All Cancers Are Not Created Equal

Last week, I found myself with some time to kill at the Hellen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF's Mt. Zion Campus.  It is one of 39 centers around the country specially designated by the National Cancer Institute as institution that provides "laboratory, clinical, and population-based research, with substantial transdisciplinary research that bridges these scientific areas."  This is essentially where you want to be if you need cancer treatment in the United States.  
On the list are all the leading cancer treatment centers like The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at Harvard, Sloan-Kettering in New York, the Mayo Cancer Clinic in Minnesota - UCSF is the only place so designated in the Bay Area.
I was browsing in the library they have at the resource center - not exactly an exhaustive collection - just the kind of place you might go for some initial information and direction after being diagnosed.
I was a bit appalled to see that the brain cancer section consisted of about five books (some just pamphlets) - I carried more books on brain cancer home with me in my suitcase from Australia.  Just as a point as reference, the books on breast cancer took up eight shelves.
This despite the fact that brain cancer is the leading cause of death for cancer patients under forty.  It seems that something is a bit off as to how we allocate our resources.  This is certainly not a criticism of breast cancer advocacy groups - they are the model of how organized lobbying can push the direction of research and treatment to address their concerns and priorities.  All cancer advocacy groups would do well to emulate this.
But I left wondering why brain cancer is such deadly cancer for younger people and why that hasn't translated into more research and attention.  I think the brutal reality is that brain cancer patients die and do so relatively quickly - 75% of brain cancer patients have succumbed to the disease within five years.  The rates are much higher for the most malignant types like Glioblastoma Multiforme.
It is hard to build an advocacy movement with so few survivors to organize and galvanize attention.  Ten year survivors of brain cancer tend to be outliers that stretch into miracle territory.
One of my heroes since being diagnosed was the doctor and neuro-scientist David Servan-Schreiber.  He discovered he had brain cancer quite by accident when he was thirty-one years old (he'd booked MRI time for a research project and when the test subject didn't show, he got in the machine so he wouldn't waste the tightly rationed time with what was new technology.  His friends and colleagues discovered his tumor that night.)  He survived two treatment regimens - surgery, radiation, and chemo - but he emerged from his second recurrence wondering if he could do something else to help his body fight the cancer that doctors (his friends and colleagues as he was the ultimate insider) weren't recommending.  He developed into one of the leading advocates for integrative approaches for cancer treatment - using diet, exercise, acupuncture, mental, and spiritual disciplines to support traditional treatment.  Not replace but support.  His approach was moderate and measured but he was willing to embrace possibilities that might aid the body in fighting off cancer or at the very least, keep it at bay.  He was a scientist first and so he never suggested that blueberries and positive thinking were going to make a brain tumor disappear but he pushed beyond traditional protocols because he felt in his own life - I've got to be able to do something else, something more.
He lived 19 years from his original diagnosis which is truly remarkable.  Here's the link to his obituary: 


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/world/europe/30servan.html


What does it all mean?  It is a tough road and we must and can do more.