A Pioneering Oncologist Reveals Why the War on Cancer Is Winnable--and How We Can Get There

A serious and in-depth review, from a primary contributor, about the difficult quest searching for cancer cures while the mighty federal government hinders almost everything science comes up with. Spreading the word about this book may cause the bureaucrats to loosen up a little.When, as is often the case, death is looking somebody in the face in the short future it makes little sense to prohibit well-founded experimentation, freely chosen, as an alternative to just marking off days on a calendar.

Interesting subject (and vital to me as a cancer survivor.) I appreciate the human/personal slant on this material, but ultimately I found this book too heavy on the the writer's life experiences versus the, for me a least, more interesting paradigm changes in how cancer is viewed and treated. Still worth reading.

I have had the honor of knowing the DeVita family for many years, and have been waiting for the release of The Death of Cancer. It was worth the wait. The joining of the lives and talents of both DeVita authors, bringing to print a life's history of monumental accomplishments,stories, insights
and a teaching bed side manner that has always been part of the DNA of my friend Vincent T. DeVita, Jr., M.D.
Elizabeth DeVita-Raeburn, author of The Empty Room (another must read), has brought her wealth of talent to this important project as she has to
everything she has done.

Marc Cherry

The first third of this book is an interesting, sometimes exciting, description of the history of the development of chemotherapy for advanced cancer in the 1960's. The first two cancers to fall were childhood leukemia and adult Hodgkin's Disease. By the time I had finished my Medical Oncology fellowship in 1975, the new aggressive drug-centered approaches were widely accepted as breakthrough treatments and models for improving the treatment of more common adult cancers, like lung, breast, and colon. Dr. DeVita played a major role in the early days. He was one of my heroes and deserves the fame that he enjoys describing in the book.
Unfortunately, the rest of the book consists mainly of bloviating by an old man who is more angry at his old enemies than proud of his old accomplishments. I recognize this existential position because I too am kind of an old man who, having had a pretty successful career in cancer research, finds much greater joy in contemplating revenge on my former intellectual enemies than in recalling with satisfaction and gratitude my accomplishments and accumulated friends. Look upon us you Millennials and despair!
As we used to say in the 60's, Dr. DeVita was a leader of the Revolution who became coopted by the Establishment, and he spent move of his life as a leader of that Establishment. The book describes of how Dr. DeVita, as head of the National Cancer Institute and of two prestigious cancer centers, continued to forcefully push ahead with new cancer breakthroughs and to aggressively push away those medical scientists who opposed him. But it ain't so. And what he has written is tedious to read and reeks of self aggrandizement. What's more, It is full of shameless and inaccurate plugs for his friends and nasty, sometimes disgraceful, back stabbing of those who dared to question his visions. Dr. DeVita was a man who loved being the duke of the realm but hated having to listen to the opinions of the peasants who toiled for him in the fields. That very human flaw neither makes him unique nor makes his professional life worthy of retelling.
Why do medical scientists write these books and why do intelligent laymen feel compelled to read them? Answering that question would provide the kernel for a worthwhile new book, wouldn't it? Or are ego, resentment, and pride be certain to taint it at conception?

Enjoyed the conversational tone and personal details. Agree with the need to get the FDA out of the approval of cancer drugs. Fail to understand why DR. DeVita, who did pharmacokinetic studies on emerging new cancer chemotherapeutic drugs, who is a strong advocate for high drug doses, who admires Dr Freireich, does not identify the dangers inherent in the BSA prescription unit advocated by Freireich et al for most if not all cancer drugs. Drug doses cannot be expressed in a surface, 2 D unit, they need a 3D unit, the simplest's one being Kg BW. Continued use of the BSA prescription will give smaal individuals an approximately 20% over dose and large individuals a 20% underdose. The recommendation to trainees in cancer chemotherapy "No pain, no gain", gives small patients too much pain and large patient less gain. The null hypothesis of Freireich et was that the BSA prescription would allow for using the same dose in all species tested, mouse, rat, hamster, dog, rhesus monkey, man because it would cause the same toxicity in all species. The toxicity of most new cancer chemotherapeutic drugs is bone marrow toxicity. Freireich et al did not understand why skin surface would be relevant to cancer drug side effects. If drug doses are prescribed per kg bodyweight, mice get 10 times higher drug serum doses than human patients. Mice can handle higher doses than humans because they have a 10 times higher concentration of hemopoietic stem cells. Correcting the fallacy of BSA is the quickest way to make cancer patients lees sick and increase their chances for cures.

4.5 stars. A nearly perfect blend of medical memoir, history of cancer (think Emperor of All Maladies, abridged), and explanation of how cancer functions and the strategies for defeating it. DeVita has a lively writing style and his reminisces and anecdotes demonstrate abundant humanity and sensitivity. This is a man who clearly, both in his work developing groundbreaking treatments for cancer and directly with patients, feels deeply for the people he treats and that his work in oncology is a calling. His insights into the past and current realities of cancer research and treatment, the political and hierarchical machinations, the challenges facing clinicians and patients, are eye-opening, educational, and all too often disturbing. Well worth the time of any reader, but especially those with an interest in the ongoing mission to find ways to diagnose, treat, and eventually cure cancer.

It is an undeniably gripping read about someone who's truly passionate about his life's work. Where it begins to falter is when equal parts anger and wanting mixes together in search of a solution. Standards and protocols are a compromise reached in the face of the fact that not everyone is "Emil Freireich", but while one "Emil Freireich" cannot serve everyone who needs to be served, people who are trained in a particular proven methodology or practice can. What DeVita rails at is the upward sprawl of these protocols and practices and those who benefit under the establishment to prevent those who he views as qualified to make improvements and innovations from doing so. But how to judge or who judges who's qualified to "push the boundaries" to the point where the potential health of patients are threatened and who is not? What's to prevent this "qualification" mechanism from falling into the same exact trap of the current system? How much better is having even only a dozen doctors/scientists, no matter how well studied/or intention-ed, exercising restraints that only exist in their own minds, compared with the current review and approval procedures? These are administrative issues which requires equal deftness in resource allocation and medical knowledge, which a bureaucratic apparatus obviously is not best suited for, but are enterprising individuals without oversight that much better? Despite my tremendous amount of respect for the author after reading about his experiences and convictions, I can not agree with his line of reasoning and can't help but feel the admirable time he has spent to acquire expertise in one area has given him much needed clarity on picking out problems with the system, but not so much in proposing a solution.

The interesting contrast between this book and another recent book on the "War on Cancer", Clifton Leaf's "Truth in Small Doses", is not simply that they draw diametrically opposite conclusions about how successful this war has been so far, but that they do so by pointing to similar data of how progress continues to be severely hampered by bureaucracy, dogma and turf wars, at almost every step of the way.

With DeVita, who witnessed a lot of the battle first hand, at first directly on the front lines and later as more as a "general", on the administrative level, one is almost doubly amazed at his optimistic conclusion. Although genuine progress with both treatment and understanding of cancer has definitely been made, it's still not quite clear that we have turned the tide in a significant way, especially when you actually dig into the numbers, as Mr. Leaf does in a way that Dr. DeVita only glosses over. Likewise after considering DeVita's argument about being able to "cure" cancer with multiple chemo agents combined with multiple other approaches that drive cancer into lengthy remissions, I will gladly hand him the award for optimism, but still can't quite find myself agreeing with him. The old adage: no evidence of cancer does not mean evidence of no cancer, still has a certain logic to it that is hard to argue with.

All the same, I don't hesitate for a moment in highly recommending both books; each very well written and educational at the same time.

For a book written on this subject, for the purpose written, 5 stars. Difficult to follow without straying at times, but overall, excellent info on background and insight I was unaware of regarding cancer. The author's esteemed reputation and candid writing played a role in my appreciation for the book. My spouse has a serious cancer diagnosis, a type the author directly referenced in the book. I found the book helpful in my endeavors of advocacy for my husband; it provided me with insight that I was otherwise unaware.

This outstanding book is part autobiography, part adventure story, and part expose of how the cancer treatment industry works. Dr. Devita is at a point in his life where he doesn't care who he offends, and that comes through in his plainspoken remarks.

Whoever you are, you should read this book. Even if cancer has never impacted your life, it's still worth reading, simply because of its brilliant commentary on the dual nature of humanity - how our most noble intentions often get mired down in greed and petty politics.

Some have commented on Dr. Devita's healthy sense of self-esteem, which becomes apparent at many points throughout the text. Well, so what? Anyone who has contributed as much to medical science as this man has a right to a little hubris. As for the book itself, all i can say is: read it, then pass it along to a friend.

Excellent read on the amazing progress made in cancer treatment since the mid-60s. Sets the record straight on the true story behind the medical advances in cancer, which debunks some other comprehensive treatments of this topic by authors on the periphery of the battle. DeVita was in the thick of it, and has a valuable perspective on the topic based on his numerous advances in the field.

This is a very technical book, which sheds no information to the average reader who wants to get more biological information on the matter. Sorry, can't recommend it unless perhaps you are an oncologist, and even then.

Never giving up on a patient, which DeVita calls a "profound lesson", may not always be the best for the patient. Just because something can be treated, or a life (of poor quality) prolonged, doesn't mean that necessarily should happen.

Quoting parts of a review by Sandeep Jauhar in the 12/13/15 NY Times Book Review: "I would have liked to see more about palliative care: when to give up the good fight. In the case of his friend (who was suffering through cancer treatment) DeVita writes .... if Lee had lived two more years, he could have been one of those patients (who received a new treatment). But he doesn't mention that the abiraterone-treated patients lived only 3.9 months longer than they otherwise would have."

I think I'll read Jauhar's book, "Doctored: The Disillusionment of an American Physician"