Saturday, June 6th dawned as a perfect day for the annual Naren A. Vora Memorial Golf Tourament. Held at the beautiful Raccoon Creek Golf Course, 88 golfers join the Vora brothers to raise of over $30,000 for the University of Colorado Cancer Center, supporting head and neck cancer research.
Planning for the June 2011 golf tournament are already in the works, so keep watching for more details!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Colorado Research Breakfast
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ASC CAN), the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society, held it's annual Colorado Research Breakfast on Tuesday, August 4th at the Denver Atheletic Club.
The welcome and introduction of the emcee, Theresa Marchetta, from KMGH TV, Channel 7, were made by Brian Eberle, ACS CAN State Lead Volunteer Ambassador to a ballroom packed with phyisicans, researchers, fundraisers, and volunteers.
Speakers included Tim Byers, MD, MPH and Paul Bunn, MD from UCCC, and the keynote speaker UCCC new director, Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD.
ASC CAN is a movement that unites and empowers cancer patients, survivors, caregivers and their families by giving them the training and tools needed to make their voices head in the halls of government and strives to make a difference by building a nationwide movement of cancer advocates.
The welcome and introduction of the emcee, Theresa Marchetta, from KMGH TV, Channel 7, were made by Brian Eberle, ACS CAN State Lead Volunteer Ambassador to a ballroom packed with phyisicans, researchers, fundraisers, and volunteers.
Speakers included Tim Byers, MD, MPH and Paul Bunn, MD from UCCC, and the keynote speaker UCCC new director, Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD.
ASC CAN is a movement that unites and empowers cancer patients, survivors, caregivers and their families by giving them the training and tools needed to make their voices head in the halls of government and strives to make a difference by building a nationwide movement of cancer advocates.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
2009-2010 FY Highlights
Our mission is to put ourselves out of business,
not necessarily curing cancer but to control it.”
Dr. Andrew Thorburn
Vice Chairman-Department of Pharmacology, Associate Director for Basic Science
Here are some highlights of programs supported in 2009 and 2010.
• Dr. Paul Bunn, M.D., founder of UCCC, was awarded a $5.2 million Grand Opportunities ARRA grant that will build a multi-center consortium to test 1,000 newly-diagnosed lung adenocarcinomas for a wide variety of genetic mutations, free of charge to patients.
• Dr. Ross Camidge recently announced that a new oral drug called an “ALK inhibitor” is bringing one form of non-small cell lung cancer to a standstill. This type of cancer kills 20,000 Americans every year. The significant results of the research raises the prospect that similar drugs for other forms of lung cancer may also be found.
• Dr. Pepper Schedin recently received two grants totaling $750,000 to continue her work on pregnancy-related breast cancer. As a young scientist, Dr. Schedin’s research was supported by AMC and she is quickly growing an international reputation for her leading work in pregnancy-related breast cancer, a devastating form of cancer that is more virulent than other types of breast cancer. About 50% of all breast cancer among young women occurs within five years of pregnancy.
• In May of 2010, AMC hosted the fourth annual “Gift of Life and Breath” a 5k Run to raise awareness and funds for research into the early detection of lung cancer. Through community support, corporate sponsorships and participant fundraising efforts, the event raised $89,000…more than enough to fund the next year of research conducted by University of Colorado Cancer Center member, Dr. Michael Weyant in collaboration with Dr. Kim O’Neil at Brigham Young University.
• AMC introduced the first annual women's event; Women, Wine and Wisdom, hosting the talented Jonna Tamases in her riotously entertaining, profoundly moving hour-long show "Jonna's Body, Please Hold" as well as the dynamic Dr. Virginia Borges' friendly and highly informative "Girl Talk" session, all you want and need to know about the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Translational Program at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. After hearing the powerful messages of Dr. Borges and Jonna, guests Walter and Laura Dear were inspired to commit to a matching challenge grant. This means every donation made to the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Program will be matched dollar for dollar. What a dramatic extension of the philanthropic impact the evening prompted!
• The Cancer Prevention and Control Program at the UCCC receives funding from AMC to support its programs in cancer prevention research and early detection, as well as supporting cancer survivors through the Livestrong Center for Excellence and the Cancer Information and Counseling Line. The significance of the prevention of cancer, not to mention the importance of early detection, is seen throughout the research and clinical trials taking place at UCCC in all cancer types. Statistics show that 750,000 lives could be saved through cancer prevention and control. Our work is paying off - there are more than 11 million cancer survivors in the United States today.
not necessarily curing cancer but to control it.”
Dr. Andrew Thorburn
Vice Chairman-Department of Pharmacology, Associate Director for Basic Science
Here are some highlights of programs supported in 2009 and 2010.
• Dr. Paul Bunn, M.D., founder of UCCC, was awarded a $5.2 million Grand Opportunities ARRA grant that will build a multi-center consortium to test 1,000 newly-diagnosed lung adenocarcinomas for a wide variety of genetic mutations, free of charge to patients.
• Dr. Ross Camidge recently announced that a new oral drug called an “ALK inhibitor” is bringing one form of non-small cell lung cancer to a standstill. This type of cancer kills 20,000 Americans every year. The significant results of the research raises the prospect that similar drugs for other forms of lung cancer may also be found.
• Dr. Pepper Schedin recently received two grants totaling $750,000 to continue her work on pregnancy-related breast cancer. As a young scientist, Dr. Schedin’s research was supported by AMC and she is quickly growing an international reputation for her leading work in pregnancy-related breast cancer, a devastating form of cancer that is more virulent than other types of breast cancer. About 50% of all breast cancer among young women occurs within five years of pregnancy.
• In May of 2010, AMC hosted the fourth annual “Gift of Life and Breath” a 5k Run to raise awareness and funds for research into the early detection of lung cancer. Through community support, corporate sponsorships and participant fundraising efforts, the event raised $89,000…more than enough to fund the next year of research conducted by University of Colorado Cancer Center member, Dr. Michael Weyant in collaboration with Dr. Kim O’Neil at Brigham Young University.
• AMC introduced the first annual women's event; Women, Wine and Wisdom, hosting the talented Jonna Tamases in her riotously entertaining, profoundly moving hour-long show "Jonna's Body, Please Hold" as well as the dynamic Dr. Virginia Borges' friendly and highly informative "Girl Talk" session, all you want and need to know about the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Translational Program at the University of Colorado Cancer Center. After hearing the powerful messages of Dr. Borges and Jonna, guests Walter and Laura Dear were inspired to commit to a matching challenge grant. This means every donation made to the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Program will be matched dollar for dollar. What a dramatic extension of the philanthropic impact the evening prompted!
• The Cancer Prevention and Control Program at the UCCC receives funding from AMC to support its programs in cancer prevention research and early detection, as well as supporting cancer survivors through the Livestrong Center for Excellence and the Cancer Information and Counseling Line. The significance of the prevention of cancer, not to mention the importance of early detection, is seen throughout the research and clinical trials taking place at UCCC in all cancer types. Statistics show that 750,000 lives could be saved through cancer prevention and control. Our work is paying off - there are more than 11 million cancer survivors in the United States today.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Seeking patients, researchers for Rare Cancer Genetics Registry
UCCC is now a participant in the NCI’s Rare Cancer Genetics Registry, which aims to collect genetic material from at least 200 patients who were diagnosed with rare cancers in the past five years. The registry data will be available to cancer researchers around the world.
Jan Lowery, PhD, MPH (AMC Cancer Prevention & Control Program/Colorado School of Public Health) is the grant’s local PI. She has sent letters to UCH doctors with patients diagnosed during the past five years with a rare or uncommon cancer asking for permission to contact the patient about donating blood or saliva to the registry.
“I would like to support recruitment for cancers that our researchers are actively pursuing work in,” Lowery said. “So, if a UCCC member is interested in doing a project in sarcoma, for example, then I’m happy to bump up enrollment of patients in that area to make sure we have a significant number of patients in the national registry.”
The Rare Cancer Genetics Registry, run out of Massachusetts General Hospital, will collect samples from patients with sarcoma, myeloma, head/neck cancer, renal cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreas cancer, gastric cancer, testicular cancer and fallopian tube cancer. Lowery encourages UCH doctors to get back to her about contacting their patients, and all UCCC members who are interested in using genetic material from the research to be in touch. She can be reached at jan.lowery@ucdenver.edu.
Jan Lowery, PhD, MPH (AMC Cancer Prevention & Control Program/Colorado School of Public Health) is the grant’s local PI. She has sent letters to UCH doctors with patients diagnosed during the past five years with a rare or uncommon cancer asking for permission to contact the patient about donating blood or saliva to the registry.
“I would like to support recruitment for cancers that our researchers are actively pursuing work in,” Lowery said. “So, if a UCCC member is interested in doing a project in sarcoma, for example, then I’m happy to bump up enrollment of patients in that area to make sure we have a significant number of patients in the national registry.”
The Rare Cancer Genetics Registry, run out of Massachusetts General Hospital, will collect samples from patients with sarcoma, myeloma, head/neck cancer, renal cancer, esophageal cancer, pancreas cancer, gastric cancer, testicular cancer and fallopian tube cancer. Lowery encourages UCH doctors to get back to her about contacting their patients, and all UCCC members who are interested in using genetic material from the research to be in touch. She can be reached at jan.lowery@ucdenver.edu.
A different philosophy of doing business
by Dr. Theodorescu
As I write this, I have been in Colorado for almost two weeks, and sitting behind my desk as director of the University of Cancer Center for 11 days.
During this short time, I’ve spent many hours with UCH President and CEO Bruce Schroffel and with SOM Dean Dick Krugman, MD, to share my vision of what the Cancer Center can be.
I spent two hours in Boulder with Tom Cech, PhD (Molecular Oncology/CU-Boulder) about how we can more closely align his Colorado Initiative for Molecular Biotechnology with the Cancer Center.
I’m scheduled to meet with Lilly Marks, UC Denver’s new vice president for health affairs and executive vice chancellor of the Anschutz Medical Campus.
In the fall, I’ll travel to Ft. Collins to meet with the new director of the Flint Animal Cancer Center at CSU, Rod Page, DVM, and associate director Steve Withrow, DVM (Developmental Therapeutics Program/CSU).
I’m trying to bring a different philosophy and way of doing business, to bring a more inclusive approach to what we do. It’s important to me that we all communicate and that all the stakeholders are heard. Our center will excel if we nurture the natural chemistry and synergies among our consortium members.
If I’m successful in my job, I will to inspire all the smart people in science in Colorado to work in cancer….and that does not include just biologists but mathematicians, physicists, chemists and engineers. We need to make new connections, cross classical disciplinary lines to reinvent how we do cancer research to take advantages of strengths here in Colorado in multidisciplinary research. That’s how we’ll make a difference in cancer.
Introducing Mark Kochevar, MBA
We will be recruiting a few new people. One of my first steps, with the help of the Associate Directors, is to hire Mark Kochevar, MBA, as our new associate director for administration and finance. Mark has worked as an administrator for the NCI, helped lead the University of Maryland’s cancer center and most recently developed and managed the new Medical College of Georgia Cancer Center.
Mark has the proven chops to do this job, and he has an all-star team to lean on in our administrative core. Of course, one of our resident administrative stars is Michaela Montour, MPA, who has graciously done two jobs for the past year as she led the Research Administration office and acted as the interim AD. I am grateful that Michaela will continue on in her research leadership role.
Implementing a new vision
Even though my house is full of boxes and I’ve been in Colorado for less than two weeks, I’m very comfortable here. I’m doing the same type of job I was in Virginia but on a bigger scale. Some of the things I have been thinking about for the past five years—I can now do them here.
I can implement my vision for making sure patients get the kind of coordinated care that they can’t get anywhere else in Colorado (and more about that and our strategic plan development process in a future message). I can also help put some challenges behind us that I see as having hamstrung our abilities to raise money and interact with some of clinical partners. All of this is very exciting to me.
I’m in the process of setting up my clinical practice and moving my lab from Virginia. I will continue to actively lead my lab because it’s important to me that as the Cancer Center director I keep the credibility that comes with being a working scientist and physician.
Sincerely,
Dan Theodorescu MD PhD
Paul Bunn Chair of Cancer Research
Professor of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine
Director, University of Colorado Cancer Center
As I write this, I have been in Colorado for almost two weeks, and sitting behind my desk as director of the University of Cancer Center for 11 days.
During this short time, I’ve spent many hours with UCH President and CEO Bruce Schroffel and with SOM Dean Dick Krugman, MD, to share my vision of what the Cancer Center can be.
I spent two hours in Boulder with Tom Cech, PhD (Molecular Oncology/CU-Boulder) about how we can more closely align his Colorado Initiative for Molecular Biotechnology with the Cancer Center.
I’m scheduled to meet with Lilly Marks, UC Denver’s new vice president for health affairs and executive vice chancellor of the Anschutz Medical Campus.
In the fall, I’ll travel to Ft. Collins to meet with the new director of the Flint Animal Cancer Center at CSU, Rod Page, DVM, and associate director Steve Withrow, DVM (Developmental Therapeutics Program/CSU).
I’m trying to bring a different philosophy and way of doing business, to bring a more inclusive approach to what we do. It’s important to me that we all communicate and that all the stakeholders are heard. Our center will excel if we nurture the natural chemistry and synergies among our consortium members.
If I’m successful in my job, I will to inspire all the smart people in science in Colorado to work in cancer….and that does not include just biologists but mathematicians, physicists, chemists and engineers. We need to make new connections, cross classical disciplinary lines to reinvent how we do cancer research to take advantages of strengths here in Colorado in multidisciplinary research. That’s how we’ll make a difference in cancer.
Introducing Mark Kochevar, MBA
We will be recruiting a few new people. One of my first steps, with the help of the Associate Directors, is to hire Mark Kochevar, MBA, as our new associate director for administration and finance. Mark has worked as an administrator for the NCI, helped lead the University of Maryland’s cancer center and most recently developed and managed the new Medical College of Georgia Cancer Center.
Mark has the proven chops to do this job, and he has an all-star team to lean on in our administrative core. Of course, one of our resident administrative stars is Michaela Montour, MPA, who has graciously done two jobs for the past year as she led the Research Administration office and acted as the interim AD. I am grateful that Michaela will continue on in her research leadership role.
Implementing a new vision
Even though my house is full of boxes and I’ve been in Colorado for less than two weeks, I’m very comfortable here. I’m doing the same type of job I was in Virginia but on a bigger scale. Some of the things I have been thinking about for the past five years—I can now do them here.
I can implement my vision for making sure patients get the kind of coordinated care that they can’t get anywhere else in Colorado (and more about that and our strategic plan development process in a future message). I can also help put some challenges behind us that I see as having hamstrung our abilities to raise money and interact with some of clinical partners. All of this is very exciting to me.
I’m in the process of setting up my clinical practice and moving my lab from Virginia. I will continue to actively lead my lab because it’s important to me that as the Cancer Center director I keep the credibility that comes with being a working scientist and physician.
Sincerely,
Dan Theodorescu MD PhD
Paul Bunn Chair of Cancer Research
Professor of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine
Director, University of Colorado Cancer Center
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
How do we challenge prevailing wisdom?
by Andrew Thorburn, Ph.D.
Interim Director
Associate Director for Basic Science
Grohne Chair in Basic Cancer Research
Last week, I said that one of the reasons cancer increases with age is because the longer you live, the more chance you have to accumulate mutations in genes that control cancer.
I was careful to put the word “one” in there but even using that modifier, my statement gave the impression that this “conventional” view, which you’ll find in textbooks, is the most important thing.
Was I right last week? DeGregori says no.
One of the best things for me since I’ve been doing this job is getting feedback about these messages. So it was gratifying that shortly after last week’s message went out, I got a message from Dr. James DeGregori (co-leader, Molecular Oncology Program/SOM Molecular Biology) telling me that I’m wrong.
James thinks the “more time for oncogene mutation” idea probably does contribute a bit to age-related cancer, but it’s not the most important thing. James doesn’t think the “more time” idea can really explain the exponential increase in cancer with aging. Instead, James has been developing a radically different idea that he calls “adaptive oncogenesis.”
Adaptive oncogenesis and stem cell fitness
Cancer is a fascinating area to work in for many reasons, but one of them is that cancer is Darwinian natural selection in action (we’ve talked about this before in the context of treatment but it’s also true for cancer development). So, think back to your basic biology education and the fact that as Theodosius Dobzhansky said in a famous 1973 essay “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Adaptive oncogenesis proposes that, as we age, cancer development is driven by changes in the relative “fitness” (in a natural selection sense) of our stem cells.
James proposes that long-lived organisms like us have evolved stem cell populations with high fitness that prevent selection of cells that have acquired mutations in cancer genes. The idea is that, just as an animal population that is well-adapted to its environment will not change much (i.e. mutations will tend to be weeded out), stem cells with high fitness will tend to be stable. So, if they acquire a new mutation, the status quo will be favored and mutations will tend not to be selected for.
James thinks (and has direct published data) that as we get older, our stem cell fitness declines. And so, now we can get selection for adaptive mutations especially those that confer a cancer advantage. So, the adaptive oncogenesis hypothesis proposes that the high fitness of young stem cells acts against selection for oncogenic mutations, but as we age and fitness declines, this allows selection for cancer to occur.
But what about gene mutations?
James doesn’t deny the importance of mutations. He just thinks that their effects (in our case the development of cancer) can’t be manifested unless the overall fitness of the stem cell compartment is compromised as occurs during aging (or in response to other stresses like radiation exposure).
This is a radical re-thinking of how cancer develops that might provide new perspectives on what cancer is and how to prevent it. If James is correct, the key may not be preventing the acquisition of mutations but rather preserving the fitness of stem cells to ensure that these mutations can’t drive tumor evolution.
Game-changer
This idea didn’t just come out of the sky. Good ideas never do. They come about by putting together other pieces of information and making them into something better.
Others have influenced the adaptive oncogenesis idea, but I think it’s fair to say that James DeGregori is the person who has developed this concept.
So, one of UCCC’s investigators has an original idea that challenges a reigning paradigm about a central aspect of cancer—a really central aspect, how it comes about! And, if he’s right, adaptive oncogenesis could be a game changer that might even lead to strategies to prevent cancer that would never have been considered in the absence of the new idea.
Big money needed
Radical new ideas are not accepted with open arms. The scientific establishment is always saying that we look for innovation. However, the truth is that people are wary of new things.
Add to that the concepts here are not intuitively obvious (and people need to grasp ideas from evolutionary biology) and you see the problem: The reviewers will tend to go for a safer option, which fits with the ideas in the textbooks.
In our system, if he’s going to make real inroads in getting adequate funding (i.e. a big grant from the NCI), James needs to go beyond having the idea. He needs to be halfway down the road of demonstrating its validity.
James had a couple of pilot project grants through a UCCC Cancer and Aging Program grant in the early days of developing his idea. He needs much more, but even that small amount of funding has helped solidify his ideas and get some publications.
However, and I quote him, “The problem has been getting big money. NIH reviewers don't get it.”
What James didn’t tell me was Plan B—what if the next set of NIH reviewers are still too cautious to get behind a guy with a radically different take on things? Should we let an idea die because it’s too original or too hard to get your head around? Should we let it die because it goes against textbooks?
This is why we need funding (mostly from philanthropy but also from grants like the lung cancer SPORE or that Cancer and Aging grant) to start new projects.
And, sometimes, we need more money to keep those ideas alive while we build an argument that is persuasive enough that even risk-averse reviewers will approve the big money that it takes to do the big test.
That’s why the UCCC supporters who provide that funding are just as important a part of our team as the investigator with great ideas that challenge paradigms. Ideas aren’t enough when you’re in the business of changing prevailing wisdom; you need dollars too.
Want to read more of Dr. Thorburn's articles? Read the Director's Newsletter Online: www.uccc.info/dnl
Interim Director
Associate Director for Basic Science
Grohne Chair in Basic Cancer Research
Last week, I said that one of the reasons cancer increases with age is because the longer you live, the more chance you have to accumulate mutations in genes that control cancer.
I was careful to put the word “one” in there but even using that modifier, my statement gave the impression that this “conventional” view, which you’ll find in textbooks, is the most important thing.
Was I right last week? DeGregori says no.
One of the best things for me since I’ve been doing this job is getting feedback about these messages. So it was gratifying that shortly after last week’s message went out, I got a message from Dr. James DeGregori (co-leader, Molecular Oncology Program/SOM Molecular Biology) telling me that I’m wrong.
James thinks the “more time for oncogene mutation” idea probably does contribute a bit to age-related cancer, but it’s not the most important thing. James doesn’t think the “more time” idea can really explain the exponential increase in cancer with aging. Instead, James has been developing a radically different idea that he calls “adaptive oncogenesis.”
Adaptive oncogenesis and stem cell fitness
Cancer is a fascinating area to work in for many reasons, but one of them is that cancer is Darwinian natural selection in action (we’ve talked about this before in the context of treatment but it’s also true for cancer development). So, think back to your basic biology education and the fact that as Theodosius Dobzhansky said in a famous 1973 essay “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Adaptive oncogenesis proposes that, as we age, cancer development is driven by changes in the relative “fitness” (in a natural selection sense) of our stem cells.
James proposes that long-lived organisms like us have evolved stem cell populations with high fitness that prevent selection of cells that have acquired mutations in cancer genes. The idea is that, just as an animal population that is well-adapted to its environment will not change much (i.e. mutations will tend to be weeded out), stem cells with high fitness will tend to be stable. So, if they acquire a new mutation, the status quo will be favored and mutations will tend not to be selected for.
James thinks (and has direct published data) that as we get older, our stem cell fitness declines. And so, now we can get selection for adaptive mutations especially those that confer a cancer advantage. So, the adaptive oncogenesis hypothesis proposes that the high fitness of young stem cells acts against selection for oncogenic mutations, but as we age and fitness declines, this allows selection for cancer to occur.
But what about gene mutations?
James doesn’t deny the importance of mutations. He just thinks that their effects (in our case the development of cancer) can’t be manifested unless the overall fitness of the stem cell compartment is compromised as occurs during aging (or in response to other stresses like radiation exposure).
This is a radical re-thinking of how cancer develops that might provide new perspectives on what cancer is and how to prevent it. If James is correct, the key may not be preventing the acquisition of mutations but rather preserving the fitness of stem cells to ensure that these mutations can’t drive tumor evolution.
Game-changer
This idea didn’t just come out of the sky. Good ideas never do. They come about by putting together other pieces of information and making them into something better.
Others have influenced the adaptive oncogenesis idea, but I think it’s fair to say that James DeGregori is the person who has developed this concept.
So, one of UCCC’s investigators has an original idea that challenges a reigning paradigm about a central aspect of cancer—a really central aspect, how it comes about! And, if he’s right, adaptive oncogenesis could be a game changer that might even lead to strategies to prevent cancer that would never have been considered in the absence of the new idea.
Big money needed
Radical new ideas are not accepted with open arms. The scientific establishment is always saying that we look for innovation. However, the truth is that people are wary of new things.
Add to that the concepts here are not intuitively obvious (and people need to grasp ideas from evolutionary biology) and you see the problem: The reviewers will tend to go for a safer option, which fits with the ideas in the textbooks.
In our system, if he’s going to make real inroads in getting adequate funding (i.e. a big grant from the NCI), James needs to go beyond having the idea. He needs to be halfway down the road of demonstrating its validity.
James had a couple of pilot project grants through a UCCC Cancer and Aging Program grant in the early days of developing his idea. He needs much more, but even that small amount of funding has helped solidify his ideas and get some publications.
However, and I quote him, “The problem has been getting big money. NIH reviewers don't get it.”
What James didn’t tell me was Plan B—what if the next set of NIH reviewers are still too cautious to get behind a guy with a radically different take on things? Should we let an idea die because it’s too original or too hard to get your head around? Should we let it die because it goes against textbooks?
This is why we need funding (mostly from philanthropy but also from grants like the lung cancer SPORE or that Cancer and Aging grant) to start new projects.
And, sometimes, we need more money to keep those ideas alive while we build an argument that is persuasive enough that even risk-averse reviewers will approve the big money that it takes to do the big test.
That’s why the UCCC supporters who provide that funding are just as important a part of our team as the investigator with great ideas that challenge paradigms. Ideas aren’t enough when you’re in the business of changing prevailing wisdom; you need dollars too.
Want to read more of Dr. Thorburn's articles? Read the Director's Newsletter Online: www.uccc.info/dnl
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Director's Message: May 18, 2010
On May 6, the President’s Cancer Panel issued a report to the White House that made a bit of a splash—editorials and commentaries in newspapers including a piece by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times.
The bottom line was that the “true burden environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.” The panel advised President Obama to use the powers of his office to remove carcinogens and toxins from our food, air and water as an urgent priority.
The report had some impact. Kristof, who is someone I read fairly often because he tells me things that I tend to agree with, concluded that we should eat organic food, change water storage methods and check for radon exposure in our homes.
Kristof also made the point that this isn’t just a recommendation from a bunch of wackos: It’s from the President’s Cancer Panel, a group of real experts. Maybe.
While the President’s Cancer Panel member are indeed not wacko, they are also not the final word on all things cancer. In fact, this three-person panel has just two current members because President Obama hasn’t appointed someone to fill a gap yet. I’m not sure of the dictionary definition but I think it’s hard to be a “panel” if you’re just two people.
A better example of a critical report on cancer is this: a committee of more than a dozen leading experts comes to consensus on an issue, such as a recent report from the Institute of Medicine about how to reinvigorate cancer clinical trials in the United States.
The American Cancer Society highlighted a problem in the President’s Cancer Panel report that I agree with. While chemical exposure can be associated with elevated cancer risk, the President’s Cancer Panel report may give people the impression that chemicals in the environment are the BIGGEST risk factor. If a smart guy like Nicholas Kristof gets that impression, its not just overreaction from folks who don’t know any better.
As far as I can tell, the Cancer Panel report is running the danger of presenting hypotheses as firmly established fact. We really don’t know how much cancer risk is associated with environmental chemicals. The problem (and this is where I personally tend to agree with the ACS position) is that it may give the false impression that other modifiable risks are not as important.
My fear is that if we focus on chemicals, an average person might think that if they filter their drinking water and buy organic potatoes they are significantly reducing their cancer risk. Water filtering and eating organic aren’t bad, but reports like the Cancer Panel’s may suggest that ways we know we can reduce cancer risk, like not using tobacco, maintaining a healthy weight and reducing sun exposure, are maybe not so important.
It makes sense to reduce radiation exposure through encouraging radon testing, limiting exposure to known carcinogens like benzene and limiting the amount of radiation exposure through medical screening and other interventions. But I don’t want people to think that the risk of radiation exposure from cancer screening is as big as the risk of the disease unless that’s true (and it almost always won’t be).
I certainly think that better understanding (i.e. more research) on the effects of chemicals is sorely needed. But there are lots of things we need to do research on. Are we really going to carefully analyze 80,000 chemicals without taking resources away from other areas of research that will have a bigger impact?
I fear that we run the risk of diluting our message, that people get further confused by all the information that is thrown at them about things that are “good” or “bad” as regards cancer. And, if we continue to confuse them, we risk sending entirely the wrong message.
It would be a pity if the President’s Cancer Panel Report ends up making people think that environmental chemicals are the biggest problem that we need to deal with. Those of us in the cancer world should focus on ensuring clear messages about what we do know about big, avoidable cancer risks (tobacco, obesity, sun exposure), and if we add things to that list such as chemical exposure, we should do so with a similar level of confidence that our messages are indeed fact and not hypothesis.
And, we should make sure we’re clear about which of these provide the highest risks to people and make sure we convey the message that dealing with tobacco and the like should be our first priority.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thorburn
Interim Director
Associate Director for Basic Science
Grohne Chair for Basic Cancer Research
The bottom line was that the “true burden environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.” The panel advised President Obama to use the powers of his office to remove carcinogens and toxins from our food, air and water as an urgent priority.
The report had some impact. Kristof, who is someone I read fairly often because he tells me things that I tend to agree with, concluded that we should eat organic food, change water storage methods and check for radon exposure in our homes.
Kristof also made the point that this isn’t just a recommendation from a bunch of wackos: It’s from the President’s Cancer Panel, a group of real experts. Maybe.
While the President’s Cancer Panel member are indeed not wacko, they are also not the final word on all things cancer. In fact, this three-person panel has just two current members because President Obama hasn’t appointed someone to fill a gap yet. I’m not sure of the dictionary definition but I think it’s hard to be a “panel” if you’re just two people.
A better example of a critical report on cancer is this: a committee of more than a dozen leading experts comes to consensus on an issue, such as a recent report from the Institute of Medicine about how to reinvigorate cancer clinical trials in the United States.
The American Cancer Society highlighted a problem in the President’s Cancer Panel report that I agree with. While chemical exposure can be associated with elevated cancer risk, the President’s Cancer Panel report may give people the impression that chemicals in the environment are the BIGGEST risk factor. If a smart guy like Nicholas Kristof gets that impression, its not just overreaction from folks who don’t know any better.
As far as I can tell, the Cancer Panel report is running the danger of presenting hypotheses as firmly established fact. We really don’t know how much cancer risk is associated with environmental chemicals. The problem (and this is where I personally tend to agree with the ACS position) is that it may give the false impression that other modifiable risks are not as important.
My fear is that if we focus on chemicals, an average person might think that if they filter their drinking water and buy organic potatoes they are significantly reducing their cancer risk. Water filtering and eating organic aren’t bad, but reports like the Cancer Panel’s may suggest that ways we know we can reduce cancer risk, like not using tobacco, maintaining a healthy weight and reducing sun exposure, are maybe not so important.
It makes sense to reduce radiation exposure through encouraging radon testing, limiting exposure to known carcinogens like benzene and limiting the amount of radiation exposure through medical screening and other interventions. But I don’t want people to think that the risk of radiation exposure from cancer screening is as big as the risk of the disease unless that’s true (and it almost always won’t be).
I certainly think that better understanding (i.e. more research) on the effects of chemicals is sorely needed. But there are lots of things we need to do research on. Are we really going to carefully analyze 80,000 chemicals without taking resources away from other areas of research that will have a bigger impact?
I fear that we run the risk of diluting our message, that people get further confused by all the information that is thrown at them about things that are “good” or “bad” as regards cancer. And, if we continue to confuse them, we risk sending entirely the wrong message.
It would be a pity if the President’s Cancer Panel Report ends up making people think that environmental chemicals are the biggest problem that we need to deal with. Those of us in the cancer world should focus on ensuring clear messages about what we do know about big, avoidable cancer risks (tobacco, obesity, sun exposure), and if we add things to that list such as chemical exposure, we should do so with a similar level of confidence that our messages are indeed fact and not hypothesis.
And, we should make sure we’re clear about which of these provide the highest risks to people and make sure we convey the message that dealing with tobacco and the like should be our first priority.
Sincerely,
Andrew Thorburn
Interim Director
Associate Director for Basic Science
Grohne Chair for Basic Cancer Research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)