Which Country is most advanced for BC cure and treatment

Maryiz

As I have read through many of the forums, I am struck by the discussion on where to go for treatment, not just in the U.S. but in other countries.  This brings me to the question which I have pondered often since my diagnosis in 2006.  We know that cancer is big business and very competitive, therefore there is much secrecy over where to get the most advanced treatment.  Millions of dollars have been funneled into research and prevention.  I would like to think we could tackle this subject as a group.  All that we read on paper can not be true.  Studies have biases and numbers can be skewed.  I have read that Germany is ahead of the U.S. in tackling certain facets of this disease.  How can we as a group be sure we are getting the best attempts at a "cure" if there is so much out there to be misinterpreted or misconstrued.  Are we just making the drug companies wealthy, taking drugs that keep us alive longer but, in fact, do not cure us,  thereby insuring that the money continues to flow for the pharmaceutical companies as patients live longer.  I think I am weaving two topics together but the point is, where do we get the best care?  Thanks for any input, Maryiz

KPolasek

I just found your thread .... I don't know the answer to your question ... but would like to know as well.

 Blessings,

K

Anonymous

Are we just making the drug companies wealthy, taking drugs that keep us alive longer but, in fact, do not cure us,  thereby insuring that the money continues to flow for the pharmaceutical companies as patients live longer.

In answer to your questions above, probably.  But without chemo I would not have survived my diagnosis and I'm glad I have had 5 years I wouldn't have had otherwise without these drugs.  Will I have a recurrence eventually?  Probably, but I would rather have had these five extra or however many I get than not. 

crazy4carrots

Maryiz, this is an interesting post.

I'm a bit confused by your statement that, because of competition, there is much secrecy about where to get the most advanced tx.  Perhaps that's the case in the U.S., but I doubt that it happens in countries with universal healthcare.  Oncologists in all countries have access to the most recent, most advanced tx, although the length of time it takes for the regulatory agency (the FDA, Health Canada etc.) to approve the tx will probably differ.

Yes, there is a tremendous amt of money being spent on research (again, the knowledge from which is shared universally) but it seems every day we hear of potentially promising new studies, and lives are being prolonged because of all that has gone on before.  Big pharma gets blamed for a lot of things, but it is an integral part of the "bench to bedside" medical research from which each of us is benefitting -- one way or another.  After all, the basic scientists in our hospitals and universities don't have the means to produce the pills.  My argument with big pharma is in producing medicines of no life-saving benefit (Viagra, anyone??), and convincing docs to keep on prescribing them.  Oh, and allowing advertising on TV just contributes to the problem.

Sorry, I'll get down off my soapbox now!!!

Isabella4

I can tell you it won't be UK.

A few weeks ago in the newspapers it was saying that the Eastern European countries are ahead of us, thats like Romania, Turkey. OMG ....always at the back of the queue, but NOT when they're after our donations.....where DOES all that cash go ?????????? 

Isabella.

Tirlie

I am Finnish MD, diagnosed a year ago. We have excellent results in this country with so called

universal health care. Free mammograms are offered  middle age or older women every 2 years, so we have lots of early diagnoses. Getting a free mammogram from your general practitioner or your  occupational health specialist is easy.

Bc surgery is concentrated to our 5 university hospitals, and everyone is offered the best possible care. It is very inexpensive to the patient. Cancer drugs are free- so are wigs, prosthesis and some underwear.

I do not follow Isabella4...donations?  Sure we got some help back in 1945 or so, but we payed back every cent. Good cancer research is done is this country and it shows in our bc results.

Isabella4

Hi Tirlie, and welcome.

What I mean by donations is all the cash we are asked to give to cancer research, and all cancer related charities, purely on a voluntary basis !! not at gunpoint ! but it sure feels that way when we are constantly getting mail , and asked to get relatives to sponsor us, all to squeeze the cash from us.

Our health service is terrible, we get mammograms every 4 years from age 50, from what I have learnt from this whole experience we should be getting them yearly...4 years is too long a gap between mammos when there's something there starting to grow.

I must say as soon as my bc was discovered I was straight into treatment,and within 2 months I had had a bilat. The follow up is a bit sketchy, our health service is just overwhelmed with the sheer numbers of cancer patients, not enough hospitals to get Radiotherapy, great long queues unless you pay for private treatment. Chemo is just as bad, just nowhere near enough chemo rooms. Staff shortages, then staff cuts because there is no money to pay them, cancer support nurses have just been cut back at my hospital...which is a University hospital. I had a big fight on my hands to get the AI of my choice, Arimidex, I just did not want Tamoxifen, which I was being offered 'because it's cheaper' my Onc told me !

Just coming to this site and getting information led me to dig my heels in and in the end I got Arimidex, but not after being told I should 'stop going on the Internet delving into medicine'

We all get cancer drugs, prosthesis and some wigs free (but not decent ones !) but everything has to be argued about, and they try and fob us off with the cheapest all the time.

From what I remember Finland was pretty near the top in advanced and successful bc treatment.

Isabella. 

pdlc436

Hi,

Just found this article: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=138506

Finland has the 2nd highest 5-year survival rate after Switzerland.

PdlC 

Reneepals

Just because the 5 year survival rate is higher does not mean that they have the most advanced treatments. They are geologically smaller countries. It seems they are focusing on early prevention , How many patients actually go stage 4 and what is the advancement in treatment to the stage 4 group. The original question is a very interesting question. I really would like to know the answer.

Maryiz

Renee, it seems this is a very difficult question to answer.  There is so much secrecy and competition just with researchers in the US, I don't think we will ever know.  The subject intrigued me when I learned that Farah Fawcett went to Germany to be "cured" and that the US had failed her.  So, I was wondering.  Maryiz

greenfrog

Isabella I do not agree with your depiction of the British NHS. And as for your rant about cancer charities asking for money --- what offensive nonsense.

I have been cared for brilliantly from beginning to end - I cannot fault my care at any stage and I am very happy that I come from a country with such excellent socialised healthcare so that I don't have the fear of not being able to afford treatment on top of everything else.

I have had 3 lots of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, I am on Arimidex for many years to come and I am getting breast reconstruction in the Autumn - all for free on the NHS. I have had free wigs, free prosthetics, free counselling, free relaxation and exercise classes - all on the NHS. I have been treated with integrity and kindness and efficiency from the very moment I found my lump.

I get so very sick of Brits bashing the NHS.

The Aussies have got it right ... whinging bloody Poms.

vivo

I like very much this topic... I am wondering about this question and I have searched a lot in the web. I believe that the very first country that combines new research and trully access to it is US. However there can be a lot of promising reseaches in Universities all around world (I heard about Israel these days) but I don't think these studies are given to people. In addition I agree that Germany is in front on the stem cells subject.

I am interesting in your opinion about the europian stage. I have heard also Italy makes researches but all these are at the phase of research.

AccidentalTourist

Greenfrog, it very much depends where you are treated which is why they call it a 'postcode lottery'.  I had to fight to get a mammogram (until now it was routinely done after 50 only) but once I was diagnosed I had very good care.  My surgeon went beyond a call of duty and I was more than happy with the result.  However, aftercare is all but non existent.  I was seen by an oncologist in January but no tests were performed as he told me that there was no need.  I have constant pain in my ribs and treated breast and, while I hope that it is not an indication of anything, I would like someone to scan me so that recurrence can be ruled out.  In my attempt to plead my case I said that in the USA they offer mammograms and MRIs following BC and my oncologist said 'We all know why' presumably meaning it is to do with money.  As if insurance companies in the USA would approve these tests if they are not considered necessary.  I just have to hope that the oncologist is right and that there was no need.

otter

I have to agree with lindasa about the statement made in the original post:  "We know that cancer is big business and very competitive, therefore there is much secrecy over where to get the most advanced treatment.  Millions of dollars have been funneled into research and prevention."

IMHO, exactly the opposite is true regarding secrecy. If cancer really is "big business" (which it is), and if there really is a lot of competition among health care providers (which there is), why on earth would anyone want to be secretive about their advances in diagnosis and treatment?

Just take a look at the website for "Cancer Treatment Centers of America":  http://www.cancercenter.com/   If you believe what they say, they offer the most advanced diagnostic and treatment methods available anywhere, and their patient care is superb. They say that because they are a for-profit treatment center, and they need the money. It would be idiotic of them to be secretive about their capabilities.

And, check out the websites for any of the larger cancer centers in the U.S.  Here are a few I chose at random:

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (http://www.dana-farber.org/default.aspx)

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center:  http://www.mdanderson.org/ 

Fox Chase Cancer Center:  http://www.fccc.edu/

Mayo Clinic Cancer Center:  http://cancercenter.mayo.edu/

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/44.cfm 

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (Johns Hopkins): http://www.hopkinskimmelcancercenter.org/ 

Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center:  http://www.vicc.org/ 

And the list goes on... In the U.S., the National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health) periodically evaluates the credentials of cancer centers and has designated 25 institutions as "NCI-designated Cancer Centers."

There is a higher tier of NCI classification, too:  the "NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers," of which there are 40 in the U.S.  Here's the NCI website that talks about the NCI Cancer Center program:  http://cancercenters.cancer.gov/cancer_centers/index.html 

On the other hand, in some countries where the standards of care and the reimbursement rates are set by federal mandate, there is far less reason for market competition among health care companies or providers.  So, IMHO, we are less likely to see "full disclosure" or commercialization (advertisement); and there is more likely to be some secrecy.

That's just IMHO, of course.  And, none of that answers the original question:  Which country offers the most advanced treatment for breast cancer?  Since the countries themselves are not competing for patients (not yet, anyway), it takes an international research project to gather that information. And, it's a difficult project to conduct, because not all countries tally their results at the national level (why would they?), and "success" can be defined in several different ways.

As for the billions of dollars that have been invested in cancer research and the "secrecy" of the findings... that is not true, either.  The only time there might be secrecy is if a discovery has potential market value and can be patented.  Then, the research results would be kept secret until the patent process (the filing) has been completed. If the results are disclosed prematurely through a news release, journal publication, or conference presentation, the information is considered to be in the public domain and it can't be patented.

Most of the time, it is in the researchers' best interests, as well as those of their institution and/or the sponsoring agency, to publish or report research findings as soon as possible.  The disclosure of research results isn't just a local thing--it is international.  Cancer researchers everywhere in the world read the big-name cancer journals and go to the big-time cancer meetings.

I do think it would be interesting to compare success rates among countries.  I'll keep an eye out for that information.

otter 

crazy4carrots

Just to add to Otter's post about scientists and secrecy:

Cancer researchers in North America are able to do their work largely because of research grants which are awarded via peer review.  Scientists who have published the most in science journals, or whose work has been "cited" the most (which means referred to by other scientists in their own papers) are more likely to be considered for research awards, pending the validity of their projects.  And, like most individuals, scientists have a sense of pride in their achievements; scientific journals provide the vehicle which adds to their stature in the research community.

So you see, it doesn't "pay" scientists to be secretive! 

Tink16

My mom has breast cancer and got treatment in GERMANY. She did so well there and they do other important treatments along with chemotherapy. I visited her there for 10 days and she got treated everyday with keelation some of the days and vitamin C other days. Her cancer became inactive after she got treated there and she felt better. When she came back to San Diego and found a doctor here, she isnt doing as well. Her cancer became active again and it is spreading. They also do shots in germany to strengthen your immune system. They really take care of you the right way. It is the same place that fara fawcett got treated. Many people go there when they have been given 2 months to live in the U.S. and end up living much much longer after going there. the atmosphere was great too. and they are WAY ahead of the U.S....the downside is insurance does not cover your treatment there.

crazy4carrots

Sarah, there are several countries, including Canada and the U.S., that are doing experimental therapies.  Chelation therapy, for example, is being studied in the treatment of hardening of the arteries and in autism.  With your mother, I suspect that chelation therapy was done to try to rid the bloodstream of free radicals, and Vitamin C shots were given because Vit C is a powerful antioxidant.

I'm so sorry your mother is not doing well, and I'm sorry that Farah Fawcett is also not doing well.  A very close friend with highly aggressive bc travelled to several countries (her husband sold his business so that they could afford it) to seek experimental tx, but unfortunately none of them worked and she passed away a couple of years ago -- about 10 months after she was first dx'd.

We should be very glad that scientists are looking at so many different ways of treating this wicked disease, but I also want to assure you that many treatments which look promising are actually investigated in North America, as well as Europe. Cancer research is truly an international effort.  What gives me the willies are the charlatans who claim they have the "cure" and charge through the nose for it.  They are only interested in lining their own pockets, and their patients and families suffer even more for it.

Wishing you and your mom only the best, Linda