
EXCLUSIVE Patient, 56, dies from colon cancer after just ONE WEEK as doctors reveal key warning signs
A man diagnosed with colon cancer after just a week of symptoms died in one of the world's most aggressive cases.
The 56-year-old from Lebanon visited his local hospital after a week of constipation and bloating.
A colonoscopy revealed a cancerous tumor in his sigmoid colon, the lowest part of the colon that meets the rectum.
Doctors also found multiple lesions in the man's liver, suggesting the cancer was already 'at an advanced stage' despite symptoms starting so suddenly.
The man was diagnosed with a colonic sarcomatoid carcinoma, an extremely rare and aggressive cancer that can take over the body in just weeks.
No more than 50 cases like the man's have been reported in medical literature, and the disease is thought to kill most patients in less than six months.
In similar cases, patients have died just 30 days after being diagnosed with no time to receive treatments.
The unnamed man was unable to start chemotherapy before returning to the hospital days later with a fever. He died about a week later.
Writing in a medical journal this week, doctors treating the man said there is a 'huge need for further research' on colonic sarcomatoid carcinomas to develop treatments and stop the disease from becoming a death sentence.
Sarcomatoid carcinomas are made up of both carcinoma - cancer of the epithelial tissue, which lines organs - and sarcoma - cancer of connective tissues like bones.
It most commonly forms in the lungs, though it only makes up 0.1 percent of all lung tumors.
Doctors treating the man said sarcomatoid carcinomas are rare in the digestive tract. They're also the most aggressive with an average survival rate of five months.
The medical team noted this could be because these tumors are more likely to spread and be resistant to chemotherapy, and most patients are already at an advanced stage by the time they receive a diagnosis.
There are no specific treatment guidelines for sarcomatoid carcinomas.
Like more common forms of colon cancer, diet, sedentary lifestyle and conditions like diabetes and obesity can raise the risk of the disease by creating inflammation in the digestive tract, which leads to cell DNA damage and dangerous mutations forming.
The patient was a heavy smoker with high blood pressure, uncontrolled type 2 diabetes and an enlarged prostate. It's unclear if he had any genetic mutations linked to colon cancer.
Smoking also introduces about 7,000 carcinogens into the body that attack DNA and lead to polyps forming in the colon, which can turn into cancerous lesions.
The man's case comes as 154,000 Americans are expected to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer this year, including 20,000 under 50 years old.
And the latest data shows early-onset colorectal cancer diagnoses in the US are expected to rise 90 percent in people 20 to 34 years old between 2010 and 2030.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
This 10-year plan may be the last chance to save the NHS
The 10-year plan for the National Health Service that Sir Keir Starmer is expected to publish in the next few days is likely to be a somewhat incoherent document. From the advance publicity, it would seem to have a lot of disconnected ideas in it, some good, some not so good and some irrelevant. The government hopes that weight-loss drugs will offer the hope of a big advance against obesity-related illnesses – but this comes after new figures raised concerns about their safety. If large language models can speed up the development of new pharmaceuticals, so much the better. But we remain sceptical about whether supermarkets ought to be recruited into policing their customers' calorie intakes. What will decide the success or failure of the NHS over the next decade, however, will be the design of the structural reforms to the service. Wes Streeting, the health and social care secretary, has made a good start in two respects. He has welcomed private-sector providers to help deliver NHS services free at the point of need, and he has taken an axe to the central bureaucracy of NHS England. The test for the 10-year plan will be the extent to which it brings in further changes to incentives throughout the NHS so that it becomes responsive to patients. Sir Jim Mackey, the new chief executive of the NHS, says many of the right things. 'It feels like we've built mechanisms to keep the public away because it's an inconvenience,' he says in his first interview since taking up the post three months ago. He says of the current NHS: 'It takes forever. It costs a fortune. We need to 'de-layer it' because it's expensive, it slows decision-making down, it de-powers people who need to make decisions.' The sentiment is right, but again, some of his ideas seem better than others. We are not convinced that using patient satisfaction surveys to decide how much money NHS trusts receive is going to work. The evidence of reform under the last Labour government was that the mere existence of competition from private-sector providers had a dramatic effect on the performance of NHS units. Already, there are the very early signs that the extra resources put into the NHS are bearing fruit, less than 12 months after the change of government. Luke Tryl, the opinion pollster for More in Common, reported on BBC's Newsnight on Friday that people in focus groups are starting to report positive experiences of the NHS for the first time since the pandemic. 'If there is a bright spot for the government, it's the NHS,' he said. One of the biggest challenges for Sir Jim and Mr Streeting, however, is more political than structural. They have to send the starkest message to doctors: please do not go on strike; take responsibility; show leadership; it is up to you to make the NHS work, because if it cannot be turned round this time, then it probably is the end of this model of healthcare. Sir Jim appears to understand this. He says that his 'big worry' is that if the NHS cannot deliver a service that is better at listening to patients – the particular example he gave was maternity care – 'we'll lose the population; if we lose the population, we've lost the NHS; for me, it's straightforward: the two things are completely dependent on each other.' He is absolutely right. Universal healthcare free at the point of need is a noble idea, but it desperately needs Labour's reforms to work if it is to survive.


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'


Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE 'Neil Gray isn't fit to be Scotland's Health Secretary' mother claims
A mother whose disabled son was left languishing in agony on an 11-month NHS waiting list has slammed Neil Gray and said he is not fit to be Health Secretary. Vicki Tocher, 34, battled for almost a year to get her eight-year-old son Isaac in front of doctors after he suffered a traumatic brain injury while at school. Since the incident in June 2024, the once peaceable and happy boy has suffered excruciating migraines, regularly screaming at the top of his lungs for 'help' and for 'Mum'. The family's MSP, Roz McCall, has highlighted Isaac's ordeal twice in First Minister's Questions – and during the latest exchange, John Swinney promised to organise a meeting between Mrs Tocher and the Health Secretary. But last night – just days after meeting Mr Gray – the mother-of-three hit out at the embattled SNP minister and said he should not be in his position. The broadside comes as Mr Gray is at the centre of a fresh 'limogate' scandal over his taxpayer-funded chauffeured trips to a pub and after he was last week declared 'missing in action' after going on a 'junket' to Japan as Scotland's worst-ever cancer waiting times were revealed. Mrs Tocher said: 'This is a man who is more interested in appearing like a celebrity and I have no faith in Neil Gray as a Health Secretary.' She added: 'There was no professionalism, there was no empathy, and I have absolutely no faith that Neil Gray can address the matter.' Asked if he should continue in his role, she said: 'Absolutely not.' The family's ordeal began in June 2024, when Isaac, who has an existing brain disorder and autism, was placed in seclusion by teachers at a primary school near Dunfermline. He became distressed and started to violently bang his head against the wall. Teachers, according to a whistleblower account later obtained by the family, watched on and failed to intervene. Since the horrifying incident, Mrs Tocher has witnessed her son's condition deteriorate and believes the injuries he suffered have prompted an onset of painful migraines and light sensitivity. Once a cheerful boy who enjoyed nothing more than singing nursery rhymes with his twin sister, Amaris, and his younger brother Abel, 6, Isaac's life became isolated while waiting for vital NHS treatment, Mrs Tocher said. In an interview with the MailOnline, she told how he was put on an NHS Fife waiting list for an MRI scan, but only received one last month after an 11-month wait. She said: 'Isaac was always full of life, he loved the outdoors. Now if the sun is too bright, he just hides under his duvet. The level of enjoyment in his life has been absolutely debilitated by the one incident, and then further exacerbated by medical negligence.' After Tory MSP Ms McCall's latest intervention at FMQs about the family's case in March, a meeting was set up between Mrs Tocher and Mr Gray for June 12. During the discussion, she asked Mr Gray to fast-track a move from the NHS Fife health board, which Mrs Tocher fears does not have adequate resources to help her son amid a 'postcode lottery', to NHS Lothian for specialist future care. But she said the Health Secretary – who turned up late for the meeting at Holyrood – appeared unmoved by the family's plight. Ms McCall said: 'It was clear from that meeting Mr Gray hadn't even read the briefing we'd sent in advance. That isn't just disappointing, it shows a shocking lack of seriousness or care from a Cabinet Secretary meant to be responsible for Scotland's NHS.' Mr Gray said last night: 'I thank Ms Tocher for taking the time to meet with me and share her views on healthcare for her son. 'I'm deeply sorry that her experience did not meet the standard we expect of all health boards. 'It is not appropriate for ministers or officials to intervene in clinical decisions but officials have followed up with NHS Fife on the concerns raised by Ms Tocher.'