Medical blog » cancer

Drug recommended to prevent prostate cancer in some older men

admin — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:07:14 +0000

The panel stopped short of recommending that all men take the drug because clinical trials have not yet shown that it reduces deaths.
Prostate cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths among men, behind lung cancer, with 186,000 new cases diagnosed and 28,660 deaths each year.
Finasteride is used in low doses under the brand name Propecia as an anti-balding drug and in higher doses under the name Proscar for shrinking enlarged prostate glands. The dose recommended for cancer prevention is the same dosage used in Proscar.
The drug interferes with the production of male hormones, starving the tumors of fuel they need to grow.
A major clinical trial reported in 2003 showed that finasteride reduced the risk of prostate cancer by about 25% in men who took it, preventing about 15 cases in every 1,000 men. That means 71 men would have to take the drug for seven years to prevent one case, Kramer said.
Another drug in the same family, called dutasteride or Avodart, is thought to be even more potent and is undergoing clinical trials for prevention. It is also recommended in the guideline.
The medical groups did not issue new recommendations after the completion of the 2003 trial because it appeared that finasteride might have been promoting the growth of more aggressive tumors at the expense of those that are more benign.
“Now we know this is not the case,” Jacoub said. Subsequent studies have shown that shrinkage of the prostate caused by finasteride simply made the aggressive tumors more easily discovered.
The drug does have side effects in some men, however, including reduced potency and loss of sexual desire. Those effects can go away after a couple of months. On the other hand, the drug can result in reduced incontinence and fewer urinary problems.
Cost can also be a problem. The pills cost $2 to $3 a day, or about $1,000 per year, and most insurers do not cover them for cancer prevention.
Speaking at the news conference, panel member Dr. Howard Sandler of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center said, “If I tried the medication for a month or two and I got some side effects, then for me personally the benefit wouldn’t be worth the risk.” But if there were no side effects, he added, “I might sleep better at night.”

Even moderate drinking affects women's cancer risk

admin — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:27:25 +0000

Drinking just a glass of wine a day increases women’s risk of breast cancer, as well as several other types of the disease, a new study concludes. The research, carried out among more than a million UK women, says that alcohol accounts for 5,000 cases of breast cancer every year.
What do we know already?
Many of us enjoy relaxing with a glass of wine at the end of the day. But it’s an unpalatable fact that alcohol can damage your health, especially when you look at alcohol’s links to some types of cancer. It’s easy to dismiss these stories as health scares, only relevant to heavy drinkers. But evidence is mounting that even moderate drinkers have an increased cancer risk.
Now researchers have examined the results from a very big study of women aged around 55, to see exactly how the amount of alcohol they drank related to their risk of getting different types of cancer. The women were recruited when they attended breast cancer screening and followed for the next 7 to 8 years, to see if they were diagnosed with any type of cancer.
What does the new study say?
Compared to women who said they drank only 1 or 2 units of alcohol a week, women who regularly drank the equivalent of 1 unit a day had an increased risk of getting seven types of cancer: breast, liver, rectum (part of the bowel), mouth, pharynx (a space at the back of the mouth), oesophagus (the tube that takes food from the mouth to the stomach) and larynx (voicebox).
The risk was most increased for breast cancer. In developed countries like the UK, the chance of having had breast cancer by the age of 75 is 9.5 in 100. According to the study, for every extra daily unit of alcohol (over 2 a week), that risk increases by 1.1 per 100. So if you had a roughly 9.5 percent chance of getting breast cancer by the age of 75, but you drank one glass of wine a day, that risk would go up to 10.6 percent. If you drank two glasses of wine a day, that would increase to 11.7 percent.
These might sound like quite small increases in risk. But because many women drink alcohol at these sorts of levels, it means a lot of women are affected overall. The researchers estimate that alcohol accounts for 11 percent of all breast cancers in the UK. That means that every year, 5,000 women get breast cancer who wouldn’t have got it without drinking alcohol.
The risk for cancers of the mouth, oesophagus, pharynx and larynx only increased for women who also smoked. Researchers think that alcohol may dissolve some of the toxins in cigarette smoke, making drinking and smoking together more risky than doing either alone. There was no increased risk of these cancers for women who drank alcohol but didn’t smoke.
The increased risks for rectum and liver cancer were relatively small, with an increased risk of 1 per 1000 and 0.7 per 1000 respectively.
Most of the women in the study were moderate drinkers. A quarter didn’t drink at all, and of those who drank, only 2 percent drank more than 21 units a week. The average woman in the study who drank alcohol had 7 units a week, or about one drink a day. That reflects previous studies of women in this age group (the average age was 55 at the start of the study).
How reliable are the findings?
The findings are likely to be fairly reliable. The study followed 1.28 million women, for an average 7 years. The women filled in questionnaires at the start of the study, and then again 3 years later, saying how much alcohol they drank. The researchers were also able to take account of other things that affect women’s cancer risk, such as whether they’d taken the contraceptive pill, HRT, whether they smoked or took exercise, and how much they weighed.
The researchers didn’t use the women who drank no alcohol at all as their comparison group. That’s because women who don’t drink at all may have quit alcohol because of serious health problems. So they’re not a healthy group to compare to. Instead, the researchers used women who drank only one or two alcoholic drinks a week as their comparison group. That’s likely to make the results more reliable.
Where does the study come from?
The study was done by the Cancer Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford. It was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and published by Oxford University Press. It was funded by Cancer Research UK, the UK Medical Research Council, and the NHS breast screening programme.
What does this mean for me?
Just about everything we do has risks. We can’t avoid risks altogether, but knowing about them can help us make decisions we are comfortable with. It’s been clear for some time that alcohol is a factor in women’s risk of getting cancer, especially breast cancer. This latest study puts some figures on that increased risk. You may find that this helps you decide whether you are happy with the amount of alcohol you drink.
What should I do now?
It helps to know how much you’re drinking. One unit is 10 millilitres (ml) or 8 grams of pure alcohol, which is the amount of pure alcohol in a 25 ml single measure of spirits (ABV 40%), a third of a pint of beer (ABV 5-6%) or half a standard (175 ml) glass of red wine (ABV 12%).
The government’s recommendations are not to drink more than 2 to 3 units a day for women or 3 to 4 units a day for men.
Allen NE, Beral V, Casabonne D, et al. Moderate alcohol intake and cancer incidence in women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009; 101: 296-305.

Spectrum says FDA extends review date of cancer drug

admin — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:34:45 +0000

SPPI.O
) said
U.S. regulators have extended the review date of its
experimental cancer drug, Zevalin, to July 2.
The decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration comes
after the regulator received a major amendment to the
Supplemental Biologics License Application for use of Zevalin
as a treatment for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma (NHL), the company said.
The drug has received priority review status from the FDA.
An estimated 30,000 people in the United States will be
diagnosed this year with indolent NHL, a slow-growing cancer of
the lymphatic system, according to the National Cancer
Institute.
The company also said it would acquire the 50 percent
interest it does not already own in RIT Oncology LLC, a joint
venture between the company and Cell Therapeutics Inc (
CTIC.O
)
to develop Zevalin, for $18 million.
Sales of Spectrum’s Fusilev, a drug approved to treat
osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, will help fund the
acquisition, Chief Executive Rajesh Shrotriya said.
Shares of Irvine, California-based Spectrum closed at $1.65
Friday on Nasdaq, while Cell Therapeutic shares closed at 5
cents.
(Reporting by Anand Basu in Bangalore; Editing by Pratish
Narayanan)

Laughlin Offers New Breast Cancer Screening Technology

admin — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:32:00 +0000

New technology available locally may be more effective at screening for breast cancer in younger women.
Since September, Laughlin Memorial Hospital has been offering digital mammography at its Center for Women’s Health.
Dr. Art Adams, one of three radiologists affiliated with the Laughlin Center for Women’s Health, said he is pleased that the hospital has invested in this state-of-the-art technology for its patients.
Dr. Adams and his colleagues Drs. Scott Vermillion and Paul D’Angelo practice with TREK Radiology, which has been providing radiologist services to Laughlin Hospital since January, 2008.
One of the major advantages that digital mammography has over traditional film screening is the detail of the imaging, Dr. Adams explained. This detail is particularly useful in diagnosing breast cancer in women who have dense breast tissue.
Dr. Adams explained that while women of all ages can have dense breast tissue, it is much more common among younger women.
“Digital mammography,” he said, “has been shown to increase the detection rate of cancer in patients with dense breast tissue compared to film screen mammography – which was the technology that preceded digital technology.”
A large study involving 49,528 women across the U.S. and Canada found that digital mammography was significantly better at detecting breast cancers than film mammography in three groups of women:
* women who were younger than 50,
* women who had dense breasts, and
* women who were pre-menopausal or peri-menopausal (had had their last period within a year of their mammograms).
The study, however, found that digital mammograms had no significant benefit over film mammograms for women who were older than 50, did not have dense breasts, and were post-menopausal.
This study was published in 2005 by the New England Journal of Medicine.
Like photographs taken with a digital camera, digital mammography images can be altered to look lighter or darker – making it easier for radiologists to see a potentially dangerous mass, experts explain.
On mammogram film, dense breast tissue typically appears as a solid white area, and fat appears as a dark area, the Mayo Clinic explains on its Web site,
.
“Mammogram X-rays do not penetrate — or “see through” — dense tissues as well as they do through fat. So, in women with dense breasts, mammograms are more difficult to interpret,” the site explains. “Tumors also are dense tissue and appear as solid white areas on the film. This can make it more difficult to detect a tumor in dense breasts because it looks a lot like the dense tissue that surrounds it.”
“Patients with dense breast tissue are the most challenging patients to try and diagnose at an early stage (of breast cancer,)” Dr. Adams said.
Despite these advances being made in breast imaging, Dr. Adams said it is important for women to continue following all of the recommended guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer.
In addition to undergoing regular mammography screenings, women should also undergo a yearly breast exam by a health-care provider as well as perform monthly self breast exams to check for any changes in their breast tissue.
“It is possible to have a breast cancer and have negative imaging,” Dr. Adams said. “This is why it is important for women to check their breasts each month and look and feel for any changes that could indicate a suspicious change,” he added.
“Women should not fear detection of breast cancer; they should fear lack of detection,” he said.
With the new digital mammography, patients can get in and out of the screening room faster, said Lisa Kirk, a registered mammographer with Laughlin Hospital.
This is because there is no need to wait for a film image to develop in order to see if additional images are needed. With digital imaging, the image pops up immediately on the computer monitor and the mammographer can see immediately how the image turned out and if additional images are needed.
In addition to the faster screening process, digital mammography requires less radiation exposure to the patient, Dr. Adams said.
What has not changed, however, is the need for the imaging device to compress the breast during the X-ray process.
“The reason the breast must be compressed is that the imaging is more accurate. You can see through the tissue better,” he said.

Drink a day increases cancer risk

admin — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:23:01 +0000

A glass of wine each evening is enough to increase your risk of developing cancer, women are being warned.
Consuming just one drink a day causes an extra 7,000 cancer cases – mostly breast cancer – in UK women each year, Cancer Research UK scientists say.
The risk goes up the more you drink, whether spirits, wine or beer, the data on over a million women suggests.
Overall, alcohol is to blame for about 13% of breast, liver, rectum, mouth and throat cancers, the researchers say.
They estimate that about 5,000 cases of breast cancer in the UK – 11% of the 45,000 cases diagnosed each year – can be attributed to women’s consumption of alcohol.
The study looked specifically at women who consumed low to moderate levels of alcohol – defined as three drinks a day or fewer.
Over the seven years of the study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, a quarter of the 1.3 million women reported drinking no alcohol.
Of those who did drink, virtually all consumed fewer than 21 drinks per week, and an average of 10g of alcohol per day, which is equivalent to just over one unit of alcohol found in half a pint of lager, a 125ml glass of wine or a single measure of spirits.
Nearly 70,000 of the middle-aged women developed cancer and a pattern emerged with alcohol consumption.
One too many?
Consuming one drink a day increased the risk of all types of cancer by 6% in women up to the age of 75.
The rates for individual cancers varied, with one drink a day causing a 12% rise in the risk of breast cancer, a 10% rise in rectal cancer, a 22% rise in gullet cancer, a 29% rise in mouth cancer and a 44% rise in throat cancer.
On a population scale, this would mean 15 extra cases of these cancers diagnosed for every 1,000 women – comprising 11 breast, one mouth, one rectal cancer and 0.7 each for cancers of the gullet, throat and liver.
The government says no amount of alcohol is fully safe, but recommends women should drink no more than two to three units per day on a regular basis to have a lower risk of any harm to health.
For men the recommended limit is no more than three to four units per day.
Lead author Dr Naomi Allen from the University of Oxford said her work would help the government assess whether the limits should be changed, although the study did not look at men.
“The findings of this report show quite strongly that even low levels of drinking that were regarded to be safe do increase cancer risk.
“About 5% of all cancers in the UK are due to drinking something in the order of one alcoholic drink a day.”
She said there was confusion about how much people should drink. Research has shown a daily tipple can be good for the heart. And factors other than alcohol pose a bigger risk for certain cancers.
“It is up to individual people to make their own decision. All of us to some extent have to weigh up the risks and take some responsibility for our health,” said Dr Allen.
A Department of Health spokesman said: “We keep our guidance on sensible drinking under review. We currently advise on a lower risk drinking limit and that drinking above this level could be harmful.
“There is no completely safe level of drinking but this lower level reflects the known risks including breast cancer, which is partly why there is a lower drinking limit for women.
“We look forward to examining this research in more detail.”
Dr Sarah Cant of Breakthrough Breast Cancer said: “We already know that drinking alcohol can increase your risk of breast cancer.
“This study suggests that for women over 50 even drinking moderate amounts of any type of alcohol can have many health consequences, including a greater chance of developing breast cancer.
“Around 80% of breast cancer cases are diagnosed in women aged over 50, so limiting how much you drink is one step you can take to try to reduce your risk of developing the disease.”
Breast cancer is now the most common cancer in the UK. Each year almost 45,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer. A woman’s lifetime risk for breast cancer in the UK is one in nine.

Cancer Society’s health forum for black men set Feb. 7

admin — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:11:34 +0000

Published: February 2, 2009
The American Cancer Society will host its third annual “African American Men’s Health Forum” from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Feb. 7 at the Greater Richmond Convention Center, 403 N. Third St.
Local health experts will discuss health disparities, cardiovascular health, diabetes health, mental health, nutrition and exercise. Local cancer experts will discuss the prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer, prostate cancer and lung/oral cancers.
Attendees will receive free lunch and health screenings for body-mass index (BMI), cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose, HIV, mental health and oral cancer. Prostate cancer screenings will not be conducted on site; however, Virginia Urology will provide PSA test vouchers to 200 qualified attendees who can be screened at a Virginia Urology facility after the event.
Miss Community Clovia of Radio One Richmond, Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones and Dr. Lance B. Watson, senior pastor of St. Paul’s Baptist Church, are scheduled to appear.
To register to attend, call (804) 527-3795 or visit
.

Drug recommended to prevent prostate cancer in some older men

admin — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:06:10 +0000

Cancer Patients Often Stranded in Health Insurance Nightmares

admin — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:09:02 +0000

THURSDAY, Feb. 5 (HealthDay News) — Last summer, Keith Blessington had just been told that he was eligible for private health insurance to replace his government-funded COBRA coverage when it ran out.
Then, the 55-year-old New Hampshire resident was diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer, and everything changed.
Although the COBRA coverage paid for most of the cost of his initial surgery, by the time he got out of the hospital having had half his stomach and eight cancerous lymph nodes removed, Blessington found himself ineligible for virtually any private health insurance, because his cancer was now a daunting preexisting condition.
Blessington is still one of the lucky ones, because he managed to secure insurance through New Hampshire’s high-risk insurance pool. However, the coverage is costly, $1,120 a month to be exact.
Just to survive while he was unable to work, Blessington borrowed $40,000 on his credit card and cashed out his 401K retirement plan.
“I have enough money for another month or so to live on. My savings are gone,” Blessington, a freelance accountant, said recently.
. All the individuals profiled had health insurance at the time they were diagnosed with cancer.
“They’re stories about how insurance just doesn’t do the job,” said Christy Schmidt, a co-author of the report and senior policy director for the American Cancer Society. “We need to make sure we’re not just giving someone an insurance card. The insurance needs to be adequate.”
The report comes soon after another study found that more than 1 million of 12 million cancer survivors living in the United States have had to forgo care, including prescription drugs, for financial reasons. The problem was most pronounced among Hispanics and blacks.
And when you have cancer, health insurance coverage is paramount. “People have worse outcomes and are diagnosed at later-stage disease if they are uninsured,” Schmidt said.
“There can be high cost-sharing in insurance,” such as separate deductibles for different kinds of treatment and caps on benefits, Schmidt said. One woman maxed out the number of radiation treatments covered by her insurance but still needed more. She ended up not getting more radiation, even though her doctor had recommended it. One 10-year-old girl with leukemia has already reached her lifetime maximum and still needs more treatment.
Many people become too sick to work, and lose their employer-sponsored benefits. By law, they are eligible for COBRA for 18 months, but this is often prohibitively expensive.
The private insurance market often won’t cover people who have had cancer or, if they do, the premiums are again prohibitively expensive. One man, a 10-year survivor of prostate cancer, has to pay one-quarter of his income just to cover the premiums on his policy. Often, he goes without care just to cover the costs of the policy. And that doesn’t count his high deductible.
High-risk pools will cover some cancer patients, but not all, and that coverage is expensive. According to Schmidt, the New Hampshire high-risk pool that covers Blessington is one of the “nice” plans. That premium costs Blessington about $13,000 a year.
Other supposed public safety nets have their own problems. Some cancer patients too ill (either from the disease or the treatment) to work may qualify for disability benefits but might have to forgo Medicaid as a result. Individuals are not eligible for Medicare for two years after they have started on disability.
“I’m a cancer survivor myself,” Schmidt said. “You’re really fighting for your life, then you discover you’re really fighting with your insurance company or your insurance doesn’t do it for you, and you’re in a whole other world fighting on two fronts.”
for more on how to handle the high costs of cancer care.

Infertile Men Have Substantially Higher Rates of Testis Cancer …

admin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:07:20 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — 02/24/09 —
Findings from a new study in the current
issue of
confirm for the first time in a large U.S. study that
testicular cancer risk is higher among men with a history of infertility in
the past, compared to the general population. Previous research on this
topic was reported mainly from European countries with a much higher
prevalence of testis cancer in the male population.
In men with testicular cancer, the risk of infertility during or after
cancer treatment has been well known. But, other than such close
associations with major medical illnesses such as cancer, doctors have
generally thought the majority of male infertility is an isolated event –
not really a medical illness.
The study recruited 43,404 U.S. couples evaluated for infertility from 1965
to 1998 from 15 California infertility centers. Information on the male
partners was linked to the California Cancer Registry (CCR). Men with
cancer that preceded infertility were excluded from the study. The
incidence of testicular cancer was compared to the incidence in an
age-matched sample of men from the general population using
of the National Cancer Institute. In the infertility
cohort, 44 post-infertility cases of testicular cancer were identified.
Overall, men from couples with infertility were 1.7 times more likely to
develop cancer than other men. Among men in whom the infertility was known
to be due to the male partner, the risk of developing testicular cancer was
markedly higher (3.6 times) than the general population. Even when the
calculation was adjusted for age, duration of treatment, and treatment
facility, men with male factor infertility had 2.7 times the hazard of
developing testicular cancer.
“Male infertility is clearly not as benign a condition for men’s future
health as once thought,” says
, a
urologist and Director of The Turek Clinic in San Francisco, who was senior
author on the study.
Even more interesting is the issue of what common features may lead to
this association of past male infertility and future testis cancer. Dr.
Turek’s prior scientific research has shown that severely infertile men
with no sperm in ejaculate can demonstrate abnormalities of DNA repair, a
finding that has known associations with cancer development in both humans
and animal models. “We should begin to think of infertility as a window
into men’s health,” says Dr. Turek. “We suspect that infertile men are at
higher risk of other cancers such as colon, melanoma and even prostate
cancer. Future research will clarify this point.”
Research colleagues on this paper include Thomas Walsh MD, MS, Assistant
Professor of Urology at the University of Washington, and Michael Schembri
BS, June Chan ScD, and Mary Croughan Ph.D from the University of
California, San Francisco.
The Turek Clinic is a next-generation men’s healthcare medical practice
specializing in issues facing reproductive age men, including male
infertility, vasectomies, vasectomy reversal, varicocele repair, and other
minimally invasive procedures. The practice was founded by
, a
leading surgeon and former endowed chair professor at the University of
California San Francisco in May, 2008. Dr. Turek’s work combines
innovative and cutting edge techniques with the wisdom of old-world
medicine to treat and solve the problems of men ages 21 to 55 years of age.
For more information visit
.

Party offers cancer patients and their families a chance to give …

admin — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:00:11 +0000

When cancer strikes one member of a family, what seems like an intensely personal catastrophe can suddenly bring down the entire household.
But Sunday, for 200 men, women and children who know the disease’s terrible toll all too well, a holiday party hosted by a unique program for patients and their families offered a chance to give thanks, both for a happier ending and for the help they received in getting there.
“It’s like they don’t care about the cost,” said Chris Lancelotti, 38. “They were going to help us no matter what.”
He meant a small but big-hearted organization called Families Can. Since 1999, the nonprofit has helped cancer-stricken families in Santa Clara County in ways big and small, from covering mortgage payments to paying for baby-sitters and more. The party at the plush Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club was more than just an annual event. It was a way to connect with other cancer survivors.
Lancelotti was a typical client. After learning last year that he had testicular cancer, the paramedic and father of three was asked at Stanford Medical Center if he wanted to talk with a social worker.
“I had never thought I would be in the position to need social help,” he said. “But I signed the form, anyway. Thank God I did.”
Over the next several months, Families Can covered three mortgage payments, about $2,000 in credit card debt, and groceries for three months. Lancelotti said the assistance helped save
his marriage.
“I had no idea how much radiation and other treatment would leave me so tired and in pain,” he said. “My wife has been raising the children on her own for the past year.”
The party was an elegant, low-key affair. Young kids squealing in line to see Santa made the most noise. If you browsed by, it would have looked like just another holiday party, except for the telltale signs of chemotherapy, the men with fuzzy scalps and the women wearing bandannas. The host and founder of Families Can, Jackie Whittier, said only a few words of welcome and mostly mingled with the people she’s helped.
About 11 years ago, she was pregnant when liver cancer struck her husband, Bruce Kubicka. Sitting for hours in hospital waiting rooms, she learned from other spouses how difficult cancer had made family life, especially in money matters.
Later, when her father, Ron Whittier, a retired Intel executive, asked his adult children to come up with ideas for a foundation he was starting, she remembered what she had learned. And so Families Can was born.
“I came up with the idea because when my husband got cancer I had a baby in my tummy,” she said.
Money isn’t the only help, said Victoria Alvarez, who attended the party with her husband, Jesus Martinez, and their five children. Families Can enrolled her kids in a camp designed to help children understand and cope with a parent’s cancer.
“For a long time I couldn’t say the ‘C’ word to them,” Alvarez, 36, said. “Well, they got to learn in that program what Mommy has, that it’s OK to hug Mommy with that funny thing on her head when she comes back from the hospital.”
Beatriz Bravo, a medical social worker at Stanford Medical Center, had referred several of the partygoers to the organization for help.
“When a loved one in the family is hit by cancer, it puts a major stress on the whole family,” she said. “As I’ve said, nobody deals with cancer alone.”
or (408) 920-5767.