Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cancer?

As stated in another thread my mother has been diagnosed with lung cancer. She had a CAT scan on Monday to ascertain the damage and as of this Thur. AM had still not heard back the results. A while back a friend of mine was diagnosed with stage 3 thyroid cancer (there was another more technical name for it). After the diagnosis, she had to wait two weeks to see an oncologist to plan treatment. Am I stating two extreme examples or is this a common occurence? I would think in certain situations, a matter of days could make the difference between life and death between diagnosis and beginning treatment. Maybe someone in the medical field can enlighten me.

Geepondy,

Truthfully, most medical people recognize that by the time cancer is discovered, one of two things has happened:

A) It has already metastasized and treatment may be palliative and an attempt to control damage but not cure, or:

B) It hasn't and a few days or weeks won't make much difference. My father, for instance, was cleared to go on a 2 month around the country trip after prostate cancer was discovered and before starting treatment.

It is a little frustrating, because CANCER has such a scary sound to most of us.

The truth is, most oncologists are already overworked and prefer to treat existing patients before adding new ones. Often the sad truth is that the spot in 2 weeks may be open because someone has died in the interim.

This is a short answer, and if you want more I'll try to reply later, but MOST cancers have a window of opportunity that isn't as narrow as it would seem to be.

Generally, most scans and biopsies are reviewed by more than one specialist when cancer is the issue and that takes a little while also.

Bill

I am no doctor, but both of my parents have had cancer treatments. It is certainly important to diagnose and treat cancer early, but as far as I know, a matter of days or weeks is not a significant amount of time given the rate at which cancer progresses. Plus you have the unfortunate reality that treatment resources are limited and must be allocated across all those who need them. Scheduling difficulties will arise. Managed medical care is probably part of the problem, but this is always going to be a limiting factor.

Fortunately, the treatments available for cancer are better today than they have ever been before and therefore the chances of successful treatment are also better. Good luck to your Mother and your friend.

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/lux/

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

be carefull. in early 2002 my mother was diagnosed with lung cancer (middle lobe, right lung). The first A****e doctor to see her in the hospital wanted to operate right away. No good. If the cancer has spread like it had in my mother (from her lung, up the esophagus, in her lymph nodes and lesions on her liver) operating at that time would have killed her as the cancer would have spread with each cut of the knife.
The problem was she was mis-diagnosed for a year and a half prior to 2002 (her GP mis-diagnosed her). When they finally agreed she had cancer, she was stage 3b or even possibly stage 4.
The problem is her primary cancer was lung but since she had lesions on her liver, she also had liver cancer. Liver cancer was secondary for her but from all the research I`ve read, liver cancer is almost impossible to beat unless you catch it in the very early stage.
Your oncologist can also be a deciding factor in the amount of time you have left and how comfortably it will be. My mother loved her oncologist, but he was a cheap s******d who ordered one type of medicine for her treatment but routinely gave her cheaper and different medication. I know this for a fact from the oncologists` helper who was like a daughter to my mother and is helping us with a pending lawsuit against not only her GP but her oncologist as well.
I tried so hard to get my mother to leave that damn oncologist and find another one , even his aide told my mother he was terrible but she trusted him and like him so much that she wouldn`t hear it. BIG MISTAKE. The same goes for treatment. Chemo and radiation destroys all cells, not just cancerous ones. My mothers` last treatement was a full day of chemo and radiation and it knocked her out for 6 weeks afterwards. She was like a zombie. Didn`t know who she was, was unresponsive, wouldn`t eat. At one time she was running 2 or 3 major infections that put her a 2 weeks to live if she didn`t respond to treatment. She recovered and after 6 weeks in the hospital, she went right into hospice. That`s one thing I wouldn`t wish on anyone. To see her in the condition she was in and the way she went no one should have to go through.
I kind of digressed as far as the origional statement about time of diagnosis and treatment , but for my mother that wasn`t really a factor. Cure was a bus that was far gone. Damage control was the only concern at that point for her.
Sorry to bring everyone down.
Good luck and I hope everything turns out well for yourself and your mother.

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

My mom was diagnosed with lung ca in early dec, well her md found some nodules in a chest x ray earlier but didn't want to say what it could be.
She just had her first chemo infusion yesterday.
2 months sounds like a lot but they saw that she shows no symptoms and just had a battery of scans and 2 surgeries done to pinpoint the cancer.
between then and now she had 2 ct scans, 1 pet scan, a needle biopsy, a medianinanoscopy and now the chemo infusion. The pathology read from the lymph nodes are microscopic so that does take a week.
Once you see the oncologist, you'll see how fast the treatment will start.
Good luck.

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

geepondy,

I thought the same thing for a while after my dad was diagnosed but quickly realized that a day or two or even a couple of weeks isn't significant. The chemo is going to be circulating throughtout the entire body and it will find the cancer cells even if they spread.

Part of the anxiety I experienced was that by the time the cancer was diaganosed it had been growing inside of him for almost a year. I wanted him to start treatment ASAP because valuable time was being wasted but waiting a short while, depending on the cancer, isn't a significant loss of treatment time.

It's the wringing of hands while nothing is happening that makes it hard.

Please let me know how your mom is doing.

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

There is more money in treating diseases than curing them/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif

Think about it.

Fin

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

As a cancer survivor (one year in march) I can say that
1) Every cancer is different
2) I had a month and half - two months between the diagnosis and first chemo. In that time I had fine needle aspiration, bone marrow biopsy (even more painful than my kidney stone), two CT's, one PET, surgery to naildown the type.
3) Oncologists know that cancer doesn't spread so fast so that some weeks matter most of the time. If it does spread that fast, well, some weeks won't matter that much.

So, every case is different, every paitent is different, every doctor is different, and every treatment is different.
Treatment isn't the hard science we all with it was, I'm afraid....

T.

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

By the time most cancers are diagnosed, they have already been present and growing for a long time. The cancer itself is not an emergency.

The consequences of the cancer can be an emergency, though. Tumors can exert mass effect (i.e. press on surrounding structures). This can obstruct things that are supposed to remain open - airway, blood vessels, GI tract, urinary tract. This can cause pressure on structures that interfere with their normal function - the brain, the spinal cord, the heart. There can be erosion into soft tissue structures that causes massive bleeding. There can be fractures caused by bone erosion. There can be metabolic problems because of tumors.

Anyway, certain conditions caused by cancerous tumors might need to treated as emergencies. Otherwise, a wait of a few days or weeks is unlikely to make a significant difference other than causing a *lot* of anxiety and distress.

Some advanced cancers are indeed overtreated. Such was the case with my father-in-law. He had widely metastatic lung CA at the time of diagnosis. He underwent an aggressive regimen , including surgery and chemotherapy even though he knew it was unlikely to cure his condition. It is difficult to decide to "do nothing", because nobody wants to "give up". Sometimes, though, we need to acknowledge that intervention won't result in any benefit, and may actually make the patient's remaining lifetime miserable. And contrary to what Finbar implied, the aggressive treatment wasn't pursued to line anybody's pockets, as this was done in Canada.

CANCER NEWS FLASH!

On ABC News tonight, there is mention of a new type of treatment.

"Liquid Radiation".

Specially designed to ONLY attack the cancer. Radiation attaches to specific protein in cancer surface.

A high % of survivors after 5 years.

One woman stated tht her tumor shrank noticeably within days.

No hair loss or other side effects(ADR).

Much shorter treatment completion. Me thinks one week compared to the normal 4 months with Chemo.

Looks promising.

Hope it helps those concerned,
Fin

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

[ QUOTE ]
And contrary to what Finbar implied, the aggressive treatment wasn't pursued to line anybody's pockets, as this was done in Canada.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Hooked,

I was not making a reply to anyone else's post on this topic.

I am merely speaking of my own personal insights, after having worked in the medical and pharmaceutical field for over 20 years.

If you notice most stories about cancer, AIDS, etc., speak of "treatments". This is my original intent of posting. More funding needs to be allocated to finding cures and not treatments.

Take flu vaccinations, for example. For most, they will prevent flu. A given number of people will die from flu every year. Currently, no American company manufactures flu vaccines any more.

Why? THEY have publicly stated. "there is no profit."

I am not implying anything. I am directly charging drug manufacturers with putting profits before the ethic of curing illnesses and aleviating suffering.

Yes, the Canadian system is more socialistic than the US system of medicine.

The US system needs to be scraped and started over.

Especially, drug prices and pharmacist's salaries(over $100,00 in some places).

The generic drug program is criminally scandalous. Not generic drugs themselves, but the way that they are promoted by drug chains that offer the mantra, "half of brand name!" Well, a lot of generic drugs are much, much cheaper than half of brand name drugs. Some may be purchased for $20 per 1000 tablets. Yet, these chains still only offer "half of brand name prices". Some of these mark-ups approach the high hundred to thousand percent mark-up.

Anywhere else, this type of business practice is, not only considered unethical, but illegal.

This is one of the major reasons that I left the pharmacy field.

Hope that clears things up,
Fin

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

We had the same situation when my mother was being diagnosed and after she was diagnosed. I asked point blank about the delays and was told what most have said here. A 2-3 week delay is not a issue.

What is important is that you are comfortable asking whatever questions that you need to and that they are adequately answered. Both her Dr and Oncologist took time to explain everything and make sure that all of our questions were answered. We never felt rushed or like a cow being herded through.

All in all I would describe the experience with all those involved as very respectful, considerate and compassionate.

She is now cancer free. I wish your family the best.

Re: Why apparent medical nonchalance towards cance

Finbar: if you think it's bad on the pharmaceutical side of things, you'd be *really* mad at how it runs on the provider/hospital end.

Most of the problems that need to be fixed have more to do with how health care is paid for, rather than medical technology and delivery.

I don't have a problem with for-profit health care. The problem is that we don't actually have a free market system. The cost and consumer pressures that would normally result in better efficiency and drive down prices don't exist in health care, because the consumer has little choice and little access to information about the product and provider.

You'd be surprised at how many docs and other providers agree that the system needs a major overhaul.

BTW, the Costco pharmacy has excellent prices on generic drugs. I believe it's their policy to offer no more than a 10-20% markup on the wholesale price of meds. Every other pharmacy offers a discount on the *retail* price. Big difference, as you pointed out...

Sorry to hijack this thread. It feels good to rant!