In 1916, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves. It took almost 100 years and the construction of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) to show that he was right. In 2015, a brilliant team of researchers detected gravitational ripples that had been generated by the collision of two black holes about 1.3 billion years ago.
The Clinical Cancer Letter received a rebuttal letter for publication from the GOG Foundation and its president, Philip DiSaia, regarding the article “Study: Reolysin-Paclitaxel Combination Demonstrates Higher Response Than Paclitaxel Therapy Alone” which appeared in the March 2016 issue.
Over the past several weeks, The Cancer Letter has been running a series of articles that report on a past conflict between people at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Nobel Laureate Al Gilman, who led the scientific review teams of the then newly formed Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.
Dear Editor,We are writing to clarify a few points in your Oct. 2 article, “CMS to Trim Spending on Diagnostic Lab Tests,” as it mistakenly intertwines two issues.
Last week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced plans to support Medicare beneficiaries by reimbursing doctors for advance care planning beginning in January 2016.
Last week, it was reported in both The Cancer Letter and the Houston Chronicle that The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center had closed a deal to sublicense intellectual property to two pharmaceutical firms, Intrexon and Ziopharm Oncology. There is nothing terribly unusual about that.
A new study indicates that the risk of developing cancer in some types of tissue is based on the frequency of stem cell divisions, and therefore beyond individuals' control to minimize their own risks. As the study stated, a majority of these cancers develop due to random mutations of noncancerous stem cells; in other words, it's just “bad luck.”
The Cancer Letter recently published information regarding proton therapy facilities in the U.S., highlighting a contention that 85 percent of patients treated with protons have prostate cancer, the logical implication of which would be that this important resource is utilized minimally for other cancers. In this response, we wish to correct this erroneous impression and also wish to highlight the direction that this technology is moving in.
