Where Do the Millions of Cancer Research Dollars Go Every Year?

Posted: Thursday, Feb. 7, 2013, at 5:18 PM ET By: Quora Contributor Source: Slate.com   This question originally appeared on Quora. Answer by David Chan, MD, Oncologist : I'll be the first to admit that despite all the billions put into cancer research, the end results of preventing cancer and treating advanced cancer have been disappointing. Unlike reducing deaths from heart attacks and stroke, progress in reducing deaths from cancer has been disappointingly slow. Sure, we've had our breakthrough drugs like Gleevec, the targeted drug for chronic myelogenous leukemia, and Herceptin for a certain type of breast cancer. But for a lot of other cancers, the treatments aren't giving us bang for the buck. Spending $100,000 to $200,000 a year to extend life for an additional three to six months may be very important to those individuals with cancer, but are a very poor return on investment for society. It's not sustainable, and that's why a lot of national health care programs won't pay for drugs like Avastin, Sutent, Yervoy, and Provenge. Dr. Margaret Cuomo (sister of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo) recently wrote about her perspective about this. On the amount spent on cancer research: "More than 40 years after the war on cancer was declared, we have spent billions fighting the good fight. The National Cancer Institute has spent some $90 billion on research and treatment during that time. Some 260 nonprofit organizations in the United States have dedicated themselves to cancer — more than the number established [...]

2013-02-08T13:35:57-07:00February, 2013|Oral Cancer News|

Environmental cancer risks may be more dangerous than you think

Source: LA Times Author: Jill U Adams Pollutants and other chemicals in your environment — your home, your frontyard, your workplace — may be more toxic to your health than you know, according to a report released earlier this month. The President's Cancer Panel, an advisory group charged with monitoring the war on cancer, proposed in its May 5 report that environmental chemicals might contribute to a larger share of deaths from cancer than the 1% to 5% figure cited by the National Cancer Institute. Skeptical reactions to the report, most notably from the American Cancer Society, say that the report's focus on potential environmental risks may distract from known risks with much larger effects, such as smoking, sun exposure, diet and exercise. But others, such as David Kriebel, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell who testified before the panel in 2008, say the risks associated with environmental exposures are unclear and could easily be larger than assumed. "Isn't it disappointing that we don't know how much larger?" he asks. "It is always worth making the point that tobacco is the most important exposure to try to eliminate," but that message shouldn't preclude investigation of other exposures, says Shelia Hoar Zahm, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute. The report, with its focus on the admittedly incomplete science on environmental cancer risks, helps the U.S. government to keep the broad picture in mind as it continues its war on cancer, she says. [...]

2010-05-25T15:17:24-07:00May, 2010|Oral Cancer News|
Go to Top