Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Dr Simoncini's treatment??
A patient of mine with prostate cancer came in with some info on the Bicarbonate therapy. He wants to do this as an IV drip. My understanding was that the treatment was done via injection into the tumor. Anyway, the patient's comments about the dosing was something like 5% bicarb mixed in 500cc.so, to anyone who knows about this -- he said Rob Rowen had and article on it -- do you know the specifics of the formula?Is it a 5% bicarb solution mixed in sterile water, normal saline....et cetera, or is the final mix supposed to be a 5% solution. Also, what about osmolarity? Read more
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tumors Linked to Fetal Stem Cell Transplant
(HealthDay News) -- The first case of tumors developing in someone receiving human fetal stem cell therapy has been reported in Moscow, though scientists speculate that the person's disease might have contributed to the growths.
The tumors appeared along the brain and spine of a boy about four years after he began receiving the neural fetal stem cell treatment for a rare neurodegenerative disease, ataxia telangiectasia, that also weakens the immune system. Israeli researchers from Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv studied the surgically removed spinal cord tumor, which was benign, and found that it differed genetically from the boy's own tissue.
Rodents injected with pluripotential embryonic stem cells, which are capable of differentiating into various cell types, reportedly have developed tumors, the researchers noted, but the risk was always considered low, especially if the cells were differentiated before injection.
Writing in the February issue of the journal PLoS Medicine, the Israeli team said that the use of stem cell therapy should continue but that the incident points to the need for caution. The finding also warrants further research into the biology of stem cells and their use and safety, "to maximize the potential benefits of regenerative medicine while minimizing the risks," the team wrote.
More information
There's more on stem cells at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The tumors appeared along the brain and spine of a boy about four years after he began receiving the neural fetal stem cell treatment for a rare neurodegenerative disease, ataxia telangiectasia, that also weakens the immune system. Israeli researchers from Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv studied the surgically removed spinal cord tumor, which was benign, and found that it differed genetically from the boy's own tissue.
Rodents injected with pluripotential embryonic stem cells, which are capable of differentiating into various cell types, reportedly have developed tumors, the researchers noted, but the risk was always considered low, especially if the cells were differentiated before injection.
Writing in the February issue of the journal PLoS Medicine, the Israeli team said that the use of stem cell therapy should continue but that the incident points to the need for caution. The finding also warrants further research into the biology of stem cells and their use and safety, "to maximize the potential benefits of regenerative medicine while minimizing the risks," the team wrote.
More information
There's more on stem cells at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer
Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Treatment - Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), as defined by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), is a group of diverse medical and health ...... Read more
Monday, November 10, 2008
1- Sodium bicarbonate, a natural way to treat the cancer
We watch in face the cancer: the seen tumor gives near.Doctor Simoncini, oncologist Rome Italy. http://www.curenaturalicancro.org/
watch
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Cancer is now the leading cause of death in the United States. This video featuring Doug Kaufman interviewing Italian Oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini, details a new theory of cancer that carries the promise of a safe, speedy, and effective cancer cure.
Cancer, which surpassed heart disease as the number one killer in America in 2005, is still considered “a mystery” in conventional medicine. In fact, the term “cancer” is just a generic term that in no way describes its cause.
In this video, Doug Kaufman – a longtime proponent of the influence of fungi in human disease -- interviews the Italian oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini -- author of Cancer is a Fungus -- who shares fascinating new information about what he believes is the root of all cancers: fungi, and discusses a radically different path for curing cancer; sometimes in as little as a few days.
Conventional Cancer Treatments – Ineffective and Dangerous “Cures”
Currently, if you are diagnosed with cancer, especially in the U.S., you are given three options:
Surgery
Chemotherapy
Radiation
However, as mentioned in this video, finding actual statistics on the effectiveness of these treatments is very difficult. You’d think if something is the best medicine has to offer, they’d be more than happy to share their level of success.
Most people are given a 50/50 chance of dying from cancer, in general. And conventional treatments are touted as your best shot at surviving.
But is it true?
According to Dr. Simoncini’s website, polls and questionnaires show that a full 75 percent of doctors say they’d refuse chemotherapy if they were struck with cancer due to its ineffectiveness and its devastating side effects.
Many doctors have spoken out about it, yet their voices are still ignored. For example, Dr. Allen Levin, MD, author of The Healing of Cancer, has said, “The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.”
Professor Gorge Mathe similarly stated, “If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.”
So, how effective is chemotherapy?
There is at least one study that I know of that addresses this very question. Published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004, the results of this study were astounding, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers!
In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively.
Still well below the 50/50 mark…
A review of chemo on 5-year survival rates in Australia garnered almost identical results, with a 2.3 percent success rate, compared to the U.S. 2.1 percent rate of success.
And yet this is the best that conventional medicine has up its sleeve for treating this widespread killer.
What Causes Cancer?
Conventional medicine likes to focus on the impact of genetics as a causative agent in developing cancer, despite the fact that research indicates that genetics is not the main cause of this widespread phenomenon, even though it may play a small role in some people. Unfortunately, little attention is paid to the impact of plain and simple infections.
Dr. Simoncini’s research has led him to believe that something as simple as a fungus, Candida, is the leading cause of cancer; that cancer itself is in fact a fungus. What we refer to as a tumor, is nothing more than your body’s attempt at protecting itself from that fungus.
He brings up an analogy between psoriasis – an “incurable” disease of the skin that many treat as a fungus – and tumors, which are also an “incurable” disease of your body. Several studies have linked the presence of Candida with cancer, showing that anywhere between 79 to 97 percent of all cancer patients also have Candida.
Dr. Simoncini’s explanation for how this phenomenon works – how Candida leads to deadly cancer – is that it’s a consequence of the weakening and exhaustion of your organs, and eventually your entire body, in the following stages:
Candida roots itself in your deep connective tissue in various organs
As a result, this evokes an organic defensive reaction as the connective tissue of your invaded organ attempts to encyst the fungin colonies through cellular hyper-production, which results in the formation of tumors
Growths continue as the fungi spreads, both in your surrounding tissue, and remotely (aka “metastatis”). It is still always the same Candida attacking different tissues, but due to its highly adaptive qualities it is able to mutate to adapt itself to whatever environment it finds itself in, hence the various types of tumors
Your body becomes progressively more exhausted, which allows the fungi to spread and take over more rapidly
You die from “cancer”
If Cancer is a Fungus, Then What is the Cure?
In the video, Dr. Simoncini shows actual before-and-after footage of both bronchial cancer and colon cancer. Four days after his revolutionary and mind-blowingly simple treatment for bronchial cancer with a sodium bicarbonate and water flush, the tumors are gone…
Sodium bicarbonate, a.k.a baking soda, is the most potent anti-fungal substance there is. The problem with anti-fungal drugs, however, is that fungi are extremely adaptive, and can adapt to a new environment in three to four days. This renders anti-fungal drugs largely ineffective. The fungi do not adapt to the baking soda, but it is far more difficult to use as it needs to be injected directly into the tumor; swallowing the baking soda would not work at all.
Candida yeast is not “one shared element,” so to speak, but rather “social elements,” or colonies, that are highly communicative.
Because of their unique adaptation skills, sodium bicarbonate must be administered directly onto the tumor, and in so doing changing its ph very quickly, from acid to alkaline, which quickly and effectively kills off the yeast before it has time to adapt.
For example, Dr. Simoncini’s experience has shown that 99 percent of breast- and bladder cancer can heal in just six days, entirely without the use of surgery, chemo or radiation, using just a local infiltration device (such as a catheter) to deliver the sodium bicarbonate directly to the infected site in your breast tissue or bladder.
Why the Baking Soda Cancer Cure is Not Available Everywhere
Unfortunately, Dr. Simoncini is yet another brilliant doctor who has been ousted from the medical community due to his revolutionary simple ideas of how to cure profit-making diseases.
So many people refuse to believe that this is true and that it’s happening to good doctors, since “everyone knows” you must be a liability to human life if you’re stripped of your medical license.
But the reason why Dr. Simoncini was kicked out is because as an oncologist – a cancer specialist -- he refused to use conventional cancer treatment methods, choosing instead to administer sodium bicarbonate, which is HARMLESS, as opposed to the often lethal use of chemotherapy.
His lawyers have recently started a rehabilitation court trial at the International Court of Justice in Strassburg to have him reinstated.
Preventive Measures – Combating Candida
If the cause of cancer is the Candida fungus, then what is the root cause of the fungi? And how can you tell you might have too much yeast in your body, which might eventually lead to the formation of cancer?
A good sign that Candida is on the loose is feeling “run down” and developing a craving for sugars and carbohydrates, as this is the main fuel for the growing amounts of yeast in your intestine. The more sugar and grains you eat, the more the yeast grows out of control. Eventually, this will weaken your immune system, which in turn can allow it to infiltrate various other organs.
This imbalance in intestinal flora, sometimes called dysbiosis, can also lead to other more common, and less lethal, health problems, such as:
Vaginitis
Irritable bowel syndrome
Weight gain
Food allergies
Migraines
Asthma
Depression
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia
There are 79 different toxins released by the metabolism and die-off of Candida. This is why people with yeast overgrowth often feel so lousy; the Candida toxins are regularly entering their bloodstream. Two of these toxins, alcohol and acetaldehyde (the breakdown product of alcohol that causes hangovers), are in such high amounts in people with chronic yeast problems that you may actually end up feeling “drunk.”
Acetaldehyde also reacts with the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is why people with yeast overgrowth often experience mental and emotional disturbances such as anxiety, depression, poor concentration, and feeling spaced-out.
How to Cure a Yeast Overgrowth
For more on Candida and holistic treatment options, I recommend you review my previous article, Holistic Treatment for Candida Infection. The highlights of the treatments for yeast overgrowth include:
The Right Diet and Exercise -- A diet rich in meats, chicken, eggs, seeds and nuts, vegetables, and healthy oils (free range and organic) -- while avoiding sugars and carbohydrate-rich foods -- will restrict the amount of fuel the yeast in your intestine has available to it. I would add to this to make your diet in tune with your nutritional type. Once you’ve started on the diet, exercising will begin to rebalance the levels of neurotransmitters in your brain and improve your mood. One of the elements of diet that does seem counter intuitive is the absolute restriction of even fruits when one is seeking to eliminate yeast, as even the tiniest amounts of sugar seem to worsen this condition.
Getting Plenty of Good Bacteria -- You will want to increase your probiotic (good bacteria) intake with a high-quality probiotic supplement or by eating cultured and fermented foods, such as natto. These contain the good bacteria that keep your vagina and gastrointestinal tract healthy and will ultimately replace the Candida.
Avoiding Exposure to Chemicals -- Paints, household cleaners, perfumes and scents may cause allergic reactions, and chemical sensitivities are very common in people with yeast overgrowth.
Addressing Emotional and Psychological Issues -- Food cravings, especially those for sweets, often are exacerbated by emotional dependencies. Tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can help you to overcome unhealthy food cravings and other emotional hurdles.
For even more information on simple lifestyle changes that can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer, please review the Related Articles below.
watch
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Cancer is now the leading cause of death in the United States. This video featuring Doug Kaufman interviewing Italian Oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini, details a new theory of cancer that carries the promise of a safe, speedy, and effective cancer cure.
Cancer, which surpassed heart disease as the number one killer in America in 2005, is still considered “a mystery” in conventional medicine. In fact, the term “cancer” is just a generic term that in no way describes its cause.
In this video, Doug Kaufman – a longtime proponent of the influence of fungi in human disease -- interviews the Italian oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini -- author of Cancer is a Fungus -- who shares fascinating new information about what he believes is the root of all cancers: fungi, and discusses a radically different path for curing cancer; sometimes in as little as a few days.
Conventional Cancer Treatments – Ineffective and Dangerous “Cures”
Currently, if you are diagnosed with cancer, especially in the U.S., you are given three options:
Surgery
Chemotherapy
Radiation
However, as mentioned in this video, finding actual statistics on the effectiveness of these treatments is very difficult. You’d think if something is the best medicine has to offer, they’d be more than happy to share their level of success.
Most people are given a 50/50 chance of dying from cancer, in general. And conventional treatments are touted as your best shot at surviving.
But is it true?
According to Dr. Simoncini’s website, polls and questionnaires show that a full 75 percent of doctors say they’d refuse chemotherapy if they were struck with cancer due to its ineffectiveness and its devastating side effects.
Many doctors have spoken out about it, yet their voices are still ignored. For example, Dr. Allen Levin, MD, author of The Healing of Cancer, has said, “The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.”
Professor Gorge Mathe similarly stated, “If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.”
So, how effective is chemotherapy?
There is at least one study that I know of that addresses this very question. Published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004, the results of this study were astounding, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers!
In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively.
Still well below the 50/50 mark…
A review of chemo on 5-year survival rates in Australia garnered almost identical results, with a 2.3 percent success rate, compared to the U.S. 2.1 percent rate of success.
And yet this is the best that conventional medicine has up its sleeve for treating this widespread killer.
What Causes Cancer?
Conventional medicine likes to focus on the impact of genetics as a causative agent in developing cancer, despite the fact that research indicates that genetics is not the main cause of this widespread phenomenon, even though it may play a small role in some people. Unfortunately, little attention is paid to the impact of plain and simple infections.
Dr. Simoncini’s research has led him to believe that something as simple as a fungus, Candida, is the leading cause of cancer; that cancer itself is in fact a fungus. What we refer to as a tumor, is nothing more than your body’s attempt at protecting itself from that fungus.
He brings up an analogy between psoriasis – an “incurable” disease of the skin that many treat as a fungus – and tumors, which are also an “incurable” disease of your body. Several studies have linked the presence of Candida with cancer, showing that anywhere between 79 to 97 percent of all cancer patients also have Candida.
Dr. Simoncini’s explanation for how this phenomenon works – how Candida leads to deadly cancer – is that it’s a consequence of the weakening and exhaustion of your organs, and eventually your entire body, in the following stages:
Candida roots itself in your deep connective tissue in various organs
As a result, this evokes an organic defensive reaction as the connective tissue of your invaded organ attempts to encyst the fungin colonies through cellular hyper-production, which results in the formation of tumors
Growths continue as the fungi spreads, both in your surrounding tissue, and remotely (aka “metastatis”). It is still always the same Candida attacking different tissues, but due to its highly adaptive qualities it is able to mutate to adapt itself to whatever environment it finds itself in, hence the various types of tumors
Your body becomes progressively more exhausted, which allows the fungi to spread and take over more rapidly
You die from “cancer”
If Cancer is a Fungus, Then What is the Cure?
In the video, Dr. Simoncini shows actual before-and-after footage of both bronchial cancer and colon cancer. Four days after his revolutionary and mind-blowingly simple treatment for bronchial cancer with a sodium bicarbonate and water flush, the tumors are gone…
Sodium bicarbonate, a.k.a baking soda, is the most potent anti-fungal substance there is. The problem with anti-fungal drugs, however, is that fungi are extremely adaptive, and can adapt to a new environment in three to four days. This renders anti-fungal drugs largely ineffective. The fungi do not adapt to the baking soda, but it is far more difficult to use as it needs to be injected directly into the tumor; swallowing the baking soda would not work at all.
Candida yeast is not “one shared element,” so to speak, but rather “social elements,” or colonies, that are highly communicative.
Because of their unique adaptation skills, sodium bicarbonate must be administered directly onto the tumor, and in so doing changing its ph very quickly, from acid to alkaline, which quickly and effectively kills off the yeast before it has time to adapt.
For example, Dr. Simoncini’s experience has shown that 99 percent of breast- and bladder cancer can heal in just six days, entirely without the use of surgery, chemo or radiation, using just a local infiltration device (such as a catheter) to deliver the sodium bicarbonate directly to the infected site in your breast tissue or bladder.
Why the Baking Soda Cancer Cure is Not Available Everywhere
Unfortunately, Dr. Simoncini is yet another brilliant doctor who has been ousted from the medical community due to his revolutionary simple ideas of how to cure profit-making diseases.
So many people refuse to believe that this is true and that it’s happening to good doctors, since “everyone knows” you must be a liability to human life if you’re stripped of your medical license.
But the reason why Dr. Simoncini was kicked out is because as an oncologist – a cancer specialist -- he refused to use conventional cancer treatment methods, choosing instead to administer sodium bicarbonate, which is HARMLESS, as opposed to the often lethal use of chemotherapy.
His lawyers have recently started a rehabilitation court trial at the International Court of Justice in Strassburg to have him reinstated.
Preventive Measures – Combating Candida
If the cause of cancer is the Candida fungus, then what is the root cause of the fungi? And how can you tell you might have too much yeast in your body, which might eventually lead to the formation of cancer?
A good sign that Candida is on the loose is feeling “run down” and developing a craving for sugars and carbohydrates, as this is the main fuel for the growing amounts of yeast in your intestine. The more sugar and grains you eat, the more the yeast grows out of control. Eventually, this will weaken your immune system, which in turn can allow it to infiltrate various other organs.
This imbalance in intestinal flora, sometimes called dysbiosis, can also lead to other more common, and less lethal, health problems, such as:
Vaginitis
Irritable bowel syndrome
Weight gain
Food allergies
Migraines
Asthma
Depression
Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia
There are 79 different toxins released by the metabolism and die-off of Candida. This is why people with yeast overgrowth often feel so lousy; the Candida toxins are regularly entering their bloodstream. Two of these toxins, alcohol and acetaldehyde (the breakdown product of alcohol that causes hangovers), are in such high amounts in people with chronic yeast problems that you may actually end up feeling “drunk.”
Acetaldehyde also reacts with the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is why people with yeast overgrowth often experience mental and emotional disturbances such as anxiety, depression, poor concentration, and feeling spaced-out.
How to Cure a Yeast Overgrowth
For more on Candida and holistic treatment options, I recommend you review my previous article, Holistic Treatment for Candida Infection. The highlights of the treatments for yeast overgrowth include:
The Right Diet and Exercise -- A diet rich in meats, chicken, eggs, seeds and nuts, vegetables, and healthy oils (free range and organic) -- while avoiding sugars and carbohydrate-rich foods -- will restrict the amount of fuel the yeast in your intestine has available to it. I would add to this to make your diet in tune with your nutritional type. Once you’ve started on the diet, exercising will begin to rebalance the levels of neurotransmitters in your brain and improve your mood. One of the elements of diet that does seem counter intuitive is the absolute restriction of even fruits when one is seeking to eliminate yeast, as even the tiniest amounts of sugar seem to worsen this condition.
Getting Plenty of Good Bacteria -- You will want to increase your probiotic (good bacteria) intake with a high-quality probiotic supplement or by eating cultured and fermented foods, such as natto. These contain the good bacteria that keep your vagina and gastrointestinal tract healthy and will ultimately replace the Candida.
Avoiding Exposure to Chemicals -- Paints, household cleaners, perfumes and scents may cause allergic reactions, and chemical sensitivities are very common in people with yeast overgrowth.
Addressing Emotional and Psychological Issues -- Food cravings, especially those for sweets, often are exacerbated by emotional dependencies. Tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can help you to overcome unhealthy food cravings and other emotional hurdles.
For even more information on simple lifestyle changes that can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer, please review the Related Articles below.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
A Yeast–Cancer Connection?
Can a person develop cancer from having chronic yeast infections? Are the two related in any way?... Read more
Friday, September 19, 2008
According to Warburg, cells that produce energy by fermenting sugars may turn cancerous.
According to Warburg, cells that produce energy by fermenting sugars may turn cancerous. Warburg's contention is this...
The cells that cannot produce energy aerobically, cannot produce enough energy to maintain their ability to function properly. So they lose their ability to do whatever they need to do in the body.
Fermentation allows these cells to survive, but they can no longer perform any functions in the body or communicate effectively with the body. Consequently, these cells can only multiply and grow. And may become cancerous. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, they change into cancer cells.
Decades ago, two researchers at the National Cancer Institute, Dean Burn and Mark Woods, (Dean translated some of Warburg's speeches) conducted a series of experiments where they measured the fermentation rate of cancers that grew at different speeds. What they found supported Dr. Warburg's theory. The cancers with the highest growth rates had the highest fermentation rates. The slower a cancer grew, the less it used fermentation to produce energy.
Naturally Warburg's contention was challenged and tested by other scientists. Continue Reading >>
The cells that cannot produce energy aerobically, cannot produce enough energy to maintain their ability to function properly. So they lose their ability to do whatever they need to do in the body.
Fermentation allows these cells to survive, but they can no longer perform any functions in the body or communicate effectively with the body. Consequently, these cells can only multiply and grow. And may become cancerous. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, they change into cancer cells.
Decades ago, two researchers at the National Cancer Institute, Dean Burn and Mark Woods, (Dean translated some of Warburg's speeches) conducted a series of experiments where they measured the fermentation rate of cancers that grew at different speeds. What they found supported Dr. Warburg's theory. The cancers with the highest growth rates had the highest fermentation rates. The slower a cancer grew, the less it used fermentation to produce energy.
Naturally Warburg's contention was challenged and tested by other scientists. Continue Reading >>
Monday, August 25, 2008
Yeast Causing Cancer? Part 2
A prominent Italian oncologist explains his view that cancer is fungus and can be easily treated. Truly Amazing!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Yeast and the Weight Connection
Wonder where those extra pounds are coming from?By Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
If I were to tell you that there is a fungus living in your intestines that produces 180 chemical toxins capable of making you feel dizzy and fatigued, shutting down your thyroid, throwing your hormones off balance, and causing you to crave sugar and alcohol, all of which make you put on weight –would you believe me? You probably wouldn’t –few doctors even realize the extent of damage caused by yeast overgrowth but the above scenario is all too true.
To the great detriment of the health of our society, this fungus does exist and it is growing rampant in a large proportion of the population –mostly women. It’s one of the diseases of civilization – the culmination of the side effects of technology and the disservices of our way of life. The list of chronic diseases is getting longer and longer: heart disease, cancer, Chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, auto immune disease, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Chronic yeast overgrowth not only worsens all the above conditions but it’s in a whole disease category by itself.
The miracle of antibiotics has its downside because it causes an overgrowth of yeast. The refining of sugar and wheat has its downside by creating a simple food source for yeast. The tremendous levels of stress hormones that flood our bodies daily, hourly, and every minute in our sped up world make us prey to yeast. Continue Reading >>
Monday, August 18, 2008
Yeast Causing Cancer?
A prominent Italian oncologist explains his view that cancer is fungus and can be easily treated. Truly Amazing!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
FDA Starts Safety Review of Autoimmune Disorder Drugs
(HealthDay News) -- U.S. health officials have started a safety review of a class of drugs known as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, which are widely prescribed to treat autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease.
The announcement did not come as a surprise, as experts have long debated the risk-benefit profile of the drugs without coming to any consensus.
Among the chief concerns being investigated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are whether the drugs are associated with the development of cancer, especially lymphoma, in children and young adults being treated for rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease. The agency is investigating about 30 reports of cancer in this younger age group submitted between 1998, after the approval of the first TNF blocker, through April of this year. TNF blockers have also been linked to an increased risk of infection.
"I think it's a fair thing to say this is an area of ongoing concern that has not been resolved. It's not something new," said Dr. Chaim Putterman, chief of the division of rheumatology at Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. "[The drugs] were approved in adults, and more drugs are coming out, and everyone would prefer an indication in children, so the FDA has decided to clear it. It has always been a concern, and it's something that should be clarified."
Four TNF blockers are currently approved in the United States: Enbrel (etanercept), Humira (adalimumab), Remicade (infliximab) and Cimzia (certolizumab). Remicade is approved for use in children with Crohn's disease. Enbrel and Humira are approved to treat children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, according to the FDA.
The FDA review is focusing on the first three. All four are approved for multiple indications.
TNF blockers work by dampening the immune system, which becomes hyperactive in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
The drugs have clear benefits, according to experts, and have revolutionized the treatment of some of these diseases.
"One of the reasons that these medications have such a market despite the concerns is that they are so remarkably effective," Putterman said. "There are not only subjective benefits but a tremendous amount of objective evidence, not only in inflammation and patient symptoms, but also in disease progression. These drugs have really addressed a previously unmet need."
"These drugs are probably the most important advance in the treatment of rheumatoid disorders in the last 20 to 30 years. They dramatically improve certain forms of crippling arthritis and almost stop them. Some people go from being in a wheelchair [to] jumping up and walking around," said Dr. Stephen Lindsey, head of rheumatology at Ochsner Health Service in Baton Rouge, La. "They're being used earlier and earlier, because they're so good. I think the FDA is being cautious. I think it's smart. What are the risks of a child being crippled and non-functioning versus the risk of cancer? Maybe, in odd cases, we need to think more and not jump in with all four limbs."
The increased risk for cancer may also be a result of factors other than the drug. "The signal [for cancer] has not been a dramatic one," Putterman said. "There are confounding factors in rheumatoid arthritis patients, which can make interpretation of the data more difficult."
One confounding factor is that rheumatoid arthritis patients, independent of treatment, have a higher risk of some cancers, and some patients have also been treated with methotrexate, a chemotherapy agent that has a known association with lymphoma.
And then there's the conflicting scientific evidence. One 2006 study reported that concerns about TNF blockers causing cancer were unfounded. But earlier this year, a review of the research concluded the risk may be real.
"TNF plays an important role in immune surveillance and, by blocking it, you might be interfering with the body's own defenses," Putterman said.
The FDA has requested that makers of TNF blockers approved for use in children and young adults supply information about all reported cases of cancer in children and young adults taking the drugs.
The maker of Cimzia, UCB Inc., must conduct a study looking at the long-term risks of this drug. That study will begin in 2009, and will take about a decade to complete.
In the meantime, the FDA has asked health-care professionals to weigh the possible risks against the benefits when prescribing TNF blockers.
More information
Read about TNF blockers U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The announcement did not come as a surprise, as experts have long debated the risk-benefit profile of the drugs without coming to any consensus.
Among the chief concerns being investigated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are whether the drugs are associated with the development of cancer, especially lymphoma, in children and young adults being treated for rheumatoid arthritis or Crohn's disease. The agency is investigating about 30 reports of cancer in this younger age group submitted between 1998, after the approval of the first TNF blocker, through April of this year. TNF blockers have also been linked to an increased risk of infection.
"I think it's a fair thing to say this is an area of ongoing concern that has not been resolved. It's not something new," said Dr. Chaim Putterman, chief of the division of rheumatology at Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. "[The drugs] were approved in adults, and more drugs are coming out, and everyone would prefer an indication in children, so the FDA has decided to clear it. It has always been a concern, and it's something that should be clarified."
Four TNF blockers are currently approved in the United States: Enbrel (etanercept), Humira (adalimumab), Remicade (infliximab) and Cimzia (certolizumab). Remicade is approved for use in children with Crohn's disease. Enbrel and Humira are approved to treat children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, according to the FDA.
The FDA review is focusing on the first three. All four are approved for multiple indications.
TNF blockers work by dampening the immune system, which becomes hyperactive in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
The drugs have clear benefits, according to experts, and have revolutionized the treatment of some of these diseases.
"One of the reasons that these medications have such a market despite the concerns is that they are so remarkably effective," Putterman said. "There are not only subjective benefits but a tremendous amount of objective evidence, not only in inflammation and patient symptoms, but also in disease progression. These drugs have really addressed a previously unmet need."
"These drugs are probably the most important advance in the treatment of rheumatoid disorders in the last 20 to 30 years. They dramatically improve certain forms of crippling arthritis and almost stop them. Some people go from being in a wheelchair [to] jumping up and walking around," said Dr. Stephen Lindsey, head of rheumatology at Ochsner Health Service in Baton Rouge, La. "They're being used earlier and earlier, because they're so good. I think the FDA is being cautious. I think it's smart. What are the risks of a child being crippled and non-functioning versus the risk of cancer? Maybe, in odd cases, we need to think more and not jump in with all four limbs."
The increased risk for cancer may also be a result of factors other than the drug. "The signal [for cancer] has not been a dramatic one," Putterman said. "There are confounding factors in rheumatoid arthritis patients, which can make interpretation of the data more difficult."
One confounding factor is that rheumatoid arthritis patients, independent of treatment, have a higher risk of some cancers, and some patients have also been treated with methotrexate, a chemotherapy agent that has a known association with lymphoma.
And then there's the conflicting scientific evidence. One 2006 study reported that concerns about TNF blockers causing cancer were unfounded. But earlier this year, a review of the research concluded the risk may be real.
"TNF plays an important role in immune surveillance and, by blocking it, you might be interfering with the body's own defenses," Putterman said.
The FDA has requested that makers of TNF blockers approved for use in children and young adults supply information about all reported cases of cancer in children and young adults taking the drugs.
The maker of Cimzia, UCB Inc., must conduct a study looking at the long-term risks of this drug. That study will begin in 2009, and will take about a decade to complete.
In the meantime, the FDA has asked health-care professionals to weigh the possible risks against the benefits when prescribing TNF blockers.
More information
Read about TNF blockers U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Soaking Potatoes Before Frying Cuts Suspected Carcinogen
(HealthDay News) -- Soaking potatoes in water before frying cuts down on the formation of the suspected carcinogen acrylamide, says a a new, British study.
Acrylamide is created when starch-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures, such as frying, baking, grilling or roasting, according to background information in the study. Some research has suggested that acrylamide, which is found in a wide range of foods, may be harmful to health and may cause cancer in animals.
In this study, researchers found that simply soaking potatoes before frying can significantly reduce the formation of acrylamide and any health risks it may pose.
The researchers tried three different approaches. They washed raw French fries, soaked them for 30 minutes, and soaked them for two hours. This reduced acrylamide levels by up to 23 percent, 38 percent and 48 percent, respectively, but only if the fries were cooked to a light color.
It's not clear whether the same reductions could be achieved if French fries are cooked to a deep, dark brown, the researchers said.
The study was published in the current issue of the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
"There has been much research done by the food industry looking at reducing acrylamide in products but less so on foods cooked at home, and we wanted to explore ways of reducing the level of acrylamide in home cooking," team leader Rachel Burch, of Leatherhead Food International, said in a prepared statement.
More information
The National Cancer Institute has more about acrylamide in foods.
Acrylamide is created when starch-rich foods are cooked at high temperatures, such as frying, baking, grilling or roasting, according to background information in the study. Some research has suggested that acrylamide, which is found in a wide range of foods, may be harmful to health and may cause cancer in animals.
In this study, researchers found that simply soaking potatoes before frying can significantly reduce the formation of acrylamide and any health risks it may pose.
The researchers tried three different approaches. They washed raw French fries, soaked them for 30 minutes, and soaked them for two hours. This reduced acrylamide levels by up to 23 percent, 38 percent and 48 percent, respectively, but only if the fries were cooked to a light color.
It's not clear whether the same reductions could be achieved if French fries are cooked to a deep, dark brown, the researchers said.
The study was published in the current issue of the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
"There has been much research done by the food industry looking at reducing acrylamide in products but less so on foods cooked at home, and we wanted to explore ways of reducing the level of acrylamide in home cooking," team leader Rachel Burch, of Leatherhead Food International, said in a prepared statement.
More information
The National Cancer Institute has more about acrylamide in foods.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Obesity Raises Cancer Risk
(HealthDay News) -- The more weight you carry on your body, the greater your odds of developing cancer, British researchers report.
This is true not only of fairly common cancers such as colon and breast, but also of lesser known varieties, including gallbladder. Moreover, the degree of risk differs between men and women and among different ethnic groups, report the authors of a comprehensive new paper appearing in this week's issue of The Lancet.
"This is a profoundly important issue. Obviously, the obesity epidemic is a huge problem itself, and the relationship to cancer is only one of the many adverse health effects of being overweight and obese," said Dr. Michael Thun, head of epidemiological research at the American Cancer Society. "The evidence has been accumulating now for over 10 years. . . This study tries to provide a quantitative measure of how much the relative risk goes up with each increment, basically jumping from one BMI [body-mass index] category to another."
Although extra fat has already been identified by research as a risk factor for several different types of cancer, Thun said, "the problem of obesity is so large and so difficult to solve that there's a very sound reason for ongoing studies of things that have become increasingly well-known, just because it helps the momentum in stimulating approaches that will actually help people maintain a healthy weight."
Last year, a report issued by the American Institute of Cancer Research and the U.K.-based World Cancer Research Fund concluded that body fat is associated with an increased risk for several different types of cancer including esophageal adenocarcinoma, as well as cancers of the pancreas, colon and rectum, breast (postmenopausal), endometrium and kidney.
Although that report was one of the most comprehensive to date, it did leave some questions unanswered. For instance, are there associations between less common cancers and body weight, and do the associations differ between the sexes and people of different ethnic backgrounds?
The issue is a pressing one, with about two-thirds of adult men and women in the United States overweight or obese. That number is only expected to increase as people continue to eat more and exercise less.
This study, from scientists at the University of Manchester, analyzed 141 articles involving 282,137 cancer cases and 20 different types of malignancies to determine the cancer risk associated with a 5 kilogram-per-meter-squared increase in BMI, roughly the increase that would bump a person from middle-normal weight into overweight.
In men, such an increase in BMI raised the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma by 52 percent, thyroid cancer by 33 percent, and colon and kidney cancer by 24 percent each.
In women, the same increase in BMI increased the risk of endometrial and gallbladder cancer by 59 percent each, esophageal adenocarcinoma by 51 percent, and kidney cancer by 34 percent.
In men, there were weaker associations between increased BMI and rectal cancer and melanoma. In women, there were weaker associations between increased BMI and postmenopausal breast, pancreatic, thyroid and colon cancers.
In both genders, there were associations between increased BMI and leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
For colon cancer, the associations were stronger in men than in women (24 percent vs. 9 percent).
There were stronger associations in Asia-Pacific populations between greater BMI and both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancers.
Although the main message is still to maintain a healthy weight, this research might indicate earlier screening for certain cancers, said Dr. Greg Cooper, interim chief of the gastroenterology division at Ireland Cancer Center of University Hospitals and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center in Cleveland. "If someone is obese, then lower the threshold for screening," he said. "One of the cancers they identified is esophageal adenocarcinoma, which is not as common as colon cancer, but it is increasing in incidence. It is thought to be related to reflux, so as a gastroenterologist, if I have a patient who has reflux and is obese, I might lower the threshold for doing an endoscopy. For other cancers like colon cancer, those guidelines are pretty well-established, and this probably wouldn't change practice."
Experts aren't sure why extra fat can lead to malignancies, but changes in the circulating levels of various hormones (insulin, insulin-like growth factors and sex steroids) might explain the link.
Here's more bad news as the world heads for a smoke-free future: An accompanying commentary from Swedish researchers notes that as people quit smoking (the biggest cause of cancer in developed countries), weight gain may become the main lifestyle factor contributing to new cancers.
More information
Visit the American Cancer Society for more on the different types of cancer.
This is true not only of fairly common cancers such as colon and breast, but also of lesser known varieties, including gallbladder. Moreover, the degree of risk differs between men and women and among different ethnic groups, report the authors of a comprehensive new paper appearing in this week's issue of The Lancet.
"This is a profoundly important issue. Obviously, the obesity epidemic is a huge problem itself, and the relationship to cancer is only one of the many adverse health effects of being overweight and obese," said Dr. Michael Thun, head of epidemiological research at the American Cancer Society. "The evidence has been accumulating now for over 10 years. . . This study tries to provide a quantitative measure of how much the relative risk goes up with each increment, basically jumping from one BMI [body-mass index] category to another."
Although extra fat has already been identified by research as a risk factor for several different types of cancer, Thun said, "the problem of obesity is so large and so difficult to solve that there's a very sound reason for ongoing studies of things that have become increasingly well-known, just because it helps the momentum in stimulating approaches that will actually help people maintain a healthy weight."
Last year, a report issued by the American Institute of Cancer Research and the U.K.-based World Cancer Research Fund concluded that body fat is associated with an increased risk for several different types of cancer including esophageal adenocarcinoma, as well as cancers of the pancreas, colon and rectum, breast (postmenopausal), endometrium and kidney.
Although that report was one of the most comprehensive to date, it did leave some questions unanswered. For instance, are there associations between less common cancers and body weight, and do the associations differ between the sexes and people of different ethnic backgrounds?
The issue is a pressing one, with about two-thirds of adult men and women in the United States overweight or obese. That number is only expected to increase as people continue to eat more and exercise less.
This study, from scientists at the University of Manchester, analyzed 141 articles involving 282,137 cancer cases and 20 different types of malignancies to determine the cancer risk associated with a 5 kilogram-per-meter-squared increase in BMI, roughly the increase that would bump a person from middle-normal weight into overweight.
In men, such an increase in BMI raised the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma by 52 percent, thyroid cancer by 33 percent, and colon and kidney cancer by 24 percent each.
In women, the same increase in BMI increased the risk of endometrial and gallbladder cancer by 59 percent each, esophageal adenocarcinoma by 51 percent, and kidney cancer by 34 percent.
In men, there were weaker associations between increased BMI and rectal cancer and melanoma. In women, there were weaker associations between increased BMI and postmenopausal breast, pancreatic, thyroid and colon cancers.
In both genders, there were associations between increased BMI and leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
For colon cancer, the associations were stronger in men than in women (24 percent vs. 9 percent).
There were stronger associations in Asia-Pacific populations between greater BMI and both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancers.
Although the main message is still to maintain a healthy weight, this research might indicate earlier screening for certain cancers, said Dr. Greg Cooper, interim chief of the gastroenterology division at Ireland Cancer Center of University Hospitals and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center in Cleveland. "If someone is obese, then lower the threshold for screening," he said. "One of the cancers they identified is esophageal adenocarcinoma, which is not as common as colon cancer, but it is increasing in incidence. It is thought to be related to reflux, so as a gastroenterologist, if I have a patient who has reflux and is obese, I might lower the threshold for doing an endoscopy. For other cancers like colon cancer, those guidelines are pretty well-established, and this probably wouldn't change practice."
Experts aren't sure why extra fat can lead to malignancies, but changes in the circulating levels of various hormones (insulin, insulin-like growth factors and sex steroids) might explain the link.
Here's more bad news as the world heads for a smoke-free future: An accompanying commentary from Swedish researchers notes that as people quit smoking (the biggest cause of cancer in developed countries), weight gain may become the main lifestyle factor contributing to new cancers.
More information
Visit the American Cancer Society for more on the different types of cancer.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Stars Don Red to Raise Awareness of Women's Heart Risk
(HealthDay News) -- "Nothing draws attention like a little red dress," noted First Lady Laura Bush, speaking in the heart of New York City's fashion district Friday.
The attention was really focused on a very serious issue -- the threat to American women from the nation's number one killer, heart disease.
The event: a star-studded catwalk kickoff to the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) annual "Heart Truth" awareness campaign, which featured celebrities strutting their stuff on the catwalk wearing the symbol of the campaign, a red dress.
As the campaign's national ambassador, Mrs. Bush got right to the point. "The Heart Truth is this -- heart disease is the leading cause of death for American women," she told attendees, who included stars such as Liza Minnelli and supermodel Heidi Klum. Both later showed off red dresses on the runway.
The fashion fun carried a serious message.
"We tend to think of heart disease as a man's disease," said NHBLI Director Dr. Elizabeth Nabel. "But the truth is that since 1991 more women have died each year of heart disease than men. And that's why we began this campaign -- to communicate that, in fact, heart disease kills more women each year than all cancers combined."
Scheduled amid the semi-annual celebration of couture that is New York Fashion Week, the campaign's Red Dress Collection Fashion Show, now in its sixth year, is held on National Wear Red Day, Feb. 1. On that day each year, the NHLBI encourages women everywhere to don whatever shade of red they wish to champion the fight against cardiovascular disease.
This year's event brought together 15 luminaries from the worlds of film, television and music to brave Bryant Park's tented catwalk in red, one-of-a-kind dresses specifically created by top designers for the occasion.
Working the crimson catwalk were actresses Allison Janney (best known from NBC's The West Wing) and Cheryl Hines (of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm), as well as British soul singer Joss Stone and American R&B singer Ashanti -- all wearing red.
The Emmy, Grammy, Tony and Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno donned a cherry red tulle hat and matching corsage, dancing down the runway. She was followed soon after by Klum, host of Bravo's Project Runway.
The grand finale: screen legend Liza Minelli, who after her own turn on the runway brought the house down with a rousing rendition of "New York, New York."
The stars and their fashions -- from designers Badgley Mischka, Oscar de la Renta, Marc Jacobs and Calvin Klein, among others -- held the spotlight, but everyone agreed that something much more serious was at stake.
"It's a great cause," Klum said after the show, which was sponsored by Diet Coke. "And it's a great awareness factor. And all these different celebrities are here doing it because it's the number one killer in America, for women. More than all the cancers together. And that's a crazy number."
One in four American women will die from heart disease, Nabel noted, but the campaign's aim is to encourage women to prevent the onset of cardiac illness by leading a healthy lifestyle. That includes eating well, exercising regularly, maintaining an optimal weight, going for routine blood pressure and cholesterol screenings, and avoiding smoking.
Those efforts may be paying off -- on Friday, the NHLBI announced that heart disease deaths for American women declined again in 2005, the last year for which statistics are available. And for the first time ever, that decline has continued for a straight six years, the institute said.
"We're making progress," Nabel said. "Only a third of women in the year 2000 recognized that heart disease is the number one killer. But now, in 2008, half of women recognize this. So we're not absolutely where we need to be yet, but we're making progress."
More information
There's more on women and heart disease risk, at the American Heart Association.
The attention was really focused on a very serious issue -- the threat to American women from the nation's number one killer, heart disease.
The event: a star-studded catwalk kickoff to the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) annual "Heart Truth" awareness campaign, which featured celebrities strutting their stuff on the catwalk wearing the symbol of the campaign, a red dress.
As the campaign's national ambassador, Mrs. Bush got right to the point. "The Heart Truth is this -- heart disease is the leading cause of death for American women," she told attendees, who included stars such as Liza Minnelli and supermodel Heidi Klum. Both later showed off red dresses on the runway.
The fashion fun carried a serious message.
"We tend to think of heart disease as a man's disease," said NHBLI Director Dr. Elizabeth Nabel. "But the truth is that since 1991 more women have died each year of heart disease than men. And that's why we began this campaign -- to communicate that, in fact, heart disease kills more women each year than all cancers combined."
Scheduled amid the semi-annual celebration of couture that is New York Fashion Week, the campaign's Red Dress Collection Fashion Show, now in its sixth year, is held on National Wear Red Day, Feb. 1. On that day each year, the NHLBI encourages women everywhere to don whatever shade of red they wish to champion the fight against cardiovascular disease.
This year's event brought together 15 luminaries from the worlds of film, television and music to brave Bryant Park's tented catwalk in red, one-of-a-kind dresses specifically created by top designers for the occasion.
Working the crimson catwalk were actresses Allison Janney (best known from NBC's The West Wing) and Cheryl Hines (of HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm), as well as British soul singer Joss Stone and American R&B singer Ashanti -- all wearing red.
The Emmy, Grammy, Tony and Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno donned a cherry red tulle hat and matching corsage, dancing down the runway. She was followed soon after by Klum, host of Bravo's Project Runway.
The grand finale: screen legend Liza Minelli, who after her own turn on the runway brought the house down with a rousing rendition of "New York, New York."
The stars and their fashions -- from designers Badgley Mischka, Oscar de la Renta, Marc Jacobs and Calvin Klein, among others -- held the spotlight, but everyone agreed that something much more serious was at stake.
"It's a great cause," Klum said after the show, which was sponsored by Diet Coke. "And it's a great awareness factor. And all these different celebrities are here doing it because it's the number one killer in America, for women. More than all the cancers together. And that's a crazy number."
One in four American women will die from heart disease, Nabel noted, but the campaign's aim is to encourage women to prevent the onset of cardiac illness by leading a healthy lifestyle. That includes eating well, exercising regularly, maintaining an optimal weight, going for routine blood pressure and cholesterol screenings, and avoiding smoking.
Those efforts may be paying off -- on Friday, the NHLBI announced that heart disease deaths for American women declined again in 2005, the last year for which statistics are available. And for the first time ever, that decline has continued for a straight six years, the institute said.
"We're making progress," Nabel said. "Only a third of women in the year 2000 recognized that heart disease is the number one killer. But now, in 2008, half of women recognize this. So we're not absolutely where we need to be yet, but we're making progress."
More information
There's more on women and heart disease risk, at the American Heart Association.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Mislabeled Supplement Spurred Prostate Cancer: Report
(HealthDay News) -- A mislabeled over-the-counter product described as a dietary supplement appears to have contributed to the development of aggressive prostate cancer in two men, researchers report.
"There were things on the label that were not in the product, and components in the product that were not on the label," said study author Dr. Shahrokh Shariat, chief resident in urology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
The men developed rapidly advancing prostate cancer within months of using the dietary supplement, which was advertised as something that would increase stamina and muscle mass, and strengthen the heart, Shariat said. One of the men has died and the other "is in the final stages of the disease and probably will die within months," he said.
The findings were published in the current issue of Clinical Cancer Research.
The report did not name the product or its manufacturer, at the request of the journal editors who were fearful of "possible legal implications," Shariat said. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, notified of the findings, issued a warning letter to the manufacturer, which led to removal of the product from the market, he said.
An analysis of the product found that it contained both testosterone and estradiol, a sex hormone, he said, and laboratory tests on human prostate cancer cells found it to be a more potent stimulator of cancer cell growth than testosterone alone.
"There are a lot of such products on the market in an unregulated fashion, because androgen supplements are the fastest-growing part of the supplement business," Shariat said. "There are dangerous ones out there, and people should be aware of it."
But Andrew Shao, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which represents the supplement industry, said the study "hasn't established any causal link here. The findings are interesting, but don't draw us any closer to any conclusion because of work done in the test tube."
Acknowledging that "any time you put something in your body you want to be cautious about it," Shao maintained that "the overwhelming majority of dietary supplements are well-made and safe, the scientific evidence supports that."
At the same time, people should be aware that "dietary supplements are not drugs and they shouldn't look forever for weight loss or performance benefit or some magic bullet when they take them," he said.
Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association, criticized the decision not to identify the product. "The failure to identify the exact product means that consumers who still have it in their homes are at risk," he said.
It's also a mistake to call the product a dietary supplement, McGuffin said. "I'll tell you what the FDA calls these," he said. "They call them illegal drugs. The fact that someone found one of these should not implicate every herbal product and every vitamin product as somehow being adulterated with drugs or not containing what it should. That's just not true."
Andrew Vickers, a research methodologist in the epidemiology department at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the report "very well-written and very compelling."
Both men in the report originally had low levels of prostate-specific antigen, a signal for prostate cancer "and then suddenly presented with widespread cancer within six months, which is unusual," Vickers said. "Clearly, these are very unusual cases, and there is appropriate concern with this agent."
The substance taken by the men apparently was one of a number of products being advertised as improving male sexual health, Vickers said. "They are presumably very widely used, but we really don't know what they do," he said.
When you do self-diagnosis and self-treatment, you should be cautious in general and should be in contact with your health professional, Shao said.
More information
To learn more about prostate cancer, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
"There were things on the label that were not in the product, and components in the product that were not on the label," said study author Dr. Shahrokh Shariat, chief resident in urology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
The men developed rapidly advancing prostate cancer within months of using the dietary supplement, which was advertised as something that would increase stamina and muscle mass, and strengthen the heart, Shariat said. One of the men has died and the other "is in the final stages of the disease and probably will die within months," he said.
The findings were published in the current issue of Clinical Cancer Research.
The report did not name the product or its manufacturer, at the request of the journal editors who were fearful of "possible legal implications," Shariat said. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, notified of the findings, issued a warning letter to the manufacturer, which led to removal of the product from the market, he said.
An analysis of the product found that it contained both testosterone and estradiol, a sex hormone, he said, and laboratory tests on human prostate cancer cells found it to be a more potent stimulator of cancer cell growth than testosterone alone.
"There are a lot of such products on the market in an unregulated fashion, because androgen supplements are the fastest-growing part of the supplement business," Shariat said. "There are dangerous ones out there, and people should be aware of it."
But Andrew Shao, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, which represents the supplement industry, said the study "hasn't established any causal link here. The findings are interesting, but don't draw us any closer to any conclusion because of work done in the test tube."
Acknowledging that "any time you put something in your body you want to be cautious about it," Shao maintained that "the overwhelming majority of dietary supplements are well-made and safe, the scientific evidence supports that."
At the same time, people should be aware that "dietary supplements are not drugs and they shouldn't look forever for weight loss or performance benefit or some magic bullet when they take them," he said.
Michael McGuffin, president of the American Herbal Products Association, criticized the decision not to identify the product. "The failure to identify the exact product means that consumers who still have it in their homes are at risk," he said.
It's also a mistake to call the product a dietary supplement, McGuffin said. "I'll tell you what the FDA calls these," he said. "They call them illegal drugs. The fact that someone found one of these should not implicate every herbal product and every vitamin product as somehow being adulterated with drugs or not containing what it should. That's just not true."
Andrew Vickers, a research methodologist in the epidemiology department at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, called the report "very well-written and very compelling."
Both men in the report originally had low levels of prostate-specific antigen, a signal for prostate cancer "and then suddenly presented with widespread cancer within six months, which is unusual," Vickers said. "Clearly, these are very unusual cases, and there is appropriate concern with this agent."
The substance taken by the men apparently was one of a number of products being advertised as improving male sexual health, Vickers said. "They are presumably very widely used, but we really don't know what they do," he said.
When you do self-diagnosis and self-treatment, you should be cautious in general and should be in contact with your health professional, Shao said.
More information
To learn more about prostate cancer, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Health Tip: The Dangers of Excessive Drinking
(HealthDay News) - While an occasional glass of wine has been shown to offer health benefits, drinking frequently or drinking too much can trigger serious health problems.
Here are facts about alcohol and your health, courtesy of the University of Michigan Health System:
Here are facts about alcohol and your health, courtesy of the University of Michigan Health System:
- Alcohol can lead to production of more acid in the stomach, which may contribute to gastritis, pancreatitis or ulcers.
- Alcohol can cause the body to retain uric acid, which can lead to gout.
- Excessive alcohol consumption may increase your risk of cancers of the pancreas, liver, mouth, tongue and throat, as well as liver disease such as cirrhosis.
- Too much alcohol can make your body lose needed proteins, minerals and vitamins.
- Too much alcohol can also increase your risks of heart disease and stroke.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Shorter Legs Might Boost Liver Risks
(HealthDay News) -- People with short legs may have an increased risk of liver disease, suggests a study that adds to growing evidence of a link between leg length and health.
Researchers at the University of Bristol analyzed leg and torso measurements, as well as blood samples, from 4,300 women, ages 60 to 79, in 23 British towns.
The blood samples were checked for levels of four liver enzymes -- ALT, GGT, AST and ALP -- that indicate how well the liver is working and whether it's been damaged.
ALP is also an indicator of bone disease, such as osteoporosis.
The women were also asked about their medical history, lifestyle and social class -- all of which can influence health and body stature.
The researchers found that longer leg length was associated with lower levels of ALT, GGT, and ALP. ALT levels were lowest among women with the longest legs, while ALT and ALP levels were highest among women with the shortest torso length.
These findings held true after the researchers adjusted for important factors such as age, alcohol consumption, smoking, exercise, and childhood social class, and after the researchers excluded women who already had liver cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or osteoporosis.
"Our interpretation of the results is that childhood exposures, such as good nutrition, that influence growth patterns, also influence liver development and therefore levels of liver enzymes in adulthood and/or the propensity for liver damage," the study authors wrote.
The study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases has more about liver disease.
Researchers at the University of Bristol analyzed leg and torso measurements, as well as blood samples, from 4,300 women, ages 60 to 79, in 23 British towns.
The blood samples were checked for levels of four liver enzymes -- ALT, GGT, AST and ALP -- that indicate how well the liver is working and whether it's been damaged.
ALP is also an indicator of bone disease, such as osteoporosis.
The women were also asked about their medical history, lifestyle and social class -- all of which can influence health and body stature.
The researchers found that longer leg length was associated with lower levels of ALT, GGT, and ALP. ALT levels were lowest among women with the longest legs, while ALT and ALP levels were highest among women with the shortest torso length.
These findings held true after the researchers adjusted for important factors such as age, alcohol consumption, smoking, exercise, and childhood social class, and after the researchers excluded women who already had liver cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or osteoporosis.
"Our interpretation of the results is that childhood exposures, such as good nutrition, that influence growth patterns, also influence liver development and therefore levels of liver enzymes in adulthood and/or the propensity for liver damage," the study authors wrote.
The study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
More information
The U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases has more about liver disease.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
High-Dose Chemo Provides Little Benefit to Breast Cancer Patients
(HealthDay News) -- High-dose chemotherapy has only a minimal effect on survival in breast cancer patients with node-positive disease, new research shows.
"It's pretty clearly established that [high-dose chemotherapy] is a false hope," said study author Donald Berry, head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. "There's a disease-free survival benefit but not much of a survival benefit. There may be a subset which would benefit, but we looked and couldn't find it."
The study, done in collaboration with the European Blood and Marrow Transplant Group, essentially sounds the death knell for this type of therapy.
"When you're doing a meta-analysis and combining large numbers of studies with different populations, and you're not able to get a really significant survival advantage, I think that the benefits of high-dose chemo are not there," added Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "Outside of a clinical research trial, I do not recommend high-dose chemotherapy."
The findings are expected to be presented Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
High-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer has a somewhat controversial history. The treatment is delivered in conjunction with an autologous (from the same person) bone marrow transplant, which rebuilds bone marrow damaged by the chemotherapy. The regimen was at one time favored for high-risk patients (those whose cancer has spread to at least four lymph nodes).
The rationale for the treatment came from successes in the 1960s and 1970s in treating certain leukemia patients with radiation and high-dose chemotherapy, along with bone marrow transplants.
By the late 1980s, the regimen was all the rage. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. women have undergone high-dose chemotherapy with bone marrow transplants.
"Ten years ago, if a woman didn't get a bone marrow transplant, people were suing HMOS, because they said they were denying care," Brooks said. "The cases won."
Although progressively easier to tolerate, the therapy often caused nausea, vomiting, extreme weakness and infection. Some patients even died from the treatment.
Some small studies found that the treatment was beneficial for women with very high-risk cancer (at least 10 positive lymph nodes), but the trials were not randomized.
Later, randomized trials did not confirm the same benefit, and the treatment has largely fallen out of favor.
"But there were still some nagging questions," Berry said. "One was that maybe there was a subset who benefited."
Berry and his colleagues reviewed 15 randomized studies of high-dose chemotherapy conducted around the world between 1988 and 2002. Together, the trials involved more than 6,000 patients with a median follow-up of seven years.
There was a 13 percent decrease in the rate of breast cancer relapse in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy. But that benefit did not extend survival. The decrease in mortality was only 6 percent, which was not statistically significant.
Increasing doses of chemotherapy do have some benefit for breast cancer patients, but it does reach a point of diminishing returns.
"Increasing the dose is good, but it reaches a plateau," confirmed Berry.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more on chemotherapy for breast cancer.
"It's pretty clearly established that [high-dose chemotherapy] is a false hope," said study author Donald Berry, head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. "There's a disease-free survival benefit but not much of a survival benefit. There may be a subset which would benefit, but we looked and couldn't find it."
The study, done in collaboration with the European Blood and Marrow Transplant Group, essentially sounds the death knell for this type of therapy.
"When you're doing a meta-analysis and combining large numbers of studies with different populations, and you're not able to get a really significant survival advantage, I think that the benefits of high-dose chemo are not there," added Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "Outside of a clinical research trial, I do not recommend high-dose chemotherapy."
The findings are expected to be presented Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
High-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer has a somewhat controversial history. The treatment is delivered in conjunction with an autologous (from the same person) bone marrow transplant, which rebuilds bone marrow damaged by the chemotherapy. The regimen was at one time favored for high-risk patients (those whose cancer has spread to at least four lymph nodes).
The rationale for the treatment came from successes in the 1960s and 1970s in treating certain leukemia patients with radiation and high-dose chemotherapy, along with bone marrow transplants.
By the late 1980s, the regimen was all the rage. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. women have undergone high-dose chemotherapy with bone marrow transplants.
"Ten years ago, if a woman didn't get a bone marrow transplant, people were suing HMOS, because they said they were denying care," Brooks said. "The cases won."
Although progressively easier to tolerate, the therapy often caused nausea, vomiting, extreme weakness and infection. Some patients even died from the treatment.
Some small studies found that the treatment was beneficial for women with very high-risk cancer (at least 10 positive lymph nodes), but the trials were not randomized.
Later, randomized trials did not confirm the same benefit, and the treatment has largely fallen out of favor.
"But there were still some nagging questions," Berry said. "One was that maybe there was a subset who benefited."
Berry and his colleagues reviewed 15 randomized studies of high-dose chemotherapy conducted around the world between 1988 and 2002. Together, the trials involved more than 6,000 patients with a median follow-up of seven years.
There was a 13 percent decrease in the rate of breast cancer relapse in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy. But that benefit did not extend survival. The decrease in mortality was only 6 percent, which was not statistically significant.
Increasing doses of chemotherapy do have some benefit for breast cancer patients, but it does reach a point of diminishing returns.
"Increasing the dose is good, but it reaches a plateau," confirmed Berry.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more on chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Night Shift Work May Heighten Risk for Cancer
(HealthDay News) -- Workers on the night shifts at bars, convenience stores, hospitals and other venues may be putting themselves at heightened risk for cancer.
That's the conclusion of an international group of experts who plan to add night shift work to the official list of "probable" carcinogens.
A team of scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) pored over human epidemiological data, animal study results, and studies looking at possible mechanisms linking night work to tumor formation.
"All three of those things suggested that, yes, this might be something that could contribute to human cancer," said Aaron Blair, scientist emeritus at the U.S. National Cancer Institute and chairman of the IARC Working Group that evaluated the shift work-cancer link.
The IARC -- a branch of the World Health Organization -- was expected to publish its findings in the December issue of The Lancet Oncology.
Although numerous studies have suggested a link between night shift work and cancer, this is the first time it has been evaluated by the IARC, Blair said.
On the epidemiological side, "there's human data -- nurses, airplane flight attendants, different groups that engage in shift work -- that have an elevated risk of breast cancer, and that's the strongest finding," Blair said. "There's lesser evidence, but some positive evidence, for [increased risk of] prostate cancer, and a little less, but still positive, evidence, for colon cancer," he noted.
In animal studies, rats exposed to light during their nocturnal, active phase, also displayed spikes in cancer incidence, Blair said.
Then there are investigations into possible biological mechanisms linking working through the wee hours to heightened odds for malignancy. The strongest theory involves melatonin, a hormone produced by the brain's pineal gland.
"Melatonin gets made during the dark period," Blair explained. "If you get light exposure during the normal dark period, it severely reduces the amount of melatonin that is made."
The hormone affects many different physiological systems, Blair added. "It is also an antioxidant -- a sink for chemicals that are normally dangerous to life," he noted.
Melatonin can affect the immune system, as well, including cancer-suppressing genes, Blair said.
Night shift workers may also have to deal with disrupted sleep patterns, another expert pointed out. "Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, told the Associated Press.
Altered sleep patterns and sleep deprivation weaken the immune system, he said, and upset natural rhythms the body uses to maintain healthy cells.
Blair stressed that the IARC has only defined night shift work as a "probable" cancer risk -- there's not enough proof to place it in the "definite" category alongside such villains as asbestos and smoking.
So, is there anything night shift workers can do to reduce their potential risk? Besides switching to a day job, maybe not a lot -- experts don't recommend long-term melatonin supplementation, because it may undermine the body's ability to produce the hormone naturally.
"It appears that the impact of shift work is greatest if you keep changing the shift that you are on," Blair said. If you find yourself working at night, then "it's better that you are always a night shift worker," he said. Switching back between day and night shifts is really tough on the body's circadian clock, and "there was the sense that this might be the most hazardous type of shift work that you could be engaged in," Blair said.
The American Cancer Society said it was reserving judgment on the new listing, noting that it had not yet reviewed the literature in depth.
"We understand that the epidemiologic literature is complex, the study results have not been entirely consistent, and that exposure itself is not easy to classify or measure," Elizabeth Ward, director of surveillance research at the ACS, said in a statement. She stressed that the society does not itself create a list of carcinogens but instead relies on IARC and the U.S. National Toxicology Program to do so.
More information
There's more on melatonin at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
more discussion: Forum· Addiction Forum · Ask the Doctors Forum · Ayurveda Forum · Ayurvedic & Thai Herbs Forum · Colon Cleansing Forum · Dental Forum · Diabetes Forum · Diet Forum · General Cleansing Forum · Hepatitis A, B. C Forum · Integrated Medicine Forum · Live Blood Analysis Forum · Ozone-Oxygen-Forum · pH - Alkaline - Acidity Forum · Weight Loss Forum
That's the conclusion of an international group of experts who plan to add night shift work to the official list of "probable" carcinogens.
A team of scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) pored over human epidemiological data, animal study results, and studies looking at possible mechanisms linking night work to tumor formation.
"All three of those things suggested that, yes, this might be something that could contribute to human cancer," said Aaron Blair, scientist emeritus at the U.S. National Cancer Institute and chairman of the IARC Working Group that evaluated the shift work-cancer link.
The IARC -- a branch of the World Health Organization -- was expected to publish its findings in the December issue of The Lancet Oncology.
Although numerous studies have suggested a link between night shift work and cancer, this is the first time it has been evaluated by the IARC, Blair said.
On the epidemiological side, "there's human data -- nurses, airplane flight attendants, different groups that engage in shift work -- that have an elevated risk of breast cancer, and that's the strongest finding," Blair said. "There's lesser evidence, but some positive evidence, for [increased risk of] prostate cancer, and a little less, but still positive, evidence, for colon cancer," he noted.
In animal studies, rats exposed to light during their nocturnal, active phase, also displayed spikes in cancer incidence, Blair said.
Then there are investigations into possible biological mechanisms linking working through the wee hours to heightened odds for malignancy. The strongest theory involves melatonin, a hormone produced by the brain's pineal gland.
"Melatonin gets made during the dark period," Blair explained. "If you get light exposure during the normal dark period, it severely reduces the amount of melatonin that is made."
The hormone affects many different physiological systems, Blair added. "It is also an antioxidant -- a sink for chemicals that are normally dangerous to life," he noted.
Melatonin can affect the immune system, as well, including cancer-suppressing genes, Blair said.
Night shift workers may also have to deal with disrupted sleep patterns, another expert pointed out. "Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, told the Associated Press.
Altered sleep patterns and sleep deprivation weaken the immune system, he said, and upset natural rhythms the body uses to maintain healthy cells.
Blair stressed that the IARC has only defined night shift work as a "probable" cancer risk -- there's not enough proof to place it in the "definite" category alongside such villains as asbestos and smoking.
So, is there anything night shift workers can do to reduce their potential risk? Besides switching to a day job, maybe not a lot -- experts don't recommend long-term melatonin supplementation, because it may undermine the body's ability to produce the hormone naturally.
"It appears that the impact of shift work is greatest if you keep changing the shift that you are on," Blair said. If you find yourself working at night, then "it's better that you are always a night shift worker," he said. Switching back between day and night shifts is really tough on the body's circadian clock, and "there was the sense that this might be the most hazardous type of shift work that you could be engaged in," Blair said.
The American Cancer Society said it was reserving judgment on the new listing, noting that it had not yet reviewed the literature in depth.
"We understand that the epidemiologic literature is complex, the study results have not been entirely consistent, and that exposure itself is not easy to classify or measure," Elizabeth Ward, director of surveillance research at the ACS, said in a statement. She stressed that the society does not itself create a list of carcinogens but instead relies on IARC and the U.S. National Toxicology Program to do so.
More information
There's more on melatonin at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
more discussion: Forum· Addiction Forum · Ask the Doctors Forum · Ayurveda Forum · Ayurvedic & Thai Herbs Forum · Colon Cleansing Forum · Dental Forum · Diabetes Forum · Diet Forum · General Cleansing Forum · Hepatitis A, B. C Forum · Integrated Medicine Forum · Live Blood Analysis Forum · Ozone-Oxygen-Forum · pH - Alkaline - Acidity Forum · Weight Loss Forum
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Survey Finds Many Women Misinformed About Cancer
(HealthDay News) -- Sixty-three percent of American women think that if there's no family history of cancer, you're not likely to develop the disease, a new survey found.
In fact, most people who develop cancer have no family history of cancer, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which sponsored the survey. The survey underscores the need for better education and understanding of the steps women can take to prevent cancer and to detect it early.
"Too many women are dying from cancer," Dr. Douglas W. Laube, ACOG's immediate past president and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, said during a Friday teleconference. "An estimated 200,070 women will die in the U.S this year, and over 600,078 women will be diagnosed with cancer. The results of this survey found a worrisome gap in women's knowledge about cancer."
Based on the findings, ACOG is increasing its efforts to educate women about cancer and the need for regular screening tests, such as Pap tests, mammograms and colonoscopies.
Although the survey found many misconceptions about cancer, 76 percent of women surveyed did say they feel knowledgeable about how they can reduce their risk of the disease.
However, only 52 percent said they're doing enough to reduce that risk. And 10 percent said they hadn't done anything in the past year to lower their risk. Seventeen percent said they wouldn't change their lifestyles, even if changes would lower their cancer risk.
Many women said they were afraid to undergo screening out of fear of finding cancer. Twenty percent said they didn't want to know if they had cancer.
Other survey findings included:
In fact, most people who develop cancer have no family history of cancer, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which sponsored the survey. The survey underscores the need for better education and understanding of the steps women can take to prevent cancer and to detect it early.
"Too many women are dying from cancer," Dr. Douglas W. Laube, ACOG's immediate past president and chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, said during a Friday teleconference. "An estimated 200,070 women will die in the U.S this year, and over 600,078 women will be diagnosed with cancer. The results of this survey found a worrisome gap in women's knowledge about cancer."
Based on the findings, ACOG is increasing its efforts to educate women about cancer and the need for regular screening tests, such as Pap tests, mammograms and colonoscopies.
Although the survey found many misconceptions about cancer, 76 percent of women surveyed did say they feel knowledgeable about how they can reduce their risk of the disease.
However, only 52 percent said they're doing enough to reduce that risk. And 10 percent said they hadn't done anything in the past year to lower their risk. Seventeen percent said they wouldn't change their lifestyles, even if changes would lower their cancer risk.
Many women said they were afraid to undergo screening out of fear of finding cancer. Twenty percent said they didn't want to know if they had cancer.
Other survey findings included:
- Only 56 percent of women had seen a doctor in the past year, but 77 percent said regular physician visits help reduce the risk of cancer.
- 29 percent of women haven't seen a doctor on a regular basis or had a Pap test or a mammogram in the past year.
- 18 percent said Pap tests and mammograms weren't necessary, 7 percent said they didn't know how to get screened, and 7 percent thought screening was a waste of time.
- 37 percent of the women said they couldn't afford to see a doctor.
Michael Stefanek, director of behavioral research at the American Cancer Society, said the survey results mirrored other study findings.
"The data is not inconsistent with what we know about women's knowledge and screening practices," he said. "We need to do a better job alerting women that they are at risk for cancer even if they have no family history."
Stefanek noted that U.S. cancer deaths dropped an average 2.1 percent each year from 2002 through 2004 -- double the average 1.1 percent decline seen from 1993 through 2002. This improvement is largely due to better cancer screening and early detection, he said.
Stenfanek also thinks more women need to be screened, and there needs to be greater access to health care so women can get the care they require.
In response to these findings, ACOG will launch on Oct. 29 a new Web site -- Protect & Detect: What Women Should Know about Cancer. The guide is designed to help women, working with their ob-gyns, to take charge of their health and improve their understanding of their risk of cancer -- and the lifestyle steps they can take to cut that risk.
ACOG has also developed new guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. The guidelines recommend that women, starting at 50, receive a colonoscopy every 10 years. Colonoscopy is the "gold standard" for preventing colorectal cancer because of its ability to detect precancerous lesions and remove them during the procedure.
While ACOG is recommending colonoscopy for women at high risk for colon cancer, it's also recommending the procedure for women at average risk.
Not all experts agree with that approach.
"There are other methods that are acceptable if you choose not to get colonoscopy," said Robert Smith, director of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society. "Not all women are going to have access to colonoscopy or affordable colonoscopy."
Virtual CT colonoscopy may be as effective as a colonoscopy for detecting serious lesions, Smith said. Other screening tests include fecal occult blood tests and sigmoidoscopy, he said.
For women who have a low risk of colon cancer, other screening methods are effective, Smith said. "However, for women who have a family history or personal history of colorectal cancer, colonoscopy is the preferred test," he said.
More information
For more on woman and cancer, visit the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Take Care of Your Heart Before and After Problems
(HealthDay News) -- People need to take care of their heart both before and after heart trouble starts, two new studies suggest.
In the first study, researchers said that to avoid heart failure when you're 70 or 80, you must begin by keeping your blood pressure and weight under control when you're 50.
"We tested the hypothesis that higher levels of blood pressure and body mass index (BMI) in midlife would be powerful determinants of heart failure risk in later life, and that the risk posed by preceding measurements would remain even after accounting for these risk factors measured later in life," said lead researcher Dr. Ramachandran S. Vasan.
"This is exactly what we found," added Vasan, a senior investigator with the Framingham Heart Study and a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.
An increase of about 20 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure at age 50 was associated with a 36 percent higher risk of heart failure up to 20 years later. Every 2.2 pound increase in BMI (a ratio of weight to height) at age 50 was associated with a 6 percent increase in the risk of heart failure, Vasan said.
"The study highlights the importance of maintaining an ideal BMI and blood pressure over the life course of individuals," Vasan said.
For the study, Vasan's team collected data on 3,362 people who were part of the Framingham Heart Study who had routine examinations between 1969 and 1994. During follow-up, 518 people developed heart failure.
"The prevention of heart failure should begin early in life and should include screening for elevated blood pressure and BMI," Vasan said. "Failure to identify or treat such modifiable risk factors in early and mid-adulthood may result in the loss of opportunities to reduce the incidence of heart failure in later life."
The findings are published in the November issue of the journal Hypertension.
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he agrees that keeping both your weight and blood pressure down will help you avoid the ravages of heart failure.
"The lifetime risk for developing heart failure in both men and women is one in five," said Fonarow. "However, heart failure can be prevented, and there are a number of modifiable risk factors for heart failure, including hypertension, obesity, and diabetes.
"Maintaining a healthy blood pressure and body weight is essential to reduce the risk of heart failure," he said.
The second study found that fewer than 20 percent of patients seek cardiac rehabilitation after a heart attack or coronary bypass surgery.
"It has been shown by many trials that cardiac rehabilitation reduced the risk for new coronary events, re-hospitalization and mortality. The main advantage of cardiac rehabilitation is to reduce mortality," said study leader Dr. Jose A. Suaya, a lecturer and scientist at the Brandeis University Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School, in Waltham, Mass.
Cardiac rehabilitation also improves functional capacity, Suaya said. "Patients can walk more without pain and improve their quality of life," he said.
For the study, Suaya's group collected data on 267,427 men and women, 65 and older, who had survived a heart attack or bypass surgery. The data were drawn from 1997 Medicare claims records.
In the year after hospital discharge, only 18.7 percent of the patients had at least one session of cardiac rehabilitation. Patients who underwent bypass surgery were more likely to seek rehabilitation -- 31 percent -- compared with heart attack patients -- 13.9 percent.
More men had cardiac rehabilitation (22.1 percent) than women (14.3 percent). Age also played a role -- patients 75 to 85 were less likely to go for rehabilitation, the researchers found.
In addition, patients with other medical conditions, such as diabetes, a previous stroke, congestive heart failure or cancer, were significantly less likely to seek cardiac rehabilitation, Suaya's group found.
The study results are published in the Oct. 9 issue of the journal Circulation.
There are many reasons why patients don't seek rehabilitation, the researchers said.
"Many doctors may be reluctant to refer patients to cardiac rehabilitation," said study co-author Donald S. Shepard, a research professor at Brandeis' Heller School. "In addition, patients may not know or ask about it."
Shepard also noted that many medical institutions don't promote the service, which typically includes exercise and advice on diet. "It's not glamorous and, from the data we have, it is not very profitable," he said.
It may also be difficult for people to get to rehabilitation centers, Shepard said. "One of the findings in the study was that the closer you are, the more likely you are to use the service," he said. "Travel time and travel expense are things that reduce the use of the service."
Fonarow said "more needs to be done to ensure that eligible patients are effectively enrolled in supervised cardiac rehabilitation. The American Heart Association's 'Get With The Guidelines Program' is one example of a highly successful initiative to improve referral to cardiac rehabilitation after hospitalization for cardiovascular event or surgery."
More information
For more on heart health, visit the American Heart Association.
In the first study, researchers said that to avoid heart failure when you're 70 or 80, you must begin by keeping your blood pressure and weight under control when you're 50.
"We tested the hypothesis that higher levels of blood pressure and body mass index (BMI) in midlife would be powerful determinants of heart failure risk in later life, and that the risk posed by preceding measurements would remain even after accounting for these risk factors measured later in life," said lead researcher Dr. Ramachandran S. Vasan.
"This is exactly what we found," added Vasan, a senior investigator with the Framingham Heart Study and a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.
An increase of about 20 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure at age 50 was associated with a 36 percent higher risk of heart failure up to 20 years later. Every 2.2 pound increase in BMI (a ratio of weight to height) at age 50 was associated with a 6 percent increase in the risk of heart failure, Vasan said.
"The study highlights the importance of maintaining an ideal BMI and blood pressure over the life course of individuals," Vasan said.
For the study, Vasan's team collected data on 3,362 people who were part of the Framingham Heart Study who had routine examinations between 1969 and 1994. During follow-up, 518 people developed heart failure.
"The prevention of heart failure should begin early in life and should include screening for elevated blood pressure and BMI," Vasan said. "Failure to identify or treat such modifiable risk factors in early and mid-adulthood may result in the loss of opportunities to reduce the incidence of heart failure in later life."
The findings are published in the November issue of the journal Hypertension.
Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he agrees that keeping both your weight and blood pressure down will help you avoid the ravages of heart failure.
"The lifetime risk for developing heart failure in both men and women is one in five," said Fonarow. "However, heart failure can be prevented, and there are a number of modifiable risk factors for heart failure, including hypertension, obesity, and diabetes.
"Maintaining a healthy blood pressure and body weight is essential to reduce the risk of heart failure," he said.
The second study found that fewer than 20 percent of patients seek cardiac rehabilitation after a heart attack or coronary bypass surgery.
"It has been shown by many trials that cardiac rehabilitation reduced the risk for new coronary events, re-hospitalization and mortality. The main advantage of cardiac rehabilitation is to reduce mortality," said study leader Dr. Jose A. Suaya, a lecturer and scientist at the Brandeis University Schneider Institutes for Health Policy, Heller School, in Waltham, Mass.
Cardiac rehabilitation also improves functional capacity, Suaya said. "Patients can walk more without pain and improve their quality of life," he said.
For the study, Suaya's group collected data on 267,427 men and women, 65 and older, who had survived a heart attack or bypass surgery. The data were drawn from 1997 Medicare claims records.
In the year after hospital discharge, only 18.7 percent of the patients had at least one session of cardiac rehabilitation. Patients who underwent bypass surgery were more likely to seek rehabilitation -- 31 percent -- compared with heart attack patients -- 13.9 percent.
More men had cardiac rehabilitation (22.1 percent) than women (14.3 percent). Age also played a role -- patients 75 to 85 were less likely to go for rehabilitation, the researchers found.
In addition, patients with other medical conditions, such as diabetes, a previous stroke, congestive heart failure or cancer, were significantly less likely to seek cardiac rehabilitation, Suaya's group found.
The study results are published in the Oct. 9 issue of the journal Circulation.
There are many reasons why patients don't seek rehabilitation, the researchers said.
"Many doctors may be reluctant to refer patients to cardiac rehabilitation," said study co-author Donald S. Shepard, a research professor at Brandeis' Heller School. "In addition, patients may not know or ask about it."
Shepard also noted that many medical institutions don't promote the service, which typically includes exercise and advice on diet. "It's not glamorous and, from the data we have, it is not very profitable," he said.
It may also be difficult for people to get to rehabilitation centers, Shepard said. "One of the findings in the study was that the closer you are, the more likely you are to use the service," he said. "Travel time and travel expense are things that reduce the use of the service."
Fonarow said "more needs to be done to ensure that eligible patients are effectively enrolled in supervised cardiac rehabilitation. The American Heart Association's 'Get With The Guidelines Program' is one example of a highly successful initiative to improve referral to cardiac rehabilitation after hospitalization for cardiovascular event or surgery."
More information
For more on heart health, visit the American Heart Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Health Begins In The Colon $19.99  The REAL Secret to Health is Finally Revealed! Did you know that disease starts and health begins in the colon? You can read more about how to better your health in Dr. Group's exclusive book |