them to grow uncontrollably — but the cells also fail to mature into blood, instead dying in droves. It is a dual curse. In most cancers, the main problem is cells that refuse to stop growing. In Donna’s marrow, this problem is compounded by cells that refuse to grow up.

Though there are commonalities among cancers, of course, every tumor behaves and moves — “thinks,” even — differently. Trying to find a drug that fits Donna’s cancer, Raza and I have administered a gamut of medicines. Throughout all this, Donna has been a formidable patient: perennially resourceful, optimistic and willing to try anything. (Every time I encounter her in the clinic, awaiting her biopsy with her characteristic fortitude, it is the doctor, not the patient, who feels curled and small.) She has moved nomadically from one trial to another, shuttling from city to city, and from one drug to the next, through a landscape more desolate and exhilarating than most of us can imagine; Donna calls it her “serial monogamy” with different medicines. Some of these drugs have worked for weeks, some for months — but the transient responses have given way to inevitable relapses. Donna is getting exhausted.

Her biopsy that morning was thus part routine and part experiment. Minutes after the marrow was drawn into the syringe, a technician rushed the specimen to the lab. There he extracted the cells from the mixture and pipetted them into tiny grain-size wells, 500 cells to a well. To each well — about 1,000 in total — he will add a tiny dab of an individual drug: prednisone, say, to one well, procarbazine to the next and so forth. The experiment will test about 300 medicines (many not even meant for cancer) at three different doses to assess the effects of the drugs on Donna’s cells.

Bathed in a nutrient-rich broth suffused with growth factors, the cells will double and redouble in an incubator over the course of the following two weeks, forming a lush outgrowth of malignant cells — cancer abstracted in a dish. A computer, taught to count and evaluate cells, will then determine whether any of the drugs killed the cancerous cells or forced them to mature into nearly normal blood. Far from relying on data from other trials, or patients, the experiment will test Donna’s own cancer for its reactivity against a panel of medicines. Cells, not bodies, entered this preclinical trial, and the results will guide her future treatment.

I explained all this to Donna. Still, she had a question: What would happen if the drug that appeared to be the most promising proved unsuccessful?

“Then we’ll try the next one,” I told her. “The experiment, hopefully, will yield more than one candidate, and we’ll go down the list.”

“Will the medicine be like chemotherapy?”

“It might, or it might not. The drug that we end up using might be borrowed from some other disease. It might be an anti-inflammatory pill, or an asthma drug. It might be aspirin, for all we know.”

My conversation with Donna reflected how much cancer treatment has changed in the last decade. I grew up as an oncologist in an era of standardized protocols. Cancers were lumped into categories based on their anatomical site of origin (breast cancer, lung cancer, lymphoma, leukemia), and chemotherapy treatment, often a combination of toxic drugs, was dictated by those anatomical classifications. The combinations — Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine, for instance, to treat Hodgkin’s disease — were rarely changed for individual patients. The prospect of personalizing therapy was frowned upon: The more you departed from the standard, the theory ran, the more likely the patient would end up being undertreated or improperly managed, risking recurrence. In hospitals and clinics, computerized systems were set up to monitor an oncologist’s compliance with standard therapy. If you chose to make an exception for a particular patient, you had to justify the choice with an adequate excuse. Big Chemo was watching you.

I memorized the abbreviated names of combination chemo — the first letter of each drug — for my board exams, and I spouted them back to my patients during my clinic hours. There was something magical and shamanic about the multiletter contractions. They were mantras imbued with promise and peril: A.B.V.D. for Hodgkin’s, C.M.F. for breast cancer, B.E.P. for testicular cancer. The lingo of chemotherapists was like a secret code or handshake; even the capacity to call such baleful poisons by name made me feel powerful. When my patients asked me for statistical data, I had numbers at my fingertips. I could summon the precise chance of survival, the probability of relapse, the chance that the chemo would make them infertile or cause them to lose their hair. I felt omniscient.

Yet as I spoke to Donna that morning, I realized how much that omniscience has begun to wane — unleashing a more experimental or even artisanal approach in oncology. Most cancer patients are still treated with those hoary standardized protocols, still governed by the anatomical lumping of cancer. But for patients like Donna, for whom the usual treatments fail to work, oncologists must use their knowledge, wit and imagination to devise individualized therapies. Increasingly, we are approaching each patient as a unique problem to solve. Toxic, indiscriminate, cell-killing drugs have given way to nimbler, finer-fingered molecules that can activate or deactivate complex pathways in cells, cut off growth factors, accelerate or decelerate the immune response or choke the supply of nutrients and oxygen. More and more, we must come up with ways to use drugs as precision tools to jam cogs and turn off selective switches in particular cancer cells. Trained to follow rules, oncologists are now being asked to reinvent them.

The thought that every individual cancer might require a specific individualized treatment can be profoundly unsettling. Michael Lerner, a writer who worked with cancer patients, once likened the experience of being diagnosed with cancer to being parachuted out of a plane without a map or compass; now it is the oncologist who feels parachuted onto a strange landscape, with no idea which way to go. There are often no previous probabilities, and even fewer certainties. The stakes feel higher, the successes more surprising and the failures more personal. Earlier, I could draw curtain upon curtain of blame around a patient. When she did not respond to chemotherapy, it was her fault: She failed. Now if I cannot find a tool in the growing kit of drugs to target a cancer’s vulnerabilities, the vector feels reversed: It is the doctor who has failed.

Yet the mapless moment that we are now in may also hold more promise for patients than any that has come before — even if we find the known world shifting under our feet. We no longer have to treat cancer only with the blunt response of standard protocols, in which the disease is imagined as a uniform, if faceless, opponent. Instead we are trying to assess the particular personality and temperament of an individual illness, so that we can tailor a response with extreme precision. It’s the idiosyncratic mind of each cancer that we are so desperately trying to capture.

Cancer — and its treatment — once seemed simpler. In December 1969, a group of cancer advocates led by the philanthropist Mary Lasker splashed their demand for a national war on cancer in a full-page ad in The New York Times: “Mr. Nixon: You Can Cure Cancer.” This epitomized the fantasy of a single solution to a single monumental illness. For a while, the centerpiece of that solution was thought to be surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, a strategy colloquially known as “slash and burn.” Using combination chemotherapy, men and women were dragged to the very brink of physiological tolerability but then pulled back just in time to send the cancer, but not its host, careering off the edge.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, tens of thousands of people took part in clinical trials, which compared subjects on standard chemo combinations with others administered slightly different combinations of those drugs. Some responded well, but for many others, relapses and recurrences were routine — and gains were small and incremental for most cancers. Few efforts were made to distinguish the patients; instead, when the promised cures for most advanced malignancies failed to appear, the doses were intensified and doubled. In the Margaret Edson play “Wit,” an English professor who had ovarian cancer recalled the bewildering language of those trials by making up nonsensical names for chemotherapy drugs that had been pumped into her body: “I have survived eight treatments of hexamethophosphacil and vinplatin at the full dose, ladies and gentlemen. I have broken the record.”

To be fair, important lessons were garnered from the trials. Using combinations of chemotherapy, we learned to treat particular cancers: aggressive lymphomas and some variants of breast, testicular and colon cancers. But for most men and women with cancer, the clinical achievements were abysmal disappointments. Records were not broken — but patients were.

A breakthrough came in the 2000s, soon after the Human Genome Project, when scientists learned to sequence the genomes of cancer cells. Cancer is, of course, a genetic disease at its core. In cancer cells, mutated genes corrupt the normal physiology of growth and ultimately set loose malignant proliferation. This characteristic sits at the heart of all forms of cancer: Unlike normal cells, cancer cells have forgotten how to stop dividing (or occasionally, have forgotten how to die). But once we could sequence tens of thousands of genes in individual cancer specimens, it became clear that uniqueness dominates. Say two identical-looking breast cancers arise at the same moment in identical twins; are the mutations themselves in the two cancers identical? It’s unlikely: By sequencing the mutations in one twin’s breast cancer, we might find, say, 74 mutated genes (of the roughly 22,000 total genes in humans). In her sister’s, we might find 42 mutations, and if we looked at a third, unrelated woman with breast cancer, we might find 18. Among the three cases, there might be a mere five genes that overlap. The rest are mutations particular to each woman’s cancer.

15oncologists4-master675-v2-1Dr. Azra Raza, left, speaking to Donna M., a patient who travels from Chicago for treatment for myelodysplastic syndromes, in a waiting room at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia. Credit Kirsten Luce for The New York Times

 

No other human disease is known to possess this degree of genetic heterogeneity. Adult-onset diabetes, for example, is a complex genetic disease, but it appears to be dominated by variations in only about a dozen genes. Cancer, by contrast, has potentially unlimited variations. Like faces, like fingerprints — like selves — every cancer is characterized by its distinctive marks: a set of individual scars stamped on an individual genome. The iconic illness of the 20th century seems to reflect our culture’s obsession with individuality.

If each individual cancer has an individual combination of gene mutations, perhaps this variability explains the extraordinary divergences in responses to treatment. Gene sequencing allows us to identify the genetic changes that are particular to a given cancer. We can use that information to guide cancer treatment — in effect, matching the treatment to an individual patient’s cancer.

Many of the remarkable successes of cancer treatments of the last decades are instances of drugs that were matched to the singular vulnerabilities of individual cancers. The drug Gleevec, for instance, can kill leukemia cells — but only if the patient’s cancer cells happen to carry a gene mutation called BCR-ABL. Tarceva, a targeted therapy for lung cancer, works powerfully if the patient’s cancer cells happen to possess a particular mutant form of a gene; for lung-cancer patients lacking that mutation, it may be no different from taking a placebo. Because the medicines target mutations or behaviors that are specific to cancer cells (but not normal cells), many of these drugs have surprisingly minimal toxicities — a far cry from combination chemotherapies of the past.

A few days after Donna’s visit to the clinic, I went to my weekly meeting with Raza on the ninth floor of the hospital. The patient that morning was K.C., a 79-year-old woman with blood cancer. Raza has been following her disease — and keeping her alive — for a decade.

“Her tumor is evolving into acute leukemia,” Raza said. This, too, is a distinctive behavior of some cancers that we can now witness using biopsies, CT scans and powerful new techniques like gene sequencing: We can see the cancers morphing from smoldering variants into more aggressive types before our eyes.

“Was the tumor sequenced?” I asked.

“Yes, there’s a sequence,” Raza said, as we leaned toward a screen to examine it. “P53, DNMT3a and Tet2,” she read from the list of mutant genes. “And a deletion in Chromosome 5.” In K.C.’s cancer, an entire segment of the genome had been lopped off and gone missing — one of the crudest mutations that a tumor can acquire.

“How about ATRA?” I asked. We had treated a few patients carrying some of K.C.’s mutations with this drug and noted a few striking responses.

“No. I’d rather try Revlimid, but at a higher dose. She’s responded to it in the past, and the mutations remain the same. I have a hunch that it might work.”

15oncologist3-superJumbo-v4

Cancer by Genes
Researchers have discovered that cancers they once assumed were quite different might be similar genetically, which means a treatment that used to work for only a small group of patients now might help a much larger group. Mutations in the gene E2F3, for example, are found in breast, lung, bladder and prostate cancers, among others. Knowing this, it’s possible to develop similar drugs that target the gene across different cancers.

 

As Raza and I returned to K.C.’s room to inform her of the plan, I couldn’t help thinking that this is what it had come down to: inklings, observations, instincts. Medicine based on premonitions. Chemo by hunch. The discussion might have sounded ad hoc to an outsider, but there was nothing cavalier about it. We parsed these possibilities with utmost seriousness. We studied sequences, considered past responses, a patient’s recent history — and then charged forward with our best guess. Our decisions were spurred by science, yes, but also a sense for the art of medicine.

Oncologists are also practicing this art in areas that rely less on genes and mutations. A week after Donna’s biopsy, I went to see Owen O’Connor, an oncologist who directs Columbia’s lymphoma center. O’Connor, in his 50s, reminds me of an amphibious all-terrain vehicle — capable of navigating across any ground. We sat in his office, with large, sunlit windows overlooking Rockefeller Plaza. For decades, he explained, oncologists had treated relapsed Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a standard manner. “There were limited options,” O’Connor said. “We gave some patients more chemotherapy, with higher doses and more toxic drugs, hoping for a response. For some, we tried to cure the disease using bone-marrow transplantation.” But the failure rate was high: About 30 percent of patients didn’t respond, and half of them died.

Then a year or two ago, he tried something new. He began to use immunological therapy to treat relapsed, refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Immunological therapies come in various forms. There are antibodies: missile-like proteins, made by our own immune systems, that are designed to attack and destroy foreign microbes (antibodies can also be made artificially through genetic engineering, armed with toxins and used as “drugs” to kill cancer cells). And there are drugs that incite a patient’s own immune system to recognize and kill tumor cells, a mode of treatment that lay fallow for decades before being revived. O’Connor used both therapies and found that they worked in patients with Hodgkin’s disease. “We began to see spectacular responses,” he said.

Yet even though many men and women with relapsed Hodgkin’s lymphoma responded to immunological treatments, there were some who remained deeply resistant. “These patients were the hardest to treat,” O’Connor continued. “Their tumors seemed to be unique — a category of their own.”

15oncologists5-master675Dr. Siddhartha Mukherjee, left, speaking to K.C., who has acute myeloid leukemia, at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia. Credit Kirsten Luce for The New York Times

 

Lorenzo Falchi, a fellow training with O’Connor and me, was intrigued by these resistant patients. Falchi came to our hospital from Italy, where he specialized in treating leukemias and lymphomas; his particular skill, gleaned from his experience with thousands of patients, is to look for patterns behind seemingly random bits of data. Rooting about in Columbia’s medical databases, Falchi made an astonishing discovery: The men and women who responded most powerfully to the immune-boosting therapies had invariably been pretreated with another drug called azacitidine, rarely used in lymphoma patients. A 35-year-old woman from New York with relapsed lymphoma saw her bulky nodes melt away. She had received azacitidine as part of another trial before moving on to the immunotherapy. A man, with a similar stage of cancer, had not been pretreated. He had only a partial response, and his disease grew back shortly thereafter.

Falchi and O’Connor will use this small “training set” to begin a miniature trial of patients with relapsed Hodgkin’s disease. “We will try it on just two or three patients,” Falchi told me. “We’ll first use azacitidine — intentionally, this time — and then chase it with the immune activators. I suspect that we’ll reproduce the responses that we’ve seen in our retrospective studies.” In lung cancer too, doctors have noted that pretreating patients with azacitidine can make them more responsive to immunological therapy. Falchi and O’Connor are trying to figure out why patients respond if they are pretreated with a drug that seems, at face value, to have nothing to do with the immune system. Perhaps azacitidine makes the cancer cells more recognizably foreign, or perhaps it forces immune cells to become more aggressive hunters.

Falchi and O’Connor are mixing and matching unexpected combinations of medicines based on previous responses — departing from the known world of chemotherapy. Even with the new combination, Falchi suspects, there will be resistant patients, and so he will divide these into subsets, and root through their previous responses, to determine what might make these patients resistant — grinding the data into finer and finer grains until he’s down to individualized therapy for every variant of lymphoma.

Suppose every cancer is, indeed, unique, with its own permutation of genes and vulnerabilities — a sole, idiosyncratic “mind.” It’s obviously absurd to imagine that we’ll find an individual medicine to treat each one: There are 14 million new cases of cancer in the world every year, and several million of those patients will present with advanced disease, requiring more than local or surgical treatment. Trying to individualize treatment for those cases would shatter every ceiling of cost.

15oncologist2-superJumbo-v2Cancer Development
Cancer works the same way all life works, through the process of cell division and mutation. All living things grow and heal through cell division, and all living things evolve and change through the occasional mutations that occur as the cells divide. But some mutations can be deadly, leading to the unchecked growth that defines cancer. More than 14 million Americans have a history of cancer; it is expected to kill 600,000 Americans this year.

 

But while the medical costs of personalized therapy are being debated in national forums in Washington, the patients in my modest waiting room in New York are focused on its personal costs. Insurance will not pay for “off-label” uses of medicines: It isn’t easy to convince an insurance company that you intend to use Lipitor to treat a woman with pre-leukemia — not because she has high cholesterol but because the cancer cells depend on cholesterol metabolism for their growth (in one study of a leukemia subtype, the increasing cells were highly dependent on cholesterol, suggesting that high doses of Lipitor-like drugs might be an effective treatment).

In exceptional cases, doctors can requisition pharmaceutical companies to provide the medicines free — for “compassionate use,” to use the language of the pharma world — but this process is unpredictable and time-consuming. I used to fill out such requests once every few months. Now it seems I ask for such exceptions on a weekly basis. Some are approved. A majority, unfortunately, are denied.

So doctors like Falchi and O’Connor do what they can — using their wiles not just against cancer but against a system that can resist innovation. They create minuscule, original clinical trials involving just 10 or 20 patients, a far cry from the hundred-thousand-patient trials of the ’80s and ’90s. They study these patients with monastic concentration, drawing out a cosmos of precious data from just that small group. Occasionally, a patient may choose to pay for the drugs out of his or her own pockets — but it’s a rare patient who can afford the tens of thousands of dollars that the drugs cost.

But could there be some minimal number of treatments that could be deployed to treat a majority of these cancers effectively and less expensively? More than any other scientist, perhaps, Bert Vogelstein, a cancer geneticist at Johns Hopkins University, has tackled that conundrum. The combination of genetic mutations in any individual cancer is singular, Vogelstein acknowledges. But these genetic mutations can still act through common pathways. Targeting pathways, rather than individual genes, might reorganize the way we perceive and treat cancer.

15oncologists7-master675Deep freezers containing bone marrow, bone-marrow plasma and blood serum in Siddhartha Mukherjee’s research lab. Credit Kirsten Luce for The New York Times

 

Imagine, again, the cell as a complex machine, with thousands of wheels, levers and pulleys organized into systems. The machine malfunctions in the cancer: Some set of levers and pulleys gets jammed or broken, resulting in a cell that continues to divide without control. If we focus on the individual parts that are jammed and snapped, the permutations are seemingly infinite: Every instance of a broken machine seems to have a distinct fingerprint of broken cogs. But if we focus, instead, on systems that malfunction, then the seeming diversity begins to collapse into patterns of unity. Ten components function, say, in an interconnected loop to keep the machine from tipping over on its side. Snap any part of this loop, and the end result is the same: a tipped-over machine. Another 20 components control the machine’s internal thermostat. Break any of these 20 components, and the system overheats. The number of components — 10 and 20 — are deceptive in their complexity, and can have endless permutations. But viewed from afar, only two systems in this machine are affected: stability and temperature.

Cancer, Vogelstein argues, is analogous. Most of the genes that are mutated in cancer also function in loops and circuits — pathways. Superficially, the permutations of genetic flaws might be boundless, but lumped into pathways, the complexity can be organized along the archetypal, core flaws. Perhaps these cancer pathways are like Hollywood movies; at first glance, there seems to be an infinite array of plot lines in an infinite array of settings — gold-rush California, the Upper West Side, a galaxy far, far away. But closer examination yields only a handful of archetypal narratives: boy meets girl, stranger comes to town, son searches for father.

How many such pathways, or systems, operate across a subtype of cancer? Looking at one cancer, pancreatic, and mapping the variations in mutated genes across hundreds of specimens, Vogelstein’s team proposed a staggeringly simple answer: 12. (One such “core pathway,” for instance, involves genes that enable cells to invade other tissues. These genes normally allow cells to migrate through parts of the body — but in cancer, migration becomes distorted into invasion.) If we could find medicines that could target these 12 core pathways, we might be able to attack most pancreatic cancers, despite their genetic diversity. But that means inventing 12 potential ways to block these core paths — an immense creative challenge for scientists, considering that they haven’t yet figured out how to target more than, at best, one or two.

Immunological therapies provide a second solution to the impasse of unlimited diversity. One advantage of deploying a patient’s own immune system against cancer is that immunological cells are generally agnostic to the mutations that cause a particular cancer’s growth. The immune system was designed to spot differences in the superficial features of a diseased or foreign cell, thereby identifying and killing it. It cares as little about genes as an intercontinental ballistic missile cares about the email addresses, or dietary preferences, of the population that it has been sent to destroy.

A few years ago, in writing a history of cancer, I interviewed Emil Freireich. Freireich, working with Emil Frei at the National Cancer Institute in the 1960s and ’70s, stumbled on the idea of deploying multiple toxic drugs simultaneously to treat cancer — combination chemotherapy. They devised one of the first standard protocols — vincristine, Adriamycin, methotrexate and prednisone, known as VAMP — to treat pediatric leukemias. Virtually nothing about the VAMP protocol was individualized (although doses could be reduced if needed). In fact, doctors were discouraged from trying alternatives to the formula.

Yet as Freireich recalled, long before they came up with the idea for a protocol, there were small, brave experiments; before trials, there was trial and error. VAMP was brought into existence through grit, instinct and inspired lunges into the unknown. Vincent T. DeVita Jr., who worked with Freireich in the 1960s, wrote a book, “The Death of Cancer,” with his daughter, Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn. In it, he recalled a time when the leukemic children in Freireich’s trial were dying of bacterial meningitis during treatment. The deaths threatened the entire trial: If Freireich couldn’t keep the children alive during the therapy, there would be no possibility of remission. They had an antibiotic that could kill the microbe, but the medicine wouldn’t penetrate the blood-brain barrier. So Freireich decided to try something that pushed the bounds of standard practice. He ordered DeVita, his junior, to inject it directly into the spinal cords of his patients. It was an extreme example of off-label use of the drug: The medicine was not meant for use in the cord. DeVita writes:

“The first time Freireich told me to do it, I held up the vial and showed him the label, thinking that he’d possibly missed something. ‘It says right on there, “Do not use intrathecally,” ’ I said. Freireich glowered at me and pointed a long, bony finger in my face. ‘Do it!’ he barked. I did it, though I was terrified. But it worked every time.”

When I asked Freireich about that episode and about what he would change in the current landscape of cancer therapy, he pointed to its extreme cautiousness. “We would never have achieved anything in this atmosphere,” he said. The pioneer of protocols pined for a time before there were any protocols.

Medicine needs standards, of course, otherwise it can ramble into dangerous realms, compromising safety and reliability. But cancer medicine also needs a healthy dose of Freireich: the desire to read between the (guide)lines, to reimagine the outer boundaries, to perform the experiments that become the standards of the future. In January, President Obama introduced an enormous campaign for precision medicine. Cancer is its molten centerpiece: Using huge troves of data, including gene sequences of hundreds of thousands of specimens and experiments performed in laboratories nationwide, the project’s goal is to find individualized medicines for every patient’s cancer. But as we wait for that decades-long project to be completed, oncologists still have to treat patients now. To understand the minds of individual cancers, we are learning to mix and match these two kinds of learning — the standard and the idiosyncratic — in unusual and creative ways. It’s the kind of medicine that so many of us went to medical school to learn, the kind that we’d almost forgotten how to practice.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

May, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

California Raises Smoking Age To 21

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
Author: Huffington Post Staff
 

The law makes it the second state to raise the minimum age to 21, following Hawaii.

 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - MAY 31:  Isaiah Atkinson smokes a cigarette in front of the San Francisco Centre on May 31, 2011 in San Francisco, California.  Since 1987, the World Health Organization has celebrated "World No Tobacco Day" to raise awareness to the health risks associated with smoking tobacco. Smoking is the second biggest cause of death globally and is responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide.  (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) – California will raise the legal age for purchasing tobacco products to 21 from 18 under a bill signed on Wednesday by Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, part of a package of anti-smoking measures that also regulates electronic cigarettes.

Under five bills signed into law on Wednesday, California will ban the sale of vaping products or tobacco to anyone under the age of 21, imposing a fine of up to $5,000 against companies that violate the law.

“It is long past due for California to update our approach to tobacco,” said Steven Larson, president of the California Medical Association. “There has been an alarming rise in the use of e-cigarettes by teens, putting them at risk for lifelong addiction.”

Under the measures, electronic cigarettes will be regulated like traditional ones. That means that wherever cigarettes are banned, such as in restaurants, workplaces and public areas, use of e-cigarettes will also be prohibited.

The state will also expand its funding for anti-smoking programs under the bills.

Brown stopped short of allowing local counties to impose their own tobacco taxes, noting in his veto message that several proposed new taxes would be placed before voters on the November ballot.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

May, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Baidu Under Investigation After Cancer Patient’s Death

Source: www.fortune.com
Author: Scott Cendrowski

 

Baidu, the dominant search engine in China, is being investigated by government regulators after social media users criticized the quality of medical ads appearing in its searches.

Chinese social media over the weekend gave widespread exposure to the story of Wei Zexi, a young cancer patient whose family pooled together more than $30,000 for his treatments at a government hospital he found through a Baidu search. The hospital marketed an innovative treatment for synovial sarcoma, the rare form of cancer Wei suffered from. Following an unsuccessful treatment and Wei’s death in April, reports spread that the treatment was much less effective than the hospital had advertised.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) sent investigators to Baidu today, according to China’s official Xinhua news agency

Baidu has endured criticism recently for similar instances in which dubious medical practices were promoted in paid search results. Analysts have estimated around one quarter of its revenues come from medical and health-care advertisers.

“We deeply regret the death of Zexi,” a Baidu spokeswoman said today, adding that the search engine had launched its own internal investigation of the matter.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

 

May, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

FDA Spends $36 Million on Anti-Chewing Tobacco Ad Campaign

Source: www.freebeacon.com
Author: Elizabeth Harrington
Cans of smokeless tobacco sit in the Tampa Bay Rays dugout before a baseball game between the Rays and the Baltimore Orioles, Wednesday, April 14, 2010, in Baltimore. After hounding Major League Baseball and its players union over steroids, Congress now wants the sport to ban smokeless tobacco. (AP Photo/Rob Carr)

Cans of smokeless tobacco sit in the Tampa Bay Rays dugout before a baseball game between the Rays and the Baltimore Orioles, Wednesday, April 14, 2010, in Baltimore. After hounding Major League Baseball and its players union over steroids, Congress now wants the sport to ban smokeless tobacco. (AP Photo/Rob Carr)

The Food and Drug Administration is spending $36 million on an anti-chewing tobacco advertising campaign targeted at white male teenagers in the midwest.

The federal agency announced Tuesday it is expanding its “Real Cost” anti-tobacco campaign to “educate rural, white male teenagers” and convince them to stop dipping.

“Smokeless tobacco use is culturally ingrained in many rural communities,” the FDA said. “For many, it has become a rite of passage, with these teenagers seeing smokeless tobacco used by role models, such as fathers, grandfathers, older brothers, and community leaders.”

The campaign will run television, radio, and print advertisements, as well as put up public signs and billboards and post on social media.

An FDA spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that the total cost for the campaign is $36 million, which will be financed through taxes on tobacco manufacturers. Paid ads will cost $20 million, and the remaining budget will cover “research, strategic planning, creative development, and contract management.”

The agency is also partnering with two dozen minor league baseball teams in the midwest that will host anti-chewing tobacco events and feature advertisements from the campaign.

“Amplification of messaging from the campaign will take place at 25 Minor League Baseball stadiums throughout this summer using a variety of efforts, including sponsoring in-stadium events, the placement of print ads, running of television ad spots, and opportunities for fans to engage with players who support the FDA’s efforts on smokeless tobacco,” said Tara Goodin, an FDA spokesperson.

The list of minor league clubs participating in the campaign includes the Albuquerque Isotopes, the Fargo-Moorhead Redhawks, the Traverse City Beach Bums in Michigan, the Sioux Falls Canaries, and the Burlington Bees, an Iowa farm team for the Los Angeles Angels.

Chewing tobacco has been banned at ballparks in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston, including Fenway Park, and major leaguers can face $250 fines and “are subject to discipline” from Major League Baseball’s Commissioner Rob Manfred if they dip during games.

ESPN reported that signs are now posted in Fenway with a phone number so individuals can call to report on other fans they see chewing tobacco to “alert security.”

The FDA provided an example of one of its new campaign ads, which features a man at a bowling alley with a can of chewing tobacco in his back pocket.

FDA-TRC-Smokeless-Prevention-Campaign-Ad

“This can can cause mouth cancer, tooth loss, brown teeth, jaw pain, white patches, gum disease,” text on the ad reads.

The campaign is targeted at white males aged 12 to 17 who are using smokeless tobacco, which the FDA estimates to be 629,000 nationwide, or 0.19 percent of the U.S. population of 318.9 million.

“Not only is the target audience using smokeless tobacco at a high rate, but many do not fully understand the negative health consequences of their actions,” said Mitch Zeller, J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “In communities where smokeless tobacco use is part of the culture, reaching at-risk teens with compelling messaging is critical to help change their understanding of the risks and harms associated with smokeless tobacco use.”

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

April, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Nivolumab Improved Survival For Patients With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Source: www.aacr.org
Author: AACR Newsroom Staff
 

NEW ORLEANS — Treatment with the immunotherapeutic nivolumab (Opdivo) improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma that progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy compared with single-agent chemotherapy of the investigator’s choice, according to results from the CheckMate-141 phase III clinical trial presented here at the AACR Annual Meeting 2016, April 16-20.Maura Gillison

“Recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma that is not responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy progresses very rapidly, and patients have a very poor prognosis,” said Maura L. Gillison, MD, PhD, a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute. “Treatment usually involves single-agent chemotherapy. However, no therapy has been shown to improve survival for this patient population. New treatment options are desperately needed.

“This study is the first randomized clinical trial to clearly demonstrate improved overall survival for patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” continued Gillison. “We hope that the results will establish nivolumab as a new standard of care option for this patient population and thereby fulfill a huge unmet need.”

CheckMate-141 was a randomized, phase III clinical trial designed to determine whether the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab could extend overall survival for patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma compared with treatment of the investigator’s choice, which was any of the commonly used therapeutics docetaxel, methotrexate, or cetuximab.

Of the 361 patients enrolled in the clinical trial, 240 were randomly assigned to nivolumab and 121 to single-agent chemotherapy of investigator’s choice.

At the interim analysis, which was conducted after 218 events, patients assigned to nivolumab were found to have a 30 percent reduction in risk of death compared with those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice. Median overall survival was 7.5 months for those assigned nivolumab versus 5.1 months for those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice. At 12 months, 36 percent of the patients treated with nivolumab were alive compared with 17 percent of those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice.

Because certain types of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, particularly those arising in the oropharynx (back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils), have been linked with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, the investigators also evaluated the data based on the HPV status of the patients’ tumors.

The effect of nivolumab on overall survival was seen for both patients with HPV-positive disease and those with HPV-negative disease. Among patients with HPV-positive disease, median overall survival was 9.1 months for those assigned nivolumab versus 4.4 months for those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice, and among patients with HPV-negative disease, median overall survival was 7.5 months for those assigned nivolumab versus 5.8 months for those assigned therapy of investigator’s choice.

A survival benefit in patients treated with nivolumab was observed for the overall study population. Exploratory analysis suggested that the benefit was greater for patients treated with nivolumab whose tumors had PD-L1 expression (of 1 percent or greater) or were HPV-positive.

“Overall, our data are extremely exciting. This clinical trial has established head and neck squamous cell carcinoma as responsive to immunotherapy. We are hopeful that this represents the tip of the iceberg with regard to future benefit of immunotherapy for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma,” added Gillison.

This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Gillison’s role in the study was funded in part by the Oral Cancer Foundation. Gillison has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, and Merck in the past year.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

 

Minimizing Imaging for Recurrence of HPV-Associated Head & Neck Cancer

Source: www.journals.lww.com/oncologytimes
Author: Robert H. Carlson

 

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ.—Most recurrences of HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) can be found through imaging and physical exams within six months after treatment, according to a study from the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Fla.

“For most patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer who have had a negative three-month PET scan, physical exams with history and direct visualization are sufficient to find recurrences,” said Jessica M. Frakes, MD, Assistant Member of the Department of Radiation Oncology at the institute and lead author on the study, in a presentation at the 2016 Multidisciplinary Head & Neck Cancer Symposium.

“Minimizing the number of exams that do not compromise outcomes not only helps decrease anxiety and stress for our patients, but also eases the financial burden of cancer care,” she said.

 
 

Original.00130989-201604250-00012.FF2

The study also supports the effectiveness of specialist teams in treating HPV-positive OPSCC with definitive radiation therapy. Frakes said local control at three years was 97.8; regional control 95.3 percent; locoregional control 94 percent; and freedom from distant metastases 91.4 percent.

Three-year overall survival was 91 percent.

“The number of OPSCC patients and survivors is growing, so there is a great need to determine the general time to recurrence and the most effective modes of recurrence detection in order to guide optimal follow-up care,” Frakes said.

But National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for treatment of OPSCC are “one size fits all,” she said, with the same follow-up recommendations whether the disease is HPV-associated or not.

To identify patterns in recurrence detection, the researchers examined 246 cases of HPV- or p16-positive non-metastatic OPSCC patients treated with definitive radiation therapy at Moffitt between 2006 and 2014. Of those, 84.6 percent received radiation therapy and a concurrent systemic therapy, and 15.4 percent received definitive radiation therapy alone.

Patients then underwent a PET/CT scan three months after completing treatment. They also had physical exams every three months in the first year following treatment, every four months in the second year, and every six months in years three through five.

Median follow-up care length for all patients was 36 months. Recurrence and survival rates were calculated from the end of radiation therapy.

“Our local control was excellent,” Frakes said, reporting 98 percent of local failures were detected by physical exam, with either direct visualization (two cases) or flexible laryngoscopy (four cases); 89 percent of regional failures were found due to symptoms—primarily a neck mass—or by three-month post-treatment imaging; and 71 percent of distant metastases were found due to symptoms or three-month post-treatment imaging.

Frakes described some disease characteristics that increased the likelihood of recurrence: patients with five or more nodes or with level IV low-neck nodes present were more likely to suffer regional failure; and there was increased risk of distant metastases with involved lymph nodes greater than 6 cm (N3 disease), bilateral lymph node involvement, five or more involved lymph nodes, or level IV lymph nodes.

Toxicity rates were low, she said, with only 9 percent of patients experiencing severe late side effects.

“And the majority of those patients had resolution of the side effects at the time of last follow-up, meaning the feeding tube was taken out or they were treated with hyperbaric oxygen for necrosis,” she said.

Sixty-four percent of toxicities and/or recurrences occurred within the first six months following treatment, and only four events occurred more than two years following treatment.

“We were pleasantly surprised by the high cure rates and the low permanent side effect rates for these patients,” Frakes said.

These findings show individuals with HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy and cared for by multidisciplinary specialists have excellent outcomes, Frakes concluded.

Surveillance: Too Much or Too Little?

There is much debate as to whether whether the surveillance done for the HPV-positive subset of OPSCC is too much or too little, said Bhishamjit S. Chera, MD, Associate Professor and Director of Patient Safety and Quality in the Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, who was asked to comment on this study for OT.

“This study’s primary objective was to evaluate whether the standard cancer survivorship program that we have used for oropharyngeal cancer is appropriate, and this abstract shows that the standard cancer survivorship program adequately detected the majority of cancer recurrences.”

Chera said repeated imaging, such as with PET/CT every 3-6 months, is not likely to detect recurrences faster in these patients, and it would clearly be more costly.

“I conclude from this study that more frequent surveillance with imaging or visits is not necessary for HPV-positive OPSCC,” Chera said. “Their cancer control is so good that we may be following them too closely or too often.”

He said future studies should evaluate following these favorable prognosis HPV-positive OPSCC less often.

Imaging After Three Months Not Routine

Christine G. Gourin, MD, Associate Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, and moderator of an online/audio preview of this meeting for the press, said she appreciated the Moffitt study’s findings.

“I think we probably do too much post-treatment surveillance imaging,” she said, “and the NCCN guidelines are fairly vague about when to perform imaging.”

Gourin said her institution has stopped routinely imaging patients after three months if a PET scan is negative.

“And it’s true we pick up recurrences more clinically than radiologically, and, of course, a false-positive causes much more morbidity.”

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

April, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

ASCO Urges Aggressive Efforts to Increase HPV Vaccination

Source: www.medscape.com
Author: Zosia Chustecka
 

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines have now been available for 10 years, but despite many medical professional bodies strongly recommending the vaccine, uptake in the United States remains low.

Data from a national survey show that about 36% of girls and 14% of boys have received the full schedule of HPV vaccines needed to provide protection (Vaccine. 2013;31:1673-1679).

Now the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has become involved, and in a position statement issued today the organization calls for aggressive efforts to increase uptake of the HPV vaccines to “protect young people from life-threatening cancers.”

“With safe and effective vaccines readily available, no young person today should have to face the devastating diagnosis of a preventable cancer like cervical cancer. But unless we rapidly increase vaccination rates for boys and girls, many of them will,” ASCO President Julie M. Vose, MD, said in a statement.

“As oncologists, we see the terrible effects of these cancers first hand, and we have to contribute to improving today’s alarmingly low vaccination rates,” she added.

The new policy statement is published online April 11 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The statement notes that HPV vaccination has been previously recommended by many US medical societies, including the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee, the American Dental Association, the American Head and Neck Society, the American Nurses Association, the American Pharmacists Association, the Association of Immunization Managers, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

In addition, a joint letter was sent out to all physicians urging them to give a strong recommendation from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Immunization Action Coalition.

Now oncologists are specifically being asked by their professional body, ASCO, to join in with the push toward greater uptake of the HPV vaccines.

“ASCO believes oncologists can play a vital role in increasing the uptake of HPV vaccines,” the new policy statement says. “Although most oncologists will not be direct providers of these preventive measures, this does not abrogate us from contributing to this process. Our unassailable role in the mission to lessen the burden of cancer…places us in a position of influence. We should use interactions with our patients, primary care colleagues, and health care systems to raise awareness of HPV-related cancers and the role of vaccination in preventing them.”

Oncology providers have a responsibility to serve as community educators.

“Oncology providers have a responsibility to serve as community educators, disseminating evidence-based information to combat misconceptions concerning the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine,” it continues.

“ASCO encourages oncologists to advocate for and actively promote policy change to increase vaccination uptake,” the statement concludes.

Issues With the Statement

However, there are a few issues with the statement, says a prominent researcher in the field of HPV and cervical cancer, Diane Harper MD, professor and chair of the department of Family and Geriatric Medicine, University of Louisville, Kentucky. Dr Harper, who was approached for comment, was involved in early clinical trials with both HPV vaccines (Gardasil, Merck & Co, and Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline), and has emphasized the need for ongoing screening with Pap tests to prevent cervical cancer.

This is also one of the issues she raises about the ASCO statement, which does not mention screening. “All messages about HPV vaccination must be couched in terms of continued lifetime screening for cervical cancer,” Dr Harper told Medscape Medical News.

The ASCO statement highlights the potential that HPV vaccination has for preventing cancer. (Both vaccines protect against HPV types 16 and 18, and Gardasil offers additional protection against several other types). The statement notes that HPV is the cause of nearly all cervical cancer cases and that HPV genotypes 16 and 18 are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers. In the United States, HPV is responsible for 60% of oropharyngeal cancers, 90% of which are caused by HPV 16. HPV is also the cause of 91% of anal cancers, 75% of vaginal cancers, 69% of vulvar cancers, and 63% of penile cancers, again with HPV 16 as the predominant oncogenic genotype.

However, the statement also notes that “because of the long latency and the prolonged preinvasive phase after infection with HPV, many years of follow-up are needed for the ongoing trials to demonstrate a significant reduction in HPV-related cancers.”

Therefore, intermediate outcomes are being used as surrogate endpoints, it continues. HPV vaccines have been shown to prevent new cancer-causing HPV genotype-specific infections and resultant diseases, such as grades 2 and 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN), vaginal, vulvar, and anal intraepithelial neoplasias (as precursor lesions to cancer).

There is “almost certainty that cancers caused by oncogenic HPV genotypes will be dramatically reduced,” according to the statement.

Dr Harper told Medscape Medical News that the studies conducted to date have shown that “Cervarix has a 93% efficacy against CIN 3 regardless of HPV type; Gardasil has a 47% efficacy against CIN 3 regardless of HPV type, and Gardasil 9 is equivalent to Gardasil in the prevention of CIN 3 disease regardless of HPV type. None of these vaccines can prevent all CIN 3 or potentially all cancers.”

“Hence, the most important take home point is that screening is absolutely necessary as a prevention tool for preventing cancer by early detection of disease that when found, is curable,” Dr Harper emphasized.

Also, Dr Harper noted that the studies ended at prevention of CIN 2/3 disease as a clinical outcome. CIN 3 on average progresses to cancer in 20% of women within 5 years, and to 40% of women in 30 years. But, she points out, “there are no long-term follow-up studies that show that cancers will be averted.”

“The modeling exercises indicate that we have to wait at least 40 years before we will have a detectable decrease in cervical cancers from vaccination, assuming that at least 70% of the population being surveyed is vaccinated,” she added.

In its statement, ASCO cites the success of widespread vaccination against hepatitis B virus in reducing the incidence of liver cirrhosis and liver cancer as “an exemplary health model that supports more widespread HPV vaccination.”

But Dr Harper argues that “the prevention of liver cancer was an unexpected highlight of HBV vaccination. The primary purpose was to relieve the symptoms of chronic HBV sufferers. The continual re-infection with HBV seems to allow a natural infection to act as a booster in this population, which may not be the same for HPV.”

There also remains a question of how long the protection offered by HPV vaccination will last.

The ASCO statement says, “Both vaccines have a known duration of protection of at least 5 years, with ongoing study of the full duration of their effect,” and it notes that “additional research is needed to evaluate duration of protection to determine if booster doses are required.”

Dr Harper said, “Estimates of long-term effectiveness are based on antibody titers, yet there is no surrogate of protection defined by antibody titers.”

She added: “I agree that observational studies will inform the public health authorities about when a booster will be needed and whether it is needed sooner if only 2 doses are received vs later if 3 doses​ are received.”

Last, but not least, there is the issue of safety.

The ASCO statement notes that both Gardasil and Cervarix “reported excellent short- and long-term safety results in clinical trials. The most common adverse effects were mild and included injection site pain (approximately nine in 10 people) and swelling (approximately one in three), fever (approximately one in eight), headache, and fatigue (approximately one in two). These symptoms were transient and resolved spontaneously. The incidence of serious adverse effects was low and was similar to those who received placebo (aluminum-containing placebo or hepatitis A vaccine).”

However, worldwide there continue to be reports of adolescents who report chronic side effects and pain syndromes after being vaccinated against HPV. Some of these have been documented in the medical literature, with physicians reporting instances of previously healthy athletic girls becoming incapacitated with pain, fatigue, and autonomic dysfunction, and some remaining permanently disabled.

The US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have repeatedly said that HPV vaccines have an excellent safety record and that no causal associations have been found with atypical or unusual pain syndromes or autonomic dysfunction. The European authorities have investigated two chronic syndromes reported with HPV vaccination, and have said that there is no evidence to show causation.

However, Danish researchers who were among the first to report these syndromes criticized the investigation and are conducting their own study. There have also been lawsuits filed in several countries, and a class action lawsuit is now planned in Japan against the government and the vaccine manufacturers.

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, lead author on the ASCO statement, Howard H. Bailey, MD, from the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, said that the concerns over safety should not be dismissed and should be studied further.

These issues need to be studied further, even if the authorities say that the vaccines are safe, he emphasized. These reports of girls becoming very ill, having pain syndrome and weakness, should not be diminished, he said, adding: “We can’t just ignore these reports…if there is risk involved, then that needs to be sorted out better.”

However, there is always a possibility that the syndromes and side effects that have been reported “have nothing to do with the vaccine,” Dr Bailey commented, citing the case of now-discredited theory linking autism to the pediatric vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella.

There may be other explanations for the symptoms that are reported, or it could be that the symptoms/syndrome would have developed in the individual, anyway, but the vaccination precipitated it sooner, he suggested.

Dr Bailey noted that across the United States physicians are very sensitive to the fact that rates of pediatric vaccination have gone down because of the link that had been made to autism, subsequently shown to be false. Even though science eventually showed no link between the vaccine and autism, public confidence in the vaccine was damaged.

“When a person’s life has been devastated by an illness, that is very important, but if it turns out that the illness is not related to the vaccine, and in the meantime, the concerns over safety have stopped thousands of young people from being vaccinated….”well, eventually this will mean that there are more people who die from cancer, he said.

“I would be very reluctant right now to shut down the goals of vaccination over what has been reported, because the bottom line is that we have a tremendous problem with the rising incidence of HPV related cancers including in men as well as women when it comes to oropharyngeal cancers here in the States,” he added.

“The data, at least in my opinion, are so strong that HPV vaccination if it’s done in a [systematic] way will reduce the incidence of these cancers…I don’t want to stop whatever progress we are making when there is at best disagreement over whether these things are associated,” he said, although he also added that “maybe if it was my daughter, I would feel differently.”

Dr Bailey also addressed some of the other issues that had been raised about the ASCO statement, and said he agreed about the importance of screening.

“Even if vaccination does all the things we expect it to do, there is no doubt that cervical cancer screening needs to continue, and that’s a pretty standard recommendation across all of the groups,” he said. “We do not mean to diminish the importance of continued screening,” he said, but he added that screening lies in the domain of other physicians, such as primary care and gynecology, whereas this statement was targeted specifically at oncologists. “To take a step back, we are taking the view of cancer physicians, who take care of women, who are unfortunately too often dying of cervical cancer, and…we wanted to remind people that HPV vaccination can prevent this…as well as other associated cancers,” he said.

“The audience in North America has not been paying attention to this vaccination issue very much,” he continued, and “we wanted to remind oncologists and the public that at the heart of the issue is cancer prevention.

“We have this relatively easy way of preventing cancers over and above the ways that we already use,” he added.

“We wanted to remind people, especially in the oncology community, that there is this intervention out there that we think is highly, highly likely — if applied and used in a population format — will significantly reduce the number of women dying of cervical cancer, the number of men and women dying from oropharyngeal cancer, which is increasing in the US…and that was the main focus of the article,” Dr Bailey commented.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

April, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Merck Says FDA Accepts Its SBLA For Keytruda For Treatment Of Head & Neck Cancer

Source: www.finchannel.com
Author: Fin Channel News Editorial Staff
 
mercke1423056380602

The FINANCIAL — Merck, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, on April 13 announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted for review the supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab), the company’s anti-PD-1 therapy, for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy.

The application is seeking approval for KEYTRUDA as a single agent at a dose of 200 mg administered intravenously every three weeks. The FDA granted Priority Review with a PDUFA, or target action, date of Aug. 9; the sBLA will be reviewed under the FDA’s Accelerated Approval program, according to Merck.

“Starting in the early days of our development program, we have explored the role of KEYTRUDA for patients with head and neck cancer, a difficult-to-treat and debilitating disease with very few treatment options,” said Roger Dansey, M.D., senior vice president and therapeutic area head, oncology late-stage development, Merck Research Laboratories. “We are encouraged by the data emerging from our program in this type of cancer, and welcome today’s news as this is an important step toward making KEYTRUDA available to these patients.”

Merck currently has the largest immuno-oncology clinical development program in head and neck cancer and is advancing multiple registration-enabling studies with KEYTRUDA as a single agent and in combination with chemotherapy.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

April, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Suicide: A Major Threat to Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship

Source: www.jco.ascopubs.com
Authors: Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters, Eric Adjei Boakye, and Ronald J. Walker
, Mark A. Varvares
 

TO THE EDITOR: The article by Ringash that was recently published in Journal of Clinical Oncology provided a compelling narrative of both the improvements made in head and neck cancer survivorship, as well as the challenges created by longer-term treatment and associated toxicities. There are currently at least 280,000 head and neck cancer survivors in the United States. As the article by Ringash stated, the upturn in head and neck cancer survivorship in the last three decades has coincided with the emergence of human papilloma virus-positive oropharyngeal cancer, as well as a decrease in tobacco use in the general population. These make it a challenge to isolate survival gains as a function of improved therapy from the natural prognostic value of a diagnosis of human papilloma virus-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Whatever the case, the fact that more than one-quarter million Americans are currently alive after a diagnosis of head and neck cancer means there needs to be a more deliberate effort in longer-term management of treatment-related toxicities, some of which are lifelong.

We agree with Ringash’s conclusion that new models of care need to be developed in response to the significant quality-of-life issues faced by patients with head and neck cancer. The Institute of Medicine publication From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, also cited by Ringash, called for a clear individualized survivorship plan for cancer patients. There is a serious need for this model to be implemented universally in head and neck cancer management. Although we agree with Ringash that patients with head and neck cancer face competing mortality risks from second primary cancers and other noncancers, what we found lacking was recognition of an important competing cause of mortality in head and neck cancer survivors: suicide.

Suicide associated with head and neck cancer is not just a competing cause of death; it is also a quality-of-life issue. Many authors agree that head and neck cancer is among the top cancer sites associated with suicide. One national study of 1.3 million cancer patients even found that head and neck cancer carried the highest risk of suicide among cancer survivors. As a quality-of-life issue as well as a competing cause of death, the elevated risk of head and neck cancer-related suicide, although it peaks during the first few years after diagnosis, remains virtually throughout the course of the cancer survivor’s life. Additionally, some other well-known quality-of-life issues associated with head and neck cancer (eg, pain, disability, esthetic compromise and body image issues, psychosocial function, anxiety, emotional distress, and depression) are all associated with suicide. Therefore, it is difficult to have a discussion of quality-of-life interventions in head and neck cancer without addressing the issue of suicide.

Thus, we believe that suicide in patients with head and neck cancer should be addressed as a major threat to cancer survivorship. Cardiovascular disease, for example, is a known competing cause of death among patients with head and neck cancer, and is listed in Figure 4 of Ringash’s article. Cardiovascular disease may be managed for a long time; however, when a cancer patient decides that he/she is “better off dead,” a finality, or terminality, is invoked. This is quite unique to suicide compared with other competing causes of death.

Thus, in the urgent call for “new strategies and models of care to better address quality-of-life issues and meet the needs of survivors of head and neck cancer,” we believe it is pertinent that suicide is recognized as an important threat to head and neck cancer survivorship.

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.4673; published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on January 19, 2016

To read or download the full article, please visit: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/34/10/1151.full.pdf+html

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.
March, 2016|Oral Cancer News|