Posts Tagged ‘cancer research’

Cancer Information On Wikipedia Is Accurate, But Not Very Readable

Comments Off
Posted 13 Jun 2010 — by James Street
Category General Cancer Research

02 Jun 2010
It is a commonly held that information on Wikipedia should not be trusted, since it is written and edited by non-experts without professional oversight. But researchers from the Kimmel Cancer Center at Jefferson have found differently, according to data being presented at the 2010 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago. (Abstract #6058)

Reassuringly, they found that cancer information found on a wiki was actually similar in accuracy and depth to the information on a peer-reviewed, patient-oriented cancer web site. There is one caveat, however: they found that the information on the peer-reviewed site was written in plainer English.

Researchers lead by Yaacov Lawrence M.D., assistant professor of Radiation Oncology at Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, compared the cancer information found on Wikipedia with the information found on the patient-oriented section of the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query (PDQ), a comprehensive peer-reviewed cancer database.

“There are a vast number of web sites where patients can obtain cancer information,” Dr. Lawrence said. “The purpose of this study was to answer one question: Is the cancer information on Wikipedia correct? Reassuringly, we found that errors were extremely rare on Wikipedia. But the way information was presented on PDQ is more patient-friendly.”

Dr. Lawrence and his colleague Malolan Rajagopalan, a medical student from the University of Pittsburgh, started by choosing ten cancer types and selecting key factual statements for each cancer from standard oncology textbooks. The material covered epidemiology, etiology, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and controversial topics in cancer care.

Medical student volunteers examined the PDQ and Wikipedia articles against the prepared statements. The web pages were printed out to ensure that each individual looked at the same version of the articles. Standard algorithms were used to calculate readability based upon word and sentence length.

For both web sites, inaccuracies were extremely rare: less than two percent of the information on either site was discordant with that presented in the textbooks. There was no difference between the sites in depth of coverage. Both sites poorly discussed controversial aspects of cancer care. But the PDQ site was notably more readable: whereas PDQ was written at a level suitable for a 9th grader, Wikipedia was written at a level suitable for a college student. This difference was highly statistically significant.

“PDQ’s readability is doubtless due to the site’s professional editing, whereas Wikipedia’s lack of readability may reflect its varied origins and haphazard editing,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Overall our results are reassuring: on the one hand Wikipedia appears to be extremely accurate, on the other, the resources invested in the creation and upkeep of the PDQ are clearly justified.”

The next step is to repeat the study with cancer patients to truly determine how this difference in readability impacts upon patients’ understanding and retention of information, Dr. Lawrence said.

Source
Thomas Jefferson University


Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/190536.php

The need for more cancer research

Comments Off
Posted 04 Jun 2010 — by James Street
Category General Cancer Research

By Andrew Thorburn

Posted: 06/04/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

It’s been 40 years since President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act. NCI has spent $100 billion on understanding cancer biology since then – the equivalent of $10, or two designer cups of coffee, per U.S. resident per year – and billions more have been spent developing new drugs and treatments to work against those biological processes.

Still, cancer kills more than 566,000 people worldwide each year, the equivalent of three 747s crashing every single day.

Today, serious people argue that our whole strategy in solving the cancer problem might be wrong, that too much effort has gone into understanding cancer and not enough into simply applying what we already know. Cancer scientists like myself have even heard claims that we’re ignoring solutions to the cancer problem-that we’re sitting on “the cure for cancer.”

The truth isn’t pretty: Cancer death rates are declining, yet improvement in cancer mortality has lagged behind other killers like cardiovascular disease. Only about 5 percent of new cancer drugs that are tested in people get approved for clinical use, compared with about 20 percent of cardiovascular drugs. This number doesn’t count the number of drugs that fail before they are tested in people.

Although we’ve made much progress, we don’t even fully understand how the most fundamental decisions in cell biology occur, such as how cells decide to die or grow.

Here’s one reason why we need more – much more – understanding of cancer biology. We are taking on the most powerful force in biology: Darwinian natural selection.

A tumor is a population of many types of cells that are all trying to grow and survive. When we treat cancer, we are trying to kill the tumor cells (or stop their growth) by applying strong selective (or evolutionary) pressure. And, cancer cells evolve to avoid selection we applied-the “fittest” cancer cells survive.

Cells that grow back after treatment probably found a way to avoid that treatment. We see this in the clinic: When tumors come back, they usually don’t respond to the drugs that worked before.

This problem of Darwinian selection pressure doesn’t really apply to other major diseases in which cells die because they are damaged-think heart or neurodegenerative disease.

The best hope we have of making a big impact on the number of people who survive cancer is to understand even more about how the biology works. For example, by understanding how cell growth and survival are controlled, we might predict how tumor cells will undergo natural selection to avoid a drug’s effects and be able to design a strategy to stop cells from beating the treatment.

We have some examples of this already. We know that tumors that use a growth pathway called EGFR can be stopped for a while using an EGFR inhibitor drug. Eventually, the cells find another pathway to use to grow. We’ve figured out that these EGFR-positive tumors use a bypass mechanism driven by a cell receptor called Met.

By understanding how the cells use Met to grow when their preferred EGFR growth pathway is blocked, we’ve learned we can combine EGFR and Met inhibitors to kill more cancer cells than using either agent alone.

However, for most cancer drugs, we don’t know what pathways cancer cells might activate to get around a drug-induced roadblock. Until we do, we will probably continue to throw away potentially useful treatments. Indeed, I suspect that some of those 95 percent of failed cancer drugs would have been useful if only we knew more about how they worked.

We need more research into cancer biology, because without really understanding what is going on, our efforts to apply that research will be doomed to failure. Understanding cancer biology isn’t just the best way forward; it is the only way forward, if we really want to solve the cancer problem.

Dr. Andrew Thorburn is interim director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center and professor and vice chair of Pharmacology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. He holds the Grohne Chair in Basic Cancer Research. Learn more about cancer research in Colorado at www.uccc.info. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.

Cancer Research by U.S. Disorganized, Underfunded, Study Says

Comments Off
Posted 15 Apr 2010 — by James Street
Category Finance and Politics of cancer research and treatment, General Cancer Research
April 15, 2010, 11:45 AM EDT

By Shannon Pettypiece

April 15 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government’s cancer research network is “approaching a state of crisis” as waste and inefficiency cause 40 percent of late-stage trials it funds to be abandoned before completion, a report found.

The government-funded National Cancer Institute’s clinical trials group isn’t able to effectively study the benefits of new and current treatments, according to the analysis by the Institute of Medicine. Among the report’s recommendations is increasing funding for cancer studies, simplifying the process of designing trials, and offering incentives for doctors to do such research.

The NCI’s network of cancer centers and doctors tests cancer treatments on 25,000 patients a year, with an annual budget of about $145 million, the report said. Cancer kills about 560,000 people in the U.S. each year, the second-biggest cause of death behind heart disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.

“If the clinical trial system does not improve its efficiency and effectiveness, the introduction of new treatments for cancer will be delayed and patient lives will be lost unnecessarily,” the report said.

The trial network, called the Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program, is comprised of doctors at universities and community cancer centers who develop clinical trials and enroll patients in those studies. Its work fills a research gap by focusing on efforts not typically undertaken by drug companies, such as comparing rival treatments or testing combinations of experimental therapies.

The process for carrying out those trials has become too complex and can take more than two years to design and initiate clinical trials, the report said.

‘Important Contribution’

“The cooperative groups have made a very important contribution that individual drug companies might not have made,” said John Mendelsohn, president of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and chair of the committee that did the report. “We would lose something very important if the cooperative groups faded.”

The Institute recommended the NCI consolidate administrative operations, streamline government oversight of clinical trials, develop more efficient trial design, and create incentives for investigators to participate in studies. Health insurers should also pay for the cost of non-experimental care that is part of the clinical trial, such as additional scans, lab tests and physician visits.

The report was conducted at the request of the NCI director John Niederhuber. The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academy of Science, a non-profit organization that acts as an adviser to the federal government.

–Editors: Lisa Rapaport, Reg Gale

To contact the reporter responsible for this story: Shannon Pettypiece at spettypiece@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reg Gale at rgale5@bloomberg.net.