Within a decade, cancer is expected to surpass heart disease as America's biggest killer.  Currently, the disease strikes one in three Americans and kills one in four; it claims the lives about 1,500 Americans daily.

To combat these climbing numbers, the government has channeled about $75 billion into oncology studies since 1971. But even in the midst of generous funding and tireless research, the cancer death rate has only dropped by 7% over the past three decades. Why?

As this question becomes more pressing, attention is shifting to the FDA and its methods of approving cancer treatments. Some authorities believe the FDA is so wrought with red tape and inefficiency that it is significantly jeopardizing the survival capacity of American cancer patients. A recent study at Tufts revealed that only 8% of experimental cancer drugs receive FDA approval, compared to 20% of medicines for all other diseases. Steven Creel of Austin, Texas, can speak to this problem personally.

Steven was diagnosed with an aggressive form of kidney cancer in 2003. Because he was at high risk of the cancer recurring after surgery, he began to explore other options. Steven entered a clinical trial for the experimental treatment Oncophage and encountered impressive results. Essentially, Oncophage is a vaccine that summons the immune system to fight off cancer cells. "There were literally no side effects. I would have the treatment and then play tennis," he said. Steven has been cancer-free for five years. "I feel very, very fortunate."

Despite success with patients such as Steven, Oncophage--like so many other experimental cancer drugs--hit a wall late in the clinical trial stages. Because of FDA criteria, 124 patients had to be removed from the trial, rendering the results less definitive. Oncophage's developer, Antigenics, suffered a huge financial loss because the study's outcome was consequentially inconclusive; the drug showed an increase in life span for only a small margin of patients--possibly because of the diminished pool of subjects--so the FDA did not deem the improvement substantial. Antigenics uprooted and moved to a country more receptive to their research needs: Russia. Within 10 months, the drug that saved Steven's life but was rejected in America became approved for use in Russia. Now, Antigenics is working the European Union for approval abroad. The company hopes to establish solid financial footing so it can return to America for another round of clinical trials in order to satisfy the FDA.

The FDA knows there is a problem with the slow and infrequent approval of cancer drugs, but is unwilling to adjust trial requirements. Richard Padzur heads the FDA's Office of Oncology Drug Products. Dr. Padzur has garnered criticism for his unrelenting and decisive views on cancer drug approvals, but he insists that the patient's safety and the drug's efficacy are the FDA's top priorities. "Believe me, if there were a clear survival effect, the drug would be approved," says Pazdur.

For many, the solution lies in the manner in which the FDA examines clinical trials. In 2004, the FDA launched the Critical Path Initiative to expedite and streamline clinical trials for cancer drugs, but since 2005 only 18 new treatments have been approved while hundreds wait in the pipeline. Many FDA officials hope to see the agency overhaul its approval methods for cancer medicines, much like it did for AIDS drugs in the '80s and '90s.

To read more on this topic, click here.

The fight against mesothelioma is made possible by individuals who actively contribute to funding research and advocating for asbestos awareness.  MesoRC happily and proudly announces the introduction of a Tribute Wall, to acknowledge and thank those individuals who have made a contribution to the battle against mesothelioma.

Each name on the wall represents a member of the MesoRC community; upon joining, the Law Offices of James Sokolove donated $200 in their name to the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation.  We especially thank those members who have been personally affected by the disease, or who have donated in honor of a mesothelioma victim. In joining the MesoRC community, these individuals have helped MARF become one step closer to a cure.

Two days ago, we introduced the results of a breaking study on the relationship between nanotubes, asbestos, and mesothelioma. As the study gains more and more exposure, readers begin wondering what the information means and how this risk could affect them personally.

Nanotubes were developed in the 1990s when scientists discovered how to arrange carbon atoms into a cylinder. Today, they are becoming increasingly popular; they are used in sporting goods like baseball bats, golf clubs, and tennis racquets. But their prevalence is not yet cause for concern, as scientists are not sure that nanotubes can be inhaled. They do know that injecting nanotubes into the lining of lungs will induce inflammation, but they are unsure "whether people can breathe it in and if they do, whether these fibres can work their way to the outer edge of the lung and then cause an effect," said scientist Dr. Andrew Maynard.

Maynard continued and said that the real danger lies among nanotech factory workers. Even though manufacturers are not required to indicate that products contain nanotubes, it is unlikely that nanotubes in sporting goods can be dislodged. However, workers who may deal with discarded nano products are at high risk of exposure because incineration can loosen the bonds and possibly release the tubules.

The study comes at a crucial time in the scientific and business realms. Researchers are on the cusp of developing tubes mere billionths of a meter in diameter, but many of the properties remain mysterious. For example, in large quantities, carbon does not conduct electricity, but carbon nanotubes conduct it easily. Properties such as this make nanotubes excellent candidates for use in computers and will likely generate a lot of profit; it is estimated that within a few years, nanotubes alone are expected to be a $2 billion industry. But before this technology becomes mainstream, it is important to investigate health implications. Currently, only about 5% of the $1.5 billion in federal funding for nanotechnology is devoted to health and safety research, while the rests funds the fledging industry.

The study was an excellent starting point for the frenzy of research that is sure to follow. Maynard's most resonating and pertinent message is this: nanotubes could conceivably become as widely used as asbestos once was. Which is why, he emphasized, it is important to research the potential dangers before putting the public at risk. "We are in a position where we could actually do great things with this technology if we had the knowledge to be able to use it safely," he said. "Unfortunately, a lot of that knowledge is lacking at the moment. We need the research to fill in those information gaps."

Hamilton Jordan was the White House chief of staff for President Jimmy Carter. He battled four forms of cancer over 24 years, before dying yesterday from mesothelioma at age 63. Beyond mesothelioma, Mr. Jordan also suffered bouts with non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer and skin cancer. He suspected both the lymphoma and mesothelioma were at least partly caused by exposure to the Agent Orange chemical in the Vietnam war.

His experience with cancer, however, taught his to take an aggressive stance against disease. In an undated interview with WebMD, he provided valuable tips for cancer patients:

No. 1: Be an active partner in the medical decisions that are made about your life.

Don’t be passive. Learn about your disease, and participate in the decisions that are made….For example with my lymphoma, if I would have accepted the first treatment offered, I’d be dead today. It was assumed that I only had a mass in my chest. I later learned that the lymphoma was all through my body.

No. 2: Seek and know the truth about your illness, and prognosis.

If you don’t have the facts, and don’t know the truth, you won’t make good decisions. It takes courage to ask questions about statistics and your prognosis.

No. 3: Get a second opinion.

We wouldn’t buy the first computer or cellphone we looked at. Shop around when your life is at stake….I got second opinions on all of my cancers.

No. 4: Determine upfront how broad or narrow your physicians’ experience is.

If you have something that your doctor says, “I’ve never seen this before,” get another doctor. You want your doctor to be very familiar with your disease.

No. 5: If you have a poor prognosis, or a rare form of cancer, try to get to a center of excellence.

If your doctor doesn’t believe he or she can cure you, you won’t believe you’ll be cured.

No. 6: Do not allow your caregivers to project their values, goals and expectations onto you.

In my book I tell the story of a 68-year-old man who was diagnosed with PCa (prostate cancer). And this man is in very good health other than the PCa. His 35-year-old doctor reasoned that since his life expectancy was only five or six years, that he recommended that the man do nothing for his PCa and told him it would take the PCa four or five years to kill him. This man wanted to live to be 80 or 85. He didn’t accept that. He had his prostate removed, and many years later he’s in good health, and probably will live to be 80 or 85. Don’t let your doctor project his or her expectations in life out on you.

No. 7: Understand the economics of cancer care.

You don’t want to be in a situation where your doctor wants to run a $150 test that your insurance doesn’t cover, but it contains critical information for making your diagnosis or deciding treatment. You need to understand what your insurance covers, and let your doctor know what you’re willing to do to supplement that coverage to get a good diagnosis, and the best possible treatment. If your doctor says that he wants to run another test, but insurance won’t pay for it, find out what it is. Why does he want to run it? Find out the cost, and determine whether you should pay it yourself. It might save your life.

No. 8: Ultimately, find a doctor that you trust and believe in.

Find a doctor with a fighting spirit, and who thinks that they can cure you. You tend to find doctors that reflect your own attitude. I always found doctors that liked the fact I was aggressive and going to fight for my life. They didn’t object to my asking a lot of questions.

No. 9: Treat your mind as well as your body.

Just because we can’t quantify, and don’t understand the power of the mind, to deal with disease, it doesn’t mean that attitude and the will to live is not a powerful, powerful force in the course of an illness.

No. 10: Your attitude and beliefs are your most powerful weapon against cancer.

I believe that deeply. There have been studies that show when you are happy and engaged and positive, your immune system is at its strongest. When you are depressed or unhappy, your immune system is weakened.

More information can be found in Mr. Jordan's 2001 memoir, "No Such Thing as a Bad Day."

One of the most promising materials for the future of technology, carbon nanotubes, might be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled, according to a new study published today in the scientific journal Nature Nanotechnology.

The study presented in Nature Nanotechnology used an animal model developed in the 80s to study the development of mesothelioma, which can be caused by asbestos exposure. In this model, the nanotubes were injected into the abdominal cavity of mice, which is lined by the same kind of tissue as the human lung, and which is a sensitive predictor of mesothelioma. After one week, there was an inflammatory response.

"The problem of asbestos was caused when it was released into the air, if it was handled inappropriately or incorrectly. Carbon nanotubes could do the same. With this information we should assume the worst, we should think of them as asbestos. But more research might relax that point of view," said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington and one of the authors of the study.

Read The Full Article