I realize that our nation has a lot on its plate; a financial meltdown, a couple of wars, and numerous other challenges, but as the saying goes, nothing else really matters if you don't have your health.
So I turn to the proposals around cancer from the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. I think context is important, so I provide the following data:
- cancer is the #1 cause of death in the US, surpassing heart disease.
- cancer is the #1 cause of death by disease in children, and has been for a long time.
- people diagnosed as children, adolescents or young adults account for 10% of the 10 million cancer survivors.
- even with the high rates of survival for some childhood cancers, these survivors pay a high price - 2/3 of them will be affected by a "late-effect" of their disease or treatment, such as toxicity to the heart or lungs from chemotherapy, impact on IQ or memory function from cranial radiation, and increased risk of being diagnosed with a second cancer.
- cancer is the #1 cause of death in the US, surpassing heart disease.
- cancer is the #1 cause of death by disease in children, and has been for a long time.
- people diagnosed as children, adolescents or young adults account for 10% of the 10 million cancer survivors.
- even with the high rates of survival for some childhood cancers, these survivors pay a high price - 2/3 of them will be affected by a "late-effect" of their disease or treatment, such as toxicity to the heart or lungs from chemotherapy, impact on IQ or memory function from cranial radiation, and increased risk of being diagnosed with a second cancer.
Here are links from the candidates on how they would address cancer care as President.
Obama - http://obama.3cdn.net/f8a8d6b8b4b370d888_24lmvygeu.pdf
My analysis is that both plans need improvement to assure they meet the needs of all cancer patients, survivors and caregivers. Both plans are broad, and that is to be expected, but I hoped to see some mention of the unique needs of young people, who have different cancers than older adults, biological differences, and different life experience at their time of diagnosis and treatment.
Where is the discussion of the needs of children and adolescents? How will we address the need to more rapidly develop new therapies for pediatric cancers, which are typically rare diseases and receive limited attention from drug companies? The model of taking drugs developed for adult cancers, modifying doses and testing them on pediatric cancers is no longer yielding significant increases in survival. Where is the imperative to identify new models to develop targeted therapies, which are the future of cancer treatment?
How will we address the needs of young adult survivors who will, in many cases, live decades beyond their initial diagnosis and treatment? What are the medical interventions, along with recognition of the psycho-social, financial and educational needs to keep these survivors healthy and productive in our society? And importantly, how can we help families who care for these survivors, advocating for their care and long-term needs, many years after diagnosis?
Seniors vote, and therefore have significant clout. And certainly, as the majority of cancer patients and survivors, seniors should get a lot of attention from policy-makers. But if young people are our future, I don't think it is too much to expect our next President to consider the needs of children, adolescents and young adults with cancer.
I had hoped for greater emphasis on children with cancer in the candidates' proposals. The lack of focus should be signal to childhood cancer patients, families, and advocates. We need to work hard to raise awareness of children with cancer and demand a commitment to enact policies to address the needs of this population, whomever is the next resident of the White House.
My analysis is that both plans need improvement to assure they meet the needs of all cancer patients, survivors and caregivers. Both plans are broad, and that is to be expected, but I hoped to see some mention of the unique needs of young people, who have different cancers than older adults, biological differences, and different life experience at their time of diagnosis and treatment.
Where is the discussion of the needs of children and adolescents? How will we address the need to more rapidly develop new therapies for pediatric cancers, which are typically rare diseases and receive limited attention from drug companies? The model of taking drugs developed for adult cancers, modifying doses and testing them on pediatric cancers is no longer yielding significant increases in survival. Where is the imperative to identify new models to develop targeted therapies, which are the future of cancer treatment?
How will we address the needs of young adult survivors who will, in many cases, live decades beyond their initial diagnosis and treatment? What are the medical interventions, along with recognition of the psycho-social, financial and educational needs to keep these survivors healthy and productive in our society? And importantly, how can we help families who care for these survivors, advocating for their care and long-term needs, many years after diagnosis?
Seniors vote, and therefore have significant clout. And certainly, as the majority of cancer patients and survivors, seniors should get a lot of attention from policy-makers. But if young people are our future, I don't think it is too much to expect our next President to consider the needs of children, adolescents and young adults with cancer.
I had hoped for greater emphasis on children with cancer in the candidates' proposals. The lack of focus should be signal to childhood cancer patients, families, and advocates. We need to work hard to raise awareness of children with cancer and demand a commitment to enact policies to address the needs of this population, whomever is the next resident of the White House.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment