Prev
Next

Unsexy forms of cancer deserve our attention too

Dr Andrew Penman

by Dr Andrew Penman

11 May 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Cancer, Cancer Council, Funding, Health, Medical

26 comments

Every good marketer will tell you: it’s all about the packaging. In today’s consumerist society, we’ve come to expect that products however basic and functional must be branded in a way that resonates with us through an appealing and somewhat sexy packaging.

This person is wearing an experimental artificial pancreas. Do you feel more inclined to donate to pancreatic cancer research now?

But can we think along the same lines when it comes to cancer? Should we judge the potency of a cancer based on its packaging and what makes some cancers sexier than other? Is this simply because some cancer types benefit from celebrity endorsement and that in turn makes the cause sexy? Or is it because the more common and widespread the cancer is, the more attention it receives from the media and consumers?

Every year we see a wave of support come through for cancer types like leukaemia, melanoma and breast cancer with prolific media coverage and increased public awareness whilst other cancers remain in the background, overshadowed either because they have lower incidence rates or because they occur in parts of the body we shy away from publicising.

The reality is that these less profiled and less “sexy” cancers are often the most fatal as so few people who get them survive. Cancer of the bowel and pancreas have more fatalities than melanoma because of poorer prognosis and limited advances over time as very little research is conducted on some of these types.

Another cancer with alarmingly low survival rates is brain cancer which is a leading cause of cancer death in young people under 39 and also carries the highest financial burden of all cancers (more than five times higher than for breast or prostate cancer). But without a high level of awareness or profiling, brain cancer is also one of the most under-studied of all cancers with very little research funding and no screening procedures currently in place.

It is critical that we overcome this disparity. On average, 36 people will die of cancer every day in NSW alone and the impacts on families, carers and communities are considerable. It really is one of the biggest social issues of our time. We cannot afford any cancer to go undetected and under-researched regardless of how few or many it affects and how squeamish we feel about it.

The responsibility of fund raising for brain cancer research mainly lies on the shoulders of two key charities, Cancer Council NSW and Dr Charlie Teo’s Cure For Life Foundation. Cancer Council NSW takes a comprehensive approach to cancer control and are not limited to a single cancer type or program. We are committed to reducing cancer rates and increasing survival levels for all cancers, including those that are rarer and harder to treat. Equally important, we provide vital support services to help improve the quality of life for all cancer patients.

Research is another key component in our mission and we have committed considerable funding into the most lethal and high impact cancers that were traditionally underfunded in the research area. We have identified brain cancer and a few others like pancreatic, liver and oesophageal cancers as our current research priorities as these cancers have fewer survivors and therefore fewer advocates. Cancer Council NSW funded over $4.8 million worth of research grants in brain cancer during 2011 alone, and over $9 million over the last five years.

However with increasing cancer rates, there is an urgent need for increased Government funding into cancer research. Given the constraints on the budget, some debate whether cancer research should receive equal share of funding to education or the arts sector or even sport. And the response is no. But this is not an argument about comparative spend, it’s about a justified spend.

Current level of investment in cancer research show great returns. For every dollar invested in research, the marginal return is twenty fold more. More importantly, we can measure these returns not just through financial terms but in human lives.

As a result of breakthroughs in cancer control more people are surviving cancer and living longer and leading more productive lives than ever before. The odds of dying from cancer before 75 have dropped by 20 per cent in the last decade.

Advancement through cancer research can also reduce the demand on hospitals by developing preventive and early detection services. For example the cervical cancer vaccine will radically reduce the cost of recurrent PAP test screenings, and reductions in smoking have had a dramatic effect in reducing lung cancer rates.

So whilst we should appreciate the complete packaging of some cancers and the significant progress made in fighting these, we also need to take a closer look at the many other cancers that don’t receive the same level of support from consumers, media and Government coffers including brain cancer.

It’s time to let go of our consumerist mentality of always choosing the popular and the sexy and take up a more holistic approach to cancer control.

Brain Cancer Action Week finishes on May 12. If you would like to support Dr Charlie Teo’s Cure For Life Foundation for brain cancer research visit www.cureforlife.org.au/robust.

Follow them on twitter @cureforlife and join the facebook page www.facebook.com/cureforlife

Most commented

26 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Fiona says:

      07:46am | 11/05/12

      The cancer council (of Victoria I think) has the “30 forgotten cancers” project and brain and pancreatic cancer are among those listed there. They are enlisting people with any of these cancers for their research, worthwhile cause.

      Reply

    • Lynne says:

      08:03am | 11/05/12

      My husband died from brain cancer. It was a slow, debilitating, inexorable death. And it was expensive. It cost us our business, most of our savings and will, ultimately, cost me our home.
      I was diagnosed with breast cancer, 9 months after my husband died. My prognisis is far more positive and the associated costs have been minimal in comparison.
      No $500 MRIs every couple of months, no paying someone to drive me around because my licence has been suspended due to seizures, no loss of language, executive function, movement, the abillity to read and write or, for an IT technician, the understanding of how to power up my computer.
      But my cancer is fashionable and highly supported by both the corporate world and society in general.
      Brain cancer kills but receives only 1% of funding for cancer research. So unfair.

      Reply

    • Emma says:

      08:52am | 11/05/12

      Oh Lynne, your story is really heartbreaking. I actually didnt even know that different sorts of cancer receive different levels of financial support. That totally doesnt make sense to me. I am by far no cancer expert, but I would expect whoever decides on financial support to look at facts and not at sexiness. Or is that related to people donating more to the “sexy” forms of cancer?

    • Happy mama says:

      10:00am | 11/05/12

      My 2 year old son has brain cancer (he is currently receiving treatment). We have been so lucky that his medical bills have been paid for by Medicare and our private health insurance. He has had countless surgeries, MRI’s, CT scans etc etc - you name it, he has had it. But luckily we take good care of kids in this country.

      And completely agree with you about the need for research dollars. We are working on raising dollars right now!

    • Catherine Stace says:

      11:51am | 11/05/12

      Lynne, thank you for sharing your story, I am glad your prognosis is good. It’s important for people to understand the injustice experienced by brain cancer patients. It’s time for brain cancer research to receive significantly more funding and in doing so increase the number of long term survivors to a much more acceptable 80 percent. You are living proof of the inequities currently experienced in brain cancer compared to other cancer types.

    • Lynne says:

      12:16pm | 11/05/12

      Happy Mama, your story really is the crux of the brain cancer problem - its impact on children. So many children fall victim to this insidious disease. It is heartbreaking and I feel for you and your family. Hugs to you all.

    • Happy mama says:

      12:29pm | 11/05/12

      Lynne, thank you so much. It was just so sad to me to read about your husband, I usually read and don’t comment but had to agree with you. I’m so sorry for your loss. I am so hopeful that one day the research done now will mean no more families go through this. My son is part of a clinical trial and we have donated his tumour to worldwide research so we hope it all makes some difference.

    • Lachlan says:

      09:16pm | 11/05/12

      I was diagnoses with grade IV Brain Cancer in the new year. I have 1-2 years on average. I am 37. And yeah it gets so little money, but then again it is so rare. But so very fatal.

      I am hoping I am the percentage that makes it to 10-15 and thankfully much of it is covered. Still, odds are I won’t see 40. But who knows what more money into research might reveal?

      And I so fear that as it progresses I will lose all my facilities. My life is words and computers, and the loss of them terrifies me.

    • Bev says:

      08:32am | 11/05/12

      The problem as I see it is that there has been so much money poured into breast cancer research and increasingly prostrate cancer research that there is little money left for other research.  I agree the money should be more evenly balanced.  It will however be extremely difficult to do this as any effort to do so will be met with enormous resistance from the very powerful breast cancer lobby and to a lesser extent the prostrate cancer lobby. I do see some light however in that some are collecting for cancer research (not a named cancer).

      Reply

    • marley says:

      05:27pm | 11/05/12

      Well, perhaps the government should be kicking in to make up for the underfunding of some cancers, and cutting back on the ones that are well funded by non-governmental fund-raising. The Cancer Council has been looking at this, I believe, and is trying now to redress the balance between the over-funded and the ignored - and high time too.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      08:57am | 11/05/12

      Is the problem really the ‘consumer mentality’ or the fact that some funding programs are taken up by the big advertising firms while others are not? Also an issue is the over-saturation of funding drives. We depend on our government to provide R&D funding based on merit, as well as the private sector. Why should we feel guilty for not getting excited about poopy polyps or lumpy livers? I don’t even buy pink-marked items, and I think breasts are wonderful and should be saved at all costs. This article is just a shout-out into the void, unfortunately.

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      09:31am | 11/05/12

      It’s not only brain cancer but any neurological problem. Brain injury, stroke, CP, MS, Parkinsons (although Michael J Fox has done wonders in raising awareness).

      They are far less palatable than ‘sexy’ breast cancer for example. Dr Penman is unfortunately right. It’s all about the good PR of an affliction to receive media, consumer and government support (usually in that order).

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      11:47am | 11/05/12

      “It’s not only brain cancer but any neurological problem. Brain injury, stroke, CP, MS, Parkinsons (although Michael J Fox has done wonders in raising awareness)”

      Oh absolutely! My husband had a terrible fall and had a seizure and had post concussion syndrome for quite some time. The doctors were like “We have no idea what will happen. We just have to see”.

      The brain is such an undervalued understood organ yet without it… !!

    • subotic ganjaman says:

      10:23am | 11/05/12

      As today is “Bob Marley Day” in Jamaica, y’all should go see a skin clinic to get your toes checked for melanomas & skin cancer.

      Bob didn’t…..

      Reply

    • M says:

      11:25am | 11/05/12

      Bob would have survived were it not for his beliefs.

    • Bev says:

      12:19pm | 11/05/12

      Yes I can endorse that.  Getting checked possible saved my life when a melanoma on my back (were I could not see it) was found very early on and removed. Early enough so I had no other treatment.

    • qwerty says:

      10:37am | 11/05/12

      a work colleague changed careers from science/research to community services because of ONE sentence her former boss said to her…...

      She asked a simple question… “With all of this funding why aren’t we getting closer to ‘curing cancer’ ???

      His reply… “Because cancer is big business.”

      She strongly felt he wasn’t being ironic and quit that very day !!!

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      11:46am | 11/05/12

      qwerty
      the only problem with the old chestnut of “they can / have discovered a cure for cancer but the govt , and / or big Pharma wont let them distibute it ”  is the very basis of the alledged conspiracy- money.
      Big Pharma makes a medication for everything , because it sells.
      The profit motive for a big Pharma to release a cure would so overwhelm every other consideration , that you can safely bet some one would be selling it at a million bucks a pop, because the demand would be there.
      Forget dark conspircies, - short term money / wealth / , reward, rules.
      Our whole western way of life is based upon it

    • Helen says:

      10:41am | 11/05/12

      I don’t disagree with the basic argument that some cancers receive more attention than others and that shouldn’t be the case - but please, NO cancer is “sexy”.

      When I had breast cancer at 37, I didn’t feel fashionable or sexy, so please don’t describe it that way. It undercuts your otherwise valuable point about funding priorities.

      However, I am confused at what is clearly public marketing campaigns (using “celebrity endorsements”)  run by charities to elicit donations from the public,  is conflated with how government funding is decided.  Why are the two linked?

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      11:50am | 11/05/12

      BROWN RIBBON APPEAL

      Need I say more?

      Or…

      “Let’s talk about poo week” and have campaigns on TV where nice ladies and celebrities sit around and discuss their bowel movements.
      “How was yours love?”
      “Oh gosh… not so good darl”
      “Why’s that pet?”
      “Darl it was a bit soft this morning and gosh it stunk the house up”
      “Oh love that’s not good. Mine was nice and hard and passed easily… and it had slightly fruity smell”
      “Good for you darl!”

      ~~~

      Reply

    • daf says:

      12:17pm | 11/05/12

      @ Kika ... and how does this contribute toward being ‘part of the answer’ ... ?  You could Kika(ss) with your writing skills to help, if you wished to.

    • Fiona says:

      11:00pm | 12/05/12

      You do realise that people over a certain age (55 I think) are routinely sent a kit to check their stools (poo) for blood and take back to their GP. Least that’s what happens in Qld. It does get attention, it just isn’t sexy enough for a ribbon day.

    • Ian1 says:

      03:14pm | 11/05/12

      Regardless of current funding committments, that some are pegged for greating funding over others ought to be related to the frequency with which these cancers are diagnosed.  Perhaps weighted to recognise those more agressive cancers which lead to untimely death earlier than others?  Current funding arrangements are grossly discriminatory are they not?  Let’s see the breakdown of funding from this Labor minority government.

      I’d like to hear some Doctor’s opinions (the qualified medical kind, not the doctorate in arts kind) with regard to how they feel about the funding breakdown.

      Reply

    • Kelly says:

      05:31pm | 11/05/12

      If my “qualified” opinion counts, I have a Ph.D. and work in cancer research. Most Australian “government”  funding for this kind of research comes through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Very little of the NHMRC budget is targetted to a specific disease - applications for research project funding are assessed based on three items: scientific quality, the qualifications/track record of the applicants, and the potential significance or innovation of the application. Applications for funding for research projects have to be scored very well across all three criteria. Decisions about which projects get funded are made on the basis of which of the applications has the best scores across all three categories, as judged by panels of doctors and scientists. Politicians (and bureacrats) do not have any direct say in which projects get funded - though they do determine the overall budget.
      A small amount of the health research budget is targetted - e.g. to projects which will impact on indigenous health (where the statistics speak for themselves about why this is necessary), or recent examples such as new flu strains, or Hendra virus where it was deemed useful to have quick responses in these rapidly emerging fields of research.
      The bigger difference in research funding from charities - and this is where research on the more common cancers, such as leukemia, breast and prostate, do have better chances of gaining specific funding, as there are specific charities that raise funds for exactly these purposes. Of course, these cancer types are also very common, so lots of people are (rightly) very willing to donate to these charities, as lots of people know someone affected by these diseases.

      Reply

    • Smith says:

      01:38pm | 12/05/12

      What you write may be true to some extent, Kelly, but research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) displays the same fatal biases found in the rest of Australian society. For example, in 2011 the NHMRC directed $33.6 million in research funding to cancers specific to women (breast, ovarian, uterine, endometrial, and cervical), but could only find $14 million for cancers specific to men (prostate and testicular). Here are the amounts of research funding the NHMRC allocated in 2011 to some of the cancers mentioned in the discussion so far (in millions of dollars):

      Breast: 19.5
      Leukemia: 19.4
      Colon: 14.2
      Prostate: 12.4
      Ovarian: 11.1
      Melanoma: 9.7
      Pancreatic: 8.9
      Lung: 6.6
      Brain and nervous system: 4.8
      Uterine/Endometrial: 2.2
      Testicular: 1.5
      Cervical: 0.9

      These amounts come from a cancer dataset available from the NHMRC’s website.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      09:04pm | 12/05/12

      The reason why breast cancer takes so much of the pie is because, in fact, there is no such thing as breast cancer, in that there are so many types of cancers, so many variations, so many tropes that attack women’s breasts that the word ‘breast’ is for convenience only, and that the monies utilized for these diseases may well be efficacious in that the localization of the disease may well be of benefit to researchers who wish to discover remedies for said varieties of cancers ... the same cancers which attack other parts of the body.

      That the suggestion of partisanship - public funds being used for women’s problems and ignoring children’s or men’s - is preposterous.

 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 13 10:08AM

The Woolwich attack victim's identity has been revealed, http://t.co/1Mw4lxDr1c

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 24 May 13 09:58AM

Peter Costello was slow to recognise Tony Abbott's economic mastery but his near wholesale adoption of Labor's Budget has swung him at last.

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 13 09:56AM

Why is the Big Bang Theory so popular? Totally agree with all these points, @SamClenchhttp://t.co/WmvwWgb9q6

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 24 May 13 09:19AM

Shots fired at a coal seam gas protest in Tara, Qld this morning, http://t.co/bQpLhosjbh

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter