I recieved this important email that I thought was worth sharing. It was sent via a friend from Dr. Ralph Moss about the "Bazell Report". This is information that needs to get out to the general public and to doctors as well. Dr. Moss writes:
"I read with interest a recent news report by Robert Bazell, NBC's chief science and health correspondent. Bear in mind that Bazell has written a book on the development of the breast cancer drug Herceptin and is particularly well versed on topics relating to this disease. In the past he has stood almost alone in the mainstream media for being willing to criticize the National Cancer Institute. See, for example, my earlier newsletter: http://www.cancerdecisions.com/091706.html
Writing for MSNBC.com, Bazell reports on a private session that was held at the meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago earlier this month. At this closed session, a select group of attendees was addressed by Dr. Dennis Slamon, chief of oncology at UCLA. Dr. Slamon revealed that his current research indicates that anthracyclines such as Adriamycin almost certainly provide no benefit whatever to 92 percent of breast cancer patients. Only 8 percent of all women with breast cancer - those who over-express a specific gene called Topoll-2 - stand to benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, since these drugs work by directly targeting Topoll-2.
Meanwhile, Adriamycin and related drugs are well known to be cardiotoxic, causing permanent heart damage in a significant proportion of patients. They are also associated with an increased risk of second cancers, particularly leukemia.
The fact that over 90 percent of women who are given anthracycline-based chemotherapy can expect to derive absolutely no benefit - and potentially considerable harm - from this treatment is a momentous admission. It is all the more remarkable coming from a source as unimpeachable as Dr. Slamon, whose research was pivotal to the development of another 'targeted' breast cancer drug, Herceptin."It seems apparent that we are treating patients who don't need the drug to get at that group who have a huge benefit," Slamon told Bazell. "And now we need to direct our therapy and target it more specifically."
Unfortunately, at present there is no commercial test for Topoll-2, although according to Dr. Slamon, development of a test is apparently nearing completion.
It cannot come a moment too soon. The fact that tens of thousands of women are routinely being given chemotherapy that can only possibly benefit 8 out of every 100, and that may harm considerably more than it helps, is shocking.
Although Dr. Slamon's work has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in any medical journal, Bazell considered it newsworthy enough to publish at the MSNBC Web site. Aside from the Annie Appleseed Project ( www.annieappleseedproject.org ), almost no one on the Internet has seemingly noticed this important report.
I made a similar point a dozen years ago in my book, Questioning Chemotherapy.
Analyzing the case of some women with node-negative disease, I wrote that toxic chemotherapy was being given to 100 node-negative women in order to benefit just 3. "To achieve that goal for 5,040 women, 64,960 other women have to be treated with toxic drugs," I wrote. "They cannot and will not derive any benefit from this treatment" (p. 91, emphasis in original). After the book came out, I actually rented a display booth at ASCO, in order to familiarize oncologists with this sobering fact. Overall, I met with deafening silence. Oncologists seemed uninterested in any facts that might lead them to diminish the increasing use of chemotherapy.
While the specific numbers have changed somewhat since 1995, it is still true that large numbers of women have to be treated with toxic drugs in order for a few to benefit.
If Dr. Slamon has truly figured out how to test women for their sensitivity to anthracyclines then this would be a great thing, since it will spare a huge number of women from having to take these potentially heart-damaging and leukemia-inducing drugs.
If that happens, this will represent a further turn towards individualizing cancer treatment, so that only those who are really likely to benefit from a drug need to receive it. This will be excellent news for the 100,000 or so women each year who are now given anthracyclines with little or no chance of benefiting from them, but with a considerable risk of harm." --Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
I recieved this important email that I thought was worth sharing. It was sent via a friend from Dr. Ralph Moss about the "Bazell Report". This is information that needs to get out to the general public and to doctors as well. Dr. Moss writes:
"I read with interest a recent news report by Robert Bazell, NBC's chief science and health correspondent. Bear in mind that Bazell has written a book on the development of the breast cancer drug Herceptin and is particularly well versed on topics relating to this disease. In the past he has stood almost alone in the mainstream media for being willing to criticize the National Cancer Institute. See, for example, my earlier newsletter: http://www.cancerdecisions.com/091706.html
Writing for MSNBC.com, Bazell reports on a private session that was held at the meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago earlier this month. At this closed session, a select group of attendees was addressed by Dr. Dennis Slamon, chief of oncology at UCLA. Dr. Slamon revealed that his current research indicates that anthracyclines such as Adriamycin almost certainly provide no benefit whatever to 92 percent of breast cancer patients. Only 8 percent of all women with breast cancer - those who over-express a specific gene called Topoll-2 - stand to benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy, since these drugs work by directly targeting Topoll-2.
Meanwhile, Adriamycin and related drugs are well known to be cardiotoxic, causing permanent heart damage in a significant proportion of patients. They are also associated with an increased risk of second cancers, particularly leukemia. The fact that over 90 percent of women who are given anthracycline-based chemotherapy can expect to derive absolutely no benefit - and potentially considerable harm - from this treatment is a momentous admission. It is all the more remarkable coming from a source as unimpeachable as Dr. Slamon, whose research was pivotal to the development of another 'targeted' breast cancer drug, Herceptin."It seems apparent that we are treating patients who don't need the drug to get at that group who have a huge benefit," Slamon told Bazell. "And now we need to direct our therapy and target it more specifically."
Unfortunately, at present there is no commercial test for Topoll-2, although according to Dr. Slamon, development of a test is apparently nearing completion. It cannot come a moment too soon. The fact that tens of thousands of women are routinely being given chemotherapy that can only possibly benefit 8 out of every 100, and that may harm considerably more than it helps, is shocking. Although Dr. Slamon's work has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in any medical journal, Bazell considered it newsworthy enough to publish at the MSNBC Web site. Aside from the Annie Appleseed Project ( www.annieappleseedproject.org ), almost no one on the Internet has seemingly noticed this important report. I made a similar point a dozen years ago in my book, Questioning Chemotherapy.
Analyzing the case of some women with node-negative disease, I wrote that toxic chemotherapy was being given to 100 node-negative women in order to benefit just 3. "To achieve that goal for 5,040 women, 64,960 other women have to be treated with toxic drugs," I wrote. "They cannot and will not derive any benefit from this treatment" (p. 91, emphasis in original). After the book came out, I actually rented a display booth at ASCO, in order to familiarize oncologists with this sobering fact. Overall, I met with deafening silence. Oncologists seemed uninterested in any facts that might lead them to diminish the increasing use of chemotherapy. While the specific numbers have changed somewhat since 1995, it is still true that large numbers of women have to be treated with toxic drugs in order for a few to benefit.
If Dr. Slamon has truly figured out how to test women for their sensitivity to anthracyclines then this would be a great thing, since it will spare a huge number of women from having to take these potentially heart-damaging and leukemia-inducing drugs. If that happens, this will represent a further turn towards individualizing cancer treatment, so that only those who are really likely to benefit from a drug need to receive it. This will be excellent news for the 100,000 or so women each year who are now given anthracyclines with little or no chance of benefiting from them, but with a considerable risk of harm." --Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.