Scientists Receive First-Ever Breakthrough Prize in Life Science

We learned this week that eleven scientists have been named as the first-ever recipients of research prizes given by four technology giants, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and that among them are some familiar names to people working in our research program.

The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences recognizes innovation in medicine and biology and the amount awarded, $3 million each, is more than double the amount of the Nobel Prize. Some of you may know that 46 Nobel Laureates were once recipients of American Cancer Society research grants, pointing the the Society’s strong track record of identifying, and helping make possible, the most promising work in cancer medicine.

Well, we’re proud to say more than half of the recipients of this new prestigious prize were also once ACS grantees.

• Cornelia Bargmann received the first of four ACS research grants in 1991
• David Botstein – was awarded ACS grants in 1969 and 1977, very early in his career
• Lewis Cantley – received the first of two ACS grants in 1994
• Charles Sawyers - received the first of two ACS grants in 1994
• Titia De Lange – became an ACS Research Professor in 2010
• Robert Weinberg - became an ACS Research Professor in 1985
• Bert Vogelstein – became an ACS Research Professor in 1993

Anne Wojcicki, the founder of the genetics company 23andMe and one of the four who created the award told the New York Times the new prize is meant to reward scientists “who think big, take risks and have made a significant impact on our lives.”

We are so proud to be reminded of the important role the American Cancer Society plays  in making sure the most promising research is supported, allowing researchers to help us find answers. And we hope those of us who have supported us along the way, as well as those who want to join the fight will be proud, too.

You can read more about our research program on our website.

Alcohol and Cancer: Sobering Statistics

A new study says that alcohol consumption causes 18,000 to 21,000  cancer deaths per year, or about 3.5 percent of all U.S. cancer deaths. Researchers led by National Cancer Institute scientists say breast cancer accounts for more than half of alcohol attributable cancer deaths in women, and that upper airway and esophageal cancer deaths accounted for most alcohol-attributable cancer deaths in men (53% to 71%). A cancer death linked to alcohol resulted in about 18 years of life lost. The authors say daily consumption of up  to 1.5 drinks accounted for 26% to 35% of alcohol-attributable cancer deaths.

The researchers conclude that alcohol remains a major contributor to cancer mortality and years of life lost, and that while higher consumption increases risk,  there is no safe threshold for alcohol and cancer risk. They say reducing alcohol consumption is an important and underemphasized cancer prevention strategy.

We asked Eric J. Jacobs, Ph.D., strategic director of pharmacoepidemiology, what he thought of the findings. 

“The new analysis on alcohol and death from cancer published in the American Journal of Public Health demonstrates that alcohol use continues to cause a sizable number of cancer deaths in the United States. The estimate from the new analysis, that alcohol causes about 3 to 4% of all cancer deaths in the U.S., is consistent with older data.

“While even light drinking may increase risk of some cancers, notably breast cancer, light drinking may also help lower risk of heart disease and overall death rates do not appear to be increased in light drinkers. Heavier drinking causes larger increases in cancer risk as well as in overall risk of premature death.

“The American Cancer Society recommends that if you drink alcohol at all, you should limit your intake to no more than two drinks a day if you are a man and one drink a day if you are a woman. Whether or not you drink alcohol, not smoking, being physically active, and maintaining a healthy weight can greatly lower your risk of fatal cancer as well as improve your general health.”

Article: Alcohol-Attributable Cancer Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost in the United States, Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 14, 2013: e1–e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301199)

Breast Cancer and the Environment: We Need Answers

A new report from an expert committee established by Congress to examine the current state of breast cancer and the environment research  says more collaboration is needed among researchers with varying expertise to  focus research in the most promising areas. The report also calls for an increased role for public stakeholders in the planning, implementation, and translation of breast cancer research.

The Interagency Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Coordinating Committee (IBCERCC) report highlights the importance of enhancing research efforts to identify preventable causes of breast cancer, and notes that existing research points to periods of breast development, such as puberty, in which breast tissues are highly susceptible to carcinogenic exposures and reviews information on specific environmental factors that may be linked to breast cancer.

The IBCERCC was established by Congress in 2008 to review the current state of the science and investments by federal agencies and other organizations, and make recommendations to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for actions to better understand how breast cancer risk is affected by changing environmental circumstances.

We’re proud to say that Kenneth Portier, MS, PhD, managing director of the American Cancer Society’s Statistics & Evaluation Center, serves on the committee, which consists of federal agency representatives, non-federal scientists and physicians, and advocates.

Elizabeth Ward, PhD, national vice president of Intramural Research for the American Cancer Society, had this to say about the report.

Elizabeth Ward, Ph.D.

“The American Cancer Society welcomed the participation of Dr. Portier in this report, which emphasizes the importance of research on prevention of the most common cancer in women.

“The tools that we have available now for women to reduce the risk of breast cancer – avoiding weight gain and obesity, engaging in regular physical activity, minimizing alcohol intake and use of estrogen and progestin for menopausal symptoms – are limited. Although there is evidence from toxicologic and epidemiologic studies that radiation and certain exposures can cause breast cancer, the relationship between low level environmental exposures in the US population and breast cancer risk remains unclear.

“It is important to conduct research on potential environmental causes of breast cancer to address public concerns and provide more answers about what causes this disease and how to prevent it.”

For more on cancer and the environment, check out American Cancer Society Perspectives on Environmental Factors and Cancer, from our journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians in 2009.

New Report: Nearly 200,000 Cancer Deaths among African Americans Avoided

There is some good news to report in the effort to reduce cancer deaths among African Americans in the United States. According to the 2013-2014 edition of Cancer Facts and Figures for African Americans, nearly 200,000 deaths from cancer among African Americans were averted between 1990 and 2009 as cancer death rates continued to decrease among this group.

Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, vice president of Surveillance and Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society

“The new report shows a significant reduction in overall cancer death rates among African Americans since the early 1990s, due to reduction in smoking prevalence and improved detection and treatment for many cancers,” said Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, PhD, vice president of Surveillance and Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society, and lead author of the report. “Early detection of cancers of the female breast, colon and rectum, and cervix among African Americans contributed to this reduction.”

Although African Americans have experienced higher death rates from cancer than whites for many years, death rates declined faster from 2000-2009 compared to white males and females. The decrease in cancer death rates among African American males was the largest of any other racial or ethnic group.

But the news is not all good. While black/white disparities have narrowed for some cancers, they continued to increase for colorectal cancer and female breast cancer, cancers that are affected by early detection and access to the best treatment.  “Improving access to early detection and treatment could reverse the growing racial disparity in female breast and colorectal cancer mortality rates,” said Dr. Jemal.

Survival rates for most cancers remain lower for African Americans than whites, but more research is needed to determine whether low survival rates can be attributed to unequal access to quality health care or other factors.

Click here for the full report.

Study Looks at Cancer Rates in World Trade Center Responders

A new report concludes that early responders to the World Trade Center terrorist attack have an increased incidence of prostate and thyroid cancers and multiple myeloma. The report appears in the December 19 issue of JAMA. The authors caution that it is not clear how much medical screening and other risk factors not associated with exposure contributed to these increases.

Importantly, the authors did not find a statistically significant increased incidence for all cancer sites combined, and note that the findings on the three cancers that did increase should be viewed with caution for several reasons, including that they were based on a small number of cancers, multiple comparisons, and a relatively short follow-up time.

The Federal government recently added 58 types of cancer to the list of covered illnesses for people who were exposed to toxins at the site of the World Trade Center in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The move came after a report from  the Science/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) for the CDC’s World Trade Center Health Program , created by Congress to provide medical services and compensation for first responders working at ground zero.

Elizabeth Ward, Ph.D., national vice president, intramural research at the American Cancer Society serves as chair of the STAC, and says although the study is reassuring, it’s too early to make solid conclusions.

Elizabeth Ward, Ph.D.

“This paper reports the results of a study of rescue and recovery workers at the World Trade Center site and others who were potentially exposed to contaminants from the collapse to see if they were at greater risk of developing cancer than the general population. The study did not find an increase in the overall risk of cancer in the study population. While the overall risk of developing any cancer was about 1.14 times higher in the rescue/recovery workers, this was not statistically significant.

“There were a small number of cancer types that did show up more frequently among rescue/recovery workers. Those were prostate, thyroid, and multiple myeloma. Increases in prostate and thyroid cancer incidence may be due to more frequent screening or health examinations, but these factors could not be directly examined in this study. The researchers also found a higher rate of hematologic cancers in rescue/recovery workers who had intermediate and high exposure, but again, that increase was not statistically significant.

“It is important to recognize that due to the relatively short time since the exposure limits what we can currently conclude from this type of data. A lack of evidence for increased cancer incidence does not rule out the possibility that increased risks will be observed in the future. In addition, the nature, intensity and duration of exposure varies widely among rescue and recovery workers and others in the registry, so lack of increases in the overall population does not rule out excesses in specific subgroups. Nonetheless, the study results are reassuring that there does not appear to be a large increase of cancer in WTC-exposed populations at this time.”

Why Do Black Women Have Higher Breast Cancer Death Rates?

A report from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that despite significant progress in breast cancer detection and treatment, black women experience higher death rates even though they have a lower incidence of breast cancer compared to white women. Researchers analyzed breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality rates for 2005–2009 for women in the United States and for each state, then calculated black to white mortality ratios and mortality to incidence ratios by race. They found despite having lower incidence rates, black women had a 41% higher breast cancer death rate. More black women were diagnosed at regional or distant cancer stage compared with white women (45% versus 35%). For every 100 breast cancers diagnosed, black women had nine more deaths than white women (27 deaths per 100 breast cancers diagnosed among black women compared with 18 per 100 among white women).

They conclude that advances in screening and treatment have improved survival for U.S. women with breast cancer, but that black women experience inequity in breast cancer screening, follow-up, and treatment after diagnosis, leading to greater mortality.

Below are comments from Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer, regarding the study.

“The new report on black-white disparities in breast cancer from the CDC is important. It is well established that there are significant differences between blacks and whites in mortality from breast cancer. In 2010, the age adjusted mortality rate was 30.5 per 100,000 for black women and 21.6 per 100,000 for whites. Another way of saying this: black women have a breast cancer death rate that is 40 percent higher than that of white women.

Otis Brawley, MD, Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society

“There has been a lot of discussion about the biology of breast cancer being more aggressive in blacks compared to whites. There has been far less attention given to the fact that the quality of care that black women receive is more likely to be lower than that received by white women. This report notes that there are states where black and white women have equal breast cancer death rates (Delaware, Nebraska, and Rhode Island). This is evidence that biological differences among the races is likely not the reason for the disparities.

“So what are the factors behind the disparity? The report notes blacks are significantly less likely to get high quality care. While mammography rates are similar between blacks and whites (about 75% of women over age 50), the quality of mammography may differ. Blacks are nearly twice as likely to have to wait more than 60 days for assessment of an abnormal mammogram compared to whites (20% v. 12%, respectively). And fewer black women get definitive breast cancer care in 30 days after diagnosis compared to whites (69% v. 82%, respectively).

“This report adds significantly to what is already a significant body of data on this issue. much of it contributed by American Cancer Society researchers. Numerous studies have shown that blacks are less likely to get optimal breast cancer care, be it appropriate hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, surgery, radiation therapy, or post treatment follow-up. The data show, importantly, that blacks are more likely to receive less than optimal care but it also shows that a small but significant portion of American women of all races get less than optimal care. I participated in a study that showed that 7.5% of blacks and 2% of whites living in metropolitan Atlanta and diagnosed with localized potentially curable breast cancer through screening had received no cancer specific therapy within one year of diagnosis. The bottom line is we need to assure that all women have access to high quality screening and high quality treatment.”

Statins and Cancer Prevention: News from Denmark

A large study from Denmark appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine this week finds cancer patients who were using cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins at the time of their diagnosis had up to a 15% lower risk of death from cancer than those not taking the drugs.  The study involved the entire Danish population over the age of 40 who had been diagnosed with cancer between 1995 and 2007, more than 18,000 of whom had used statins regularly before the cancer diagnosis.

The researchers say the findings of their study are plausible because statins inhibit cholesterol synthesis with a processes that, in cancer cells, could inhibit cancer growth and spread.

But Eric J. Jacobs, PhD, American Cancer Society epidemiologist, isn’t convinced there’s enough data to recommend statins for cancer prevention or treatment just yet. Here’s what he told us.

“Results of this large study of cancer mortality among Danish cancer patients are intriguing and exciting and will stimulate important further research. However, they do not mean that people with cancer should start using statins in the hopes of improving their prognosis.

Eric M. Jacobs. Ph.D.

“Because this study was an observational study, the slightly lower cancer death rates among cancer patients who had used statins before their cancer diagnosis could have been caused by factors other than the statin itself. For example, some people may not have been prescribed statins because their cholesterol levels were actually being lowered by an undiagnosed, but ultimately fatal cancer. In addition, people using statins may have been more likely to use aspirin, which has been linked with improved cancer survival in some recent studies.

“Results of this Danish study also differ from results of randomized trials of statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease. If statins improve cancer survival, these randomized trials would be expected to have shown some reduction in cancer mortality, but no such reduction was seen. Additional research will be needed to clarify if and how statins might influence survival in cancer patients.

“Because all of the participants in the Danish study already had cancer, this study did not address the question of whether statin use can help prevent cancer. However, strong evidence from both randomized trials and observational studies indicate that statin use does not have important effects, either good or bad, on overall cancer risk.”

Article: Statin Use and Reduced Cancer-Related Mortality, Sune F. Nielsen, Ph.D., Børge G. Nordestgaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., and Stig E. Bojesen, M.D., Ph.D., D.M.Sc. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1792-1802November 8, 2012DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1201735

For more information on statins and cancer, see the National Cancer Institute’s informational page.