Another Deadly Cancer That's Potentially Been Tamed By Globalization
'In my 30 years of oncology, we haven't talked about curing myeloma.' Those are the words of University of North Carolina professor of cancer policy, Norman Sharpless, as reported in the New York Times. For those who don't know, multiple myeloma is a blood cancer that's long been known as incurable.
Which raises a question: what would readers do if they received a multiple myeloma diagnosis? It's no reach to say that most of us would ask the doctor relaying the horrible news if there's any hope, any cure, or any possible cure anywhere. This would particularly be true with myeloma since the traditional path to death within a year of diagnosis is described by the Times as 'extremely painful.'
Enter Legend Biotech, a Somerset, NJ biotechnology company. The Times reports that the immunotherapy developed there loomed as a 'last-ditch' option five years ago for close to 100 myeloma patients. The encouraging, beautiful news is that a third emerged from what was traditionally a death sentence alive and cancer free.
To say that what's happening at Legend Biotech is an exciting development insults understatement. Finally, after all this time there's progress. And the progress exists as optimism that we're on the doorstep of many more remarkable leaps. Which requires another pause.
Though Legend is based in Somerset, NJ, its origins are Chinese. It raises a question: would readers facing death refuse the treatments developed by Legend, or some other pharmaceutical corporation operating in China? One assumes the question answers itself. On matters of life and death, there's a natural tendency among humans to do whatever it takes to survive, particularly if they have children.
It's just a comment that when death stares us in the face, no pause is required. We're wired to search far and wide for whatever will keep us upright.
The main thing is that while Legend is now New Jersey-based, it still has operations in China. Good. The more that the world is economically integrated, the better off we all are. In other words, it's not a 'national security' threat when great leaps of the AI, financial, or pharmaceutical variety are hatched somewhere not the United States.
Figure that if trading lanes are open, it's as though the world's greatest products, services and cures are all being created right next door. And when market goods are crossing borders without regard to country origin, war of the shooting and bombing kind becomes frightfully expensive.
Looked at in tax terms, Legend's global footprint is hopefully a reminder to U.S. tax writers that when it comes to innovative developments meant to cure some of the worst diseases, it's extraordinarily mistaken to tax 'Made in America' more favorably than 'Made Around the World.' The more that U.S. pharmaceutical companies avail themselves of global talent, the much better that American drugs will be. And the more that tax policy is neutral as applied to U.S. corporations, the more easily they'll be able to acquire the best of the best globally.
The simple, and ultimately life-saving truth is that productivity is an effect of cooperation across as many hands, machines, and machines that think as possible. Drugs aren't unique in this regard. The more specialized cooperation in the development of moon-shot style cures, the quicker the arrival at the cure.
Sharpless went on to tell the Times that 'This is the first time we are really talking seriously about cures in one of the worst malignancies imaginable.' The brilliant fruits of tessellated talents at opposite sides of the world.
It's just something to remember. Cliched though it may sound, there's no limit to progress when specialized genius is combined. Let's not allow tax writers to erect barriers to this collaboration solely because genius occasionally has a foreign address.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WebMD
21 minutes ago
- WebMD
Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?
June 11, 2025 — Have you checked your annual mammogram off your health to-do list? That's a relief, for sure — but there's one more critical step to take after you get your results. Go over your report to see if you have dense breast tissue. For more than 40% of women, the answer is yes. And that means you may want to consider supplemental testing. The next step isn't always clear. But two new studies compared your options. Here's what to know. 1. Having dense breasts increases your risk of breast cancer. Why it matters: Not only is the risk higher, but it's also harder to detect cancer in dense breasts. What to know: Dense breasts have more fibrous tissue and milk glands than fat tissue. On a mammogram, the dense areas show up as white — the same color as cancer. That can make cancer harder to see, particularly when it's small. Federal law (since last fall) requires that you be notified whether your mammogram shows you have dense breasts. To be certain, check your patient portal report or call your doctor's office. You'll also want to find out if you have 'heterogeneously dense' or 'extremely dense' breasts. What's the difference? "Heterogeneously dense" means most of the breast is dense with some areas of fat, and "extremely dense" means the breast has almost no fatty tissue. Even if you don't have dense breasts now, they could become more dense as you age, so you need to recheck your report every year. Dense breasts can only be diagnosed with imaging — a physical exam can't tell. Bottom line: 'Women should know that if they have dense breasts, the mammogram might not see their cancer,' said Ruth Etzioni, PhD, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle who specializes in analyzing benefit-harm tradeoffs in cancer screening tests. 2. If you have dense breasts, consider supplemental screening. Why it matters: Between 25% and 30% of cancers in heterogeneously dense breasts are missed on a standard mammogram. That number for extremely dense breasts is even higher, potentially topping 40%. What to know: Knowing your breast density type can help you understand how likely a mammogram would be to miss cancer in your breast. But that's only one part of the decision-making equation. For those with heterogeneously dense breasts, 'we typically will consider other risk factors in addition to breast density in order to decide whether to recommend supplemental screening,' said Pittsburgh-based radiologist and dense-breast expert Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD. A list of risk factors, including family history and high BMI after menopause, is available at Bottom line: If you have extremely dense breasts, you should get supplemental screening, Berg said. If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, you should know your risk factors and talk to your doctor about what makes sense for you. 3. There are three types of supplemental screenings. Why it matters: Researchers compared these techniques — ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammogram — by randomly assigning them to women ages 50 to 70 with dense breasts whose mammograms didn't detect cancer. Results showed that MRI and the contrast-enhanced mammogram (using an iodine -based dye that helps reveal cancers) each found nearly five times as many cancers as ultrasound. What to know: Contrast-enhanced mammogram detected 19.2 cancers per 1,000 people scanned; MRI detected 17.4 per 1,000 scans; ultrasound detected 4.2 per 1,000. These detection rates were somewhat higher than in past studies, Berg and Etzioni said. They noted that women who get the scans repeated annually often see those detection rates drop over time. (That's because you're more likely to have an undetected past cancer than to develop a new one in the next year.) A separate study in JAMA Oncology recently showed that among women with a family history of breast cancer, just getting a slightly better scan than a standard mammogram — called a 3D mammogram — offered improved detection of advanced cancer in women with extremely dense breasts. 'That was compelling that we should really be doing [3D mammogram] as the routine screening, at least for the basic screening,' Berg said. Bottom line: If you have a family history of breast cancer, request a 3D mammogram for your initial annual screen, and when considering supplemental scans, know that some are better than others. 4. Your doctor may not automatically suggest supplemental screening. Why it matters: Berg's own doctor questioned her request to get an MRI after Berg learned that she has dense breasts. Ultimately, she got the MRI, which showed a small cancer that she said was easily treated and she has recovered. What to know: An advisory group called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that typically influences what insurance will cover doesn't recommend supplemental screening for people with dense breasts. Their reason: There is no multi-year clinical trial data examining whether extra screenings have drawbacks. Bottom line: It's OK to request supplemental screening, and knowing your risk factors will help during that conversation with your doctor. 'You still can't count on your doctor to provide all the information that you might need to make a decision for yourself about supplemental screening,' Berg said. 5. Not all supplemental screenings are covered by insurance. Why it matters: Not every state requires insurance to cover supplemental screenings — and in those that do, the law may not apply to every type of insurance. maintains a list of which states and plan types are required to cover it. What to know: Without coverage, out-of-pocket costs for an MRI can reach thousands of dollars, but a type called 'abbreviated' or 'quick' MRI can be lower — between $300 and $600 total. Contrast mammography and ultrasound are usually even less, and a 3D mammogram can sometimes cost an extra $40 or $50. MRIs where Berg works in Pittsburgh are booking six months out. A contrast-enhanced mammogram isn't a usual method used in the U.S., but Berg said some places are starting to offer it and testing the waters to see if insurance will cover it. The procedure only takes about 15 minutes, including the contrast dye injection, and uses a standard mammogram machine. Bottom line: 'If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, I think it really does come down to your own tolerance of other risk factors and whether your insurance will cover it, so it is more of a personal choice,' Berg said. 6. Think through your benefit/harm tradeoffs. Why it matters: Getting extra scans can be stressful, potentially expensive, and require a lot of time researching and communicating with your provider — not to mention taking time off work for appointments. What to know: Your risk calculation is complex, including the risk of missing a cancer detection. For example, ultrasound does have advantages (it's quick, noninvasive, and inexpensive), but tends not to spot cancer until the tumor is larger. There's also about a 10% risk of a false positive with most screening types. 'You have to poke a lot of people to find the people that you can help,' said Etzioni, who is an expert in data-driven medical decision-making, particularly when it comes to diagnostic testing and early cancer diagnosis. Bottom line: Deciding whether to get additional screening is personal and involves weighing your comfort with risk and the potential stress and cost of a false positive, Berg said. 'I think it's hard — you don't want to have any regrets either way. I don't know anybody who has regrets that their cancer was found too small. It's always better — if it's going to be there — to find it as early as possible.'
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
Federal agencies Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
HHS reinstates more than 450 CDC employees fired in April reorganization
The US Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating more than 450 employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who were fired as part of a massive reorganization in April, including workers focused on HIV, lead exposure and workplace safety. More than 200 employees had their firings rescinded at the CDC's National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention, along with 158 at the National Center for Environmental Health, an HHS spokesperson confirmed. Another 71 were brought back in the Office of the Director and two dozen more at the Global Health Center. The reinstatements represent almost 20% of the 2,400 CDC employees who HHS said it was dismissing in a mass Reduction in Force, or RIF, in April. The cuts also affected employees across the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but an HHS spokesperson said Wednesday's reinstatements applied only to employees at the CDC. 'Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective,' HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement. 'The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services – whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases. 'HHS is streamlining operations without compromising mission-critical work,' he continued. 'Enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans remains our top priority.' The cuts had wiped out the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance Branch as it was in the midst of helping the city of Milwaukee address a lead exposure crisis in its public schools. The firings meant the CDC had to deny a request from the city for specialists to help.
