Category: Prevention

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month – March

March is dedicated to raising awareness and promoting prevention of colorectal cancer, one of the most common but also highly treatable cancers when detected early. It is also referred to as colorectal carcinoma.

According to a European Commission report published in March 2021, colorectal cancer accounted for 12.7% of all new cancer diagnoses and 12.4% of all cancer-related deaths in the EU-27 countries in 2020. By 2045, it is estimated that 3.29 million new cases will be diagnosed worldwide, leading to 1.66 million deaths.

The disease occurs more frequently in men than in women, with age being a significant factor. Approximately 90% of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer worldwide are over 50 years old.

Prevention and early detection save lives.

Regular screenings, such as colonoscopy, can detect early lesions or precancerous changes before they develop into serious disease. During a colonoscopy, tissue samples (biopsies) can be taken for histological examination if a suspicious lesion is found, and polyps can be removed to prevent progression to cancer.

Treatment options depend on the stage of the disease, the tumor’s molecular characteristics, and the patient’s overall health. Standard therapies include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy—which plays a key role in rectal cancer—as well as targeted therapies and immunotherapies guided by specific molecular biomarkers.

Through the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, the goal is to detect precancerous lesions or the disease itself early, allowing prompt intervention and treatment. Adenomatous polyps or early-stage neoplasms have a 100% cure rate when managed at an early stage, highlighting the critical importance of early detection.

For more information, visit the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program website: https://colon.gov.gr

For any questions, you can contact the service department at tel. 11401 or via email: prolipsis-helpdesk@idika.gr.

Sources:

Understanding Breast Cancer Risk Factors: What You Can and Can’t Change

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month — a time to raise awareness, share knowledge, and remind ourselves of the importance of early detection and prevention. One of the most common questions people ask is: “What can I do to lower my risk of breast cancer?”

The truth is that while doctors don’t know exactly what causes breast cancer, research has identified certain factors that increase the likelihood of developing the disease. Some of these are beyond our control, while others are linked to lifestyle choices and can be modified. By learning the difference, we empower ourselves to take the best possible care of our health.

Unchangeable Risk Factors

Some risk factors cannot be avoided. These include:

  • Sex: Being female or assigned female at birth is the biggest risk factor.
  • Age: Risk increases with age; two out of three invasive breast cancers occur in women 55 or older.
  • Family History and Genetics: A family history of breast cancer or inherited genetic mutations (such as BRCA1/2) increases risk.
  • Personal History: Women previously diagnosed with breast cancer are more likely to develop it again.
  • Past Radiation: Radiation to the chest or face before age 30 raises risk.
  • Certain Breast Conditions: Some non-cancerous breast changes are linked to higher risk.

Lifestyle-Related Risk Factors

Our daily habits and choices also play a significant role:

  • Weight: Being overweight, especially after menopause, increases risk.
  • Physical Activity: Lack of regular exercise is linked to higher risk.
  • Smoking and Alcohol: Both are associated with increased breast cancer risk.
  • Hormonal Factors: Use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or hormonal contraception may raise risk in some women.
  • Reproductive History: Age at first childbirth, number of pregnancies, and breastfeeding history all influence risk.
  • Menstrual History: Early onset of menstruation is associated with slightly higher risk.

Emerging Risk Factors

Research is ongoing, but some additional factors are being studied, such as:

  • Low vitamin D levels.
  • Night-shift work and exposure to bright light at night.
  • Exposure to chemicals (in food, plastics, cosmetics, sunscreens, pesticides, pollution).
  • Frequent consumption of grilled or smoked meats.
  • High levels of air pollution.

Myths and Misconceptions

It’s equally important to clear up what does not increase risk. Research shows no evidence that abortion, antiperspirants, bras, or dairy products cause breast cancer.

We may not be able to control every risk factor, but every small step toward a healthier lifestyle truly makes a difference. Exercise, balanced nutrition, limiting alcohol, and avoiding smoking are not just prevention measures — they’re acts of daily self-care.
At Kapa3, we believe that awareness and support save lives. No one is ever alone on this journey. We promise to continue to speak openly, share knowledge, and stand beside every woman. Because awareness is not about fear; it’s about strength, hope, and small steps toward a healthier tomorrow.

Read More here: https://www.breastcancer.org/risk/risk-factors

Text/Adaptation: Ifiyenia for Kapa3

Raising the Standards: Europe’s QA Scheme for Breast Cancer Services

The European Quality Assurance (QA) Scheme for Breast Cancer Services, part of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), is a voluntary certification program covering the full care pathway—from screening to palliative care.

Designed to support quality improvement across Europe, it provides evidence-based guidelines and common quality and safety requirements.

The scheme has been piloted in multiple European countries, confirming its feasibility and usefulness in real healthcare settings. Services meeting the standards can apply for accredited certification, ensuring consistent, high-quality care.

The program is coordinated by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in collaboration with DG SANTE, under Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan.

To learn more, click here 

October – Breast Cancer Awareness Month

October is internationally recognized as Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time dedicated to education, prevention, and support for everyone affected by the disease. Breast cancer remains the most common cancer among women worldwide, yet early diagnosis and advances in treatment have significantly improved both quality and length of life.

The event began in 1985 as a week-long awareness campaign by the American Cancer Society, in partnership with Imperial Chemical Industries, a British company that made tamoxifen. The campaign eventually grew into a month-long event.

The core message of this month is simple but crucial: awareness saves lives. Regular mammograms, self-examinations, and timely medical advice when suspicious signs appear are the most powerful tools for prevention and early detection. International studies show that women who participate in screening programs are more likely to be diagnosed at an early stage, allowing for more effective and less invasive treatment.

However, October is not just about medical tests. It is a month that highlights the importance of psychosocial support and solidarity. Breast cancer affects not only the body but also the mind and spirit. Women – and men – facing this diagnosis need a supportive network of family, friends, healthcare professionals, and organizations to guide, encourage, and stand by them every step of the way.

The Kapa3 Cancer Guidance Center joins the international community in emphasizing the value of accurate information and equitable access to healthcare services. Through informative articles, prevention guides, and psychological support, our goal is to stand by every person in need, providing reliable knowledge and meaningful assistance.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is more than a campaign: it is a reminder that life can be won when prevention, education, and solidarity become part of our daily practice. October calls on all of us to raise our voices, promote screening, and embrace those fighting their own battles—because no one should face cancer alone.

Digital transformation: Health systems’ investment priorities

Health systems around the world are facing a host of challenges, including rising costs, clinical-workforce shortages, aging populations requiring more care (for example, to treat chronic conditions), and increasing competition from nontraditional players.1 At the same time, consumers are expecting new capabilities (such as digital scheduling and telemedicine) and better experiences from health systems across their end-to-end care journeys.2 In response, health systems are increasing their focus on digital and AI transformation to meet consumer demands, address workforce challenges, reduce costs, and enhance the overall quality of care.3 However, despite acknowledging the importance of these efforts to future sustainability, many health system executives say their organizations are still not investing enough.

AI, traditional machine learning, and deep learning are projected to result in net savings of up to $360 billion in healthcare spending.

AI, traditional machine learning, and deep learning are projected to result in net savings of $200 billion to $360 billion in healthcare spending.4 But are health systems investing to capture these opportunities? We recently surveyed 200 global health system executives about their digital investment priorities and progress.5 Seventy-five percent of respondents reported their organizations place a high priority on digital and analytics transformation but lack sufficient resources or planning in this area.

Increasing prioritization

In line with other industries, the majority (nearly 90 percent) of health system executives surveyed, in both technical roles (such as chief information officer or chief technology officer) and nontechnical roles (for example, CEO or CFO), reported that a digital and AI transformation is a high or top priority for their organization. At the same time, 75 percent of respondents reported their organizations are not yet able to deliver on that priority because they have not sufficiently planned or allocated the necessary resources.


Health system digital investment priority areas and anticipated impact

For health system executives, current investment priorities do not always align with areas they believe could have the most impact. There is alignment in some areas, including virtual health and digital front doors, where about 70 percent of respondents expect the highest impact.1 In other areas, such as AI, 88 percent of respondents reported a high potential impact,2 yet about 20 percent of respondents do not plan to invest in the next two years. The absence of investment in a robust, modern data and analytics platform could delay value creation in areas that depend on these capabilities—such as efforts to close gaps in care, improve timely access for referrals, and optimize operating room throughput.

Major headwinds and slow progress

Given the current macroeconomic climate and increasing cost pressures on health systems, most respondents identified budget constraints as a key obstacle to investing at scale across all digital and AI categories of interest (51 percent of respondents ranked this obstacle among the top three). For example, a health system that is building a digital front door may lack the resources to simultaneously invest in the latest generative AI (gen AI) capabilities.

Respondents called out challenges with legacy systems as the second-greatest concern (after budget constraints). Core tech modernization is key to delivering on the digital promise,1 but health systems have typically relied on a smaller set of monolithic systems that have become a challenge to untangle.

Additional highly ranked challenges include data quality (33 percent), tech talent and recruiting (30 percent), and readiness to adopt and scale new technology (34 percent).

Satisfaction with digital investment

Most executives of health systems that have invested in digital priorities (72 percent) reported satisfaction across all investment areas. Among the comparatively fewer respondents who reported investing in robotics and advanced analytics, satisfaction was even higher, at 82 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Given that investments result in a high level of satisfaction and that 75 percent of executives reported they are not yet able to deliver on their digital transformation ambitions (as noted above), health systems may be facing a failure to scale their digital programs.

What health systems can do and how they can learn from other industries

The goal of digital and AI transformation is to fundamentally rewire how an organization operates, building capabilities to drive tangible business value (such as patient acquisition and experience, clinical outcomes, operational efficiency, and workforce experience and retention) through continuous innovation. Delivering digital value for health systems requires investment and new ways of working.

Building partnerships. Scale is crucial to value creation. But the definition of at-scale systems has changed in the past few years; today, it takes more than $13 billion to be a top 20 system by revenue, and many have reached their current position through inorganic growth.6 Partnerships (joint ventures and alliances) may offer a promising avenue to access new capabilities, increase speed to market, and achieve capital, scale, and operational efficiencies.7

Moving beyond off-the-shelf solutions. History shows that deploying technology—such as electronic health records (EHRs)—on top of broken processes and clinical workflows does not lead to value. Realizing value from healthcare technology will require a reimagination (and standardization) of clinical workflows and care models across organizations. For example, optimizing workflows to enable more appropriate delegation, with technical enablement, could yield a potential 15 to 30 percent net time savings over a 12-hour shift. This could help close the nursing workforce gap by up to 300,000 inpatient nurses.8

Using the cloud for modernization. Health systems are increasingly building cloud-based data environments with defined data products to increase data availability and quality. Health systems can also use cloud-hosted, end-user-focused platforms (such as patient or clinician apps) that integrate multiple other applications and experiences to simplify stakeholders’ interactions with the system.

Operating differently. Operating differently entails fundamental changes in structure (flatter, empowered, cross-functional teams), talent (new skill sets and fully dedicated teams), ways of working (outcome orientation, agile funding, and managing products, not projects), and technology (modular architecture, cloud-based data systems, and reduced reliance on the monolithic EHR). With these changes, some health systems have begun to see real value within six months. Building a digital culture helps the transformation succeed over time.9

Cautiously embracing gen AI. Gen AI has the potential to affect everything from continuity of care and clinical operations to contracting and corporate functions. Health system executives and patients have concerns about the risks of AI, particularly in relation to patient care and privacy. Managing these risks entails placing business-minded legal and risk-management teams alongside AI and data science teams.10 Organizations could also implement a well-informed risk-prioritization strategy.

Digital and AI investments provide health systems with opportunities to address the many challenges they face. Successful health systems will invest in areas with the greatest potential impact while removing barriers—for example, by upgrading legacy infrastructure. Health systems that make successful investments in digital and analytics capabilities could see substantial benefits and position themselves to benefit from the $200 billion to $360 billion opportunity.11

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Jack Eastburn is a partner in McKinsey’s Southern California office; Jen Fowkes is a partner in the Washington, DC, office; and Karl Kellner is a senior partner in the New York office. Brad Swanson is a consultant in the Denver office.

The authors wish to thank David Bueno, Camilo Gutierrez, Dae-Hee Lee, Audrey Manicor, Lois Schonberger, and Tim Zoph for their contributions to this article.

Πηγή: mckinsey.com
find more :https://eefam.gr/digital-transformation-health-systems-investment-priorities/

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

OVARIAN CANCER that spreads to the lining of the abdominal cavity, called the peritoneum, is difficult to treat. Patients with this advanced cancer typically undergo debulking, also called cytoreductive surgery, a lengthy procedure in which surgeons aim to remove all cancer from the abdominal cavity and affected organs, including the ovaries and fallopian tubes as well as the bladder, colon and other parts of the gastrointestinal tract. In recent years, researchers have looked at the efficacy of using hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which is heated chemotherapy delivered directly to the peritoneum, to destroy remaining cancer cells immediately after debulking surgery.

Scientists in Belgium and the Netherlands published long-term data from OVHIPEC-1, a randomized phase III trial to evaluate adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer, in the October 2023 Lancet Oncology. (In interval surgery, chemotherapy is given to shrink the cancer prior to surgery.) The study enrolled 245 women with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer whose cancer showed no signs of progression after upfront chemotherapy. Researchers randomly assigned women to have debulking surgery alone, or surgery plus HIPEC using the chemotherapy drug cisplatin. After 10 years, median overall survival for the surgery-plus-HIPEC group was 44.9 months versus 33.3 months for the surgery group. Median progression-free survival was 14.3 months and 10.7 months, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar—25% with surgery alone versus 27% with surgery plus HIPEC—and the most common events were abdominal pain, infection and slowed bowel function.

These results are in line with the researchers’ five-year analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018. In that analysis, 6.6% of patients in the surgery group had survived without progression at five years, compared with 12.3% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At 10 years, 6.6% of the people who received surgery were alive with no progression versus 10.1% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. While surgery plus HIPEC did not result in better cure rates, the authors note that it significantly prolonged the time cancer was controlled. “The most important finding is that the benefit for patients with stage III ovarian carcinoma when interval cytoreductive surgery is combined with HIPEC remains present after a 10-year follow up,” says Willemien van Driel, lead author and a gynecologic oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, who notes that patients in both arms of the study received similar treatment after subsequent recurrences.

Van Driel says that there is still variation in the use of HIPEC along with cytoreductive surgery. European guidelines published in October 2023 note that HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery should not be considered a standard of care. In the U.S., National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that HIPEC can be considered for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Van Driel and her colleagues are now enrolling patients in the OVHIPEC-2 trial, which will study the effect of adding HIPEC in women with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing primary surgery, which is surgery done upfront prior to chemotherapy. Other trials are evaluating HIPEC use for recurrent ovarian cancer. She notes there are several unanswered questions, including optimal dosing and temperature for HIPEC and the impact of including other drugs, such as PARP inhibitors, with this approach, since many of these drugs were not standard of care at the time of the trial.

HIPEC may be a valid choice for patients who are generally healthy and open to a longer procedure and hospital stay. Although the length of surgery plus HIPEC varies, HIPEC generally adds 90 minutes or more to debulking surgery, which itself takes several hours. Also, patients typically require a longer hospital stay for recovery, possibly with intravenous or tube feedings while the digestive system recovers. 

Find more :

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

New evidence that brain and body health influence mental wellbeing

The study, published in Nature Mental Health, analysed UK Biobank data from more than 18,000 individuals. Of these, 7,749 people had no major clinically-diagnosed medical or mental health conditions, while 10,334 had reported a diagnosis of either schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression or anxiety.

Using advanced statistical models, the researchers found a significant association between poorer organ health and higher depressive symptoms, and that the brain plays an important role in linking body health and depression.

The organ systems studied included the lungs, muscles and bones, kidneys, liver, heart, and the metabolic and immune systems.

Dr Ye Ella Tian, lead author of the study from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Melbourne, said. “Overall, we found multiple significant pathways through which poor organ health may lead to poor brain health, which may in turn lead to poor mental health.

“By integrating clinical data, brain imaging and a wide array of organ-specific biomarkers in a large population-based cohort, for the first time we were able to establish multiple pathways involving the brain as a mediating factor and through which poor physical health of body organ systems may lead to poor mental health.

“We identified modifiable lifestyle factors that can potentially lead to improved mental health through their impact on these specific organ systems and neurobiology.

“Our work provides a holistic characterisation of brain, body, lifestyle and mental health.”

Physical health was also taken into account, as well as lifestyle factors such as sleep quality, diet, exercise, smoking, and alcohol consumption.

Professor James Cole, an author of the study from UCL Computer Science, said: “While it’s well-known in healthcare that all the body’s organs and systems influence each other, it’s rarely reflected in research studies. So, it’s exciting to see these results, as it really emphases the value in combining measures from different parts of the body together.”

Professor Andrew Zalesky, an author of the study from the Departments of Psychiatry and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Melbourne, said. “This is a significant body of work because we have shown the link between physical health and depression and anxiety, and how that is partially influenced by individual changes in brain structure.

“Our results suggest that poor physical health across multiple organ systems, such as liver and heart, the immune system and muscles and bones, may lead to subsequent alterations in brain structure.

“These structural changes of the brain may lead to or exacerbate symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as neuroticism.”

 

Find more : https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/aug/new-evidence-brain-and-body-health-influence-mental-wellbeing?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=vpee_linkedin_newsletter&utm_content=bodyhealth_aug24

Stem Cell Therapy: A New Horizon in Breast Cancer Treatment

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers affecting women worldwide, with millions of new cases diagnosed each year. Despite advances in treatment, it remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Traditional treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation have improved survival rates, but they often come with significant side effects and may not be effective in all cases, particularly in advanced or metastatic stages of the disease. As the medical community continues to seek more effective and less invasive treatments, stem cell therapy is emerging as a promising frontier in the fight against breast cancer.

Understanding Breast Cancer: A Global Challenge

Breast cancer occurs when cells in the breast tissue grow uncontrollably, forming a tumor that can invade surrounding tissues and spread to other parts of the body. The causes of breast cancer are multifactorial, involving genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Early detection through screening programs like mammography has significantly improved outcomes, but the need for more effective treatments remains critical, especially for patients with aggressive or resistant forms of the disease.

Traditional treatments, while often life-saving, can have significant drawbacks. Surgery can be disfiguring and may not completely eliminate the risk of recurrence. Chemotherapy and radiation, although effective at killing cancer cells, also damage healthy cells, leading to side effects like fatigue, hair loss, and compromised immune function. Moreover, some breast cancers do not respond well to these treatments, particularly triple-negative breast cancer, which lacks the hormone receptors targeted by many therapies.

This is where stem cell therapy comes into play—a novel approach that has the potential to revolutionize breast cancer treatment.

Stem Cell Therapy: A New Horizon in Breast Cancer Treatment

Stem cell therapy has garnered significant attention in recent years as a potential game-changer in cancer treatment. Unlike traditional therapies that target the symptoms or manifestations of the disease, stem cell therapy aims to address the underlying causes by regenerating damaged tissues, boosting the immune system, and even targeting cancer stem cells that are believed to drive tumor growth and recurrence.

1. Understanding Stem Cells:

  • Stem cells are unique in their ability to develop into different types of cells in the body. They have the potential to repair or replace damaged tissues and can be used to regenerate healthy tissue in areas affected by cancer.
  • There are two primary types of stem cells relevant to cancer therapy: embryonic stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell type, and adult stem cells, which are more limited but still hold significant therapeutic potential. In breast cancer, researchers are particularly interested in the role of cancer stem cells— a small subset of cells within tumors that are resistant to conventional treatments and are thought to be responsible for relapse and metastasis.

2. The Role of Stem Cells in Breast Cancer:

  • One of the most promising aspects of stem cell therapy in breast cancer is its potential to target cancer stem cells. These cells are thought to be the root cause of tumor growth and metastasis, and they often evade traditional therapies, leading to recurrence. By specifically targeting and eliminating these cells, stem cell therapy could significantly reduce the risk of relapse and improve long-term outcomes.
  • Additionally, stem cell therapy can be used to regenerate healthy tissue damaged by surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. For example, adipose-derived stem cells (from fat tissue) are being explored for their ability to repair tissue damage after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, improving cosmetic outcomes and reducing the need for additional surgeries.

3. Current Research and Clinical Trials:

  • While stem cell therapy for breast cancer is still in its early stages, there have been promising developments in both preclinical and clinical research. Clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various stem cell-based therapies for breast cancer.
  • One area of focus is the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which have shown potential in targeting breast cancer cells and enhancing the effects of chemotherapy. These stem cells can be engineered to deliver anti-cancer drugs directly to tumors, increasing the precision and effectiveness of treatment while minimizing side effects.
  • Another exciting avenue is the use of stem cells in combination with immunotherapy. By enhancing the body’s immune response to cancer, stem cells could help to overcome the immune evasion tactics used by tumors, making immunotherapy more effective.

4. Challenges and Future Directions:

  • Despite the promise of stem cell therapy, there are still significant challenges to overcome. Ensuring the safety of these therapies is paramount, as there is a risk that stem cells could promote tumor growth if not properly controlled. Moreover, the complex nature of cancer stem cells means that therapies must be precisely targeted to avoid unintended consequences.
  • The future of stem cell therapy in breast cancer will likely involve a combination of approaches, integrating stem cells with existing treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy. As our understanding of cancer biology continues to grow, so too will the potential of stem cell therapy to provide more effective and less toxic treatment options for breast cancer patients.

    Conclusion: A Promising Future Ahead

    The fight against breast cancer is far from over, but the advent of stem cell therapy offers a new ray of hope. As research continues to advance, this innovative approach could become a cornerstone of breast cancer treatment, offering patients more effective, personalized, and less invasive options. While challenges remain, the potential of stem cell therapy to transform breast cancer care is undeniable, and the ongoing research in this field is something that the medical community and patients alike should watch closely.

    As we move forward, it is essential to continue supporting research and clinical trials that explore the full potential of stem cell therapy in breast cancer. With continued innovation and collaboration, we may one day see a world where breast cancer is not only treatable but curable—thanks in part to the incredible power of stem cells.

    Find more : https://www.linkedin.com/company/medipocketusa/posts/?feedView=all

How to Find the Right Oncologist for You

After a cancer diagnosis, it’s one of the most important decisions you’ll make.

After a career as a golf professional in southeastern New Mexico, Doug Lyle, 76, decided he had somewhere better to be than on the course: spending time with his new grandchild. Then this summer, just as he was settling into retirement, he learned he had prostate cancer.

“When you’re first diagnosed, you immediately go to the internet, and you can be overwhelmed in short order,” he said. “The more you read about it, the more complicated it gets.”

One of the first and most important choices he had to make was who his oncologist would be. Many of the two million patients diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year get the news from a primary care doctor. Those patients might accept a referral to an oncologist without question. But research suggests that it’s worth considering the choice closely: It can shape the care you receive, your satisfaction with the treatment and your chances of survival.

Not everyone has a choice of oncologists. There are fewer providers in rural areas, and patients must travel farther to reach them. Insurers may only cover certain clinicians and hospitals. And patients from certain populations have less access to oncologists for a range of reasons, which may affect the care they receive. For example, research suggests that Black and Hispanic women with breast cancer are more likely than white women to experience delays in starting radiotherapy. And Black men with prostate cancer are less likely than white men to receive treatment that’s intended to cure their condition, even when they’re at similar stages of disease.

No matter your circumstances, you should feel empowered to have a say in who treats your cancer.

Ideally, experts said, you’d be able to easily compare doctors’ levels of experience and the outcomes of patients they’ve treated with your same diagnosis. But such apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make. But “right now, there are no publicly available data to help a patient with cancer say, ‘Oh, this is where I want to go,’” said Dr. Nancy Keating, a physician and professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. (And even if there were, apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make, since patient populations vary from one doctor to the next).

Still, there are some accreditations to look for. The National Cancer Institute has given a special designation to 72 cancer centers, which must show they treat patients in accordance with the latest evidence and also conduct research into new therapies. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has accredited over 1,500 programs that meet certain standards. And the American Society of Clinical Oncology has several certification programs, including a list of 300 practices recognized for their quality and safety.

There are resources to help you search for oncologists, too, including a U.S. News & World Report directory that lets you sort by location, patient reviews and accepted forms of insurance. The consumer research firm Castle Connolly also has a database of doctors who are nominated by their peers and then evaluated for their qualifications, interpersonal skills and more.

Look for an oncologist who frequently treats patients with diagnoses similar to yours. Research has long shown that when doctors perform certain procedures more often, their patients have better outcomes. One study found that patients of surgeons who removed more than 25 lung cancers a year spent less time in the hospital, had a lower risk of infection and were more likely to survive three years without recurrence of disease.

Dr. Timothy Pawlik, the chair of the surgery department at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said he only treats a handful of cancers. “You want someone with depth, not breadth,” Dr. Pawlik said. That way, he explained, “the patient may have a rare cancer, but it’s not rare to that doctor.”

Additionally, everyone else on the care team including the anesthesiologists and nurses, will also be familiar with your particular cancer and treatment.

Your primary care provider may be able to find someone specializing in your diagnosis. Some physicians’ websites will identify sub-specialties, and you can also ask for guidance from patient advocacy groups focused on your type of cancer. When you reach out to a doctor, don’t be shy about asking how many patients with similar cancers they treat per year.

Mr. Lyle hesitated to get a second opinion for fear of offending the first doctor he’d seen. But he ultimately chose to do so, a step many experts recommend. “Medicine is an art, and there are sometimes differences of opinion,” said Karen Knudsen, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society. Weighing those differences can help you make a more informed choice.

If a second physician agrees with your original treatment plan, it can give you more confidence in the approach. Research suggests a second opinion can also lead to clinically meaningful changes in treatment. One 2023 study of 120 cancer patients found that a for a third of patients, a second opinion led to treatment changes that yielded better outcomes. Many had received evidence-based care from their first doctor but decided after a second opinion to scale back treatments that might have been unnecessary and had harmful side effects.

Mr. Lyle said that during his first conversation with a physician, he didn’t know enough to ask the right questions about his diagnosis and newer treatment options. “The fine points, you’re not aware of yet. So you almost need a rehearsal,” he said. (For help with what to ask during an appointment, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network has detailed information about care for many cancers.)

When it is clinically appropriate, some cancer centers now offer second opinions through telehealth. You can call to see if it’s possible to submit your medical records and get a remote consultation.

Find more:

What to Know About the HPV Vaccine and Cancer Prevention

New research shows many eligible people are not getting the shots.

Nearly 20 years after the first vaccine against human papillomavirus became available, many eligible Americans still are not getting the shot — even though it provides powerful protection against the leading cause of cervical cancer and a strong risk factor for anal cancer.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, and while most infections are asymptomatic and clear up on their own within two years, a small number persist and can cause cancer. HPV causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, and can also lead to penile, anal, oral, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

The HPV vaccine, delivered as two or three doses, can significantly cut the risk of infection. It “is really one of the most effective vaccines we have,” said Dr. Lauri Markowitz, the HPV team lead in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of viral diseases. But uptake remains stubbornly low: A report released by the C.D.C. this month showed that in 2022, only 38.6 percent of children ages 9 to 17 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Other new research suggests that HPV vaccination rates stalled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

A study published this week laid out some of the primary reasons cited by parents in the United States who don’t plan to vaccinate their children against HPV, including safety concerns, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and a belief that it isn’t necessary.
“We are still facing an uphill battle from what I would call inappropriate messaging or incomplete messaging when the vaccine rolled out about why this is so important,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive of the American Cancer Society.

The HPV vaccine fools the body into thinking it has come into contact with the virus, marshaling antibodies in defense. Those antibodies can help clear the virus and prevent infection if someone is later exposed, which can happen through oral, anal and vaginal sex.

The vaccine offers protection from the types most likely to cause cervical and anal cancers and genital warts. Since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, infections with the types of HPV that cause most HPV-related cancers and genital warts have fallen by 88 percent among teen girls and by 81 percent among young adult women, according to the C.D.C.
One reason doctors are so enthusiastic about the vaccine is that it is one of very few tools to combat HPV: Condoms do not entirely prevent transmission, and there is no treatment for the virus itself. Researchers believe HPV is responsible for more than 90 percent of cervical and anal cancers and a majority of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers.

Children can be vaccinated starting at age nine. The C.D.C. recommends the vaccine for all preteens from the age of 11 or 12 and anyone up to age 26. It’s most effective before people are exposed to the virus, and “the assumption is that most people have started having sexual intercourse by age 26,” said Dr. Ban Mishu Allos, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

The vaccine may still provide some benefit for people over age 26, and is approved up until age 45. The C.D.C. says that people between the ages of 27 and 45 might get the vaccine after talking to their doctors about their risk for new HPV infections.

You can ask your primary care doctor or local health centers for the vaccine. Most insurance plans fully cover it through age 26. Children and adolescents who are uninsured or underinsured can get the shots for free through the Vaccines for Children program. After age 26, insurance may not fully cover the shot, which can cost hundreds of dollars per dose. Merck, which makes the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9, has a patient assistance program for eligible people.

Researchers believe much of the hesitation stems from a key misunderstanding: “More people perceive it as a sexually transmitted infection prevention vaccine, as opposed to a cancer prevention vaccine,” said Kalyani Sonawane, an associate professor of public health sciences at the M.U.S.C. Hollings Cancer Center and an author of the new paper on parental attitudes toward HPV vaccination.

Dr. Sonawane’s research has also found that many parents are concerned about side effects. But doctors say many people do not experience side effects, and for those that do, the issues are generally mild and can include arm soreness, nausea, dizziness or, in some cases, fainting.

Doctors urge parents to vaccinate their children before they’re likely to become sexually active, which gives some parents pause, said Dr. Monica Woll Rosen, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Michigan Medical School.

“You’re doing something to prevent them from getting cancer in 30 years,” she said, “and the disconnect might be too large for some people to really wrap their heads around.”

 

Find more : https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/well/live/hpv-vaccine-cancer.html