The news media paints an overly optimistic picture of cancer. That’saccording to one of a series of papers being published in the March 17issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association and in six ofJAMA’s sister journals this month, as well as at presentations at atwo-hour media briefing today at the National Press Club in Washington,D.C.
The reality in less scientific terms: Cancerreally sucks. For every Lance Armstrong who beats cancer, there’ssomeone who loses the battle, according to researchers at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, whose study on the news media to appear inthe March 22 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine was released todayto coincide with the generally glum news from the JAMA press event.
If you’re a man, you have about a 50 percent chance of getting cancer.if you’re a woman, you have about a one-in-three chance; but don’t gettoo complacent because the odds are getting worse. if you do getcancer, you have nearly a 50 percent chance on average of dying from itor from a related illness, the researchers said.
And truth be told, Lance’s testicular cancer was an simple one to beat.
Fortunately, treatments in recent years have improved so that… no, wait, too optimistic.
Cancer remains a leading cause of death in the United States,killing over a half million Americans annually. Much of the cancerreduction has been a result of anti-smoking campaigns and betternutrition and screening. Several types of cancer – particularlypancreatic, liver, ovary, lung and brain cancer – are highly lethal andremain largely non-responsive to current therapies.
Fortunately, advanced diagnostic tools have… no, wait, too optimistic again. back to the JAMApapers. The war on cancer is essentially futile because there are morethan 100 different types of cancer, each with a different cause andeach controlled by a different biological mechanism.
“The inherent genetic instability of cancers allows them to changerapidly and generate clones that are resistant to treatment; indeed,many cancers are masters of disguise, camouflaged from host defenses,”according to Susan Gapstur and Michael Thun of the American CancerSociety, who provided commentary in the March 17 JAMA article.
Sucker for good news
But it’s hard not to remain somewhat positive about the topic of cancer treatment. Indeed, many of the JAMA and related articles and presentations are tinged with optimism. Consider these findings reported today:
- Radiation therapy that involves numerous highly-focused and potent radiation beams provides targeted tumor control in nearly all patients, reduces treatment-related illness, and may ultimately improve survival for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer.
- Older patients with colon cancer can do well with chemotherapy that is less toxic and of shorter duration than therapy younger patients receive.
- New chemotherapy agents appear associated with improvements in survival time for patients with metastastic colorectal cancer.
The other side of the tale
The point of the University of Pennsylvania study was not tochastise the news media but rather assess what elements of cancertreatment are being routinely reported. The researchers examined over400 articles from some of the most widely read U.S. magazines andnewspapers, such as Time, Parade, and the New York Times. They foundthat journalists frequently cover aggressive treatment and survival butrarely discuss treatment failure, adverse events, end-of-life care ordeath.
Considering the reality of death for cancer patients, the lopsidedreporting may give patients an “inappropriately optimistic view” ofprognosis, the researchers said. And this comes at the expense of notrelaying vital issues, such as palliative and hospice care.
The take-home message from the JAMA cancer news event is thata cancer diagnosis will be a life-altering event. Optimism isn’t a badthing; it might be associated with survival. but understanding thereality and familiarizing yourself with all care options, particularlyas death approaches, might be the best medicine for you and survivingfamily members.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books “Terrible Medicine” and “Food at Work.” his column, Terrible Medicine, appears each Tuesday on LiveScience.
- Original story: Media too Optimistic about Cancer, Scientists Say
LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver small, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool gadgets at the LiveScience Store.