<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
						   <rss version="2.0">
							<channel>
							  <title> FACR </title> 
							  <link>http://www.facr.org</link> 
							  <description>RSS feeds for FACR</description> 
							  <language>en</language>  <item>
								<title>The Latest Research on Fruits, Vegetables and Health</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-43.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[<P  ><SPAN >Researchers are continually investigating the numerous health-protecting properties of the phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables. (Phytochemicals are substances produced by plants that help to protect them from insects, diseases and other threats to their health. These same substances help to protect human health.) While more than 4000 phytochemicals have been identified, fewer than 200 phytochemicals have been studied extensively. Summaries of recently published studies examining the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables are presented here.</SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN >&nbsp;</SPAN></P>
<H1 ><SPAN >An Apple A Day May Keep the Heart and Lung Specialists Away</SPAN></H1>
<P  ><SPAN >Researchers at the University of California Davis Medical School studied how eating apples and drinking apple juice every day affects heart disease risk.<SPAN >&nbsp; </SPAN>The 12-week study showed that by simply including apples in the diet (and without making any other dietary changes), study participants were able to reduce their risk of heart disease.<SPAN >&nbsp; </SPAN>Apples contain a variety of antioxidant phytochemicals that decrease LDL oxidation. Oxidized LDL cholesterol is more likely to build up in arteries, a process that can cause heart attacks and stroke.</SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN >Researchers from the University of Nottingham, located in the United Kingdom, recently reported that people who eat five or more apples a week have better lung function and lower risk of asthma and other respiratory disease compared to people who rarely eat apples.<SPAN >&nbsp; </SPAN>Their findings were based on a 10-year study involving 2,633 people examining relationships between diet and respiratory health. The researchers suspect that antioxidants in apples lead to these health benefits. In 1997 Finnish researchers reported that the antioxidant flavonoids may reduce the risk of lung cancer. This finding is based on a 25-year study examining relationships between diet and health in nearly 10,000 Finnish men.</SPAN></P>
<H1 ><SPAN >&nbsp;</SPAN></H1>
<H1 ><SPAN >Carotenoids and Cancer</SPAN></H1>
<P  ><SPAN >Carrots and other orange vegetables like squash and sweet potato and dark green vegetables like broccoli and spinach contain phytochemicals called carotenoids. The Nursesâ€™ Health Study showed that women who eat the most carotenoid-rich vegetables have the lowest risk of breast cancer. Researchers report that raw vegetables contain the highest amounts of carotenoids, which are damaged by the heat of cooking.</SPAN></P>
<H1 ><SPAN >The Cruciferous Crusaders</SPAN></H1>
<P  ><SPAN >Cruciferous vegetables include bok choy, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, collard greens, rutabaga and turnips. Researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle reported in 2000 that men who eat at least 1.5 cups of cruciferous vegetables a week can reduce their prostate cancer risk by more than 40 percent. Researchers speculate that phytochemicals in cruciferous vegetables called isothiocyanates help the body produce enzymes that destroy cancer-causing compounds.</SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN >&nbsp;</SPAN></P>
<H1 ><SPAN >"Berry" Promising News</SPAN></H1>
<P  ><SPAN >In a study of 40 fruits and vegetables done at Tufts University in Boston, blueberries ranked number one in antioxidant content. Reported in 1999, a later study conducted at Tufts University in Boston reported that older rats fed blueberry extracts outperformed their study counterparts on balance, coordination and memory tests. Researchers believe that the antioxidants in blueberries are responsible for the benefits. While rats are not little humans, this study has prompted researchers to explore the effects of blueberries on the effects of aging in older humans. The National Institute on Aging is funding studies in humans. Results have not been released yet.</SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN >In 2001 researchers from Indiana University and Ohio State University reported that phytochemicals in red and black raspberries and strawberries inhibit the growth of colon and esophageal cancer cells in rats resulting from exposure to benzopyrene, a carcinogen found in tobacco smoke.<SPAN >&nbsp; </SPAN>While a similar study has not been tested in humans, there are numerous studies that show that diets rich in fruits and vegetables help reduce the risk of stomach, lung, mouth, colon and esophageal cancer by as much as 30 to 40 percent.</SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN >&nbsp;</SPAN></P>
<P  >The Bottom Line<SPAN ></SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN >There is an abundance of research on the health benefits of eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables. To reap the known and yet-to-be-discovered health benefits of fruits and vegetables eat a wide variety and eat 5 to 9 servings each day</SPAN></P>
<P  ><SPAN ><EM></EM></SPAN>&nbsp;</P>
<P  ><SPAN ><EM>*Based on a review of literature from 1999-2001 by Dianne Hyson, PhD, MS, RD. Produce for Better Health Â® Foundation. Visit </EM><EM>www.5aday.org</EM><EM> for more information.</EM> </SPAN></P>]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>20 Jul 2006 - 07:13 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Ultrasound Method May Suplant BIopsies</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-298.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Ultrasound Method May Supplant Biopsies 
December 4, 2006 
CHICAGO (AP) -- An experimental ultrasound technique that measures how easily breast lumps compress and bounce back could enable doctors to determine instantly whether a woman has cancer or not -- without having to do a biopsy. 

In a small study of 80 women, the technique, called "elastography," distinguished harmless lumps from malignant ones with nearly 100 percent accuracy. 

If the results hold up in a larger study, elastography could save thousands of women from the waiting, cost, discomfort and anxiety of a biopsy, in which cells are removed from the breast -- sometimes with a needle, sometimes with a scalpel -- and examined under a microscope. 

"There's a lot of anxiety, a lot of stress, a lot of fear involved" with biopsies, said Susan Brown, manager of health education for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. "And there's the cost of leaving work to make a second appointment. If this can be done instead of a biopsy, there would be a real cost reduction." 

Up to 1 million biopsies are performed each year on suspicious breast tissue detected by mammograms and self-exams, but as many as eight out of 10 of these biopsies find that the lumps are benign. 

Biopsies can cost $200 to $1,000, depending on whether some fluid or an entire lump is removed, and it can take days or weeks to get the results. The cost of elastography is not yet clear, but some experts said the procedure might run $100 to $200. And it can yield results in minutes. 

When checked against biopsies of women's breast tissue, the ultrasound technique correctly identified 17 out of 17 cancerous tumors, and 105 out of 106 harmless lesions. The findings were reported at a national radiology meeting in Chicago this week. 

Scientists said the approach may also be used someday to rapidly diagnose damaged hearts and guide the treatment of prostate cancer. 

The technique was pioneered during the 1990s at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston by Jonathan Ophir and his colleagues. 

Ophir describes elastography as a way to measure and picture the elasticity of body tissue. In effect, it is an extension of one of the oldest tools in medicine, palpation, in which a doctor feels the shape and firmness of body tissue. 

To explain elastography, Ophir likens the body to a box-spring mattress, but "a crazy mattress made out of millions of small springs and each one is a little different. Each is moving around at a different rate, depending on their individual stiffness." Cancerous tumors are like stiff springs. Normal tissue and benign lesions compress more easily. 

Both traditional ultrasound and elastography use echoes from high-frequency sound waves to create pictures of what is going on inside the body, but elastography goes a step further. 

In traditional ultrasound, a doctor or technician places a handheld device on the skin that sends high-frequency sound waves into the body. Organs and tissue reflect the sound back as echoes, which are sent to a computer that turns them into a picture. Many people have seen ultrasound images of fetuses in the womb. 

Elastography, though, also gauges movement. As the doctor moves the handheld device against the breast, the device collects echoes before and after the compression or movement of the breast tissue. The resulting images show stiff tissues as dark areas and soft tissues as light areas. 

Breast cancer shows up larger on an elastogram than it does on a traditional ultrasound image, perhaps because the elastogram can "see" the scar tissue around the cancer, Ophir said. 

"It's like finding a marble in Jell-O," said Dr. Richard Barr, a professor of radiology at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine who reported his findings at the Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Germany-based Siemens AG provided the ultrasound equipment and software for Barr's study. 

Ophir and other researchers said breast cancer diagnosis will be elastography's first real-world application. 

"If it doesn't fly there, it won't fly anywhere," said Elisa Konofagou of Columbia University, who is testing elastography on animals and humans to determine the extent of damage after a heart attack. Uses in prostate cancer and thyroid cancer also are under study elsewhere. 

Dr. Constantine Godellas, a cancer surgeon at Rush University Medical Center, said some patients and doctors would have trouble giving up biopsies, even if further research confirmed elastography's accuracy. Doctors may fear lawsuits if they do not order biopsies, he said. 

"With the medical legal climate the way it is, that's a tough call to make," Godellas said. "It won't be until a lot more research has been done that people will really buy into it." 

Dr. Ellen Mendelson, chief of breast imaging at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, predicted the technique will be used, but may not supplant biopsies, which are becoming less invasive. 

"The goal of reducing unnecessary biopsies is laudable, but you don't want to miss a cancer," Mendelson said. 
 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:18 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast cancer surgery decisions difficult for many</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-85.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Approximately 40 percent of women say they "feel uncomfortable" when asked to decide between breast-conserving surgery and radical mastectomy for breast cancer, according to a Canadian study. 
<P>
ADVERTISEMENT
</P><p>
Dr. Wally J. Temple and associates at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, conducted a study involving 157 women diagnosed with breast cancer who were all candidates for breast-conserving surgery.
</P><p>
Nonetheless, only 71 percent ultimately expected to have breast-conserving surgery, while the other 29 percent expected a modified radical mastectomy.
</P><p>
The two main factors that influenced women's treatment choices were her doctor's advice and the possibility for a complete cure.
</P><p>
Approximately 60 percent of women were satisfied with the degree that they participated in decision-making. That means the decision-making process "made 40 percent of our patients uncomfortable," Temple and colleagues write in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. "This might adversely affect some women's satisfaction with care."
</P><p>
"There is a gap between the women's preferences and actual experiences for the provision of information and participation in treatment; and this gap seems to be worse for information than for participation," the researchers conclude from their data.
</P><p>
Surgeons could profit from education to decrease bias in assisting women in making a decision, which should improve the number of women choosing breast-conserving surgery if they are candidates, the authors conclude.
</P><p>
SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 20, 2006
</P>]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>07 Aug 2006 - 05:02 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA Approves New Drug for Skin Cancer Zolinza</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-99.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[<p>FDA Approves New Drug for Skin Cancer, Zolinza</p><p>
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved Zolinza (vorinostat) capsules for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a type of skin cancer, to be used when the disease persists, gets worse, or comes back during or after treatment with other medicines.
</p><p>
Zolinza was approved as part of FDA's Orphan Drug program, which offers companies financial incentives to develop medications for diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 American patients a year.  Every year in the United States, about three in every one million people are diagnosed with CTCL.  The majority of people with CTCL are men with an average age of 50 years.
</p><p>

"This approval is another example of the benefits of modern research that's focused on providing prescribers with safe and effective therapies for all types of cancer, including those that affect relatively few patients," said Steven Galson, M.D., director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
</p><p>

Evidence of Zolinza's safety and effectiveness was developed in two clinical trials with 107 CTCL patients who received Zolinza after their disease had recurred following other treatments. A response, defined by improvements on a scale that scores skin lesions, occurred in 30 percent of patients who received Zolinza and lasted an average of 168 days.  The most common serious adverse events were pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs), dehydration, deep vein thrombosis and anemia. The most common other adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms (including diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, vomiting and constipation); fatigue; chills; and taste disorders.
</p><p>

Zolinza has not been studied in pregnant women, but results of animal studies suggest that the drug may cause fetal harm when administered during pregnancy.
</p><p>

Zolinza is manufactured by Pantheon, Inc., in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, N.J.
</p>]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 01:22 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>British cancer campaigner completes trans American cycle trip</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-100.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[British cancer campaigner completes trans-American cycle trip

Fri Sep 1, 1:35 PM ET 

Six years ago she was told she had only months to live, but terminally-ill cancer campaigner Jane Tomlinson cycled into New York after a gruelling charity ride across the United States.

The 42-year-old from Leeds, England rode into Battery Park overlooking the Statue of Liberty to be welcomed by family and friends after covering almost 6,000 kilometers (3,700 miles) in the nine weeks since she set out from San Francisco.

"It's a huge relief. I wasn't sure if we'd be here," said Tomlinson, whose previous fundraising challenges have included the Ironman, three triathlons and the London and New York marathons, once while on chemotherapy.

Her husband Mike said he was amazed she had managed the feat, having faced wild dogs, temperatures in the high 40s Celsius (110 degrees Fahrenheit) and mountain passes almost twice as high as anything on the tour de France.

"I am very, very astonished that she's here. As late as Wednesday it all looked in doubt. The weather's not been kind to us, the roads have been tough... We seem to have been going from one crisis to another," he said.

Tomlinson, a mother of three, said that her family and especially nine-year-old son Steven kept her focused enough to complete the challenge, which she began just weeks after undergoing her latest chemotherapy treatment.

"It was the idea of getting to New York. The couple of times that were really difficult, Steve was there and just wanted us to get here," she said.

She has said this will be her last challenge of this scale and said the first thing she wanted to do was to spend some quiet time with her family back in England.

A source of strength to those undergoing cancer treatment, Tomlinson has been honoured by Queen Elizabeth II and the BBC and was voted the most inspirational woman in Britain in 2003.

Her advice to those who have recently been diagnosed with cancer was to carry on, regardless.

"You just have to try and live your life as well as possible and enjoy it as much as possible," she told AFP.

"However difficult it is, you should just try and make the most of the time you've got. It's very easy to get down about your future but you've still got a future and you should live it as well as possible."
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 01:25 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>After Katie Colon Cancer Screening Up</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-101.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[After Katie, Colon Cancer Screening Up  
 
20% Rise in Colon Cancer Testing After Katie Couric's On-Air Colonoscopy 

By   Cherie Berkley, MS  

Reviewed By Michael  Smith, MD 
on Monday, July 14, 2003 
WebMD Medical News 

  

July 14, 2003 -- TV personality Katie Couric is a prime example of the power of celebrity to get a medical message out. A new study shows that after Couric underwent a colonoscopy on the Today show in March 2000, test rates jumped more than 20% nationwide. 

The 'Katie Couric Effect' on Colon Cancer 

Researchers consider Couric's impact on colon cancer screening so profound that they have called the phenomenon the 'Katie Couric Effect'. 

"Considering that fewer than half of Americans currently get appropriate screening for colon cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer deaths, Ms. Couric's efforts are especially significant," says researcher Peter Cram MD, MBA, in a news release. 

Screening rates stayed elevated for at least nine months, which is the amount of time the researchers tracked them following Couric's segment. The findings are in the July 14 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. 

Higher Rate of Colon Screening Among Women 

Researchers looked at the number of colonoscopies performed each month by 400 specialists in 22 states. They studies two groups of patients starting 20 months before Couric's colonoscopy and continuing until the nine months after the show aired. 

In that time, the average number of colonoscopies performed each month rose from 15 to 18 -- a significant jump. Among the second group of patients, the number of colonoscopies per month rose from 1.3 per 1,000 people before the program to 1.8 afterwards. 

Couric, who does not have colon cancer, became a colonoscopy crusader after her husband died from colon cancer in 1998 at age 42. During the test, the doctor looks at the entire length of the large intestine using a slim scope inserted through the rectum. Doctors use colonoscopies to look for early signs of colon cancer -- the earlier colon cancer is found, the better its chance of being cured. 

More than 130,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colon cancer this year, and over 56,000 will die from the disease, according to the National Cancer Institute. 

SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, July 14, 2003. News Release, University of Michigan Health System
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:13 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Alcohol does not affect prostate cancer risk</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-102.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Alcohol does not affect prostate cancer risk 
Mon Oct 2, 11:24 AM ET 

Drinking does not appear to be associated with the overall incidence of prostate cancer, according to findings published in the International Journal of Cancer. However, men who drink alcohol may have a lower risk of having an aggressive prostate cancer and dying from this cancer.

"Although there is little evidence to support an association between alcohol consumption and prostate cancer risk, questions remain concerning the effect on aggressive and non-aggressive tumors and the pattern and type of alcohol consumed," Dr. Graham G. Giles and colleagues from the University of Melbourne, Australia, write.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 16,872 men followed from 1994 to 2003. The participants ranged in age from 27 to 70 years at the beginning of the study, when questionnaires were used to obtain detailed information on alcohol consumption.

A total of 732 cases of prostate cancer occurred, including 132 aggressive cases and 53 prostate cancer-related deaths.

Overall, no association was observed between alcohol intake and the development of prostate cancer. Also, the pattern of drinking and type of alcohol were not significantly associated with prostate cancer risk.

Compared with abstainers, men who consumed 1 to 19 gram per day of alcohol, (no more than about one and a half drinks per day), had a slightly reduced risk of aggressive prostate cancers (34 percent). Prostate cancer mortality was also reduced in this group (44 percent).

According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Dietary Guidelines, 12 ounces of beer equals 12.9 grams of alcohol, 5 ounces of wine equals 13.5 grams, and 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits (80 proof) equals 14.0 grams of alcohol.

If it can be confirmed that moderate alcohol consumption protects against aggressive and fatal prostate cancer, it would have a "major impact," Giles and colleagues point out, because "there are no established modifiable risk factors for this common type of cancer."

SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, September 2006. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:14 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Alcohol May Increase Breast Cancer Risk </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-103.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Alcohol May Increase Breast Cancer Risk 
Fat Hormone Leptin Could Explain Alcohol, Breast Cancer Link

By  
Salynn Boyles 

Reviewed By Michael  Smith, MD 
on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 
WebMD Medical News
 

 
 


Nov. 18, 2003 - Drinking alcohol, even in moderation, may increase a woman's breast cancer risk. Now a carefully controlled government study may help explain why. 

Consuming one or two alcoholic drinks per day was found to increase blood levels of the fat hormone leptin in postmenopausal women taking part in the National Cancer Institute study. Early research shows that elevated leptin levels may be associated with an increased breast cancer risk, as well as colorectal and prostate cancers. 

"This study provides insight into how this hormone could potentially impact the health of women," researcher Mark J. Roth, MD, tells WebMD. "In addition to cancer, there is also evidence that leptin is associated with infectious diseases and autoimmune disorders." 

Risks vs. Benefits 

For women especially, the health implications of moderate drinking are a subject of continuing confusion. An international review of nearly 50 studies published late last year, showed that the more women drank, the higher their breast cancer risk. But researchers concluded that the beneficial effects of moderate drinking on the heart and circulation probably outweigh this risk. 

In another study published just last month, moderate drinking was linked to a reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, but diabetes risk tripled among women consuming three or more drinks per day. 

Many say that alcohol influences breast cancer risk and other diseases by elevating hormone levels in the blood. The current study was designed to test this theory. 

Youngest Women Had Biggest Increase 

Roth and NCI colleagues studied 53 healthy, nonsmoking, postmenopausal women. Each woman rotated through three eight-week observation periods in which they drank either no alcohol, one drink per day, or two drinks per day. The women were not told how much alcohol they were consuming during any given eight-week period, and their food intake was also carefully controlled. 

After adjusting for the influence of body weight on leptin levels, the researchers found that women who drank the equivalent of one or two drinks per day had blood leptin levels that were 7% and 9% higher, respectively, than women who did not drink alcohol. 

Once age was taken into account, the association between alcohol consumption and leptin was significant only among women between the ages of 49 and 54 -- with a 24% jump in leptin levels. 

The findings are reported in the Nov. 19 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 

Modifying Breast Cancer Risk 

If elevated leptin does explain the link between drinking alcohol and breast cancer risk, it could also help explain the increase in risk among women who are obese. Being overweight is also associated with elevated leptin levels. 

American Cancer Society epidemiologist Marji McCullough, ScD, says it is clear that both drinking alcohol and obesity increases a woman's breast cancer risk. 

"The good news is that both of these are modifiable risk factors," she tells WebMD. "There are a lot of risk factors for breast cancer that cannot be modified, but maintaining an ideal weight and limiting alcohol consumption are two things that women can do to reduce their risk." 

According to ACS guidelines, men should consume no more than two alcoholic drinks per day and women should drink no more than one. McCullough says women should discuss their individual breast cancer risk profile with their physician. 

SOURCES: Roth, M. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Nov. 19, 2003; vol. 95: pp. 1722-1725. Mark J. Roth, MD, staff physician, cancer prevention studies branch, National Cancer Institute. Marji McCullough, ScD, senior epidemiologist, American Cancer Society. "International Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer," Nature, Nov. 13, 2002. Diabetes Care, October 2003
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:16 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Alternative Medicine The AntiInflammation Diet</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-104.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Alternative Medicine The Anti-Inflammation Diet 

Experts now believe there's a common culprit behind our most deadly diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. The best defense is right on your dinner plate--and may be the only diet you'll ever need.           By Catherine Guthrie

As the CEO of a supplement company in Los Angeles, Andy Pham eats, breathes, and dreams nutritional supplements. In fact, he downs roughly 80 pills a day. Pham knows he's far from the norm. Heck, most people pat themselves on the back if they remember to swallow a single dietary booster, much less six dozen. So when asked to think like the average time-pressed American and choose just one nutrient to take every day, he doesn't hesitate. "Fish oil," he declares. "I take it for the omega-3 fatty acids. They're a great all-around inflammation reducer." 
 
Whether he realizes it or not, Pham's advice is in lockstep with the latest medical buzz. Researchers are uncovering an insidious new medical reality: Inflammation, the body's most primitive weapon against infection and injury, may be at the root of some of the deadliest diseases of the 21st century, including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's. 
 
The typical 65-year-old with arthritis, an ulcer, and heart disease goes to see three different doctors: a rheumatologist, a gastroenterologist, and a cardiologist, says Jack Challem, author of The Inflammation Syndrome. And he may walk out with three different treatment plans. "No one stops long enough to connect the dots and see the underlying inflammatory current," Challem says. As a result, what's missing is a unified voice offering patients nuts-and-bolts advice about how to stamp out inflammation before it burns out of control. 
 
That's where the alternative approach comes in. Many practitioners say they've been connecting the dots between inflammation and disease for years, only to have their warnings go unheeded. They've been particularly ahead of the curve in suggesting what they claim is the best defense against inflammation-related diseases: eating the right foods. Leo Galland, an internist and founder of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine in New York City, says he's been writing and lecturing about the benefits of anti-inflammatory foods since the early 1980s. "Things I talked about 20 years ago that were considered out in left field are now so mainstream they're almost boring," he says. "I feel vindicated on a daily basis." 
 
Here's how the inflammatory cycle can go awry. Under normal circumstances, inflammation is part of the immune reaction that helps the body heal when injured. When you slice your finger cutting onions, for example, blood vessels near the accident scene expand. That clears the way for the entrance of white blood cells, good guys who annihilate any bacteria that sneak in on the knife blade. They also mend ragged tissue by ordering in new cells to seal the cut. By the time the signs of inflammation kick in--heat, soreness, and swelling--the wound is well on its way to healing.  
 
Still, like an inconsiderate houseguest, inflammation can overstay its welcome. Medical researchers discovered long ago that certain diseases, such as lupus, Graves' disease, and fibromyalgia, emerge when the immune system flips on and refuses to turn off. And a new theory paints an even broader picture of how other killers gain a foothold when inflammation runs amok.  
 


It all started with the heart. Until the early 1990s, experts believed that heart disease, specifically atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), resulted when sticky plaque glommed on to smooth artery walls, causing the arterial passageway to narrow. A heart attack was thought to be the end-case scenario, a blood clot finally plugging the last remaining opening in the dam. But as it turns out, the process is more complex than that. 
 
Experts now know that arteries aren't smooth pipes lined with white globs of gluey fat. Instead they are dynamic, multilayered tissue structures. Arteries do absorb LDL (bad) cholesterol from the bloodstream. But instead of sticking to the artery wall, LDL seeps between the tissue layers and festers, like an angry plaque-filled blister. The body triggers an inflammatory response to contain the damage and the artery swells, constricting blood flow to the heart. Disaster finally strikes when the plaque bursts and debris barricades the artery.  
 
With Alzheimer's, a backward glance uncovered the inflammation connection. Numerous studies show that people who use ibuprofen, a popular anti-inflammatory, lower their risk of acquiring the disease. Although the mechanism isn't fully understood, neurologists believe the brain's immune cells rally to attack a form of plaque that signals Alzheimer's. The ensuing skirmish creates inflammation that may spur progression of the disease.  
 
As for diabetes, it's often related to how much fat a person carries around on his or her frame. Fat cells ooze inflammation-boosting proteins called cytokines, so more fat equals more inflammation. Over time, too many circulating cytokines dampen the body's ability to monitor insulin production. Eventually the body's efforts falter, and the gate swings open for Type 2 diabetes. (It's no coincidence that rates of the disease are nudging upward in unison with America's belt size.) Chronic inflammation in the body also causes cells to oxidize, which may trigger a cascade of cancerous mutations. In fact, Bruce Ames, a biochemist at the University of California at Berkeley and former board member of the National Cancer Institute, thinks inflammation is responsible for up to 30 percent of all cancers. 
 
Scary stuff for sure, but fortunately, experts are also learning more about some simple, even pleasurable, ways to reduce inflammation. Exercise and stress relief are important, but the best defense, most researchers agree, is through diet. Most foods either fuel the fires of inflammation or tamp them down, Galland explains. And fat is the crux of the issue. The goal is to eat a good balance of inflammatory fats (mainly omega-6s, as found in safflower, sunflower, and corn oil) and anti-inflammatory fats (like omega-3s, found in fish, and omega-9s, which olive oil has). But most people chow down on up to 30 times more inflammatory fats than anti. "The typical American diet is priming people for inflammation," says Challem. "It's like sitting in a parked car with your foot on the gas. Eventually you'll overheat." 
 
The good news is that dozens of foods, herbs, and spices are proven to rev up the body's ability to stomp out inflammatory hot spots. For evidence, one need look no further than studies of rheumatoid arthritis. In one published last January in Rheumatology International, patients who followed an anti-inflammatory diet had a 14 percent decrease in joint tenderness and swelling compared to those who ate a typical Western diet. Fish oil supplements goosed the results even further, bringing the final tally of those feeling an improvement up to 31 percent. 
 


Small studies suggest that an anti-inflammatory diet may also hold Alzheimer's disease at bay. In a French study of cognitive decline, scientists followed the diets of 1,600 seniors for seven years. In the end, those who ate fish at least once a week were less likely to develop the disease.  
 
Because the concept of eating to curb inflammation is still relatively new, most of the existing evidence is anecdotal. Jacob Farin, a naturopath in Portland, Oregon, has seen patients with everything from chronic back pain to pancreatitis improve after adopting an anti-inflammatory diet.  
 
The bottom line? This new eating plan, laid out in these pages, may be the most efficient diet you've ever seen. In one fell swoop, you'll hedge your bets against some of the biggest health threats facing Americans today.  
 
1. Get Friendly With Fish 
 
Eat fish at least twice a week. Why? Because it overflows with two key omega-3 fatty acids--eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic (EPA and DHA for short)--that are potent anti-inflammatories. Good sources are fatty fish such as mackerel, salmon, trout, sardines, and tuna. Canned tuna is fine, but make sure it's packed in water. Otherwise, the omega-3s leach into the surrounding oil. 
 
You do need to watch out for toxins in fish, though, especially if you're in a high-risk category. Women who are either pregnant or hoping to be should avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel (a different species from regular mackerel), and tilefish, all of which harbor potentially dangerous levels of mercury, which can be damaging to their developing fetus. (Nursing mothers and young children should avoid these fish, too.)  
 
If you don't want to mess with mercury, you're not so fond of fish, or you just want to hedge your bets, try fish oil supplements. Look for a supplement with EPA and DHA and take 2,000 milligrams every day.  
 
Whatever fish-oil delivery system you choose--fresh, canned, or supplement--don't let this one get away. "There is an absolute need for fish oil if you're going to quell inflammation," says Jim LaValle, an integrative physician and clinical nutritionist at the Longer Living Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio. 
 
There are options for vegetarians, too, though they're not perfect. The body can make its own EPA and DHA from the omega-3 fat found in plant sources such as flaxseed, wheat germ, and walnuts. But the body's mechanism for converting plant-based omega-3s isn't particularly effective. 
 
Although flaxseed is often touted as a substitute for fish oil, it just can't compete, says LaValle. "That's one of the biggest misconceptions in the natural products industry."  
 
One solution is to take flaxseed supplements, but you'll need to down four times as many of these as you would of fish oil pills. 
 


2. Choose Fats Wisely 
 
Replace trans fats with those high in omega-3s. Good fats include fatty fish, extra-virgin olive oil, canola oil (expeller-pressed), walnuts and their oil, hemp oil, and flaxseed or flaxseed oil. 
 
Trans fats are the worst offenders because they're high in omega-6s, fatty acids that gum up the body's ability to regulate inflammation. "If your diet is rich in trans fats, you're going to drive your body to make more inflammatory chemicals," says LaValle. The worst culprits are vegetable shortenings and hard margarines, but most processed foods house a trans fatty acid or two, usually in the form of partially hydrogenated oil. (Soon, trans fats will be easier to spot thanks to new legislation requiring food makers to list them on ingredient labels by 2006.) Other fats to avoid (also because of their omega-6s) include safflower oil, sunflower oil, and corn oil.  
 
3. Embrace Your Inner Herbivore 
 
Load your plate with fruits and vegetables--the more colorful the better. Brightly pigmented produce such as blueberries, peppers, and spinach have the most anti-inflammatory compounds. 
 
For a simple way to make sure you're eating enough plant-based foods, Melanie Polk, a registered dietitian at the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C., suggests using your dinner plate as a measuring tool. Ideally, two-thirds of the plate or more should be covered with fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and/or beans, she explains. The remaining one-third can be filled with lean animal protein, like a chicken breast or fish fillet, or tofu.

How to Find Out If You're Inflamed 
Take the test. Inflammation is measured by a marker called C-reactive protein or CRP. As inflammation creeps up, so do CRP levels in the blood. A blood test to measure levels of CRP is inexpensive ($25 to $30) and extremely reliable. Patients with autoimmune disease and cancer often have high CRP levels, but the test is making headlines for its ability to suss out heart disease in otherwise healthy-looking people. Those who have the most to gain from being tested are people at moderate risk (poor diet plus a lack of exercise) with otherwise healthy-looking cholesterol levels. (If you already know you're at high risk for heart disease, the test probably won't tell you anything new.) 
 
In the future, some experts predict that the CRP test will be added to other routine medical tests, such as cholesterol and blood sugar exams. But if you're interested now, any doctor can perform it. --C.G. 
 

 


4. Cut Back on White Foods 
 
Give dairy, sugar, and refined grains a smaller spot on your plate. Too much dairy and white flour can kick the immune system into high gear, particularly if you're lactose intolerant or have celiac disease. In people who suffer from these conditions, the gut treats dairy and wheat products as hostile invaders: Often it only takes a bite of bread or a spoonful of ice cream to get the inflammatory cycle going. One exception to the dairy rule is eggs, especially those enriched with omega-3s. 
 
Sugary foods can also be a problem, especially when eaten between meals, since they cause a surge in blood sugar. To reestablish balance, the pancreas lets out a gush of insulin, which in turn switches on the genes involved in inflammation. This biochemical roller coaster is thought to contribute to the onset of Type 2 diabetes.  
 
"When I'm trying to reduce people's inflammation, I make sure they knock out refined grains, dairy, and sugar," says LaValle. "You've got to get rid of the inflammatory chemistry."  
 


5. Take Supplements 
 
If you want to take just one supplement every day, make it fish oil. But a host of vitamins and herbs can also help. The most rigorously tested herbal anti-inflammatories are ginger and turmeric. Both are widely used in India to treat inflammatory disorders, such as arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome. Physician Andrew Weil suggests taking 400 to 600 milligrams of turmeric extract (either in tablets or capsules) three times a day.  
 
Ginger is less well studied but still highly regarded. Weil recommends one to two tablets (500 to 1,000 milligrams) of powdered dry ginger twice a day with food until pain subsides. Both ginger and turmeric need to be taken consistently for two months before showing results.  
 
When it comes to vitamins, E is a good bet. The fat-soluble vitamin keeps inflammation from even getting started by disarming integral inflammatory genes. Vitamin E is also a powerful antioxidant. Galland suggests taking 200 to 400 IU (134 to 268 mg) of mixed-tocopherol vitamin E daily. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:18 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Anemia Drug May Hurt Cancer Treatment 
</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-105.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Anemia Drug May Hurt Cancer Treatment 

Worse Survival, Cancer Control Seen With Cancer-Related Anemia Drug

Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD 
on Saturday, October 18, 2003 
WebMD Medical News 

 
 


Oct. 17, 2003 -- Treatments for cancer-related anemia may actually worsen cancer survival in some patients, say researchers. 

However, experts offer caution in interpreting these study results, which appear in the Oct. 18 issue of The Lancet. They point out several problems with the study that could have led to misleading results as well as the inability to extrapolate these findings to other cancers and clinical situations. 

In addition to improving cancer-related anemia, these drugs were thought to possibly improve cancer survival by improving response to chemotherapy and radiation. 

The researchers wanted to test whether treating cancer-related anemia in patients receiving radiation therapy would improve delivery of oxygen to the body and make treatments more effective, but it didn't, lead researcher Michael Henke, MD, tells WebMD. He is vice chairman of radiation oncology at the University of Freiburg in Germany. 

Similar Drugs, Different Effects 

The drug in the study -- called epoetin beta -- is similar to but not exactly the same as two other drugs used for cancer-related anemia in the U.S. Currently available treatments are Epogen and Procrit -- known generically as epoetin alfa. These drugs work by increasing production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Manufacturer Hoffmann-La Roche supplied the drug used in this study. 

In the study, conducted in Austria, Germany, France, and Switzerland, 351 patients receiving radiation therapy for mouth and throat cancers were given either epoetin beta or a placebo. 

The researchers found that epoetin beta corrected cancer-related anemia in patients undergoing radiation therapy for mouth and throat cancers. However, it did not improve cancer control or survival. 

In fact, Henke says, the drug appeared to worsen cancer control in these patients. Compared with the placebo group, patients receiving epoetin beta were 62% more likely to have progression of their cancer and die. 

"These findings are intriguing, concerning, and surprising," Douglas Rizzo, MD, associate professor of hematology/oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, tells WebMD. 

But he has some concerns about how the researchers presented their study results. For example, even though about 350 patients were enrolled in the study, results were presented only for about 150 patients because the others were not treated according to study protocol. Rizzo notes that this makes it difficult to fully understand what the study is telling us. 

Despite this and other concerns, Rizzo concludes that "I think it's likely or at least possible that these findings are true." 

Conflicting Research 

But why would the results of this trial differ from those of previous studies suggesting benefits of drugs for cancer-related anemia beyond its effect on anemia? 

Henke cites differences in how earlier studies were done compared with this newer, more powerful study. In addition, many previous studies looked at quality of life rather than survival or cancer control, he says. 

Because this study was done exclusively in patients receiving radiation therapy for cancers of the mouth and throat, Rizzo warns against extrapolating these findings to patients receiving chemotherapy or to those with other types of cancer. 

Henke says that his study did not address the effect of cancer-related anemia drugs in other settings but he believes that the results would be similar. 

Similarly, he says he doubts these findings are specific to the epoetin beta used in this study, referring to a study in the August issue of The Lancet showing a negative effect of epoetin alfa in women with breast cancer. "If epoetin stimulates tumor growth, it shouldn't matter which specific compound you use," Henke says. 

Experts Agree 

How and when should these findings be applied to clinical practice? All experts interviewed by WebMD agreed on the need for additional well-controlled trials as well as for long-term follow-up on patients already receiving epoetin in ongoing studies. 

"This alarming, well-performed study and the recent report of a prematurely terminated breast cancer study should alert and give rise to concern to all investigators working in the field of epoetin treatment for cancer-related anemia," Michael Hedenus, MD, head of hematology at County Hospital in Sundsvall, Sweden, tells WebMD. 

However, he's not convinced that these findings would be the same for different cancers. 

Hedenus has received unrestricted research funds from Roche and has given lectures paid for by Roche and Amgen (maker of Procrit). Roche and Amgen are WebMD sponsors. 

"We have to remember that cancers consist of different entities, each with its own biology and responsiveness to different [body chemicals] and hormones," Hedenus says. 

Hedenus has performed studies on the effect of epoetin on anemia related to blood cancers and says he is not aware of disease progression or deaths linked to epoetin. On the contrary, he cites his own study and two others suggesting either no effect or an improvement on survival for epoetin compared with placebo. 

Studies on epoetin have shown that treatment of cancer-related anemia decreases the need for blood transfusions and improves quality of life, Tim J. Littlewood, MD, hematologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England, tells WebMD. Littlewood has received consulting and lecture fees from three of the companies that make various forms of epoetin. 

"There have also been some very interesting, but unproven, suggestions that [epoetin] treatment might not only have a positive impact on quality of life but also on life expectancy," he says. "There is no reason to change this practice based on this one paper in a group of patients with just one type of tumor." 

With reporting by Laurie Barclay, MD. 

SOURCES: The Lancet, Oct. 18, 2003; vol 362: pp 1255-1260. Michael Henke, MD, vice chairman of radiation oncology, University of Freiburg, Germany. Douglas Rizzo, MD, associate professor of hematology/oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Michael Hedenus, MD, head of hematology, County Hospital, Sundsvall, Sweden. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:20 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Antibiotics Linked to Breast Cancer</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-106.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Antibiotics Linked to Breast Cancer 
Women Who Take Antibiotics Are at Increased Risk, But Researchers Aren't Sure Why

By  
Salynn Boyles 

Reviewed By Charlotte Grayson, MD 
WebMD Medical News 
 

 
 


Feb. 17, 2004 - New research links the use of antibiotics to an increase in breast cancer risk, but it is not yet clear if taking the drugs actually causes the disease. 

In the study, women who had more than 25 antibiotic prescriptions filled over roughly 17 years had twice the risk of breast cancer as women who never took antibiotics. The risk was smaller, but still elevated, for women who took fewer antibiotics, and the increase in risk was seen for all classes of antibiotics tested. 

"We are saying that there is an association between antibiotic use and breast cancer, but we are not saying that antibiotics cause breast cancer," study co-author Stephen H. Taplin, MD, MPH, tells WebMD. "We definitely need to look more closely at this association to try and find the cause." 

The National Cancer Institute-supported study is in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. 

Inflammation Might Explain Link 

Taplin says antibiotic use may directly influence breast cancer risk, or the increased risk may be linked to the diseases women are using antibiotics to treat. In an editorial accompanying the study, University of Pittsburgh epidemiologist Roberta Ness, MD, noted that there is compelling evidence linking the inflammation which can result from chronic infection to breast cancer. Such infections are routinely treated with antibiotics. 

In an interview with WebMD, Ness said the study should not scare women away from taking antibiotics when they are needed. But she added that there is an urgent need for everyone to take fewer antibiotics when they are not needed. 

The over-reliance on antibiotics to treat conditions for which they are not effective, such as colds and other viral infections, has contributed to the worldwide problem of drug-resistant bugs. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that virtually all significant bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the antibiotic treatment of choice. 

"Antibiotics save lives, but the overuse of antibiotics is the thing that scares me most in public health," Ness says. "If the effect of this study is to make a woman think twice about asking her doctor for an antibiotic when she may not need one, that would be a positive thing." 

Other Ways to Reduce Risk 

In the study, medical records were reviewed for 2,266 breast cancer patients and 7,953 women without cancer enrolled in a Washington State health plan. Lead author Christine M. Velicer, PhD, and colleagues reviewed the total number of antibiotic prescriptions filled and the total number of days on antibiotics. 

The researchers found that the more antibiotics the women took over the observation period of roughly two decades, the higher their risk of breast cancer. The study is only the second to examine the impact of antibiotic use on breast cancer. A study from Finland, also involving roughly 10,000 women, also found a link between the two. 

American Cancer Society breast cancer spokesperson Debbie Saslow, PhD, agrees that it is far too soon to say that antibiotics cause breast cancer. 

"It is important for women who need to be on antibiotics for medically valid reasons to not be afraid to take them," she tells WebMD. "There are many other proven ways to lower breast cancer risk, such as exercising, maintaining body weight, and if you drink alcohol, drink less or stop. And most women have gotten the message about hormone replacement therapy. Limiting the use of HRT [hormone replacement therapy] can also reduce risk." 

SOURCES: Velicer et al., Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 19, 2004; Vol. 291: pp. 827-836 Christine M. Velicer, PhD, Group Health Cooperative Center for Health Studies, Seattle, WA. Roberta Ness, MD, MPH, chair, department of epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh. Stephen H. Taplin, MD, MPH, senior scientist, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute. Debbie Saslow, PhD, director of breast and gynecologic cancers, American Cancer Society.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:22 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Biopsy Best for Breast Cancer Detection </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-107.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Biopsy Best for Breast Cancer Detection 
By Kathleen Doheny 
HealthDay ReporterSun Sep 24, 7:02 PM ET 

SUNDAY, Sept. 24 (HealthDay News) -- An abnormal mammogram can cause understandable worry. But what's the best next step a woman should take?

New research has found that a breast biopsy is the preferred follow-up procedure, even though several other test options exist and may be offered by physicians.

A recent report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) compared the effectiveness of biopsy, long considered the "gold standard," with four other tests. The other four tests were magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI; ultrasonography; positron emission tomography (PET) scanning; and scintimammography.

The report, titled Effectiveness of Noninvasive Diagnostic Tests for Breast Abnormalities, "focuses on a very specific question," said AHRQ Director Dr. Carolyn M. Clancy. "The question we were addressing was, are any of the other noninvasive tests sufficiently accurate to diagnosis cancer or to rule it out?"

A biopsy is accurate but invasive, requiring the taking of a sample of breast tissue and analyzing it for signs of cancer in a laboratory. So, researchers have been searching for noninvasive tests that would be as accurate.

The four tests assessed in the report, all suggested as substitutes for biopsies, weren't as accurate as a biopsy overall. They missed between 4 percent and 9 percent of breast malignancies in women at average risk, the report found, and probably would miss more cases than that among women at higher risk of the disease.

How accurate is accurate enough? "Some experts say a test would have to miss fewer than 2 percent to be considered sufficiently accurate," Clancy said.

It's hard to pinpoint the exact accuracy of biopsies, but a study published last year in the Annals of Surgery found that the "false-negative" rate for one type of biopsy, called a "core biopsy," was 6 percent, according to Fran Visco, the first president and spokeswoman for the National Breast Cancer Coalition in Washington, D.C.

In the AHRQ report, the researchers found that the use of MRI missed 38 cancers for every 1,000 women; ultrasound missed 50 tumors for every 1,000 women; and PET scans missed 76 per 1,000 women. Scintimammography, a nuclear medicine test method that uses a small amount of dye and a scanner to detect cancer, missed 93 tumors for every 1,000 women.

The report on the four noninvasive tests is valuable, Visco said. "My interest in the 2006 AHRQ report focuses on the fact that we move these technologies into clinical practice when we don't have the data that show they are effective. That adds to health-care costs and also doesn't serve women well." 

Having access to solid data that proves a test is accurate will help women and the health-care system, she said.

Clancy added: "Findings in this study provide good information for women to have additional conversations with their doctors." If a doctor suggests one of the alternate tests after an abnormal mammogram, she said, "It would be reasonable to ask for a biopsy in lieu of these tests."

More information

To learn more about breast biopsies, visit the National Library of Medicine.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:23 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast cancer chemo side effects elevated</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-108.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[By Lisa RichwineWed Aug 16, 8:08 AM ET 

Chemotherapy drugs may cause more serious side effects for breast cancer patients under age 64 than once thought, a U.S. study released on Tuesday said.

Researchers mined insurance claims for 3,526 women who had intravenous chemotherapy for breast cancer and tallied problems serious enough to require emergency care or a hospital stay.

Their review found more than 8 percent of women underwent treatment for a fever or infection compared with less than 2 percent reported in an earlier review of clinical trials.

Other problems also occurred more frequently than previously estimated, said the study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

For example, 5.5 percent of women were reported to have low blood counts that could raise the risk of infection or bleeding, the new study showed. The rates were less than 1 percent or 2 percent in clinical trials.

Overall, 16 percent of women in the new study had at least one of eight side effects that required emergency care or hospitalization. Side effects also included blood clots, dehydration, nausea and diarrhea. All of the women were 63 or younger.

Researchers did not see any evidence that the side effects shortened lifespan, lead author Dr. Michael Hassett said.

But the findings could help women individually weigh the risks versus their chances of benefit. Not all women are helped by adding chemotherapy to surgery and other measures.

"Our results don't change the benefits of chemotherapy. ... We still think chemo can improve survival" for many women, said Hassett, a researcher at Dana-Farber's Center for Outcomes and Policy Research.

The women in the new study were treated with various intravenous drugs in families known as alkylating agents, anthracyclines, taxanes and anti-metabolites. The information came from claims filed between 1998 and 2002, before some newer drugs were available.

Chemotherapy's side effects can be minimized through steps such as prescribing blood-cell-boosting drugs or nutritional supplements, said Dr. Edgar Staren, chief medical officer at Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

"It's important we make sure (patients) know the various options available," said Staren, immediate past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:32 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Diet Tips</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-109.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Diet Tips 

You may feel tired and smells may nauseate, but it's important to keep your energy up during treatment. Here are some suggestions. 

By Jayne Garrison 
 Reviewed By Cynthia Haines, MD  

How do I maintain a healthy diet when I'm nauseated? 
What helps when I have mouth sores or dry mouth from chemo? 
Is my weight going to change a lot? 
What do I do about constipation? 
How can I regain strength in my arm? 
Am I ever going to get back in shape again?

How do I maintain a healthy diet when I'm nauseated? 

There are many good anti-nausea drugs today, so not every woman has a severe problem. Still, even mild or moderate nausea is enough to ruin your diet! Between the treatment and the stress, many of us turn to comfort foods that settle the stomach: mashed potatoes, crackers. But there are healthier alternatives, as well as little tricks that can help you through treatment. 

Smoothies are nutritious and often easier to eat than other foods. They're so popular today that you can find plenty of recipes online or in most cookbooks. If you really aren't eating well, add a supplement drink like Ensure or Slimfast to your smoothie for the extra nutrition. Many softer, cooler foods also appeal during treatment. This is a good time to explore the yogurt shelf at the store. Also, experiment with alternatives to those comfort foods of childhood. Mashed sweet potatoes have more vitamins than regular mashed potatoes. So does oatmeal. And you don't need to load either up with butter for flavor! 

A nice, warm cup of soup may help you feel better. But remember, a cup is better than a bowl. Eating small amounts can help both your nausea and your weight. 

Ignore traditional mealtimes and eat when you feel like eating. Some people find their appetite is better in the morning. In that case, eat your large meal then, and a snack at night. 

Your doctor will tell you that you need to drink a lot of fluid during chemo. Don't ignore the advice! Those fluids help flush away the toxins in your body. You may find that water doesn't sit well on your stomach. You might try green tea or ice tea. 

It is harder to eat healthy during treatment, but it's worth your effort to give it a try. You really do need those nutrients to build your strength to withstand the side effects of treatment. Even the National Cancer Institute will tell you that people with good nutrition withstand chemo better. Also, you'll feel better after treatment if you don't gain too much weight. 

back to top 

What helps when I have mouth sores or dry mouth from chemo? 

Chemotherapy and radiation therapy can reduce your saliva and cause dry mouth. Expect mouth sores or tender gums as well, because treatment pummels your immune system. Here are a few tricks that may help. 

When you have dry mouth, keep water by your side and take small sips to help you swallow and talk. Sweet, tart foods like lemonade help create more saliva -- but don't try this if you have mouth sores. Also, you may find that adding gravy or sauces to food will help you swallow bites more easily. 

Some women have found that sucking on a peppermint, ice chips or a Popsicle during chemo can help keep mouth sores from developing. 

If you do get mouth sores, frozen smoothies or yogurt may be easy to eat. Usually, soft, cool foods help. Sucking on ice chips also feels good. Don't be shy about pureeing your food in a blender before you eat; you need all the nutrition you can get! And try eating warm broth through a straw. 

Make sure to call your doctor if you develop persistent mouth sores. There's a concoction called "magic mouthwash" that your doctor can prescribe (it usually contains Benedryl, Maalox, or Mylanta, and an anti-ulcer medication called sucralfate or a pain reliever called lidocaine). You can also ask your doctor about anesthetic lozenges or sprays to numb your mouth while you eat. 

back to top 

Is my weight going to change a lot? 

Most women expect to lose weight during treatment. Instead, you may find that you gain about 15 to 20 pounds. It turns out that treatments for breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer often cause some weight gain. 

This is another reason to try to eat well during treatment. If you haven't gone through menopause, you probably will have by the time you end treatment. Your metabolism may slow down slightly. Healthy substitutes for comfort foods (like mashed sweet potatoes instead of mashed potatoes) and appetizer portions (a cup of soup instead of a bowl) will help keep your stomach settled without blowing your waistline. 

The time to plan how you're going to handle food during treatment is now. Let's face it, during chemo you may feel too tired to do anything vigorous. You may also feel overwhelmed by your emotions. Women who gain weight often say they wished someone had emphasized this risk before treatment. So we're passing this insight along to you now. Just so you know. 

back to top 

What do I do about constipation? 

Treatment causes constipation. Your doctor can prescribe medications, but there are also natural solutions you can try. 

Drink a lot of fluids, at least eight glasses a day. Also, have a hot drink about one-half hour before you usually have a bowel movement. If your doctor says you can eat a lot of fiber, add beans and fruit to your daily diet. They're especially easy to eat if pureed. 

If you can, walk every day. That will help your digestive system more than you might imagine. 

back to top 

How can I regain strength in my arm? 

Your doctor will probably tell you not to put more than 15 to 20 pounds of weight on your arm after your surgery. If you have lymph nodes removed, or if your arm was radiated, you're especially at risk for lymphedema, or swelling in your arm. It's really important to exercise and to do the right exercises! 

Don't try to work this out all by yourself. Ask your doctor or your health plan to refer you to a physical therapist. They won't deny you after surgery, but they also won't offer a therapist if you don't ask. It's your right. Take it. 

Do your arm exercises every day, gradually extending your reach until you regain your full range of motion. Some women do their exercises in the shower, where the warm water allows the muscles to move more freely. Eventually, work up to using the arm for chores, such as dusting, writing, or weeding. 

If you have a warm pool nearby, try taking an aquatic exercise class. Water provides helpful resistance you don't get on land. You might even call your local chapter of the American Cancer Society to see if there's a class especially designed for women recovering from breast surgery. 

back to top

Am I ever going to get back in shape again? 

Nearly every woman asks this question. The truth is, if you love to exercise and you were in good shape before, you'll get back in shape again. If staying fit was a struggle, well, it's even more of a struggle now. But it may cheer you to know that, several years after treatment, some women in WebMD's breast cancer community are actually trimmer and fitter than they were before! 

Some practical suggestions: Start exercising early, start gradually, and try to do a little something every day. What works well for many women? Walking, bicycling, and aquatic exercises. 

A brisk 30- or 40-minute walk can actually help your mood and make you feel strong. If you like to bike, start again once your arm has healed. (It's great for your legs!) 

If you have a warm pool nearby, look into aquatic exercises. One woman worked out at the pool every day, just swooshing her arm back and forth in the water. She regained full range of motion in just two weeks. 

The important trick is to tell yourself you're going to work out just a little every day. Often women who aim to work out 3 days a week find they forget. Suddenly a week slips by. Those who try to work out each day may occasionally miss a day, but are less likely to slip off the program. 

You might also call your chapter of the American Cancer Society or the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to see if they know of any group exercise programs just for women with breast cancer. It's more fun to work out with buddies, and you could make some new friends in the process! 

back to top 

Originally published October 2001.

Medically updated August 2004
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:42 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Patients Should Monitor Heart Risks</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-110.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Patients Should Monitor Heart Risks 
By Amanda Gardner 
HealthDay ReporterMon Aug 14, 11:45 PM ET 

MONDAY, Aug. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Heart problems remain a real but largely manageable problem for women undergoing different treatments for breast cancer.

Two studies appearing online Aug. 14 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology underscore the need to carefully monitor patients taking the drug Herceptin as well as those undergoing radiation therapy. 

The first study found that women receiving long-term Herceptin have a risk of heart problems, but that the risk is reversible. 

"We looked at long-term use of Hercpetin and found that, even though cardiac toxicity was considerable, the side effects can be successfully treated, which was not clearly known," said Dr. Francisco Esteva, senior author of the paper and an associate professor of medicine at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. "In many patients who were responding to the treatment, the cardiac toxicity was reversible. It is something that can be managed and the patients can go back on Hercptin -- and many of them did." 

Some 20 percent to 25 percent of breast cancers have abnormally high levels of the HER2/neu receptor and, as a result, are generally more aggressive. Herceptin (trastuzumab) blocks activity of the receptor by binding to the part of the receptor outside the cell. The drug has radically changed the prognosis for women with this type of breast cancer, especially when used in combination with chemotherapy. The drug is now standard therapy for those with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. 

This study focused on 218 patients with metastatic breast cancer who had been given Herceptin for at least one year (median time was 21.3 months). Of those, 173 could be assessed for cardiac problems. The median follow-up was 32.6 months. 

Twenty-eight percent of the patients experienced a cardiac event, many of which caused no symptoms and all of which were reversible. One patient died of congestive heart failure. 

"I find the drug in certain situations to be simply amazing, but it does have a dark side in terms of its heart failure," said Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "The good news is that most of the time, when heart failure is recognized, the drug is withdrawn, the woman is treated and, in many cases, depending on the clinical situation, Herceptin can be reinstituted." 

"It's prudent to be very careful in administering these drugs," he added.

"We advise every patient to have a baseline cardiac assessment before starting treatment and be followed by a cardiologist who is familiar with this," Esteva added.

The second study found that women with early stage breast cancer who received radiation on the left side of the chest were more likely to develop heart disease over the next 20 years than women who received radiation on the right side of the chest. But even those women who received left-sided radiation did not have an increased risk of death from heart-related problems. 

The University of Pennsylvania researchers compared the incidence of heart disease in 477 women who had had early stage breast cancer on the right side and 484 women who had had early stage breast cancer on the left side. All had been treated with current radiation techniques between 1977 and 1994 and were followed for a median of 12 years. 

At 20 years, 6.4 percent of patients with left-sided cancer had died from heart-related problems, versus 3.6 percent of those with right-sided cancer.

One-quarter of women who received radiation on the left side of the chest developed coronary artery disease, versus 10 percent of those in the right-sided group. Also, 15 percent of those in the left group had a heart attack, compared with only 5 percent in the other group. Women who had high blood pressure before they started therapy on the left side had an even higher risk of heart disease. 

Because radiation is continually getting more focused, it's likely that this risk will be reduced even further in the future, experts said. 

"The use of current radiation techniques has really gone a long way to eliminating the risk of cardiac toxicity," Brooks said. "The chances of having side effects from radiation for left-sided lesions is small, but it's real."

Women should reduce and preferably eliminate other modifiable risk factors for heart disease such as high blood pressure, obesity and smoking.

More information

Visit People Living with Cancer for more on breast cancer.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:43 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Survivors Coping with Fears of Recurrence</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-111.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Survivors Coping with Fears of Recurrence

  Living with fears of recurrence is a challenge for every woman who has finished her breast cancer treatment. 
By Gina Shaw 


Reviewed By Charlotte Grayson, MD 

Fears of breast cancer recurrence are real but can be placed in the context of the rest of your life after breast cancer.
 

"Whenever I read about anyone dying of breast cancer, I take it personally," says Jami Bernard, a New York film critic who battled breast cancer successfully in 1996, then wrote Breast Cancer: There and Back to help other women facing the disease. 

"I heard that Linda McCartney died of breast cancer, and I immediately thought, 'I'm in trouble.' Whenever I get some sort of ailment, I always think it's related to cancer. I was lying in bed one night two weeks ago, and my throat hurt, and I thought, 'Oh, I have throat cancer.' It goes away quickly, though." 

Most women were just walking along, living their lives, when they were blindsided by breast cancer. Unless you had a strong family history of the disease, you' probably said, "I never thought it would happen to me" at least once. But after treatment, now that you've learned in a very painful and immediate way that it can happen to you, you may find yourself overwhelmed by fears that it will happen again. 

"Fears of recurrence are very common," says oncologist Marisa Weiss, MD, founder of Breastcancer.org and the author of Living Beyond Breast Cancer. "They're particularly persistent as you're first leaving active treatment, when you go from seeing an oncologist of some kind every week or every other week to checkups every three months, and then every six months. You may expect that you'll want to throw yourself a party on your last day of chemo or radiation, only to find that you're a little melancholy or fearful, thinking, 'Maybe I should be getting more treatments just to be sure?' " 

"Treatments keep you busy and occupied and they take a long time," says Bernard. "When you finish treatment you're at loose ends, wondering if it will come back. I was having six-month checkups, and then my oncologist said, ''I'll see you in a year.' I said, 'What? Are you sure you don't want to see me before then?' I told him I'd start camping out in the hall waiting for appointments. You want to think that someone's still watching." 

So how do you handle these fears? First, understand that what Weiss calls "separation anxiety" is normal. "It's hard to shift back to a life where treatment is less in your face than it was before," she says. 

Next, give yourself -- and your treatment plan -- credit. "You worked so hard to identify a plan of action and worked so hard to make it happen," says Weiss. "At the end, you have to stop and give yourself credit for what you've just achieved, then pause and shift to a different phase in your life: surveillance." You're still being watched, she reminds her patients -- the intervals are just a little longer. 

By talking about her fears, Jami Bernard is already taking action to cope with them. She has also joined a support group for women with breast cancer, where she can talk about her fears and hopes with other women who understand what she was going through. If you're not as comfortable with in-person support groups, online message boards at sites such as WebMD or Breastcancer.org are safe places to chat with women going through the same post-treatment worries. Other approaches that have helped some women control recurrence fears are mind-body exercises like yoga and tai chi, meditation, and keeping a journal. 

Expect that you'll second-guess yourself along the way. Maybe you heard a news story about Elizabeth Edwards having chemotherapy before surgery, and found yourself thinking, "Why didn't my doctor recommend that to me?" Remember, you don't know everything about someone else's breast cancer. The woman next to you in the waiting room may seem like she has a very similar type of disease, but there could be factors you don't know about that make you very different. 

"Everyone feels sold on their own treatment approach, so when you talk to someone else about what they did, you'll pick up on that vibe," says Weiss. 

Will there ever be a day that you don't think about breast cancer, or worry about it coming back? Yes, says Bernard. "It does recede. Eventually there were whole days when I didn't think about it," she says. "Time is a healer in that sense." 

Gina Shaw is a medical writer who was treated for breast cancer in 2004, and now calls herself a "joyful breast cancer survivor." 

Published March 2005. 

SOURCES: Marisa Weiss, MD, oncologist and founder, Breastcancer.org. Mary McCabe, RN, director, Cancer Survivorship program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Jami Bernard, author, Breast Cancer: There and Back. Melanie Polk, RD, Director of Nutrition Education, American Institute for Cancer Research. National Lymphedema Network. American Cancer Society. Breastcancer.org. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:44 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Survivors Life After the Treatments End</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-112.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Survivors Life After the Treatments End

  The breast cancer treatments are over. Now what? Here's how to return to your "new normal." 
By Gina Shaw 


Reviewed By Charlotte Grayson, MD 

Life after breast cancer means returning to some familiar things and also making some new choices.
 

The song says "It ain't over 'til it's over," but when you've had breast cancer, you discover that it's not even over when it's over. 

After a marathon of breast cancer diagnosis and treatment that may last six months to a year, you can hardly wait to get back to a normal life again. But the day of your last radiation treatment or chemotherapy infusion doesn't mark the end of your journey with breast cancer. 

Instead, you're about to embark on another leg of the trip. This one is all about adjusting to life as a breast cancer survivor. In many ways, it will be a lot like the life you had before, but in other ways, it will be very different. Call it your "new normal." 

From your relationships with your family and your spouse to eating habits and exercise, breast cancer will change your life in ways that last well after treatment ends. How do you fight lingering fatigue? What should you eat to help prevent a breast cancer recurrence? Will you ever have a regular sex life again? These are just a few of the questions that may nag at you as you make the transition from breast cancer treatment to breast cancer survival. 

"Chemobrain" and Other After-Effects 

You watched the last dose of chemotherapy drip from the IV into your veins six months ago. Your hair has really started to grow back. Maybe it's curly where it once was straight, or a lot grayer than before, but it's hair. You have eyebrows again. So why are you still so tired? When are you going to feel like you again? 

"Your body has just been through an enormous assault, and recovery is a huge thing. You're not going to just bounce back right away," says oncologist Marisa Weiss, MD, founder of Breastcancer.org and the author of Living Beyond Breast Cancer. "You've been hit while you're down so many times: with surgery and anesthesia, perhaps with multiple cycles of chemotherapy, perhaps with radiation." 

Two of the biggest hurdles women with breast cancer face post-treatment are fatigue resulting from chemotherapy and/or the accumulated effects of other treatments, and a phenomenon some women have dubbed "chemobrain" -- mental changes such as memory deficits and the inability to focus. If you tried, you probably couldn't pick two more frustrating and troubling side effects for women handling busy lives, managing careers, and caring for families. 

"You expect them to go away as soon as treatment ends, and they don't," says Mary McCabe, RN, director of the Cancer Survivorship program at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. 

That such a program as McCabe's exists is a testament to the changing nature of what it means to have cancer. Women with breast cancer, like other people with a cancer diagnosis, are now surviving for so much longer, and in such large numbers, that some hospitals are opening entire departments devoted to survivorship The National Cancer Institute has also launched a special research area dedicated to studying what it means to survive cancer.

How long after breast cancer treatment ends can you expect fatigue, "chemobrain," and other post-treatment side effects to persist? Everyone's different, of course, but as a general rule of thumb, Weiss tells her patients to expect a recovery period about the same time from your first "cancer scare" moment to the date of your last treatment. So if you found a lump or had a suspicious mammogram in April, and had your last radiation treatment in December, it may be August or September of the following year before you reach your "new normal." 

"Even then, that doesn't mean that you're fully back to yourself again, but by then you should have a sense of where you're going to be, what your energy level will be, and so on," says Weiss. Ongoing treatments, like tamoxifen or other hormonal therapies such as arimidex, aromasin or femara, or reconstructive surgery, can affect the process. 

"I have a lot of patients who are in their second year of dealing with this. Yes, their main anti-cancer treatment may be over, but they're still figuring out how to manage the side effects of hormonal therapies and so on. It can feel like an endless process." 

Breast cancer survivorship, Weiss observes, is a marathon, not a sprint. That means learning to handle the symptoms that stick around after treatment ends, says Sloan-Kettering's McCabe, by using those adaptive strategies you learned while on chemotherapy or recovering from surgery. 

"You need to continue to have planned periods of rest, and think about what times in the day and after what activities you tend to find yourself most tired," she says. "If chemobrain is still bothering you, continue using tricks like writing things down, posting reminders to yourself, and asking people to repeat information." Some women find it helps to keep a daily diary, noting down the times when fatigue or mental fogginess hit hardest, to help them plan around it. 

A Chance to Make Some Life Choices 

Make sure your family and your officemates understand that just because treatment is over, that doesn't mean that you're going to be able to jump right back into running the carpool, coaching soccer, and traveling to conferences a week out of every month. 

"Everyone's ready for treatment to be over, not just you, and although they've been supportive, your friends and family may be expecting you to spring back right away," says McCabe. "It's an education process. They need to understand that when the therapy stops, that doesn't mean that the effects of the therapy stop immediately." 

Manage your expectations, urges Weiss. "Decrease the stress and the pressure on you in whatever ways you can. There are a lot of decisions you can make to take charge of how your life goes while you're in this recovery process." 

For example, you may have certain ideas about how your house should look, how much income you're going to have, and what your commitments to your community need to be. Decide which of those things are really important to you and which ones don't matter quite as much. Let the less-important ones slide or find someone else to do them. 

Gina Shaw is a medical writer who was treated for breast cancer in 2004, and now calls herself a "joyful breast cancer survivor." 

Published March 2005. 

SOURCES: Marisa Weiss, MD, oncologist and founder, Breastcancer.org. Mary McCabe, RN, director, Cancer Survivorship program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Jami Bernard, author, Breast Cancer: There and Back. Melanie Polk, RD, Director of Nutrition Education, American Institute for Cancer Research. National Lymphedema Network. American Cancer Society. Breastcancer.org. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:45 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Survivors Preventing Lymphedema </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-113.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Survivors Preventing Lymphedema 

  The swelling in your arm that may follow breast cancer treatment can be minimized - and even prevented. 
By Gina Shaw 


Reviewed By Charlotte Grayson, MD 

If you've had one or more lymph nodes removed during breast cancer treatment, you're at risk of swelling. Here's how to prevent and treat it.
 

Before you had breast cancer, you'd probably never heard of lymphedema, a painful swelling in the arms or legs caused by the buildup of lymphatic fluid. But once you've had lymph nodes removed from your armpit due to breast cancer, lymphedema becomes a new, unwelcome but important part of your vocabulary. 

The lymph system is a key part of your immune system. Running parallel with the veins, it removes waste, bacteria, proteins, and excess water from the tissues. It also carries cells that fight disease and infection. Small bean-shaped structures called lymph nodes act as filters for the waste products in your lymphatic fluid. If one or more of these nodes are removed, there aren't as many channels available to help drain away the used lymphatic fluid, which can lead to fluid buildup under your arm. 

Lymph nodes don't grow back, so if you've had even one underarm lymph node removed, you face at least some increased risk of arm lymphedema. 

How big is this risk, and how do you prevent it? Doctors disagree about just how great a risk of lymphedema the typical breast cancer survivor faces. Overall, researchers estimate that a woman who's had lymph nodes removed faces anywhere between a 5% and 25% risk of developing lymphedema over her lifetime. The more nodes you've had removed, the greater the risk. 

Managing Lymphedema within a Normal Lifestyle 

However, they generally agree that survivors should manage their risk for lymphedema within the boundaries of a normal life. 

"Any guidelines on how to prevent lymphedema have to be realistic and reasonable," says oncologist Marisa Weiss, MD, founder of Breastcancer.org and the author of Living Beyond Breast Cancer. "You have to respect the person's needs and desire to live a normal life and be physically active, but at the same time, make sure that they don't do anything to unduly jeopardize the arm's fluid drainage system." 

"You need to live as you normally would," agrees Mary McCabe, RN, director of the Cancer Survivorship program at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. "It's important to practice good health behaviors with respect to that arm, including making sure that you're careful about cuts and regularly checking the arm for any swelling or tight clothing. But you still need to be able to live a normal life." 

Factors that increase the risk of lymphedema include: 

Radiation to the underarm area 
Being a heavy smoker 
Having diabetes 
Previous surgeries in the armpit area or on your arm 
The good news: the risk of lymphedema is much less than it used to be. That's in part because of a relatively new procedure called a sentinel node biopsy. The surgeon locates the very first node draining lymphatic fluid away from the breast, and removes only that node -- the one most likely to have cancer. If it's clear (meaning there's no sign of cancer there), chances are the others are clear as well, so fewer nodes need to be removed. 

Nonetheless, if you've had nodes removed, you still have to be careful with the affected arm. Anything that increases blood flow to that arm, such as an infection, a burn, a cut, or muscle overuse, can cause the fluid backup that leads to lymphedema. 

To protect against lymphedema, take the following precautions: 

Have blood drawn and blood pressure taken from the unaffected arm. You can order a lymphedema alert bracelet from the National Lymphedema Network (http://www.lymphnet.org or 1-800-541-3259) to make sure healthcare workers know to take care with that arm. 
Keep that arm as clean as possible, and use lotion to keep skin from drying or cracking. Avoid picking at your nails and cuticles, and tell your manicurist not to cut your cuticles. 
Do your best to avoid injury to or cuts on the affected arm. That means wearing gloves when gardening or doing housework, using plenty of sunscreen, and wearing insect repellent in buggy areas. Start antibiotics early if you have any sign of infection. 
Don't overtire your arm. Some guidelines recommend never lifting more than 15 pounds with the affected arm, but for some women, those with toddlers, for example, that rule may be a difficult one to follow. 
Should you worry if you just lifted 16 pounds with the arm where you had your surgery? McCabe says no. "There really aren't any specific, across the board exercise restrictions. Talk to your doctor about what our level of risk is, and use good judgment." 

Realistically, Weiss says, we have to use our arms all the time. "It's not particularly reasonable to ask a woman never to carry bags of groceries or pick up her 4-year-old," she says. "On the other hand, you can avoid more unusual exertions, like carrying heavy boxes of books or lifting pieces of furniture." 

Another often-identified risk: hot tubs. Overheating draws an increased flow of blood to the arm, which then needs to get back out. Does that mean your Jacuzzi days are over? It depends, says Weiss. "If you've had a moderate number of nodes removed, you can probably enjoy a hot tub every once in awhile. Just make sure it's not too hot -- probably warm-to-hot is better." You can also extend the affected arm out of the tub to keep it from overheating. 

What about flying? Some women wear specially fitted compression sleeves on airplanes to prevent swelling. Even for people who don't have lymphedema, the low pressure in planes can sometimes cause feet, hands, or arms to swell. "If you've had a limited number of nodes taken out and it's a relatively short flight, I wouldn't worry about it," says Weiss. "But if you're taking a long transatlantic flight, you might want to get a compression sleeve." 

Be sure to have your sleeve fitted by an expert. A badly fitted sleeve can do more harm than good. 

How will you know if you're developing lymphedema? You should quickly get checked out by your doctor if you notice symptoms such as: 

A full sensation in your affected arm 
Decreased flexibility in your hand or wrist 
Tight sleeves in clothing that otherwise fits 
Tightness in rings, bracelets, or watches worn on that arm 
Treatments for Lymphedema 

Once you've been diagnosed with lymphedema, says Weiss, "It's a chronic problem that you'll have for a lifetime." It can vary in degree, and come and go over periods of time, but the sooner you seek treatment for it, the better you can control it. 

There's no one-size-fits-all treatment for lymphedema. One of the most common treatments is manual lymphatic drainage, a gentle massage technique that's very different from traditional massage you might get at a spa. (If you do get a regular massage, tell the massage therapist to be very gentle with the affected arm.) This is done by a trained, certified therapist, and is designed to stimulate the lymphatic vessels. 

This kind of treatment, while effective, can be expensive, and isn't always covered by insurance. Since lymphedema is a chronic condition, manual lymphatic drainage may be difficult to pursue off and on for the rest of your life. 

"In general, all measures are temporary, and result in temporary relief of the problem," says McCabe. "Some people do have significant results from manual lymphatic drainage. But any solution that's going to work for you must be practical and easy to do." 

Another treatment approach is the lymphedema pump. You place your arm in a plastic sleeve that fills with air, compressing the tissues and moving stagnant fluids out of the swollen arm. It can take a couple of hours a day, but you can do it at home while watching TV. "They are paid for by insurance, and can be a realistic long-term solution to a lifelong problem," says Weiss. 

You can find out more about lymphedema and locate specialists in your area through the National Lymphedema Network at http://www.lymphnet.org. 

Gina Shaw is a medical writer who was treated for breast cancer in 2004, and now calls herself a "joyful breast cancer survivor." 

Published March 2005. 

SOURCES: Marisa Weiss, MD, oncologist and founder, Breastcancer.org. Mary McCabe, RN, director, Cancer Survivorship program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Jami Bernard, author, Breast Cancer: There and Back. Melanie Polk, RD, Director of Nutrition Education, American Institute for Cancer Research. National Lymphedema Network. American Cancer Society. Breastcancer.org.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:45 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Vaccine Shows PromiseEarly Results Show Vaccine May Help Prevent Breast Cancer Recurrence Reviewed By Michael Smith MDWebMD Medical </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-114.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Vaccine Shows PromiseEarly Results Show Vaccine May Help Prevent Breast Cancer Recurrence Reviewed By Michael Smith, MDWebMD Medical News  Laurie Barclay  

Oct. 28, 2003 -- Early study findings suggest a breast cancer vaccine may be able to stimulate the immune system to prevent breast cancer from coming back.

The vaccine targets a protein fragment called E75, which is present in one-third of women with breast cancer. E75 is a growth factor that acts like a fertilizer to many cancers, senior researcher Craig Shriver, MD, FACS, says in a news release. 

"In our study, most, but not all, patients responded well to this treatment," senior researcher Craig Shriver, MD, FACS, tells WebMD. He is director of the Clinical Breast Care Project at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Researchers presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Surgeons.

The researchers started with 34 women with breast cancer that had spread to the lymph nodes. Each woman underwent breast cancer treatment with surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy. After treatment, the women had no evidence of any breast cancer.

This group of women has a higher risk of breast cancer recurrence since their cancer had spread to the lymph nodes. They wanted to see if the breast cancer vaccine could help prevent the breast cancer from coming back.

The breast cancer vaccine was given in six monthly injections to 14 women that had evidence of the E75 protein fragment on their breast cancer cells that were removed from their bodies. In addition, each woman was given an immune system stimulant to increase the number of immune system cells that help fight cancer and infection.

Of the 14 women who received the breast cancer vaccine, 12 generated an immune system response against E75. This effect persisted even after the breast cancer vaccine injections were stopped. 

These 12 women had no breast cancer recurrences during average follow-up of 18 months. Typically, about 30% to 40% of women with breast cancer in their lymph nodes before treatment have a recurrence within five years. 

The two women who received the breast cancer vaccine but did not have lasting immune system responses had recurrences of their breast cancer. However, their breast cancer appeared later than in other women. 

Recurrences in the two breast cancer vaccine recipients occurred at around 10 months. The three women in the group that did not receive the vaccine had a recurrence of their breast cancer around six months. More research is needed with longer follow-up of the women to determine if the breast cancer vaccine is able to keep the breast cancer away longer than in women who don't receive the vaccine.

Based on these encouraging results from our first study in women with cancer in the lymph nodes, we are now involved in a breast vaccine trial in women whose breast cancer has not spread to the nodes, Shriver says. With reporting by Laurie Barclay, MD. 

SOURCES: American College of Surgeons 89th Annual Clinical Congress, Chicago, Oct. 19-23, 2003. Craig Shriver, MD, FACS, director of the Clinical Breast Care Project, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:47 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Can Naturopathic Remedies Fight Cancer Hot Flashes</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-115.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Can Naturopathic Remedies Fight Cancer, Hot Flashes? 
FRIDAY, Aug 18 -- Advocates for naturopathic remedies say their treatments may help fight menopausal symptoms, depression and even cancer.

For example, "bio-identical hormone therapy" looks promising for relieving the symptoms of menopause, one study found, while an age-old herbal remedy for cancer is proving effective -- at least in the laboratory and in animals.

That's according to naturopathic physicians presenting their research at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians annual meeting, held earlier this month in Portland. Ore.

Naturopathic physicians are trained in "natural" health care at accredited medical colleges, according to the AANP. Their approach is based on the belief that it is the nature of all things to return to balance. Treatments include dietary changes, counseling for lifestyle modification, herbal medicine, nutritional supplements and homeopathy.

"Bio-identical hormones," a natural alternative to synthetic hormone replacement therapy, were effective in reducing the symptoms of menopause and perimenopause, said lead researcher Dr. Jan M. Siebert, a naturopathic physician in Pleasant Prairie, Wis.

She gave the hormone regimen, including estradiol/estriol via a skin cream or in drops, plus a progesterone cream and a multivitamin, to 50 women who were either menopausal or perimenopausal. Siebert's group then followed the women's progress for one year.

"Eighty-two percent of the women showed improvement in estrogen-related symptoms, such as hot flashes," she said. "Seventy-four percent showed improvement in progesterone-related symptoms such as irritability and water retention."

Siebert also looked at symptoms related to low thyroid functioning, which can affect women at menopause. "When the thyroid starts to have problems, it can cause a state of depression and weight gain," she explained. In the study, "44 percent showed improvement with thyroid-related symptoms and 8 percent got worse. The other 48 percent had no change."

What is needed next, Seibert said, is a large, randomized trial of natural hormone therapy to see if it works as well as synthetic hormone therapy without the side effects. Long-term hormone replacement therapy (HRT) with synthetic estrogen and progesterone boosts risks for breast cancer and stroke, as the large-scale Women's Health Initiative study found. That study was stopped early in 2002, and its troubling results caused many older women to abandon HRT. 

"This is a great start in terms of providing preliminary evidence of benefits for menopausal concerns," said Dr. Wendy Weber, a research assistant professor of naturopathic medicine at Bastyr University, Seattle, who was not involved with Siebert's study but is familiar with its findings.

"Based on this study, it seems there is likely to be benefits, but we are still lacking [data on] the efficacy and safety." And, she noted, the study did not have a control group, which would have allowed a direct head-to-head comparison of bio-identical and synthetic hormones.

The study is "interesting" but not surprising, added Dr. Rick Frieder, a gynecologist at Santa Monica--UCLA Medical Center and a clinical instructor of obstetrics and gynecology at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine.

"It doesn't convey anything new," he said. Whether hormone replacement is synthetic or the more natural "bio-identical" compounds, he said, they are known to be effective in improving the symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes. One drawback to the study, he said, is that they studied several products and doses, rather than take a more scientific approach, such as comparing one dose of bio-identical hormones to the same dose of synthetic drugs.

In another study presented at the meeting, the herbal formula Essiac -- used by cancer patients for decades -- was found to have some antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity as well as the ability to kill cancer cells in the laboratory, said Deborah Kennedy, the lead author of the laboratory study and a co-author of another study looking at the effect of the remedy in animals. The studies were funded by the maker of Essiac.

Kennedy found that the formula, when used on ovarian and prostate cancer cell lines, did kill the cells. "We were able to slow down and cause the ovarian and prostate cancer cell lines to die," she said.

When the formula was used in animals, they found it protected the stomach but did not boost the immune system significantly.

"The in vivo [lab] study found antioxidant activity," noted Dr. Christine Girard, chief medical officer at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe, Ariz., who chaired the research committee for the meeting.

She called the results "encouraging," and noted that the formula also appeared to have an anti-inflammatory effect.

"It's a good first step," she said, but added that it's tough to translate animal results to humans. In the animal study, the formula did demonstrate gastric protection and protection to the liver, she said.

Not everyone is convinced Essiac fights cancer. The American Cancer Society declined comment, noting that the study had not undergone peer review and was merely submitted for presentation at a meeting. On its Web site, however, the ACS cautions that, "There have been no published clinical trials showing the effectiveness of Essiac in the treatment of cancer." While it notes that some of the herbs in the mixture have shown anti-cancer effect in lab studies, it notes that no scientific evidence exists to support its use in humans with cancer.

Study after study, conducted in animals by researchers at the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other prestigious institutions, have concluded there is no evidence the formula works, according to the American Cancer Society.

In other presentations at the meeting:

A researcher at the University of Toronto warned that St. John's wort, a popular herb used to treat depression symptoms, should be used with caution by pregnant and breast-feeding women, as it can interact with some medications prescribed during pregnancy and may cause colic or drowsiness in babies. The study received no outside funding. Another Canadian study found that naturopathic care -- acupuncture, relaxation exercises and diet and lifestyle changes -- relieved low back pain better than standard care in a study of 80 Canadian postal workers. Low back pain declined by 20 percent in the naturopathic group after the 12-week study but increased 8.8 percent in a group receiving standard care. The study was sponsored by the Canadian government and the postal workers union. A team at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine found that three common herbs -- Echinacea purpurea, Astragalus membranaceus and Glycyrrhiza glabra -- helped boost key lymphocytes in the blood, which are the basic building blocks of the immune system. In the study, 16 healthy people were assigned to get an herb only, all three, or a placebo. Each got a 7.5 milliliter dose twice daily for seven days. Blood tests showed all three herbs boosted the immune system. The study was funded by a grant from the American Medical Association. 

By Kathleen Doheny 
HealthDay
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:47 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Okinawa Coral Calcium 
</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-116.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[CALCIUM & SCIENCE  
   
Since there are thousands of scientific publications on biological calcium, thousands of more quotes could be given supporting the crucial role of calcium in human health. However, in the few quotes listed below, you will read statements (by the most prestigious scientists in America) that will explain how calcium is responsible for cell division and cell growth as well as statements agreeing that calcium deficiency plays a key role in all degenerative diseases. 
In the article below, written by the The New York Times, you will read just a few of the critical functions that Calcium performs. These include: 

* Strong Teeth & Bones 
To prevent Periodontal Disease & Osteoporosis. 
 
* Regualtion of Heart Beat & Muscle Movement 
Prevention of Heart Disease & Musculatory System Failure. 
 
* Feeding Nutrients to cells 
Getting Nutrition inside our Cells. 
 
* DNA Replication 
Which leads to Low Body Repair & Premature Aging. 

 
This article states, the most important function that Calcium provides is that it controls the pH of the Body. If you don't know what body pH is, you are not alone. However, if The New York Times thinks that controlling the bodys' pH is more important than all of the Functions we have just described, then you need to know what body pH is. You also need to know how Calcium regulates the body's pH against the ravages of Acidosis which is the real cause of Degenerative Disease. 

 

 

 

New York Times 
"Calcium Takes Its Place As a Superstar of Nutrients"  
October 13, 1998

"It is the primary building block of our teeth and bones. It provides the electrical energy for the heart to beat and for all muscle movement. It is the calcium ion that is responsible for feeding every cell. Without calcium, DNA cannot replicate itself. As a result, low calcium means low body repair and premature aging. But, most important of all, calcium controls the pH of the body." 

 

 

 

"How a Mineral Can Vitalize Your Health", by Dr. James 
K. Van Fleet, in the book Magic of Catalytic Health Vitalizers, 1980, Parker Publishing. 

 
"According to nutritional authorities, the American diet is more lacking in calcium than in any other essential food. Dr. Henry C. Sherman, the noted biochemist, has stated in effect that the prime period of human life could be extended by a moderate increase in calcium in the diet. It would also be wise to get at least 400 units of vitamin-D daily to insure proper absorption of the calcium from the tract into the body where it can be utilized. " 
 
" When the body does not get enough calcium, it will withdraw what little calcium it has from the bones to make sure there is enough in the bloodstream, then the body does its best to bolster the sagging architecture by building bony deposits and spurs to reduce movement and limit activity. " 

 

 

"Breathing Easy", by Lendon Smith, M.D., in the book 
Feed Your Kids Right, Dell Pub. Co. Inc., 1979. 

 
"Calcium is required all our lives for bones, teeth, muscle, nerve function, and for blood clotting. Muscle pains, cramps, twitches and even convulsions may suggest calcium deficiency. " "For asthma, 1000 milligrams of calcium should be given daily along with 1000 units of vitamin-D for intestinal absorption. Calcium can relax the muscle surrounding the bronchial tubes while altering the permeability of the cell walls, allowing the nutrients to get in. " 

 

 

 

The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer", Otto Warburg, Lecture at the meeting of Nobel Laureates, June 30, 1966 Director, Max Planck Institute for Cell Physiology Berlin. 

"There is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse that one cannot do more about prevention of cancer. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the field of cancer. In the meantime millions of men and women must die of cancer unnecessarily. " (Note: in 1966 cancer struck 23% of Americans, whereas today it strikes 39% of Americans). 

 

 

"The Role of Calcium in Biological Systems", Volume I, 
1985, CRC Press Inc.

 
The Role of Calcium Biological Systems is a compilation of dozens of scientific publications by academically recognized scientists. This book deserves particular note because world class scientists are concluding that there is a link between calcium deficiency and cancer. Also, the hundreds of scientific references contained in this book, as well as the other books quoted, could lead the reader to thousands of scientific publications on the importance of biochemical calcium. Although the first quote is self-explanatory, the second quote may be difficult for the reader to understand. Basically, it says that calcium deficiency in the body fluids outside and inside of the cell stimulates the proliferation of both virus and cell mutation (cancer) by regulating DNA synthesis. Furthermore it concludes that calcium deficiency is the universal property of all cancer cells, the knowledge of which may be the key to understanding cancer. 

 
"Calcium must certainly be the major bioelement of the times. Only a generation ago the calcium ion was known to physiologists and biochemists as a component of bone mineral and as a blood plasma constituent required in heart function and blood coagulation, but little more. But, in the 1970's a crescendo of calcium ion research developed. Today we know dozens if not hundreds of different cellular and extracellular processes that are regulated by the changes in cytosolic or extracellular calcium ions. Indeed the calcium ion is emerging as a most important and ubiquitous intracellular messenger" (Forward, Albert Lehniger, Professor of Medical Science, John Hopkins University). 

 
"As we have seen, calcium is central to the ordered progression of replicating cells through their growth-division cycle. Neoplastic epithelia and mesenchymally derived cells can initiate DNA syntheses and proliferate normally in a low calcium medium, which does not support the proliferation of their normal counterparts. Besides needing calcium ions, normal cells must adequately spread out on a solid substrate before they are able to initiate DNA syntheses. Calcium is specifically required for spreading. Lowering the extracellular calcium and preventing spreading both block the initiation of DNA synthesis, without stopping on-going DNA synthesis. The elimination of extra- cellular calcium requirement for proliferation of viruses can be mimicked by exposing proliferatively inactive calcium-deprived normal cells to calcium-independent-nucleotide protein kinases located in the plasma membrane. Thus, addition of such subunits to the medium of normal cells cause them to behave like neoplastic cells by initiating DNA syntheses in calcium deficient medium. It is clear that the proliferative calcium independence in vitro is a universal property of neoplastic cells, the understanding of which may be the key to understanding cancer." (page 158, Volume #1) 

 

 

"Calcium in the Action of Growth Factors", by W.H. Moolenaar, L.K. Defize, and s. W. Delaat, 1986 Calcium and the Cell, 1986, Wiley. 

"Proliferation of cells in vivo is regulated by polypeptide growth factors. Binding of growth factors to their specific cell-surface receptors initiates a cascade of biochemical events in the cell which ultimately leads to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) synthesis and cell division. The immediate consequence of receptor activation include a sustained increase in cytoplasmic pH and a transient rise in cytoplasmic free calcium ions. The platelet derived growth factor induced calcium ion signal is due to calcium ion release from intracellular stores, whereas the epidermal growth factor seems to activate voltage independent calcium channel in the plasma membrane. These results suggest that the rise in calcium ions is indispensable for cell proliferation. " 

 

 

 

"Calcium and Cell Function", Volume VII, Wai Yui 
Cheung, 1987 Academic Press Inc. 

"The regulation of mitosis and cell division is one of the fundamental questions of cell biology. Calcium has been implicated as a regulatory factor in both. " 

 

 

 

"History of Calcium-Binding Proteins", in the book 
Calcium Binding Proteins, by Marvin P. Thompson, CRC Press 1988. 

"Calcium has been recognized as a major regulatory ion in all living organisms ." "Considering the wide variety of calcium binding proteins in the cell, the potential targets of calcium-related disorders are enormous. " "General interest in calcium binding proteins is still in the logarithmic phase with daily discoveries of these proteins. 

 

 

 

"Intracellular Calcium Regulation", Felix Bronner, 1990, Wiley. 

"One of the astonishing developments in biological research is the recent widespread interest in the role played by calcium in cellular metabolism." " Intracellular calcium regulation will be of interest to researchers and graduate students in the areas of biochemistry, biophysics, cell rheology and nutrition. " 

 

 

 

"The Calcium Connection", Dr. Cedric Garland and Dr. 
Frank Garland, 1989, Foreside, Simon and Shuster Inc. 

"Low cancer areas were far more frequent in the sun belt. (This statement is contrary to the incorrect popular belief that sunshine causes cancer). What was the significance of sunlight with regard to cancer rates? Sunlight reacts with cholesterol inside and on the surface of the skin to create vitamin-D. Vitamin-D helps the body absorb calcium and plays a major role in the body's ability to use the calcium that is available. " 

 

 

 

" The Calcium Signal", Scientific American, November 1987, by 
Emesto Carafoli and John T. Penniston: 

"A common trigger precipitates biological events as diverse as the contraction of a muscle and the secretion of a hormone. The trigger is a minute flux of calcium ions. " 

 
"To control cellular process effectively, calcium itself must be regulated. Knowledge of these intricacies (elaborate system of proteins that interact with the calcium ion regulating intracellular messages) may lead to greater clinical control over intracellular calcium, a possibility that has broad implications for the treatment of disease. " 

 

 

 

"Calcium Homeostasis: Hypercalcemia and Hypo- 
calcemia", 1986, Gregory R. Mundy, Professor and Head, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Texas. 

"A number of important metabolic processes are influenced by small changes in extracellular ionized calcium concentration. These include,' (a) the excitability of nerve function and neural transmission, (b) the secretion by cells of proteins and hormones, 
and other mediators such as neurotransmitters, (c) the coupling of cell excitation with cell response (for example, contraction in the case of muscle cells and secretion in the case of secretory cells), (d) cell proliferation, (e) blood coagulation, by acting as a co- 
factor for the essential enzymes involved in the clotting cascade; (I) maintenance of the stability and permeability of cell members, (g) modulation of activity, in particular those enzymes involved in glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis, and protein kinases which are calcium dependent; and (h) the mineralization of newly formed bone." 

 

 

 

"Calcium in Synaptic Transmission", by Rodolfo R., 
Scientific American, October 1982. 

"The connection between the electrical activity of the cell and the release of the neurotransmitter is not direct; an essential intermediary is the calcium ion. " 

 

 

 

"Treatment of Vertebral Osteoporosis", by Dr. Meunier 
in the book Molecular and Cellular Regulation of Calcium and Phosphate Metabolism, 1990 Alan R. Liss Inc. 

"When calcium and vitamin-D is given in daily doses along with moderate amounts of sodium fluoride to patients with osteoporosis, there is a substantial increase in bone mass and a significant reduction in the incidence of further vertebral fractures. " 
 

Who Says I need Calcium?  
  
   
Does someone you know suffer from one of these conditions? 
Click on Links below to read Articles on how Calcium affects each condition. 

Colon Cancer | Colorectal Polyps | Heart Disease | Hip Fractures | High Blood Pressure 

High Cholesterol | Intestinal Tumors | Kidney Failure | Low Body Repair 

Obesity/Weight Gain | Osteoporosis | Ovarian Cancer | Proper PH Balance 

Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension (PIH) 

Premature Aging | Premenstrual Syndrome | Water Retention 
 
   

Can Calcium Affect Cancer Cells? 

 
In 1932 Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that cancer was anaerobic: cancer occurs in the absence of free oxygen As innocuous as this discovery might seem, it is actually a startling and significant finding worthy of a Nobel Prize. What it basically means is that cancer is caused by a lack of free oxygen in the body and therefore, whatever causes this to occur is the cause of all cancers. 

In chemistry, alkali solutions (pH over 7.0) tend to absorb oxygen, while acids (pH under 7.0) tend to expel oxygen. For example, a mild alkali can absorb over 100 times as much oxygen as a mild acid. Therefore, when the body becomes acidic by dropping below pH 7.0 (note: all body fluids, except for stomach and urine, are supposed to be mildly alkaline at pH 7.4), oxygen is driven out of the body thereby, according to Nobel Prize winner Otto Warburg, inducing cancer. Stomach fluids must remain acidic to digest food and urine must remain acidic to remove wastes from the body. Blood is the exception. Blood must always remain at an alkaline pH 7.4 so that it can retain its oxygen. When adequate mineral consumption is in the diet, the blood is supplied the crucial minerals required to maintain an alkaline pH of 7.4. However when insufficient mineral consumption is in the diet, the body is forced to rob Peter (other body fluids) to pay Paul (the blood). In doing so, it removes crucial minerals, such as calcium, from the saliva, spinal fluids, kidneys, liver, etc., in order to maintain the blood at pH 7.4. This causes the demineralized fluids and organs to become acidic and therefore anaerobic, thus inducing not only cancer, but a host of other degenerative diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, lupus, etc.. 

Everyone knows that the human body is made up of 78% water by weight, and that water is hydrogen and oxygen gases. When nitrogen gas and carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and methane gases are added, the total gas in the body by weight becomes over 95%. Almost half of the remaining 5% that makes up the human body and controls all biological functions is the mineral calcium.

No other mineral is capable of performing as many biological functions as is calcium. Calcium is involved in almost every biological function. This amazing mineral provides the electrical energy for the heart to beat and for all muscle movement. It is the calcium ion that is responsible for feeding every cell. It does this by latching on to seven nutrient molecules and one water molecule and pulls them through the nutrient channel. It then detaches its load and returns to repeat the process. Another important biological job for calcium is DNA replication, which is crucial for maintaining youth and a healthy body. DNA replication is the basis for all body repair and can only occur “on a substrate of calcium”. Thus, low calcium means low body repair and premature aging. As important as all these and hundreds of other biological functions of calcium are to human health, none is more important than the job of pH control. Calcium to acid, is like water to a fire. Calcium quickly destroys oxygen robbing acid in the body fluids. Thus, the more calcium, the more oxygen, and therefore, the less cancer and other degenerative disease. 

This information then begs the question, “How much calcium is necessary ?” The answer can readily be determined by examining the diet of millions of people around the world who consume over 100 times our Recommended Daily Allowance, RDA, and who suffer the side effects of living 40 years longer than we do, of aging at half the rate that we do, and of being devoid of cancer, heart disease, mental disorders, diabetes, arthritis and all other degenerative diseases. Almost all of these people, the Armenians, Azerbaijans and Georgians in Russian, the Tibetans, the Hunzas of Northern Pakistan, the Vilcabamba Indians in Ecuador, the Bamas in China and the Titicacas in Peru live at high altitudes above 8000 feet. Their only source of water is melting glaciers, and the glacial water is so turbid and white with ground up rock that all of these cultures call the water “milk of the mountains”. Each quart of this water contains over 17,000 milligrams of calcium along with other minerals and 60 trace metals. These cultures drink several quarts each day and the water fertilized crops are also loaded with calcium and other nutrients. The only long living and disease free culture that does not live above an altitude of 8000 feet, is the Okinawan’s.

Millions of Okinawans live in the southern coral islands of Japan with the average life expectancy of 105 years, while mainland Japan is just 77 years. The Okinawans live on islands made of coral reefs which are mainly calcium. The Okinawans discovered over 500 years ago that feeding coral sand that is produced from the weathering of the reefs to the chickens and cows results in twice as many eggs and twice as much milk. They also found that when the coral sand is used as a fertilizer, crops increase by as much as three fold. When they finally, 500 years ago, began to consume the coral sand themselves, all of the under utilized doctors were forced to leave the islands. This was known in Japanese history as the Japanese Exodus.

The early European explorers discovered their secret and hauled shiploads of the calcium rich coral sands back to Europe. In Madrid Spain, the historic monument of the world’s first drugstore contains rows of shelves labeled “coral calcium from Okinawa Japan”. Today millions of people all over the world consume coral calcium, and as a result, there are millions of medical testimonials.

The phenomenon of preventing and reversing degenerative disease through the consumption of large amounts of mineral and vitamins did not go un-noticed by men of medicine. Hundreds of years ago European doctors were prescribing coral calcium and other nutrients to their patients. 

In the 1950s, Dr. Carl Reich M.D. discovered that his patients were able to “cure themselves” of almost all degenerative diseases by consuming several times the RDA of calcium, magnesium, vitamin-D and other nutrients. Dr. Reich was the first North American doctor to prescribe “mega doses” of minerals and vitamins to his patients and is considered by many to be the father of preventive medicine. By the 1980s Dr. Reich had cured thousands, but lost his license for explaining that the consumption of mineral nutrients, such as calcium, could prevent cancer and a host of other diseases. This concept was considered “too simple” to accept by the medical wisdom of the day. However, by the late 1990s, other medical men of wisdom were also discovering that calcium supplements could indeed reverse cancer. 

In the October 13, 1998 issue of the New York Times wrote an article appeared entitled “Calcium Takes Its Place As a Superstar of Nutrients” in which it reports that a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that “increasing calcium induced normal development of the epithelia cells and might also prevent cancer in such organs as the breast, prostate and pancreas”. It also reported that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published “virtually no major organ system escapes calcium’s influence” and that a research team from the University of Southern California found “adding calcium to the diet lowered the blood pressure in 110 black teenagers”

The January 14, 1999 issue of the Phoenix Republic wrote an article about cancer entitled “Calcium Reduces Tumors” that the New England Journal of Medicine reported “adding calcium to the diet can keep you from getting tumors in your large intestine”. Then the February, 1999 issue of the Readers Digest wrote in an article entitled “The ‘Superstar’ Nutrient” that the Journal of the American Medical published “when the participants consumption reached 1500 milligrams of calcium a day, cell growth in the colon improved toward normal (this means that the cancer was reversed)”. The Digest also reported that the Metabolic Bone Center at St. Lukes Hospital believes that “a chronic deficiency of calcium is largely responsible for premenstrual syndrome (PMS)” and that “a lot of women are avoiding the sun and their vitamin-D levels may be very low”. In the same article, the Digest reported that “in 1997 the large federally financed trial found that a diet containing 1200 milligrams of calcium significantly lowered blood pressure in adults”. Then the May 3, 1999 edition of US World News Report wrote in an article entitled “Calcium’s Powerful Mysterious Ways”, that, “Researchers are increasingly finding that the humble mineral calcium plays a major role in warding off major illnesses from high blood pressure to colon cancer” and that “You name the disease, and calcium is beginning to have a place there” (David McCarron, a nephrologist at Oregon Health Sciences University). Unfortunately, most doctors have not heard the news that their own journals and major newspapers and magazines are reporting that natural supplements, especially calcium, can cure and prevent disease. 

The scientific evidence that calcium is the key to good and long health is overwhelming. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to read simple articles in reputable newspapers, magazines and the doctor’s own journals that are all saying that disease can be cured by diet. Also one can simply look at the millions of people around the world that never get sick and say, “We also want to drink some milk of the mountains”. Unfortunately, all of the milk of the mountains is consumed as fast as it is produced. However, the Japanese could cure the world with their “milk of the oceans” known as coral calcium minerals, the calcium factor of good health. 

The most frequent question asked the author is, “What do you do?” The response always begins with, “I have not taken a pill in over 30 years.” Psychologically, taking pills is synonymous with taking drugs. Also, many people have difficulty swallowing pills. For most, many of the pills remain intact as they pass through the intestine undigested. The obvious solution is to do what the author does. First, the author puts all of the non-liquid nutrient pills and capsules into a blender to make a pulverized blend. He then uses a flour sifter to remove the broken up oversized capsule containers. The author takes 24 pills and capsules each day, and he has found that when pulverized, the blend fills a heaping teaspoon. Thus the author pulverizes a three-month portion and puts it into a large bottle labeled “Hunza Powder”, and then takes a heaping spoonful each day. Secondly, the nutrient blend should be taken at meal times, as for the elderly; this is the only time that they have sufficient acid in their stomachs to digest food. Thirdly, one glass of milk or one glass of apple juice should be taken with each meal so that the lactates or malates will keep the digested nutrients ionized even as they pass through the alkali duodenum, thereby allowing for greater absorption. Also, the consumption of fruits and vegetables with meals provides anions which enhance the absorption of nutrients.

The second most frequent question asked is, “Which are the 24 pills that you take?” The answer is 3 coral calcium (1.5 grams), 2 vitamin-D (5000 IU each), 6 multivitamins (one-a-day), 6 multi-minerals (containing 60 trace minerals), 3 calcium (citrate), 1 magnesium citrate, 2 vitamin-C (60 mg each), 1 vitamin-E (500mg), and 10 milligrams cesium chloride. The result is Hunza Powder. The author takes a heaping teaspoon each day, usually mixed in a fruit slush or a banana shake 

Robert Barefoot, is the author of the books The Calcium Factor and Death By Diet. These books are in their sixth edition, have been translated into several languages and are used by many in the nutrition industry as “ the bibles of nutrition”. These books take scientific knowledge provided by some of the world’s most renown scientists and tie it together into one cohesive scientific argument that demonstrates that nutritional deficiency is not only the cause of disease, but that by correcting the deficiency, disease can not only be prevented , but also cured. 

Coral Calcium Provides Many Benefits 

 
May help to Cleanse the Kidneys, Intestines and Liver while breaking down heavy metals and drug residues in the body. It balances the pH level of water which strengthens and revitalizes cells and tissue, while helping to prevent the risk of degenerative diseases. Achieve an Alkaline Balance, Neutralizing Acidity Level Increase Muscle and Joint Mobility Combat Arthritic conditions, Heart Disease and Digestive Problems Helps sports injuries, headaches, high or low blood pressure, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcers, indigestion, psoriasis, ulcerative colitis, gastroenteritis, hiatal hernia and cataracts.. Boosts the immune system, gives an incredible feeling of well being, and increases longevity. 

 

 
The quality of drinking water which has surface water as its source is steadily deteriorating because of pollutants and acid rain. Even ground water is becoming acidic. At a pH of 6 crabs die, salmon die at 4, and all fish die at 3.Poor quality water may have been acidified by bacteria, algae, chloroform (from chlorination), nitrates and not least dangerous heavy metals, for example cadmium and aluminum. These pollutants may come from factory discharges, agriculture, sewer pipes, water mains and acid rain.

The environment of fluids in which your cells reside is known as your biological terrain. The following are four characteristics of your biological terrain: pH refers to the "potential of Hydrogen" and its activity level in fluids. Many people today have an overly acidic pH due to drinking colas, improper food combinations, consumption of processed foods, stress and pollution. Coral Calcium raises the alkalinity of the extra cellular fluid that surrounds your cells. An alkaline, versus acidic, environment is believed to be one of the major deterrents to tissue damage, aging and the growth of disease organisms. When your body consists of a more neutral to alkaline environment, the body can then use its amazing God given ability to heal itself naturally. 

Coral Calcium keeps your pH level of your body fluids in sync so your body can fight disease naturally, the way it was meant to. 

Okinawa Coral Calcium 

Would you like to live as long and healthy as the worlds' oldest living man? 
An incredible health secret is revealed here.

Do you have enough calcium in your diet? The body's best building block is now in its easiest to assimilate form! Coral calcium can give your water a perfect pH balance while supplying the basic ingredient for the rejuvenation of your body. Defy arthritis, osteoporosis, fatigue, insomnia, nerves, and lack of mobility.

You have probably heard of many of the benefits of taking calcium, but like me have wondered what kind of calcium is best or usable by your body. Here is some information that can change your life and certainly your health.

You may also have heard about the worlds oldest living person. His name was Shigechiyo Izumi, interviewed at a sprightly 115 by a journalist from the Guinness Book of Records on an island off the coast of Okinawa, Japan. The journalist noticed that most of the islanders were in ridiculously good health and seldom died before age 95.

He persuaded Mr. Izumi to submit to a medical check-up. The results were fantastic. How could a person of his age possibly be so healthy? A team of researchers came to the islands to answer this question. 

After further investigation, the journalist found that all of the inhabitants of the island enjoyed the same good health and longevity. After returning from Okinawa and sharing his findings with those in the medical field, a team of researchers set out to try and determine what was keeping these people in such incredible health. What was the common denominator?

They found the water that the islanders drank was different from water found 
anywhere else in the world. These islands were built up over the years from 
coral reefs. When rain falls on the islands it percolates coral deposits and 
picks up minerals and other elements that make it truly unique. Not only did 
it contain many essential minerals that made very similar chemically to the 
elements found in the human skeleton and body fluids, the amniotic fluid, and 
blood, but it also was very alkaline, with a pH of 8.6. Maintaining an 
alkaline pH is critical to cellular health, as we live and die at the 
cellular level. 

If the common denominator for the islanders was they all drank the water, the link was simple. Drinking water with a high pH factor, combined with minerals and other elements, provided their bodies with the natural ability to fight off disease. 

The puzzle was now complete. The islanders were free of disease and lived longer because their bodies were always at an optimum alkaline level due to the coral calcium that was naturally added to their water. 

After years of research, it was found that just a small amount of these 
special coral sands added to just about any liquid would bring it into pH 
balance. Further, they found that it also neutralized any waste products 
present in water and added a number of of important substances removed during treatment or treating. Even water of poor quality that contained impurities such as bacteria, algae, heavy metals, fluoride, and chloroform left over from the treatment process, representing considerable health hazards, could also be brought into balance. Poor quality water may have been acidified by bacteria, algae, chloroform (from chlorination), nitrates and dangerous heavy metals, for example cadmium and aluminum. These pollutants may come from factory discharges, agriculture, sewer pipes, water mains and acid rain.

How Coral water works..... 

· Raises drinking water's pH to approximately 8.5 regardless of previous quality. 
· Binds heavy metals. 
· Removes chlorine. 
· Hinders growth of bacteria. 
· Adds ionic coral calcium and essential minerals to water.

Fact: If your body's pH is not balanced, you cannot effectively assimilate 
vitamins, minerals and food supplements.

Fact: There is more calcium in the body than any other mineral. 20% of an 
adults bone calcium is reabsorbed and replaced every year.

What Okinawa Coral Calcium can do.....

· Maintain optimum alkalinity for optimum health 
· Provide you easily absorbed and usable calcium 
· Cleanse the kidneys, intestines and liver 
· Maintain stronger bones and healthier teeth 
· Alleviate insomnia 
· Keep your heart beating regularly 
· Help metabolize your body's iron 
· Aid your nervous system 
· Breakdown heavy metals and drug residues in your body 
· Neutralize harmful acids that lead to illness 
· Achieve a healthy alkaline level, neutralizing acid 
· Protect your body from free radical damage 
· Control digestive problems 
· Increase muscle and joint mobility 
· Combat arthritic conditions and heart disease 
· Regulate blood sugar levels and blood pressure 
· What Okinawa Coral Calcium contains

Okinawa Coral Calcium contains calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, 
essential trace minerals and many other microscopic elements essential to 
human life. In addition, it contains antioxidants known to help protect the 
body from free radical damage. These minerals and elements become ionic in 
water and are promptly bio available to the cells. This was a major discovery 
due to the importance of calcium in the body. It is scientifically documented 
that up to 150 diseases are related to calcium deficiency. For this reason, 
it is often called the "king of minerals". But in order for calcium to do its 
work, the body must convert it to an ionic form. That problem is solved as 
the coral calcium becomes ionic immediately in water for use by the body. The 
body is simply able to absorb and use this calcium and these minerals to a 
much greater degree.

Over 4 million Japanese use the product daily. In the U.S. today there are 
only 250,000 users of Coral Calcium. It is projected that there will be 
between 10-20 million users in the U.S. by 2002. 

Scientists have discovered that a low level of oxygen in the body can disrupt the body's ability to function normally and at the same time can severely cripple the immune system, leaving your body vulnerable to disease and premature aging. 

Coral calcium greatly increases the oxygen level in the body, thereby allowing the body to rid itself of toxic waste that continues to build up. That's why when you indulge yourself in "junk food" the body diverts oxygen away from the primary metabolic functions and works overtime trying to digest your high caloric intake. That's why when you eat junk food or large meals you feel sluggish afterwards. Your body literally slows down its metabolism to compensate for the overload. 

Is your body oxygen poor? Here are a few signs to look for: 

Muscle aches * Poor digestion * Dizziness 
Weakness * Acid stomach * Irritability 

pH: What does it mean? pH is the abbreviation for potential hydrogen. The pH of any solution is the measure of its hydrogen-ion concentration. The higher the pH reading, the more alkaline and oxygen rich the fluid is. The lower the pH reading, the more acidic and oxygen deprived the fluid is. The pH range is from 0 to 14, with 7.0 being neutral. Anything above 7.0 is alkaline, anything below 7.0 is considered acidic. 

Coral calcium doesn't cure disease. It simply keeps the pH level of our body fluids in sync so the body fights disease naturally, like it was meant to. The following list will help you determine what your level of acidity (pH) may be. Symptoms are divided into categories ranging from beginning to advanced. Please note this is a partial list due to the number of symptoms in each category. This information was taken directly from Dr. Baroody's book, Alkalize or Die. 

THE "MICROBE FACTOR"  
  
 Bob Barefoot  
   
There are some who would believe that the microbes would be destroyed when the coral is heated for dehydration purposes. However, rod-like bacteria can survive poor conditions, such as severe drought, heat, radiation and various chemicals. They do this by forming structures called endospores. A single bacterium will form a small sphere-shaped or oval shaped spore within its cytoplasm. This endospore is protected by a tough outer covering. It remains dormant until favorable conditions reappear, when the spores develop into bacteria cells. In addition there are many other factors that make coral calcium of marine origin more ideal for health. I prefer coral that is used in vegetable capsules or at least capsules that are made to dissolve at the righttime to provide the best circumstances for mineral absorption. The practice of breaking capsules and adding the contents to water is unnecessary, except in circumstances where some people cannot readily swallow capsules. 
 
 
Microbes or bacillus are defined as any genus of rod-shaped bacteria that occur in chains, produce spores and are active only in the presence of oxygen and water. Although some microorganisms are destroyed in the process of drying, this process is not per se lethal to microorganisms. The addition of water can spring them back to life. Microbes can be found living in all living animals and plants. Of course most microbes can live off of plants and food, and are best known for their ability to "spoil" the food. Actually spoiling food is a form of digestion. Thus spoiled food is pre-digested by the microbes. This is probably the reason that most of the animal kingdom, including humans, have substantial numbers of microbes in their intestines. The strong acid in the stomach can not break down all food, especially complex carbohydrates. However, the microbes in the intestine living off of these foods, do indeed break them down and make them available for absorption by the small intestine. Also, the rod-like shape, allows the microbes to penetrate deep into the "finger-like villi", 5,000,000 lining the intestine, where they can easily be absorbed by:  
 
 
 
1) facilitated diffusion 
(glucose combines with a carrier substance which is soluble in the lipid layer of the cell membrane) 
 
2) osmosis  
(the movement of water molecules and dissolved solids through semi-permeable cell membranes from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration) 
 
3) filtration  
(movement of solvents and dissolved substances across semi-permeable cell membranes by mechanical pressure, usually high pressure to low pressure) 
 
4) dialysis 
(separation of small molecules from large molecules by semi-permeable membrane) 
 
5) pinocytosis  
(or "cell drinking" where the liquid nutrient attracted to the surface of the cell membrane is engulfed). 
 
 
As a result, the "microbes are crucial to life". Fortunately, most of the hundreds of non-marine microbes found in the human intestine were transferred by the mother. Some animals, like the baby elephant, have to eat their mother's excrement just to get the needed microbes. 
    
Intestinal Tract Bacteria  
   
The genera of bacteria that are found in the intestinal tract are:  
 
Bacteroides - 22 species, non-sporing rods 
 
Clostidium - 61 species, heat resistant spore-forming rods 
 
Citrobacter - 2 species, lactose fermenting rods 
 
Enterobacter - 27 rods, ferment glucose and lactose 
 
Escherichia - one specie, rods 
 
Lactobacillus - 27 species, non-sporing rods employed in the production of fermented milks 
 
Proteus - 5 species, aerobic rods that hydrolyze urea 
 
Pseudomonas - 29 species, most important bacteria in spoilage of meats, pultry, eggs and seafoods 
 
Salmonella - 1800 species that ferment sugars and glucose 
 
Shigella - 4 species, aerobic, like pollutuon 
 
Staphylococcus - 3 species, coagulate blood, also common in nasal cavities 
 
Streptococcus - 21 species 
 
 
Salt greater than 1% can cross the cell membranes of most bacterium by osmosis, which results in growth inhibition and possibly death of the microbes. Everyone is also familiar with the preservation of meat by "salting", which kills or inhibits the bacteria. Thus large quantities of salt in the intestinal tract, which occur when large quantities of nutrients have been digested (hydrochloric acid from the stomach reacting with the sodium bicarbonate from the pancreas produces salt in the duodenum), can kill the microbes, thereby inhibiting nutrient absorption by the body, especially when large amounts of nutrients have been ingested. 
 
On the contrary, "marine microbes", such as those found in coral calcium by the Swedish, thrive in high salt environments. Also because of their original salty marine environment, as well as their calcium magnesium and mineral environment, the marine microbes have no difficulty assisting the body to absorb high quantities of these minerals, especially when the intestine is saline, resulting from the consumption of large amounts of mineral nutrients. These same salts, however, incapacitate the natural microbes(Our Microbes) in the intestinal tract, thereby inhibiting nutrient absorption. Thus, the coral marine microbes resolve this problem, dramatically increasing the absorption of the nutrients by the body. 
 
 
Those people using a small sachet teabag that allows only a tiny amount of coral to dissolve in the liquid in which they are placed, and those using fossilized coral, still get some benefits from the marine microbes, hence the testimonials. Also, these testimonies emanating from the small intake of nutrients is nothing short of astounding. The reason, for this success is that when the teabag or the fossilized coral is placed in a liquid the microbes come to life and are consumed when the liquid is drank. These microbes can then latch on to nutrients already in the duodenum and pull them into the body resulting in health benefits. Consumption of marine coral, on the other hand, allows the "total nutrient content of the coral" to be consumed as well, and therefore provides far greater health benefits, leading to more testimonials. The bottom line is that all coral from Okinawa has fantastic health benefits, but the marine coral is far superior . 

CALCIUM REVERSES ACIDOSIS 
Understanding pH Level and Why  
Many People Have Disease / Cancer 

Recent research has shown that, total healing of chronic illness only takes place when and if the blood is restored to a normal, slightly alkaline pH. In case you missed it, let me say it again...

Total healing of chronic illness only takes place when and  
if the blood is restored to a normal, slightly alkaline pH. 

 
pH: What does it mean? pH is the abbreviation for potential hydrogen. The pH of any solution is the measure of its hydrogen-ion concentration. The higher the pH reading, the more alkaline and oxygen rich the fluid is. The lower the pH reading, the more acidic and oxygen deprived the fluid is. The pH range is from 0 to 14, with 7.0 being neutral. Anything above 7.0 is alkaline, anything below 7.0 is considered acidic. 

The pH scale is from 0 - 14  
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 healthy 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

 
Human blood stays in a very narrow pH range right around ( 7.35 - 7.45 ). Below or above this range means symptoms and disease. If blood pH moves to much below 6.8 or above 7.8, cells stop functioning and the patient dies. The ideal pH balance for blood is 7.4  
 
A healthy blood pH without cancer has acid + alkaline balance almost equal. Actually a healthy body is slightly alkaline measuring approximately 7.4. This ideal blood 7.4 pH measurement means it is just slightly more alkaline than acid.

 
0 is acid ------ blood pH 7.4 healthy ------ over 7 to 14 is alkaline 

 
If you have a health problem, most likely you are acidic. Research shows that unless the body's pH level is slightly alkaline, the body cannot heal itself. So, no matter what type of modality you choose to use to take care of your health problem, it won't be effective until the pH level is up. If your body's pH is not balanced, you cannot effectively assimilate vitamins, minerals and food supplements. Your body pH affects everything.  
 
The body has to have a balanced pH like most living things on earth or it does not function correctly. The alkaline level is very important because research has already proven that disease cannot survive in an alkaline state and yet they thrive in an acidic environment.  
 
An acidic balance will: decrease the body's ability to absorb minerals and other nutrients, decrease the energy production in the cells, decrease it's ability to repair damaged cells, decrease it's ability to detoxify heavy metals, make tumor cells thrive, and make it more susceptible to fatigue and illness.  
 
An acidic pH can occur from, an acid forming diet, emotional stress, toxic overload, and/or immune reactions or any process that deprives the cells of oxygen and other nutrients. The body will try to compensate for acidic pH by using alkaline minerals. If the diet does not contain enough minerals to compensate, a build up of acids in the cells will occur.  
 
There are two factors that are ALWAYS present with cancer no matter what else may be present. Those two factors are Acid pH and Lack of Oxygen. Can we manipulate those two factors that always have to be present for cancer to develop and by doing so will that help reverse the cancer? If so, we need to learn how to manipulate those two factors.  
 
Cancer needs an acid and low oxygen environment to survive and flourish within. Terminal cancer patients are around 1000 times more acidic than normal healthy people. The vast majority of terminal cancer patients possess a very low body pH. Why?  
 
In the absence of oxygen, glucose undergoes fermentation to lactic acid. This causes the pH of the cell to drop from between 7.3 to 7.2 down to 7 and later to 6.5 in more advanced stages of cancer and in metastases the pH drops to 6.0 and even 5.7 or lower. Our bodies simply can not fight disease if our body pH is not properly balanced.  
 
The normal human cell has a lot of molecular oxygen and a slightly alkaline pH. The cancer cell has an acid pH and lack of oxygen. Cancer cells cannot survive in an oxygen rich environment. Again, the higher the pH reading, the more alkaline and oxygen rich the fluid is. Cancer and all diseases hate oxygen / pH balance. pH balance is very important for one's health.  
 
Remember that the pH number is an exponent number of 10; therefore, a small difference in pH translates to a big difference in the number of oxygen or OH-ions. A difference of 1 in a pH value means ten times the difference in the number of OH-ions, a difference of 2 means one hundred times the difference in the number of OH-ions. In other words, blood with a pH value of 7.45 contains 64.9% more oxygen than blood with a pH value of 7.30. 

 
Fact: If your body's pH is not balanced, you cannot effectively assimilate vitamins, minerals and food supplements. Also, mucus on the small intestine can block your body from vitamin and mineral absorption. 

 
 
How to test your pH level 
 
Test your pH level... If you are sick or have cancer simply wet a piece of Litmus Paper with your saliva 2 hours after a meal. This will give a reflection of your state of health.  
 
Salivary pH Test: While generally more acidic than blood, salivary pH mirrors the blood ( if not around meals ) and is also a fairly good indicator of health. It tells us what the body retains. Salivary pH is a fair indicator of the health of the extracellular fluids and their alkaline mineral reserves.  
 
Optimal pH for saliva is 6.4 to 6.8. Spit upon arising before anything is put into the mouth. A reading lower than 6.4 is indicative of insufficient alkaline reserves. After eating, the saliva pH should rise to 7.8 or higher. Unless this occurs, the body has alkaline mineral deficiencies ( mainly Calcium and Magnesium ) and will not assimilate food very well. To deviate from ideal salivary pH for an extended time invites illness.  
 
Acidosis, an extended time in the acid pH state, can result in rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, lupus, tuberculosis, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, most cancers and many more. If salivary pH stays too low, the diet should focus on fruit, vegetables and mineral water as well as remove strong acidifiers such as sodas, whole wheat and red meat.  
 
Urinary pH Test: The pH of the urine indicates how the body is working to maintain the proper pH of the blood. The urine reveals the alkaline building (anabolic) and acid tearing down (catabolic) cycles. The pH of urine indicates the efforts of the body via the kidneys, adrenals, lungs and gonads to regulate pH through the buffer salts and hormones. Urine can provide a fairly accurate picture of body chemistry, because the kidneys filter out the buffer salts of pH regulation and provide values based on what the body is eliminating. Urine pH can vary from around 4.5 to 9.0 for its extremes, but the ideal range is 5.8 to 6.8.  
 
Foods considered to be alkaline-forming and thus helpful to people with consistently acid pH include: almonds, aloe vera, apples, apricots, bee pollen, buckwheat, cabbage, cantaloupe, celery, carrots, cucumbers, dairy products except hard cheese, dates, dulse, poached eggs, figs, grapefruit, honey, lettuce, millet, parsley, raisins, peaches, fresh red potatoes, pineapple, soy products, sprouted seeds, cooked spinach, turnip tops, wakame miso soup, azuki beans, rice, mineral water. More alkaline-forming foods. 
 
People who remain too acid often display symptoms such as: anxiety, diarrhea, dilated pupils, extroverted behavior, fatigue in early morning, headaches, hyperactivity, hypersexuality, insomnia, nervousness, rapid heartbeat, restless legs, shortness of breath, strong appetite, high blood pressure, warm dry hands and feet.  
 
Balancing the pH is a major step toward well-being and greater health. Acidosis ( overly acidic body ) is the primary indicator of Calcium Deficiency Disease. Scientists have discovered that the body fluids of healthy people are alkaline ( high pH ) whereas the body fluids of sick people are acidic ( low pH ). Coral Calcium can help balance your body pH. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:51 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cancer Patients Try Alternative Medicine </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-117.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cancer Patients Try Alternative Medicine 
Acupuncture, Naturopathy Popular Among Women With Cancer 

By  Jeanie Lerche Davis  

Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Tuesday, February 24, 2004 
WebMD Medical News Feb. 24, 2004 -- Cancer patients are more likely to try alternative medicine like acupuncture and naturopathy in addition to getting conventional treatments, a new study shows. 

The study, which appears in the latest issue of the journal Cancer, provides a snapshot of the growing acceptance of complementary and alternative medicine. 

Scientific evidence shows that acupuncture is effective as a pain therapy. Naturopathic medicine is a holistic approach to wellness that involves lifestyle and nutrition counseling, as well as herbal and other therapies to aid the body in achieving a more natural state. 

Lead researcher William E. Lafferty, MD, with the University of Washington, has analyzed 357,709 insurance claims for these therapies -- 7,915 made by people with a cancer diagnosis. He found: 

Among the cancer patients, 7% had used naturopathy, acupuncture, or massage therapy, and 12% had used chiropractic, reports Lafferty. 
Women, whether they had cancer or not, were more likely to use alternative therapy compared with men -- especially massage therapy, he says. 
People with cancer were twice as likely to use either naturopathy or acupuncture compared with people without cancer. 
Women with more advanced cancer -- and who were getting chemotherapy treatments -- were more likely to try naturopathy and acupuncture. 
In another study, women with breast cancer were more likely to use alternative therapies to help relieve stress, Lafferty writes. 

Use of these therapies is likely to grow, since insurance coverage is growing, he writes. Also, the scientific evidence regarding certain alternative medicine treatments -- like acupuncture for pain and nausea -- will certainly prompt more patients to try it. 

Chiropractic, the most common form of alternative medicine in general use today, is considered safe in most circumstances, he writes. However, reports of complications when used in treating some cancer patients may limit use of chiropractic in cancer treatment. 

Indeed, chiropractic spinal manipulation may not really be relevant to cancer treatment, he writes. 

The low use of massage therapy was "surprising," given the scientific evidence that massage helps several cancer-related conditions, including pain and arm swelling related to breast cancer surgery, Lafferty writes. 

Nevertheless, a substantial number of insured cancer patients will use alternative medicine if they are given the choice, he points out. Even if it isn't covered, "the cost of this treatment is modest compared with conventional care," he writes. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:52 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cancer Claims for Red Wine Supplement Suspect </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-118.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cancer Claims for Red Wine Supplement Suspect 
Resveratrol Unlikely to Fight Breast, Prostate Cancer but May Help With Others

By  
Todd Zwillich 

Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD 
on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 
WebMD Medical News 
 

 
 


April 21, 2004 -- A chemical found in red wine and heralded for its cancer and heart disease fighting abilities is unlikely to work at all on most cancers, according to a small study. 

Researchers unveiled results showing that resveratrol, an antioxidant found in grape skins, wine, and peanuts, barely enters the human bloodstream when taken by mouth. 

Laboratory studies have shown that the chemical can kill cancer cells or inhibit their growth. But without remaining in the blood, researchers say the drug is highly unlikely to exert any effect on breast cancer, prostate cancer, or heart disease as many marketers claim. 

Still, dozens of dietary supplements and other products available in health food stores tout the chemical for its anticancer properties. 

"To really believe that a biological effect can occur is to find that the drug circulates in the plasma of the body. We didn't find any," says Thomas Walle, PhD, a professor of pharmacology at the Medical University of South Carolina. 

Walle and his colleagues gave resveratrol to six healthy adult volunteers between the ages of 23 and 29. The chemical was tagged with a radioactive marker known as Carbon-14, which allows researchers to later detect it in tissues and blood. The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. 

But when the researchers later checked blood for the radioactive signature, none was found. 

"It's difficult to assume now that it would have any effect against heart disease, prostate cancer, and breast cancer," says Walle, who presented his study in Washington at the Experimental Biology 2004, a meeting of several scientific groups including the American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 

David Bylund, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Nebraska, said that Walle's conclusion is "correctly stated." "This [chemical] is disappearing very rapidly. Unless you're going to be taking it every hour, it probably wouldn't be able to do any good," he tells WebMD. 

But Bylund says the chemical may still be used to synthesize other, related compounds that may stay in the body for a longer time. Those derivatives would have to be tested as drugs under FDA rules and not sold as dietary supplements, he says. 

Still 'A Very Exciting Compound' 

"I think the consumer is in trouble here," Walle tells WebMD, referring to the numerous products and Internet claims touting resveratrol for its anticancer properties. 

But other preliminary findings show that the chemical can accumulate in the cells of the digestive tract and the human airway. That means the resveratrol could theoretically exercise its anticancer properties in the colon, esophagus, trachea, or throat. 

"For this compound there are some very interesting activities observed. It's a very exciting compound," Walle says. 

His group is currently returning to the lab to see if resveratrol can inhibit cancer in epithelial cells from the human digestive tract and throat. 

SOURCES: "First Study of Resveratrol Dietary Supplement Finds Effect on Breast and Prostate Cancers Unlikely," presented at Experimental Biology 2004, Washington, April 17-21, 2004. Thomas Walle, PhD, professor, pharmacology, Medical University of South Carolina. David Bylund, PhD, professor, pharmacology, University of Nebraska; president, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:55 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cancer Deaths Expected To Fall in 2004 </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-119.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cancer Deaths Expected To Fall in 2004 
But More Work Is Needed as 1,500 Americans Will Die Each Day

By  
Sid Kirchheimer 

Reviewed By Michael Smith, MD 
on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 WebMD Medical News
 

 
 


Jan.14, 2004 -- Although more people are being diagnosed, death rates for most major cancers continue to fall, the American Cancer Society says. 

Since 1930, overall cancer deaths have declined 11% among men and 14% among women. The biggest decrease has been in stomach cancers, which have dropped 86% in men and 91% in women -- largely because of improved hygiene and food storage and a lower rate of infection of the H pylori bacteria among Americans. 

"Cancer is not an inescapable fact of life," says Michael J. Thun, MD, an author of the report. "There are things that we do, in our culture and with social policies and practices, that make a difference in cancer occurrence." 

The Work Continues 

While news is good regarding deaths from cancer, there is still much work to do. The ACS estimates that cancer will kill more than 1,500 Americans each day this year -- more than 560,000 in all -- and account for one of every four deaths in the U.S. Cancer will continue to be the No. 2 killer behind heart disease. About one-third of these deaths will result from lifestyle factors such as poor diet, obesity or lack of exercise, while smoking will claim about 180,000 lives. 

In its new report, Cancer Facts & Figures 2004, the American Cancer Society projects that some 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer this year -- up from the 1.3 million cases predicted for 2003. This largely results from a growing and aging population. 

Early screening has led to more diagnoses -- particularly of breast and prostate cancers -- but has resulted in quicker and more effective treatment. For instance, breast cancer diagnoses are estimated to represent about one in three new cancers in women during 2004. 

But because of mammography and other preventative measures, breast cancer will claim 15% of all female cancer deaths -- a 20% drop since 1930. "But for breast cancer, we have a very long way to go in many respects," he says. "A lot of progress can be made in how to prevent breast cancer entirely." 

Screening has also played a huge role in reducing cancers of the uterus and cervix. "They were the leading sites in death rates in women in 1930, but the introduction of Pap testing and adequate treatment prevents both the development of invasive cervical cancer by treating and removing the premalignant lesions, and if already been malignant transformation, it treats it early, when it's highly curable." 

Melanoma skin cancers have been on the upswing since 1975, but death rates have not risen as much, says Thun. "They have been flat since the 1980s because of earlier detection and removal of melanoma before it spreads. It's another clear case in which early detection saves lives." 

Perhaps most significantly, public awareness of the dangers of smoking have had a big impact on lung and the 10 other cancers to which tobacco use contributes or causes. Because of these antismoking measures, lung cancer deaths have declined 15% in men in recent decades, although women's death rates have held steady. 

Lung Cancer Tops the List 

This year, lung cancer -- the top cancer killer of both sexes -- is expected to comprise 13% of all new cancer diagnoses in men, and cause one in three cancer deaths. Among women, lung cancer will comprise 12% of new cancer cases and cause one in four cancer deaths. Because of these antismoking measures, "in my view, the cancers we're making most progress against are lung cancer and other tobacco-related cancers -- especially in men," says Thun. 

The top three cancer killers among men will be lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer; in women, lung, breast, and colorectal cancers make the top three. 

Similar efforts are now needed to get the message of the dangers of obesity and a sedentary lifestyle. 

"In the last five years, there has been widespread recognition of the importance of obesity and physical inactivity to cancer," he tells WebMD. "It's become increasingly clear that obesity is a factor in approximately a dozen different types of cancer -- especially postmenopausal breast cancer in women and colorectal cancer in men." 

Colon cancer awareness, in itself, also has a long way to go. There are five tests to detect premalignant lesions or polyps, but Thun says that only about half of people who should be getting at least one of these screenings are getting them. 

On the treatment front, Thun says that "some of the most remarkable steps forward" have been in developing more specific and less toxic treatments for fairly uncommon cancers. The next step is to develop these treatments for more common cancers. 

Other highlights of the new report: 

Survival rates continue to improve. Overall, two in three of all cancer patients survive at least five years, but this five-year relative survival rate is 84% among those with early detection. 
The outlook has significantly improved for many childhood cancers. Their five-year survival rate was 56% in the 1970s, but has jumped to 78% for cancers diagnosed in the 1990s. 
There are still huge disparities in death rates by race and social status. Overall, the death rate in 2004 is estimated to be 40% higher among black men and 20% higher in black women this year compared with whites. Other minorities and those who are less affluent also have higher rates of cancer death than whites. 
SOURCES: Thun, M. Cancer Facts & Figures 2004. Michael J. Thun, MD, vice president, epidemiology and surveillance research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta. 

  

 
© 2003 WebMD Inc. All rights reserved. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:56 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Chemo harms more breast cancer patients </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-120.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Chemo harms more breast cancer patients 
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical WriterTue Aug 15, 11:43 PM ET 

Younger breast cancer patients seem to suffer more serious side effects from chemotherapy than previously thought. Roughly one in six of those women wind up at the emergency room or hospitalized because of such side effects as infection, low blood counts, dehydration or nausea, researchers reported Tuesday.

Some of the side effects occurred at rates three to four times higher than earlier research had predicted.

Tuesday's study marks the first attempt to assess the real-world risks of chemotherapy for some 35,000 breast cancer patients under age 64 who get the drugs each year.

Most side-effect information comes from clinical trials of medications that can underestimate toxicity. Those trials are designed to prove if the drugs fight cancer and therefore should be sold, and they tend to enroll only the best candidates instead of women who might be particularly sensitive to side effects.

Adding to that conundrum: Many breast cancer patients don't need chemotherapy in the first place; surgery, radiation and hormone treatment are enough. But doctors don't always have an easy way to tell who would benefit from chemo on top of all that.

And for women in the to-treat-or-not gray zone, age sometimes is the deciding factor — because those under 64 are thought to tolerate chemotherapy better than older women.

"We don't believe our study is saying that chemotherapy is not helpful," stressed Dr. Michael Hassett of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, who led the research, published in Tuesday's Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

But, "we've been struggling as a professional community to understand which women benefit from chemotherapy," he added.

If a woman knows how often she is likely to be admitted to the hospital, it may help her decide whether to gamble on the drugs or skip them, he explained.

Hassett and colleagues culled a massive database of insurance claims to study how often breast cancer patients under 64 wound up at the hospital in the year after diagnosis, and how often some leading chemotherapy side effects were blamed.

A total of 16 percent of chemo recipients received either emergency room care or hospitalization for those side effects. Most common: infection and fever, afflicting 8 percent of the patients. That's not a high number — but it is four times what previous clinical trials had predicted, the researchers reported.

Moreover, 61 percent of the chemo recipients had an ER visit or hospitalization for some reason — not just a chemotherapy-related side effect — compared with 42 percent of breast cancer patients not on the drugs. The study couldn't explain the difference.

"The study highlights the importance of studying how drugs affect people in everyday medical care" so they can "make informed decisions about the risks and benefits of their treatment options," said Dr. Carolyn Clancy, director of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which funded the work.

Better understanding of the risks is especially important for those patients who choose chemo despite a good prognosis, when it may increase their chances of survival by less than 5 percent, Dr. Joseph Lau of the Tufts-New England Medical Center wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The extra care of course meant extra medical bills. Hassett estimated that serious chemo side effects could cost health plans up to $45 million a year. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:57 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Expert Cancer Treatable in 10 Years </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-121.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Expert: Cancer Treatable in 10 Years 
 
Doctor Shows Optimism Over Tumor-Starving Treatments 

By  Daniel DeNoon  

Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MD 
on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 
WebMD Medical News 

  

July 16, 2003 -- Cancer will become a manageable disease within a decade, a cancer expert predicts. 

It's not just any expert. The prediction comes from Judah Folkman, MD, director of Surgical Research at Children's Hospital in Boston and professor of both pediatric surgery and cell biology at Harvard Medical School. 

Folkman is famous for showing that cancers can't grow unless they make the body create new blood vessels for them. Drugs that stop this process -- known as angiogenesis inhibitors -- literally starve tumors. What has him so excited are two studies that for the first time show that cancer patients do better when treated with drugs of this type. 

"As angiogenesis inhibitors in general get better -- gradually as the side effects come down -- we think in five to 10 years you can convert cancer to a chronic illness like heart disease or diabetes," Folkman told WebMD during a news conference at the annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research. 

Despite the rosy prediction, Folkman notes that it's going to take doctors a long time to learn how -- and when -- to use these new treatments. Even then, he says, they're going to have to change the way they think about cancer. 

"The hardest part is the translation from clinical trials to patients," he says. "That is very difficult and takes a long time. The reason doctors call what they do "practice" is that it takes years and years to learn. Once you have learned these skills, you are not enthusiastic about changing. Imagine how hard it would be to get used to driving on the left side of the road rather than on the right. Changing medical practice is even more difficult than that." 

At the news conference, Folkman introduced two recent clinical studies of different angiogenesis inhibitors. 

"You will hear of two new drugs that will set a new standard for medical practice," he said. 

Avastin for Metastatic Colon Cancer 

The first is called Avastin by Genentech Inc. A study first reported last month showed that adding Avastin to chemotherapy increases survival in patients with metastatic colon cancer. Lead researcher Herbert Hurwitz, MD, of Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center reported additional data at the AACR meeting. 

Most patients who added Avastin to their treatment survived an extra five months. That's far from a cure. But these are people with one of the worst kinds of cancer. Until recently, survival was a matter of only a few months. Even with state-of-the-art treatment, this advanced cancer usually kills in 12-15 months. 

"Why get excited over five months extra survival? The fact we saw any meaningful benefit is remarkable, given how complex these cancers are," Hurwitz said at the news conference. "And this is a first step we can build upon. ... What is remarkable is that some patients ... can stay on this kind of treatment for a long period of time. We don't yet know what is special about these people." 

Some of the patients who got Avastin developed perforations in their bowels. This was fatal in one case, although other patients got better and were able to resume treatment. The irony, Hurwitz suggests, is that in some cases this dangerous side effect may have been caused by shrinking tumors. 

"How relevant this approach is for other settings and other cancers remains to be seen," Hurwitz cautions. "These findings make us optimistic. But if it were easy, we'd already be there. It clearly is not going to be a slam dunk for all cancers in all settings." 

SU11248 for Malignant GIST 

Malignant GIST sounds awful. It is. GIST is a rare cancer called gastrointestinal stromal tumor. It's a cancer of the tissues that hold the digestive tract together. Patients get huge tumors and need multiple surgeries. 

Almost everyone with malignant GIST used to die. Then Gleevec came along. Made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the drug disables an enzyme needed by some forms of cancer. It was a godsend to GIST patients, stopping and even shrinking their tumors. 

But there's a catch. Gleevec's anti-GIST effects wear off. And then patients are right back where they started. Until now. 

A new drug code-named SU11248, invented by SUGEN Inc. and developed by Pfizer Inc., can help. For most patients -- including some who didn't get any help from Gleevec -- it stopped GIST tumors from getting any bigger. 

"Tumors were shut off in 73% of patients," George D. Demetri, MD, of Harvard's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, said at the AACR news conference. 

SU11248 has two effects -- it interrupts a chemical signal cancer cells need for growth. And it's also an angiogenesis inhibitor. 

"We now are learning how to use these mixed angiogenesis inhibitors," Folkman said. 

SOURCES: Proceedings of the AACR, 2003. AACR News Conference. Judah Folkman, MD, director of surgical research Children's Hospital, Boston; professor, Harvard Medical School. Herbert Hurwitz, MD, Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, Durham, N.C. George D. Demetri, MD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:58 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cancer treatment: How to be an active player in your treatment plan</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-122.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cancer treatment How to be an active player in your treatment plan

By MayoClinic.com

Find More 
More on Breast Cancer on MSN Health & Fitness 
 

You've just been diagnosed with cancer. Your mind is reeling. And now your doctor wants you to sort through the data and weigh in on a treatment plan.

As cancer research continues and more treatment options become available, it's true — your doctor will likely encourage you to become an active participant in the decision-making process.

But how do you decide upon a treatment plan? Explore your options and discuss them with your doctor. Working together is a good way to feel more in control of your disease and more comfortable as you move forward with your treatment.

Before you begin

Before exploring treatment options, establish some ground rules. You'll be more comfortable with any decisions you make if you:

Decide how much you want to know. While most people want to know exactly what their treatment is and their survival chances, others don't. If you don't want to know all the details, let your doctor know, and you and your doctor can devise a strategy that's appropriate for you. 
Decide how you'll want to make your treatment decisions. You might want to gather all the information you can and take the lead in the decision-making process. Or you might want to turn all decisions over to your doctor. You might also be somewhere in the middle, sharing the decision process with your doctor. 
Have realistic expectations. Your doctor can give you estimates about what you can expect to get from each type of treatment. But what you do with these estimates is up to you. Exactly what side effects you may be willing to put up with will depend on what the benefits of the treatment are likely to be. Communicate your preferences with your doctor. 
Keep the focus on you. Don't let anyone pressure you into a particular treatment option. Pick what you feel most comfortable with. 
Accept help. You'll need support throughout your journey. Support can come from your doctor, your friends and your family. If you don't feel supported in your decision making, contact groups like the American Cancer Society, which can put you in contact with cancer survivors who can help support you through this process. 
It might help to write down your expectations and preferences before you meet with your doctor. That might help you better express your hopes for and feelings about your cancer treatment.

Now, set your goals

What do you want out of treatment? A cure, stabilization or solely symptom relief? Deciding what you want out of treatment will help you narrow your treatment choices. Depending on your cancer type and stage, your goals for treatment might be:

Cure. When you're first diagnosed, it's likely you'll be interested in treatments that cure cancer. When a cure is your goal, you may be willing to endure more short-term side effects in return for the chance at a cure. 
Control. If your cancer is at a later stage or if you've tried unsuccessful treatments, you might adjust your goal to controlling your cancer. Different treatments may attempt to temporarily shrink or stop your cancer from growing. If this is your goal, you might not be willing to endure the side effects of harsher treatments. 
Comfort. If you have an advanced stage cancer or one that hasn't responded to treatments, you might decide that comfort is most important to you. You and your doctor will work together to make sure you are free of pain and other symptoms. 
Research your treatment options

To make a reasonable treatment decision, keep in mind the type of cancer you have, its stage, and what treatment options are available and how likely these treatments are to work under these circumstances. Talk to your doctor about Web sites, books and patient education materials to supplement your discussions.

The treatment you start with is known as primary therapy. Most people receive chemotherapy, radiation, surgery or a combination of the three as their primary therapy.

Surgery 
 
Surgery is used to remove a tumor, reduce the size of a tumor or control symptoms caused by a tumor. Surgery to remove a tumor is most helpful if your cancer is localized — meaning it hasn't spread to other parts of your body.

Chemotherapy 
 
 
 
Rather than targeting one area of your body, chemotherapy is a systemic therapy — the drugs you take travel throughout your body, targeting and killing rapidly growing cells.

Radiation 
 
 
 
Radiation most commonly treats one part of your body. It kills cancer cells by directing powerful X-rays at a tumor. Your doctor might recommend radiation to shrink a tumor or to prevent cancer from coming back once it's been surgically removed.

Other treatments

Although surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are the most common primary treatments, other types of treatment may apply to your situation. Hormone therapy is often used in cancers that are sensitive to hormone treatment, such as breast and prostate cancers. Some treatments are experimental and are only available through clinical trials — studies used to help researchers understand the safety and efficacy of new treatments.

Combining therapies 
 
Cancer treatments are sometimes used in conjunction with each other. For example, it's common to pair surgery or radiation with chemotherapy. Combining treatments can:

Help you prepare for primary treatment. Your doctor might recommend a treatment called neoadjuvant therapy to prepare you for your primary therapy. For example, your doctor might use chemotherapy or radiation to shrink a tumor to a more manageable size before surgery. 
Help ensure cancer hasn't spread. Adjuvant therapy is a treatment that comes after your primary treatment. It helps kill cancer cells that may have been left behind after your primary treatment — including undetectable cells that may have traveled elsewhere in your body. 
Help fight cancer side effects. Treatment that isn't used to cure cancer but to instead improve your quality of life is called palliative treatment. For example, surgery might be used to reduce the size of a tumor that's causing you symptoms, such as pain or trouble breathing. Or radiation can be used to treat the pain of cancer that has spread to the bone. 
Analyze the benefits versus the risks

Compare the benefits and risks of the different cancer treatments to decide which treatments fall within your goals. Rate the treatments you're considering based on the pros and cons of each. Some aspects you'll want to consider for each treatment include:

Side effects. Each treatment has its own set of side effects. Take time to review the side effects and decide whether they'll be worth enduring or too much to handle. Your doctor can give you a good idea of how common the various side effects are for each treatment. He or she can also explain options for managing side effects to make treatment more tolerable. 
How treatment affects your life. Will treatment mean a day off of work or several weeks off? How will your role in your family change? Will you need to travel far from home for your treatment? Look at how treatment will affect your everyday life. 
The financial costs of treatment. Investigate what types of treatment will be covered by your insurance provider. If a treatment or aspect of a treatment isn't covered, can you afford it? Call your insurance company if you're unsure. 
Your health in general. If you have other health conditions, ask your doctor how treatment will affect those conditions. For example, corticosteroids are commonly used in people with cancer. This could complicate diabetes treatment and affect your risk of cataracts, hypertension and osteoporosis. 
Your personal values and goals will make a difference in what treatments are best for you. Only you can decide what type of treatment will fit best in your life. But don't feel as though you have to make a choice and stick with it — it's very possible that you may change your mind during treatment, and that's fine.

Communicate with your doctor

Effective communication with your doctor is the best way to make sure you're getting the information you need to make an informed decision. To make communicating with your doctor easier, try to:

Speak up when you don't understand. If you need further explanation or clarification, tell your doctor. If you don't speak up, your doctor may think you understand. 
Write your questions in advance. Appointments can be stressful and emotional. Don't expect yourself to remember all the questions you want to ask. 
Record your conversations. Whether you take detailed notes or bring a tape recorder, try to keep track of what your doctor tells you. This record will be a good reference if you have questions later. 
Bring someone with you. If you feel comfortable sharing your medical information with a friend or family member, bring along someone to take notes with you. Then you'll have another person you can talk through your treatment decisions with. 
Don't expect you and your doctor to fully understand each other after one meeting — it may take a few conversations before you both feel as though you're on the same page.

Other things to keep in mind

As you're making your treatment decisions with your doctor, keep these points in mind:

Take your time. Although a cancer diagnosis might make you feel you have to make immediate decisions to begin therapy, in most situations you have time to make choices. Ask your doctor how much time you have to decide so that you can weigh all aspects that go into such an important decision. 
You can always change your mind. Making a treatment decision now doesn't bind you to that option. Continue communicating with your doctor and tell him or her if you're having second thoughts. Significant side effects may make you want to change your treatment plan. 
You can seek a second opinion. Don't be afraid of offending your doctor if you wish to seek a second opinion. Most doctors understand the need for a second opinion when facing a major decision. Your doctor might even recommend a second opinion to help you gather more information to put your mind at ease. 
You don't have to be involved with treatment decisions. A cancer diagnosis can be overwhelming, and sorting through treatment information at a time like this may prove too much for you. If you would prefer, tell your doctor you'd rather not be involved in the decision-making process. You can always get involved later, when you feel more comfortable with the situation. 
You don't have to have treatment. Some people choose not to have treatment at all. People with very advanced cancers sometimes find they'd rather treat the pain and other side effects of their cancer so that they can make the best of the time they have remaining. If you choose not to be treated, you can always change your mind. Forgoing treatment doesn't mean you'll be left on your own — many ways of controlling side effects exist. 
Making your decision

Which treatment is best for you? There's no 100 percent right or wrong answer. But being involved with your treatment plan may give you greater peace of mind and can let you focus your energy on what you need to do most — keep yourself healthy throughout your treatment.

content by:

Last Updated: 12/03/2004
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 02:59 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cardiac Toxicity Rates High With Herceptin Use Study Finds</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-123.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cardiac Toxicity Rates High With Herceptin Use Study Finds

Main Category: Breast Cancer News

Article Date: 16 Aug 2006 - 7:00am (PDT)

| email this article | printer friendly | view opinions |

Article Also Appears In

Cardiovascular / Cardiology


The first study to look at "real world" use of Herceptin in advanced breast cancer patients found a higher incidence of cardiac toxicity - 28 percent of patients treated - than clinical trials of the drug have reported to date, but also concluded that the majority of this heart damage could be reversed with treatment. 

The study, published online August 14 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, concludes that use of Herceptin in patients with metastatic breast cancer "is an acceptable risk," says the study's lead author, Francisco J. Esteva, M.D., Ph.D., an associate professor in the Department of Breast Medical Oncology at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Herceptin, also known as trastuzumab, was approved for use in 1998 for women whose advanced breast cancer is HER2-positive. Approximately 30 percent of metastatic breast cancer cells produce an excess amount of the HER2 growth protein on their surface, which makes the cancer more aggressive. Herceptin is a monoclonal antibody that latches on to these proteins and inhibits tumor growth. 

Other clinical trials testing Herceptin in combination with chemotherapy have found that between 10-26 percent of patients experienced cardiac toxicity, depending on the treatment protocol. That led to an FDA warning in 2003 that Herceptin use can result in congestive heart failure, leading to inability to pump enough blood throughout the body, or dysfunction in the heart's ventricle chamber, which pumps blood out of the heart.

According to Esteva, before this study, no one had looked at what happened to patients treated in a clinic, outside of an organized trial, after they used Herceptin for at least a year. "We often give it for several years if patients are responding to the treatment, so we set out to quantify the risks," he says. 

The study followed 173 patients with metastatic breast cancer treated at M. D. Anderson. Patients were enrolled in the study after one year of Herceptin use, and were given a "baseline" cardiac assessment along with regular cardiac check-ups during the study. After a median follow-up period of more than 32 months, the research team found that 49 patients (28 percent) experienced a "cardiac event." Of these, 46 patients experienced cardiac toxicity potentially associated with heart failure, and three patients experienced an asymptomatic, but significant, decrease in ventricle function. The majority of these patients (31) experienced cardiac toxicity while being treated with Herceptin alone (after prior Herceptin and chemotherapy), and the other 18 were being treated with a combination of Herceptin and chemotherapy. There was one cardiac-related death.

All but three patients improved cardiac function by discontinuing Herceptin and using such cardiac treatments as beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors. After repairing the damage, patients could then resume Herceptin treatment, Esteva says. 

"The drug substantially prolongs survival, and while we found substantial cardiac toxicity, we also discovered that this side effect can be successfully treated, which was not clearly known before this study," says Esteva. "If the cardiac side effects of Herceptin treatment can be managed, the drug is safe to use."

The researchers do not know why treatment with Herceptin and/or chemotherapy can cause cardiac toxicity, but Esteva notes that some animal studies have shown that HER2 proteins play an important role in the development of cardiac cells, so the treatment may affect their normal functioning. They also cannot say whether all the toxicity seen in this study is a product of Herceptin use, given that many of the patients had prior treatment with certain chemotherapy drugs known to affect the heart, and some had other illnesses, such as diabetes, that can affect cardiac function.

Esteva stressed that advanced breast cancer patients should receive a "baseline" cardiac assessment before the drug is used, and then follow-up care by a cardiologist. He pointed out that these results do not apply to use of the drug in patients with early-stage disease. "Cardiac toxicity may represent a major concern for such patients," he says, and they were not included in this study.

"This is an accurate representation of clinical practice in that patients have other important comorbidities placing them at risk for cardiotoxicity," Esteva says. "It shows the need for good cardiac care for advanced breast cancer patients." 

### 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 03:00 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Chemo for leukemia doesn't harm brain development </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-124.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Chemo for leukemia doesn't harm brain development 
Wed Aug 30, 12:51 PM ET 

Unlike cranial radiation, chemotherapy for children with a certain type of leukemia does not appear to have harmful long-term effects on intelligence, even at high doses, a new study shows.

Radiation to the brain had long been the standard treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). While this approach is effective it can damage the brain, with particularly harmful effects in young children, Dr. Brenda J. Spiegler of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and colleagues write in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Treatment targeting the central nervous system (that is, the brain and spinal cord) is essential for ALL patients, they add, and therapies other than radiation, such as intravenous methotrexate, are increasingly being used. But the effects of these therapies on neurocognitive development are not clear, Spiegler and her colleagues note.

To investigate, the researchers tested 79 patients diagnosed with ALL between the ages of one and five years for intelligence, academic achievement, attention and memory at an average of 10 years after their diagnosis. All had received the same basic chemotherapy regimen, while 25 also had cranial radiation therapy, 32 were treated with high-dose methotrexate in addition to standard chemo, and 22 received very high dose methotrexate.

Spiegler and her team found no difference in intelligence and memory scores between the two methotrexate groups. These patients scored close to the population average on 17 out of 18 measures of cognitive function. However, children who had received radiation to the brain scored worse than the chemo patients on most measures, and significantly lower than the population average.

The degree of decrease in the scores of the radiation group was important, the researchers report, "because children with generalized deficits of this order often require special accommodations to their academic programming."

Conversely, they conclude, treatment with methotrexate, even at very high doses, appears to be "relatively benign" in its effects on neurocognitive development and intelligence.

SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 20, 2006. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>13 Oct 2006 - 03:01 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Court pact says Va teen can forgo chemo </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-125.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Court pact says Va. teen can forgo chemo 
By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press WriterWed Aug 16, 11:17 PM ET 

A 16-year-old cancer patient's legal fight ended in victory Wednesday when his family's attorneys and social services officials reached an agreement that would allow him to forgo chemotherapy.

At the start of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, Accomack County Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that both sides had reached a consent decree, which Tyler approved.

Under the decree, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatments. The family must provide the court updates on Abraham's treatment and condition every three months until he is cured or turns 18.

"It's all over. It's everything we fought for, everything we wanted to ever have, we've won. We got our freedom back," Abraham said outside the courthouse after the hearing.

Tyler emphasized that the decree states that the parents weren't medically neglectful.

Abraham said that he saw the doctor last week, and the doctor assured him that his cancer is curable. The teen said he will continue following an alternative herbal treatment called the Hoxsey method, as well as his doctor's treatment plan. The regimen won't include chemotherapy, but radiation is a possibility, he said.

After the short hearing, the judge looked at Abraham and said, "God bless you, Mr. Cherrix."

Last summer, the teen was found to have Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system considered very treatable in its early stages. He was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round that doctors recommended early this year.

He since has been using the Hoxsey method, the sale of which was banned in the United States in 1960.

After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic, a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to intervene to protect the teen's health. Last month, the judge found Abraham's parents neglectful and ordered Abraham to report to a hospital for treatment as doctors deem necessary.

Lawyers for the family appealed, and an Accomack County Circuit Court judge suspended that order and scheduled a new trial to settle the dispute. The judge scheduled the trial for two days but has indicated he would like to finish in one, said John Stepanovich, a lawyer for the parents.

Carl H. Bundick, attorney for the Accomack County Department of Social Services, told the judge the department considers the agreement to be in Abraham's best interest.

Abraham is still on the Hoxsey method, but Stepanovich stressed that the family hasn't ruled out other possible treatments, such as immunotherapy or radiation treatment in small doses.

According to the American Cancer Society, there is no scientific evidence that Hoxsey is effective in treating cancer in people. The herbal treatment is illegal in the United States but can be obtained through clinics in Mexico, and some U.S. naturopathic practitioners use adapted versions of the formula.

___

On the Net:

Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com

American Cancer Society information about Hoxsey method: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hoxsey_Herbal_Treatment.a
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:23 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Chemotherapy with a C</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-126.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Chemotherapy, with a C

 
  
            
Chemotherapy, with a C 


Is the popular vitamin a possible cure for cancer? 

By Marie McCullough 
MCT NEWS SERVICE 

August 10, 2006 

SCOTT LINNETT  
and CRISTINA MARTINEZ BYVIK  
/ Union-Tribune photo illustration


Is mainstream medical science ignoring an inexpensive, painless, readily available cure for cancer? 

Mark Levine mulls this loaded question. 

The government nutrition researcher has published new evidence that suggests vitamin C can work like chemotherapy – only better. But so far, he hasn't been able to interest cancer experts in conducting the kind of conclusive studies that, one way or the other, would advance treatment. 

“If vitamin C is useful in cancer treatment, that's wonderful. If it's not, or if it's harmful, that's fine, too,” said Levine, a Harvard-educated physician at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “The goal is: Find what's true. Either way, the public wins, clinicians win and patients win.” 

If Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel laureate-turned-vitamin C zealot, had taken an equally dispassionate stance 30 years ago, who knows where the vitamin would be in oncology today. Surely not where it is: a dubious alternative on the fringes of medicine, despite its continuing links to remissions and cures. 

This is not about popping supplements. It's about putting high-dose vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, into a vein, which requires needles and trained professionals. 

The distinction between oral and intravenous is crucial. The body automatically gets rid of extra C through urine. Levine's lab has shown that, at high concentrations, the vitamin is toxic to many types of cancer cells in lab dishes. But to get that much C into the body before it's eliminated, it must be put directly into the blood. 

This may explain the defining setback of Pauling's crusade. He and his collaborator, Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron, gave C intravenously and orally, and claimed many of their cancer patients lived surprisingly long and well. In the 1970s, two rigorous government studies intended to test their claims gave only pills – and found no benefits. 

How could so many smart people, including Pauling, ignore a variable as basic as the body's ability to absorb and clear a drug? 

“I don't want to impugn anyone,” Levine said. “It's one of these things where somebody didn't ask the right questions.” 

Anecdotes don't matter 

So Levine keeps on, driven by the still-open question: 

Can intravenous vitamin C do what even the costliest, most targeted, most effective therapies cannot: kill cancer cells without harming healthy ones? 

Levine, in collaboration with National Cancer Institute pathologists, re-examined, then published the cases of three patients treated with intravenous vitamin C by the Center for Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kan. The center was founded by Hugh Riordan, a now deceased physician and friend of Pauling's. While such “case reports” prove nothing, Levine hoped they would stir interest in re-examining ascorbate in oncology. 

Advertisement

The problem is, anecdotes and impressions don't count. Skeptics ask: Where's the data on dosing and regimens, on tumor responses, on survival? 

“As far as I know, that kind of registry just doesn't exist now, and it's a huge weakness of the movement,” acknowledged Ron Hunninghake, chief medical officer at Riordan's center, which is starting a database. 

In any case, as consumers clamor for alternative therapies, intravenous C is gaining fans. Reports of side effects are rare, and risky patients – with kidney problems or blood disorders – are easily screened out. 

“Interest is definitely growing,” said Kenneth Bock, physician and president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, an alternative-medicine society that teaches ascorbate infusion protocols. 

Interest is not growing, however, among mainstream oncologists, judging from conferences, publications and interviews with some of them. 

The National Cancer Institute, with a $5-billion budget, is not sponsoring studies of intravenous C. Neither is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – although it is paying for cancer studies of the Noni extract herbal supplement and Reiki energy healing. The American Cancer Society and the American Association of Clinical Oncologists warn patients against high-dose C, as do leading cancer centers such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York. 

The old man and C 

Jeffrey White, a director at the National Cancer Institute, said that he's tried to “generate awareness” of Levine's research, and believes it justifies more studies in humans. But White acknowledged that the NCI has rejected “a few” proposals for such studies. 

At the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., oncologist Edward Creagan said the idea that intravenous, but not oral, levels are toxic to cancer is “an intriguing concept.” 

“However, my own belief is that the vitamin C story is really ancient history,” he said. “It would be very difficult for patients and clinicians to mount a lot of enthusiasm for another vitamin-C study.” 

It was Creagan and his Mayo colleague, Charles Moertel, since deceased, who in the 1970s conducted the two National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials that showed vitamin C pills were no better than placebo pills for cancer patients. 

A clinical trial is considered ultra-reliable because it is designed to keep beliefs and hopes from slanting findings. 

Pauling lobbied for a trial, then later contended that the Mayo researchers enrolled unsuitable patients. A second trial in response to Pauling's criticism also bombed. Again he faulted the Mayo oncologists. He also threatened a libel suit against a Rochester newspaper for the headline “Pauling Wrong on Vitamin C for Cancer,” and accused the New England Journal of Medicine and the NCI of accepting a “fraudulent” study, according to Australian medical historian Evelleen Richards. 

By then, Pauling advocated treating everything from the common cold to mental illness with vitamins and other substances he dubbed “orthomolecular,” meaning “right molecule.” To many colleagues, this genius and visionary, winner of the 1954 Nobel in chemistry and the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize for his antiwar work, had become a kook – “The Old Man and the C.” 

Decades later, both skeptics and fans of C are gun-shy about more trials. 

“There's tremendous resistance to even test this,” Levine said. “It's very hard to revisit something like this without data. Information is diamonds.” 

C acts in a lab dish 

As the chief of the molecular and clinical nutrition section at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – hardly a hotbed of federal cancer research – Levine discovered some diamonds “by accident.” 

In the early 1990s, his lab began looking at how the concentration of a nutrient affects its function, and how the body gets the proper concentration. 

“As part of those studies, we looked at how vitamin C is absorbed in the intestine,” Levine said. 

By 2000, when that work led to an increase in the U.S. recommended daily allowance of vitamin C, Levine had become an expert on ascorbate's “pharmacokinetics” – what the body does to the drug. 

Consumers and scientists already knew that ascorbate was an “antioxidant,” meaning it protects cells from reactive oxygen molecules – the same marauders that turn peeled apples brown and wet metal rusty. 

Indeed, the reason the American Cancer Society and others discourage ascorbate megadoses is that a few studies of cells in dishes suggest C might protect cancer from oxidant damage. Chemotherapy and radiation work partly by intentionally unleashing this damage. 

But Levine's lab-dish studies showed that ascorbate transforms from an antioxidant into just the opposite – an oxidant “promoter” – when it reaches high concentrations. At these levels, which are achievable in the body only intravenously, C acts like a toxic drug by generating hydrogen peroxide, a powerful oxidant used as a bleaching agent, an antiseptic and even a World War II rocket fuel. 

Still, the biochemistry was puzzling. Putting pure peroxide in the bloodstream can be fatal, so why did patients feel fine when the vitamin that produces it was dripped into their veins? 

Levine's experiments offered possible answers. Vitamin C did not generate peroxide in blood, only in liquid such as that found in body cavities. Thus, in the body, intravenous C must seep out of the blood to work. 

Five out of nine types of cancer cells that were put in simulated body-cavity fluid died when concentrated ascorbate or peroxide was added to the dish. And the best part: This same lethal marinade had no effect on healthy cells. 

For some reason, cancer cells were like the Wicked Witch of the West splashed with water – powerful villains vanquished by a mundane substance that is harmless to good guys. 

Previously, Riordan had speculated that this was partly because an enzyme that neutralizes peroxide is abundant inside normal cells, and scarce inside cancerous ones. But by inducing cells to take in C, Levine proved that the internal concentration doesn't matter; malignant cells withered only when C surrounded them. 

Armed with this new evidence, a coterie of researchers – all associated with Pauling or his disciples – has recently obtained private funding for small trials of intravenous C. 

University of Kansas Medical Center physician Jeanne Drisko has $375,000 for a trial of 30 ovarian cancer patients. In Montreal, McGill University oncologist Wilson Miller has $300,000 to find the maximum safe doses for treating various cancers. 

Meanwhile, Levine is forging ahead with animal studies, trying to decipher the molecular magic of C's selective toxicity. 

Does that mean he believes C is an unsung cancer weapon? 

“I think that question is akin to 'Do you still beat your wife?' ” he said. “The question I would ask is: Shouldn't we investigate the potential of ascorbate as a drug? Let's not guess anymore. Let's be motivated by the truth.” 
 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:23 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Childhood Cancer </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-127.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Childhood Cancer 
KidsHealth.orgThu Aug 10, 8:00 PM ET 

Every cell in our bodies is tightly regulated with respect to growth, interaction with other cells, and even its life span. Cancer occurs when a type of cell has lost these normal control mechanisms and grows in a way that the body can no longer regulate. Different kinds of cancer have different signs, symptoms, treatments, and outcomes, depending on the type of cell involved and the degree of uncontrolled cell growth.

What Is Cancer? 
All kinds of cancer, including childhood cancer, have a common disease process - cells grow out of control, develop abnormal sizes and shapes, ignore their typical boundaries inside the body, destroy their neighbor cells, and can ultimately spread (or metastasize) to other organs and tissues. As cancer cells grow, they demand more and more of the body's nutrition. Cancer takes a child's strength, destroys organs and bones, and weakens a child's defenses against other illnesses.

Thankfully, childhood cancer is relatively rare, affecting only about 14 of every 100,000 children in the United States each year. Among all age groups, the most common childhood cancers are leukemia, lymphoma, and brain cancer. As children enter their teen years, there is also an increase in the incidence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer). The sites of cancer are different for each type, as are treatment and cure rates.

Typically, the factors that trigger cancer in children are usually not the same factors that may cause cancer in adults, such as smoking or exposure to environmental toxins. Rarely, there may be an increased risk of childhood cancer in children who have a genetic condition, such as Down syndrome. Children who have had chemotherapy or radiation treatment for a prior cancer episode may also have an increased risk of cancer. In almost all cases, however, childhood cancers arise from noninherited mutations (or changes) in the genes of growing cells. Because these errors occur randomly and unpredictably, there is currently no effective way to prevent them.

Sometimes, your child's doctor may be able to spot early symptoms of cancer at regular checkups. However, some of these symptoms (such as fever, swollen glands, frequent infections, anemia, or bruises) are also associated with other infections or conditions that are not cancer. Because of this, it is not uncommon for both doctors and parents to suspect other childhood illnesses when cancer symptoms first appear.

Once cancer has been diagnosed, it is important for parents to seek help for their child at a medical center that specializes in pediatric oncology, or treatment for childhood cancer.

Cancer Treatment 
The treatment of cancer in children can include chemotherapy (the use of medical drugs to kill cancer cells), radiation (the use of radiant energy to kill cancer cells), and surgery (to remove cancerous cells or tumors). The type of treatment needed depends on the type and severity of cancer and the child's age.

Surgery 
For children with leukemia or lymphoma, surgery generally plays a minor role. This is because leukemia and lymphoma involve the circulatory system and lymphatics, two systems that are located all throughout the body, making it difficult to treat by operating on one specific area. In children with osteosarcoma and other solid tumors that haven't spread to other parts of the body, however, surgery can often effectively remove cancer when used in combination with chemotherapy and/or radiation.

Children with certain types of cancer may receive bone marrow transplants. Bone marrow is a spongy tissue inside certain bones of the body that produces blood cells. If a child has a type of cancer that affects the function of blood cells, a bone marrow transplant (in conjunction with chemotherapy to kill the defective cells) may allow new, healthy cells to grow. Bone marrow transplant is also sometimes used to treat cancer that does not involve blood cells because it allows doctors to use higher doses of chemotherapy than would otherwise be tolerated.

Chemotherapy 
Chemotherapy is medication which is used as a complementary tool to eliminate remaining cancer cells in the body. A child or teen with cancer is usually given the chemotherapy drugs intravenously (through a vein) or orally (by mouth). The drugs enter the bloodstream and work to kill cancer in parts of the body to which the cancer has spread.

The duration of chemotherapy treatment and type of drugs that are used depend on the type of cancer the child has and his or her response to the drugs. Every child's treatment differs, so a child may receive daily, weekly, or monthly chemotherapy treatments. The child's doctor may also recommend cycles of treatment, which allow the child's body to rest between periods of chemotherapy treatment. 

Many of the medications used in chemotherapy also carry the risk of both short-term and long-term problems. Short-term side effects include nausea, vomiting, hair loss, fatigue, anemia, abnormal bleeding, and increased risk of infection due to destruction of the bone marrow, as well as kidney damage and menstrual irregularities. Some drugs carry a risk of bladder inflammation and bleeding into the urine, hearing loss, and liver damage. Others may cause heart and skin problems.

Your doctor will use precautions as well as other medications to counteract as many of the side effects as possible.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:24 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Childhood cancer survival linked to suicidality </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-128.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Childhood cancer survival linked to suicidality 
Mon Aug 28, 3:28 PM ET 

A "significant proportion" of survivors of childhood cancers have suicidal thoughts or have actually attempted suicide many years after treatment, a survey shows. Cancer survivors with pain and physical changes are particularly vulnerable.

The survey of 226 adult survivors of childhood found that 29 -- nearly 13 percent -- reported "suicidality." Nineteen reported suicidal thoughts alone; one had attempted suicide in the past but wasn't currently having suicidal thoughts; and nine reported both current suicidal ideation and past attempts.

"Although the vast majority of survivors reported no suicidality, the significant minority of survivors with thoughts of ending their lives is a serious concern," write Dr. Christopher J. Recklitis from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Boston-based colleagues in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Previous studies have shown a temporary rise in suicidal thoughts among cancer patients in the months after receiving a diagnosis of cancer. The new survey is the first to show a significant level of suicidal thoughts many years or even decades after treatment for childhood cancers, the investigators say.

The men and women surveyed were an average of 28 years old and had survived a range of childhood cancers including lymphomas, leukemias, sarcomas, and Wilms' tumor, but not brain tumors, and were interviewed an average of 18 years after their initial diagnosis.

Identified risk factors for suicidal symptoms in cancer survivors included pain, poor physical function and changes in appearance.

"The association with physical health and pain is important," write the authors, "because these represent potentially treatable conditions for which survivors may seek follow up care."

Also, only 11 of the 29 with suicidal thoughts and behaviors were significantly depressed by standard measures, suggesting that doctors need to do more than just ask cancer survivors about depression to identify those who may be suicidal.

SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Oncology, August 20, 2006. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:25 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Communication With Doctors Affects Blacks Cancer Care </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-129.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Communication With Doctors Affects Blacks' Cancer Care 
Mon Aug 14, 11:45 PM ET 

MONDAY, Aug. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Black American cancer patients are less likely to question their doctors, they receive less medical information, and they aren't as actively involved in their medical care compared to white patients. 

All this can lead to less-informed medical decisions, which can have a negative impact on medical care for black cancer patients and may account for racial differences in outcomes among cancer patients, says a study in the Sept. 15 issue of the journal Cancer.

Researchers reviewed, transcribed, and analyzed audiotapes from 137 doctor-patient consultations. The patients had lung cancer or suspicious lung lesions. The research team was led by Dr. Howard S. Gordon of the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

The researchers found that the degree of patient engagement with the doctor had an effect on the amount of information provided by the doctor. The study concluded that race did not have an effect, even though black patients received less information.

There were no differences in the amount of information when the information was initiated by the doctor. However, there were differences in the amount of information provided by doctors when prompted by the patient. Blacks were less likely than whites to ask questions or raise concerns and also less likely to bring a friend or family member to the appointment.

However, the study found that any disparity in doctor-provided information vanished when doctors and patients were of the same race.

"While not directly negating the possibility that racial disparities in care are due to doctor bias or patient preferences, (these findings) suggest that disparities in medical care are related in part to the communicative dynamics of the encounter, particularly the degree to which patients are actively involved," the study authors wrote.

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians has more about cancer treatment.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:26 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Complementary and alternative treatments for cancer Some help you others hurt you</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-130.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Complementary and alternative treatments for cancer: Some help you, others hurt you

By MayoClinic.com

Find More 
More on Breast Cancer on MSN Health & Fitness 
 

Shark cartilage, mistletoe and megadoses of vitamin C may seem unrelated. But if you have cancer, you might have heard of these treatments through magazine articles, Web sites, or friends and family members. These are just a few of the many types of cancer therapy that fall in the realm of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Although the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, alternative approaches are not the same as complementary approaches. Complementary approaches are those used alongside of and in conjunction with your prescribed cancer treatments, while alternative treatments are used in place of traditional or conventional treatments.

It's not unusual for you to want to know more about CAM, especially if your recommended therapy is particularly difficult to endure or doesn't promise your desired results. The longer you have cancer, the more likely you are to start searching for other options. About one third of people with cancer have tried one or more CAM options, which can include everything from herbs and vitamins to acupuncture and hypnosis. 

Keep in mind as you research CAM that some therapies may improve your quality of life and others, even if used correctly, can harm you. Approach CAM therapy with an open, yet cautious mind-set. Gather as much information as you can and discuss with your doctor any treatments you're considering. 

Cure or comfort?

Most people with cancer who use CAM don't expect the treatments to cure their cancer. They may use complementary and alternative medicine to treat the pain associated with their cancer and control the side effects of medication, such as chemotherapy.

You'll probably find advertisements that claim a particular CAM product or therapy will cure your cancer. Don't believe it. CAM doesn't cure cancer. If it did, everyone would be using it. Even so, some people with cancer forgo their conventional treatment and spend thousands of dollars trying questionable or ineffective therapy. 

Giving up on conventional medication that has been proven to help people with cancer can be risky and even deadly. Avoid alternative therapists who pressure you to give up the treatment your doctor recommends. Your doctor can discuss with you the pros and cons of conventional therapy as well as which CAM therapies are safe to try for your particular situation.

Therapies marketed as cancer treatment

Numerous CAM therapies are marketed specifically to individuals with cancer. Get as much information as you can before trying any of them, and discuss those you're interested in with your doctor.

The following products and therapies are often associated with cancer treatment:

Nutrition and herbs 
 
 
 
Nutritional therapy and herbal therapy are often touted as "natural," which might sound appealing. But "natural" doesn't always means safe. Talk to your doctor about how these options might complement or interfere with your current cancer treatment.

Antioxidant supplements. Antioxidants occur naturally in many foods, including fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and some meat. Some studies have reported that antioxidants may slow cancer growth in the test tube, but no proof exists that this occurs in humans. Doctors aren't sure if supplements — sometimes with antioxidant levels thousands of times higher than those found in food — are as safe as food sources of antioxidants. These supplements might interfere with your cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, and could be dangerous. One study showed that smokers who used antioxidant supplements had a higher risk of lung cancer than those who didn't use the supplements. 
Essiac. Essiac is an herbal tea mixture that has been touted to relieve pain and reduce the size of tumors. The original formula contained four herbs: burdock root, Indian rhubarb root, sheep sorrel and slippery elm. Some newer products and knockoffs have other herbs added as well. Though some early tests have shown that chemicals in the herbs used in Essiac have some antioxidant, anti-inflammatory or anti-cancer activity, Essiac hasn't been proven to have any effect on cancer. 
Laetrile (amygdalin). Taken orally or as an injection, laetrile is a purified form of amygdalin, a chemical found in lima beans, raw nuts and the pits of many fruits. Amygdalin produces cyanide, which proponents claim kills cancer. But laetrile hasn't been proven to work and has even caused death. 
Macrobiotic diet. Though the macrobiotic philosophy incorporates diet, exercise, stress reduction and avoidance of pesticides, the diet part is the most commonly followed. The macrobiotic diet is strictly vegetarian and requires you to consume about half of your daily calories from whole grains, about a quarter of your calories from vegetables, and the rest of your calories from beans, seaweed and soups. The macrobiotic diet is marketed for both prevention and treatment of cancer, though no proof exists that it does either. Eating plenty of vegetables can reduce your risk of cancer, but how much you should eat or which vegetables you should choose is unknown. 
Megavitamin treatments. Megavitamin treatments usually combine high doses of vitamins A, C and E — sometimes requiring you to take hundreds of pills a day. All of these vitamins are an important part of a balanced diet for anyone. But if you already eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, you probably get enough of these vitamins without taking supplements. Too much vitamin A, C or E can even be dangerous and can interfere with your cancer treatment. 
Mistletoe. Mistletoe injections are given two to three times a week. They're used mostly in Europe and aren't available in the United States. Mistletoe extracts have been shown to kill some cancer cells in laboratory and animal experiments, but no studies have reported any evidence of activity against cancer in humans. 
Detoxifying treatments 
 
Proponents claim that detoxification treatments clear your body of harmful substances. They also claim that detoxification treatments stimulate your immune system to attack the cancer in your body. But detoxification therapy can be invasive and dangerous.

Most people with cancer have a functioning immune system, so the need to further stimulate it is unnecessary. And because cancer cells seem to hide from normal immune systems, stimulating your immune system won't help your body fight off your cancer. Also, no evidence exists to support the theory that removing "harmful substances" affects cancer.

Colon therapy. Colon therapy removes waste from your colon through a process that proponents believe will improve your natural healing abilities. During a high colonic, a plastic tube is inserted through your rectum and into your colon. Up to 20 gallons of liquid — usually water, herbal solutions or coffee — is pumped into your large intestine. This is repeated several times. No evidence exists to support the use of colon therapy, and treatment can cause infection and mineral and electrolyte imbalances that can be dangerous. 
Gerson therapy. The Gerson therapy uses minerals, enzymes and hormones to detoxify and cleanse your body. The therapy requires that you consume 13 glasses of organic fruit and vegetable juice every day. You must also follow a vegetarian diet and have coffee or chamomile enemas. No conclusive proof of the Gerson therapy's effect on cancer is available. 
Gonzalez treatment. The Gonzalez treatment incorporates special diets, supplements, pancreatic enzymes and coffee enemas to treat cancer. Together, all of these treatments are supposed to cleanse your body and stimulate your immune system. Proponents believe that the main anti-cancer component in this regimen is pig pancreas enzymes. The Gonzalez treatment is highly controversial but showed some promise in a small study. It's currently being investigated in a larger study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. 
Chemical and animal-based treatments 
 
These treatments are based on chemicals or components that come from humans or animals.

714-X. This treatment is a solution of camphor, nitrogen, ammonium salts and ethanol. It's purported to stabilize your immune system so your body regains its ability to fight your cancer. It can be injected or inhaled. No scientific proof exists of 714-X's effectiveness, and it isn't available in the United States. 
Antineoplastons. Proponents claim that antineoplaston therapy causes tumor cells to die by stopping some of the processes involved in their growth. Antineoplastons are isolated from horse urine and are taken orally or by injection. Trials of antineoplaston therapy haven't shown any anti-cancer activity. Several more clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy are currently underway. 
Cancell (Entelev, Cantron, Jim's Juice, Crocinic Acid). Cancell is a dark brown liquid that is taken orally or rectally, or applied to your wrist or foot. Its manufacturers say it changes cancer cells so that your body recognizes them as foreign and eventually destroys them. Cancell contains 12 compounds, including inositol, nitric acid, sodium sulfite, potassium hydroxide, sulfuric acid and catechol. No proof exists that the compounds cure cancer. Cancell has never been scientifically tested on people. 
Coenzyme Q10. Your body naturally produces coenzymes to help stimulate chemical reactions in your body. Q10 refers to the particular chemical makeup of this coenzyme. Proponents of coenzyme Q10 believe that people with cancer and other conditions have lower levels of coenzyme Q10, though no evidence of this exists. When you take coenzyme Q10, either as an injection or a pill, it may act as an antioxidant and stimulate your immune system. No definitive studies have shown that coenzyme Q10 has any effect on cancer. 
Shark cartilage. Proponents believe that shark cartilage stops a tumor's growth by preventing it from growing new blood vessels (angiogenesis). The rationale behind this theory is the belief that sharks don't get cancer, although that has since been proven false. Some anti-tumor substances have been found in cartilage, though, and shark cartilage has been used in clinical trials. The Food and Drug Administration found no conclusive evidence that shark cartilage works and recommends against using shark cartilage as a cancer treatment. Clinical trials using substances isolated from shark cartilage are currently underway. 
Therapy to treat side effects of medication 
 
Some cancer treatments can cause pain, nausea and weakness. Your doctor might recommend conventional medications or CAM therapies, such as acupuncture or massage. These types of therapy aren't specific to cancer and can treat pain and side effects of many other conditions, as well.

In general, these treatments aren't invasive, making them safer than other CAM treatments. Still, talk to your doctor about these types of therapy before using them.

Acupuncture. In this treatment, tiny needles are inserted into your skin to stimulate your body's natural energy or Qi (pronounced "chee"). By restoring the natural flow of Qi, acupuncture is supposed to help your body heal itself. Acupuncture has been effective in treating pain and nausea in some people with cancer. 
Aromatherapy. Proponents believe that fragrant oils from plants can affect your mood. About 40 oils are commonly used in aromatherapy. They can be smelled at home or at a spa, or applied as oil during a massage. Though little proof of its benefit exists, aromatherapy is said to help pain, depression and stress and promote a general sense of well-being. 
Hypnotherapy. This relaxation method effectively relieves some chronic pain, and it may also reduce nausea and vomiting in people with cancer. Although you may look like you're asleep during hypnosis, you actually go into a state of deep concentration. While you're under hypnosis, your practitioner may suggest you focus on goals, such as controlling your pain and reducing your stress. 
Massage therapy. During a massage, your practitioner kneads your skin, muscles and tendons in an effort to relieve muscle tension and stress and promote relaxation. Several massage methods exist, and the length and force of your massage will vary depending on which method you choose. If you're currently receiving conventional chemotherapy, check with your doctor before undergoing certain types of massage. If you have a low platelet count because of chemotherapy, deep massage can cause bleeding or bruising. Certain types of massage and spinal manipulation can also be unsafe if the bones in your back or neck have been weakened by cancer. 
Therapeutic touch. Touch therapy practitioners claim to use their hands to transmit "energy forces" that can heal the energy force that runs through you. By moving their hands back and forth across your body, they claim to be able to locate and remove your energy force disturbances. Practitioners believe this reduces pain and encourages relaxation. 
Many other types of CAM are promoted for pain relief. They include homeopathy, reflexology, relaxation, spirituality, and art and music therapy.

Talk to your doctor

Discuss any CAM therapy you might be interested in with your doctor. Some therapies might interfere with your conventional treatment, such as preventing your current medication from helping you.

Though you might be hesitant to discuss unconventional treatments with your doctor, keep in mind that it's natural to be curious about other therapies. Your doctor will understand and might also be able to give you more information on CAM.

content by:

Last Updated: 12/15/2003

(c) 2006 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:28 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Experts Breast Cancer Not Spread by Biopsy </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-131.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Experts: Breast Cancer Not Spread by Biopsy 
Still Unexplained: Why Lymph-Node Spread More Likely After Needle Biopsy

By  
Daniel DeNoon 

Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MD 
on Monday, June 28, 2004 
WebMD Medical News 
 

 
 


June 28, 2004 -- It's a puzzling finding: Women whose breast cancers have spread to their lymph nodes are more likely to have had their cancer diagnosed by needle biopsy. 

What the finding means isn't at all clear. But what it doesn't mean is very clear indeed, says Nora M. Hansen, MD, assistant director of the Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center at the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, Calif. 

"This study does not link biopsy with spread [of breast cancer]," Hansen tells WebMD via email. "We have not changed our practice and do not plan to. We still prefer to perform a needle biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of cancer and then will proceed at another time to definitive surgical management." 

Hansen and colleague Armando Giuliano, MD, developed the sentinel lymph node biopsy technique now used worldwide to help diagnose breast cancer. This technique uses dye to find the lymph node most likely to have cancer cells in a woman with a solid breast cancer mass. If this lymph node shows no sign of cancer, it's almost certain that the cancer has not spread beyond the breast. 

But some researchers have wondered whether the kind of biopsy a woman has might affect how well the sentinel-node technique predicts how far a breast cancer has spread. 

More Options for Women 

Not long ago, there was only one way to biopsy a suspicious lump in the breast: by cutting it out. This is called an excision biopsy. If the lesion turned out to be a tumor, the surgeon proceeded to remove the breast. 

Nowadays, doctors often use a two-step approach. First they use a needle to get a sample of the suspicious breast tissue. If the tissue tests positive for cancer, the woman may in many cases be able to choose to have a lumpectomy instead of a full mastectomy. 

Hansen's team looked at 663 women whose suspicious lumps turned out to be breast cancer. They looked at these women's sentinel lymph nodes to see whether they harbored cancer cells, small tumors (less than 2 mm in diameter), or larger tumors (larger than 2 mm in diameter). 

Women whose breast cancers had been diagnosed by needle biopsy were about 50% more likely to have their lymph nodes test positive for cancer than those who underwent excision biopsies. Most of this difference was due to the presence of larger tumors. 

The findings appear in the June issue of the Archives of Surgery. 

An Odd but Interesting Finding 

The lymph node tumors were detected only two weeks after the needle biopsies. It seems very unlikely that tiny tumor cells dislodged by biopsy could have grown so large so fast, says Mehra Golshan, MD, associate surgeon at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. 

"I cannot imagine that needle biopsy could cause tumor deposits greater than 2 mm in these patients," Golshan tells WebMD. "These [tumors] took months or years to grow, not days or hours after a needle core biopsy." 

Golshan says the study findings will spur more research. But he is sure they will not affect clinical practice. 

"I will not be more apt to tell my wife or anyone else to get an excision biopsy because of worry about a higher rate of metastases from needle biopsies," he says. 

SOURCES: Hansen, N.M. Archives of Surgery, June 2004; vol 139: pp 634-640. Nora M. Hansen, MD, assistant director, Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center, John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, Calif. Mehra Golshan, MD, associate surgeon, Brigham and Women's Hospital; staff surgeon, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; instructor in surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:29 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Delayed effects of kids cancer seen </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-132.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Delayed effects of kids' cancer seen 


Many young survivors face severe side-effects years later 


ASSOCIATED PRESS 


WASHINGTON, Aug. 26,2003 - Children's chances of beating cancer have gotten better but as many as two-thirds of survivors are likely to experience a delayed side effect from the disease or the treatment, said a report released Tuesday. 

ABOUT A QUARTER of survivors may experience severe or life-threatening side effects that do not show up immediately but could affect things like growth, fertility, heart function, muscle movement or cognitive activity, said the study by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

Susceptibility to these late side effects depends on the child's age at the time of diagnosis, how much chemotherapy and radiation were used as well as the severity and location of the cancer.

The late side effects can occur in follow-up treatment or they may develop in adulthood, complicating their identification and treatment, the report said. Also, because treatments for cancer have evolved in recent years, the delayed side effects are also changing.

In 1997, 270,000 Americans of all ages had survived childhood cancer - including about 1 in 640 adults aged 20 to 39. That was up from 1970, when children diagnosed with cancer had little chance of being cured. 

The rising number of survivors has made the long-term care issues more apparent.

"We're learning more as the first generation of childhood cancer survivors get older," said Stuart Kaplan, a staff physician in a follow-up cancer care clinic at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.

Looking for known threats and treating side effects early can help to minimize the damage these side effects can cause, he said.

"Directed screening is very important, and it's really the job of the primary care providers," he said, adding that educating patients is also important "because the onus is often on them." 

The report recommends:

-Developing guidelines for the follow-up care of childhood cancer survivors.

-Creating links between primary physicians and specialists.

-Raising awareness of the late side effects that threaten cancer survivors.

-Stepping up research to prevent late side effects.


The future of child cancer survivors 

The Institute of Medicine report follows a pair of recent studies reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that children who beat leukemia may face lifelong problems caused by the radiation that saved their lives. Also children who survive brain cancer have higher rates of mental illness no matter what treatment they receive, the journal reported. 


C 2003 Associated Press. ========================================================================

Los Angeles study gives cancer clues 


City's diversity reveals how cancer affects ethnic groups 




LOS ANGELES, Aug. 22,2003- Black men and non-Latino white women have the highest cancer rates while stomach cancer is rising among Koreans and Chinese, according to a study in ethnically rich Los Angeles released Thursday. 

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED over a 25-year-period from more than 700,000 cancer cases from the Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program offers a look at how different cancers show up in different ethnic and racial groups.

There is no national cancer registry in the United States, making the Los Angeles numbers interesting because they can help identify at-risk groups, the researchers said.

The study released by the University of Southern California covered 1976 to 2000 and showed that melanoma has increased so rapidly in Los Angeles County in the past two decades that it is one of the area's top five most common cancers. And the researchers said they do not know why.

Among non-Latino white and black women breast cancer rates have nearly doubled, as women have fewer children and at an older age, the researchers said.

Fourteen cancer sites were studied, including breast, prostate, lungs, and liver. The good news is that so many of the cancers were affected by lifestyle, such as smoking, meaning the rates can come down.

"Our community could start to reduce cancer rates by changing

habits," one of the report's authors, Dennis Deapen, told reporters. 


That's right - don't smoke, eat moderately and exercise, the researchers said.

As groups migrate to the United States they often do less physical work and they eat more than they did in their countries of origin, putting themselves at a higher risk of cancer.

But sometimes the converse is true. When Asians settle in the United States their rates of stomach cancer decline, possibly because of

less salting and pickling of food. 


Cancers of the colon and rectum are the third most commonly diagnosed cancers among both men and women in Los Angeles, although incident rates have declined recently among whites, blacks and the Latino white population, but are still on the rise among Japanese, Filipinos and Koreans. 


C 2003 Reuters 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:30 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Diabetes link with cancer seen in Japanese study </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-133.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Diabetes link with cancer seen in Japanese study 
Mon Sep 25, 4:10 PM ET 

A large study of Japanese adults found those with diabetes were more likely to develop cancer, especially of certain organs such as the pancreas and liver, researchers said on Monday.

Men with diabetes in the study of nearly 98,000 people were 27 percent more likely than non-diabetics to be diagnosed with cancer, the study by the National Cancer Center in Tokyo found. Women afflicted with diabetes were also more at risk for cancer, though the association was not as clear as with men.

Study author Manami Inoue wrote in this month's Archives of Internal Medicine that researchers have suspected a link between the two diseases but have not had conclusive evidence.

One theory holds that adult-onset diabetes produces excess insulin that may promote cancer cell growth in the liver or pancreas.

Diabetes -- which is on the rise in many parts of the world -- may also alter levels of sex hormones that could contribute to ovarian cancer in women and prostate cancer in men.

But Inoue cautioned that either disease may be the cause of the other, and both may be tied to obesity in many patients.

Also, diabetic patients pay more visits to the doctor and the increased vigilance may result in more cancer diagnoses, the study said. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>17 Oct 2006 - 03:43 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Hana says FDA to review cancer nausea drug </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-134.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Hana says FDA to review cancer nausea drug 
Wed Aug 30, 8:24 AM ET 

Cancer-focused biotechnology firm Hana Biosciences said on Wednesday the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had accepted Zensana Oral Spray for review.

The company said it expects Zensana, a drug aimed at preventing chemotherapy, radiation, and post-operative associated nausea and vomiting, to be launched in the United States in the first half of 2007, subject to FDA approval. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>18 Oct 2006 - 03:55 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>NIH Company influenced sepsis treatment </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-137.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[NIH: Company influenced sepsis treatment 
By JEFF DONN and MARILYNN MARCHIONE, Associated Press WritersWed Oct 18, 5:34 PM ET 

Several government doctors say drug maker Eli Lilly & Co. subtly orchestrated medical guidelines for treatment of an often-lethal blood infection, hoping to boost sales of a drug whose value is being debated.

Such involvement could open another door to corporate interests trying to shape health care, beyond funding experiments and cozying up to doctors in labs or at luncheons. Guidelines are meant to reflect independent medical opinion.

"This company is trying to insinuate its drug into many aspects of patient care that industry really shouldn't be involved in," said Dr. Naomi O'Grady, a critical care specialist at the National Institutes of Health.

Three of her NIH colleagues claim in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine that Lilly worked through medical societies to influence standards for treating the blood infection, sepsis. Ultimately, Xigris was incorporated into the guidelines.

Both the guidelines committee and a larger information campaign on sepsis were heavily funded by the Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company.

Spokeswoman Judy Kay Moore defended the company's role in a written statement, saying Lilly provided the money to help "advance understanding of patient care."

"We do not believe that Lilly had any role in the development of guideline content, beyond funding the initiative," the statement said. "The campaign worked independently and autonomously, and our funding for these grants was openly disclosed."

Dr. Phil Dellinger, who helped lead the guidelines committee, said its standards were written to benefit patients, not the drug company.

"We've been catching grief because we've been taking a lot of Lilly money — and we're appreciative of Lilly giving it," said Dellinger, of Cooper University Hospital, in Camden, N.J.

The 2-year-old sepsis guidelines urge that very ill patients at risk of dying get the novel anti-clotting drug Xigris, the only medicine that directly attacks the disease. A $6,800 treatment can help protect organs destroyed by the bacterial infection, once called blood poisoning. About 750,000 cases occur in the United States each year, and nearly one-third prove fatal.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Xigris in 2001, despite an evenly split vote by its advisory committee. The lead author of Thursday's journal article, Dr. Peter Q. Eichacker, voted against approval as an adviser. The other two authors are Dr. Charles Natanson and Dr. Robert L. Danner.

"There's enough controversy and questionable data about the drug that it shouldn't be a standard," Eichacker said in an interview.

Some critics are unhappy that the drug, which works only for the sickest patients, was approved on the basis of a single experiment. Lilly says the drug "was shown to reduce mortality in this deadly condition."

However, later studies spurred fresh concerns about its effectiveness, bleeding risk and heightened mortality in some patients.

Smarting from underwhelming Xigris sales and the end of its patent on the antidepressant Prozac, Lilly hired a public relations firm in 2002, according to the journal article. The company then set out to promote wider use of its drug, the authors wrote.

As Dellinger tells it, Lilly also approached academic authorities and asked them to partner in a campaign to raise awareness of sepsis and its treatments. He says the academics warned the company its money would be a questionable influence if the company took a leading role.

He said the company eventually agreed to provide arm's-length grants to professional societies, who then worked independently of Lilly. Several guidelines writers and members of the sepsis campaign say Lilly had no direct role in shaping the standards.

Academic officials acknowledged in the published guidelines that Lilly gave more than 90 percent of $861,000 in grants for the campaign and medical recommendations. About a fifth of the 46 guidelines writers acknowledged previously taking money from Eli Lilly for speaking, consulting or research. Several acknowledged this week that it is extraordinary for one company to dominate the funding of standards in this way. 

However, they differed on the role that Lilly may have played in instigating the guidelines. 

Panel co-chairman Dr. Jean Carlet, of St. Joseph Hospital in Paris said Lilly pushed "to make those guidelines happen." 

"I don't think they influenced the guidelines at all — but I might be wrong," he said. Carlet says Xigris should now be put to a second major test to confirm the first experiment. 

Dr. John Marshall, a surgeon at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto who is vice chairman of the International Sepsis Forum, said the idea of guidelines originated with his group, not Lilly. 

"We're a fairly opinionated group of people and would not take kindly to any attempt to strong-arm us," he said. However, Lilly sponsors the sepsis forum, one of the promoters of the publicity campaign. 

O'Grady, of NIH, said a panel of disease experts that she headed refused to endorse the sepsis guidelines largely because Lilly "convened the whole panel." 

In any case, consumer activist Dr. Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen worries the guidelines themselves are "good for the health of Lilly stockholders — but possibly detrimental to the health of patients." 

___ 

Jeff Donn reported from Boston, and Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione reported from Milwaukee. 

___ 

On the Net: 

New England Journal: http://www.nejm.org 

FDA safety alert: http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2005/safety05.htm
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>20 Oct 2006 - 07:35 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Pre op chemotherapy aids young cancer patients </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-173.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Pre-op chemotherapy aids young cancer patients 
Tue Oct 10, 9:28 AM ET 

Children with advanced kidney cancer may suffer fewer long-term side effects and need less treatment if they are given chemotherapy to shrink their tumor before surgery, researchers said on Tuesday.

Wilms' tumor is the most common type of kidney cancer that affects children. In most cases it is curable.

Chemotherapy is normally given after surgery to kill any remaining cancer cells in the body. But British scientists said some children would benefit from delaying surgery to receive chemotherapy treatment.

"For some children with advanced tumors, delaying their surgery reduced the size of their tumor enough to prevent them needing intensive treatment," said Dr Christopher Mitchell of the Oxford Radcliffe Hospital.

In a study presented at the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) conference in Birmingham, England, Mitchell and his team studied the effects of immediate surgery or six weeks of chemotherapy before the tumor is removed.

More than 200 children in the 10-year study were selected to receive one of the treatments and the results were monitored.

Although the overall survival of the children in both groups was the same, the pre-operative treatment enabled the surgeons to remove the tumor more easily, according to the researchers.

Twenty percent fewer children in the pre-operative chemotherapy group needed radiotherapy or more chemotherapy after the surgery.

"This improvement in quality of life for patients is significant and we hope children diagnosed with Wilms' tumors in the future will benefit from our findings," Mitchell, who reported the results in the European Journal of Cancer, added in a statement. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>25 Oct 2006 - 03:55 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-174.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[FDA News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
P06-162 
October 6, 2006  Media Inquiries:  
Megan Moynahan, 301-827-6242 
Consumer Inquiries:  
888-INFO-FDA  

FDA Approves New Drug for Skin Cancer, Zolinza
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved Zolinza (vorinostat) capsules for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a type of skin cancer, to be used when the disease persists, gets worse, or comes back during or after treatment with other medicines.

Zolinza was approved as part of FDA's Orphan Drug program, which offers companies financial incentives to develop medications for diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 American patients a year.  Every year in the United States, about three in every one million people are diagnosed with CTCL.  The majority of people with CTCL are men with an average age of 50 years.

"This approval is another example of the benefits of modern research that's focused on providing prescribers with safe and effective therapies for all types of cancer, including those that affect relatively few patients," said Steven Galson, M.D., director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Evidence of Zolinza's safety and effectiveness was developed in two clinical trials with 107 CTCL patients who received Zolinza after their disease had recurred following other treatments. A response, defined by improvements on a scale that scores skin lesions, occurred in 30 percent of patients who received Zolinza and lasted an average of 168 days.  The most common serious adverse events were pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs), dehydration, deep vein thrombosis and anemia. The most common other adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms (including diarrhea, nausea, anorexia, vomiting and constipation); fatigue; chills; and taste disorders.

Zolinza has not been studied in pregnant women, but results of animal studies suggest that the drug may cause fetal harm when administered during pregnancy.

Zolinza is manufactured by Pantheon, Inc., in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, for Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, N.J.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>25 Oct 2006 - 03:57 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Just Say Know to Prescription Drugs Campaign Finds International Interest and Support </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-175.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Just Say ‘Know’ to Prescription Drugs Campaign Finds International Interest and Support 
Mon Oct 2, 11:55 AM ET 

New York, NY (PRWEB) October 2, 2006 -- Today the Just Say “Know” to Prescription Drugs campaign, aimed at getting one million people to stop and reevaluate the medications they are taking, reported that interest in the initiative is coming from a wide array of countries around the globe. Though 79 percent of the inquires about the initiative are coming from the United States; the campaign is getting interest from people in the industrial nations of the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and France. Beyond the major developed countries, the long tail of interest in the initiative extends to 71 countries around the world including Japan, India, Romania, Jordan, Brazil, Turkey, Qatar, Spain Sweden, Mexico, Korea, China and South Africa.

“The fact that 21 percent of the 15,000 inquiries we’ve received during the pre-launch have come from outside the U.S. underscores the global nature of the problem,” said Dr Gregg Tefft, co-founder of the Just Say Know to Prescription Drugs campaign. “As we take the campaign online this week, we welcome supporters in all of these countries.”

During the month of October, the initiative aims to get one million people and one million parents to take a second look at the prescription medications they are taking and giving their children. Participants will be encouraged to download a form that allows them to thoughtfully evaluate the drugs they are taking or giving to their children. The form collects specific information from their prescribing physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider and requests the provider’s signature attesting that they have fully informed the patient or parent of the risks and benefits of the prescribed medication, as well as non-drug alternatives.

Coalition members have declared October "Just Say ‘Know’ to Prescription Drugs Month" and have scheduled a conference in Washington, D.C. on October 7th to officially launch the campaign. Information about the conference is available at http://www.icspp.org 

“The core coalition is already comprised of international supporters,” said Dr. Dominick Riccio, psychologist and chairman of the Just Say Know to Prescription Drugs campaign. “The Internet has made it possible to more easily identify and reach global supporters, and to track with high levels of precision where the campaign is resonating most,” said Riccio.

Organizations and individuals who want to participate in the campaign may go to any of the following Web sites, look for the Just Say “Know” to Prescription Drugs logo, and download the sheet titled "Take This Form and Sign It." Instructions are provided on each form. 

Psych Truth.Org 
Laurence Simon Ph.D. 
www.psychtruth.org/justsayknow.htm

Dr. Gregg Tefft  
KPNC Radio 
http://www.kpncradio.com

Kelly Bradley 
What’s Wrong With This Picture 
http://racingthoughts.blog.ca

Money Talks: Profits Before Patient Safety 
Kathleen Slattery-Moshkau 
http://www.mo-info.com/wordpress/index.php

Dr. Michael Siebert 
http://drmichaelsiebert.com/news.html 

Donald B. Ardell, Ph.D.  
Seek Wellness 
http://www.seekwellness.com/wellness/

MESICS Fitness 
Jim Manganiello, Ed.D. 
http://www.mesicsfitness.com/jsn-news.htm

For more information email, call 212-861-7400 or visit www.psychtruth.org/justsayknow.htm 
http://www.icspp.org

# # #

Just Say Know Initiative 
Dominick Riccio 
212-861-7400 
E-mail Information Trackback URL: http://prweb.com/pingpr.php/U3F1YS1Qcm9mLUhvcnItU3VtbS1JbnNlLVplcm8=
 
Check MailCompose    Search MailSearch the Web  
 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:13 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Chemo has longterm impact on brain function </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-176.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Chemo has long-term impact on brain function 
Thu Oct 5, 9:15 AM ET 

Chemotherapy causes changes in the brain's metabolism and blood flow that can last as long as 10 years, a discovery that may explain the mental fog and confusion that affect many cancer survivors, researchers said on Thursday.

The researchers, from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that women who had undergone chemotherapy five to 10 years earlier had lower metabolism in a key region of the frontal cortex.

Women treated with chemotherapy also showed a spike in blood flow to the frontal cortex and cerebellum while performing memory tests, indicating a rapid jump in activity level, the researchers said in a statement about their study.

"The same area of the frontal lobe that showed lower resting metabolism displayed a substantial leap in activity when the patients were performing the memory exercise," said Daniel Silverman, the UCLA associate professor who led the study.

"In effect, these women's brains were working harder than the control subjects' to recall the same information," he said in a statement.

Experts estimate at least 25 percent of chemotherapy patients are affected by symptoms of confusion, so-called chemo brain, and a recent study by the University of Minnesota reported an 82 percent rate, the statement said.

"People with 'chemo brain' often can't focus, remember things or multitask the way they did before chemotherapy," Silverman said. "Our study demonstrates for the first time that patients suffering from these cognitive symptoms have specific alterations in brain metabolism."

The study, published on Thursday in the online edition of Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, tested 21 women who had surgery to remove breast tumors, 16 of whom had received chemotherapy and five who had not.

The researchers used positron emission tomography scans to compare the brain function of the women. They also compared the scans with those of 13 women who had not had breast cancer or chemotherapy.

Positron emission tomography creates an image of sections of the body using a special camera that follows the progress of an injected radioactive tracer.

Researchers used the scans to examine the women's resting brain metabolism as well as the blood flow to their brains as they did a short-term memory exercise.

Silverman said the findings suggested PET scans could be used to monitor the effects of chemotherapy on brain metabolism. Since the scans already are used to monitor patients for tumor response to therapy, the additional tests would be easy to add, he said.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, with some 211,000 new cases diagnosed each year, the statement said. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:14 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>HighTech Radiation Boosts Prostate Cancer Survival </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-177.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[High-Tech Radiation Boosts Prostate Cancer Survival 
Fri Oct 6, 11:48 PM ET 

FRIDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Most prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were still alive and cancer-free an average of eight years after treatment, according to a large new study.

The study -- the first to describe long-term outcomes for prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT -- was conducted by a team from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and is published in the October issue of the Journal of Urology.

Before treatment, researchers divided 561 patients into three groups based on their cancer prognosis: favorable, intermediate and unfavorable.

An average of eight years after IMRT, 89 percent of men in the favorable group were still alive, along with 78 percent of those in the intermediate group, and 67 percent of those in the unfavorable group.

Of the men who were potent before IMRT, nearly half (49 percent) developed erectile dysfunction.

IMRT is an improved form of what's known as "three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy." It uses enhanced planning-treatment software that more precisely targets the prostate. This allows the beam of radiation to deliver a high dose to the tumor, while sparing the nearby bladder and rectum from being exposed to these higher amounts of radiation.

"Our results suggest that IMRT should be the treatment of choice for delivering high-dose, external beam radiotherapy for patients with localized prostate cancer," Dr. Michael J. Zelefsky, chief of the brachytherapy service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said in a prepared statement.

"This study confirms that we can improve patients' quality of life by reducing the side effects of radiotherapy, while maintaining disease-free survival," he said. "However, there is still room for improvement. We are incorporating image-guided approaches that may continue the excellent tumor control but further limit the area we are irradiating and reduce side effects."

More information

The American Academy of Family Physicians has more about prostate cancer treatments.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:16 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Healthy Cholesterol Levels Could Lower Prostate Cancer Risk </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-178.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Healthy Cholesterol Levels Could Lower Prostate Cancer Risk 
By Janice Billingsley 
HealthDay ReporterFri Oct 6, 11:48 PM ET 

FRIDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors have long known that lowering your cholesterol levels helps protect your heart. But could it also reduce the risk of prostate cancer for men?

Researchers are increasingly optimistic that the two conditions are related, making what's good for the heart good for the prostate, too.

"This is an upcoming area. There may really be something there," said Dr. William J. Catalona, director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at Northwestern University's Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the doctor who pioneered use of PSA -- prostate specific antigen -- tests for early detection of prostate cancer.

Catalona pointed to recent epidemiologic studies -- those that review health records of large numbers of people over relatively long periods of time -- that have found that men who took drugs to reduce their cholesterol levels for other health reasons also had a lower risk for prostate cancer. What's more, these studies have shown that the men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer had less risk of an aggressive form of the disease if they were on these drugs, called statins. 

Elizabeth A. Platz, an associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, was the author of one of these studies. It followed 34,000 men for 10 years and recorded their use of statins every two years. None of the men had prostate cancer at the start of the study. 

The study results, presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting last year, found that men who took statins had half the risk of advanced prostate cancer and one-third the risk of metastatic prostate cancer, compared to men who did not use the drugs.

"Directly as a result of this study of statin drugs, we are now investigating whether having higher blood cholesterol is associated with a higher future risk of prostate cancer overall," Platz said of her work, which is being done in conjunction with researchers at Harvard University. "We want to try to sort out the pathways that could affect this." 

One possible explanation, Catalona said, is that cholesterol is one of the key elements in creating testosterone, a hormone that could be associated with prostate cancer risk. 

"The current belief is that some variant of male hormones might promote prostate cancer growth, and [since] the main building block for male hormones is cholesterol," he said, by lowering cholesterol levels, you could be lowering excessively high testosterone levels.

But, Catalona, added, it's too soon to recommend that men take statin drugs solely to reduce their risk of prostate cancer. But if a patient is already taking these drugs to lower his risk for cardiovascular disease, this could be an added benefit. 

"The common theme here is what is heart-healthy may also be prostate-healthy," he said. 

The work on cholesterol and prostate cancer follows well-documented research showing that low cholesterol levels, especially LDL or "bad" cholesterol, reduces the risk for cardiovascular disease.

Since these benefits are so clear in reducing heart-disease risk, men don't need to wait until research proves a cholesterol-prostate cancer link. They should go ahead and improve their diet and lifestyle, particularly through exercise, to lower their cholesterol to healthy levels, said Mark Moyad, a University of Michigan researcher and director of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center.

For Moyad, the role of cholesterol became particularly important after a study he did found surprisingly high cholesterol levels in black men. Blacks have a 60 percent greater incidence of prostate cancer and twice the mortality rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups, according to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition. The group teamed with Moyad on the research.

Moyad found that approximately 10 percent of the 114 men in the study had high PSA test results, which was what he expected. But, 80 percent of the men also had either high or very high cholesterol levels, with LDL readings above 160 milligrams per deciliter.

"We were really surprised at the high numbers," said Moyad, who added that researchers would normally expect between 25 percent and 30 percent of the men to have high cholesterol readings. "And these were the men who were motivated enough to worry about their prostate and come in," he added. 

Moyad said the high numbers "unmask the higher risk for cardiovascular disease" in the general population and suggest that screenings for specific diseases like prostate cancer should also include tests for other health-risk markers, such as cholesterol, blood pressure and body mass index.

"We shouldn't get too focused on one disease, but focus on a variety of health practices that can reduce the risk of a variety of common killers in the U.S.A.," he said.

More information

To learn more about the health risks posed by high cholesterol, visit the American Heart Association.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:17 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Death by Medicine</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-179.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[“Death by Medicine” is a paper on medical iatrogenesis—44 pages in length. The definition of iatrogenic is “a symptom or illness brought on unintentionally by something that a doctor does or says.” Much like conventional medicine itself, my dictionary is in denial about iatrogenic deaths. Iatrogenesis is not just about symptoms or illness—incredibly, I found that in the U.S. there are 783,936 deaths annually due to medicine’s effects.  
 
I wrote “Death by Medicine” in late fall 2003 while my mother was dying of acute leukemia. She was 82 and sharp as a tack and lively to boot, just a few months before she was diagnosed. It’s a rare disease in the elderly but while I was reading hundreds of studies on drug side effects, I was confronted with the fact that the two medications she was taking—one for high blood pressure and one for cholesterol—were both found to cause acute leukemia.  
 
In 1998 a Canadian team of researchers, led by a friend, Dr. Bruce Pomeranz, found that 106,000 people die annually in the U.S. from properly prescribed medications. No “mistakes” were made here—these drugs were the right amounts, given to the right people, at the right time—and still ended up killing 106,000.  
 
In “Death by Medicine” I went beyond “adverse drug reactions,” adding up the death toll for medical errors, surgical errors, outpatient adverse drug reactions, drug-resistant hospital infections, unnecessary medical and surgical procedures, malnutrition and bedsores in hospitals and nursing homes.  
 
The statistics that I did not add include deaths due to: 

X-ray exposures: mammography, fluoroscopy, CT scans 
Overuse of antibiotics in all conditions 
Drugs that are carcinogenic: hormone replacement therapy, immunosuppressive drugs and prescription drugs 
Cancer chemotherapy 
Unnecessary surgery: Caesarean section, radical mastectomy, preventive mastectomy, radical hysterectomy, prostatectomy, cholecystectomies, cosmetic surgery, arthroscopy, etc. 
Medical procedures and therapies 
Discredited, unnecessary and unproven medical procedures and therapies 
Missed diagnoses. 
Another important area not included in “Death by Medicine” are deaths due to “something a doctor says.” Because I am a naturopath as well as a medical doctor, I realize that many deaths are caused by doctors giving their patients bad advice. Every patient I have ever seen has told me s/he was given some combination of the following advice by a “trusted” doctor: 

Vitamins are not necessary and you get all you need from your diet 
Chinese medicine won’t help you 
Acupuncture is worthless 
Don’t waste your money on vitamins 
It’s perfectly OK to eat sugar, aspartame, fast food, coffee 
Doctors who tell you to take high doses of vitamin C are quacks. 
By not keeping up with the current knowledge of therapeutic nutrients, doctors are ensuring that their patients do not get proper care and they are treating nutrient-deficient conditions with harmful drugs. A PubMed search of 50 known nutrients finds almost half a million studies on these nutrients. A very brief overview of the existing literature on nutrient therapy finds the following: 

Homocysteine disease can be treated with B6, B12, folic acid and magnesium 
Niacin treats high cholesterol 
Vitamin E treats heart disease 
Vitamin C treats infectious diseases and prevents cancer 
Niacinamide treats some forms of arthritis 
Antioxidants, in general, delay the onset and severity of Alzheimer’s disease 
Antioxidants, in general, prevent some forms of cancer 
Magnesium prevents heart disease and 22 other conditions 
St.-John’s-wort is a treatment for mild to moderate depression 
Red clover and black cohosh treat menopausal symptoms 
Echinacea, garlic and astragalus are used to boost the immune system. 
Because they are not keeping up with nutrient research, many conventional doctors are rapidly losing the trust that they once had. Since they have become entrenched in drug-based medicine, bonded with their pharmaceutical reps, and are receiving consideration from drug companies to prescribe their products, many doctors are losing an adoring public. A 2004 survey of complementary alternative medicine found that 25 percent of people who use CAM do so because they no longer trust conventional medicine.  
 
I was shocked by many things while researching and writing this paper. Shocked that no one had ever done this compilation of statistics before; shocked at the incredible number of lives cut short; shocked that nothing was being done to stop this insanity; shocked that only 5–20 percent of iatrogenic incidents ever see the light of day. That’s right! I couldn’t believe my eyes when I first found that statistic. However, another four journal articles confirmed it, making the 750,000 death rate pale when you think it could be doubled or tripled!  
 
In 1994, Dr. Lucien Leape produced a major report, focusing on medical error alone. He equated his findings of 180,000 deaths annually to three jumbo jet crashes every two days. “Death by Medicine” shows that six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each and every day—and no one seems to notice. What contributes to this denial? Unlike a jumbo jet crash, which gets instant media coverage, hospital errors are spread out over the country in thousands of different locations. This makes it more likely that they are perceived as isolated and unusual events. However, the most important reason that medical error is unrecognized and growing, according to Leape, is that doctors and nurses are unequipped to deal with human error due to the culture of medical training and practice.  
 
Doctors are taught that mistakes are unacceptable, medical mistakes are therefore viewed as a failure of character and any error equals negligence. We can see how a great deal of sweeping under the rug takes place since nobody is taught what to do when medical error does occur. Leape said the “infallibility model” of medicine leads to intellectual dishonesty with a need to cover up mistakes rather than admit them. There are no Grand Rounds on medical errors, no sharing of failures among doctors and no one to support them, emotionally, when their error harms a patient.  
 
To most people who read “Death by Medicine,” these excuses are just that—excuses. What can we do about it? I even tackled this question when I reported on a survey about preventing medical errors (see sidebar).  
 
Whether any of these measures are being implemented is unknown; whether anything will ever be done to decrease the rate of iatrogenesis is also unknown. A recent report from Pennsylvania makes me wonder if there will ever be a change from within the system. On July 8, 2004 the Philadelphia Daily News published a report of a lawsuit filed by a prominent psychiatrist, Dr. Stefan Kruszewski. He had been hired by the state’s Department of Public Welfare to “root out fraud, abuse and waste” within the department. Apparently he found out too much, uncovering several fatalities due to lethal combinations of medications; use of unprescribed, dangerous and unnecessary drugs; use of bizarre combinations of drugs; overmedicating of patients in government facilities; illegally committing of people and putting them on drugs. Dr. Kruszewski told his supervisor that “These medications are killing people; something’s wrong here.” That’s when Dr. Kruszewski, a 53-year-old Harvard Medical School graduate, was fired.  
 
Fortunately, the good doctor has enough chutzpah to file suit against the state, the only way this information will come to light. You can see how difficult it will be to “root out fraud, abuse and waste” when the very people who hire you to do so—can just as easily fire you. Countless doctors have lost their medical licenses for much less. Doctors who prescribe nutrients and do not follow the “standard practice of medicine,” which means they don’t prescribe as many drugs or recommend 

By telephone, 1,207 adults were asked to indicate how effective they thought the following would be in reducing preventable medical errors that resulted in serious harm: 
Giving doctors more time to spend with patients: very effective 78 percent 
Requiring hospitals to develop systems to avoid medical errors: very effective 74 percent 
Better training of health professionals: very effective 73 percent 
Using only doctors specially trained in intensive care medicine on intensive care units: very effective 73 percent 
Requiring hospitals to report all serious medical errors to a state agency: very effective 71 percent 
Increasing the number of hospital nurses: very effective 69 percent 
Reducing the work hours of doctors-in-training to avoid fatigue: very effective 66 percent 
Encouraging hospitals to voluntarily report serious medical errors to a state agency: very effective 62 percent. 
 

 
as much surgery, regularly have their licenses revoked. They are usually turned in by jealous or disgruntled conventional doctors or even drug reps who abuse pharmacists’ data bases and alert state medical boards if a doctor falls below the “standard” number of drug prescriptions for his or her city. It’s a wonder that alternative medicine is practiced at all because an investigation by the state licensing board usually results in loss of license—unless you have a few million tucked away to pay for your defense.  
 
That leaves you, the health consumer, as the only person outside the system who can possibly turn the tide on medical iatrogenesis. You can do that simply by continuing to be a health consumer and by encouraging more people to follow your lead. If medicine has become all about making money, the power of the purse still speaks loud and clear. Keep buying organic food, supplements and health books; keep visiting alternative health practitioners and keep attending natural health seminars.  
 
It all adds up and lets the “bean counters” know that more and more Americans are turning away from drug-based medicine. That’s the message conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry needs to hear. Once they realize their profits are dropping and they are losing customers, we might see a change in the way medicine is practiced. Of course, we also have to be wary of the takeover of nutrients by pharmaceutical companies that will try to patent synthetic supplements —making them into drugs with side effects. Also, be aware of the Codex Alimentarus, the World Trade Organization’s attempt to “harmonize” us out of being able to get nutrients over the counter but available only by prescriptions. But that’s another story!  
 
Carolyn Dean is a medical doctor and a naturopathic doctor, graduating from Dalhousie Medical School in Nova Scotia and the Ontario Naturopathic College. She serves on the board of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto. Dr. Dean began practicing integrative medicine almost 25 years ago, long before the term was invented. She’s also a writer, researcher and an outspoken advocate of natural healing options and choices. Her widely acclaimed paper, “Death by Medicine,” released December 2003, revealed that nearly 784,000 people die annually due to medical interventions. Click “contact” at carolyndean.com and find a link to “Death by Medicine.”
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:18 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>XanGo juice drink maker gets FDA warning </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-180.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[XanGo juice drink maker gets FDA warning 
Tue Oct 3, 3:03 PM ET 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned the maker of tropical fruit drink XanGo over claims the beverage can prevent or treat cancer, depression, infection, Alzheimer's disease and other ailments.

In a September 20 letter to XanGo LLC, released on Tuesday, the FDA said brochures for the purple mangosteen beverage also asserted it was "a proven, natural COX-2 inhibitor," referring to painkillers such as Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex and Merck & Co Inc.'s withdrawn Vioxx.

The FDA said such medical statements are reserved for drugs and constitute illegal marketing without agency approval. It gave Utah-based XanGo 15 days to respond and called on the company to curb such promotions.

XanGo General Counsel Craig Hale said the company did not publish or endorse any literature making health claims.

"While it is unclear from the letter, it appears that the FDA believes that it ordered the literature directly from XanGo and that these materials are company-produced literature. This is not the case, and we believe this fact will be important in resolving the issue," Hale said in a statement.

The FDA letter said agency staff attended a distribution recruitment seminar and later ordered a packet of brochures using a number provided by two company representatives.

"Traditionally, mangosteen was used to help with ailments such as diarrhea, eczema, thrush, urinary infections ... Currently, many people use mangosteen to help prevent disease by lowering their risk factors for disease ..." said one brochure on mangosteen juice obtained by the FDA.

While the FDA usually resolves most warnings without further action, it can levy fines, seize products and impose other civil penalties. Dozens of similar FDA warning letters are sent to companies each year.

According to the Nutrition Business Journal, XanGo is a multimillion-dollar company that is expected to reach $1 billion in annual sales by 2009. The company moves its beverages through thousands of distributors in 13 global markets, the journal said last year. 
 
Check MailCompose    Search MailSearch the Web  
 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:19 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Medication Errors Common in Kids Leukemia Treatment </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-181.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Medication Errors Common in Kids' Leukemia Treatment 
By Steven Reinberg 
HealthDay ReporterMon Aug 14, 11:45 PM ET 

MONDAY, Aug. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Ten percent of children with a once-deadly childhood cancer do not get the correct chemotherapy regime because of medication errors, new research contends.

Fortunately, most of the errors, either from parents administering oral medicine at home or from incorrect prescriptions, do no permanent harm, University of Washington researchers found.

According to the report in the Aug. 14 online edition of Cancer, 9.9 percent of the oral chemotherapy medications were prescribed or given incorrectly to children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Medical errors in the United States cause up to 98,000 hospital deaths per year and are thought to be common among outpatients. But they have not been well studied, particularly in children.

To find that out, "we did a study to see how often parents with ALL will give the medicine as prescribed and how often we prescribe the medication as we intend to," said Dr. James A. Taylor, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center.

Taylor's team looked at the rate and types of medications errors that occurred for 69 children receiving outpatient chemotherapy regimen for ALL. "We found in 10 percent of the medications administered, there was a error in what was intended and what was actually administered to the child," Taylor said.

Of the 17 total errors, 12 were the result of how the medications were administered, and five were caused by prescribing errors -- incorrect dosages. Taylor's group found no dispensing errors by a pharmacy.

Four of the errors were potentially significant. Three children failed to receive medications at the appropriate time, increasing the risk of relapse. One received an overdose of medication, and so was at risk for a life-threatening infection, the researchers reported.

Parents said the protocols were explained very well to them by doctors, nurses and pharmacists. In addition, education level or ethnic background didn't make a difference in understanding the instructions, Taylor said.

Taylor doesn't blame the parents for the errors, but rather the protocols, which are complicated and hard to follow. "These are very complicated regimens," he said. "It's really hard to give these medications as we intend."

To reduce errors, Taylor would like to see the regimens made less complicated. "People, when they design a protocol for treatment of cancer or any disease, shouldn't make it so complicated that it is going to be prone to errors," he said. "By simplifying the protocol, you might end up with better outcomes."

One of the ways of eliminating error is using electronic prescribing systems to eliminate human error, said Dr. Lydia Gonzalez-Ryan, clinical director of the Aflac Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Center of Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. "There needs to be standardized practices," she added. "We need to get into preprinted orders that set up quality control."

For parents, Gonzalez-Ryan believes that electronic prescribing orders with a printed report and dosing roadmaps will help eliminate errors. Doctors also need to be diligent, she said. "Doctors need to take good histories," she said.

Doctors should have parents bring in the medication to check what has been given, and they should have the parents demonstrate how they give the medications, she added.

Another expert agreed that complicated regimens are at the root of the problem. But doctors need to be clear in explaining the regimen to patients.

"We need to find ways to reduce errors from patients not understanding complicated regimens that are necessary to treat this disease," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society.

"We need to make sure that our instructions to our patients are culturally appropriate," Lichtenfeld added. "We need to make the effort to be sure that patients understand what we are saying to them."

Another expert thinks that because these errors don't affect long-term outcomes, the problem is more a theoretical than a real problem.

"I think the problem is less serious than they make it out to be," said Dr. Daniel S. Wechsler, an associate professor of pediatrics and communicable diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School. "Parents doing this are motivated and are invested in doing the right thing for their kids."

Wechsler did note, however, that to avoid errors, doctors should educate parents in how to follow the regimen and mandate that prescriptions be filled at the hospital pharmacy to insure quality. In addition, they should be careful to do follow-ups with parents during monthly patient visits.

More information

The National Cancer Institute can tell you more about acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:20 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>HealthDay News</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-182.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[WEDNESDAY, Aug. 16 (HealthDay News) -- Stroke will cost the United States $2.2 trillion over the next 50 years, with lost income from younger stroke victims playing a major role and the burden falling heaviest on minorities, a new study finds.

"The risk of stroke is highest in minority groups such as blacks and non-white Hispanics," said Dr. Devin Brown, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of Michigan stroke program, and lead author of a report in the Aug. 16 online issue of Neurology.

Brown and her colleagues used data from two local studies, one in New York City and one in Texas, both with large numbers of minorities, to arrive at their estimate. They included cost of ambulance services, hospitalization, nursing home care, rehabilitation, drugs and potential lost earnings.

That last item was of major importance, the report said.

"Interestingly, the younger age group, consisting of the 45- to 64-year-olds, accounts for approximately half the costs in this model, whereas the oldest age group, those 85 and older, accounts for approximately 10 percent of the costs," the researchers wrote.

While the incidence of stroke increases with age, "costs for the youngest age group include lost earnings, whereas this is not a contributor to the costs in the oldest age group," the report said. "Interventions to reduce the cost of stroke must therefore not solely be targeted to the elderly."

Those interventions should be aimed at the known risk factors for stroke, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, smoking and diabetes, Brown said.

"We are hopeful that these high numbers will help drive health policy decisions," she said.

The American Academy of Neurology, which publishes the journal, issued a statement calling for a 5 percent increase, or $1.4 billion, in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which is part of the NIH.

The time is ripe for a major initiative to reduce the incidence of stroke, said Dr. Matthew Fink, chief of the division of stroke and critical care neurology at Weill Cornell Medical College, in New York City.

"A huge number of baby boomers will start turning 60 this year, entering the period when lots of strokes occur," Fink said. "This is a huge public health problem that people do not understand yet."

And the audience is there for prevention, he said. "My patients say, 'Doctor, I'd rather be dead than have a stroke,' so the motivation for preventing a stroke is even stronger than for preventing a heart attack," Fink said.

While "our health-care system is not designed to focus on prevention," an effort is being made by the NIH and others, he said. "We need more public education on this," Fink added.

Another study reported by the National Stroke Association said that many stroke survivors do not get the rehabilitation they need to improve their quality of life. The study of more than 500 stroke survivors found that more than 40 percent of them reported limited success in meeting goals such as the ability to walk better and to regain speech.

Stroke risk factors and treatment are described by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.content by: http://health.msn.com/centers/cardio/ArticlePage.aspx?cp-documentid=100142961SOURCES: Devin Brown, M.D., assistant professor, neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Ann Arbor; Matthew Fink, M.D., chief, division of stroke and critical care neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City; Aug. 16, 2006, Neurology online
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:21 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>HealthDayNews</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-183.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[WEDNESDAY, Jan. 19 (HealthDayNews) -- Cancer has displaced heart disease as the leading killer of Americans under the age of 85, according to the American Cancer Society's latest projections released Wednesday.

Even though the mortality rates are higher relative to heart disease, according to the latest report, the mortality from many types of cancer is actually declining.

Cancer now accounts for about 23 percent of all deaths among Americans regardless of age, the annual report found.

In addition, the report projects that there will be 1,372,910 new cases of cancer in the United States this year, and 570,280 deaths.

Heart disease still remains the leading killer for all Americans regardless of age. In 2002, more than 690,000 people died from heart disease compared to more than 550,00 deaths from all cancers, according to federal statistics.

For the cancer outlook, however, there is both encouraging and discouraging news.

Americans are surviving longer than ever after a diagnosis of cancer. Lung cancer rates for men continue to decline, and have dropped for the first time for women. Rates of colorectal cancer for men and women are down, and so are cervical cancer rates.

But rates of cancers linked to too much weight are increasing, reflecting the obesity epidemic wracking America.

About one-third of new cancer cases this year will be due to tobacco use and one-third to poor nutrition, physical inactivity or overweight and obesity. 

The report also provides an update of recent cancer trends. From 1993 to 2001, overall cancer death rates declined 1.5 percent per year for men; for women, the annual decline was 0.8 percent from 1992 to 2001.

Overall, people are surviving longer after having had cancer. Since the late 1970s, the five-year survival rate for men has grown from 43 percent to 64 percent and, for women from 57 percent to 64 percent. 

Lung cancer remains the leading cancer killer, accounting for 31 percent of cancer deaths in men and 27 percent of deaths in women. In men, lung cancer is followed by prostate cancer, then colorectal cancer as the top killers. For women, breast cancer ranks second for mortality, followed by colorectal cancer. 

"The order of the top three have not changed since the late 1980s when the number of deaths from lung cancer overtook those of breast cancer in women and prostate overtook colon and rectal cancer in men," Elizabeth Ward, director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society's department of epidemiology and surveillance research, told a news conference Wednesday.

For women, the most commonly diagnosed cancer is breast cancer, followed by lung and bronchus cancers and then colorectal cancer. For men, the most commonly diagnosed cancers are lung cancer, prostate and colorectal cancer, in that order. 

From 1998 to 2001, lung cancer continued to decrease in men and, for the first time, also in women.

"Decreasing incidence rates of lung cancer and several other cancers reflect substantial progress against tobacco smoking, which began to decline in men in the '70s," Ward said.

It's too early to tell whether the reported decline in women is actually a decline or merely a stabilization, but it probably does signal that the lung cancer epidemic in women has peaked, she added. 

The incidences of colorectal cancer among men and women and cervical cancer have also declined, probably as a result of stepped-up screening efforts, the report said.

Conversely, rates of prostate, breast and thyroid cancer and melanoma are on the rise. Increases in thyroid cancer may be due to improvement in diagnoses or an increase in exposure to medical radiation, such as X-rays. At the same time, breast cancer mortality has declined, although it's not clear if this is due to improved detection or improved treatment, the report stated.

Obese men run a 50 percent greater risk of developing cancer overall, particularly cancer of the liver, pancreas, stomach and esophagus. Obese women face a 70 percent greater cancer risk, particularly cancer of the uterus, kidney, cervix and pancreas. 

Cancers linked to infectious diseases, many of which are preventable, were also highlighted in the report.

The cancer society estimated that worldwide, 17 percent of new cancers will be attributable to infection, including 26 percent of cancers in economically developing countries (1.5 million cases) and 7.2 percent (360,000 cases) in developed countries.

Liver cancer can be caused by the hepatitis B and C viruses; cervical cancer by human papillomavirus; stomach cancer by Helicobacter pylori bacterium; and Kaposi's Sarcoma and lymphoma by HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. There are ways to prevent or screen for most of these diseases: a vaccine for hepatitis B; good screening tests for cervical cancer; and behavioral changes that can prevent contracting diseases, the report said.

Ward emphasized two challenges for the future.

"We need to encourage cessation among people who continue to smoke, and we need to maintain efforts to decrease initiation of smoking among young people," she said. "We also need to reverse the epidemic of overweight and obesity that's overtaken our society both in children and adults." 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:22 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Experimental drug might help treat bowel cancer</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-184.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Experimental drug might help treat bowel cancer 
By Patricia ReaneyFri Oct 27, 6:54 AM ET 

An experimental drug that is effective in reducing the size and number of pre-cancerous growths in mice could help to treat or prevent bowel cancer in humans, scientists said on Friday.

Most cases of the cancer develop from polyps, extra tissue that grows on the wall of the bowel. Not all polyps are dangerous but about 5 to 10 percent develop into cancer.

Scientists at the British charity Cancer Research UK found that a drug called AZD2171 made by AstraZeneca stopped polyps in genetically engineered mice from progressing into cancer by blocking their blood supply.

"This initial work in mice may one day translate to man and could provide the basis for a pill to treat polyps and so prevent tumors," said Dr Robert Goodlad, who headed the research team.

Bowel cancer is one of the leading cancer killers in developed countries. Nearly 950,000 cases are diagnosed worldwide each year. The disease kills about 490,000 people annually.

AZD2171 is a drug that stops the growth of blood vessels, or angiogenesis, needed by tumor cells to thrive. It interferes with a molecule called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) which tells cells to grow new blood vessels.

Several anti-VEGF drugs have been developed by various companies, including Avastin from Roche and Genentech, which is already on the market.

"When given to the younger mice, the drug made the polyps smaller and fewer. When the mice were quite a bit older it reduced the diameter of the polyps," said Goodlad, who reported the findings in the journal Carcinogenesis.

"There is quite a lot of evidence showing inhibitors of angiogenesis can be effective in a clinical setting but it is still early days," he told Reuters.

In early clinical trials in patients with advanced bowel cancer, the drug was well tolerated and did not produce any serious side effects.

"It definitely has therapeutic potential," Goodlad said, adding that large scale studies now have to be done to test its effectiveness in humans. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:25 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA Approves New Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B in Adults</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-185.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[FDA News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
P06-175 
October 25, 2006  Media Inquiries:  
Laura Alvey, 301-827-6242 
Consumer Inquiries:  
888-INFO-FDA  

FDA Approves New Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B in Adults
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved Tyzeka (telbivudine) for the treatment of adults with chronic hepatitis B (HBV), a serious viral infection that attacks the liver and can cause lifelong infection, scarring of the liver (cirrhosis), and eventually liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Tyzeka is a new molecular entity, which is a term used by the FDA to describe a medication containing an active substance that has never before been approved for marketing in any form in the United States.

"In a typical year, an estimated 70,000 Americans become infected with chronic HBV, and some 5,000 of them will die of the complications caused by the disease," said Dr. Steven Galson, Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Tyzeka offers prescribers another option for treating these patients."

Tyzeka was studied in a year-long international clinical trial in 1,367 patients with chronic HBV. Three-quarters of the trial participants were male, and all were 16 years of age or older. The trial produced evidence of antiviral effectiveness, including the suppression of hepatitis B virus, and improvement in liver inflammation comparable to Epivir-HBV (lamivudine), one of five other medications approved to treat patients with chronic HBV. 

HBV is spread when blood from an infected person enters the body of a person who is not infected, sometimes by sexual contact or blood contamination. Tyzeka is not a cure for hepatitis B, and long-term treatment benefits of this drug are not known. Use of Tyzeka has not been shown to reduce the risk of transmission of HBV to others through sexual contact or blood contamination.

In clinical studies Tyzeka was generally well tolerated, and most reported adverse events were mild to moderate. The most common side effects were elevated CPK (creatinine phosphokinase, an enzyme that is present in muscle tissue and is a marker for breakdown of muscle tissue), upper respiratory tract infection, fatigue, headache, abdominal pain and cough. 

Also, after several weeks to months of Tyzeka use, some patients developed symptoms ranging from transient muscle pain to muscle weakness. Those who developed muscle weakness experienced significant improvement in their symptoms when Tyzeka was discontinued. 

Patients should only stop Tyzeka after a careful discussion with their doctor. As has happened with other forms of treatment for hepatitis B, some patients who discontinued Tyzeka experienced a sudden and severe worsening of their hepatitis B. Therefore, patients who discontinue Tyzeka should be closely monitored by their doctor for at least several months. 

Among drugs in the same class as Tyzeka, some cases of lactic acidosis (too much acid in the body due to buildup of lactic acid) and severe enlargement and accumulation of fat in the liver, including fatal cases, have been reported.

Tyzeka is manufactured by Novartis Pharma Stein AG, Stein, Switzerland and marketed and distributed by Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:26 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>3/17/06 excerpts from Medical Marketing & Media a pharmaceutical

industry trade magazine</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-186.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[3/17/06 excerpts from Medical Marketing & Media, a pharmaceutical

industry trade magazine:

[Italicized commentary not published and not covered by HBPL copyright.]

PhRMA taps BMS’s Dolan as trade group chairman 

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has elected Peter Dolan,

Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO, as chairman of the group. He replaces Bill Weldon, CEO of Johnson

& Johnson, and will serve a one-year term. Others elected at the PhRMA annual meeting in

Washington, DC, were Dolan’s successor, chairman-elect Kevin Sharer, who is the CEO of

Amgen, and board treasurer Karen Katen, who is Pfizer’s vice chairman….The three board

members will “focus on consistent, long-term solutions to today’s healthcare challenges that

will deliver the maximum benefit to patients,” Dolan said in a statement.

Bush nominates von Eschenbach as FDA commissioner 

President Bush has nominated Andrew von Eschenbach as permanent FDA commissioner.

Von Eschenbach, 64, has served as acting FDA commissioner since Sept. 2005, when previous

commissioner Lester Crawford abruptly resigned after two months on the job. Von Eschenbach

is a urolic [MM&M misspelled urologic] surgeon who, before coming to government, served as

EVP of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas in Houston. He also serves as

the director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Although…it is likely he would have to give

up his job there [at NCI] if the Senate approves his nomination [as permanent FDA 

commissioner]… Following von Eschenbach’s nomination, PhRMA CEO Billy Tauzin said,

“By nominating a permanent FDA commissioner, the president is protecting the health and

safety of Americans.”

FDA to partner with industry, academia as it moves further 

down ‘Critical Path’ [In other words, they’re all in bed together!]

The FDA said yesterday it will partner with the pharmaceutical industry and academia to

further its efforts in speeding up drug development times under the Critical Path

Initiative…[which]… if accomplished, will modernize the drug development process by 2010

and help get medicines to patients quicker and at a lower cost, the FDA said… The agency also

announced yesterday the formation of a consortium between the Critical Path Institute—the

independent, publicly funded, nonprofit organization dedicated to the Critical Path Initiative

and co-founded by the FDA, the University of Arizona and SRI International—and some of the

world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. Member companies include Bristol-Myers Squibb,

GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Schering-Plough.

The goal of the consortium is to enable these companies to share knowledge and resources,

the agency said in a statement.

[The monopolistic collusion that has been quietly facilitated 

by the FDA for many years will now be BLATANTLY facilitated by the FDA.] 

This will allow pharmaceutical companies to determine which of the lab tests they have developed individually should be recommended by the FDA to screen drugs and better understand the potential side effects before the drugs enter clinical testing in humans.

[Yes, you read that correctly. THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WILL DETERMINE which of 

the lab tests THEY have developed should be recommended by the FDA to test for side effects 

before the drugs enter CLINICAL TESTING IN HUMANS!!! And now, we conclude these 

excerpts with a quote from Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach]:

“This is the public and the private sector together joining in an effort to be able to modernize

opportunities in product development…This really signals a major step forward in creating the

FDA of the future. An FDA that will be science led and that will be facilitating the progress that

we must make to best serve patients and the public.”

[It is indeed comforting to know that the FDA of the future will be science led. What has the 

FDA of the past been led by? And what is the FDA of the present being led by?]
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:27 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Home Medication Use Sends 700,000 to ER Annually </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-187.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Home Medication Use Sends 700,000 to ER Annually 
By Serena Gordon 
HealthDay ReporterTue Oct 17, 11:49 PM ET 

TUESDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) --While many people take their medications without a problem, as many as 700,000 Americans wind up in the emergency room each year because of adverse reactions to drugs they've taken, with 117,000 of those people hospitalized because of reactions.

Those are the conclusions of a new government study published in the Oct. 18 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"Even lifesaving drugs can be harmful if not taken and monitored properly," said Dr. Daniel Budnitz, a medical officer in the division of health care and quality promotion at the National Center for Infectious Diseases at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Medication use is commonplace in America. According to background information in the article, a study done in 2004 found that more than 80 percent of Americans reported using a prescription drug, over-the-counter medication or dietary supplement in the previous week. Thirty percent said they had used five or more drugs in the previous week.

Measuring the incidence of side effects for outpatient drug use has been difficult for several reasons. One is that people don't always report minor side effects to their physicians, and another is that there wasn't a national surveillance system in place to track these events.

Budnitz and his colleagues recruited 63 hospitals that were participating in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) to participate in the Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance (CADES). These hospitals are varied in size and in geographic location, and together are considered to be a nationally representative sample.

During the two-year study, the researchers found that 2.5 percent of all ER visits and 6.7 percent of ER visits leading to hospitalization were due to adverse drug events.

More than 21,000 people visited participating hospitals due to adverse drug reactions, during the study period. Using that information, the researchers were able to extrapolate that about 2.4 per 1,000 Americans -- or 701,547 -- visit hospital emergency rooms every year due to problems stemming from their medication use. The researchers estimated that 117,318 people have to be admitted to the hospital each year because of adverse drug reactions.

People over 65 were more than twice as likely to have an adverse drug event as younger people were.

"As many folks 65 and over ended up in the hospital with drug complications as for motor vehicle crashes," said Budnitz.

Some drugs appeared to be more troublesome than others. Generally, these were medications that require careful dosing and periodic monitoring to avoid complications. Insulin, warfarin and digoxin were among those more likely to cause an adverse event, Budnitz said.

Some commonly used medications were often responsible for adverse events. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as ibuprofen, caused about 3.3 percent of the adverse drug events, while antihistamines and cold medications were responsible for about 4 percent of the problems.

"There's a strong association between medication use and potential side effects," said Dr. Marc Siegel, an associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine.

Budnitz said that doctors have to educate their patients about their medications and be sure that any necessary follow-up testing and monitoring is done. Both Budnitz and Siegel said it's important for patients to take medications, even over-the-counter (OTC) ones, exactly as directed. Budnitz pointed out that when drugs have been around for a long time, which is the case with many OTC drugs, people tend to be familiar with them and feel they are safe. However, even if you've take a drug in the past without any difficulties, that doesn't necessarily mean you won't have problems with it now because as you age, your body metabolizes drugs differently.

"You should have a healthy concern about your medications, but not an excess worry," said Siegel. "Know the potential side effects and use your medications judiciously, with caution."

More information

To learn more about taking your medications safely, visit the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:30 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Obese post menopausal women prone to breast cancer studies </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-188.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Obese post-menopausal women prone to breast cancer: studies 
by Virginie MontetMon Oct 23, 1:40 PM ET 

Obese post-menopausal women are more susceptible to breast cancer, and those who continue to gain weight after 50 are more likely to die from the disease, according to research presented at an obesity conference.

"There is an overwhelming number of studies that show a link between obesity and breast cancer," Cheryl Rock of the University of California, San Diego said at the annual conference of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity (NAASO).

Marilie Gammon of the University of North Carolina warned that after menopause, obese women have a 75 percent greater chance of developing breast cancer.

She also said that women should be made aware that if they continue to add pounds past the half-century mark, they are raising their chances of death.

"We have to let them know that if you continue to gain weight after the age of 50 and contracted breast cancer, you are more likely to die," Gammon said.

A person is considered obese when his or her body mass index is 30 or above.

The BMI is a measure of body fat calculated by dividing weight by height squared, with a rating between 18.5 and 24.9 considered normal for adults.

Studies show that women who gain nearly 45 pounds (20 kilos) after the age of 18 are twice as likely to develop breast cancer after menopause than those who maintain a stable weight.

For a long time, it was commonly thought that excess weight protected a woman from breast cancer, but recent studies have indicated otherwise.

"A lot of women say, 'Who cares? I'm already overweight.' But it's bad. You are more likely to die if you are diagnosed with breast cancer," Gammon said, citing in particular a study by Page Abrahamson of the University of North Carolina, published this month.

On the bright side, recent studies also have shown that women who engage in some physical activity, even modest, at the first sign of the deadly disease have a better survival rate.

"The message is that you have to maintain some physical activity," Gammon said.

"Breast cancer is a good motivator for women," she said. "They fear it. They know what it's like to fight against it more than colon cancer or renal cell cancer," which is also linked to obesity.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:32 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Gene Screen Links Cancer Treatment to Tumor Type </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-189.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Gene Screen Links Cancer Treatment to Tumor Type 
Thu Oct 26, 7:04 PM ET 

THURSDAY, Oct. 26 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. scientists say they've developed new tests that analyze thousands of genes in a tumor to determine which kind of chemotherapy will be most effective against a particular tumor type.

In laboratory experiments with cells derived from cancer patient tumors, these genomic tests were 80 percent accurate in predicting which chemotherapy drugs would be most effective in killing the tumor.

A team from Duke University's Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, in Durham, N.C., published their findings in the November issue of Nature Medicine.

A clinical trial of the genomic tests in about 120 breast cancer patients is planned to begin next year, the Duke scientists said.

These new genomic tests may help save lives and reduce cancer patients' exposure to the toxic side effects of chemotherapy drugs, lead investigator Dr. Anil Potti, an assistant professor of medicine at the institute, said in a prepared statement.

Using the tests, doctors would be able to correctly determine the most effective form of chemotherapy for a patient's tumor, instead of trying various chemotherapy drugs until the correct one is found, Potti said.

"Over 400,000 patients in the United States are treated with chemotherapy each year, without a firm basis for which drug they receive," senior investigator Joseph Nevins, a professor of genetics at the institute, said in a prepared statement. "We believe these genomic tests have the potential to revolutionize cancer care by identifying the right drug for each individual patient."

More information

The American Cancer Society has more about chemotherapy.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:34 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Chemo versus 
nutritional therapies</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-190.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Chemo versus 
nutritional therapies: 
Is a conflict of interest compromising fair 
evaluation of alternative cancer treatments? 

© By Peter Chowka

  
Nicholas Gonzalez, MD 
ABC World News Tonight  
June 16, 2000 

(March 1, 2003) One year ago, Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, the New York City clinician who uses nutritional methods to treat cancer, told me about a situation that is now getting increasing attention in the press: The common practice in which oncologists (cancer specialists) not only prescribe chemotherapy to their patients but actually sell them the drugs. This practice represents a serious conflict of interest, since most oncologists now rely on drug sales to bring significant amounts of revenue into their offices. 

Between 1997 and 2001, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association, oncologists' income increased 40 percent to almost $300,000 a year, placing them at the top tier of all medical specialists. The profits from the drug sales represent a large part of that growth in income.

Gonzalez raised the issue in response to a question about why he was having a hard time getting patient referrals from oncologists for the federally-funded study of his nutrition-based treatment for pancreatic cancer, a treatment that completely eschews chemotherapy. "The problem," in terms of the lack of patient referrals, he said, "has been the oncologists out in the field. And I think some of it is financial. They can make $20,000 with a course of chemo for pancreatic cancer even though it doesn't work. It's standard of care and it's covered by insurance. And if they refer a patient into our [nutrition] study, they have to be previously untreated. They give up control of the patient and lose income. I think that's some of it [the problem]. Some of it is with the research - they have their own competing studies with chemo regimens and they're not about to give up patients to us. So just about all of the patients in the study - maybe there's one or two exceptions - have come through word of mouth, through the Internet, or through people like yourself, reading your articles. We're not getting the referrals from the oncologists."

The first major alert of this conflict of interest was raised on May 12, 2001 when a study by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD, a bioethicist and breast oncologist with degrees from Harvard and Oxford who currently works at the National Institutes of Health, was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in San Francisco. According to the study's abstract, 

  
Ezekiel Emanuel,  
MD, PhD 

"One-third of [cancer] patients receive chemotherapy at the end of life, even if cancer is not responding." The study's authors reviewed records of almost 8,000 patients in Massachusetts. The abstract reports that "researchers concluded that responsive and unresponsive cancers were treated equally often with chemotherapy at the end of life. 'While use of the chemotherapy in responsive cancers is understandable and may shrink the tumor and offer palliation, providing chemotherapy to patients with unresponsive cancers is hard to justify,' says Emanuel. 'Providing chemotherapy at the same rate to tumors that are not chemotherapy-responsive as to those that are chemotherapy-responsive strongly suggests overuse of chemotherapy at the end of life.'"

Emanuel's study did not mention a potential economic incentive - the oncologists' selling the drugs - as a cause of the overuse of chemotherapy. But an article published January 26, 2003 in the New York Times, "Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, and Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors," delved into the issue. According to the Times, "At a time when overall spending on prescription drugs is soaring, cancer specialists are pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars each year by selling drugs to patients — a practice that almost no other doctors follow. The cancer specialists can make huge sums — often the majority of their practice revenue — from the difference between what they pay for the drugs and what they charge insurers and government programs."

The General Accounting Office (GAO) published a study on September 21, 2001, "Medicare: Payments for Covered Outpatient Drugs Exceed Providers' Costs," that examined this issue. Like most GAO reports, it is complex and received little media and public attention. Nonetheless, for anyone interested in the current medical debate, it is an interesting read. The GAO found that "Physicians are able to obtain Medicare-covered drugs at prices significantly below current Medicare payments, which are set at 95 percent of AWP [average wholesale price]." In particular, "two physician-administered drugs had discounts of 65 percent and 86 percent," meaning that the profit for the doctors from government reimbursement for the drugs, calculated at AWP, was enormous.

Connecting the dots here, it is possible to see a disturbing pattern. Because of rigid standards of clinical practice and other group-think pressures on the part of medical orthodoxy, oncologists are already predisposed to overprescribe chemotherapy, whether or not the drugs have any chance of helping a patient. The added economic incentive - physicians' profiting handsomely from the sale of the drugs to their own patients - heightens the conflict of interest and suggests additional reasons why orthodoxy is focused almost exclusively on chemotherapy and has been disinterested in or even hostile to alternative, non-drug approaches - even to the extent of not referring patients to a legitimate, widely publicized, federally-funded study like Gonzalez'.

  
Ulrich Abel 

"You know about [Ulrich] Abel's work [Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990]," Gonzalez said in our interview a year ago. (Abel, a respected German biostatistician, contends that "there is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease." The "almost dogmatic belief in the efficacy of chemotherapy" is "usually based on false conclusions from inappropriate data.")

According to Gonzalez, "For the major cancers, chemotherapy has been a bust. There's no question about it. . .He [Abel] told me he rewrote it [his book eight years later] but never could get it translated into English. He basically said nothing had changed in eight years, since it first came out in 1990. His earlier treatise still held valid that for the major cancers chemotherapy just doesn't work and a lot of the immunotherapies don't work either. For the major, common cancers there's really no effective treatment, other than if you get it early enough and do surgical resection, although there's even debate about that."

And now, we have a better understanding of why the medical Establishment persists in pushing chemotherapy on patients well past the point that the drugs might have any clinical benefits: the economic advantages to the prescribers of the drugs, the oncologists.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:37 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Ah, the politics of it all………..
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-191.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Ah, the politics of it all………..
Stem cells might cause brain tumors, study finds 
Sun Oct 22, 3:22 PM ET 

Injecting human embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinson's disease patients may cause tumors to form, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.

Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.

Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.

Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.

This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.

The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.

Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.

Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.

Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.

But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.

The researchers killed the animals before they could know for sure, and said any experiments in humans would have to be done very cautiously.

Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.

Opponents of embryonic stem cell research cite such threats. Many opponents, including President George W. Bush and some members of Congress, believe it is immoral to destroy human embryos to obtain their stem cells. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:38 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Breast Cancer Drugs Not One-Size-Fits-All </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-192.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Breast Cancer Drugs Not One-Size-Fits-All 
By Kathleen Doheny 
HealthDay ReporterMon Oct 23, 7:03 PM ET 

MONDAY, Oct. 23 (HealthDay News) -- Not every breast cancer patient needs to turn to aromatase inhibitor drugs after using tamoxifen for five years, a new study suggests.

While some women definitely stay cancer-free longer by taking the drugs, others do fine without them, and so their use should be weighed carefully, said Dr. Gary M. Freedman, a radiation oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. He is the lead author of the study published in the Dec. 1 issue of Cancer.

In recent years, aromatase inhibitors have been given to postmenopausal women after using the breast cancer drug tamoxifen. The new study suggests re-thinking universal use of aromatase inhibitors because many women may not need them.

"One message from the study is the majority of women, by the time they finish surgery, radiation and five years of tamoxifen, have a very good prognosis at that point," said Freedman. "The vast majority of these women have been cured after the five-year mark on tamoxifen."

Tamoxifen, in use for more than 20 years, works against the effect of the hormone estrogen, which promotes the growth of breast cancer cells. The newer aromatase inhibitors (such as Femara, Aromasin or Arimidex) interfere with an aromatase enzyme and also reduce estrogen.

Freedman's team looked at 471 women, all treated with breast-conserving surgery, lymph node dissection and radiation after they received a diagnosis of breast cancer in the years 1982 to 1999, "before aromatase inhibitors came out," he said. They all received tamoxifen.

He looked at subgroups of these women to see if most of them would have actually benefited from the additional aromatase inhibitor treatment, evaluating such factors as how many lymph nodes were involved and their menopausal status.

Freedman concluded that the extra treatment in this group of women would have provided only marginal benefit. "The key is to be very selective about who is going to benefit the most from the medication," he said. Those who were premenopausal at the time of the diagnosis and those who had four or more lymph nodes positive for cancer would have been helped the most.

Freedman's team followed the women for a median of 8.25 years. During that time, they found 10 breast cancers in the other breast and 26 recurrences.

At the end of the follow-up period, 45 women had died; eight from breast cancer, the other 37 from other causes, Freedman said. Of those 37, 32 were women over age 60.

Freedman's study follows a large randomized study published last year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Researchers followed more than 5,000 women, half given Femara and half not, and found the aromatase inhibitor improved disease-free survival.

But, Freedman said, "their study didn't go into the kind of detail we did, trying to separate out which subgroups benefit and which didn't."

The new study points out an important fact about decisions about breast cancer treatments, said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. "Ultimately, these are individual decisions," he noted. "Women have to turn to their oncologist to get accurate and honest information about the benefits and the risks of the treatments recommended."

Like all drugs, the aromatase inhibitors have drawbacks, Lichtenfeld and Freedman pointed out. Cost is one, with a typical monthly fee of more than $200 in the United States. The aromatase inhibitors can also cause hot flashes, loss of appetite and boost the risk of getting osteoporosis.

But some women may still choose to take the drugs, Lichtenfeld said. "Once breast cancer recurs, it is difficult to get it back under control," he said. As a result, he said, there are likely to be women, after being informed of the risks and benefits, who will choose to take the drugs even if they boost the chance of disease-free survival by only a modest amount.

The same advice of tailoring the treatment to the person was echoed by a panel of advisors to the Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 18. It recommended that breast cancer patients be told in the prescribing information for the drug tamoxifen that if they have a certain genetic profile or take specific antidepressants, it might raise their risk of cancer recurrence.

Some people carry an inactive copy of an enzyme that prevents the body from breaking down some drugs, including tamoxifen, potentially boosting their risk of recurrence. And some research has shown that women on certain antidepressants fare worse on tamoxifen treatment.

More information

To learn more about hormone therapy for breast cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:38 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Red Wine May Cut Risk of Colorectal Cancer </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-193.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[The continuing body of evidence mounts on a daily basis and supports the long-time notion that eating all natural healthy foods plays a very important role in human health. While drinking a glass of wine is very enjoyable, and while it’s nice to know that there are health benefits associated with that, we also know that to alcohol is not altogether healthy in itself. 

The Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Research would like to comment that eating the grapes themselves, and other dark-colored fruits and vegetables, has been shown to have as equal or greater health benefits because of their natural ingredients (from vitamins and minerals to fiber and unique plant enzymes). So enjoy the red wines occasionally, but focus on a natural healthy diet for true lifetime health and happiness.......

Red Wine May Cut Risk of Colorectal Cancer 
By Ed Edelson 
HealthDay ReporterMon Oct 23, 7:03 PM ET 

MONDAY, Oct. 23 (HealthDay News) -- Drinking more than three glasses of red wine a week reduced the incidence of abnormal growths and cancers of the intestinal tract by two-thirds, a new study found.

White wine did not have the same protective effect, said study author Dr. Joseph C. Anderson, an assistant professor of medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

"I generally advise against drinking, but if you're going to drink, drink red wine," Anderson said.

The findings were expected to be presented Monday at the American College of Gastroenterology's annual meeting, in Las Vegas.

Anderson's study included 1,741 people seen in his office -- 245 red wine drinkers, 115 white wine drinkers, and 1,381 wine abstainers. Of the red wine drinkers, 176 had three or more glasses a week, as did 68 of the white wine drinkers.

The incidence of colorectal neoplasia -- cancers and polyps that can become cancerous -- was 9.9 percent in the abstainers, 8.8 percent in the three-glass-or-more white wine drinkers, and 3.4 percent in the three-glass-or more red wine drinkers, a 68 percent reduction for that group, Anderson reported.

His is the latest in a series of studies that have found red wine consumption associated with a reduced risk of various forms of cancer -- leukemia, breast and prostate among them -- in animal studies or real life. Like many of the other researchers, Anderson attributes the beneficial effect to the compound resveratrol, which is found under the skin of grapes.

Resveratrol content is higher in red than white wine because the grape skins are removed early in the fermentation process for white wines, Anderson said. The skins stay on longer when red wine is made, allowing resveratrol to enter the wine.

But that might not be the whole story, said Gopi Paliyath, a plant agriculture professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who has done studies that found a protective effect from red wine against breast cancer.

Resveratrol is a member of the chemical family called polyphenols, many of which are found in red wine, Paliyath said. "It may be a combined action, not only one particular component doing something," he said.

And a study done by one of his students added a potentially different element to the mix -- chemicals found in the oak barrels in which wine is made. They may leak out of the oak into the wine and act in conjunction with the polyphenols, he said.

Whatever the cause of the protective effect, Anderson said he advises people against taking up the wine habit for health reasons.

"People are better off going out exercising than hoping that a glass of wine will help them," he said. "My bias is more toward other things, like running or biking."

But, Anderson noted, his observation is that "wine drinkers are more likely to do those things."

More information

For more on red wine and cancer prevention, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:39 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Modern medicine has saved countless lives, and has afforded people all over the world longer and better lives</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-194.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Modern medicine has saved countless lives, and has afforded people all over the world longer and better lives.

Unfortunately, it seems that with the modern times comes the true nature of the pharmaceutical industry and their goal. They are now, and always will be, a business, driven by P & L reports, stock price and Balance Sheets. We understand that it is necessary to earn a profit in business, but there are also integrity and morals that need to be adhered. Especially when dealing with peoples lives and their health. 

The sad state of the modern pharmaceutical industry is that it seems to be driven solely by the decision of money, not on the merit of the product or its safety (VIOXX is a classic example). Products today, like AstraZeneca, are placed in the so called "pipeline" not because they are effective, but because they should be able to turn a profit easily. Case in point, as the article illustrates the focus will come to down a financial decision. Do you think they would go through all these prior trials, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, and not know that it was effective? We just don't believe it.


We have seen research into other compounds that are safer and much more effective, yet they don't get the funding or the research for various reasons. Times are changing and the drug makers that want to keep us on their drugs because that is how they make a profit. Now it seems they are having to answer the hard questions as to why they are doing what they are doing when they purport to be looking out for the best interest of the people. We will keep asking them the hard but simple questions of why and how until we arrive at the truth of the research.

AstraZeneca stroke drug fails in pivotal trial 
By Ben Hirschler, European Pharmaceuticals CorrespondentThu Oct 26, 4:44 AM ET 

AstraZeneca Plc's experimental stroke drug NXY-059 failed to meet its goal in a pivotal Phase III clinical trial, dealing a fresh blow to the group's already depleted new product pipeline.

The medicine will now be dropped from development, the company said on Thursday, overshadowing what analysts expect to be a strong set of third-quarter results due at 1000 GMT and sending its shares down around 3.5 percent in early trade.

The so-called SAINT II study was designed to show a reduction in disability in patients following an acute ischemic stroke. In the event there was no statistically significant difference among patients given either NXY-059 or placebo.

Ischemic stroke is the most common kind -- accounting for around 85 percent of cases -- and is caused by a clot or other blockage disrupting the flow of blood to the brain.

Previously known as Cerovive, NXY-059 was licensed by AstraZeneca from U.S. biotech firm Renovis Inc.

It was always viewed by analysts as a high-risk project, since the pharmaceutical industry is littered with past examples of neuroprotectant drugs -- designed to protect patients from permanent damage after a stroke -- that have failed to work.

Development head John Patterson said the trial outcome suggested the class of drugs did not work and AstraZeneca would not seek to acquire or develop any other neuroprotectants for stroke.

The product was one of two late-stage experimental drugs from AstraZeneca's pipeline that the company had hoped could reach the market by the first half of 2008.

The second is another licensed-in drug -- AtheroGenics Inc's

atherosclerosis treatment AGI-1067 -- for which key clinical trial results are due in early 2007.

BLOW TO CONFIDENCE

Some industry analysts had viewed NXY-059 as a possible $3 billion-a-year seller. It would have been the company's first new compound to win regulatory approval since cholesterol fighter Crestor in 2003.

Its failure will add to concerns that AstraZeneca cannot get products to market following past late-stage setbacks with anticoagulant Exanta, lung cancer pill Iressa and Galida for diabetes.

Deutsche Bank, AstraZeneca's house broker, said removing NXY-059 from forecasts would lower its 2010 earnings forecasts by 3 percent, but the shares could fall more than this given the blow to sentiment and confidence in the group's strategy.

AstraZeneca's Patterson acknowledged the news was a blow to the group's goal of restocking its pipeline.

"These clinical trial results, while not without precedent given the challenging nature of the science, are disappointing for patients looking for new treatments for stroke and for AstraZeneca as we seek to build our research and development pipeline," he said.

An earlier Phase III trial, known as SAINT I, had found NXY-059 produced a statistically significant benefit in reducing disability on one key measure but not on a second.

NXY-059 was licensed in under a 15-percent royalty deal from Renovis, whose stock analysts expect to take a tumble on Nasdaq
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:41 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Study: Scans may find lung cancer sooner </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-195.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Study: Scans may find lung cancer sooner 
By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science WriterThu Oct 26, 7:56 PM ET 

A controversial new study offers the strongest evidence yet that screening smokers for lung cancer with computerized chest scans can save lives, much as mammograms do for women with breast cancer.

Doctors have long had doubts that early detection of tumors could improve survival, and also feared that screening would lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies. Scans are not now recommended, but many smokers have been paying for them on their own for their peace of mind.

The new study strongly suggests there is a survival benefit. But it does not prove the point, because it lacked a comparison group, many scientists say.

In the study, people whose early lung tumors were detected by CT scans and promptly removed had an estimated 10-year survival rate of 92 percent — much better than the roughly 70 percent who typically survive, and far better than the dismal 5 percent who make it that long after the disease has spread beyond the lungs.

"It gives us greater confidence that screening may really offer advantages in saving lives from lung cancer," said Dr. Robert Smith, director of screening at the American Cancer Society, which was among more than two dozen groups that funded the study.

Even though the study lacked a comparison group, he said, "it's highly unlikely that this completely invalidates the observation of a favorable benefit from early diagnosis."

Lung cancer is the world's top cancer killer. About 174,470 Americans and 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with it this year. The vast majority will die, largely because the disease is found too late for treatment to do much good. Only 16 percent of cases in the United States are detected in Stage 1, when tumors are still confined to the lung.

Studies in the 1970s found that screening smokers with regular X-rays did not improve lung cancer survival, and such efforts were largely abandoned until the 1990s, when CT scans were developed.

These sophisticated X-rays produce images of the lungs from many angles and can reveal pea-size growths long before they produce symptoms. Interest in the scans rose in 1999, when Dr. Claudia Henschke of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center published a landmark study showing that they found far more tumors than conventional X-rays did.

Her new study, reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, extends these results to a larger group of people and reports on survival. Dozens of researchers around the world screened 31,567 people at high risk of lung cancer because they were current or former smokers or had been exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke.

Participants were initially screened between 1993 and 2005, and the vast majority came back for repeated screenings about a year later. Thirteen percent of those who were initially screened and 5 percent who had repeated screenings had suspicious spots that required further testing. Biopsies were performed on 535 patients; 484 were diagnosed with lung cancer, including 412 in the early stage. Most had surgery or chemotherapy, and eight were untreated.

Researchers then calculated survival probability using a common statistical tool. The estimated 10-year survival rate, regardless of when the cancer was diagnosed or the type of treatment, was 80 percent.

That increased to 88 percent if the cancer was detected in an early stage, and to 92 percent if such patients had surgery within a month of diagnosis. The eight untreated patients all died within five years of diagnosis.

"When you find it when it's small, you can essentially cure most of them," Henschke said.

The scans cost between $200 and $300, roughly double the price of a mammogram. Insurers are not covering lung scans because the government does not recommend them.

The biggest weakness in the study is that it lacked a comparison group, making it impossible to tell how people would have fared if they didn't receive a CT scan.

Henschke said the general population can be the comparison group, because lung cancer is so common and its survival odds are so well known. But many scientists disagreed, and said her study falls short for this reason.

"It raises great hope for CT screening," but it doesn't prove a benefit, said Dr. Denise Aberle of the University of California, Los Angeles, who is helping conduct a government-funded study that should give more definitive answers. It is screening 53,000 current and former smokers with CT scans or regular chest X-rays to see whether either can cut lung cancer deaths. The Mayo Clinic also is leading a screening study, and others are under way in Europe. 

Until there is proof, patients considering screening should ask their doctors about the pros and cons, said Dr. Joan Schiller, a cancer specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. 

"They need to know that the chances are good that something abnormal will be found," which could lead to false alarms, she said. 

In light of the latest results, at least one patient advocacy group — the Lung Cancer Alliance — is urging doctors to regularly screen patients for lung cancer. 

"This is the most important breakthrough for the lung cancer community that has ever happened," president Laurie Fenton said in a statement. 

Research on lung cancer detection may have been delayed because of the stigma associated with the disease — the notion that smokers brought this on themselves and that little could be done once they developed it, many doctors say. The problem grew worse when X-ray screening studies in the 1970s failed to find a benefit, Dr. Michael Unger of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia wrote in an accompanying editorial. 

Henschke's latest study is a "provocative, welcome salvo in the long struggle to reduce the tremendous burden of lung cancer on society," Unger wrote. 

___ 

On the Net: 

New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org 

American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:42 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Colon Cancer Screening Is Saving Lives </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-196.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Colon Cancer Screening Is Saving Lives 
By Amanda Gardner 
HealthDay ReporterThu Oct 26, 7:04 PM ET 

THURSDAY, Oct. 26 (HealthDay News) -- Increased use of colonoscopy and other screening seems to have resulted in a drop in colon cancer rates in the United States, new research shows.

Another study finds that colonoscopy results are typically valid for at least 5 years -- allaying fears that shorter testing intervals might be needed. 

And a third study suggests the end of colonoscopy altogether. Instead, a tiny video capsule could help doctors scan the bowel for irregularities. 

All three studies were expected to be presented at this week's annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology, in Las Vegas. 

"I think that they all are reporting very encouraging information," said Dr. Durado Brooks, director of colorectal cancer at the American Cancer Society. 

Colorectal malignancies are the second leading cancer killer in the United States. Unlike many cancers, however, this disease is largely preventable through detection of precancerous polyps. 

"You could argue that no one should get colon cancer at all," said Dr. Jerald Wishner, director of the colorectal cancer program and colorectal surgery at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mt. Kisco, N.Y. "We're not just trying to find early cancers. We're trying to prevent cancer from ever developing with early screening," he said 

The American College of Gastroenterology currently recommends that average-risk individuals start screening at age 50. The preferred method is a colonoscopy once every 10 years. Other methods are available but have to be performed more frequently. 

The first study, by a team from the University of California, Irvine, found that increased screening for colorectal cancer may have spurred a corresponding U.S. decline in the incidence of the disease from 1988 to 2002. Looking at information from a nationwide database, the researchers included screening methods such as colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy (an examination of the lower bowel) and fecal occult blood testing. 

According to the researchers, the incidence of colon cancer has decreased from 42.8 per 100,000 in 1988-90 to 38.6 per 100,000 in 2000-02, the study found. 

Between 1997 and 2002, there was an 80 percent increased use of colonoscopy by Americans, the California team noted. 

"I don't know that they've proved cause-and-effect, but what we have is clearly a high-level association," Brooks said. "I think that most people in the field are comfortable and confident that screening is making a difference." 

The second study, led by researchers at Indiana University, found that the results of a colonoscopy appear to be valid for at least five years. 

"There are a lot of physicians, gastroenterologists and primary care physicians who are uncomfortable with the 10-year screening interval that's recommended," Brooks said. "This study helps to reinforce the fact that if a good colonoscopy is done, then there's a very low likelihood that that person is going to develop colorectal cancer at least within the next five years and probably significantly further out. There's a fair body of evidence that a 10-year screening interval is reasonable." 

And with a view to the future, a third study reported that colon-capsule endoscopy -- a procedure in which patients swallow a small video capsule that travels through the colon looking for problems -- could one day be the new standard of screening. 

As described by a team from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, the capsule was more effective in detecting precancerous polyps than virtual colonoscopy but less effective than traditional colonoscopy, the study found. 

One problem with the device is that the patient's colon still has to be cleansed beforehand. "This is the unpleasant part of a colonoscopy, so you have lost some of the potential benefit," Brooks said, adding that it is, nevertheless, "intriguing and holds some promise." 

The study's lead author stated that he had financial ties to the device's manufacturer, Given Imaging Ltd. 

More information

Learn more about colorectal cancer at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:43 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Eating your vegetables -- but not fruit -- will keep you young: study </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-197.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[
Mon Oct 23, 8:17 PM ET 

Vegetables are brain food, according to new study which found that eating veggies can help prevent cognitive decline in the elderly.

"Compared to people who consumed less than one serving of vegetables a day, people who ate at least 2.8 servings of vegetables a day saw their rate of cognitive change slow by roughly 40 percent," study author Martha Clare Morris of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago said in a press release.

"This decrease is equivalent to about five years of younger age."

Researchers followed the eating habits of 3,718 senior citizens over a six-year period and found that consumption especially of green leafy vegetables were linked to a slowing of cognitive decline. They also found that the older the person, the greater the impact of eating more than two servings of vegetables a day.

Researchers meanwhile said they were surprised that eating fruit showed no link to reducing memory loss.

"This was unanticipated and raises several questions," said Morris. "It may be due to vegetables containing high amounts of vitamin E, which helps lowers the risk of cognitive decline. Vegetables, but not fruits, are also typically consumed with added fats such as salad dressings, and fats increase the absorption of vitamin E. Further study is required to understand why fruit is not associated with cognitive change."

The study is published in the October 24, 2006, issue of Neurology, the scientific journal of the American Academy of Neurology
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 04:43 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Study confirms way to predict bad prostate cancer </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-198.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Study confirms way to predict bad prostate cancer 
Watching changes in men's PSA blood tests may be the best way of predicting which men have life-threatening prostate cancer, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, strengthens the argument that men should have their prostate specific antigen, or PSA, levels tested when they are young, so doctors have a "baseline" for studying future changes.

"We have found that the rate at which a man's PSA rises may be more important than any absolute level for identifying men who will develop life-threatening cancer while their disease is still curable," said Dr. H. Ballentine Carter of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.

"In addition, PSA velocity could be a useful method for identifying those men with a prostate cancer that could be safely monitored -- an approach termed 'active surveillance."'

The PSA test is often used to screen for prostate cancer. PSA is a protein made only by prostate cells, and in cancer, PSA levels can rise as tumor cells multiply.

But PSA can also rise as a man's prostate gland grows with age, and some men with cancer have low PSA levels. So the test is considered imperfect.

Men are advised to get a digital rectal exam, in which the doctor uses a finger to feel the prostate, which is about the size of a walnut and found between the testicles and anus. Cancer can only be diagnosed with a biopsy, a tiny sample of prostate tissue.

Prostate cancer is common. This year, 234,460 men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

But only about 30,000 will die of it, because the tumors can be very slow-growing.

Some recent studies have suggested it may be better to look at year-to-year changes in a man's PSA, which is measured in a blood test.

Carter and colleagues assessed the PSA velocity of 104 men diagnosed with prostate cancer who had not died from the disease, 20 men who died of prostate cancer, and 856 men without prostate cancer.

They looked at blood samples from the men dating back as far as 1958.

They found that a patient's PSA velocity 10 to 15 years before his cancer diagnosis was associated with survival 25 years later. Patients with a lower PSA velocity had a 92 percent survival rate, while patients with a higher PSA velocity had a 54 percent survival rate.

"We would recommend that men at around age 40, not 50, have their PSA checked to develop a baseline against which to compare future changes (velocity), since even a slight rise in PSA may indicate a potential for cancer down the road," Carter said in a statement. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 06:34 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-199.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water 
and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries
Under section 403(r)(3)(C) (21 U.S.C. §343(r)(3)(C)) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act), a manufacturer may submit to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a notification of a health claim based on an authoritative statement from an appropriate scientific body of the United States Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or any of its subdivisions. The notification must be submitted to FDA at least 120 days before the food is introduced into interstate commerce. The claim may be made after 120 days from the date of submission of the notification until such time as 1) FDA issues a regulation prohibiting or modifying the claim or finding that the requirements for making the claim have not been met, or 2) a district court in an enforcement proceeding has determined that the requirements for making the claim have not been met.

On June 16, 2006, the FDA received a notification (the June 16 notification) from the law firm of Covington and Burling regarding a health claim for the relationship between fluoridated water and a reduced risk of dental caries. The 120-day period from the date of submission of the June 16 notification was October 14, 2006. Therefore, after October 14, 2006, manufacturers may use the claim specified in the notification, as modified by the notifier in a letter to FDA dated October 13, on the label and in labeling of any food product that meets the eligibility criteria described below, unless or until FDA or a court acts to prohibit the claim.

The June 16 notification cites statements from several sources as authoritative statements for the claim. FDA reviewed the sources and cited statements in their context and in light of existing authorized health claims and current science. The following three statements are considered authoritative for purposes of this notification.

Recommendation for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control, 2001): 

"Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) in the United States and other economically developed countries. When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely exposed to some degree of fluoride, which is available from multiple sources." (Summary section, page 1)

"Continue and extend fluoridation of community drinking water: Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive way to prevent dental caries. This modality benefits persons in all age groups and of all SES, ...." (Recommendation section, page 24)

Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General (2000):

"Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing dental caries in both children and adults. Water fluoridation benefits all residents served by community water supplies regardless of their social or economic status. Professional and individual measures, including the use of fluoride mouth rinses, gels, dentifrices, and dietary supplements and the application of dental sealants, are additional means of preventing dental caries." (Executive summary)

Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (Public Health Service, 1991): 

"Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoride areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident." (Conclusions section, page 87)

According to the June 16 notification and the letter to FDA dated October 13, the food eligible to bear the claim is bottled water meeting the standards of identity and quality set forth in 21 CFR 165.110, containing greater than 0.6 and up to 1.0 mg/L total fluoride, and meeting all general requirements for health claims (21 CFR 101.14) with the exception of minimum nutrient contribution (21 CFR 101.14 (e)(6)). The claim language is: "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]." In addition, the health claim is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants.

The notification and materials regarding the claim are publicly available from the FDA Division of Dockets Management (Docket No.2006Q-0418). Persons interested in these documents may view them at the Division of Dockets Management from 9am to 4pm, Monday through Friday at 5630 Fishers Lane, room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. The Division of Dockets Management may be contacted at 301-827-6860. FDA also intends to make the documents available on the Dockets web site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/dockets.htm, under Docket No. 2006Q-0418.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 06:36 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA Approves New Treatment for Advanced Head and Neck Cancer</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-200.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[FDA News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
P06-170 
October 18, 2006  Media Inquiries:  
Megan Moynahan, 301-827-6242 
Consumer Inquiries:  
888-INFO-FDA  

FDA Approves New Treatment for Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved Taxotere (docetaxel) Injection Concentrate for use in combination with cisplatin and fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy for the treatment of patients with inoperable, locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). This disease represents approximately 3 percent of all new cancer cases in the United States.

"Today's approval will provide prescribers with a new treatment option that has been shown to help slow the spread of the disease and prolong patients' survival," said Steven Galson, M.D., director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Taxotere was approved on the basis of the results of a multicenter, randomized trial of 358 patients with previously untreated, inoperable, locally advanced SCCHN. The patients were divided into two groups; one received Taxotere in combination with the chemotherapy drugs cisplatin and fluorouracil, and the other received only cisplatin and fluorouracil. Chemotherapy was administered prior to radiation therapy. Surgery was allowed after chemotherapy, either before or after radiation therapy. The patients in the Taxotere arm of the trial experienced a longer survival time (18.6 months versus 14.2 months) and a longer time to disease progression or death (11.4 months versus 8.3 months) than the group on cisplatin and fluorouracil alone. 

The most frequent adverse events reported during the trial by the patients on Taxotere were decreases in white and red blood cells, loss of hair, inflammation of the mouth and esophagus, and nausea. Compared to patients in the control arm, patients on Taxotere had greater hair loss, decreases in white blood cells, fever or infection with low white blood cells, fluid retention, diarrhea and neurosensory abnormalities. 

Taxotere is manufactured by Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 06:37 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Black Women's Genes May Spur Deadlier Breast Cancer </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-201.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Black Women's Genes May Spur Deadlier Breast Cancer 
Tue Oct 24, 11:48 PM ET 

TUESDAY, Oct. 24 (HealthDay News) -- Black American women are more likely to have aggressive breast cancer and poorer survival rates than patients of other races, a new study finds.

The findings suggest that race-influenced tumor biology may contribute to racial disparities that have long been observed in breast cancer outcomes, the researchers said.

The study, to be published in the Dec. 1 issue of Cancer, was led by Dr. Wendy A. Woodward of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She and her colleagues reviewed the medical records and outcomes of more than 2,100 black, white and Hispanic breast cancer patients.

The patients were divided into two treatment groups -- those who had received either chemotherapy before or after mastectomy.

In both groups, being black was independently associated with poor tumor and clinical characteristics and low survival rates compared to being white or Hispanic. For example, the study found that black women presented with more advanced disease and were likely to have estrogen-receptor (ER) negative tumors.

The findings support previous data "that African-American women more frequently had ER-negative disease and high-grade tumors and that African-American race was associated with a poorer survival rate," the study authors wrote.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about breast cancer.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 06:37 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Drug overuse and underuse very common in seniors </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-202.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Drug overuse and underuse very common in seniors 
Tue Oct 24, 1:45 PM ET 

The more drugs an older patient is prescribed, the more likely the patient is to be taking an inappropriate medication, a new study shows.

Overall, 65 percent of the 196 study patients were on at least one drug that was unnecessary, a duplication of the effects of a drug they were already taking, or not recommended for older people, the researchers found.

"The steep rise in inappropriate medication use with increasing numbers of drugs provides a striking confirmation of the potential harms and need for extra vigilance" in patients prescribed multiple drugs, Dr. Michael Steinman of the San Francisco VA Medical Center and colleagues write.

Steinman and his team found that underprescribing was equally common; 64 percent of the patients were not prescribed a drug that they should have been taking.

Medication underuse and overuse were seen simultaneously in 42 percent of patients. Just 13 percent of the patients were not on an inappropriately prescribed medication or not on a drug that they should have been prescribed.

To better understand the relationship between "polypharmacy," or prescribing of multiple medications, and inappropriate prescribing, Steinman and his team evaluated VA Medical Center patients who were taking five or more drugs. All were outpatients, and their average age was about 75 years. The number of medications they took ranged from 5 to 17, with an average of about 8.

As mentioned, inappropriate drug use rose steadily with the number of different drugs a patient was prescribed. For example, those on five to six drugs averaged less than one inappropriate drug, while those taking seven to nine medications were on an average of one misprescribed drug. Patients taking 10 or more drugs averaged at least two inappropriate medications.

However, the researchers found, the frequency of underprescribing did not vary with the number of medications a patient was on. In addition, underuse was more common than overuse among patients taking fewer than eight drugs.

"Inappropriate medication use is most frequent in patients taking many medications, but underuse is also common and merits attention regardless of the total number of medications taken," the researchers conclude.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, October 2006. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>31 Oct 2006 - 06:39 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA Approves New Combination Therapy for Lung Cancer </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-203.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Once again the taxpayer-funded, pharmaceutically controlled Food and Drug Administration has approved another chemotherapy for what is known from the original application as “OFF LABEL USE.”  
Were any safety or contraindication studies done with this combination of drugs? NO!  People were the actual test subjects. Did they report the data on the adverse events? NO! See below and look at the horrific side effects for a possible 2 month extension on life. What about the quality of it and if there were other alternatives that did not do these types of things? Why are those alternatives not being studied and approved?
Is this enough information to determine safety and efficacy for a 2 month survival? We surely don’t think so, but when insurance companies pay the bills and our rates just keep going up, when will the insane cycle stop? We have to speak up, we have to be heard and demand better health care with the safest and best products available. We need to have the freedom to choose our best health care options. Not those being dictated by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, which are simply based upon money and greed. How many more situations will people have to suffer through with side effects and loss of quality of life until people realize and fully integrate health care with more natural and possibly more effective alternatives? Information is the force of change and we are here to help find and spread that information so that people can make a good decision based upon information and not desperation.
________________________________________________________________

FDA News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEP06-166October 12, 2006 	Media Inquiries: Susan Cruzan, 301-827-6242Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA 

FDA Approves New Combination Therapy for Lung Cancer

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Avastin (bevacizumab) in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel for the initial systemic treatment of patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic, non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer. This approval was based on an improvement in survival time when Avastin was added to a standard chemotherapy regimen.
Non-small cell lung cancer accounts for 75 percent of the174,400 new cases of lung cancer that are expected to be diagnosed this year. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in men and women. 
"FDA believes it is crucial for cancer patients to have many treatment options available to them in their battle against this disease," said Richard Pazdur, M.D., Director, Office of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA. "With the approval of Avastin, patients with this type of lung cancer will not only have access to another treatment option, but one that has been shown in clinical trials to increase survival time." 
The multi-center clinical trial supporting this approval enrolled 878 patients who had not received prior chemotherapy. The median age of the patients was 63, and 46 percent were women. The trial compared the effectiveness of Avastin plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with chemotherapy by carboplatin and paclitaxel alone. The main outcome measure of the study was duration of survival. 
The median overall survival time for patients in the Avastin plus carboplatin and paclitaxel arm was 12.3 months versus 10.3 months for patients receiving only carboplatin and paclitaxel. 
The most serious adverse events associated with Avastin, including some that were fatal, were gastrointestinal perforation, wound healing complications, hemorrhage, blockage of the arteries, abnormally high blood pressure, albumin deficiency in the blood and congestive heart failure. The most common adverse events in patients receiving Avastin included weakness, abdominal pain, headache, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting.
Avastin, in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, was previously approved for first- or second-line treatment of patients with metastatic cancer of the colon or rectum. 
Avastin is manufactured by Genentech, Inc., in South San Francisco, Calf.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 11:34 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Lung Cancer Can Run in the Family</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-204.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[ 
Lung Cancer Can Run in the Family 
By Serena Gordon
HealthDay ReporterThu Oct 12, 11:48 PM ET 
THURSDAY, Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) -- While smoking is far and away the biggest risk factor for lung cancer, having a close relative who has been diagnosed with the disease nearly doubles your risk of developing the deadly disease.
A new study in the October issue of Chest found that people with a first-degree relative -- that means mother, father or sibling -- who had lung cancer had a 95 percent higher risk of developing the disease themselves.
"Our long-term follow-up of a large-scale, population-based cohort identified a significant increase in the risk of lung cancer associated with a family history of lung cancer in a first-degree relative in a Japanese population," the study authors wrote. 
Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology and oncology at the Ochsner Clinic Health System in Baton Rouge, La., said this study confirms what's already known about family history and the risk of lung cancer, and that "it's an important thing for physicians to realize."
"As a clinician, when I have someone with lung cancer, I ask the family members, 'Who smokes cigarettes?' Then I explain that they have a two- to three-fold higher risk of lung cancer because of their family history, and this is just another reason to quit smoking because they have a genetic susceptibility to the carcinogens in tobacco," explained Brooks. 
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 180,000 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States, and nearly 170,000 Americans die from the disease annually. It's the second leading cause of death for men and the third leading cause of death for women, according to the CDC. Cigarette smoking is the most common cause of the disease, according to the National Institutes of Health, though not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker or former smoker.
The current study followed more than 102,000 middle-aged and older Japanese adults for as long as 13 years; there were more women (53,421) than men (48,834). During the study period, 791 cases of lung cancer were diagnosed. 
The researchers found that having a first-degree relative with lung cancer nearly doubled the odds of developing lung cancer. The association was even stronger for women. Women who had a first-degree relative with lung cancer almost had triple the risk of lung cancer, while men with a first-degree relative with lung cancer had about a 70 percent higher risk.
Additionally, people who had never smoked had a higher risk of developing lung cancer themselves if they had a first-degree relative with the disease than did smokers with close family members with lung cancer.
Family history was also more strongly associated with a particular type of lung cancer -- squamous cell carcinoma.
Brooks and Dr. Ann G. Schwartz, who wrote an accompanying editorial in the same issue of the journal, both said it wasn't clear why family history would confer a greater risk for women than for men. Schwartz said one possibility is that women are more familiar with their family histories and may just be reporting family history more accurately. Brooks also pointed out that this finding might only apply to Japanese women and not other populations. 
It's also not clear exactly why family history is associated with a greater risk for those who never smoked, though Schwartz said it may have something to do with different lung cancer types. It's possible that the type of lung cancer nonsmokers often get may also be one where the genetic susceptibility is passed from generation to generation. 
While there aren't clear-cut screening guidelines in place for someone with a family history of lung cancer, Schwartz said, "You need to make your physician aware of your family history; don't discount it." 
She added that she'd like to see people with a family history of the disease identified as high-risk for lung cancer and included in screening studies.
"If you have a family history of lung cancer, you have a genetic susceptibility to the carcinogens in directly inhaled and in secondhand tobacco smoke. Avoid all exposure to tobacco, quit smoking if you're a smoker," and don't let your children be exposed to tobacco smoke, Brooks said.
More information
To learn what steps you can take to help prevent lung cancer, visit the National Cancer Institute

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 11:37 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Protein May Help Targeting for Anti-Tumor Drugs </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-205.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Protein May Help Targeting for Anti-Tumor Drugs 
Thu Oct 12, 11:48 PM ET 
THURSDAY, Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) -- A protein that may help in the development of new anti-tumor drugs has been identified by Mayo Clinic researchers. 
The protein -- cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2) -- acts as a "quality control inspector" during cell division, and also directs cell death for cells that are damaged during division.
Normal cells pause during the division process if they detect an inaccurate genetic code embedded in their DNA. If possible, repairs are made to those mistakes.
When those genetic code errors are irreparable, CDK2 modifies another cellular protein called FOX01 to send a signal that causes the damaged cell to die, the study found.
"Quality control within dividing cells is essential because mistakes during duplication of the genetic code can lead to cancer. CDK2 is a key protein component in the cellular mechanism that leads to repair of damaged DNA," Donald Tindall, co-leader of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center prostate cancer research program, said in a prepared statement.
This finding offers scientists a potential "bulls eye" for targeting anti-tumor drugs.
The study was published in the current issue of Science.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more about cancer.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 11:37 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Chemotherapy, with a C</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-206.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[ 	                 Is the popular vitamin a possible cure for cancer? By Marie McCulloughMCT NEWS SERVICE August 10, 2006 Is mainstream medical science ignoring an inexpensive, painless, readily available cure for cancer? Mark Levine mulls this loaded question. The government nutrition researcher has published new evidence that suggests vitamin C can work like chemotherapy – only better. But so far, he hasn't been able to interest cancer experts in conducting the kind of conclusive studies that, one way or the other, would advance treatment. “If vitamin C is useful in cancer treatment, that's wonderful. If it's not, or if it's harmful, that's fine, too,” said Levine, a Harvard-educated physician at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “The goal is: Find what's true. Either way, the public wins, clinicians win and patients win.” If Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel laureate-turned-vitamin C zealot, had taken an equally dispassionate stance 30 years ago, who knows where the vitamin would be in oncology today. Surely not where it is: a dubious alternative on the fringes of medicine, despite its continuing links to remissions and cures. This is not about popping supplements. It's about putting high-dose vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, into a vein, which requires needles and trained professionals. The distinction between oral and intravenous is crucial. The body automatically gets rid of extra C through urine. Levine's lab has shown that, at high concentrations, the vitamin is toxic to many types of cancer cells in lab dishes. But to get that much C into the body before it's eliminated, it must be put directly into the blood. This may explain the defining setback of Pauling's crusade. He and his collaborator, Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron, gave C intravenously and orally, and claimed many of their cancer patients lived surprisingly long and well. In the 1970s, two rigorous government studies intended to test their claims gave only pills – and found no benefits. How could so many smart people, including Pauling, ignore a variable as basic as the body's ability to absorb and clear a drug? “I don't want to impugn anyone,” Levine said. “It's one of these things where somebody didn't ask the right questions.” Anecdotes don't matter So Levine keeps on, driven by the still-open question: Can intravenous vitamin C do what even the costliest, most targeted, most effective therapies cannot: kill cancer cells without harming healthy ones? Levine, in collaboration with National Cancer Institute pathologists, re-examined, then published the cases of three patients treated with intravenous vitamin C by the Center for Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kan. The center was founded by Hugh Riordan, a now deceased physician and friend of Pauling's. While such “case reports” prove nothing, Levine hoped they would stir interest in re-examining ascorbate in oncology. 
The problem is, anecdotes and impressions don't count. Skeptics ask: Where's the data on dosing and regimens, on tumor responses, on survival? “As far as I know, that kind of registry just doesn't exist now, and it's a huge weakness of the movement,” acknowledged Ron Hunninghake, chief medical officer at Riordan's center, which is starting a database. In any case, as consumers clamor for alternative therapies, intravenous C is gaining fans. Reports of side effects are rare, and risky patients – with kidney problems or blood disorders – are easily screened out. “Interest is definitely growing,” said Kenneth Bock, physician and president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, an alternative-medicine society that teaches ascorbate infusion protocols. Interest is not growing, however, among mainstream oncologists, judging from conferences, publications and interviews with some of them. The National Cancer Institute, with a $5-billion budget, is not sponsoring studies of intravenous C. Neither is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – although it is paying for cancer studies of the Noni extract herbal supplement and Reiki energy healing. The American Cancer Society and the American Association of Clinical Oncologists warn patients against high-dose C, as do leading cancer centers such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York. The old man and C Jeffrey White, a director at the National Cancer Institute, said that he's tried to “generate awareness” of Levine's research, and believes it justifies more studies in humans. But White acknowledged that the NCI has rejected “a few” proposals for such studies. At the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., oncologist Edward Creagan said the idea that intravenous, but not oral, levels are toxic to cancer is “an intriguing concept.” “However, my own belief is that the vitamin C story is really ancient history,” he said. “It would be very difficult for patients and clinicians to mount a lot of enthusiasm for another vitamin-C study.” It was Creagan and his Mayo colleague, Charles Moertel, since deceased, who in the 1970s conducted the two National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials that showed vitamin C pills were no better than placebo pills for cancer patients. A clinical trial is considered ultra-reliable because it is designed to keep beliefs and hopes from slanting findings. Pauling lobbied for a trial, then later contended that the Mayo researchers enrolled unsuitable patients. A second trial in response to Pauling's criticism also bombed. Again he faulted the Mayo oncologists. He also threatened a libel suit against a Rochester newspaper for the headline “Pauling Wrong on Vitamin C for Cancer,” and accused the New England Journal of Medicine and the NCI of accepting a “fraudulent” study, according to Australian medical historian Evelleen Richards. By then, Pauling advocated treating everything from the common cold to mental illness with vitamins and other substances he dubbed “orthomolecular,” meaning “right molecule.” To many colleagues, this genius and visionary, winner of the 1954 Nobel in chemistry and the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize for his antiwar work, had become a kook – “The Old Man and the C.” Decades later, both skeptics and fans of C are gun-shy about more trials. “There's tremendous resistance to even test this,” Levine said. “It's very hard to revisit something like this without data. Information is diamonds.” C acts in a lab dish As the chief of the molecular and clinical nutrition section at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – hardly a hotbed of federal cancer research – Levine discovered some diamonds “by accident.” In the early 1990s, his lab began looking at how the concentration of a nutrient affects its function, and how the body gets the proper concentration. “As part of those studies, we looked at how vitamin C is absorbed in the intestine,” Levine said. By 2000, when that work led to an increase in the U.S. recommended daily allowance of vitamin C, Levine had become an expert on ascorbate's “pharmacokinetics” – what the body does to the drug. Consumers and scientists already knew that ascorbate was an “antioxidant,” meaning it protects cells from reactive oxygen molecules – the same marauders that turn peeled apples brown and wet metal rusty. Indeed, the reason the American Cancer Society and others discourage ascorbate megadoses is that a few studies of cells in dishes suggest C might protect cancer from oxidant damage. Chemotherapy and radiation work partly by intentionally unleashing this damage. But Levine's lab-dish studies showed that ascorbate transforms from an antioxidant into just the opposite – an oxidant “promoter” – when it reaches high concentrations. At these levels, which are achievable in the body only intravenously, C acts like a toxic drug by generating hydrogen peroxide, a powerful oxidant used as a bleaching agent, an antiseptic and even a World War II rocket fuel. Still, the biochemistry was puzzling. Putting pure peroxide in the bloodstream can be fatal, so why did patients feel fine when the vitamin that produces it was dripped into their veins? Levine's experiments offered possible answers. Vitamin C did not generate peroxide in blood, only in liquid such as that found in body cavities. Thus, in the body, intravenous C must seep out of the blood to work. Five out of nine types of cancer cells that were put in simulated body-cavity fluid died when concentrated ascorbate or peroxide was added to the dish. And the best part: This same lethal marinade had no effect on healthy cells. For some reason, cancer cells were like the Wicked Witch of the West splashed with water – powerful villains vanquished by a mundane substance that is harmless to good guys. Previously, Riordan had speculated that this was partly because an enzyme that neutralizes peroxide is abundant inside normal cells, and scarce inside cancerous ones. But by inducing cells to take in C, Levine proved that the internal concentration doesn't matter; malignant cells withered only when C surrounded them. Armed with this new evidence, a coterie of researchers – all associated with Pauling or his disciples – has recently obtained private funding for small trials of intravenous C. University of Kansas Medical Center physician Jeanne Drisko has $375,000 for a trial of 30 ovarian cancer patients. In Montreal, McGill University oncologist Wilson Miller has $300,000 to find the maximum safe doses for treating various cancers. Meanwhile, Levine is forging ahead with animal studies, trying to decipher the molecular magic of C's selective toxicity. Does that mean he believes C is an unsung cancer weapon? “I think that question is akin to 'Do you still beat your wife?' ” he said. “The question I would ask is: Shouldn't we investigate the potential of ascorbate as a drug? Let's not guess anymore. Let's be motivated by the truth.” 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 11:54 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Is the popular vitamin a possible cure for cancer?</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-207.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[


Is the popular vitamin a possible cure for cancer? 

By Marie McCullough 
MCT NEWS SERVICE 

August 10, 2006 

SCOTT LINNETT  
and CRISTINA MARTINEZ BYVIK  
/ Union-Tribune photo illustration


Is mainstream medical science ignoring an inexpensive, painless, readily available cure for cancer? 

Mark Levine mulls this loaded question. 

The government nutrition researcher has published new evidence that suggests vitamin C can work like chemotherapy – only better. But so far, he hasn't been able to interest cancer experts in conducting the kind of conclusive studies that, one way or the other, would advance treatment. 

“If vitamin C is useful in cancer treatment, that's wonderful. If it's not, or if it's harmful, that's fine, too,” said Levine, a Harvard-educated physician at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “The goal is: Find what's true. Either way, the public wins, clinicians win and patients win.” 

If Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel laureate-turned-vitamin C zealot, had taken an equally dispassionate stance 30 years ago, who knows where the vitamin would be in oncology today. Surely not where it is: a dubious alternative on the fringes of medicine, despite its continuing links to remissions and cures. 

This is not about popping supplements. It's about putting high-dose vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, into a vein, which requires needles and trained professionals. 

The distinction between oral and intravenous is crucial. The body automatically gets rid of extra C through urine. Levine's lab has shown that, at high concentrations, the vitamin is toxic to many types of cancer cells in lab dishes. But to get that much C into the body before it's eliminated, it must be put directly into the blood. 

This may explain the defining setback of Pauling's crusade. He and his collaborator, Scottish surgeon Ewan Cameron, gave C intravenously and orally, and claimed many of their cancer patients lived surprisingly long and well. In the 1970s, two rigorous government studies intended to test their claims gave only pills – and found no benefits. 

How could so many smart people, including Pauling, ignore a variable as basic as the body's ability to absorb and clear a drug? 

“I don't want to impugn anyone,” Levine said. “It's one of these things where somebody didn't ask the right questions.” 

Anecdotes don't matter 

So Levine keeps on, driven by the still-open question: 

Can intravenous vitamin C do what even the costliest, most targeted, most effective therapies cannot: kill cancer cells without harming healthy ones? 

Levine, in collaboration with National Cancer Institute pathologists, re-examined, then published the cases of three patients treated with intravenous vitamin C by the Center for Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kan. The center was founded by Hugh Riordan, a now deceased physician and friend of Pauling's. While such “case reports” prove nothing, Levine hoped they would stir interest in re-examining ascorbate in oncology. 

Advertisement

The problem is, anecdotes and impressions don't count. Skeptics ask: Where's the data on dosing and regimens, on tumor responses, on survival? 

“As far as I know, that kind of registry just doesn't exist now, and it's a huge weakness of the movement,” acknowledged Ron Hunninghake, chief medical officer at Riordan's center, which is starting a database. 

In any case, as consumers clamor for alternative therapies, intravenous C is gaining fans. Reports of side effects are rare, and risky patients – with kidney problems or blood disorders – are easily screened out. 

“Interest is definitely growing,” said Kenneth Bock, physician and president of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, an alternative-medicine society that teaches ascorbate infusion protocols. 

Interest is not growing, however, among mainstream oncologists, judging from conferences, publications and interviews with some of them. 

The National Cancer Institute, with a $5-billion budget, is not sponsoring studies of intravenous C. Neither is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – although it is paying for cancer studies of the Noni extract herbal supplement and Reiki energy healing. The American Cancer Society and the American Association of Clinical Oncologists warn patients against high-dose C, as do leading cancer centers such as Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York. 

The old man and C 

Jeffrey White, a director at the National Cancer Institute, said that he's tried to “generate awareness” of Levine's research, and believes it justifies more studies in humans. But White acknowledged that the NCI has rejected “a few” proposals for such studies. 

At the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., oncologist Edward Creagan said the idea that intravenous, but not oral, levels are toxic to cancer is “an intriguing concept.” 

“However, my own belief is that the vitamin C story is really ancient history,” he said. “It would be very difficult for patients and clinicians to mount a lot of enthusiasm for another vitamin-C study.” 

It was Creagan and his Mayo colleague, Charles Moertel, since deceased, who in the 1970s conducted the two National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials that showed vitamin C pills were no better than placebo pills for cancer patients. 

A clinical trial is considered ultra-reliable because it is designed to keep beliefs and hopes from slanting findings. 

Pauling lobbied for a trial, then later contended that the Mayo researchers enrolled unsuitable patients. A second trial in response to Pauling's criticism also bombed. Again he faulted the Mayo oncologists. He also threatened a libel suit against a Rochester newspaper for the headline “Pauling Wrong on Vitamin C for Cancer,” and accused the New England Journal of Medicine and the NCI of accepting a “fraudulent” study, according to Australian medical historian Evelleen Richards. 

By then, Pauling advocated treating everything from the common cold to mental illness with vitamins and other substances he dubbed “orthomolecular,” meaning “right molecule.” To many colleagues, this genius and visionary, winner of the 1954 Nobel in chemistry and the 1962 Nobel Peace Prize for his antiwar work, had become a kook – “The Old Man and the C.” 

Decades later, both skeptics and fans of C are gun-shy about more trials. 

“There's tremendous resistance to even test this,” Levine said. “It's very hard to revisit something like this without data. Information is diamonds.” 

C acts in a lab dish 

As the chief of the molecular and clinical nutrition section at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases – hardly a hotbed of federal cancer research – Levine discovered some diamonds “by accident.” 

In the early 1990s, his lab began looking at how the concentration of a nutrient affects its function, and how the body gets the proper concentration. 

“As part of those studies, we looked at how vitamin C is absorbed in the intestine,” Levine said. 

By 2000, when that work led to an increase in the U.S. recommended daily allowance of vitamin C, Levine had become an expert on ascorbate's “pharmacokinetics” – what the body does to the drug. 

Consumers and scientists already knew that ascorbate was an “antioxidant,” meaning it protects cells from reactive oxygen molecules – the same marauders that turn peeled apples brown and wet metal rusty. 

Indeed, the reason the American Cancer Society and others discourage ascorbate megadoses is that a few studies of cells in dishes suggest C might protect cancer from oxidant damage. Chemotherapy and radiation work partly by intentionally unleashing this damage. 

But Levine's lab-dish studies showed that ascorbate transforms from an antioxidant into just the opposite – an oxidant “promoter” – when it reaches high concentrations. At these levels, which are achievable in the body only intravenously, C acts like a toxic drug by generating hydrogen peroxide, a powerful oxidant used as a bleaching agent, an antiseptic and even a World War II rocket fuel. 

Still, the biochemistry was puzzling. Putting pure peroxide in the bloodstream can be fatal, so why did patients feel fine when the vitamin that produces it was dripped into their veins? 

Levine's experiments offered possible answers. Vitamin C did not generate peroxide in blood, only in liquid such as that found in body cavities. Thus, in the body, intravenous C must seep out of the blood to work. 

Five out of nine types of cancer cells that were put in simulated body-cavity fluid died when concentrated ascorbate or peroxide was added to the dish. And the best part: This same lethal marinade had no effect on healthy cells. 

For some reason, cancer cells were like the Wicked Witch of the West splashed with water – powerful villains vanquished by a mundane substance that is harmless to good guys. 

Previously, Riordan had speculated that this was partly because an enzyme that neutralizes peroxide is abundant inside normal cells, and scarce inside cancerous ones. But by inducing cells to take in C, Levine proved that the internal concentration doesn't matter; malignant cells withered only when C surrounded them. 

Armed with this new evidence, a coterie of researchers – all associated with Pauling or his disciples – has recently obtained private funding for small trials of intravenous C. 

University of Kansas Medical Center physician Jeanne Drisko has $375,000 for a trial of 30 ovarian cancer patients. In Montreal, McGill University oncologist Wilson Miller has $300,000 to find the maximum safe doses for treating various cancers. 

Meanwhile, Levine is forging ahead with animal studies, trying to decipher the molecular magic of C's selective toxicity. 

Does that mean he believes C is an unsung cancer weapon? 

“I think that question is akin to 'Do you still beat your wife?' ” he said. “The question I would ask is: Shouldn't we investigate the potential of ascorbate as a drug? Let's not guess anymore. Let's be motivated by the truth.” 
 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:00 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Complementary and alternative treatments for cancer: Some help you, others hurt you</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-208.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Complementary and alternative treatments for cancer: Some help you, others hurt you
 
By MayoClinic.com
Find More§	More on Breast Cancer on MSN Health & Fitness
Shark cartilage, mistletoe and megadoses of vitamin C may seem unrelated. But if you have cancer, you might have heard of these treatments through magazine articles, Web sites, or friends and family members. These are just a few of the many types of cancer therapy that fall in the realm of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Although the terms complementary and alternative are often used interchangeably, alternative approaches are not the same as complementary approaches. Complementary approaches are those used alongside of and in conjunction with your prescribed cancer treatments, while alternative treatments are used in place of traditional or conventional treatments.
It's not unusual for you to want to know more about CAM, especially if your recommended therapy is particularly difficult to endure or doesn't promise your desired results. The longer you have cancer, the more likely you are to start searching for other options. About one third of people with cancer have tried one or more CAM options, which can include everything from herbs and vitamins to acupuncture and hypnosis. 
Keep in mind as you research CAM that some therapies may improve your quality of life and others, even if used correctly, can harm you. Approach CAM therapy with an open, yet cautious mind-set. Gather as much information as you can and discuss with your doctor any treatments you're considering. 
Cure or comfort?
Most people with cancer who use CAM don't expect the treatments to cure their cancer. They may use complementary and alternative medicine to treat the pain associated with their cancer and control the side effects of medication, such as chemotherapy.
You'll probably find advertisements that claim a particular CAM product or therapy will cure your cancer. Don't believe it. CAM doesn't cure cancer. If it did, everyone would be using it. Even so, some people with cancer forgo their conventional treatment and spend thousands of dollars trying questionable or ineffective therapy. 
Giving up on conventional medication that has been proven to help people with cancer can be risky and even deadly. Avoid alternative therapists who pressure you to give up the treatment your doctor recommends. Your doctor can discuss with you the pros and cons of conventional therapy as well as which CAM therapies are safe to try for your particular situation.
Therapies marketed as cancer treatment
Numerous CAM therapies are marketed specifically to individuals with cancer. Get as much information as you can before trying any of them, and discuss those you're interested in with your doctor.
The following products and therapies are often associated with cancer treatment:
Nutrition and herbs



Nutritional therapy and herbal therapy are often touted as "natural," which might sound appealing. But "natural" doesn't always means safe. Talk to your doctor about how these options might complement or interfere with your current cancer treatment.
·	Antioxidant supplements. Antioxidants occur naturally in many foods, including fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains and some meat. Some studies have reported that antioxidants may slow cancer growth in the test tube, but no proof exists that this occurs in humans. Doctors aren't sure if supplements — sometimes with antioxidant levels thousands of times higher than those found in food — are as safe as food sources of antioxidants. These supplements might interfere with your cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, and could be dangerous. One study showed that smokers who used antioxidant supplements had a higher risk of lung cancer than those who didn't use the supplements. 
·	Essiac. Essiac is an herbal tea mixture that has been touted to relieve pain and reduce the size of tumors. The original formula contained four herbs: burdock root, Indian rhubarb root, sheep sorrel and slippery elm. Some newer products and knockoffs have other herbs added as well. Though some early tests have shown that chemicals in the herbs used in Essiac have some antioxidant, anti-inflammatory or anti-cancer activity, Essiac hasn't been proven to have any effect on cancer. 
·	Laetrile (amygdalin). Taken orally or as an injection, laetrile is a purified form of amygdalin, a chemical found in lima beans, raw nuts and the pits of many fruits. Amygdalin produces cyanide, which proponents claim kills cancer. But laetrile hasn't been proven to work and has even caused death. 
·	Macrobiotic diet. Though the macrobiotic philosophy incorporates diet, exercise, stress reduction and avoidance of pesticides, the diet part is the most commonly followed. The macrobiotic diet is strictly vegetarian and requires you to consume about half of your daily calories from whole grains, about a quarter of your calories from vegetables, and the rest of your calories from beans, seaweed and soups. The macrobiotic diet is marketed for both prevention and treatment of cancer, though no proof exists that it does either. Eating plenty of vegetables can reduce your risk of cancer, but how much you should eat or which vegetables you should choose is unknown. 
·	Megavitamin treatments. Megavitamin treatments usually combine high doses of vitamins A, C and E — sometimes requiring you to take hundreds of pills a day. All of these vitamins are an important part of a balanced diet for anyone. But if you already eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, you probably get enough of these vitamins without taking supplements. Too much vitamin A, C or E can even be dangerous and can interfere with your cancer treatment. 
·	Mistletoe. Mistletoe injections are given two to three times a week. They're used mostly in Europe and aren't available in the United States. Mistletoe extracts have been shown to kill some cancer cells in laboratory and animal experiments, but no studies have reported any evidence of activity against cancer in humans.
Detoxifying treatments

Proponents claim that detoxification treatments clear your body of harmful substances. They also claim that detoxification treatments stimulate your immune system to attack the cancer in your body. But detoxification therapy can be invasive and dangerous.
Most people with cancer have a functioning immune system, so the need to further stimulate it is unnecessary. And because cancer cells seem to hide from normal immune systems, stimulating your immune system won't help your body fight off your cancer. Also, no evidence exists to support the theory that removing "harmful substances" affects cancer.
·	Colon therapy. Colon therapy removes waste from your colon through a process that proponents believe will improve your natural healing abilities. During a high colonic, a plastic tube is inserted through your rectum and into your colon. Up to 20 gallons of liquid — usually water, herbal solutions or coffee — is pumped into your large intestine. This is repeated several times. No evidence exists to support the use of colon therapy, and treatment can cause infection and mineral and electrolyte imbalances that can be dangerous. 
·	Gerson therapy. The Gerson therapy uses minerals, enzymes and hormones to detoxify and cleanse your body. The therapy requires that you consume 13 glasses of organic fruit and vegetable juice every day. You must also follow a vegetarian diet and have coffee or chamomile enemas. No conclusive proof of the Gerson therapy's effect on cancer is available. 
·	Gonzalez treatment. The Gonzalez treatment incorporates special diets, supplements, pancreatic enzymes and coffee enemas to treat cancer. Together, all of these treatments are supposed to cleanse your body and stimulate your immune system. Proponents believe that the main anti-cancer component in this regimen is pig pancreas enzymes. The Gonzalez treatment is highly controversial but showed some promise in a small study. It's currently being investigated in a larger study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.
Chemical and animal-based treatments

These treatments are based on chemicals or components that come from humans or animals.
·	714-X. This treatment is a solution of camphor, nitrogen, ammonium salts and ethanol. It's purported to stabilize your immune system so your body regains its ability to fight your cancer. It can be injected or inhaled. No scientific proof exists of 714-X's effectiveness, and it isn't available in the United States. 
·	Antineoplastons. Proponents claim that antineoplaston therapy causes tumor cells to die by stopping some of the processes involved in their growth. Antineoplastons are isolated from horse urine and are taken orally or by injection. Trials of antineoplaston therapy haven't shown any anti-cancer activity. Several more clinical trials of antineoplaston therapy are currently underway. 
·	Cancell (Entelev, Cantron, Jim's Juice, Crocinic Acid). Cancell is a dark brown liquid that is taken orally or rectally, or applied to your wrist or foot. Its manufacturers say it changes cancer cells so that your body recognizes them as foreign and eventually destroys them. Cancell contains 12 compounds, including inositol, nitric acid, sodium sulfite, potassium hydroxide, sulfuric acid and catechol. No proof exists that the compounds cure cancer. Cancell has never been scientifically tested on people. 
·	Coenzyme Q10. Your body naturally produces coenzymes to help stimulate chemical reactions in your body. Q10 refers to the particular chemical makeup of this coenzyme. Proponents of coenzyme Q10 believe that people with cancer and other conditions have lower levels of coenzyme Q10, though no evidence of this exists. When you take coenzyme Q10, either as an injection or a pill, it may act as an antioxidant and stimulate your immune system. No definitive studies have shown that coenzyme Q10 has any effect on cancer. 
·	Shark cartilage. Proponents believe that shark cartilage stops a tumor's growth by preventing it from growing new blood vessels (angiogenesis). The rationale behind this theory is the belief that sharks don't get cancer, although that has since been proven false. Some anti-tumor substances have been found in cartilage, though, and shark cartilage has been used in clinical trials. The Food and Drug Administration found no conclusive evidence that shark cartilage works and recommends against using shark cartilage as a cancer treatment. Clinical trials using substances isolated from shark cartilage are currently underway.
Therapy to treat side effects of medication

Some cancer treatments can cause pain, nausea and weakness. Your doctor might recommend conventional medications or CAM therapies, such as acupuncture or massage. These types of therapy aren't specific to cancer and can treat pain and side effects of many other conditions, as well.
In general, these treatments aren't invasive, making them safer than other CAM treatments. Still, talk to your doctor about these types of therapy before using them.
·	Acupuncture. In this treatment, tiny needles are inserted into your skin to stimulate your body's natural energy or Qi (pronounced "chee"). By restoring the natural flow of Qi, acupuncture is supposed to help your body heal itself. Acupuncture has been effective in treating pain and nausea in some people with cancer. 
·	Aromatherapy. Proponents believe that fragrant oils from plants can affect your mood. About 40 oils are commonly used in aromatherapy. They can be smelled at home or at a spa, or applied as oil during a massage. Though little proof of its benefit exists, aromatherapy is said to help pain, depression and stress and promote a general sense of well-being. 
·	Hypnotherapy. This relaxation method effectively relieves some chronic pain, and it may also reduce nausea and vomiting in people with cancer. Although you may look like you're asleep during hypnosis, you actually go into a state of deep concentration. While you're under hypnosis, your practitioner may suggest you focus on goals, such as controlling your pain and reducing your stress. 
·	Massage therapy. During a massage, your practitioner kneads your skin, muscles and tendons in an effort to relieve muscle tension and stress and promote relaxation. Several massage methods exist, and the length and force of your massage will vary depending on which method you choose. If you're currently receiving conventional chemotherapy, check with your doctor before undergoing certain types of massage. If you have a low platelet count because of chemotherapy, deep massage can cause bleeding or bruising. Certain types of massage and spinal manipulation can also be unsafe if the bones in your back or neck have been weakened by cancer. 
·	Therapeutic touch. Touch therapy practitioners claim to use their hands to transmit "energy forces" that can heal the energy force that runs through you. By moving their hands back and forth across your body, they claim to be able to locate and remove your energy force disturbances. Practitioners believe this reduces pain and encourages relaxation.
Many other types of CAM are promoted for pain relief. They include homeopathy, reflexology, relaxation, spirituality, and art and music therapy.
Talk to your doctor
Discuss any CAM therapy you might be interested in with your doctor. Some therapies might interfere with your conventional treatment, such as preventing your current medication from helping you.
Though you might be hesitant to discuss unconventional treatments with your doctor, keep in mind that it's natural to be curious about other therapies. Your doctor will understand and might also be able to give you more information on CAM.
content by:
 
Last Updated: 12/15/2003
(c) 2006 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:03 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Court pact says Va. teen can forgo chemo </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-209.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Court pact says Va. teen can forgo chemo 
By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press WriterWed Aug 16, 11:17 PM ET 
A 16-year-old cancer patient's legal fight ended in victory Wednesday when his family's attorneys and social services officials reached an agreement that would allow him to forgo chemotherapy.
At the start of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, Accomack County Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that both sides had reached a consent decree, which Tyler approved.
Under the decree, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatments. The family must provide the court updates on Abraham's treatment and condition every three months until he is cured or turns 18.
"It's all over. It's everything we fought for, everything we wanted to ever have, we've won. We got our freedom back," Abraham said outside the courthouse after the hearing.
Tyler emphasized that the decree states that the parents weren't medically neglectful.
Abraham said that he saw the doctor last week, and the doctor assured him that his cancer is curable. The teen said he will continue following an alternative herbal treatment called the Hoxsey method, as well as his doctor's treatment plan. The regimen won't include chemotherapy, but radiation is a possibility, he said.
After the short hearing, the judge looked at Abraham and said, "God bless you, Mr. Cherrix."
Last summer, the teen was found to have Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system considered very treatable in its early stages. He was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round that doctors recommended early this year.
He since has been using the Hoxsey method, the sale of which was banned in the United States in 1960.
After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic, a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to intervene to protect the teen's health. Last month, the judge found Abraham's parents neglectful and ordered Abraham to report to a hospital for treatment as doctors deem necessary.
Lawyers for the family appealed, and an Accomack County Circuit Court judge suspended that order and scheduled a new trial to settle the dispute. The judge scheduled the trial for two days but has indicated he would like to finish in one, said John Stepanovich, a lawyer for the parents.
Carl H. Bundick, attorney for the Accomack County Department of Social Services, told the judge the department considers the agreement to be in Abraham's best interest.
Abraham is still on the Hoxsey method, but Stepanovich stressed that the family hasn't ruled out other possible treatments, such as immunotherapy or radiation treatment in small doses.
According to the American Cancer Society, there is no scientific evidence that Hoxsey is effective in treating cancer in people. The herbal treatment is illegal in the United States but can be obtained through clinics in Mexico, and some U.S. naturopathic practitioners use adapted versions of the formula.
___
On the Net:
Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com
American Cancer Society information about Hoxsey method: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hoxsey_Herbal_Treatment.a 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:04 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Delayed effects of kids cancer seen 
</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-210.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Delayed effects of kids' cancer seen 
 
Many young survivors face severe side-effects years later 
 

ASSOCIATED PRESS 
 
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26,2003 - Children's chances of beating cancer have gotten better but as many as two-thirds of survivors are likely to experience a delayed side effect from the disease or the treatment, said a report released Tuesday. 

ABOUT A QUARTER of survivors may experience severe or life-threatening side effects that do not show up immediately but could affect things like growth, fertility, heart function, muscle movement or cognitive activity, said the study by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
       Susceptibility to these late side effects depends on the child's age at the time of diagnosis, how much chemotherapy and radiation were used as well as the severity and location of the cancer.
       The late side effects can occur in follow-up treatment or they may develop in adulthood, complicating their identification and treatment, the report said. Also, because treatments for cancer have evolved in recent years, the delayed side effects are also changing.
       In 1997, 270,000 Americans of all ages had survived childhood cancer - including about 1 in 640 adults aged 20 to 39. That was up from 1970, when children diagnosed with cancer had little chance of being cured. 

        The rising number of survivors has made the long-term care issues more apparent.
       "We're learning more as the first generation of childhood cancer survivors get older," said Stuart Kaplan, a staff physician in a follow-up cancer care clinic at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.
       Looking for known threats and treating side effects early can help to minimize the damage these side effects can cause, he said.
       "Directed screening is very important, and it's really the job of the primary care providers," he said, adding that educating patients is also important "because the onus is often on them." 

      The report recommends:
       -Developing guidelines for the follow-up care of childhood cancer survivors.
       -Creating links between primary physicians and specialists.
       -Raising awareness of the late side effects that threaten cancer survivors.
       -Stepping up research to prevent late side effects.
       
 The future of child cancer survivors 
       The Institute of Medicine report follows a pair of recent studies reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that children who beat leukemia may face lifelong problems caused by the radiation that saved their lives. Also children who survive brain cancer have higher rates of mental illness no matter what treatment they receive, the journal reported. 
       
       C 2003 Associated Press. ========================================================================

Los Angeles study gives cancer clues 
 
City's diversity reveals how cancer affects ethnic groups 
 
 
 
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 22,2003- Black men and non-Latino white women have the highest cancer rates while stomach cancer is rising among Koreans and Chinese, according to a study in ethnically rich Los Angeles released Thursday. 
 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED over a 25-year-period from more than 700,000 cancer cases from the Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program offers a look at how different cancers show up in different ethnic and racial groups.
       There is no national cancer registry in the United States, making the Los Angeles numbers interesting because they can help identify at-risk groups, the researchers said.
       The study released by the University of Southern California covered 1976 to 2000 and showed that melanoma has increased so rapidly in Los Angeles County in the past two decades that it is one of the area's top five most common cancers. And the researchers said they do not know why.
       Among non-Latino white and black women breast cancer rates have nearly doubled, as women have fewer children and at an older age, the researchers said.
       Fourteen cancer sites were studied, including breast, prostate, lungs, and liver. The good news is that so many of the cancers were affected by lifestyle, such as smoking, meaning the rates can come down.
       "Our community could start to reduce cancer rates by changing
habits," one of the report's authors, Dennis Deapen, told reporters.   
 
          That's right - don't smoke, eat moderately and exercise, the researchers said.
       As groups migrate to the United States they often do less physical work and they eat more than they did in their countries of origin, putting themselves at a higher risk of cancer.
       But sometimes the converse is true. When Asians settle in the United States their rates of stomach cancer decline, possibly because of
less salting and pickling of food.   
  

         Cancers of the colon and rectum are the third most commonly diagnosed cancers among both men and women in Los Angeles, although incident rates have declined recently among whites, blacks and the Latino white population, but are still on the rise among Japanese, Filipinos and Koreans. 
       
       C 2003 Reuters 


]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:05 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Diabetes May Raise Colon Cancer Risk</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-211.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Diabetes May Raise Colon Cancer Risk
Excess Insulin May Be to Blame
By 	Charlene Laino 
Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Wednesday, May 19, 2004WebMD Medical News 



May 19, 2004 (New Orleans) -- Diabetes may raise the risk of developing colon cancer, the nation's second-leading cancer killer, new research shows. 
"The risk factors for the two conditions are remarkably similar: obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and poor diet," says Rambabu Chalasani, MD, of Overton Brooks VA Medical Center in Shreveport, La. In the study veterans who suffered from type 2 diabetes were about one-third more likely to develop colon cancer than patients without diabetes. 
The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week, a medical meeting of digestive disease experts. 
"Both disorders are tied to industrialization, with the highest incidence in developed nations," he says. 
A link between obesity, diabetes, and colon cancer makes sense, Chalasani tells WebMD. The common culprit: too much insulin in the blood. 
As a person becomes more overweight, his or her body becomes resistant to insulin. To compensate, the body makes more and more of the sugar-lowering hormone. There is now mounting evidence that insulin stimulates the growth of cancer cells, he says. 
Another Reason to Eat Right, Exercise More 
Bernard Levin, MD, vice president for cancer prevention at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center of the University of Texas in Houston, notes that this isn't the first time that diabetes has been linked with colon cancer. "But for some reason the word is not getting out; not enough people, including doctors, are aware of the [possible link]," he says. 
A link between diabetes, colon cancer, and obesity would have major implications for our health, researchers agree. 
People with diabetes should probably get screened for colon cancer at an earlier age and be tested more often than people without the blood sugar disorder, Levin tells WebMD. 
He also says if the link exists then there are implications for what we eat and what we do. Processed and sugary foods such as cakes, cookies, and candies cause blood sugar levels to spike -- causing our body to make more insulin -- and should probably be avoided. Instead, try whole grains, vegetables, and nuts, says Levin. These foods help stabilize blood sugars causing them to rise more slowly. 
And of course, get active. Exercise not only helps to shed unwanted pounds, but the weight loss also helps lower insulin levels. 
The American Cancer Society recommends exercising at least 30 minutes on five or more days of the week - and walking and gardening count. Speak with your health care provider before starting an exercise program if you have diabetes and heart disease. 
Excess Drinking Also a Risk Factor 
In the study, the researchers evaluated the medical records of 50,697 patients between October 1998 and June 2003; about one-fifth suffered from type 2 diabetes. After taking into account colon cancer risk factors such as obesity, smoking, use of aspirin, and alcohol consumption, their study showed that those who had type 2 diabetes were a third more likely to develop colon cancer, compared with people without type 2 diabetes. 
They also found that excess intake of alcohol raised the risk of colon cancer by about one-third and obesity increased the risk by about one-fourth. 
Nearly 150,000 American will develop colon cancer this year, many cases of which could have been prevented through simple lifestyle changes, according to the cancer society. 
 
SOURCES: Digestive Disease Week 2004, New Orleans, May 16-20, 2004. Rambabu Chalasani, MD, ER/acute care physician, Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, Shreveport, La. Bernard Levin, MD, Vice President for Cancer Prevention, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston. American Cancer Society web site. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:05 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Diet Linked to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-212.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Diet Linked to Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Lots of Meat, Saturated Fat, Dairy May Raise Risk
By 	Daniel DeNoon 
Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Tuesday, March 09, 2004WebMD Medical News 



March 9, 2004 -- What's causing America's huge surge in blood cancer? It might be our diet. 
It's called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. It's a killer collection of different white-blood-cell cancers. And it's a mystery why it's been increasing so quickly in the U.S. and other parts of the world. 
Now there's a clue. It comes from a study of 601 Connecticut women with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Tongzhang Zheng, ScD, head of the division of environmental health sciences at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn., collected detailed dietary information from these women and from 717 similar women without cancer. 
"What we found is if a person has a higher intake of animal protein, they will have a higher risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," Zheng tells Web. "And people who have a higher intake of saturated fat have an increased risk. On the other hand, if you have higher-than-average intake of dietary fiber -- particularly if you frequently eat vegetables and fruits with a high fiber content -- you have a reduced risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." 
The findings appear in the March 1 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology. 
Earlier studies hinted at the same thing. Now, Zheng says, it seems clear that a major factor in the mysterious rise of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a diet high in meat, saturated fats, dairy products, and eggs and low in fiber, fruits, and vegetables. 
Unbalanced Diet, Unhealthy Body 
In the U.S., three kinds of cancer have skyrocketed in recent decades. One is lung cancer, mainly caused by smoking. Another is skin cancer, caused by too much sun. The third is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. But nobody knows why it's on the rise, says Nancy Mueller [pronounced MULL-er], ScD, associate director of population sciences at Harvard's Dana-Farber Cancer Center. 
"Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is a basket of related diseases," Mueller tells WebMD. "It probably has a set of causal factors that may be related to one another, but not in a simple way. We can't really explain it -- this is a really hard nut to crack. But what is happening to the American is associated with a number of malignancies such as breast, kidney, and colon cancer. Higher body weight is a common theme." 
A high-fat diet may indeed be linked to higher body weight. But Zheng says that people eating low-carb diets may also be at risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma if they eat too much meat and too few vegetables. 

One thing that's known about non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is that people whose immune systems aren't working well -- such as AIDS patients -- are at increased risk. Zheng suggests that immune function depends on proper nutrition. 
"Your body is designed to repair things," Zheng says. "But if your body is not getting proper nutrition, how can the immune system continue to function? Everything relates to the nutrients in your dietary intake." 
Cancer-Fighting Foods 
Zheng says that it's not necessary to stop eating meat. Nor it is necessary to gobble up huge quantities of vegetables. A balanced diet, he says, is all that's needed. 
His study showed that people who ate more of certain foods tended to have a lower risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Those foods include: 
·	Tomatoes 
·	Broccoli 
·	Squash 
·	Cauliflower 
·	Onions 
·	Mixed lettuce salad 
·	Leeks 
·	Apples 
·	Pears 
·	Citrus fruits 
Improving your diet won't just lower your cancer risk, Mueller notes. 
"There is such a confluence between risk factors for cancer and risk factors for heart disease," she says. "Get plenty of exercise, eat a good diet, don't smoke. It is what your mother told you. It's true that this is the basis of a healthy lifestyle. And it's true that this lowers your risk for these big killers, too." 
 
SOURCES: Zheng, T. American Journal of Epidemiology, March 1, 2004; vol 159: pp 454-466. Tongzhang Zheng, ScD, chief, division of environmental health sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn. Nancy Mueller, ScD, associate director of population sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Harvard University, Boston. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:06 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Docs often fall short when prescribing new drugs </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-213.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Docs often fall short when prescribing new drugs 
2 hours, 8 minutes ago 
Physicians frequently fail to provide patients with all the information they should have when they're prescribed new medication, investigators in California report.
To evaluate the counseling provided by doctors, Dr. Derjung M. Tarn from the David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles, and associates analyzed data from the Physician Patient Communication Project conducted at two health care systems in Sacramento in 1999.
Patients and physicians were surveyed, and the visits were audiotaped. Altogether, 44 physicians prescribed 244 new medications to 185 patients.
"Physicians stated the specific medication name for 74% of new prescriptions and explained the purpose of the medication for 87%," Dr. Tarn and associates report in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Doctors explained how long the medication should be taken only 34 percent of the time, and described possible averse effects on only 35 percent of occasions.
The researchers graded physicians using a 5-point Medication Communication Index they created. The average score was 3.1, indicating that 62 percent of necessary elements of new medication prescribing were communicated.
This "spotty physician counseling" may be a factor in why people don't comply with treatment, because they don't understand the duration of treatment or proper dosing, or what to do if symptoms don't improve.
The lack of instructions may have the greatest impact on patients unable to read medication container labels, the investigators add.
SOURCE: Archives of Internal Medicine, September 25, 2006. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:06 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Report: Doctors $275M study questioned </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-214.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Report: Doctors' $275M study questioned 
By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press WriterTue Aug 29, 5:35 PM ET 
Cancer doctors received about $275 million from the federal government and the elderly last year as part of a yearlong research project that many doctors believe won't produce any useful findings.
Under the program, the federal government paid $130 each time a chemotherapy provider assessed a Medicare patient's pain, fatigue and nausea. The payments were designed to encourage doctors to report information that might one day lead to improved care for cancer patients.
In a report to be released Wednesday, the inspector general for the Health and Human Services Department cast doubt on whether the money was well-spent. He questioned the integrity of the data that doctors submitted.
"We identified numerous anomalies and gaps in the data and collection methods," said the report from Inspector General Daniel Levinson.
Levinson concluded the report by calling the data "unreliable."
While the federal government will foot the bill for most of the unreliable data, senior citizens and disabled Americans on Medicare paid, too. That's because they were charged $26 each time their doctors billed Medicare for submitting information about their side effects.
Doctors, meanwhile, made tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars off the program.
The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, said taxpayers and beneficiaries were "bilked" because they paid for services that physicians are already supposed to provide.
Medicare officials disputed that the program was wasteful. They said the program was an initial step in the Bush administration's push to measure the quality of health care.
The project proved valuable in showing that it was indeed feasible to get doctors on a large-scale basis to report important quality measurements from their offices, Medicare officials said. In coming years, those measurements will be refined and improved, which could lead to potential breakthroughs in care.
"We're trying to go from a system that is completely blind to what goes on in the doctor's office to one that is highly informed and very helpful to the practicing doctor and to the beneficiary through transparency and quality measures," said Dr. Peter B. Bach, a senior adviser at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The government already gives hospitals more money to submit certain quality measurements. For example, CMS measures how often hospitals give heart attack patients aspirin upon arrival. Medical experts recommend such a measure because aspirin can prevent clotting, which can help prevent a second heart attack.
Now, the government is expanding that effort to doctor's offices. Bach said CMS has altered the program reviewed by the inspector general to get more detailed reporting from oncologists at about a fifth of the price tag from the year before.
"If you look at it in a vacuum and imagined we would never do anything going forward, I would probably agree with you. It's like, 'Gee whiz, that's a lot of money to spend for data that's not entirely valid. Why did you do this? These are my tax dollars.' But I don't think that's a fair way to evaluate it," Bach said. "I think we've shown this had a direction."
About 90 percent of eligible health care providers participated in the program. The median amount paid to each physician was $23,000. But some doctors got a lot more.
The top 10 billers, whom the IG declined to identify, received more than $270,000 each. One oncologist in Florida billed the government for $625,803. Another in Kansas billed for $507,563.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regularly carries out research, but the chemotherapy project is by far the biggest. It was estimated to cost $300 million, including the beneficiaries' copays. The next largest project will cost $60 million over eight years.
A commission that advises Congress on Medicare issues noted in January that it visited oncologists in five states as part of a review of the program. 
"Most oncologists did not believe it would lead to quality improvements for patients or produce any useful research findings," the inspector general's report said in quoting the Medicare Payment Advisery Commission. 
The commission also said projects should be used to test innovations in health care rather than "as a mechanism to increase payments" to doctors. 
"It looks like the Medicare program has played games and used demonstration projects, whose legitimate purpose is to test new and innovative ideas for delivering health care, for questionable purposes," Grassley added. 
___ 
On the Net: 
Health and Human Services Inspector General: http://oig.hhs.gov

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:07 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Does Growing Old Cause Cancer?</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-215.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Does Growing Old Cause Cancer?  Study Answers why Age May Be the Most Potent Cancer Risk Factor Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD on September 25,2003 Web MD Medical News
Sept. 25, 2003 -- When people hit middle age, the cells within their body may have a midlife crisis of their own that could cause cancer. 
A new study suggests that this midlife cellular breakdown might help explain why growing older is the single biggest risk factor for cancer and nearly 80% of cancers are diagnosed after age 55. And the keys to understanding this process might already be in your kitchen. 
Researchers found that human cells are a lot like baker's yeast when it comes to the aging process. They both become highly unstable as they approach middle age. 
"While yeast don't get cancer, they do have one of the major hallmarks of malignancy, which is genetic instability," says researcher Daniel Gottschling, PhD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, in a news release. "We found a similar thing in yeast that has been seen in humans: Genetic instability shoots up dramatically in the middle to late stage of life." 
Cancer Clues in Yeast 
Although age is widely accepted as a potent risk factor for cancer, researchers say no one knows exactly why. 
In the study, published in the Sept. 26 issue of the journal Science, researchers examined whether yeast cells might serve as a model to help explain the abrupt surge in cancer risk that occurs when humans hit late middle age. 
Researchers discovered that yeast cells consistently experience a sudden, 200-fold surge in the production of genetic changes as they reach the human equivalent of late-middle age. They say this finding makes yeast cells ideal for understanding the genetic changes that occur in human cells during the aging process that might cause cancer. 
"Yeast gives us, for the first time, the potential for not only understanding the principles of what's going on mechanistically but also which molecules might be relevant to the process of age-related cancer development," says Gottschling. 
Researchers found that the genetic instability associated with causing cancer wasn't related to how close the cells were to death, but it was how far they were from birth that mattered. 
Age Isn't Everything 
But researchers say that doesn't mean that cancer is a necessary by-product of the aging process. They say people should still lead a healthy lifestyle to help reduce their risk of cancer because these interventions may actually delay the cellular midlife breakdown.               "Our yeast were on a diet equivalent to steak and potatoes. We had the mother cells growing in a very rich, nutrient-dense environment. They were, in essence, pigging out the whole time," says Gottschling. "We'd like to do similar experiments in which we put the yeast on a 'lean and mean' diet to see if we could delay the switch that triggers the genetic instability." 
"Yeast promises to be an excellent model system for testing various environmental factors, such as caloric restriction, to get at the mechanisms of cancer initiation," says Gottschling.    
SOURCES: McMurray, M. Science, Sept. 26, 2003; vol 301: pp 1908-1911. News release, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:07 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, and Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-216.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Drug Sales Bring Huge Profits, and Scrutiny, to Cancer Doctors

January 26, 2003By REED ABELSON 

Among cancer doctors, it is called the chemotherapy concession. At a time when overall spending on prescription drugs is soaring, cancer specialists are pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars each year by selling drugs to patients - a practice that almost no other doctors follow.

The cancer specialists can make huge sums - often the majority of their practice revenue - from the difference between what they pay for the drugs and what they charge insurers and government programs. But some private health insurers are now studying ways to reduce these profits, and the issue is getting close attention in Congress. Typically, doctors give patients prescriptions for drugs that are then filled at pharmacies. But cancer doctors, known as oncologists, buy the chemotherapy drugs themselves, often at prices discounted by drug manufacturers trying to sell more of their products, and then administer them intravenously to patients in their offices.

The practice also creates a potential conflict of interest for these doctors, who must help patients decide whether to undergo or continue chemotherapy if it is not proving to be effective, and which drugs to use. Cancer specialists have successfully resisted most government efforts to take the drug concession away, arguing that they need the payments to offset high costs in the rest of their practices. An attempt by the Clinton administration to change reimbursement practices was strongly opposed by doctors, and by George W. Bush, who was then governor of Texas, among others. But support for change is growing, and some changes are beginning to take place.
"This has gotten out of hand," said Dr. William C. Popik, the chief medical officer for Aetna, which is exploring
different approaches to the concession, including taking it away in some regions. Health insurers say they can buy these drugs much less expensively themselves and have the drugs shipped directly to doctors' offices. Some also want to keep better track of how the drugs are used. Critics say the money these doctors make from selling medicine is contributing to the nation's high health care bills and adding to the waste and inefficiency in the health care system.

Medicare, which does not cover most prescription drugs, does pay doctors about $6.5 billion a year for drugs they personally administer, largely cancer drugs. Under the current system of determining what the appropriate prices for these drugs are, the government is paying, by some estimates, more than $1 billion over what the drugs actually cost. Many private insurers say they are also overpaying for these drugs. In some cases, patients may even be paying a much larger co-payment for the drug than a cancer doctor is paying to buy it. Some patients paid about $150 out of pocket forToposar, a cancer drug, for example, while doctors appear to have paid closer to $60 after various discounts from Pharmacia, the manufacturer, according to the Minnesota attorney general, who is suing Pharmacia, accusing it of pricing fraud. The General Accounting Office, which studied federal payments for cancer drugs in late 2001, discovered that doctors, on average, were able to get discounts as high as86 percent on some drugs. Doctors paid less than $3 for single dose of leucovorin, for example, while patients paid them around $3.50 out of a total reimbursement of about$17.50."We think it's a bad system that creates bad incentives that creates bad medicine," said Robert M. Hayes, president of the Medicare Rights Center, a consumer group, who testified before Congress last fall on the issue.

Dr. Thomas J. Smith, an associate professor of oncology at the Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University, has estimated that oncologists in private practice typically make two-thirds of their practice revenue from the chemotherapy concession. The concession echoes the system in Japan, where doctors make money by dispensing drugs. Drug spending per capita in Japan is among the highest in the world, higher than in the United States.” This is our little corner of Japan," said Joseph P.Newhouse, a health policy professor at Harvard, who has been asked by the government to look into how the Medicare reimbursement system may affect how doctors prescribe chemotherapy. The concession may also lead some doctors to recommend chemotherapy when patients may not benefit. In a 2001 study of cancer patients in Massachusetts, conducted by a team of researchers led by Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel of the National Institutes of Health, the authors found that a third of those patients received chemotherapy in the last six months of their lives, even when their cancers were considered unresponsive to chemotherapy. Those findings strongly suggested overuse of chemotherapy at the end of life.” We know there is not all appropriate use," said Dr. John Gillespie, medical director of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Western New York. But oncologists say they are only trying to respond toothier patients' wishes. And they say they need the profits from the drugs to make up for high costs in the rest of their operations. They say they spend enormous sums to have the facilities and employees that enable patients to receive chemotherapy outside a hospital, under close supervision. "It seems to be a wash right now," said Dr. Larry Norton, an oncologist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a former president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. He and his colleagues argue that oncologists treat patients who demand more care and therefore have higher expenses. “We’re just trying to break even," Dr. Norton said. Oncologists also argue that patients may suffer if doctors do not buy chemotherapy drugs directly. They point to a case in Kansas City, Mo., in which a pharmacist was sentenced in December to 30 years in prison for diluting chemotherapy drugs he then sold to doctors who administered the drugs in their offices. Dr. Norton argued that the case illustrated why he and his colleagues were worried. "Some potential problems could arise," he said.
The health plans, and some of the specialty pharmacies that sell to both doctors and insurers, say this concern is unfounded. Earlier this month, Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, introduced legislation that would slightly increase what Medicare pays oncologists for their services but pay doctors closer to what the drugs actually cost. The government is also looking into how the concession is affecting prescribing patterns.

Oncologists began selling drugs directly more than a decade ago, after they persuaded insurers that it would be less expensive to administer the drugs in their offices than in hospitals. This was part of a trend of doctors’ being paid much more to perform services and treatments in their offices than in hospitals. (Some other specialists, like urologists, also profit from chemotherapy drugs, but they administer them only to some of their patients.)Over the course of the 1990's, oncologists have been able to rely on the sale of chemotherapy drugs as an important source of revenue. They are now among the best-paid doctors, surpassing obstetricians and general surgeons, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association. In 2001, the median compensation for an oncologist in a large practice was $274,000. While compensation for specialists has increased 19 percent, on average, since 1997, oncologists' compensation has risen slightly more than 40 percent Dr. Norton dismisses the notion that cancer doctors’ compensation has risen faster because of income from chemotherapy drugs. "Oncologists are extremely busy," he said, because more people have cancer and more treatments are available. But the idea that these doctors make money from the drugs worries some. "All the evidence suggests that doctors do respond to money," said Dr. Susan D. Goold, an associate professor at the University of Michigan Medical School. Some oncologists acknowledge that the current system creates a perverse incentive. The potential for conflicts of interest "is troubling," said Dr. Edward L. Braud, the president of the Association of Community Cancer Centers, whose members treat more than half of the nation's cancer patients. In several prominent cases, drug companies have also been accused of using discounts to influence doctors. For
example, in the Minnesota lawsuit, brought last year, Pharmacia is accused of having "induced physicians to purchase its drugs, rather than competitors' drugs, by persuading them that the wider `spread' on the defendant’s drugs would allow the physicians to receive more money, and make more of a profit, at the expense of the Medicaid program and Medicare beneficiaries. “Pharmacia said it could not comment because the matter was still in litigation. But others say doctors are solely motivated by what their patients want - a chance, no matter how slim, of living longer or suffering less. Dr. Norton, for one, dismissed the idea that oncologists would be motivated to give too much care or the wrong kind, and said under treatment is a much greater risk.

Some insurers are getting oncologists to forgo profits from chemotherapy drugs, often by paying the doctors more for administering them. While oncologists may not make as much under the new system, and some have objected vehemently, it is "palatable," said Dr. Abraham Rosenberg, an oncologist in South Florida, where the new system is prevalent. Last year, inspired by Florida's example, the Blue Cross, Blue Shield plan in western New York began negotiating new contracts with oncologists. The United Health Group is also in discussions with doctors in New York and expects to begin a pilot program this year. It plans to give oncologists a choice: they can allow United Health to buy the drugs at a lower price and pay the doctors for administering chemotherapy, or they can accept a lower payment for the drugs if they continue to buy them. The plan is also talking with doctors in cities including Cleveland and Dallas. Aetna is trying different approaches. In the Northeast, the insurer wants to reimburse doctors at prices that are much closer to what the doctors are actually paying, while in the Southeast and Southwest, it is looking to buy the drugs directly.  Richard H. Friedman, the chief executive of the Incorporation, which operates a specialty pharmacy that supplies chemotherapy drugs to doctors, predicted that the chemotherapy concession may not last. The health plans, he said, "are all starting to take a much harder look."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/business/26CANC.html?ex=1044685679&ei=1&en=dc79939d0a8e2b9a

HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contactonlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfoFor general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:07 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Early Lumpectomy Doesn't End Cancer Risk </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-217.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Early Lumpectomy Doesn't End Cancer RiskLumpectomy Safe, but Long-Term Vigilance a Must in Young Women   Daniel DeNoonReviewed By Michael Smith, MD Monday, 11 03,03WebMD News
Nov. 3, 2003 -- Lumpectomy -- removal of the breast cancer tumor but not the entire breast -- is an excellent option for many women with breast cancer. But the long-term risk of recurrence is high in young women, a new study suggests. 
The study shows that young women -- 40 and under -- who have lumpectomy have a slightly higher risk of recurrent cancer 10 years after breast cancer surgery than women who have mastectomies. 
This doesn't mean women shouldn't have a lumpectomy. But it does mean that women who have lumpectomies must continue to see a breast cancer specialist, says Rodrigo Arriagada, MD, professor of oncology at the Instituto de Radiomedicina in Santiago, Chile, and the Gustave-Roussy Institute in Villejuif, France. 
Lumpectomy involves removal of the cancerous tumor and immediately surrounding breast tissue. Lymph nodes under the arm are also often removed. This surgery, as opposed to mastectomy, maintains the normal breast appearance. 
"We consider [lumpectomy] quite safe," Arriagada tells WebMD. "But it is important to say to these patients that they will have a small, higher risk over years compared to mastectomy patients." 
A 22-Year Study 
From 1972 through 1979, Arriagada's team enrolled 179 French women with early-stage breast cancer no bigger than 2 cm. They agreed to be randomly assigned either to mastectomy -- removal of the entire cancerous breast -- or lumpectomy plus radiation treatment. Arriagada and colleagues report the findings in the Nov. 3 issue of Annals of Oncology. 
In the first five years after treatment, the women who got a lumpectomy had a lower risk of seeing their cancers come back. But after five years, their risk was higher than that of the mastectomy patients. 
Was this just a fluke? To find out, the researchers analyzed a database with information on more than 1,800 women with small breast tumors. For 10 years after treatment, those who had lumpectomy did just as well as mastectomy patients. But after 10 years, there were more breast cancers among women who had lumpectomies at a young age -- 40 or younger. 
The Key: Long-Term Follow-Up 
The findings don't mean young women with breast cancer shouldn't get lumpectomies. They do suggest that women who choose lumpectomy must be prepared for lifelong follow-up care. 
"This is important because younger patients prefer to keep their breasts," Arriagada says. "You have to give them this information, knowing that they have to continue follow-up care for the long term -- 20-25 years. This is the most important message. Because in most cancer centers they finish follow-up by specialists in 10 years. We say they should continue with specialists and, after eight to 10 years, start making a special effort to detect recurrent or new cancers." 
Pamela N. Munster, MD, a medical oncologist at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., specializes in the treatment of young women with breast cancer. She says it's not clear from Arriagada's study that the tumors seen 10 years after lumpectomy are really recurrent cancer. 

"We really have to investigate why a women can be 35 and have breast cancer," Munster tells WebMD. "What is predisposing this young woman to breast cancer? Whatever made you susceptible to have breast cancer at a young age makes you more susceptible in the long run. That may be more important than whether the woman had a lumpectomy for her original tumor." 
Munster strongly agrees with Arriagada that young women successfully treated for breast cancer should continue seeing a breast cancer expert. It's essential for their own health. And it's important for the next generation of women, too. 
"It is really important that women under 40 with breast cancer be proactive in getting treatment at a major center where they have access to genetic counseling," Munster says. "They should think about becoming part of studies that look at this young group. We don't even know whether these young breast cancers respond to our treatments in the same way as breast cancers in older women. We need to study this, and young women can help by joining clinical trials." 
Too Conservative Breast Conservation? 
The lumpectomy procedure in the Arriagada study -- conducted in the 1970s -- used what surgeons call a 2-cm free margin. That is, the surgeons removed 2 cm of cancer-free tissue surrounding the tumor. 
That's large by today's standards. But given the risk of recurrence in his study, Arriagada recommends a conservative approach to breast conservation. 
"Breast-conserving surgery has become very popular. So the indication has been extended, and sometimes we have been less careful in the margin -- you can have a 3-mm, a 5-mm margin," he says. "For young people, we should insist on at least 1 cm of free margin." 
That's controversial, Munster says. She says surgeons vary widely in their approach. 
"These surgeons have strongly different opinions," Munster says. "They may consider an appropriate margin to be anywhere from 1 mm to 1 cm. Some people accept a millimeter, others only a centimeter. There is no real clear guideline." 
One thing that is changing, Arriagada says, is that doctors now will consider a second lumpectomy for some patients. 
"When the recurrence is a very small tumor, it is possible to perform a second breast conserving surgery," he says. "There is experience with this in Europe. The dogma was that after local recurrence, mastectomy should be performed. But for selected patients with very small, very well limited cancers, they can have a new lumpectomy with or without local radiation, and the prognosis is very similar to mastectomy. ... The second treatment of lumpectomy or local surgery does not change the prognosis for the patient with local recurrence." SOURCES: Arriagada, R. Annals of Oncology, Nov. 3, 2003; vol 14: pp 1617-1622. Rodrigo Arriagada, MD, professor, Instituto de Radiomedicina, Santiago, Chile; Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif, France. Pamela N. Munster, MD, medical oncologist and assistant professor, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:08 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Estrogen Alone Has Little Benefit, Some Harm</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-218.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Estrogen Alone Has Little Benefit, Some Harm
No Effect on Breast Cancer, Heart Disease, but Increases Stroke Risk
By 	Daniel DeNoon 
Reviewed By Michael  Smith, MDon Tuesday, March 02, 2004WebMD Medical News 



March 2, 2004 -- In long-awaited results, researchers have found that giving estrogen alone to postmenopausal women has no good or bad effect on breast cancer or heart disease but does raise the risk of having a stroke. 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) halted the first arm of the study -- Prempro, estrogen plus progestin -- in July 2002 because of an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking the combination menopausal hormone therapy. But it allowed a second arm of the study to continue. That arm -- in which women who had hysterectomies received estrogen only (Premarin) -- has now been stopped one year ahead of schedule. 
The main goal of the study was to see whether starting menopausal hormone therapy might lower a woman's risk of heart disease. It did not. In the estrogen-only group, there was no increase or decrease in heart disease. 
However, women taking estrogen-only hormone therapy had a slightly increased risk of stroke. That risk translates into about eight extra strokes for every 10,000 women taking Premarin. Estrogen-only hormone therapy reduced women's risk of hip fracture. But in the opinion of the NIH, that benefit did not outweigh the additional risk because there are other effective ways to fight bone loss. 
Women taking estrogen also tended to develop more dementia or mild thinking problems than women taking placebo pills, though this could have been a chance finding. 
Estrogen-only hormone therapy did not affect a woman's risk of breast cancer. 
The Right Thing 
The NIH says it stopped the trial because the next and final year of study was unlikely to yield any new information. Even though participants had already been warned about the slightly increased risk of stroke with continued estrogen treatment, the NIH saw no point in exposing them to further risk. 
The decision was made after a meeting by leaders of all relevant institutes in the National Institutes of Health, says Barbara Alving, MD, director of the WHI trial and acting director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. 
"We learned all we need to learn. Another year will not change our conclusions," Alving said in a news conference. 
Lawrence Phillips, MD, principal investigator at the Emory University site of the Women's Health Initiative, says the NIH did the right thing. 
"It is pretty clear the NIH and the WHI investigators have bent over backward to put the participants in the study first. That is important," Phillips tells WebMD. "The government needs to be applauded for doing it right. They made the decision that there wasn't any point in putting anybody at risk when there was nothing more to learn." 
No Change in Treatment Needed for Women on HT 
The study results will be published in a medical journal in about two months. Meanwhile, Phillips says, there's no reason for any woman to change her therapy until these results come out. Phillips' comments to WebMD represent his own opinions and do not represent official statements from the WHI. 
"One of the messages that needs to be understood is this is one form of estrogen and one group of women. It may or may not apply to all estrogens and all women," Phillips says. "These women had an average age of 63 when they started the study. That is somewhat older than the age at which estrogens usually are started. When the data becomes available, we will have to look closely to see how to get the best translation for an individual patient." 

Indeed, the women enrolled in the WHI trial are not like most women who begin menopausal hormone therapy these days. Study participants were not taking HT to fight serious symptoms of menopause, but to try to improve their long-term health. That didn't work, but there's still broad agreement that hormone therapy is the most effective treatment for women with severe menopausal symptoms. 
"The lesson of WHI is that HT should not be given for quantity of life. It has always been intended for those who need help with the quality of their lives," Robert Rebar, MD, executive director of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, tells WebMD. 
The NIH advises women to follow FDA recommendations on hormone therapy. That advice: To discuss the risks and benefits of menopausal hormone therapy with their doctors. Hormone therapy is the only truly effective treatment for severe menopausal symptoms. But because of the risks, the FDA and drugmakers recommend using it at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time. 
Indeed, Wyeth's Premarin and Prempro -- the estrogen and estrogen plus progestin drugs used in the WHI study -- are now sold at doses half as strong as those used in the trial. Victoria Kusiak, MD, Wyeth's North American medical director, says patients should try the lowest dose first. While these lower doses do help relieve hot flashes, the risks are largely unknown. Wyeth is a WebMD sponsor. 
WHI Results Reassuring 
It's no big surprise that estrogen-only treatment slightly increases a woman's risk of stroke. The same risk was seen in the estrogen plus progestin arm of the study. What's reassuring is that estrogen-only treatment does not increase a woman's breast cancer or heart risk. 
"It is good news that estrogen didn't increase women's risks of heart disease and breast cancer," Rebar says. "The risk of stroke is known, and modest. As with any medicine, a patient must weigh the risks. For symptomatic women, estrogen remains a viable choice." 
Young Women Different 
Women younger than 50 who have early menopause -- due to premature ovarian failure or having their ovaries removed -- tend to suffer severe menopausal symptoms. Such women often receive estrogen therapy. Alving says the WHI results don't apply to these women. 
The ASRM's Rebar agrees that younger women are a separate group of patients. 
"The data from WHI may not be applicable to a group of women who are different from those included in the trials," Rebar says. "Younger women with ovarian failure may well be a separate category. I have told those women it is certainly reasonable to replace estrogen. One needs to remember these women are often more symptomatic than women who go through normal menopause. So the objective is to treat them to improve their quality of life." 
Estrogen-Only HT Not Meant for Everyone 
Women who still have a uterus should not take estrogen-only hormone therapy. That's because estrogen enormously increases their risk of uterine cancer. Adding the hormone progestin to estrogen removes this risk -- but as the first arm of the WHI trial showed, it also creates other problems. 
Those problems -- for older women -- include an increased risk of breast cancer, heart disease, stroke, blood clots, and dementia. 
It's not clear whether other forms of estrogen and progestin besides Premarin and Prempro carry the same risks. Other forms include the skin patch and cyclic hormone therapy, which alternates weeks of hormones with weeks off hormones. However, until more is known, the FDA advises women to use all hormone therapy with the same degree of care. 
 
SOURCES: News conference, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; participants: Barbara Alving, MD, director, Women's Health Initiative and acting director, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Jacques Rossouw, MD, WHI project officer. Lawrence Phillips, MD, professor, division of endocrinology, Emory University School of Medicine; principal investigator, Emory site of the Women's Health Initiative. Robert Rebar, MD, executive director, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Victoria Kusiak, MD, North American medical director, Wyeth. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:09 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Exercise may have benefits in colon cancer </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-219.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Exercise may have benefits in colon cancer 
Fri Aug 11, 12:44 PM ET 
Vigorous physical activity following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer substantially reduces the risk of death due to cancer or other causes, two studies indicate. Neither stage of disease nor surgery appears to significantly alter these outcomes.
In one study, Dr. Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, from Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and his team identified 573 women diagnosed with stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. During a median follow-up of 9.6 years, 132 women died; 80 of these deaths were due to the cancer.
The investigators documented the level of physical activity the participants reported following their diagnosis, and translated that to "metabolic equivalent tasks" (MET-hours per week). For example, walking at a rate of 2.9 mph was assigned a score of 3 MET-hours, aerobic exercise was given a 6, and running faster than 10 min/mile was counted as 12 MET-hours.
After adjusting for multiple confounders, the authors observed that compared with patients who reported less than 3 total MET-hours per week of activity, those reporting 18 or more MET-hours per week were significantly less likely to die of their cancer or of any cause.
In another study, Meyerhardt's team studied 832 patients with advanced colon cancer who underwent surgery and chemotherapy with "curative intent." The subjects reported their recreational physical activities approximately 6 months after their treatment had ended.
During median follow-up of 2.7 years, 159 patients had cancer recurrence and 84 died.
Compared with patients exercising less than 3 MET-hours, those who exercised 18 to 26.9 MET-hours per week were less likely to die in adjusted analyses, similar to the other study.
In a related editorial, Dr. Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, from Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, notes that these two studies report outcomes similar to those of a previous study in which activity after a diagnosis of breast cancer was also associated with survival.
But all three trials were observational, she points out. So before physicians can be absolutely sure that exercise prevents progression or recurrence of cancer, randomized, controlled trials will be required.
Furthermore, important questions remain unanswered, she added, such as the safety of exercise for patients who have been given therapy toxic to the heart, what exercises are most beneficial, and which patients are most likely to benefit.
SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Oncology August 1, 2006. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:09 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Experts: Breast Cancer Not Spread by Biopsy</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-220.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Experts: Breast Cancer Not Spread by Biopsy
Still Unexplained: Why Lymph-Node Spread More Likely After Needle Biopsy
By 	Daniel DeNoon 
Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Monday, June 28, 2004WebMD Medical News 



June 28, 2004 -- It's a puzzling finding: Women whose breast cancers have spread to their lymph nodes are more likely to have had their cancer diagnosed by needle biopsy. 
What the finding means isn't at all clear. But what it doesn't mean is very clear indeed, says Nora M. Hansen, MD, assistant director of the Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center at the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica, Calif. 
"This study does not link biopsy with spread [of breast cancer]," Hansen tells WebMD via email. "We have not changed our practice and do not plan to. We still prefer to perform a needle biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of cancer and then will proceed at another time to definitive surgical management." 
Hansen and colleague Armando Giuliano, MD, developed the sentinel lymph node biopsy technique now used worldwide to help diagnose breast cancer. This technique uses dye to find the lymph node most likely to have cancer cells in a woman with a solid breast cancer mass. If this lymph node shows no sign of cancer, it's almost certain that the cancer has not spread beyond the breast. 
But some researchers have wondered whether the kind of biopsy a woman has might affect how well the sentinel-node technique predicts how far a breast cancer has spread. 
More Options for Women 
Not long ago, there was only one way to biopsy a suspicious lump in the breast: by cutting it out. This is called an excision biopsy. If the lesion turned out to be a tumor, the surgeon proceeded to remove the breast. 
Nowadays, doctors often use a two-step approach. First they use a needle to get a sample of the suspicious breast tissue. If the tissue tests positive for cancer, the woman may in many cases be able to choose to have a lumpectomy instead of a full mastectomy. 
Hansen's team looked at 663 women whose suspicious lumps turned out to be breast cancer. They looked at these women's sentinel lymph nodes to see whether they harbored cancer cells, small tumors (less than 2 mm in diameter), or larger tumors (larger than 2 mm in diameter). 
Women whose breast cancers had been diagnosed by needle biopsy were about 50% more likely to have their lymph nodes test positive for cancer than those who underwent excision biopsies. Most of this difference was due to the presence of larger tumors. 
The findings appear in the June issue of the Archives of Surgery. 
An Odd but Interesting Finding 
The lymph node tumors were detected only two weeks after the needle biopsies. It seems very unlikely that tiny tumor cells dislodged by biopsy could have grown so large so fast, says Mehra Golshan, MD, associate surgeon at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. 
"I cannot imagine that needle biopsy could cause tumor deposits greater than 2 mm in these patients," Golshan tells WebMD. "These [tumors] took months or years to grow, not days or hours after a needle core biopsy." 
Golshan says the study findings will spur more research. But he is sure they will not affect clinical practice. 
"I will not be more apt to tell my wife or anyone else to get an excision biopsy because of worry about a higher rate of metastases from needle biopsies," he says. 
 
SOURCES: Hansen, N.M. Archives of Surgery, June 2004; vol 139: pp 634-640. Nora M. Hansen, MD, assistant director, Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center, John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, Calif. Mehra Golshan, MD, associate surgeon, Brigham and Women's Hospital; staff surgeon, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; instructor in surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:11 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA APPROVES GEMZAR FOR OVARIAN CANCER DESPITE ITS LACK OF EFFICACY - PART ONE</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-221.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[FDA APPROVES GEMZAR FOR OVARIAN CANCER DESPITE ITS LACK OF EFFICACY - PART ONE


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken the rare step of overruling one of its own advisory panels and has approved the drug Gemzar (known generically as gemcitabine) for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Earlier this year, the prestigious Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) strongly recommended against approval of the drug for this indication. But the FDA - under the acting directorship of Andrew C. von Eschenbach, MD - approved Gemzar in combination with carboplatin for women whose disease had relapsed six months or more after their initial therapy.

In the past, FDA decision-makers have generally followed the advice of their advisory panels, although they are not legally bound to do so. In March, a spokesperson for Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Gemzar, said that the company was "really disappointed" with the panel's decision. So what happened behind the scenes between March's disappointment and July's triumphant announcement of approval? Lilly spokesman Dr. Gregory Clarke stated that the company had provided the regulatory agency with additional information.

"This is a situation where we were able to provide the FDA with additional analysis of the data that may have given a little more insight on the benefits," he said. Meanwhile, FDA officials have refused to comment on the controversial decision. It seems decidedly odd that this "additional analysis" was provided directly to FDA leaders and not to the expert panel or the general public.

This is also the first time that the FDA has approved an ovarian cancer drug based upon progression-free survival (PFS), rather than on the basis of an improvement in overall survival (OS). The difference between these two measures is not trivial. Although it sounds like a highly desirable outcome, "progression-free survival" merely represents an interval of variable length between the administration of treatment and the point at which the cancer inexorably starts to advance again. Such delayed tumor growth does not necessarily equate to an extension of the patient's lifespan. Indeed, tumors that are arrested temporarily can then advance more rapidly once they begin growing again, and patients may actually live no longer than they would if they had not received the treatment.

The FDA panel found that the combination of Gemzar and carboplatin increased median progression-free survival in patients by just 2.8 months when compared with carboplatin alone. However, the key fact was that there was no difference in the overall length of patients' survival. The Gemzar-added group also experienced more adverse effects.

For those reasons, in March, this panel voted 9-2 against recommending approval of the drug for ovarian cancer. The panel also commented on the weakness of Lilly's trial data and criticized the way the company conducted the 356-person clinical study (Pierson 2006). It was a landmark finding and seemed to indicate a new determination on the part of advisors to draw the line - to tell both the drug industry and regulators that they would have to provide patients with real survival benefits if they expected to reap the huge financial rewards that generally follow approval.

"The main issue is whether adding 2.8 months to median progression-free survival at a cost of additional toxicity with no apparent effect on survival is a sufficient basis for Gemzar approval for this use," an FDA spokesperson said at the time (Wall Street Journal 2006).

Eli Lilly countered, however, that the purpose of the drug was to prevent the cancer from worsening, not necessarily to help patients live longer. But, logically, if the Gemzar-treated patients die at the same time as those denied this additional drug, how can that constitute an improvement in their condition? Didn't their condition worsen significantly after the drug stopped working, so that they then died at the same time as those who weren't given the drug?

The company's other arguments in favor of Gemzar are convoluted in the extreme. Dr. Clark also asserted, in Gemzar's defense, that the drug allowed patients to go longer without being treated again and therefore could help spare them some side effects of chemotherapy. This is twisted logic, since they would now have to face the side effects of both Gemzar and carboplatin in combination - a regimen that carries a greater array of side effects than either drug administered alone.

When he was asked why Lilly did not mention in its press release the drug's failure to prolong life, Dr. Richard Gaynor, head of cancer research at Lilly, said: "I'm not sure that needed to be the focus." Of course not, as long as you're not the unlucky woman with ovarian cancer. Apparently, for Lilly executives, the focus should be kept not on prolongation of life but on the illusory benefit of "progression-free survival," which will bring concomitant benefits to their bottom line.

Dr. Gaynor also claimed that it is often difficult to determine if, and by how much, a particular cancer drug helps prolong life because seriously ill cancer patients often switch back and forth between different treatments. But isn't that precisely why rigorous clinical trials were invented in the first place, to tease apart and analyze the problems posed by the various treatments that patients are offered?

The randomized clinical trial (RCT), gold standard of drug testing since World War II, is now imperiled as never before in America. A glaring double standard is in effect: clinical trials are deemed desirable when they advance the financial interests of big pharmaceutical companies, but are unceremoniously disposed of when they conflict with the pharmaceutical industry's profit agenda. Regulatory agencies by their very nature are supposed to put a restraint on the profit drive of private companies. That is how the FDA's advisory board (ODAC) was trying to function. However, sometimes those agencies become the tools of the powerful industries they regulate, a phenomenon that George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has dubbed "agency capture." This is a situation that should attract the attention of every legislator in the country as well as every person who cares about the integrity of the drug evaluation process.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:12 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>FDA Eyes Safety of Popular Anemia Drugs</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-222.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[FDA Eyes Safety of Popular Anemia Drugs
Chemo-Related Drugs May Spur Early Death in Cancer Patients and Others 
By 	Todd Zwillich 
Reviewed By Michael Smith, MDon Tuesday, May 04, 2004WebMD Medical News 



May 4, 2004 -- Two popular anemia drugs are under scrutiny by an FDA advisory panel because of ongoing concern that the medications may lead to early death in some patients with cancer and other diseases. 
Experts met with drug makers and FDA officials in an effort to monitor several studies involving the drug erythropoietin (EPO). The drug, which raises red blood cell counts, is popular with cancer patients who develop anemia, or low red blood cells, during chemotherapy. Many doctors favor the drugs because they can help combat the fatigue associated with anemia while avoiding the need for blood transfusions. 
Meanwhile, makers of Procrit and Aranesp, two EPO drugs available in the U.S., defended their products as relatively safe and suggested that the drugs may even extend patients' lives. They pledged to move quickly on several ongoing clinical studies aimed at answering lingering safety questions. 
"We have these evolving safety concerns. They cannot be dismissed," says Harvey Luksenburg, MD, a medical officer in the FDA's division of therapeutic biological oncology products. 
Experts are most concerned about a handful of large European studies showing that EPO drugs may cause cardiovascular problems or even worsening cancers in patients on chemotherapy. 
One study performed on 940 women on chemotherapy for breast cancer showed a 2.3% rate of fatal blood clots or other fatal cardiovascular events in women taking Eprex, an EPO drug available in Europe but not in the U.S. Women taking placebo pills had a 0.4% rate of the fatal events, nearly six times lower. The study was planned to last a year but was stopped after just four months because of the safety problems. 
In another European study in 2003, cancer patients taking the EPO drug NeoRocormon had an 11% rate of dangerous cardiovascular events such as stroke, hemorrhage, or blood clots, while those on placebo had a 5% rate. 
Results from that study also showed that patients on placebo were less likely to see their cancers progress, suggesting that EPO could be having a cancer-promoting effect. 
Other studies showed no risk of dangerous heart problems with the drug and no signs that the drugs promote cancer. Overall FDA reviewers found four studies showing a higher risk of heart problems with EPO and three showing no increased risk. 
Drug manufacturers defend their products, noting that large scale trials conducted in Europe show that EPO drugs have no impact on the overall survival rates of patients with lung cancer, lymphatic cancer, and other malignancies. While many studies have indicated an increased risk of blood clots in patients taking EPO, patients' overall life spans were not affected, says David Parkinson, MD, vice president for oncology clinical development for Amgen, Inc. The company makes the EPO drug Aranesp. 
"We believe that our detailed examination confirms the safety profile of Aranesp," he says. 
Parkinson referred to "a significant amount" of preliminary evidence showing that the drug could pose a measurable benefit to anemic patients on chemotherapy. 
Both company and government officials agreed that more studies are needed to determine what effect EPO has on patients with different kinds of cancers, and whether or not the drug could actually have an effect directly on cancer cells, possibly causing them to grow. 

American Volunteers Needed 
Still, regulators and experts remain concerned that most if not all of the large EPO studies were performed in Europe and not the U.S. Officials expressed worry that American patients and their doctors may continue to shy away from signing up for trials where they could be randomized to take EPO or a placebo. 
"The real question is, will they be willing to be randomly assigned," says Musa Meyer, a consumer advocate and member of the FDA's advisory panel for oncologic drugs. "I think there are physicians for whom it will be an issue." 
Company officials said that several trials testing EPO drugs in patients with lung cancer, breast cancer, lymphoma, and head and neck cancers are continuing to recruit hundreds of patients. But those studies are all continuing in Europe. 
"We will have those data very shortly," says Martine George, vice president for hematology and oncology research for Procrit maker Johnson and Johnson. Trials in the U.S. have largely ground to a halt because researchers have had trouble getting patients to sign up. 
"We believe the findings should absolutely be applicable to United States practice," Parkinson says of the European research. 
 
SOURCES: Harvey Luksenburg, MD, medical officer, division of therapeutic biological oncology products, FDA. David Parkinson, MD, vice president, oncology clinical development, Amgen, Inc. Musa Meyer, consumer advocate. Martine George, vice president, hematology and oncology research, Johnson and Johnson. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:12 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Fear, Low Incentives Slow Cancer Studies</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-223.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Fear, Low Incentives Slow Cancer Studies
Low Patient Participation Hurting Progress in Finding Cancer Cures, Experts Say
By 	Todd Zwillich 
Reviewed By Michael Smith, MDon Thursday, May 13, 2004WebMD Medical News 



April 13, 2004 -- Widespread fears over ethics and safety are causing cancer patients to avoid participation in clinical trials needed to discover new treatments, experts and researchers tell lawmakers. 
Government officials complain that enrollment in clinical studies is abysmally low and that the shortage is contributing to an overall slowdown in the number of innovative new drugs under development. While many cite a collective unease among patients as the main factor, others blame a lack of interest among doctors, who may lack the incentive to steer patients toward experimental drugs. 
Only 3% of adult cancer patients sign up for trials even though 20% typically meet eligibility requirements, according to a 1999 study by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 
The number of innovative cancer drugs in development "has decreased significantly," partly because of the patient shortage, Richard Pazdur, MD, director of division of oncology drug products at the FDA, tells members of the House Committee on Government Reform. 
Researchers say part of the problem is that patients often don't find out about available trials. Those that do are often afraid to participate, largely due to publicity surrounding ethical lapses in research or even deaths in studies. One widely-reported case involved a patient named Jesse Gelsinger, an 18-year-old who died while participating in a gene therapy trial at the University of Pennsylvania in 1999. 
Such casualties are extremely rare, though they continue to frighten even patients with difficult-to-treat cancers, says Andrew Pecora, MD, director of the Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey. 
"The minute you start talking about clinical trials, alarm bells start to go off," he says. 
Scientists have long worried about reluctance among blacks. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., says that the reticence for many owes to distrust born by the Tuskegee experiments of the 1920s, where researchers observed the effects of syphilis in black men rather then treat them. 
"They have seen, or heard rumors at least, of African Americans that have been experimented upon. It causes them not to want to be apart of any experiment," says Cummings, who leads the Congressional Black Caucus. 

'It Starts and Ends with the Doctor' 
Others stress that fearful patients are only half the problem. 
"Of primary concern is that so few doctors recommend a clinical trial as a viable treatment option," says Ellen Stovall, president of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. 
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., criticizes drug manufacturers for failing to participate fully in a web site database, www.clinicaltrials.gov. Federal law requires companies to post on the site details of every cancer trial they conduct, though the site lists only about half of all ongoing trials, says Waxman, referring to a 2003 FDA study of the site. 
"This lack of participation by the drug industry in an important resource for patients is inexcusable," says Waxman, the committee's senior Democrat. 
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the largest drug industry group, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
Stovall says the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which funds about 70% of the 1,700 ongoing cancer trials, pays clinics about $2,000 per patient for conducting trials and reporting results back to researchers. The figure is about half of what conducting the studies actually costs, she says. 
Michaele Christian, MD, associate director of the NCI's division of cancer treatment and diagnosis, tells lawmakers that inadequate payment "has been a subject of great interest and concern to us." 
Even doctors who don't conduct studies often don't tell patients about available trials or bother enrolling them, experts say. That is a particular worry for federal agencies, who along with drug companies rely on community doctors for about 80% of patients participating in studies. 
Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., says Clinton-era Medicare reforms authorizing the program to pay for the care of patients who participate in cancer trials do not go far enough. He urges the NCI to do more to address physicians' unwillingness to participate and suggests that professional societies make it part of ongoing medical education. 
"It really starts and ends with the physician," he says. 
 
SOURCES: Richard Pazdur, director, division of oncology drug products, FDA. Andrew Pecora, MD, director, Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Michaele Christian, MD, associate director, division of cancer treatment and diagnosis, National Cancer Institute. Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:12 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Few Women Get Annual Mammograms</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-224.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Few Women Get Annual Mammograms
Study: Just 6% of Women Get Screening Test Annually
By 	Salynn Boyles 
Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Monday, June 21, 2004WebMD Medical News 



June 21, 2004 - The American Cancer Society and other health groups call for annual mammograms beginning at age 40, but new research suggests that only a small fraction of women continue to get screened every year. 
A new study shows that roughly one woman out of 20 who were initially screened for breast cancer with a mammogram continued to have annual screening exams over the next decade. Most of the women got the recommended annual exam only about half as often as guidelines suggest. 
Researchers say that breast cancer screening with mammograms could save far more lives if more women got them when they should. 
"Studies suggest that waiting more than a year between screenings decreases the lifesaving capacity of mammography," researcher James S. Michaelson, PhD, tells WebMD. Waiting longer, he says, could mean the difference between detecting a localized cancer and one that has spread. Finding breast cancer at an early stage means it will be most responsive to treatment and will lower the risk of dying from the cancer. 
Few Women Get Annual Test 
The Massachusetts General study is among the largest and most comprehensive assessments of mammography usage ever conducted. It included almost 72,500 women who received screening mammograms at the hospital between 1985 and 2002. Researchers analyzed screening trends within subgroups based on age, race, prior history of breast cancer, and socioeconomic status. 
Overall, just 6% of women who got screened in 1992 had a mammogram each year over the next 10 years. Usage was highest among higher-income women or those with insurance, and among women who had a previous history of breast cancer. But even these women showed poor compliance with annual screening guidelines. 
"It was not a huge surprise that uninsured women and those who didn't speak English came back less often than the population as a whole," Michaelson says. "But it did surprise me that so few women across all subgroups followed the recommendations to get screened every year." 
According to the researchers, the low use of annual mammograms was not different from other populations that have been studied. 
Patients Need Reminders 
Michaelson says that most women do not consciously choose to ignore screening guidelines. It is more likely, he says, that they lose track of when they need a mammogram and are not reminded by their physicians. 
He cites a Wisconsin telephone survey in which roughly 60% of women recalled receiving a reminder from their dentist about an appointment and 70% recalled similar reminders from their veterinarians. Just 9% said they recalled being notified that it was time to have a mammogram. 
"Reminders are a somewhat unglamorous and neglected aspect of breast screening, but we believe that their use can have an enormous impact on breast cancer death rates," the researchers wrote. 
American Cancer Society spokesman Len Lichtenfeld, MD, agrees that doctors need to do a better job of stressing the importance of annual screening. 
"We now know that this one-year interval is very important, but I don't think that has filtered down to the women who could benefit from regular screenings," he says. "It's up to us to get the word out." 
 
SOURCES: Blanchard et al., Cancer, June 21, 2004 online edition. James S. Michaelson, PhD, assistant professor of pathology, Harvard Medical School; department of surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. Len Lichtenfeld, MD, deputy chief medical officer, American Cancer Society, Atlanta

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:13 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Fight 4 Major Diseases in 4 Simple Steps</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-225.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Fight 4 Major Diseases in 4 Simple Steps
Health Groups Join Forces to Prevent Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, and Stroke
By 	Jennifer Warner 
Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Tuesday, June 15, 2004WebMD Medical News 



June 15, 2004 (New York) -- Leading a healthy lifestyle and preventing disease shouldn't be confusing or difficult. In fact, you can dramatically reduce your risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke by following just four simple steps: 
·	Eat a healthy diet to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. 
·	Be physically active. 
·	Don't smoke and avoid being around others who do. 
·	See a physician to assess your personal health risks. 
That's the message of a new joint effort from three major health organizations designed to help Americans protect themselves from unhealthy habits and the four chronic diseases that cause two out of every three deaths in the U.S. 
The "Everyday Choices For a Healthier Life" campaign marks the first time the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, and American Heart Association have joined forces to promote unified health recommendations for the public and screening advice for doctors. 
The organizations have not changed their individual diet or lifestyle recommendations, but they have launched the campaign to let the public know that they agree on a basic set of recommendations for reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. 
Researchers say two-thirds of the nearly 1.5 million deaths in the U.S. caused by these four diseases each year could be prevented by adopting these recommendations. 
"Short of finding a cure for these diseases, helping millions to prevent disease onset is one of the greatest public health interventions that we can make," says Eugene Barrett, MD, PhD, president of the American Diabetes Association, who discussed the new public health campaign at a news conference today in New York City. 
Simplifying Disease Prevention 
Experts say it's easy for the public to be confused about how to make healthy choices due to constantly evolving and sometimes conflicting medical research. 
However, overwhelming scientific evidence shows that poor diet, excess weight, smoking, and physical inactivity are all common risk factors for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and stroke. 
For example, about one-third of cancer deaths each year are due to poor nutrition and physical inactivity. Obesity and lack of exercise also contribute to high blood pressure and high cholesterol, which raises the risk of heart attack and stroke. 
In addition, nearly 9 in 10 lung cancer deaths are directly attributable to tobacco use. 
"It sounds really obvious. You've heard it all your lives, probably from your parents: Eat right, get exercise, don't smoke, and go to see your doctor," says Ralph B. Vance, MD, president of the American Cancer Society. 
"They are just commonsense choices that people know they should make, but they fail to make because they are too busy, too tired, too hooked on tobacco, and life is just too hectic to stop and make a change," says Vance. "Our goal is to help people understand that these choices do far more than make them look better or feel better. These everyday choices can save their lives and the lives of people that they love." 
To help drive home that message, the joint effort includes a three-year public service advertising campaign, sponsored by the Ad Council, with TV, print, radio, and online ads. 

Unified Screening Guidelines    
The campaign also will also target health-care providers with simplified screening guidelines recommended by all three health organizations to help doctors and their patients identify and control risk factors and detect disease early. 
Those guidelines include: 
For men & women: 
·	Blood pressure measurement: Starting at age 20, at least every two years 
·	Body mass index (BMI) measurement: Starting at age 20, at each regular health-care visit 
·	Blood cholesterol test:  Starting at age 20, at least every five years 
·	Blood glucose (sugar) test:  Starting at age 45, every three years 
·	Colorectal screening:  Starting at age 50, every 1-10 years depending on the test the doctor uses  
For women only: 
·	Clinical breast exam (CBE):  Starting at age 20, every three years; yearly after age 40 
·	Mammography:  Starting at age 40, yearly 
·	Pap test: Starting at age 20, yearly. After age 30, every one to three years, depending on the test your doctor uses and past results 
For men only: 
·	Prostate specific antigen test and digital rectal exam: Starting at age 50, ask your doctor about the pros and cons of testing 
The joint report will appear in the professional journals published by each of the organizations, including Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, Diabetes Care, and the American Cancer Society's CA:  A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 
For more information on making everyday choices for a healthy lifestyle or on specific diseases, go to www.everydaychoices.org or call the toll-free information line ((866) 399-6789) to request a free brochure. 
"Your health starts with you. We can help you make healthy living a priority for you and your family," says Augustus O. Grant, MD, PhD, president of the American Heart Association. "Our common prescription is basic: Eat right, don't smoke, get active, and see your doctor." 
 
SOURCES: American Heart Association. American Diabetes Association. American Cancer Society. The AdCouncil. Augustus O. Grant, MD, PhD, president, American Heart Association. Eugene Barrett, MD, PhD, president, American Diabetes Association. Ralph B. Vance, MD, president, American Cancer Society. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:13 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Fizzy drinks do not raise esophagus cancer risk </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-226.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Fizzy drinks do not raise esophagus cancer risk 
By Megan RauscherFri Sep 1, 2:23 PM ET 
There is no association between the use of carbonated beverages and risk of subsequent development of cancer of the esophagus as assessed 20 years after the exposure, according to a large population-based study.
"The previously suggested link between the increased use of carbonated soft drinks and the increased occurrence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in western societies was not confirmed in this study," study co-author Dr. Jesper Lagergren, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, told Reuters Health.
Lagergren and two colleagues examined data from 189 patients with cancer of the esophagus, 262 with cancer of the cardia -- the place where the stomach and esophagus meet -- as well as in 820 cancer-free controls. All subjects were interviewed about their previous carbonated beverage consumption.
Users of carbonated soft drinks were not at increased risk of esophagus cancer compared with never users, irrespective of the frequency of consumption, the authors report.
Among high consumers, defined as drinking carbonated soft drinks more than six times per week, there was a trend toward decreased risk of these cancers compared with never users.
Similarly, consumption of carbonated low-alcohol beer did not increase the risk of esophageal cancer.
No association between intake of carbonated soft drinks or low-alcohol beer and risk of cancer of the cardia was observed.
"This study gives no support for the hypothesis that the use of carbonated soft drinks contributes to the increasing incidence of this cancer," Lagergren and colleagues conclude.
"The fact that risk estimates did not change after adjustment for gastroesophageal reflux or obesity -- the suggested mechanisms -- provides further evidence against the hypothesis," they add.
SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute August 16, 2006. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:13 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Genentech Stops Avastin Pancreatic Cancer Trial As Results Fail To Meet Endpoint - Update </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-227.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Genentech Stops Avastin Pancreatic Cancer Trial As Results Fail To Meet Endpoint - Update 
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Posted: 10:26 AM 
 

(RTTNews) - Tuesday, Biotech drug maker, Genentech, Inc. (DNA | charts | news | PowerRating) announced that it had stopped the Phase III pancreatic cancer clinical trial after deciding its cancer drug, Avastin, did not meet its primary endpoint of overall survival. The company stopped the trial at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring board that decided that a significant improvement would be unlikely given the data already collected. Genentech said the trial was not stopped for safety reasons. In the first quarter, U.S. sales of Avastin jumped 96% to $398 million from $203 million in the year-ago quarter. 
The company stated that the study was not stopped due to safety events and no new safety concerns related to Avastin were observed in this trial. It further cleared that the trial was stopped at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring board based on an interim analysis indicating that significant differences in overall survival were highly unlikely between treatment arms as the data mature. 
"Chemotherapy has had a limited impact in advancing outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, and treatments that may improve survival are desperately needed. We will continue to explore novel biologic and targeted therapy approaches that may lead to improved clinical outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer," said Hal Barron, M.D., senior vice president, Development and chief medical officer for Genentech. 
The Phase III Trial 
Genentech said that the randomized, controlled study involved 602 patients at about 200 sites and was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute or NCI. The trial was initiated based on results from a single-arm Phase II study combining Avastin with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer. A network of researchers led by the Cancer and Leukemia Group B or CALGB conducted the trial. 
According to Genentech, the enrolled patients were randomized to receive treatment with gemcitabine plus Avastin or gemcitabine plus placebo as a first-line therapy. The statistical plan included pre-specified futility analyses that were conducted and reviewed by an independent data monitoring board. The company said that the study was not stopped due to safety events. No new safety concerns related to Avastin were observed in this trial and data from the study would be presented at an upcoming medical meeting, the company noted. 
The Wonder Drug Avastin 
Avastin or bevacizumab is a therapeutic antibody designed to inhibit Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor or VEGF, a protein that has a significant role in tumor angiogenesis I.e. the process by which new blood vessels are formed; and maintenance of existing tumor vessels. 
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved Avastin in combination with intravenous 5-FU-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in February 2004. 
In June 2006, it was approved for second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The company also stated that supplemental Biologics License Applications or sBLA for Avastin has been submitted to the FDA in advanced non-small cell lung cancer, other than predominant squamous histology in April 2006. On May 26, Avastin was filed in the U.S. for the treatment of women with advanced breast cancer. 
Development Continues 
The company also said that it is pursuing a broad development program for Avastin that currently includes 130 clinical trials across 25 different types of cancer. As part of this program, a randomized Phase III study is currently being conducted by Roche, which evaluates the addition of Avastin to a standard regimen of gemcitabine and Tarceva in patients with pancreatic cancer. 
Outside the United States, Roche Holding AG (RHHBY.PK) sells Avastin. Within the United States, it sells the drug through Genentech, of which Roche owns a majority. In 2005, Avastin contributed sales of $1.67 billion to Roche's total revenue from prescription drugs of $27.27 billion. 
Stoppage Effects 
For the Switzerland-based Roche, the decision to stop this trial won't affect existing filings and approvals in colorectal, lung and breast cancer. Wall Street analysts estimate that the drug could eventually reap revenue of up to $10 billion in these indications. 
For Roche, the termination of this trial is only a minor setback, said Hernani de Faria, analyst at Zuercher Kantonalbank. "The Avastin program is huge and broadly-based, as they're investigating more than 20 types of cancer," he said. Mr. de Faria has a market overweight rating on the stock. 
The Stock 
The DNA stock closed Monday's regular trading session at $79.11. In the pre-market trading, the shares dropped 0.58% or 40 cents to $78.65. In the last year, the stock has traded at a high of $100.20 from a low of $75.58 at the New York Stock Exchange. 
In morning trade at virt-x Exchange Limited (virt-x), Roche shares were down 0.9% at 195.20 Swiss francs or $157.03 amid a slightly higher broader market. The shares closed at 196 Swiss francs the prior day. 
Copyright(c) 2006 RealTimeTraders.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>03 Nov 2006 - 12:14 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>General Prostate  Resources</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-228.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[General Prostate  Resources
This listing is provided for your reference and is not a complete list of available resources.
The information and opinions provided by these organizations are not necessarily those of The Cleveland Clinic Health System or WebMD. 
American Foundation for Urologic Disease 

300 W. Pratt St., Suite 401 
Baltimore, MD 21201-2463 
(800) 828-7866 
www.afud.org 

American Prostate Society
P.O. Box 870
Hanover, MD 21076
(800) 308-1106
www.ameripros.org

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation 
Urological Institute 
9500 Euclid Avenue 
Cleveland, OH 44195 
(216) 444-2200 or (800) 223-2273 
www.clevelandclinic.org/urology 

Cleveland Clinic Health Information Center 
www.clevelandclinic.org/health 
The Interstitial Cystitis Network 
www.ic-network.com/ 

Interstitial Cystitis Information Center 
1706 Briery Road 
Farmville, VA 23901 
http://luna.moonstar.com/~icickay/ 

National Institute on Aging 
Age Page: Prostate Problems 
Federal Building, Room 6C12 9000 
Bethesda, MD 20892 
(301) 496-1752 

National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse 
3 Information Way 
Bethesda, MD 20892-3560 
E-mail: nkudic@info.niddk.nih.gov 

National Prostate Cancer Coalition 
1158 15th St., NW Suite 905 
Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 463-9455 
http://www.pcacoalition.org/home.htm 

Patient Advocates for Advanced (Prostate) Cancer Treatment (PAACT) 
1143 Parmalee, NW 
Grand Rapids, MI 49504 
(616) 453-1477 

Prostate-Help, Patients Helping Patients 
Don Cooley, San Jose, CA 
(408) 268-6400 
http://prostate-help.org 

The Prostate Cancer Infolink 
http://comed.com/Prostate/ 
Prostate Cancer Program 

University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center 
www.cancer.med.umich.edu/prostcan/ 

Tower Urology 
Cedars-Sinai Medical Office Tower 
8631 West 3rd Street 915E 
Los Angeles, CA 90048 
310-854-9898 or (888) 24-TOWER 
www.towerurology.com/ 

UROlog 
www.urolog.nl/home/index.asp 
Urology Institute 
www.urologyinstitute.com 

Urology Channel 
www.urologychannel.com 
US Too International Inc. 
930 N. York Road, Suite 50 
Hinsdale, IL 60521-2993 
(800) 808-7866 
www.ustoo.com 

General Cancer Resources 
American Bone Marrow Donor Registry 
University of Massachusetts 
55 Lake Avenue North 
Worcester, MA 01655 
(617) 856-2781 

American Hair Loss Council 
(888) 873-9719 
www.ahlc.org/chemo 
Association of Oncology Social Work 
4700 W. Lake Ave. 
Glenview, IL 60025-1485 
(847) 375-4721 
E-mail: info@cancer411.org 
www.cancer411.org 
CancerAnswers 
5575 Baltimore Drive, Suite 105-221 
La Mesa, CA 91942 
(888) 226-8287 
Fax: (619) 287-6528 
Email: DrStillwell@CancerAnswers.com 
www.canceranswers.com 
www.cancerbacup.org.uk 
3 Bath Place 
Rivington St. 
London, EC 2A 3JR 
0808-800-1234 
Cancer Care Inc. 
275 7th Ave. 
New York, NY 10001 
(212) 302-2400 or (800) 813-HOPE (4673) 
Email: feedback@cancerpage.com 
www.cancerpage.com/ 
CancerSource.com 
40 Tall Pine Dr. 
Sudbury, MA 01776 
E-mail: clf@celebratinglife.org 
www.celebratinglife.com 
Foundation for Dignity 
37 South 20th St., Suite 601 
Philadelphia, PA 19103 
(215) 567-2828 
Make Today Count 
101 1/2 South Union St. 
Alexandria, VA 22314 
(703) 548-9674 
National Cancer Institute 
31 Center Dr., MSC 2580 
Bethesda, MD 20892-2580 
The Cancer Information Service
(800) 422-6237 ((800) 4-CANCER) 
CancerNet: http://cancernet.nci.nih.gov 
Cancer Clinical Trials 
http://cancertrials.nci.nih.gov 
Taking Time Support for People with Cancer and the People Who Care About Them 
http://cancernet.nci.nih.gov/taking_time/ 
NCI Public Inquiries Office 
Building 31 
Room 10A03, 31 Center Drive 
MSC 2580 
Bethesda, MD 20892-2580 
(301) 435-3848 
The National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship 
1010 Wayne Ave., Suite 300 
Silver Spring, MD 20910 
(301) 585-2616 or (888) 650-9127 
www.cansearch.com 
National Marrow Donor Program 
3433 Broadway St., NE, Suite 500 
Minneapolis, MN 55413 
(612) 627-5800 
N