|
|
|||||||||
GUEST EDITORIAL |
Dr. Bal, President of the American Cancer Society, is Chief of the Cancer Control Branch of the California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, and is also Clinical Professor at the Medical School of the University of California at Davis.
Shakespeares proverbial comment about the ebb and flow in the tides of men certainly applies to the article, "Cancer Statistics, 2001," beginning on page 15 in this issue of CA.1 Put simply, after a two-decade increase during most of the 1970s and 1980s, US cancer incidence and mortality rates flattened and then went into a significant and accelerating decline in the 1990s. Over the past few years, as the story of this decline steadily unfolded, the notion of declining cancer rates as being counterintuitive gave way to the comforting assumption that it was normal and to be expected.
| NOTHING BUT THE FACTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| THE HUMAN DIMENSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It would be presumptuous of me to use this forum to parse the individual site-specific cancer rate changes, with the object of outlining specific interventions to which I happen to be partial. These decisions will have to be made at the local level by the varied cancer constituencies who work together in defining local needs and establishing local priorities. Of course, once established, these needs and priorities must not become unfunded local mandates. Clearly, substantial federal, state, local, and private monies will be needed for these efforts. Cancer incidence and mortality rates are as given to respond to evidence-based community interventions and targeted fiscal resources, as a tumor targeted by a drug with a proven clinical dose-response relationship.
| CANCER CONTROL AND INTERVENTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cancer Prevention
Cancer prevention is easier said than done, although we know that two major preventable risk factors alone—tobacco and poor diet—account for about two thirds of all deaths from cancer. The task of translating knowledge of prevention into practice and making an impact on the target groups at maximal risk is difficult, but must be attempted. Only prevention will affect both cancer incidence and mortality. There is a vast and ever-growing body of literature that outlines how we can effect cancer prevention on an individual, as well as a population, basis.
The human dimension of our subject—the suffering and sorrowful loss—should never be forgotton.
Screening/Early Detection and Treatment
Advances achieved in the screening/early detection and treatment of cervical and breast cancers need to be expanded aggressively to colorectal and prostate cancers. Early detection and treatment for these cancers, especially for the former, have an immense potential for impact on the public health. Of course, early detection and treatment only affect mortality and not the actual genesis of these cancers.
Technology Transfer
By technology transfer, I refer to the problems of access to health care inherent in the existing medical care caste system, which is shameful in a country as wealthy as ours. We must make cancer prevention, as well as the health care advances in diagnosis and therapy that are currently available to a small number of people via our tertiary care academic medical cancer centers, available to all individuals.
Cancer Research
Targeted cancer research must be another central focus of our efforts, with adequate funding, of course, across the entire spectrum of cancer research. This ranges from bench research, where we elucidate the very origins of cancer—with all of the future applications that this implies—through epidemiologic, behavioral, clinical, and even technology transfer (or diffusion) research.
The diffusion stage is where we attempt to get what has been newly discovered about prevention, detection, treatment, and re-habilitation into the hands of practicing health care professionals. We must never neglect these necessary efforts at getting the science to the street, or moving medical advances from the bench to the bedside, in as short a time as possible. We must attempt to minimize the "town/gown" schism that exists in medical care worldwide
| CANCER INCIDENCE AMONG ETHNIC/MINORITY POPULATIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Regrettably, cancer mortality rates among American Indians are actually increasing. Later diagnosis and possibly poorer treatment contribute to the higher mortality rates among African-American men and women and their poorer probability of survival.
As Harold Freeman, MD, Chairman of the Presidents Cancer Panel has often said, "Poverty is in its own way a potent carcinogen." We must thus target our resources at high-risk populations with aggressive outreach, prevention, screening, and treatment efforts. To do less would be both morally wanting and poor public policy.
As the late Reverend Martin Luther King had averred from his jail cell in Alabama, albeit in a somewhat different but applicable context, in this brilliant adaptation from the Prophet Amos, "I have a dream...we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Cancer prevention and control must no longer be regarded as merely an economic, racial/ ethnic, or medical problem. We have to reframe the issue as one that is fundamental to social justice.
| REALISTIC GOALS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Will these declines persist? We cannot really ever know for sure, hence the quo vadis in the title of this editorial. However, we must make every effort to assure that we bring the American Cancer Societys vision to fruition.
Cancer prevention and control must no longer be regarded as merely an economic, racial/ethnic, or medical problem. We have to reframe the issue as one that is fundamental to social justice.
Significant cancer prevention efforts do result in measurable cancer incidence outcomes.2 As an example, Californias halving of the adult per capita consumption of cigarettes with its aggressive anti-tobacco program has, over the past decade (from 1988 to 1997), contributed to the recent significant declines in lung cancer incidence rates among men and women in the state. The large California decline among men is a better than a 50% increase over such reductions elsewhere in the country over that same period. The decline among California women is unique in that lung cancer rates are still increasing in women elsewhere in the US, while they are declining in California. Overall, the decline in lung cancer rates in California occurred at nearly five times the rate of decline in the rest of the US for this 10-year period.
Resource Allocation
Certainly, as the situation changes, we will need to make judicious mid-course cor-rections that reallocate cancer prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, and research resources. We need the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer centers, community hospitals, state health departments, consumer and provider cancer advocacy groups, and other members of the greater cancer constituency to work arm-in-arm to allocate resources in a collegial, non-partisan fashion where they will do the most good in achieving our collective goals. To do this, resource allocation and cancer policy decisions should be subjected to a litmus test before they are put into effect: How capable are they of specifically contributing to the reduction of cancer incidence and mortality rates?
| BE THAT CHANGE |
|---|
|
|
|---|
I contend that the future can be molded by all of us if we work jointly and single-mindedly toward our common goal of reducing cancer incidence and mortality. As Mahatma Gandhi once said in my native India, "If you want to change the world, be that change."
| Footnotes |
|---|
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C MESSIOU, A G CHALMERS, K BOYLE, D WILSON, and P SAGAR Pre-operative MR assessment of recurrent rectal cancer Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2008; 81(966): 468 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. J. Small, S. Halabi, M. J. Ratain, G. Rosner, W. Stadler, D. Palchak, E. Marshall, R. Rago, V. Hars, G. Wilding, et al. Randomized Study of Three Different Doses of Suramin Administered With a Fixed Dosing Schedule in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results of Intergroup 0159, Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9480 J. Clin. Oncol., August 15, 2002; 20(16): 3369 - 3375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | COVER ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |