When Medical Reality Doesn't Match the Spin

[Guest guest]

When medical reality doesn't match the spin

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13421277/

Recent study shows the government is too eager to claim cancer success

By Bazell

Chief science and health correspondent, NBC News

We're making great progress against cancer, right?

The National Cancer Institute desperately wants you to believe that,

even if it means spinning the scientific facts to fit the perception.

The NCI is the federal government's lead organization in financing

cancer research, with an annual budget of about $5 billion.

Presentation of the results from a recent breast cancer study

demonstrates the NCI's eagerness to proclaim success no matter what

the data show.

Called the STAR trial, the study enrolled 20,000 healthy post-

menopausal women for five years to compare two drugs, tamoxifen and

raloxifene (sold under the trade name Evista), to determine which is

better at reducing the risk for breast cancer. Scientists and

journalists label such studies " prevention " trials. Unfortunately,

nothing prevents breast cancer. Some drugs shift the odds, and the

goal here was to determine which one is best.

Reading a a press release issued by the NCI in April and listening to

a telephone briefing, there was no doubt. Both drugs affected breast

cancer incidence equally, but raloxifene has fewer side effects,

according to the researchers.

Bingo! A great result for women's health. Raloxifene, as headlines

and news broadcasts across the country proclaimed, was the clear

winner.

Since the drug is already on the market to protect against bone loss

why shouldn't eligible women, estimated to number 30 million, take it?

Ambiguous results

The problem? The detailed results of the study ­ appearing in this

week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ­

differ substantially from the interpretation pushed by the press

release. Both drugs have side effects and the study offers little

clarity about which one is best. Most troubling for raloxifene, it

brings a higher incidence of a breast condition called DCIS (or

ductal carcinoma in situ).

Oncologists debate whether this is truly breast cancer or a pre-

cancerous condition. But tens of thousands of women a year require

surgery (often mastectomy) and radiation to treat DCIS so anyone

would think twice before taking a drug that might increase the risk.

This equivocal result is especially troubling for the NCI because of

the history of the effort to find a breast cancer " prevention " pill.

In 1998 with great fanfare the NCI released results of a trial that

compared tamoxifen to a placebo. Tamoxifen clearly reduced the risk

of breast cancer. A government press release called it " an historic

step toward more effective prevention of breast cancer. "

But women and their doctors did not buy into the concept. Tamoxifen

increases the risk for blood clots and uterine cancer and few healthy

women wanted to take a pill every day.

So the NCI really wanted to prove that raloxifene could be an

acceptable alternative. But taxpayers spent $88 million (and

raloxifene manufacturer Eli Lilly put in another $30 Million) for the

ambiguous result.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BREAST CANCER OPTIONS now has a DISCUSSION FORUM page on our web

site: http://www.breastcanceroptions.org/DiscussionForum.asp. Please

visit us there.

BCO News is brought to you by BREAST CANCER OPTIONS, a grassroots

organization focusing on Health Advocacy, Support and Education. The

information is intended for educational purposes only, in order to

help you make informed health choices and may not have been touched

upon by your doctors. We are not doctors and we do not recommend any

particular treatments. We are sending this information to advise you

of the complete scientific overview that is currently available,

although we may not necessarily endorse it.

http://www.breastcanceroptions.org

[Guest guest]

Thanks nne!

I am amazed by those news. Actually, after reading the links in this article, I

keep wodering in who to believe... No wonder I had so many reservations about

ths treatment.

So, one more reason to not expose myself to so many yeras of tamoxifen. There is

a link there that talks about how efective is tamox for cancer prevention.

Disturbing.

Hugs

When Medical Reality Doesn't Match the Spin

When medical reality doesn't match the spin

http://msnbc. msn.com/id/ 13421277/

Recent study shows the government is too eager to claim cancer success

By Bazell

Chief science and health correspondent, NBC News

We're making great progress against cancer, right?

The National Cancer Institute desperately wants you to believe that,

even if it means spinning the scientific facts to fit the perception.

The NCI is the federal government's lead organization in financing

cancer research, with an annual budget of about $5 billion.

Presentation of the results from a recent breast cancer study

demonstrates the NCI's eagerness to proclaim success no matter what

the data show.

Called the STAR trial, the study enrolled 20,000 healthy post-

menopausal women for five years to compare two drugs, tamoxifen and

raloxifene (sold under the trade name Evista), to determine which is

better at reducing the risk for breast cancer. Scientists and

journalists label such studies " prevention " trials. Unfortunately,

nothing prevents breast cancer. Some drugs shift the odds, and the

goal here was to determine which one is best.

Reading a a press release issued by the NCI in April and listening to

a telephone briefing, there was no doubt. Both drugs affected breast

cancer incidence equally, but raloxifene has fewer side effects,

according to the researchers.

Bingo! A great result for women's health. Raloxifene, as headlines

and news broadcasts across the country proclaimed, was the clear

winner.

Since the drug is already on the market to protect against bone loss

why shouldn't eligible women, estimated to number 30 million, take it?

Ambiguous results

The problem? The detailed results of the study ­ appearing in this

week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ­

differ substantially from the interpretation pushed by the press

release. Both drugs have side effects and the study offers little

clarity about which one is best. Most troubling for raloxifene, it

brings a higher incidence of a breast condition called DCIS (or

ductal carcinoma in situ).

Oncologists debate whether this is truly breast cancer or a pre-

cancerous condition. But tens of thousands of women a year require

surgery (often mastectomy) and radiation to treat DCIS so anyone

would think twice before taking a drug that might increase the risk.

This equivocal result is especially troubling for the NCI because of

the history of the effort to find a breast cancer " prevention " pill.

In 1998 with great fanfare the NCI released results of a trial that

compared tamoxifen to a placebo. Tamoxifen clearly reduced the risk

of breast cancer. A government press release called it " an historic

step toward more effective prevention of breast cancer. "

But women and their doctors did not buy into the concept. Tamoxifen

increases the risk for blood clots and uterine cancer and few healthy

women wanted to take a pill every day.

So the NCI really wanted to prove that raloxifene could be an

acceptable alternative. But taxpayers spent $88 million (and

raloxifene manufacturer Eli Lilly put in another $30 Million) for the

ambiguous result.

++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++++

BREAST CANCER OPTIONS now has a DISCUSSION FORUM page on our web

site: http://www.breastca nceroptions. org/DiscussionFo rum.asp. Please

visit us there.

BCO News is brought to you by BREAST CANCER OPTIONS, a grassroots

organization focusing on Health Advocacy, Support and Education. The

information is intended for educational purposes only, in order to

help you make informed health choices and may not have been touched

upon by your doctors. We are not doctors and we do not recommend any

particular treatments. We are sending this information to advise you

of the complete scientific overview that is currently available,

although we may not necessarily endorse it.

http://www.breastca nceroptions. org