Dolphins Cancer Challenge funds research and hope
Why Sylvester?
It's the only National Cancer Institute designated cancer center in all South Florida. It conducted 120 new clinical trials in 2023 alone. Sylvester is also home to 2,500 physicians, scientists and support staff who are saving lives daily. That's in large part due to funding raised through the DCC.
"We have this incredible partnership that allows us to do things that no other cancer center can do. We can run programs like "Believe in You," we can hire the brightest talent, we can have the best equipment. It allows us to recruit not only the top-of-the-line scientists and physicians, but it attracts younger, our brightest minds that are the future," Dr. Tracy Crane said.
Cancer survivor looks forward to the "challenge"
Dr. Crane is the Director of Lifestyle Medicine and Prevention and Digital Health at Sylvester. She's also a DCC participant. It's something she said she looks forward to every year.
"I get to be out there with 160 survivors and their support people and be able to participate with all of them. The energy between the cyclists coming in over the finish line. Having all these people there together for the common purpose of trying to fight cancer and make things better. It's an incredible day and an incredible moment," she said. "If I could bottle it up, I could sell it because it's an incredible day full of happiness and hope and talking about the future and that's what we're really after. The future for these survivors and making it the best it can be."
Cancer research is about more than finding a cure
Dr. Crane's focus isn't just on finding a cure. It's also on helping patients reduce symptoms, improve quality of life and make treatments work better to improve their long term outcomes.
"I would say cancer, in most cases, is not a death sentence. It's scary and it's a hard thing to go through. Your whole support system goes through it with you. It can be life changing. But it doesn't mean it's the end. There's so much you can do and there is so much hope," she said.
Dr. Cane said that hope is amplified through the DCC.
"This bolster of money that can come into Sylvester from something like the DCC can allow us to get to what we call pilot data. It's the first preliminary findings that you need to then go after these larger federal grants. So, it can significantly shorten the time that we are able to get to finding an answer."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
World's premier cancer institute faces crippling cuts and chaos
The Trump administration's broadsides against scientific research have caused unprecedented upheaval at the National Cancer Institute, the storied federal government research hub that has spearheaded advances against the disease for decades. NCI, which has long benefited from enthusiastic bipartisan support, now faces an exodus of clinicians, scientists, and other staffers, some fired, others leaving in exasperation. After years of accelerating progress that has reduced cancer deaths by a third since the 1990s, the institute has terminated funds nationwide for research to fight the disease, expand care, and train new oncologists. 'We use the word 'drone attack' now regularly,' one worker said of grant terminations. 'It just happens from above.' The assault could well result in a perceptible slowing of progress in the fight against cancer. Nearly 2 million Americans are diagnosed with malignancies every year. In 2023, cancer killed more than 613,000 people, making it the second leading cause of death after heart disease. But the cancer fight has also made enormous progress. Cancer mortality in the U.S. has fallen by 34% since 1991, according to the American Cancer Society. There are roughly 18 million cancer survivors in the country. That trend 'we can very, very closely tie to the enhanced investment in cancer science by the U.S. government,' said Karen Knudsen, CEO of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and a globally recognized expert on prostate cancer. 'We're winning,' Knudsen said. 'Why we would let up, I really don't understand.' This article is based on interviews with nearly two dozen current and former NCI employees, academic researchers, scientists, and patients. KFF Health News agreed not to name some government workers because they are not authorized to speak to the news media and fear retaliation. 'It's horrible. It's a crap show. It really, really is,' said an NCI laboratory chief who has worked at the institute for three decades. He's lost six of the 30 people in his lab this year: four scientists, a secretary, and an administrator. 'If we survive I will be somewhat surprised,' he said. After a mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Government Efficiency to slash contract spending by more than a third, the cancer institute is cutting contracts to maintain precious biological specimens used in their research, according to three scientists. 'The required contract cuts are going to be devastating,' a senior scientist said. On the NCI campus in Bethesda, Maryland, scientists describe delays in getting essential supplies — 'literally anything that goes into a test tube or a petri dish,' a recently departed clinician said — because of staffing cuts and constant changes in policies about what they can order. Even the websites that publish new evidence on cancer treatment and diagnosis aren't being updated, because HHS fired workers who managed them. And when NCI scientists do communicate with outsiders, what they say has been severely restricted, according to documents viewed by KFF Health News. Forbidden topics include mass firings, President Donald Trump's executive orders, and 'DEIA' – diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. The turmoil at the National Institutes of Health's largest arm could haunt the country and the world for years to come. 'I really, really don't understand what they're trying to achieve,' said Sarah Kobrin, chief of NCI's health systems and interventions research branch. 'It just doesn't make sense.' 'Efforts that are lifesaving now are being curtailed,' one scientist said. 'People will die.' Initially, some workers said, they thought the cancer institute might be spared. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called chronic disease — cancer is one — 'an existential threat' to the country. Cancer research, with multiple NCI-funded breakthroughs in genetics and immunotherapy, has sidestepped the political minefields around other public health issues, like vaccination. 'People who care about cancer might be the biggest lobby in the country,' said Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter, which has monitored oncology science and policy since 1973. Count Mike Etchamendy, 69, of Big Bear Lake, California, as part of that lobby. Since 2013 he's flown to the East Coast scores of times to participate in five clinical trials at the cancer wing of NIH's Clinical Center. 'They call it the House of Hope,' Etchamendy said. Between drugs, therapeutic vaccines, and expert treatment for his rare bone cancer, called chordoma, he said, he believes he's gained at least 10 years of life. He's proud to have served as a 'lab rat for science' and worries about NCI's future. 'People come from all over the world to learn there,' Etchamendy said. 'You cut funding there, you're going to cut major research on cancer.' In response to a list of detailed questions from KFF Health News about the cuts and chaos at NCI, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the reporting amounted to a 'biased narrative' that 'misrepresents a necessary transformation at the National Cancer Institute.' Nixon declined to elaborate but said research into cancer and other health conditions continues to be a high priority 'for both NIH and HHS.' 'We are refocusing resources on high-impact, evidence-based research — free from ideological bias or institutional complacency. While change can be uncomfortable for those invested in the status quo, it is essential to ensure that NCI delivers on its core mission,' he said. Much of NCI's work is authorized by the National Cancer Act of 1971, which expanded its mandate as part of President Richard Nixon's 'War on Cancer.' Three of four of the cancer institute's research dollars go to outside scientists, with most of the remainder funding more than 300 scientists on campus. And Congress was generous. Harold Varmus, one of more than 40 Nobel laureates whose work was funded by NCI, said budgets were usually handsome when he was NIH director from 1993 through 1999. President Bill Clinton 'would say to me, 'I'd like to give you a bigger increase, Harold, but your friends in Congress will bring it up.' He'd offer me a 5% increase,' Varmus recalled, but 'I'd end up getting more like 10%' from Congress. Congress appropriated $2 billion to NCI in fiscal 1993. By 2025, funding had risen to $7.22 billion. During a May 19 town hall meeting with NIH staff members, Jay Bhattacharya, the institute's new director, equivocated when asked about funding cuts for research into improving the health of racial and ethnic minorities — cuts made under the guise of purging DEI from the government. According to a recording of the meeting obtained by KFF Health News, Bhattacharya said the agency remained 'absolutely committed to advancing the health and well-being of every population, including minority populations, LGBTQ populations, and every population.' Research addressing the health needs of women and minorities is 'an absolute priority of mine,' he said. 'We're going to keep funding that.' But a study considering whether 'structural racism causes poor health in minority populations' is 'not a scientific hypothesis.' 'We need scientific ideas that are actionable, that improve the health and well-being of people, not ideological ideas that don't have any chance of improving the health and well-being of people,' he said. That comment angered many staffers, several said in interviews. Many got up and walked out during the speech, while others, watching remotely, scoffed or jeered. Several current and former NCI scientists questioned Bhattacharya's commitment to young scientists and minorities. Staffing cuts early in the year eliminated many recently hired NCI scientists. At least 172 National Cancer Institute grants, including for research aimed at minimizing health disparities among racial minorities or LGBTQ+ people, were terminated and hadn't been reinstated as of June 16, according to a KFF Health News analysis of HHS documents and a list of grant terminations by outside researchers. Those populations have higher rates of certain cancer diagnoses and are more likely to be diagnosed later than white or heterosexual people. Black people are also more likely to die of many cancer types than all other racial and ethnic groups. Jennifer Guida, a researcher who focuses on accelerated aging in cancer survivors, said she recently left NCI after a decade in part because of the administration's DEI orders. According to several workers and internal emails viewed by KFF Health News, those included an HHS edict in January to report their colleagues who worked on such issues, and flagging grants that included DEI-related terms because they didn't align with Trump's priorities. 'I'm not going to put my name attached to that. I don't stand for that. It's not OK,' said Guida, who added that it amounted to a 'scrubbing of science.' Racial discrimination is one factor that contributes to accelerated aging. 'There are a growing number of cancer survivors in the U.S.,' Guida said, and 'a significant number of those people who will become cancer survivors are racial and ethnic minorities.' 'Those people deserve to be studied,' she said. 'How can you help those people if you're not even studying them?' In May, NCI informed leaders of the Comprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity, a program that links 14 large U.S. cancer centers with minority-serving colleges and universities, that their funding would be cut. The project's Notice of Funding Opportunity — the mechanism the government uses to award grants — had been suddenly taken offline, meaning NCI staffers couldn't award future funding, according to three sources and internal communications viewed by KFF Health News. These 'unpublishings' have often occurred without warning, explanation, or even notification of the grantee that no more money would be coming. The cancer partnerships have trained more than 8,500 scientists. They're designed to address widely documented disparities in cancer care by having top medical schools place students from rural, poor, and minority-serving schools and community clinics in research, training, and outreach. Research shows that patients from racial and ethnic minorities receive better medical care and have improved outcomes when their clinicians share their background. 'I'm from an immigrant family, the first to graduate in my family,' said Elena Martinez, professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California-San Diego, who leads one of the partnerships with colleagues at largely Hispanic Cal State-San Diego. 'I wouldn't be here without this kind of program, and there won't be people like me here in the future if we cut these programs.' In early April, when the dust settled after mass firings across HHS, workers in NCI's communications office were relieved they still had their jobs. It didn't last. A month later, HHS fired nearly all of them, three former workers said. Combined with retirements and other departures, a skeleton crew of six or seven remain of about 75 people. 'We were all completely blindsided,' a fired worker said. NCI leadership 'had no idea that this was happening.' As a result, websites, newsletters, and other resources for patients and doctors about the latest evidence in cancer treatment aren't being updated. They include and NCI's widely used Physician Data Query, which compile research findings that doctors turn to when caring for cancer patients. Gary Kreps, founding director of the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University, said he relied on Physician Data Query when his father was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer, taking PDQ printouts when he met with his dad's doctors. 'It made a huge difference,' Kreps said. 'He ended up living, like, another three years' — longer than expected — 'and enjoyed the rest of his life.' As of May 30, banners at the top of the and PDQ websites said, 'Due to HHS restructuring and reduction in workforce efforts, the information on this website may not be up to date and pages will indicate as such.' The banners are gone, but neither website was being updated, according to a fired worker with knowledge of the situation. Outdated PDQ information is 'really very dangerous,' Kreps said. Wiping out NCI's communications staff makes it harder to share complex and ever-changing information that doctors and patients need, said Peter Garrett, who headed NCI's communications before retiring in May. Garrett said he left because of concerns about political interference. 'The science isn't finished until it's communicated,' he said. 'Without the government playing that role, who's going to step in?' Following court decisions that blocked some NIH grant cancellations or rendered them 'void' and 'illegal,' NIH official Michelle Bulls in late June told staffers to stop terminating grants. However, NCI workers told KFF Health News they continue to review grants flagged by NIH to assess whether they align with Trump administration priorities. Courts have ordered NIH to reinstate some terminated grants, but not all of them. At NCI and across NIH, staffers remain anxious. The White House wants Congress to slash the cancer institute's budget by nearly 40%, to $4.53 billion, as part of a larger proposal to sharply reduce NIH's fiscal 2026 coffers. Bhattacharya has said he wants NIH to fund more big, breakthrough research. Major cuts could have the opposite effect, Knudsen said. When NCI funding shrinks, 'it's the safe science that tends to get funded, not the science that is game changing and has the potential to be transformative for cures.' Usually the president's budget is dead on arrival in Congress, and members of both parties have expressed doubt about Trump's 2026 proposal. But agency workers, outside scientists, and patients fear this one may stick, with devastating impact. It would force NCI to suspend all new grants or cut existing grants so severely that the gaps will close many labs, said Varmus, who ran NCI from 2010 to 2015. Add that to the impact on NCI's contracts, clinical trials, internal research, and salaries, he said, and 'you can reliably say that NCI will be unable to keep up in any way with the promise of science that's currently underway.' The NCI laboratory chief, who has worked at the institute for decades, put it this way: 'If the 40% budget cut passes in Congress, it will destroy clinical research at NCI.' KFF Health News Correspondent Rae Ellen Bichell contributed to this report. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
01-07-2025
Uterine cancer projected to rise in US by 2050, Black women likely to be hit hardest
Uterine cancer cases in the U.S. will rise significantly by 2050, with Black women three times more likely to die from it, a study from the American Association for Cancer Research projects. Uterine cancer is the most common gynecologic cancer in the U.S. In 2024, there were almost 70,000 cases, according to the National Cancer Institute. Over the past 30 years, uterine cancer cases and deaths have jumped. NCI data shows that between 2015 and 2019, there was about a 2% increase in new cases per year, the highest for any cancer in women. Researchers at Columbia University used population data and computer modeling to predict how many people will get uterine cancer -- and how many will die from it -- over the next 30 years. They predict that the number of new uterine cancer cases will increase by over 50% for Black women compared to about 30% for white women by 2050. Elena Elkin, one of the study's authors and a Ph.D.-level researcher at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health, pointed to an aging population as one major cause of the projected increase. "Like many cancers, uterine cancer is a disease of aging. Another major factor is the increase in overweight and obesity in the U.S. population," she said. Elkin pointed to decreases in hysterectomies -- surgery to remove the uterus -- for conditions like fibroids and endometriosis as another reason uterine cancer rates are increasing. More women are living with their uterus, putting them at risk of developing the disease, she noted. The uterus is a hollow, pear-shaped organ located in a woman's pelvis where a fetus develops and grows. Uterine cancer refers to any cancer that arises in this organ, including endometrial cancer, the most common form. Uterine sarcomas that develop in the muscles or the tissues of the uterus are more rare -- and more fatal. Overall, uterine cancer has an 81% five-year survival rate. "Survival outcomes are generally good, because most cancers are diagnosed at an early stage," Elkin said. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all. For those diagnosed with more aggressive forms of the disease, five-year survival drops to 20-50%. Black women are already more likely to have aggressive forms and are two times more likely to die from uterine cancer compared to white women, NCI statistics show. The American Association for Cancer Research study projects worsening racial disparities. By 2050, Black women could be three times more likely to die of the disease. "Studies have shown that these disparities are due to delays in diagnosis, barriers to accessing care, and receiving sub-optimal care," Elkin said. Some research has linked chemical hair relaxers to uterine cancer. In the U.S., about 95% of Black women under age 45 have used chemical hair relaxers at least once in their lives. Chemical relaxers have been found to have toxins like formaldehyde, heavy metals, and endocrine disrupting chemicals like phthalates and parabens. Many have been linked to cancer. Although chemical relaxer use has declined significantly in recent years, women who used them at all during their lifetime are still at risk of possible long-term impacts. There are currently no routine screening tests for uterine cancer. People are often diagnosed once they start having symptoms like abnormal vaginal bleeding typically after menopause, pelvic pain and weight loss. "We don't yet have a test that is accurate enough to provide the maximum benefit and minimum harm," Elkin stated. The study model found that if there was an accurate screening test for women at age 55, rates of uterine cancer cases would significantly decrease. "We can use models like this one to evaluate emerging technologies for screening," she said. Although the study's uterine cancer projections are concerning, Elkin said she remains optimistic. She pointed to emerging treatment like immunotherapy and bio marker-based therapies as promising options. Elkin also emphasized targeting risk factors as a way to lower the number of new cases. "Population level changes in overweight and obesity, perhaps through improved access to the current generation of weight loss medications, could lead to reductions in uterine cancer cases in the future," she said.
Yahoo
29-06-2025
- Yahoo
Some early-onset cancers are on the rise. Why?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Some early-onset cancers — those that occur in people under age 50 — are on the rise in the United States. This overall increase is due to a rise in 14 different types of cancers in younger people, according to a new analysis. The largest increases have occurred in breast, colorectal, kidney and uterine cancer diagnoses. While the overall incidence of early-onset cancer is still low, these small increases could add up over time. A rise of a few percent per year is "not a huge change in the number of diagnoses, because cancer is still rare at these ages," Miranda Fidler-Benaoudia, a cancer epidemiologist at Alberta Health Services and the University of Calgary, told Live Science. "But it's when it's happening over two, three decades that it really leads to a meaningful increase in that period." The reasons behind these increases are complex and manifold, and many are probably specific to each type of cancer, experts say. To tease out trends in early-onset cancer diagnoses and the myriad reasons behind them, National Cancer Institute epidemiologist Meredith Shiels and colleagues compiled data on cancers diagnosed in 15- to 49-year-olds between 2010 and 2019 in the U.S. In a study published May 8 in the journal Cancer Discovery, the team broke down changes in the rates of different cancers in three age groups: 15 to 29, 30 to 39, and 40 to 49. Breast and uterine cancer rates increased in every early-onset age group, while rates of colorectal and certain kidney cancers increased among 30- to 39-year-olds and 40- to 49-year-olds, the team found. More than 80% of the additional cancers that occurred in 2019 compared with 2010 were one of these four types. Other diagnoses that increased in at least one early-onset cohort included melanoma, cervical cancer and stomach cancer, though incidences of these cancers remained low overall. Many factors could contribute to these observed increases. Research suggests that obesity is a risk factor for colorectal, kidney and uterine cancers, all of which are rising in younger people. Globally, the percentage of adults who are overweight or obese has increased significantly since 1990. Although most studies linking cancer and obesity were conducted in older adults, it's possible that higher rates of obesity in younger people could also increase the rates of early-onset cancer, the researchers wrote. One 2024 study suggests that more than half of uterine cancers diagnosed in 2019 might be linked to obesity. Changes in reproductive patterns over the years could also be contributing to the increased incidence of early-onset breast cancers, Fidler-Benaoudia said. Girls are getting their periods earlier, and women are having fewer children, and having them later in life, than they did a few generations ago. Being younger at first menstruation, giving birth fewer times, and giving birth for the first time later in life have all been linked to a higher risk of developing certain types of early-onset breast cancer, the researchers wrote. Other research suggests that using oral contraceptives (birth control pills) might also slightly elevate the risk of early-onset breast cancer, though it may also protect against ovarian and endometrial cancers. Earlier detection of cancers in people with genetic risk factors may also play a role. For instance, those with certain BRCA gene variants have a higher risk of breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, while those with Lynch syndrome face an increased risk of myriad cancers, including colon cancer, stomach cancer and brain cancer. I think that we need large studies that follow individuals over the life course, including at younger ages, to be able to identify risk factors for early-onset cancers. Meredith Shiels Newer screening guidelines recommend people with these genes start screening for cancer earlier than those with an average risk of the disease. Even a small increase in the number of early-onset cancers detected via these new recommendations could trigger an uptick in diagnoses. Screening for other, unrelated issues could also help identify certain cancers earlier. For example, changes in imaging procedures for MRIs and CT scans mean that health care professionals are catching more instances of renal cell carcinoma, a type of kidney cancer, during other tests. This incidental detection has led to an increase in kidney cancer diagnoses in almost all age groups, the researchers wrote. People's prenatal or early-life exposures to certain compounds may also fuel specific early-onset cancers. Researchers reported in April in the journal Nature that childhood exposure to a chemical called colibactin, which is produced by certain E. coli strains in the colon, causes DNA mutations observed more frequently in early-onset colorectal cancers. Showing that an exposure directly causes a certain type of early-onset cancer — or even pinpointing which types of exposures might pose a risk — is no easy feat. "I think that we need large studies that follow individuals over the life course, including at younger ages, to be able to identify risk factors for early-onset cancers," Shiels told Live Science in an email. RELATED STORIES —Gut bacteria linked to colorectal cancer in young people —BRCA only explains a fraction of breast cancers — genes tied to metabolism may also up risk —Black patients may need breast cancer screenings earlier than what many guidelines recommend Even with these sorts of extended studies, though, it can be challenging to pin down the exact causes of early-onset cancer. "The issue with cancer at young ages is, whilst it's increasing, it's still relatively rare [compared] to those older age groups," Fidler-Benaoudia said. "To have enough people develop cancer to then identify risk factors in this prospective way is incredibly challenging, because you need huge, huge numbers." While it's impossible to eliminate your individual risk of getting cancer, there are some things that reduce the overall risk at the population level. For instance, wearing sun protection and getting vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) can help protect against certain cancers, Fidler-Benaoudia said. Similarly, limiting alcohol and smoking can reduce the odds of a person developing cancer at any point in their life, not just before age 50, Tomotaka Ugai, a cancer epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women's Hospital, told Live Science.
