<?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>Healthy Diet, Exercise Might Lower Chances of Cancer's Return</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-335.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

SUNDAY, June 3 (HealthDay News) -- In an era of highly complex medications with highly complex mechanisms and even more complicated names, take comfort that some basic (and pronounceable) lifestyle changes can have an impact on cancer outcomes.

Diet and exercise still matter, according to two studies that were presented Saturday at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in Chicago.

One study found that individuals with stage III colon cancer who had undergone surgery and chemotherapy had higher odds of relapsing or dying if they followed a predominantly "Western" diet of red meat, fat, refined grains and dessert.

"This is the first large amount of data to look at whether diet affects colon cancer survivors, and the suggestion is that dietary factors may have an effect," said study author Dr. Jeffrey Meyerhardt, an assistant professor of medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. "Certainly we need more studies to understand the patterns. We also need to emphasize that diet is not a substitute for standard treatment."

Dr. Neal Meropol, director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, added: "This suggests that diet can influence not only the development of cancer, but the chance that your colon cancer will come back. This is a very important result because it suggests that one can make a behavioral adjustment that could reduce their risk of dying from colon cancer."

Meropol emphasized, however, that the issue of diet and cancer development or recurrence is an extremely complex one.

People with stage III colon cancers have positive lymph nodes, although the cancer does not indicate any evidence of spreading outside of the local colon area. Standard treatment is surgery followed by chemotherapy.

More than 1,000 patients with stage III colon cancer who were participating in a trial of adjuvant chemotherapy were asked to complete questionnaires on their diet for six months after the chemotherapy ended. Researchers then tracked the participants to see if their cancer recurred or if they died.

Dietary patterns fell into two categories: "Western," which involved a high intake of red meat, fat and dessert, and "prudent," meaning high fruit, vegetable, poultry and fish consumption.

The two dietary patterns did not necessarily preclude each other. "Everyone has some score for each of those patterns," Meyerhardt stated. "Someone might eat a lot of hamburger and a lot of vegetables."

People who consumed the highest levels of the Western diet had almost quadruple the risk of recurrence or death compared with those who consumed the least in this category.

"Those who had a higher intake of a Western-pattern diet characteristic of more red meat and dessert had a significantly higher risk of recurrence and mortality, about four times as high," Meyerhardt said.

What's interesting is that the dietary pattern seemed to have an effect in a relatively short period of time -- years, as opposed to a lifetime. Why? One hypothesis is that this type of diet stimulates some growth factors that allow the growth of microscopic disease, Meyerhardt said.

But it also raises the question of whether the study participants had modified their diet after their diagnosis or whether this was a continuation of past patterns. "Future research should be geared toward answering that very question, whether changing a diet from Western to prudent would in fact reduce the risk of dying from colon cancer," Meropol said.

A second study, also from Dana-Farber, found that previously sedentary breast cancer survivors who exercised reduced the amount of insulin in their blood. It was unclear, however, what effect this might have on cancer recurrence, but the suggestion is that insulin levels may explain why physical activity has been associated with better outcomes.

Previous studies have shown that women who shed extra pounds and became more physically active had a lower risk of breast cancer recurrence. Women who are obese at the time of diagnosis, by contrast, have a higher level of recurrence.

For this study, researchers assigned 101 women with breast cancer to a 16-week program of cardiovascular exercise and strength training or to "normal" care. All women had their insulin and blood glucose levels measured, as well as their weight, body composition, and waist and hip circumference. Participants had already completed chemotherapy and/or radiation but had not started on any hormonal therapies, said study author Dr. Jennifer Ligibel, an instructor of medicine at Dana-Farber and Harvard.

Women in the exercise group lowered their insulin levels by about 20 percent, Ligibel said, an amount that approached statistical significance. These women also had a trend toward improved insulin sensitivity, meaning how their body responds to the hormone insulin.

"The ultimate goal is to look at exercise vs. not exercising and see what happens to women's breast cancer," Ligibel said.


SOURCES: Jeffrey Meyerhardt, M.D., assistant professor, medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston; Jennifer Ligibel, M.D., instructor, medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston; Neal Meropol, M.D., director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Program, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; June 2, 2007, presentations, American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, Chicago 

Copyright © 2007 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>02 Jul 2007 - 05:38 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Nutritional Supplements Safe And Beneficial For Patients Undergoing                      &nbsp;&nbsp;Chemotherapy And Radiation Therapy</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-334.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. -- For nearly a decade, oncologists have been telling patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy that they should not take antioxidants and other nutritional supplements because they interfere with treatment. However, a two-part article published in the most recent issues of Alternative Therapies, should lay this myth to rest. 

Oncologist Charles B. Simone, MD, and colleagues searched MEDLINE (the National Library of Medicine's database of more than 16 million medical journals dating back to the 1950s), and CANCERLIT (the National Cancer Institute's database of articles related to cancer) and came up with 280 peer- reviewed studies on the concurrent use of chemo and/or radiation and dietary supplements. These included 50 human studies involving a total of 8,251 patients. 

They found that antioxidants and other nutritional supplements did not interfere with conventional cancer treatments and actually enhanced the killing effects of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. In 47 of the human studies, supplements were also found to protect normal tissues and reduce the often-serious side effects of chemotherapy and radiation. And in 15 human studies, 3,738 patients actually had increased survival -- a finding that is rare for any cancer outcome. 

Dr. Simone reports that the negative slant on supplements originated from an erroneous statement made in a 1997 New York Times by a physician from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Hospital, who contended that vitamin C interfered with chemotherapy and radiation in humans. This statement had absolutely no scientific backing, yet without even reviewing the evidence, the entire oncology community adopted and continues to spread this harmful, biased misconception. 

There is no downside to taking supplements while undergoing chemotherapy, but there is a tremendous upside. The immune systems of cancer patients are highly compromised, and a majority of them suffer with malnutrition. Antioxidants and other vitamins and minerals restore deficiencies in essential nutrients and enhance immune function. Furthermore, antioxidants have direct anti-tumor effects, protect against the toxic effects of conventional cancer treatments, and prolong the lives of patients. 

SOURCE Freedom of Health Foundation ]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>02 Jul 2007 - 05:27 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>China Punishes Manufacturer of Suspect Killer Antibiotic </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-333.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[<strong>Editor's Comments: What would the US healthcare system look like if our government handled situations such as these in our country in a similar way to the Chinese?</strong>

China's national drug watchdog has revoked Anhui Huayuan World best Biology Pharmacy Co.'s production license for injections and dismissed the company's top management. 

The manufacture of 'Xinfu' drugs, which allegedly caused six deaths in the country, is banned, spokesman Zhang Jixiang with the State Food and Drug Administration said here on Monday. 

He said that the 'Xinfu' antibiotic injection was of inferior quality. The company's Good Manufacturing Practice Certificate and its production license for 'Xinfu' drugs have been revoked. 

The Anhui Provincial Food and Drug Bureau will supervise the destruction of all the recalled drugs. 

The bureau will seize illegal company funds and impose a fine in line with China's Drug Management Law, Zhang said. 

Five management staff including general manager Qiu Zuyi, executive deputy general manager Zhou Cang, deputy general manager Pan Wei, Plant II director Yuan Haiyuan and quality supervisor CuiTongxin were dismissed for their responsibility in respect to the suspect killer antibiotic. 

Another five people including legal representative Sun Ying, production director Liu Jiansong, Plant II vice directors Jia Yiboand Wang Dianlin and technician Chen Ping each were given a 'serious demerit', Zhang said. 

Director Zhang Guodong and vice director Shang Wenxue of the Food and Drug Bureau of Fuyang City received administrative sanctions. 

Zhang said that the 'Xinfu' incident had unveiled 'glaring problems' among China's drug manufacturers and 'deficient supervision' by drug authorities. 

'Companies should think very seriously about this catastrophe, run their business honestly and stick to the law,' Zhang said. 

He urged local drug watchdogs to ferret out supervision loopholes and make a list of companies that require special surveillance. 

The national drug watchdog strongly recommended that local authorities adopt the practice of making sudden unannounced inspections, intended to catch problematic companies red-handed. 

Since last year, the administration has carried out 35 unannounced inspections of drug manufacturers. As a result, fifteen companies have had their Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Certificates revoked and another 13 were ordered to rectify production defects. 

The issuance of GMP certificates to seven other drug producers was postponed, Zhang said. 

He said that all new drugs must receive on-the-spot inspection before being marketed. 'Investigators will go to plants to see laboratory tests at first hand, inspect clinical records, sample products and make sure they are consistent with the materials that figure in the application, ' Zhang said. 

'Falsification will be severely punished in line with the law,' he warned. 

The administration also tightened up technology criteria concerning the production of risky medicines, particularly injections, to better defend the lives and interests of patients, he said.

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>02 Jul 2007 - 05:16 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cancer Messages Too Many, Too Puzzling</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-332.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[<strong>So Many Recommendations Can Mask the Basics of Cancer Prevention</strong>

By Todd Zwillich 
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD

Coffee causes cancer. Coffee prevents cancer. Red wine works, but fiber doesn’t. Or does it?

If you’re baffled by the bewildering array of cancer advice, you’re not alone.

A study released today concludes that more than seven in 10 Americans are so confused by seemingly wide range of cancer recommendations that they don’t know which to follow. And for many, the response to the puzzle is to simply do nothing.

Forty-seven percent of nearly 6,300 adults surveyed told researchers said they agreed that “it seems like almost everything causes cancer.” Meanwhile, three in 10 say, falsely, that there’s nothing they can really do to prevent the disease.

Part of the problem, says study author Jeff Niederdeppe, PhD, is the huge volume of news reports on cancer findings bombarding the public. Scientists usually expect contradictory results, but when headlines blare first one finding, then another, without context, the result can be an almost demoralizing mystification.

<strong>Confusion Reigns</strong>

Some people respond by throwing up their hands. Others may unconsciously use the confusion to rationalize smoking or eating fatty food.

“It can give people justification to do those unhealthy behaviors they want to do already,” says Niederdeppe, a research fellow at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.

Another source of confusion is that cancer is actually dozens of different diseases, each with dozens of potential influencing factors. What prevents breast cancer may have no effect on liver or lung cancer.

That’s also why the relentless search for cancer-fighting properties in foods, dietary supplements, and other commercial products can be misleading. Many findings target only one kind of cancer in only one group of people.

<strong>Simplifying the Complicated</strong>

University of Pittsburgh psychologist William Klein, PhD, says the barrage of mixed messages  and confusing findings masks the fact that we do indeed know how to help prevent a lot of cancer.

“It’s just nibbling around the edges,” says Klein, who also studies the psychology of cancer prevention.

“People should just do the basic things. Keep weight down by exercising, don’t smoke, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. Those are things we know already, and they make the biggest difference” he says.

An estimated 30% of all cancer is related to smoking, while up to 20% more is related to obesity. Whether the latest antioxidant or fish product works or not, it is guaranteed to do a lot less than exercising and eating right.

“These three things we know are the best that we can do,” Niederdeppe says. Klein adds one more: regular screening according to schedules recommended by the National Cancer Institute.

Still, fewer than 25% of adults exercise three times a week or more, according to the CDC. Just 14% eat the recommended five daily servings of fruits and vegetables.

Exercising regularly and eating right can be a lot harder than taking an antioxidant or fish oil tablet. Marketers know this and exploit it, Niederdeppe says.

“People like to be able to take a pill and fix things. That’s where a lot of this ‘just do this and you have the answer’ messages have allure and lead to the confusion,” he says.

SOURCES: Niederdeppe, J. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, May 2007, vol 15. Jeff Niederdeppe. PhD, research fellow, University of Wisconsin. William Klein, PhD, associate professor of psychology, University of Pittsburgh. National Center for Health Statistics.

© 2007 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>02 Jul 2007 - 05:09 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Is the US the Worst Place in the World to Get Cancer Treatment?</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-331.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

5/21/2007

Many of us know that if they, or a loved one, gets diagnosed with cancer, that it's time to get their passport out of the safety deposit box and start checking with those who keep track to find out just exactly where to go, right now, for the best cancer cure.  For if you stay in the US, and take simply the conventional variety of cancer treatment, your chances of survival are very low. 
 
Overall, the conventional US cancer community has become a money-making enterprise that generates shiploads of money.  It provides the most horrible death imaginable, with the most suffering, the least hope, and at the highest price paid.  Europe, Asia, Mexico, the Islands, Central America all offer other solutions that most often work better.  

In most of the US, all that's available of any real use is "underground," provided by practitioners under constant threat of law enforcement raid for plying those things that work. 
 
California, where I live, actually has a law making it illegal to treat cancer with anything but chemotherapy, radiation or surgery.  That's why there are so many excellent clinics just across the border in Mexico.  It's only an hour-and-a-half drive from anywhere in the Los Angeles/San Bernadino/Orange County metropolitan complex.  And just a few minutes from San Diego.

The United States has a health care system that has literally failed the American public, to the point where it is pulling down the US economy.  The system did so with absolute intent, focusing on draining the last dollar out of Americans desperate for real health care.  It is a system that has, methodically, over time, come to represent the largest problem Americans have ever faced.  Larger than World War II.  Larger than the war on terror.  Larger than global warming.  Larger than the cost of oil.

Health care in America is not based on the idea "How can we help you get better?"  It is based on "How much money is available to us from your insurance, your co-pay, and your net worth?"  The very first thing that happens when you go to a conventional health care practitioner is to be asked to hand them your insurance card.  They then call your insurer and get the information on the limits of your policy.  At that moment your fate as a patient has been sealed.  Frankly, if you are diagnosed with cancer, or some other major disease, you're on the slippery slope.  You and/or yours are going to be on a roller coaster of a journey and unless you get educated - and fast - you will be at the mercy of money-driven enterprise.  

More than half of all personal US bankruptcies are over health care issues - and almost all of those people thought insurance would cover them.  It didn't - and it may not cover you, either.

The top three killers of Americans are the US health care system - period.  The system is designed that way.  The "Death by Medicine" study showed us in 2001 that: "It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown ... is 783,936. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251."  In other words, 2,036,884 Americans die each year, unnecessarily, in our health care system.  And no one running the system seems to care.  No one. 

Will you?]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>02 Jul 2007 - 05:00 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Prostate Cancer</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-315.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Source: J Urol. 2007 Jan;177(1):128-30.

Penile length changes in men treated with androgen suppression plus radiation therapy for local or locally advanced prostate cancer. Haliloglu A, Baltaci S, Yaman O.

Abstract: Researchers determined penile length alterations in men treated with androgen suppression plus radiation therapy for local or locally advanced prostate cancer. From November 2000 to November 2005, 47 patients were enrolled in this prospective study. After clinical staging all patients received hormonal therapy every 3 months for a total of 3 injections and at month 7 of hormonal therapy radiation therapy was begun for 7 weeks. With the initiation of androgen suppression therapy a gradual decrease in stretched penile length was observed. Just before treatment began, the average stretched penile length was 5.6 inches. Eighteen months later, the average penile length had shortened significantly to 3.4 inches. Patients should be counseled before therapy about this side effect of treatment.

Commentary: This is a newly discovered side effect of conventional prostate cancer treatment. The blocking of androgen (testosterone) can cause a shortening of the size of a mans' penis. The other known side effects of androgen blockade include gynecomastia (the development of breasts), impotence and poor libido. Radiation treatment can cause impotence and incontinence in at least 45% of men that undergo this treatment. External beam radiation can damage the nerves that are responsible for erection. The radiation pellets that are often implanted may also cause impotence in 6-30% of the men that undergo this procedure. What remains to be known is if the shortening of penis length is reversible when androgen treatment is stopped. Men need to be fully disclosed ALL potential side effects that are common with a treatment so they can make an informed, intelligent decision about therapy.
Delete Reply Forward Spam Move...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages ]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>16 Mar 2007 - 02:33 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>
Positive Results For Liver Cancer Trial</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-314.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Source: Medical News Today 12/29/06

Positive Results For Liver Cancer Trial

Article Date: 24 Dec 2006 - 0:00 PST

Abstract: Liver cancer (or hepatocellular cancer) is the fourth most common cancer in the world and one of the most deadly, killing most patients within a year. Progen Industries today announced positive preliminary results from its Phase II clinical trial of PI-88 for the treatment of patients with primary liver cancer following surgical resection of the tumor. The trial demonstrated that their drug, PI-88 increased time to tumor recurrence by 76%. The patient group treated with 160 mg of PI-88 had a substantial delay in tumor recurrence compared to those not receiving PI-88 (30 weeks compared with 17 weeks).

Commentary: Many physicians and scientists who work for Big Pharma are hailing this as a huge breakthrough. Letąs take a look at what the data actually means.

Time to progression simply means, time until the tumor starts to grow. The difference of 30 weeks vs. 17 weeks essentially means the difference between 7.5 months vs. 4.25 months. But is this truly relevant? Not if the one-year survival is equal, which apparently it was or it would have been mentioned. Most studies that use these statistics do so because their drug, at the end of the day doesnąt make the slightest difference in the patientsą one year survival. What if the drug slowed down the growth of the tumor at the beginning but then caused it to spread like wildfire later on? Many of these drugs cause a poor quality of life because oftentimes patients feel sicker while on them, despite the claim for a delay in tumor progression. Until Big Pharma clearly comes up with something that is significant for surviving liver cancer, they should not be promoting their exhorbantly costly drugs in the media as any significant breakthrough.]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>16 Mar 2007 - 02:32 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Type 1 diabetes linked to pancreatic cancer risk

</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-313.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - It is well known that people with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of pancreatic cancer, and now it seems that the risk extends to those with type 1 diabetes, researchers report. However, they point out that the risk is still very small.
ADVERTISEMENT

Type 2 diabetes is associated with being overweight and is caused when the body becomes less responsive to the action of insulin, leading to high blood sugar levels. Type 1 diabetes arises, often in childhood, when the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas are damaged, usually by an aberrant immune reaction.

To assess the risk of pancreatic cancer in people with type 1 and young-onset diabetes, Dr. Richard J. Stevens and colleagues from the University of Oxford, UK, reviewed findings from nine population-based studies.

The likelihood of developing pancreatic cancer was twice as high in subjects with type 1 or young-onset diabetes as in people without diabetes, the team reports in the British Journal of Cancer.

This increased risk is similar in magnitude to that seen with type 2 diabetes.

There are many theories about the link between diabetes and pancreatic cancer, Stevens said in an interview with Reuters Health and "our results help narrow these."

For example, he said, "they rule out a cancer-inducing role of the insulin-producing beta-cells in the pancreas, because in type 1 diabetes these cells have largely or entirely been destroyed."

Stevens stressed that "people with type 1 diabetes should not be overly concerned about pancreatic cancer." As he explained, "Pancreatic cancer is an extremely rare disease, and twice a tiny risk is still a tiny risk."

People with diabetes "should remain focused on the common complications of diabetes such as heart disease, eye disease and kidney disease, and the many measures -- including diet, exercise, and medication -- that can be taken to avoid them," Stevens concluded.

SOURCE: British Journal of Cancer, February 2007. ]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>01 Mar 2007 - 02:38 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Lose Weight, Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk? </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-309.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Lose Weight, Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk? 
Thu Dec 21, 7:00 PM ET 

Summary: Men who lose weight in adulthood seem to lower their risk of getting aggressive prostate cancer, according to a new American Cancer Society study. The study is the first to link weight loss to a reduced risk of this disease.

Why it's important: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer (other than skin cancer) among men in the US. More than 234,000 men are expected to develop prostate cancer in 2006, and some 27,000 are expected to die from it. Although most men who get prostate cancer survive the disease, its treatments can cause side effects like impotence and incontinence that can reduce quality of life. The new finding suggests that losing weight -- or never gaining it in the first place -- may be one way to reduce the toll prostate cancer takes.

What's already known: Many previous studies have examined the link between excess weight and prostate cancer. Several of those have found that heavier men -- those with a high body mass index (BMI) -- are more likely to be diagnosed with more advanced prostate cancer and more likely to have a recurrence of the disease after treatment than are men of normal weight. But it wasn't clear whether losing weight would have an impact on the development of prostate cancer.

How this study was done: The new study followed nearly 70,000 men who were part of a larger American Cancer Society lifestyle study called the Cancer Prevention Study II, which began in 1982. The men answered periodic questionnaires about their habits (diet, exercise, smoking, etc.) and reported their height and weight, which were used to calculate BMI. The researchers analyzed the relationship between BMI and different types of prostate cancer in men who developed the disease between 1992 and 2003. The results were published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

What was found: More than 5,000 men developed prostate cancer between1992 and 2003. Men with higher BMI had a higher risk of developing high-grade (more aggressive) prostate cancer, though their risk of developing low-grade prostate cancer decreased. Heavier men also had a higher risk of developing metastatic or fatal prostate cancer.

But men who lost at least 11 pounds between 1982 and 1992 had a lower risk of developing prostate cancer, especially high-grade cancer, compared to men whose weight stayed within 5 pounds of what it was in 1982.

The researchers say several factors could be causing this effect. It may have to do with the way obesity affects testosterone or insulin levels in the body. Or it may be that obese men don't get screened as often (screening was lower among heavier men in the study), so their prostate cancers are detected later. Obese men also tend to have lower PSA levels, which may obscure prostate cancer until it is more advanced. They also have larger prostates, which makes finding cancer with a biopsy harder to do.

The bottom line: Weight is one of the most common cancer risk factors that people have the ability to control, says lead study author Carmen Rodriguez, MD, MPH, an American Cancer Society epidemiologist. 

"Our study â€¦adds to increasing evidence of the importance of maintaining a healthy weight throughout adult life," she explains. "Although our study suggests that weight loss may lower the risk of aggressive prostate cancer, given the difficulty of losing weight, emphasis should be put on the importance of avoiding weight gain to reduce the risk of prostate cancer."

Citation: "Body Mass Index, Weight Change, and Risk of Prostate Cancer in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort." Published online Dec. 20, 2006, in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. First author: Carmen Rodriguez, MD, MPH, American Cancer Society. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>26 Dec 2006 - 11:31 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Even with lung cancer, quitting cigarettes helps </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-308.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Even with lung cancer, quitting cigarettes helps 
Fri Dec 22, 11:13 AM ET 

Once people have been diagnosed with lung cancer they might think it pointless to stop smoking, but in fact it's not too late to benefit from quitting, a new study shows.

Researchers found that among more than 200 lung cancer patients at their center, those who quit smoking after the diagnosis became less severely impaired by the disease than those who kept up the habit.

Specifically, their "performance status" -- a measure of patients' ability to care for themselves and function in daily life -- was generally higher, according to findings published in the medical journal Chest.

Patients who gave up cigarettes did not live appreciably longer than those who continued smoking, the study found, but the difference in quality of life highlights the importance of quitting even after lung cancer develops, according to the study authors.

"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate a correlation between smoking cessation after diagnosis and performance status," write Dr. Sevin Baser and his colleagues.

The researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston based their findings on 206 men and women treated at their center for non-small cell lung cancer -- which, of the two major forms of lung cancer, is the less aggressive type.

Of these patients, 93 were smokers at the time of diagnosis, and half subsequently quit.

Over the next year, there was no clear difference in survival odds between the two groups, Baser's team found. However, patients who quit smoking were far more likely to maintain their performance status, which essentially means they had greater well-being.

The difference was seen regardless of a patient's age, overall health or stage of cancer, according to the researchers.

Continued smoking, they note, may deteriorate a lung cancer patient's quality of life by starving their tissues of oxygen, which worsens outcomes from chemotherapy and radiation. It may also speed the weight loss that often comes with cancer.

"Our results," the researchers write, "highlight the importance of smoking cessation in lung cancer patients and provide oncologists with additional evidence for making this recommendation."

SOURCE: Chest, December 2006
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>26 Dec 2006 - 11:29 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Olive oil may hinder cancer process</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-307.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Olive oil may hinder cancer process 
By Amy NortonTue Dec 19, 12:10 PM ET 

People who use plenty of olive oil in their diets may be helping to prevent damage to body cells that can eventually lead to cancer, new research suggests.

In a study of 182 European men, researchers found evidence that olive oil can reduce oxidative damage to cells' genetic material, a process that can initiate cancer development.

They say the findings may help explain why rates of several cancers are higher in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe, where olive oil is a dietary staple.

They also support advice to replace saturated fats from foods like meat and butter with vegetable fats, particularly olive oil, said study co-author Dr. Henrik E. Poulsen, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

He and his colleagues report the findings in The FASEB Journal, a publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

The study included healthy men between the ages of 20 and 60 from five European countries. For two weeks, the men consumed a quarter cup of olive oil throughout each day. At the end of the study, they showed an average 13 percent reduction in a substance called 8oxodG, which is a marker of oxidative damage to cells' DNA.

Such damage occurs when byproducts of metabolism called reactive oxygen species overwhelm the body's antioxidant defenses. Olive oil contains a number of compounds, called phenols, believed to act as powerful antioxidants.

However, those compounds didn't seem to account for the drop in DNA oxidative damage, according to Poulsen's team. The men in the study used three different olive oils with varying levels of antioxidant phenols, and oxidative damage declined regardless of the phenol content.

Instead, the researchers suspect that the monounsaturated fats in olive oil are behind the effect.

The findings, they say, suggest that olive oil may be part of the reason that certain cancers, including breast, colon, ovarian and prostate cancers, are less common in Mediterranean countries than in Northern Europe.

At the beginning of the study, men from Northern Europe had higher levels of 8oxodG than those from Southern Europe. This is consistent, according to Poulsen's team, with the expected effects of the olive-oil-rich "Mediterranean diet."

However, Poulsen told Reuters Health, the diet is more than just olive oil. Ideally, it's also rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fish.

Moreover, regardless of its benefits, he added, olive oil is no substitute for calorie control and regular exercise.

SOURCE: The FASEB Journal, January 2007. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>26 Dec 2006 - 11:28 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Low-protein diet might reduce cancer risk </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-306.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Low-protein diet might reduce cancer risk 
Wed Dec 13, 2:02 PM ET 

Researchers studying a group of vegetarians who'd maintained a diet relatively low in protein and calories found that they had lower blood levels of several hormones and other substances that have been tied to certain cancers.

A comparison group of distance runners also had lower levels of most of these substances compared with sedentary adults who followed a typical American diet -- that is, relatively high in protein from meat and dairy.

However, the low-protein group also had a potential advantage over the runners: lower levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a body protein that helps cells grow and multiply. High IGF-1 levels in the blood have been linked to breast, prostate and colon cancers.

It's not clear that this all translates into lower odds of developing cancer, but the findings are a "first step" in showing how lower-protein diets might alter cancer risk, according to the researchers.

"I believe our findings suggest that protein intake may be very important in regulating cancer risk," lead study author Dr. Luigi Fontana, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis, said in a statement.

He and his colleagues report their findings in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The findings are based on a small sample of middle-aged adults, including 21 who'd been vegetarians for at least two years; they were recruited through a local vegetarian society and a magazine on "raw" foods.

They were compared with 21 long-time endurance runners the same age, and 21 sedentary adults who ate a typical American diet.

On average, the vegetarians ate just below the recommended daily amount of protein -- 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight. Both the runners and the sedentary group ate significantly more than the recommended amount.

Fontana's team found that, compared with their sedentary counterparts, the runners and vegetarians had lower levels of several hormones and inflammatory proteins linked to cancer risk.

When it came to IGF-1, specifically, the low-protein group had lower levels than runners did, even though they were equally lean -- suggesting an effect of diet and not just body weight, according to the researchers.

In addition, IGF-1 levels in the sedentary group generally rose in tandem with their protein intake.

"Many people are eating too many animal products," Fontana said, as well as too many processed foods and sugars.

He advised that people try to eat more fruits and vegetables, fiber-rich whole grains, beans and fish, and less red meat. Doing so could bring the amount of calories and protein the average American eats closer to recommended levels -- and possibly lower IGF-I levels, according to Fontana.

"We hope to further clarify what happens to cancer risk when we are chronically eating more protein than we need," he said.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2006. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>26 Dec 2006 - 11:27 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Younger Siblings May Boost Brain Tumor Risk</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-305.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Younger Siblings May Boost Brain Tumor Risk 
By Rick Ansorge 
HealthDay ReporterTue Dec 12, 12:01 PM ET 

TUESDAY, Dec. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Can the number of brothers and sisters you have affect your risk of developing a brain tumor?

Possibly, German researchers report. They found that children with three or more younger siblings face two to four times the risk of developing a brain tumor by age 15 compared to children with no siblings.

This risk was not seen in children with three or more older siblings or in adults who grew up in large families, however.

"The association with number of younger siblings, and not with number of older siblings, suggests that infections or re-infections in late childhood may play an important role in the development of pediatric nervous system tumors," said lead researcher Dr. Andrea Altieri, of the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany. The findings are published in the Dec. 12 issue of Neurology.

The population-based study, which Altieri called the largest of its kind, analyzed more than 13,600 Swedish brain tumor cases.

It found that children with three or more younger siblings had twice the risk of nervous system tumors known as neuroblastomas, more than twice the risk of brain cancers such as medulloblastoma or ependymoma, and nearly a quadruple risk of meningioma (cancer of the brain's lining, the meninges) compared to children with no siblings.

"The association between the number of siblings and other measures of child overcrowding and the risk of infections is well-documented," Altieri said. "The strongest evidence comes from several studies showing that children attending day-care centers have a two- to fourfold increased risk of infection compared to children cared for at home." 

But how would the age of siblings influence brain tumor risk? Altieri has a theory.

"When you have many younger siblings, you have a higher risk of infection during early adolescence and a higher risk of being re-infected from your younger siblings," the researcher pointed out.

On the other hand, the presence of many older siblings increases the risk of infection in infancy and early childhood. "As has been reported for other childhood malignancies, very early infection could even be protective against nervous system tumors," Altieri said, which could explain why no increased risk was seen in children with three or more older siblings.

"There is growing evidence that specific viral infections are associated with several types of cancer," Altieri said, citing links between the Epstein-Barr virus and Hodgkin's lymphoma, human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer, hepatitis C virus and liver cancer, and HIV and Kaposi's sarcoma.

Although there may be a link between childhood infections and brain tumors, Altieri points out that there's still no proof that infections actually cause them. "Any attempt to show a causal association should selectively consider child nervous system tumors and take into account not only the type of infection but also the individual frequency of childhood infections, the age of infections and the persistency of infections," the researcher said.

"This is a large, well-done study," said Dr. Paul Graham Fisher, of Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. "It puts out the idea that maybe there's an issue with birth order and brain tumors, which is interesting. It also points to the fact that we don't have a good understanding of how the immune system, for good or ill, influences the development of brain tumors."

But Fisher said that the study's suggestion that infections may play a role in brain-tumor development has been contradicted by other recent epidemiological research. "A lot of folks have either abandoned or pooh-poohed the idea that brain tumors in kids are virally mediated," he said. "This study should have been put in the context of prior studies that really haven't panned out."

Fisher also faulted the researchers not considering other possible reasons why children with younger siblings are at increased risk. "Maybe it's because Scandinavian people have more children after the first one is diagnosed with a brain tumor," he said. "So, there could be a selection bias here."

Altieri said that several small studies involving fewer than 100 cases have investigated an association between different types of infections -- such as influenza during pregnancy and polyoma virus infection in childhood -- and the subsequent risk of brain tumors. "The results have been inconsistent," the researcher said. However, "this does not mean that infections are not associated with these malignancies."

Altieri allowed that other factors may account for an increased risk of brain tumors. "So far, the association of nervous system tumors with other socioeconomic factors has been very inconsistent. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that other socioeconomic correlates are associated with the disease."

More information

To learn more about primary brain tumors, visit the National Library of Medicine.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:51 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Half of world's stomach cancer victims in China </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-304.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Half of world's stomach cancer victims in China 
Tue Dec 5, 10:19 PM ET 

China accounts for about half of the global annual death toll from stomach cancer due to the Chinese taste for pickled and smoked food and unabashed enthusiasm for smoking, the official Xinhua news agency said.

The disease kills about 300,000 people in China a year and there are 400,000 new cases reported annually, Xinhua said in a report seen on Wednesday.

Only lung and liver cancer kill more people in China, it quoted Jin Maolin, a doctor at Peking University, as saying.

Though men aged over 50 are most at risk, the number of women in rural areas who have contracted stomach cancer has risen 25 percent in the past five years, Jin said.

Chinese people need to eat more fresh fruit and vegetables and cut down on salted and pickled food -- very popular in China -- as well as smoking and drinking to reduce the risks, he added.

The World Health Organization and Chinese Health Ministry warned earlier this year that a surge in chronic diseases such as cancer and diabetes due to changing lifestyles could kill up to 80 million people in China in the next decade.

Chinese urban residents today eat double the amount of meat they did 20 years ago and both men and woman were smoking at an earlier age, the health ministry said.

The WHO wants developing countries, where most such deaths occur, to copy Western nations by discouraging tobacco use and curbing salt, sugar and saturated fats in food.

They could have their work cut out for them in China, home to the world's most enthusiastic smokers who smoke about two trillion cigarettes a year, according to the Chinese government. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:49 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Obesity will increase UK cancer cases </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-303.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Obesity will increase UK cancer cases 
Tue Dec 5, 1:39 PM ET 

Rising levels of obesity in Britain could lead to as many as 12,000 new cases of weight-related cancer each year by the end of the decade, a leading charity warned on Tuesday.

Cancer Research UK has calculated that if the rate of obesity rises in line with government predictions, many more cancer cases will follow.

"It is now well established that being overweight increases the risk of developing several types of cancer," said Professor Tim Key, an expert on diet and cancer at the charity.

Government figures for 2003 listed 24.2 million people in Britain as overweight or obese. The Department of Health has predicted the number could rise by 14 percent, to 27.6 million, by 2010. The current population of Britain is just over 60 million.

Key said the growing number of overweight and obese women will have a higher risk of breast and uterine cancer, which are linked to the increased production of the hormone estrogen in fatty tissue.

"We are less sure of the precise mechanisms in other obesity-related cancers but we can confidently predict that the number of these cases will increase unless the rate of obesity in Britain can be reversed," Key added in a statement.

The charity said there is evidence of a link between excess weight and cancer of the bowel and kidney.

In addition to increasing the risk of cancer, obese people who develop the disease have poorer survival rates, possibly because the illness is more difficult to diagnose and is not detected until it is advanced.

The charity called for a comprehensive strategy to halt the increase in obesity and urged people to maintain a healthy body mass index between 20 and 25.

A BMI is the ratio between weight (kilograms) and height . A BMI of more than 30 is considered obese.

In addition to weight-related cancer, being overweight or obese also raises the odds of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and disability. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:46 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Fatty fish consumption found to slash risk of dementia Alzheimer's</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-302.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Fatty fish consumption found to slash risk of dementia, Alzheimer's
A new Tufts University study published in the November issue of the journal Archives of Neurology has found that people with diets high in fatty fish run a significantly lower risk of developing dementia and Alzheimerâ€™s disease.The study examined the diets and dementia levels of nearly 900 men and women who participated in the Framingham Heart Study. Researchers followed the participants for nine years, and found that 99 people developed dementia, including 71 who developed Alzheimerâ€™s disease.

The researchers examined the participantsâ€™ blood levels of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) â€” a polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid â€” and found that those with the highest DHA levels had a 47 percent lower risk of developing dementia, and a 39 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimerâ€™s, compared to participants with lower blood DHA levels.

â€śIf you have a high level of DHA, a fatty acid found in fish, it reduced your risk of dementia by about half,â€ť said the studyâ€™s lead researchers, Dr. Ernst J. Schaefer, a senior scientist and director of the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory at the Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition research Center on Aging at Tufts University.

Omega-3s have long been lauded as beneficial to cardiovascular and circulatory system health. â€śJust as fish is good for your heart, itâ€™s probably food for your brain as well,â€ť Schaefer said.

Schaeferâ€™s study found that blood levels of DHA can differ depending on the liverâ€™s ability to convert ALA (alpha-linolenic acid, another fatty acid) into DHA. However, the greatest influence on blood DHA levels was the amount of fish consumed. The Framingham participants who ate the most fish per week had the highest blood levels of DHA, while those who ate the least fish had much lower levels.

Though Schaefer believes supplementing the diet with fish oil capsules would be as effective as eating fatty fish â€” such as mackerel, herring, lake trout, sardines, salmon and albacore tuna â€” some experts believe more study is needed to determine the link between fish oil supplements and prevention of dementia.

According to consumer health advocate Mike Adams, author of â€śThe Seven Laws of Nutrition,â€ť Schaeferâ€™s study shows that the oils found in fatty fish can protect the nervous system from degenerative damage.

â€śBut what most people donâ€™t know is that those same healthy oils can also be found in many plants, including chia seeds, flaxseed, avocados and macadamia nuts,â€ť Adams said.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:44 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Lifestyle Training Food Choices </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-301.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Lifestyle Training--Food Choices 
 
Youâ€™re the body weight you are because of the types of food youâ€™ve eaten as well as the quantity of food. That has to change. The well-worn definition of insanity applies: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Itâ€™s time to wise up about food choices:

You have to change the types of food youâ€™re eating, both for weight loss and for improved health.

Whole books have been written about what to eat, but letâ€™s give you some fundamentals. 
 
Increase Fresh Vegetables and Fruits 
These should be the staples of your diet. In general, the darker the color of the fruit and the vegetable, the better the content of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. 
 
Choose Lean Sources of Protein 
Look for poultry without the skin, lean cuts of beef and pork with all fat trimmed away, cold-water fish, and dairy products made with skim milk. Beans, legumes, and some nuts are great vegetarian sources of protein. 
 
Reduce Intake of Fried Food 
When food is deep-fat fried, the process essentially implodes fat into the food. Mushrooms and potatoes are great foods, but being breaded and deep-fat fried turns them into fat bombs. 
 
Reduce Intake of Refined Carbohydrates 
Bread, pasta, rolls, tortillas, cakes, cookies, and many others should be replaced with whole-grain selections when you need these types of carbohydrates. 
 
Choose Better Fats and Oils 
Replace saturated fats from vegetable and tropical oils with olive oil, high-oleic safflower oil, and canola oil. All are low in saturated fats and high in mono- and polyunsaturated fats. 
 
Those are some fundamentals that need to be incorporated into your healthier lifestyle. the best types of foods to eat for a healthier lifestyle in the primary food categories: Protein, Carbohydrates, Dairy, Vegetables, Fruits, and Fats and Oils. Whether you use  your own plan, a diet plan or  read labels to decide what foods will fit your new lifestyle, making better food choices is critical to lifestyle training.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:42 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Onions, garlic linked to lower cancer risks </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-300.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Onions, garlic linked to lower cancer risks 
By Amy NortonFri Dec 1, 12:34 PM ET 

People who flavor their diets with plenty of onions and garlic might have lower odds of several types of cancer, a new study suggests.

In an analysis of eight studies from Italy and Switzerland, researchers found that older adults with the highest onion and garlic intakes had the lowest risks of a number of cancers -- including colon, ovarian and throat cancers.

The findings, which appear in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, are in line with some past research. But those studies were mainly conducted in China, and it is unclear if the results are different in Western countries.

Dietary habits are substantially different in China, with garlic intake, in particular, being far higher, Dr. Carlotta Galeone, the lead author of the new study, told Reuters Health.

These latest findings suggest the anti-cancer benefit of these vegetables extend to Western populations, according to Galeone, a researcher at the Mario Negri Institute of Pharmacologic Research in Milan, Italy.

It's still not certain that onions and garlic have a direct effect on cancer risk. It's possible, for instance, that onion and garlic lovers also have an overall diet that protects against cancer, according to Galeone and her colleagues.

On the other hand, they note, animal studies and lab experiments with cancer cells have found that certain compounds in onions and garlic may inhibit the growth of tumors. Sulfur compounds found in garlic and antioxidant flavonoids in onions are among the potentially protective substances.

The current findings are based on results from eight studies conducted in Italy and Switzerland. Each study compared healthy older adults to patients with a particular form of cancer, asking participants for detailed information on their diets, physical activity and other lifestyle habits.

When it came to colon cancer, Galeone's team found that men and women who ate seven or more servings of onions per week had less than half the risk of those who shunned the vegetable. Similarly, garlic lovers were a quarter less likely to develop the disease than people who maintained garlic-free diets.

The vegetables were also linked to lower risks of cancers of the mouth, throat, kidneys and ovaries.

Given what's known about the biological activity of some onion and garlic compounds, it wouldn't be a bad idea to spice up your diet with the vegetables, according to Galeone.

It's probably wise to mix them with plenty of other vegetables, however.

Some research has found that garlic and tomatoes may have "synergistic" cancer-fighting effects, Galeone and her colleagues note. And, in general, experts recommend that people eat a variety of fruits and vegetables every day for overall health.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2006. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:37 PM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cause of Leukemia Cluster Still Unknown </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-299.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cause of Leukemia Cluster Still Unknown 
 
The Associated Press 
December 1, 2006   5:13 pm 

TUCSON, Ariz. -- A three-year study into a cluster of childhood leukemia cases in Sierra Vista detected no toxic exposures that could have caused the illnesses, federal health officials said.

"We don't know why this cluster occurred. We really wish we had the answer, but we don't," Beverly Kingsley, an epidemiologist with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Thursday.

At least a dozen Sierra Vista children have developed this cancer of the blood and bone-marrow system since 1997 and two have died of it.

That's nearly triple the childhood leukemia rate expected in a town of 40,000 during that time period.

"We find nothing to indicate that any action needs to be taken in Sierra Vista," Kingsley said.

The CDC report said most of the 128 substances measured in the bodies of these children and their families "were low, and often lower than levels usually detected in the U.S. population."

However, the CDC did find a variation in a gene that controls how the body converts an unsafe chemical to a safe one in all of the leukemia-stricken children and almost half of the healthy children in the study.

Investigators said they didn't know what effect this might have on the risk of leukemia.

Stressing that this is a new finding, CDC officials said they will launch larger studies of the gene variance.

"I've been in Sierra Vista for a long time and I've been watching both kids and adults die of leukemia since 1974," said Sue Ivory, a close friend of two families who lost children to this cancer. "We just keep attending these funerals. There's something wrong here. Everyone knows someone who has leukemia or cancer. This has been going on for a long time."

Ivory and several others at a public meeting the CDC held Thursday night in the military town southeast of Tucson expressed concern that the study didn't include enough victims, didn't span a long enough period of time and didn't include environmental testing for toxins.

In 2004, the CDC decided to draw and analyze bio-samples of blood, urine and cheek swabs from the surviving leukemia victims and their families, test them for 128 contaminants -- including toxic chemicals, metals, pesticides and volatile organic compounds -- and compare them with samples from healthy Sierra Vista children. The samples also underwent genetic testing.

Environmental toxins long have been suspected as a cause of trigger for leukemia, although only one -- the solvent benzene -- has ever been proved to cause it, authorities said.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>19 Dec 2006 - 04:19 PM</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>Workouts Help Ward Off Cancer's Return </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-297.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Workouts Help Ward Off Cancer's Return 
Thu Nov 30, 11:47 PM ET 

THURSDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) -- For cancer survivors, exercising and maintaining a healthy weight are important factors in preventing malignancy's return, at least for some forms of the disease.

That's the conclusion of an American Cancer Society report that updates nutrition and physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors during and after treatment.

Among the points contained in the report:

For some kinds of cancer, just 1 to 3 hours a week of exercise can lower the risk of cancer recurrence and death, as well as death from all causes. Exercise has also been shown to improve fitness, fatigue, and several other quality of life aspects in cancer survivors. While a vegetarian diet can help health in some ways, there's no direct evidence that this kind of diet can prevent cancer recurrence. Survivors who eat a vegetarian diet should ensure that they're getting an adequate intake of nutrients. A standard multivitamin and mineral supplement in amounts equivalent to 100 percent of the Daily Value can help cancer survivors meet their nutrient needs when it's difficult for them to eat a healthy diet. However, some supplements -- such as those with high levels of folic acid or antioxidants -- may be harmful during cancer treatment. Food safety is especially important for cancer survivors, particularly during treatment that involves immunosuppression. Alcohol can affect the risk for new primary cancers in certain areas of the body. 

The report is published in the November/December issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Currently, nearly two out of three cancer patients in the United States live more than five years after their diagnosis. There are more than 10 million Americans who have been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about life after cancer treatment.
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>06 Dec 2006 - 11:12 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Overweight women's breast cancer risk lower: study </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-296.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Overweight women's breast cancer risk lower: study 
By Will DunhamMon Nov 27, 4:16 PM ET 

Overweight and obese women have a lower risk of breast cancer prior to menopause, researchers said on Monday in a finding they said both puzzles them and contradicts conventional wisdom.

The researchers admitted they do not know why the extra pounds (kg) may protect premenopausal women from breast cancer, but noted obesity actually greatly boosts breast cancer risk after menopause, when the disease more often is diagnosed.

"It is so puzzling. And it is not a good public health message," said Karin Michels, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and lead researcher in the study.

"I don't want women to use this as an excuse to be overweight. Therefore, it's even more important for us to find out what the mechanisms are. I mean, the last thing we want is, in this day and age, to advise people to gain weight," Michels said in a telephone interview.

The findings, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, were based on medical data from 113,130 premenopausal registered nurses tracked from 1989 to 2003. During that time, 1,398 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed.

Women with a body mass index (a weight-for-height scale) of 30 or above -- considered obese by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- had a 19 percent lower risk of premenopausal breast cancer than women in a normal weight range (body mass index between 20 and 22.4), the study found.

The lower risk was especially evident in young adults. Those with a body mass index at age 18 of 27.5 or higher, which makes them overweight or obese, had a 43 percent lower risk of breast cancer before menopause than women of normal weight at the same age.

Being overweight is linked to a broad range of health risks. The World Health Organization describes obesity as a growing problem in high-income nations as well as increasing numbers of low- and middle-income nations.

OVULATION FACTORS

Michels said some experts had suspected the reduced premenopausal breast cancer risk was the result of these women not ovulating as much due to their larger body size.

Some overweight women have irregular or long menstrual cycles, or develop a condition called polycystic ovary syndrome in which ovaries malfunction. These are linked to disruptions in ovulation that lower levels of certain hormones.

The suspicion had been that these lower hormone levels might explain the diminished breast cancer risk. But the researchers weighed these factors and concluded that they did not appear to be the cause.

"Now we're back to square one in trying to explain with which kind of mechanisms a larger body size might protect women from breast cancer," Michels said, adding she plans further research.

She speculated the findings might be explained by the fact that obese women are less likely to be screened for breast cancer, and that is harder to detect tumors in these women.

"If we just detect the cancer later and therefore delay the time of diagnosis of the cancer into their post-menopausal years, then that might be an explanation," Michels said.

Michels said the link between weight and breast cancer risk varies by age. High weight at birth and then after menopause is linked to a heightened risk, while high weight in young adulthood is associated with a reduced risk, she said. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>06 Dec 2006 - 11:10 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Cancer survivors urged to maintain healthy weight </title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-295.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[Cancer survivors urged to maintain healthy weight 
By Will DunhamWed Nov 29, 7:18 PM ET 

Staying slim and fit is especially important for cancer survivors, because obesity raises the risk of cancer coming back, the American Cancer Society said in new guidelines issued on Wednesday.

"The evidence really is quite strong for the need for cancer survivors to achieve and maintain a healthful weight," Wendy Demark-Wahnefried of Duke University Medical Center, one of the report's authors, said in an interview.

The recommendations, updating advice issued in 2001 and 2003, were published in the society's "CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians."

The report said obesity is a well-established risk factor for some of the most common forms of cancer, including breast cancer in post-menopausal women and cancers of the colon, esophagus, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney, uterus and prostate.

It also cited increasing evidence that being overweight raises the risk for recurrence and reduces likelihood of survival for many cancers.

Demark-Wahnefried said cancer survivors also face a greater risk of heart disease and diabetes, adding, "Obesity is a big risk factor for those diseases as well as second cancers."

The American Cancer Society said nearly two-thirds of U.S. cancer patients live more than five years after diagnosis, and more than 10 million Americans now alive have been diagnosed with cancer at some time in their lives.

The report said vegetarian diets can have many benefits because they tend to be low in saturated fat and high in fiber and vitamins.

"However, no direct evidence has determined whether consuming a vegetarian diet has any additional benefit for the prevention of cancer recurrence over an omnivorous diet high in vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and low in red meats," the report stated.

The report noted that preliminary evidence indicates that for some types of cancer, one to three hours per week of exercise can cut the risk of cancer recurrence and death. 
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>06 Dec 2006 - 11:10 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Young Breast Cancer Survivors May Suffer Psychological, Physical Problems May Persist for Younger Women   By 	Jennifer Warner 
</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-294.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[
Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MDon Friday, November 21, 2003WebMD Medical News
Nov. 21, 2003 -- Most women under 50 who survive breast cancer will go on to live fulfilling lives with good physical health, according to a survey of younger breast cancer survivors. 
But those women diagnosed with breast cancer at the youngest ages, between 25 and 34, are more likely to suffer from persistent psychological and physical problems long after breast cancer treatment. 
Researchers say breast cancer is generally a disease of older women, and only about 25% of cases are diagnosed in women under 50 years old. But the growing number of women in this age group in the U.S. and a decline in breast cancer deaths has prompted a rise in the number of younger breast cancer survivors. 
Young Breast Cancer Survivors Face Challenges 
Previous studies have shown that adapting to life after breast cancer is more difficult for younger women, but researchers say this is the first large, multi-ethnic study to look at what younger breast cancer survivors are experiencing. 
In this study, researchers surveyed 577 women who were under 50 when they were first diagnosed with breast cancer. 
The results, published in the Nov. 15 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, show that physical functioning and overall quality of life was quite good across the group an average of six years after their diagnosis. But younger women experienced poorer mental health and less vitality in the years following breast cancer treatment. 
"There is a positive message here that overall function is going to be good for the majority of younger women who survive breast cancer. Yet there are subgroups who may be at more risk for problems," says researcher Patricia Ganz, MD, director of the division of cancer prevention and control at the UCLA Jonsson Cancer Center, in a news release. "The youngest women report persistent energy loss and psychological difficulties. They are a group doctors and others need to target for intervention." 
Researchers say young breast cancer survivors may face special challenges due to treatment-induced menopause and loss of fertility, which may become apparent in later years. 
"At first it is hard because the only thing you can focus on is getting through the treatments -- and hanging on to your life," says study participant Cynthia Lauren, in a news release. Lauren was 37 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. 
"But once that is over, you begin to realize the more subtle changes and losses that come along with the diagnosis. For me, I lost my fertility, but I didn't really get to deal with it until later," says Lauren. 
The study also showed that African-American women, married or partnered women, and women with better emotional or physical functioning were more likely to report a higher quality of life than other women.         SOURCES: Ganz, P. Journal of Clinical Oncology, Nov. 15; vol 21: pp 4184-4193. News release, UCLA. 			
]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>22 Nov 2006 - 01:04 AM</pubDate>
							  </item>  <item>
								<title>Weight Gain May Increase Breast Cancer Risk
Women Who Gain Weight as Adults May Face Higher Breast Cancer Risks
</title>
								<link>http://www.facr.org/article-293.html</link>
								<description>
								<![CDATA[By 	Jennifer Warner 

Reviewed By Brunilda  Nazario, MD
on Thursday, February 26, 2004
WebMD Medical News 



Feb. 26, 2004 -- Women who put on more than 70 pounds as adults may be twice as likely to develop breast cancer during menopause as women who maintain their weight. 
A new study suggests that for women not taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT), weight gain after age 18 may be a strong predictor of menopausal breast cancer risk. 
Researchers found that postmenopausal women not taking HRT who gained more than 20 pounds since age 18 were much more likely to develop breast cancer than women who stayed within five pounds of their teenage weight. 
"These findings further illustrate the importance of maintaining a healthy body weight throughout life," says researcher Heather Spencer Feigelson, PhD, MPH, senior epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, in a news release. "Even modest weight gain since age 18 was associated with increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. 
"Avoiding weight gain is one of the few ways we know of to reduce the risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women," says Feigelson. 
The findings appear in the February issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 
Extra Pounds Increase Breast Cancer Risks 
The study involved more than 62,000 postmenopausal women who took part in the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II. 
The women, who were between the ages of 50 and 74 at the start of the study in 1992, were asked about their current weight and their weight at age 18. Total weight change from age 18 to their age in 1992 was calculated. During the follow-up period, 1,934 breast cancer cases occurred among the participants. 
Researchers found that among non-HRT users, women who gained 21 to 30 pounds since age 18 were 40% more likely to get breast cancer than women who had gained no more than five pounds. And the risks increased as the women's weights increased. 
Women who gained more than 70 pounds were twice as likely to develop breast cancer as the women who maintained their weight. 
Although adult weight gain was strongly related to breast cancer risk among non-HRT users, adult weight gain was unrelated to breast cancer risk among women on HRT. Breast cancer risks among these HRT users were nonetheless higher, regardless of adult weight gain. 
Researchers say the findings support the idea that body fat increases menopausal breast cancer risk by increasing estrogen levels in the body. Women on HRT already have higher levels of estrogen as a result of the hormones they're taking, which may mask any additional effect of body fat. 
 
SOURCES: Feigelson, H. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, February 2004; vol 13: pp 220-224. News release, American Cancer Society. 

]]></description>
								<author>SuperUser 'host' Account</author>
								<pubDate>22 Nov 2006 - 01:04 AM</pubDate>
							  </item></channel>
						 </rss>
 