What are you reading in 2023?

[Yppej]

We Should Not be Friends biography about a jock and a gay at Yale

[littlebittybobby]

I read across an article---several articles-- about Northwest Flight 4422, which was bound from Shanghai to New York, back in 1948. Well, they stopped to refuel in Anchorage, Alaska, took off and got off-course at 11,000 feet, and hit a steep mountainside. The wreck was located via the air search the next day, but it had slid down onto a glacier, and was soon covered by snow. All 30 aboard were lost. It took close to 50 years to find parts of the plane, coming down the glacier, and the hand and forearm of one of the passengers is, so far, the only human remains recovered. But yeah--frozen all these years, forensics tests were able to identify the person whose arm it was. Yup. Hope that helps you some.2023-03-11 (2).jpg2022-08-15 (8).jpg

[Rogar]

Luck of the Draw. A true WWII first hand account of a B-17 crewmember, his several missions, and then being shot down and made a prisoner of war. A recent book and soon to be a Spielberg movie, if I have my facts tight.

[pinkytoe]

Billionaire Wilderness by Justin Farrell. The author, a Yale sociologist delves in to the reasons why the ultra-wealthy have mega homes in Teton County Wyoming - the wealthiest county in the US. He mentions that countless studies have been done on the poor but very few on the wealthy so that is his research goal.

[JaneV2.0]

The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last , by Azra Raza.

The author, an oncologist and cancer researcher, is intimately involved with her subject matter, for good or ill. The book starts out with her oncologist husband quickly succumbing to lymphoma, and that sets the tone throughout. To wit:

"The failure rate for (cancer) drugs brought into clinical trials using such preclinical drug-testing platforms is 95 percent. The 5 percent of drugs that reach approval might as well have failed, since they prolong survival of patients by no more than a few months at best. Since 2005, 70 percent of approved drugs have shown zero improvement in survival rates while up to 70 percent have been actually harmful to patients."

[iris lilies]

The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last , by Azra Raza.

The author, an oncologist and cancer researcher, is intimately involved with her subject matter, for good or ill. The book starts out with her oncologist husband quickly succumbing to lymphoma, and that sets the tone throughout. To wit:

"The failure rate for (cancer) drugs brought into clinical trials using such preclinical drug-testing platforms is 95 percent. The 5 percent of drugs that reach approval might as well have failed, since they prolong survival of patients by no more than a few months at best. Since 2005, 70 percent of approved drugs have shown zero improvement in survival rates while up to 70 percent have been actually harmful to patients."

I wonder if this last paragraph would be universally agreed-upon in the medical community. It seems to be in conflict with the general rah rah we are beating cancer message that is out there.

[catherine]

I wonder if this last paragraph would be universally agreed-upon in the medical community. It seems to be in conflict with the general rah rah we are beating cancer message that is out there.

I interview oncologists and patients, and have for several years. I can't refute the finding of the author because I just don't know, but I would say that survival rates would vary widely by type of cancer and specific treatments approved for those indications.

The excitement in the medical community is based on the fact that there are a lot of novel therapies and diagnostics that can predict response to therapies, which is a huge advance. Chemotherapy is no longer the default first line treatment--depending on the type of cancer there are immunotherapies, and a bunch of new targeted therapies.

So, breast and prostate cancer are becoming chronic illnesses. A pancreatic cancer diagnosis is still very much a death sentence. In my own observations, patients taking some of these new drugs, like Keytruda have been very successful in prolonging survival. At the last ASCO symposium a couple of months ago, there was a lot of excitement over a new drug that one of my clients manufactures. The clinical trial data is very good.

If I were diagnosed with cancer, I would definitely fight for a new targeted treatment, and I would hope my doctor would do NGS (next-generation sequencing) to see if I had any biomarkers that could help drive the treatment decision. I would also switch to a macrobiotic diet and exercise and avoid environmental pollutants. I would NOT reject treatment, despite the discouraging information the author is reporting.

[pinkytoe]

There was a news story on CBS this evening about prostate cancer. It said watchful waiting is now recommended over radiation and chemo for some cases as survival rates are no better with treatment.

[Rogar]

The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last , by Azra Raza.
"The failure rate for (cancer) drugs brought into clinical trials using such preclinical drug-testing platforms is 95 percent. The 5 percent of drugs that reach approval might as well have failed, since they prolong survival of patients by no more than a few months at best. Since 2005, 70 percent of approved drugs have shown zero improvement in survival rates while up to 70 percent have been actually harmful to patients."

I'm pretty much with Catherine. Not all cancers are the same. My impression with discussions with an oncologist and dermatologist after my low risk melanoma skin cancer surgery last year is that 2005 is ancient history in certain metastatic cancer treatments and going back more than five or ten years is almost medieval. Fortunately my long term prognosis is very good or excellent, but I'd not hesitate considering a promising clinical trial if it became an option.

A former work mate is in hospice with advanced prostate cancer that had metastasized. Watchful waiting only goes so far. He was in a clinical trial that gave him about two or three years past his projected life span without treatment.

Although it's slightly dated (2010), The Emperor of all Maladies, by Mukherjee was recommended to me by a physician but I've not gotten to it yet.

[catherine]

There was a news story on CBS this evening about prostate cancer. It said watchful waiting is now recommended over radiation and chemo for some cases as survival rates are no better with treatment.

In some early cases I would imagine. Certainly not in high risk patients.