lifestyle news cancer diet exercise

This page is updated regularly with news from around the world reporting lifestyle and environmental research which could affect the development or the progression of cancer, how lifestyle could effect treatment, the decisions for treatment, the success and the tolerability. More information on cancer and lifestyle can be found on this website or our book Lifestyle after cancer - the facts.

The worlds first broad spectrum antioxidant nutritional supplement launched. Following evidence from cohort and prospective studies of the benefits of broccoli, green tea, turmeric and pomegranate, a leading UK oncologists has designed a major new dietary supplement. The benefits of dietary antioxidants are linked to an improvement in general health, vision, brain function, heart disease as well as cancer. Unlike other food supplements, antioxidants are not damage din the process of tablet formation so is a convenient way to boost the daily intake. Pomi-T is being evaluated in a randomised placebo controlled trial starting in The Primrose Lifestyle Research Unit involving men with prostate cancer. In the mean time it is available online from July 2011.

HealthDay (12/7, Doheny) reports, "A woman's risk of developing breast cancer appears to rise if she has diabetes or is obese after age 60," according to a study to be presented at the 2011 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

MedPage Today (12/7, Fiore) reports that researchers found, "in a large epidemiological study," that "women who'd been given a diagnosis of diabetes in the last four years had a 37% higher risk of developing breast cancer than those without the blood glucose disorder." The investigators found that patients "who were older than 60 and obese had a 55% greater risk of breast cancer, although it was of borderline significance."

According to a large epidemiological study presented at the 2011 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium researchers found, that women who'd been given a diagnosis of diabetes in the last four years had a 37% higher risk of developing breast cancer than those without the blood glucose disorder. The investigators found that patients who were older than 60 and obese had an even greater risk (55%) of breast cancer.

The Los Angeles Times (12/9, Brown) "Booster Shots" blog reports that "increased carbohydrate intake was associated with a higher rate of breast cancer recurrence in survivors of the disease," according to a study scheduled to be presented at the 2011 San Antonio Breast Cancer Conference.

HealthDay (12/9, Doheny) reports that a researcher "looked at changes in the amount of carbohydrates, particularly starchy foods such as potatoes, that breast cancer survivors ate over a one-year period." She said, "Women who increased their carbohydrates and particularly their starch intake had a greater risk of recurrence than the women who decreased [it]."

Reuters (12/30, Joelving) reports that older Icelandic men who drank lots of milk during their teenage years were three times as likely to have an advanced prostate cancer diagnosis compared to their moderate milk consumers, according to a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study examined data on some 2,200 men born between 1907 and 1937, who reported diet information during the early and mid-life years as part of a different study. Of 1,800 men, 3% of those who drank milk daily during adolescence were associated with an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer. However, Dr. Matthew Cooperberg, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco told Reuters Health that it's premature to say that milk consumption causes prostate cancer.

Reuters (12/30, Pittman) reports that, according to a study published online in the journal Cancer, use of statins may be linked to a lower risk of death from prostate cancer. Investigators looked at data on 380 individuals who had died from prostate cancer and data on 380 men who did not have prostate cancer or who had cancer that was not lethal. The investigators found that those who had died from prostate cancer were about 50% as likely to have used a statin compared to the other men.

Reuters (1/4, Seaman) reports that, according to a study published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a diet rich in soy may not be linked to a reduced risk of stomach cancer. Investigators looked at data on approximately 85,000 individuals participating in a separate study. The investigators found no difference in stomach cancer risk between participants who consumed the highest amounts of isoflavones, which are found in soy, versus participants who consumed the least.

A meta-analysis evaluated the dose–response relationship between carotenoids and breast cancer

33 studies met the inclusion criteria. When data from cohort studies were pooled a significant dose–response relationships were observed in both the higher intake of dietary and total β-carotene with reduced breast cancer risk when data from cohort studies (P _trend < 0.01, P _trend = 0.03) and case–control studies (P _trend < 0.01, P _trend < 0.01) were pooled, respectively. Dietary α-carotene intake could reduce the breast cancer risk. The relationships between dietary and total β-carotene intake and breast cancer need to be confirmed. No significant association between dietary intake of β-cryptoxanthin, lutein/+zeaxanthin, and lycopene and breast cancer was observed. Hu et al 2012 Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Volume 131, Number 1, 239-253, DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1723-8

MedPage Today (11/2, Gever) reports, "Increased risks for all-cause mortality and death from cancer and cardiovascular disease associated with low vitamin D levels registered only as weak, non-significant trends in a large prospective study," according to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. "The analysis did reveal one near-significant association, however: Women with normal waist circumference, defined as 35 inches or less, and low [25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-D)] levels were at nearly double the risk for all-cause mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.44), whereas those with larger waist measurements were not," leading researchers to suggest that "body fat distribution may play an important role in the modulation of the effect of low vitamin D concentrations." However, researchers also emphasized that "the recent Institute of Medicine report that said studies purporting to identify benefits of vitamin D beyond bone health 'could not be considered reliable.'"

USA Today (11/9, Marcus) reports, "It may seem as though vitamin D is everywhere these days. ... Vitamin D helps control calcium and phosphorus levels in the body, and it plays a role in cell growth, immunity and reducing inflammation." Research connects vitamin D deficiency to "rickets, a bone-thinning condition that can cause deformities" in children, and "osteomalacia -- muscle and bone weakness" in adults. In addition, vitamin D deficiency may be "linked to cancer, autoimmune problems and heart disease."

Preliminary Study Suggests Pomegranate Extract May Slow Prostate Cancer Progression.

WebMD (2/17, Laino) reported, Michael Carducci from Johns Hopkins performed a study in men and showed that "Taking a pomegranate pill a day may help slow the progression of prostate cancer," according to preliminary research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancer Symposium Meeting. The study involved 92 men with cancer that had "not spread beyond the prostate" and rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. At baseline, the men's PSA levels were "doubling every 12 months." The researchers found that for the men in the group taking pomegranate capsules for at least six months, it "took 19 months for their PSA levels to double." However, men who took three of the one-gram pomegranate extract capsules daily "were more likely to suffer mild to moderate diarrhea" compared to those who only took one pill, "14% vs. 2%," respectively. The researchers attributed the anticancer effect to antioxidants in pomegranates.

The Wall Street Journal (10/25, Wang, Subscription Publication) reports that a number of recent studies have suggested that certain multivitamins and dietary supplements may in fact be harmful to health, or at least offer no real health benefits. The Journal points out that researchers found that vitamins B-6 and B-12, both hyped as offering heart benefits, do not really reduce one's likelihood of developing heart disease, according the NIH's Office of Dietary Supplements. Josephine Briggs, head of the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, said, "We have an enormous body of data telling us that plant-rich diets are very healthy," but "as soon as we take these various antioxidants [and other nutrients] out and put them in a pill, we're not consistently getting a benefit." The Journal also points out that research on participants in the NIH's Women's Health Initiative found no evidence that multivitamins help to prevent breast, lung or colorectal cancer, or heart disease.

Vitamin E - a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that taking vitamin E may raise the risk of prostate cancer.

ABC World News (10/11, story 10, 0:15, Sawyer) reported that the study showed "vitamin E significantly raises the risk of prostate cancer in healthy men by 17%."

CBS Evening News (1011, story 7, 2:25, Pelley) reported that the trial, which involved over 35,000 men, "began a decade ago to see if vitamin E and the mineral selenium could prevent prostate cancer." In 2008, it was found that neither vitamin E nor selenium "prevented cancer and everyone was told to stop taking the vitamins." Then it was found that "men who took vitamin E alone were at a 17% increased risk of developing prostate cancer."

NBC Nightly News (10/11, story 8, 2:35, Williams) reported that "The final verdict on selenium is not in yet."

On its front page, the Washington Post (10/12, A1, Stein) reports, "'Just because it's 'only a vitamin' or 'it's natural,' we assume it must be safe. But over and over again, we see that's not necessarily the case,' said Howard Parnes of the National Cancer Institute. ... 'Not only isn't it the fountain of youth that some people said, it can be harmful.'" However, other "scientists and the dietary supplement industry" criticize this study "for trying to evaluate individual vitamins alone, noting the combination of vitamin E and selenium" did not increase risk. They said that "vitamins work synergistically and...drug-like trials of nutrients, when used in isolation from other nutrients, may not be the most appropriate way to study them."

USA Today (10/12, Rubin) reports, "The authors say they don't have an explanation for their findings." Some, including "urologist Neil Fleshner of Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto," believe "the increased risk in the study was 'just a statistical thing.'"

The Wall Street Journal (10/12, A9, Hobson, Subscription Publication) reports that National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Prevention's acting director and study co-author Lori Minasian noted that this study used the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E, which others suggest is less beneficial than the gamma-tocopherol form. She also said that more research needs to be done on how vitamin E might affect oncogenesis.

The AP (10/12) reports, "Vitamin E supplements have long been promoted for disease prevention, but scientific research has disproven many claims and suggested they might increase risks for some conditions, including heart failure." The American Cancer Society's Dr. Otis Brawley "noted that the study echoes previous thinking on beta-carotene, which once was thought to protect against cancer, but more recently has been linked with increased risks for lung cancer, especially in smokers. 'There should be a global warning that...excessive use of vitamins has not been proven to be beneficial and may be the opposite,' Brawley said."

Bloomberg News (10/12, Flinn) reports, "The study 'is the largest, the most definitive, and the first one to show that there could potentially be harm,' from regular use of vitamin E, said Leslie Ford, associate director for clinical research at the National Cancer Institute's cancer prevention division, in an interview."

The New York Times (10/12, Parker-Pope) "Well" blog notes that while vitamins are indeed essential, "in the past few years, several high-quality studies have failed to show that high doses of vitamins, at least in pill form, help prevent chronic disease or prolong life. A January 2009 editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute noted that most studies of vitamins had shown no cancer benefits, but some had shown unexpected harms." For example, a "study suggested a higher risk of precancerous polyps among users of folic acid compared with those in a placebo group."

USA Today (10/12, Hellmich) "Your Life" blog asked "two top national nutrition experts to weigh in on whether or not consumers should take a multivitamin or other supplements." Jeffrey Blumberg of Tufts University said that he recommends multivitamins, but Marion Nestle of New York University said she only recommends "supplements to people with diagnosed nutrient deficiencies" and prefers that people eat a nutritious, balanced diet.

ABC News (10/12, Gann) points out on its website, "Two previous studies looked at a large number of men taking the supplement and each reached different conclusions on how vitamin E affects prostate cancer. In 2003, data from the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention) trial showed that smokers taking 50 mg of vitamin E each day had a 35 percent reduction in prostate cancer. In the Physicians Health Study II, participants took the same amount of vitamin E as the men in the Select trial -- 400 IU, but it had no effect on their risk of prostate cancer."

HealthDay (10/12, Reinberg) reports, "Because more than 50 percent of men 60 and older take supplements containing vitamin E and 23 percent take as much as 400 international units (IU) a day despite the recommended daily dietary allowance of only 22.4 IU, the implications of this finding are 'substantial,' the study authors said."

Reuters (9/2) reports a study in Journal of Clinical Oncology that used 18 studies of over 10,000 people to show that people with the highest vitamin D blood levels had up to 33% lower risk of colon cancer, compared to those with the lowest. Researchers noted that vitamin D deficiency is a problem in industrialized nations, and as many as 58% of adults or adolescents in the US could be deficient in vitamin D.

WebMD (3/11, Warne) reported, "Broccoli may help fight cancer by blocking a defective gene associated with tumor growth," according to new research in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. Studies have shown that "compounds in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables called isothiocyanates (ITCs) appear to target and block mutant p53 genes associated with cancer growth." When researchers "analyzed the effects of ITCs on gene p53 in a variety of human cancer cells, including lung, breast, and colon cancer, in the lab," they found that ITCs were "capable of removing the defective p53 gene while leaving healthy versions of the gene alone." The study authors noted that further studies to confirm these findings could potentially lead to new cancer therapies.

Reuters (9/3, Pittman) reported that according to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, people with the highest daily folate intake had a 30% less risk of colorectal cancer than those with lower intakes. Todd Gibson of the National Cancer Institute, however, was quoted as saying that folate's effect is "definitely still an open question." Reuters noted the study does not show any harm in taking more folate than the daily recommended amount, which had been a previous concern.

NBC Nightly News (8/22, story 9, 2:20, Williams) reported, "Because what you eat really can affect your long-term health, researchers are trying to harness the power of what some are calling super-foods to go even further than they already do in everyday use." Dr. Steve Clinton, of Ohio State University, was shown saying, "We like to take certain foods that are known to have anti-cancer properties and combine them in way to create foods that will target very specific cancers." NBC (Snyderman) added, "Dr. Clinton's lab makes these lollipops loaded with chemicals from black raspberries that could be used by smokers to help prevent oral cancer and this soy almond bread that can help fight prostate cancer." Snyderman continued, "Dr. Clinton and his team are work hard on the next generation of food, hoping cleaning your plate will one day also mean preventing disease."

The Washington Post (5/23, Huget) "The Checkup" blog reports that, according to a study released today, "there's convincing evidence that eating too much red meat and processed meat raises colorectal cancer risk and that consuming plenty of fiber in the form of plant-based foods reduces that risk." The Continuous Update Project (CUP), produced by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer, gathers research about "various forms of cancer, updating its database every few years." For this report, scientists "conducted a review of published studies and ended up adding 263 new papers about colorectal cancer to the 749 that had been analyzed for the last report, issued in 2007." The report notes that "red meat, processed meat, excess body fat, and fat carried around the waist increase risk of colorectal cancer."

Reuters (5/11, Pittman) reported that some nutritional supplement companies market the mineral selenium as a cancer preventive, and there have been some observational studies suggesting high selenium intake could reduce cancer risk slightly. However, an analysis of 55 studies found no evidence to supported selenium's link with different cancer types. Meanwhile, Reuters quoted study author Dr. Marco Vinceti, of Italy's University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, as saying, "We still do not have an exact picture of what selenium is doing to human health." BBC News (5/11, Roberts) also covered the study, which is published in the Cochrane Library.

The Wall Street Journal (4/6, Dooren, Subscription Publication) reported that eating strawberries may halt the growth of precancerous lesions in the esophagus, according to findings presented Wednesday at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Florida.

According to the Los Angeles Times (4/7, Cevallos) "Booster Shots" blog, noting that strawberries have "shown promise for inhibiting throat-tumor growth" in rats, researchers from Ohio State University asked "36 people at high risk for esophageal cancer to eat 60 grams (2 ounces) of freeze-dried strawberries every day for six months." They compared tissue samples from the esophagus "before and after" the six months, and found that in "29 people, precancerous lesions...were downgraded on a cancer scale."

The Time (4/6, Park) "Healthland" blog noted that in esophageal cancer cases, about 50% of those with "moderate pre-cancerous" lesions and "25% of those with mild" lesions go on to develop malignant tumors, so "finding ways to halt their march can have a major impact on the incidence of the disease," lead researcher Tong Chen emphasized. She pointed out, however, that "gulping down pints of strawberries isn't the answer to fighting cancer. A larger, more rigorous trial that includes both people at risk of esophageal cancer and healthy, low-risk controls....needs to be conducted." The study was also covered by WebMD (4/6, Doheny) and the UK's Press Association (4/6

WebMD (10/5, Laino) reports that according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, "more than three-fourths of people with a variety of cancers have low levels of vitamin D, and the lowest levels are associated with more advanced cancers. ... High-dose supplements increased vitamin D levels to normal in most patients studied, but it is too soon to know if supplementation improved their outlook." In addition, "there was no association between low vitamin D levels and even more advanced, stage IV cancers that have spread throughout the body." Researchers emphasized that this study only shows correlation, not causation, and "do not recommend vitamin D supplementation for cancer patients at this point."

Consuming soy may reduce breast cancer risk: Reuters; HealthDay News
These articles report on an NCI study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention suggesting that women who consumed soy once a week or more during childhood have a 60 percent lower risk of developing breast cancer, compared with women who consumed less. Regular soy consumption in adulthood is associated with a 25 percent lower breast cancer risk. Researchers note that this is the first study evaluating the effect soy has on breast cancer risk and that more research is needed.
Representative Article: Reuters

The Boston Globe (9/27, Blake) "Nutrition and You!" blog reports that "a poor diet, specifically one that is skimpy on fruits and vegetables, may also play a role" in colon cancer, according to a study published in the October issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Researchers found that "cruciferous vegetables, including Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, and broccoli were associated with a reduced incidence of proximal and distal cancers. A diet abundant in both fruits and veggies, especially apples and dark yellow vegetables, such as carrots and pumpkin, appeared to decrease the risk of distal cancer."

HealthDay (9/27, Preidt) reports that to reach these conclusions, "researchers examined the diets of 918 colorectal cancer patients and 1,021 people with no history of the disease." WebMD (9/27, Rubin) and the Toronto Sun /QMI Agency (9/27) also report this study.

Fruits, vegetable lower breast cancer recurrence risk: Reuters
This article reports on a JCO study finding that breast cancer survivors who eat diets high in fruits and vegetables (exceeding current U.S. dietary guidelines) and low in fat can reduce their recurrence risk by nearly one-third. The study notes, however, that this approach is only effective in women who do not experience hot flashes following breast cancer therapy.
Article: Reuters; Abstract: JCO

Vitamin C and E pills do not prevent cancer:
These articles report on research finding that vitamin C and E supplements, taken together or separately, do not affect cancer risk in men, compared to a placebo. The article notes previous studies suggesting that diets rich in vitamins may provide health benefits, but researchers caution that vitamins' effectiveness may vary based on the form of administration. Associated Press

Reducing Red Meat Consumption May Lower Risk For Bowel, Other Cancers.

The AP (2/25) reported, "Bringing home the bacon might not be such a great idea, according to stricter new dietary advice from the British government issued Friday. In the first new guidelines since 1998," Britain advised that cutting down on red meat consumption could help people prevent cancer. UK government experts say people should eat no more than "one pound of red meat a week, or 2.5 ounces every day, significantly less than it previously recommended." In contrast, UK government officials in 1998 said people could "safely eat as much as 3 ounces a day and that only people who consumed more than 5 ounces should worry."

According to Bloomberg News (2/25, Penny), the UK government said people who consume more than about 90 grams (3.2 ounces) a day are "at greater risk of getting bowel cancer, which kills 16,500 people in Britain every year." UK Department of Health data indicate that presently, 42% of men and 12% of women "eat more than 90 grams" of red meat daily. The UK's Press Association (2/25) and BBC News (2/25, Hughes) also report the new UK guidelines.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times (2/26, Khan) "Booster Shots" blog pointed out that the US Department of Agriculture "says Americans are eating a record amount of meat: 195 pounds a year, 57 pounds more than what we ate in the 1950s." Notably, a 2009 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that "men and women who ate the most meat were, respectively, 31% and 36% more likely to die over a 10-period than those who didn't eat much meat at all."

Carotenoid supplements associated with increased lung cancer risk: Reuters This article reports on an American Journal of Epidemiology study finding that long-term use of high-dose beta-carotene, lutein and retinol supplements increase the risk of developing non-small-cell lung cancer, particularly among smokers and former smokers. The article notes that when taken for 4 years or more, high doses of beta-carotene increased the risk for non-small-cell lung cancer by more than 3-fold, lutein increased the risk by 2.5-fold and retinol increased the risk by 80 percent. High-dose supplements of retinol and lutein were also linked to a modest increase in risk for lung cancer overall.

High-dose vitamin E supplements offer little health benefit; The New York Times This article discusses recent research on vitamin E supplements, reporting that taking high doses of vitamin E daily does not protect against heart disease and stroke, nor does it have any effect on the risk of developing or dying from breast, lung, prostate or colon cancer. The article also references a 2007 NCI study finding that smokers who took vitamin E supplements had a slightly higher risk of developing lung cancer.
Article: The New York Times

HealthDay (4/29, Preidt) reported that breast cancer patients with "low levels of vitamin D have more aggressive tumors and poorer outcomes," according to findings presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons meeting. Researchers tracked "155 women who had surgery for breast cancer between January 2009 and September 2010." They found an association between "low vitamin D levels (less than 32 milligrams per milliliter of blood) and poor scores on every major biological marker used to predict a breast cancer patient's outcome." WebMD (4/29, Boyles) also covered the findings.

ABC World News (5/17, story 6, 2:10, Sawyer) reported, "Fifty-eight percent of Americans drink coffee every day. But there is word tonight that even as little as one cup of coffee, even decaf coffee, could have powerful health benefits." NBC Nightly News (5/17, story 5, 2:15, Williams) noted, "It comes from the Harvard School of Public Health; and it seems to hold strong evidence that coffee can help prevent prostate cancer." The CBS Evening News (5/17, story 6, 1:05, Couric) reported, "The study involved 47,000 men and it found those who drank a lot of coffee, six or more cups a day, reduced their risk of lethal prostate cancer. Researchers analyzed data from 47,911 US men who participated in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study." As part of the "large, ongoing" examination of men's health issues, participants reported their "coffee consumption every four years between 1986 and 2008." Interestingly, the men who "consumed the most coffee, which was defined as six or more cups every day, were nearly 20 percent less likely to develop any form of prostate cancer," the researchers reported in the May 17 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study team found that men who consumed "six or more" cups of regular or decaffeinated coffee also had a "60 percent lower risk of developing deadly metastatic prostate cancer," and one to three cups "cut the risk of lethal prostate cancer by 30 percent." The findings suggest "non-caffeine elements in coffee" may provide the benefit. Coffee contains "compounds that can reduce inflammation and regulate insulin"; and previous research linked it to a lower risk of "Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes, liver cancer, cirrhosis and gallstone disease," the study authors noted. The study was funded in part by the "National Institutes of Health and the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Coffee is a "major source of antioxidants that might have anti-cancer effects," and it may impact sex-hormone levels as well. Notably, even after accounting for "lifestyle factors, such as age, smoking, obesity and exercise, the decline in the odds for prostate cancer remained."

Researchers say carrots may contain more potent anti-cancer properties if not cut before cooking.
BBC News (6/16) reported, "The anti-cancer properties of carrots are more potent if the vegetable is not cut up before cooking," according to research conducted by investigators at Newcastle University. The study, expected to "be presented at NutrEvent, a conference on nutrition and health," showed that "when carrots are heated, the heat kills the cells, so they lose the ability to hold on to the water inside them, increasing the concentration of falcarinol as the carrots lose water." But, "the heat also softens the cell walls, allowing water-soluble compounds such as sugar and vitamin C to be lost via the surface of the tissue." The investigators discovered that "if the carrot is cut before being boiled, the surface area becomes much greater -- and so the loss of nutrients is increased."

MedPage Today (2/28, Phend) reports that "fish oil supplements may help prevent weight and muscle loss during chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results from a small open-label study" published online in the journal Cancer. This "study, conducted among 40 patients, found that those who started taking fish oil when they began 10 weeks of chemotherapy actually gained 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) whereas those receiving only the standard of care lost 2.3 kg (5.1 lbs) by time their chemotherapy had ended (P<0.05)."

Omega-3 fatty acids associated with decreased risk of developing advanced prostate cancer: HealthDay News
This article reports on a Clinical Cancer Research study finding that men who consume the highest amount of omega-3 fatty acids have a 63 percent lower risk of aggressive prostate cancer, compared with men who consume the lowest amount of omega-3 fatty acids. The article notes that prostate cancer risk was also reduced in men with a genetic predisposition for the disease. Researchers explain, however, that these findings contradict previous data and that more research on the role of omega-3 fatty acids in prostate cancer prevention is necessary.
Article: HealthDay News

WebMD (12/15, Stacy) reported that, according to research conducted at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, "compounds found in black pepper and curry powder help halt the growth of stem cells that give rise to breast cancer." Limiting "the number of stem cells...can limit the number of cells with the potential to form tumors," the investigators noted. After applying "piperine, found in black pepper, and curcumin, the main ingredient in the curry spice turmeric, to breast cancer cells in a laboratory dish," researchers found that the combination "reduced the number of stem cells, but did not harm normal breast cells." Researchers noted, however, that "because piperine and turmeric have not been tested in patients at risk for breast cancer," supplement use is not encouraged "at this time."

Reuters (9/10, Peeples) reports that colon cancer may not be helped by multivitamin use, according to a study published in the Journal of Oncology. Researchers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute did not find that multivitamin use prolonged life or decreased time to recurrence. More than 1,000 subjects participated in this study and the findings are consistent with other studies that did not find benefit from multivitamins in colon cancer treatment and survival.

Reuters (5/4, Grens) reported that daily intake of nutritional supplements, such as vitamin E, selenium, and soy, do not lower men's risk of prostate cancer, according to a study published online May 2 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The study included 303 men who were randomly assigned to a combination of the supplements or a placebo daily for three years. Notably, the findings confirm a larger, similar study published in 2008.

HealthDay (8/20, Preidt) reported, "New information about how sugar 'feeds' tumors has been uncovered by" University of Utah scientists, "who said the finding may also have implications for other diseases, such as diabetes." Since 1923, the scientific community has understood that "tumor cells use a lot more glucose than normal cells." Yet, according to the paper appearing online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, investigators have now discovered "that restricting an amino acid called glutamine halts a cell's ability to utilize glucose," which effectively "halts the growth of the tumor cell."

HealthDay (1/21, Dotinga) reported, "High levels of vitamin D in the blood appear to be linked to lower risks of colorectal cancer," researchers found after evaluating some "520,000 people from 10 countries in Western Europe." In fact, "those with the highest levels of vitamin D in their blood had as much as a 40 percent lower risk for developing colorectal cancer than those with the lowest levels." Still, "it's not clear if higher intake of the vitamin actually prevents the disease." The UK's Telegraph (1/22) also covers the study.

BBC News (10/28) reports, "An extract found in the bright yellow curry spice turmeric can kill off cancer cells," according to research published in the British Journal of Cancer. Researchers at the Cork Cancer Research Centre found that the chemical curcumin "started to kill cancer cells within 24 hours." The study showed that the cells "began to digest themselves, after the curcumin triggered lethal cell death signals." The researchers noted that their finding "opens up the possibility that natural chemicals found in turmeric could be developed into new treatments for oesophageal cancer."

HealthDay (4/5, Doheny) reported, "Some breast cancer survivors fear that eating foods containing soy will increase the risk of a cancer recurrence," but findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting suggest those may be "unfounded." The researchers evaluated data on "9,515 women who had participated" in one of three breast cancer and health studies. At the seven-year follow-up, there were "1,348 breast cancer recurrences and 1,171 deaths from breast cancer and other causes." Questionnaires on the women's soy food intake revealed that "compared to the women who ate the least soy, women in the upper 10th percentile group for soy food intake had a 35 percent reduced risk of recurrence." Notably, those who "ate the most soy also had a 17-percent reduced risk of death from all causes" during the follow-up.

The Los Angeles Times (4/5, Stein) "Booster Shots" blog reported that survivors of breast cancer "who gain a large amount of weight may be at greater risk of cancer recurrence and death," according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. The researchers found that breast-cancer survivors who gained "10% or more than their pre-diagnosis weight were 14% more likely to have the disease return compared with women whose weight stayed fairly steady, within 5% of their pre-diagnosis weight." Notably, the risk increased for women who "were thinner at diagnosis, with a body-mass index of below 25. If they gained 10% or more of their pre-diagnosis body weight, they were at 25% higher risk of death and had a greater danger of cancer recurrence."

According to HealthDay (4/5, Preidt), the researchers analyzed data from "18,336 breast cancer survivors in the US and China, ages 20 to 83, whose weight was assessed 18 to 48 months after diagnosis and compared with their pre-diagnosis weight." Extreme weight gain "(10% or greater than pre-diagnosis weight) occurred in 16 percent" of the women. Among the women with extreme weight gain, "19.4 percent had a body mass index (BMI) lower than 25, which is considered normal weight," before their breast cancer diagnosis.

Broccoli, Other Cruciferous Vegetables May Block Genes Associated With Cancer Growth.

Reuters (3/24, Boerner) reports that taking multivitamins appears not to be protective against dying from either heart disease or cancer, according to a study recently published online in the American Journal of Epidemiology. After examining data on some 180,000 people followed for about 11 years, researchers found similar numbers of deaths from heart disease and cancer among those taking multivitamins and those who did not. Reuters also quotes the National Institutes of Health's website, which advises that physicians should write prescriptions for multivitamins just "for patients who need extra vitamins, who cannot eat enough food to obtain the required vitamins, or who cannot receive the full benefit of the vitamins contained in the food they eat."

Three Clinical Trials Find Vitamin D Makes No Difference In Terms Of Cancer Risk. The Boston Globe (3/23, Kotz) "Daily Dose" blog reported that a commentary published online March 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine "deals only with the use of vitamin D to prevent cancer, but it could have questioned any of the myriad of health claims made about the nutrient that still lack clinical evidence." Notably, "three clinical trials using doses that ranged from 400 IU to 1,100 IU per day all found that D didn't make a difference in terms of cancer risk." In fact, "most of the evidence for cancer prevention lies in observational studies that simply compare vitamin D levels with the incidence of cancer in a study population." In other words, it is difficult to ascertain if people with high levels of vitamin D received some protection from it or if some other factor, such as their genetic inheritance or lifestyle factor, was at play.

HealthDay (4/25, Preidt) reported that high levels of "heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids in the blood may be associated with an increased risk for developing aggressive prostate cancer, while elevated levels of unhealthy trans-fatty acids may lower the risk," according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Researchers examined data from a "US-wide study of more than 3,400 men, and found that those with the highest blood percentages of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) were two-and-a-half times more likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer than those with the lowest DHA levels." The study also found that the risk of aggresive prostate cancer was "50-percent lower in men with the highest blood levels of trans-fatty acids."

Reuters (12/29, Pittman) reports a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggesting that people who eat high amounts of red, grilled, or barbequed meat may be at higher risk of kidney cancer. In a study of 500,000 US adults, it was found that eating the most red meat was linked with papillary cancers, but not clear-cell kidney cancers. Participants who ate high amounts of well-done grilled and barbecued meat likewise had an increased risk of kidney cancer. Researchers said the reason for the association is unclear and emphasized that the data do not prove causation.

The Los Angeles Times (11/15, Roan) "Booster Shots" blog reports, "Teenage girls who drink alcohol and have a family history of breast cancer are increasing their own risk of the disease," according to a study published online in the journal Cancer.

Medscape (11/15, Franklin) reports that investigators "studied data from 9037 girls from all 50 states." Participants "completed annual questionnaires from 1996 to 2001, and then again in 2003, 2005, and 2007."

HealthDay (11/15, Dotinga) reports that the researchers "focused on 67 participants who were later diagnosed between the ages of 18 and 27 with benign breast disease, a large class of conditions that can cause breast lumps or pain and can be a risk factor for breast cancer." The investigators "found that women who have a family history of breast cancer or breast disease were about twice as likely to develop both benign breast disease and breast cancer than women with no family history of the disease." The "risk of benign breast disease rose along with how much alcohol the young women consumed, according to the study."

MedPage Today (12/20, Pal) reports, "Higher levels of cadmium, arsenic, and lead in the body appear to be associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer," according to a study published in the journal Gut. After analyzing "toenail clippings obtained from 118 EPC case patients during the PANKRAS 2 Study, conducted in 1992-1995," researchers observed "significantly increased risks of exocrine pancreatic cancer (EPC)...among subjects whose concentrations of cadmium (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.86 to 6.88, P=5X10-6), arsenic (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.78, P=0.009), and lead (OR 6.26, 95% CI 2.71 to 14.47; P=3X10-5) were in the highest quartile."

According to NBC Nightly News (12/7, story 7, 2:30, Williams), "a new report" has "set out to address fears...that things in the environment, things people use every day could cause breast cancer," and the "conclusions won't sit well with some women who are certain there is a link."

The Los Angeles Times (12/8, Healy, Times) reports, "The report, 20 months in the making, acknowledges there are many unknowns. It calls on the Food and Drug Administration to require better proof from drug makers, before and after market approval, that their products do not increase women's risk of breast cancer."

USA Today (12/8, Szabo) reports, "Researchers studying the environmental causes of breast cancer need to look at a whole lifetime of toxic exposures - even in the womb - that may predispose a woman to develop cancer decades later, says" the "report released Wednesday by" the Institute of Medicine. The new "report also points out how little chemical testing is going on. For example, the Food and Drug Administration lacks the power to test cosmetics and dietary supplements for safety, the report says."

The AP (12/8) reports, "By environment they mean everything not governed by genes - what's in the air and water but also diets, vitamin use and even things like working night shifts."

Bloomberg News (12/8, Cortez) reports, "The lack of clear ties between chemicals and other possibly toxic substances and breast cancer doesn't mean they are safe, said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, chair of the IOM committee and chief of environmental and occupational health at the University of California, Davis' School of Medicine." Although "chemicals including those in gas fumes and car exhaust such as benzene may trigger tumors, others including BPA and pesticides have less evidence implicating them...said" David Hunter, a professor of cancer prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and a study author. It is difficult "to get conclusive results because chemicals are so prevalent, and may be most harmful earlier in life, he said."

The National Journal (12/8, Sanger-Katz, Subscription Publication) reports that "the expert panel said that laboratory research suggested" the BPA could be linked to breast cancer risk "because it can resemble the hormone estrogen." Irva Herz-Picciotta, the chairwoman of the panel, said, "BPA is one of those compounds that, in fact, does have estrogenic activity."

The New York Times (12/8, Grady, Subscription Publication) reports, however, that the "exhaustive" report "finds evidence strong enough to make only a few firm recommendations, most already well known and none with a large proven benefit." According to the Times, "The most consistent data suggest that women can reduce their risk by avoiding unnecessary medical radiation, forgoing hormone treatments for menopause that combine estrogen and progestin, limiting alcohol intake and minimizing weight gain, the report found." The "overuse of CT scans, which deliver a relatively high dose of radiation, was a particular concern, but the report stated that women should not be deterred from having routine mammograms, which use a much smaller dose."

On its website, ABC News (12/8) reports, "The researchers also found that hair dyes and ionizing radiation from cell phones and other devices did not impact a woman's risk for breast cancer." The findings were presented "at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium."

According to CQ (12/8, Reichard, Subscription Publication), the report "calls for new ways of studying the issue, such as 'full life stage' testing of possible carcinogens," as "an exposure to a substance that at one stage of life that might lead to the development of breast cancer wouldn't necessarily have that effect if it occurs at another stage of life, the study's authors noted." Also covering the story are Medscape (12/8, Zimmerman, Subscription Publication), MedPage Today (12/8, Fiore), and HealthDay (12/8, Salamon).

A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies published in the JCO (Ma et al 2011 29:3775-3782 ) evaluated nine studies which analysed Vitamin D intake and serum blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] which covered 1,000,000 participants from several countries. The pooled RRs of colorectal cancer for the highest versus lowest categories of vitamin D intake and blood 25(OH)D levels were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.80), respectively. There was no heterogeneity among studies of vitamin D intake (P = .19) or among studies of blood 25(OH)D levels (P = .96). A 10 ng/mL increment in blood 25(OH)D level conferred an RR of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89). They concluded that Vitamin D intake and blood 25(OH)D levels were inversely associated with the risk of colorectal cancer in this meta-analysis

Reuters (10/21, Pittman) reports a paper in Diabetes Care suggesting that women with a recent diabetes diagnosis might be at elevated risk of breast cancer, compared to women without diabetes. This could be due to insulin and blood sugar changes that are favorable to tumor growth. On the other hand, researchers say that this may simply be because a diabetes diagnosis leads to a large number of tests and exams, which raises the chance of a cancer being found. It has previously been shown that diabetes increases the risk of colon, liver, pancreatic, and breast cancer. Researchers concluded that women with diabetes should be screened regularly for cancers, and to change behaviors, such as smoking, that lead to high cancer risk

HealthDay (11/16, Preidt) reports, "Alcoholics have a higher rate of death from cancer and other causes than other people," according to a study published in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. Investigators looked at data on approximately 2,300 individuals who received treatment at an alcohol center. The researchers "found a higher rate of death among alcoholics than among the general population for multiple types of cancers, particularly cancers of the pharynx, oral cavity, liver and larynx." The "risk of death from cancer of the esophagus, rectum, pancreas and breast was also heightened among alcoholics."

WebMD (11/7, Laino) reports on study findings presented at a meeting dedicated to gastroenterology, which found that "people with diabetes may be at increased risk for precancerous colon growths called adenomas." Colonoscopy results were compared "from 278 people with diabetes with those from 278 people without the disorder. Nearly all were male, and the average age was around 65." Twenty nine percent with diabetes had "at least one adenoma, compared with 21% of those without diabetes." March Seabrook, MD said if these results are validated "and diabetes does turn out to cause precancerous colon growths or colon cancer," diabetes may have to be screened "at a younger age, and at shorter intervals."

Reuters (11/4, Norton) reports on study results published online Oct. 7 in the American Journal of Epidemiology, which found that heavier older adults may have a greater risk of developing colon cancer. The study examined 120,000 Dutch adults between the ages of 55-69 for a 16 year time period. Men who were significantly overweight had a 25% higher risk. Additionally, waist size played a significant role in cancer risk as those with the largest bellies had a 63% higher risk. Women with a large waistline had a higher risk of cancer if they exercised less than 30 minutes a day. But women with a size 44 pant size who did little exercise had an 83% greater chance of developing cancer when compared to women with smaller waistlines who exercised for more than 90 minutes a day.

"The results are in from the biggest study of its kind in history, by the American Medical Association. 100,000 women followed over 28 years, and the conclusion? Less than a drink a day even a glass of wine with dinner, could change the risk of breast cancer." ABC World News (11/1, story 2, 1:25, Sawyer) aired a second segment on the topic, with ABC's Dr. Richard Besser commenting on the study.

NBC Nightly News (11/1, story 7, 2:00, Williams) reported, "This link isn't new material, but until now, research has focused on higher levels of drinking than that."

CBS Evening News (11/1, story 6, 2:20, Pelley) quoted study author Dr. Wendy Chen as saying, "What was new about our study is that we had enough statistical power to look at the effect of lower levels of alcohol consumption in breast cancer risk."

The Washington Post (11/2, Stein) reports that investigators "analyzed data collected from 105,986 women ages 30 to 55 who participated in the Nurses' Health Study, an ongoing project scrutinizing a host of women's health issues, between 1980 and 2008." Altogether, "7,690 of the women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer." Women "who consumed a low level of alcohol - between about 5 and 10 grams a day, which works out to about three to six glasses of wine a week - were 15 percent more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer."

Bloomberg News (11/2, Ostrow) reports that "two drinks a day increased the risk to 51 percent, according to" the study. The investigators also reported that "no increase in breast cancer risk was seen in the group who drank less than three glasses of wine a week compared with those who didn't drink." The research "was funded by the National Institutes of Health."

The New York Times (11/2, O'Connor) "Well" blog reports, "The type of alcohol the women drank did not alter the risk: Red wine raised it just as much as beer." The investigators "also asked the nurses about drinking patterns early in adulthood and found strong associations with increased risk regardless of age."

The AP (11/2, Tanner) reports, "Given research suggesting that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol including red wine may protect against heart disease, deciding whether to avoid alcohol is a personal choice that should be based on a woman's other risks for breast cancer and heart disease, the researchers said."

WebMD (11/2, Boyles) reports that "frequency of drinking -- how often women drank during the week and when -- did not appear to influence risk. The key component was how much you consistently drank over time."

HealthDay (11/2, Goodwin) reports, "One reason for the connection may be that alcohol raises levels of circulating estrogen, and high levels of estrogen are linked to breast cancer, Chen said." Also covering the story were Reuters (11/2, Joelving), BBC News (11/2), Medscape (11/2, Mulcahy), and MedPage Today (11/2, Bankhead).

The Chicago Tribune (7/3, Conis) reported on research on whether chemical compounds known as heterocyclic amines, or HCAs, found in barbecued meat increase cancer risks. In the 1970s, Japanese scientists discovered that the compounds could damage cellular and bacterial DNA in test tube experiments. Later studies found that HCAs caused tumors in lab animals. Within the past decade, "a handful of studies in human populations began to suggest that HCAs might be behind the observed association between meat consumption and cancers of the pancreas, prostate and colon." But epidemiologists note that the HCA theory "is just one of several that could explain the association between meat consumption and elevated cancer risk" -- others include nitrites, free iron or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. HCA levels can also be reduced by lowering cooking time and temperatures, or by marinating or microwaving meat for a few minutes before grilling it.

The Wall Street Journal (11/1, Beck, Subscription Publication) reports that research is increasingly suggesting that regular alcohol consumption may be linked to an increased risk of certain cancers. Even small amounts may increase the likelihood of developing some cancers, including esophageal cancer. As little as three alcoholic drinks per week may increase one's breast cancer risk, according to one study. According to Samir Zakhari, director of the division of metabolism and health effects at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, "Cancer doesn't happen overnight." Instead, Zakhari says, "It's the repeated exposure to alcohol over a long period of time that will cause damage and it has a cumulative effect."

The UK's Daily Mail (9/30) reports a study claiming that "men who consumed 2.5 eggs or more a week had an 81 per cent increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared to men who consumed less than half an egg a week." Harvard University School of Public Health researchers "suggested the damage may be done by the large amounts of cholesterol or choline â€“ a nutrient that help cells to function properly â€“ that are found in eggs."

HealthDay (10/26, Dallas) reports, "Men who drink plenty of low-sugar fluids may reduce their risk for bladder cancer," according to a study presented at the AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research. Investigators "evaluated the fluid intake of nearly 48,000 men who were part of a long-term study" and "found that the men with a high daily fluid intake, or those who drank more than 10 cups (2,531 milliliters) per day, had a 24 percent reduced risk for bladder cancer."

HealthDay (9/30, Dallas) reports that according to a study published online Sept. 27 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, "modern shift patterns may not carry the same risks for cancer as older, more extreme shift schedules." In a study of 123 hospital "shift workers who wore light-intensity meters to determine their peak melatonin levels and the overall change in melatonin levels during winter day and night shifts, as well as summer day and night shifts," researchers found that "the now common rotating shift pattern of day-day-night-night may not disrupt circadian rhythm or melatonin production significantly."

HealthDay (10/24, Dallas) reports a study to be presented "at the AACR International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research in Boston" showing that after menopause, "women who gained 61 pounds or more were two times more likely to develop endometrial cancer than women with stable weight." Researchers attribute this to the fact that "fat tissue is the major source of circulating estrogen in postmenopausal women, and estrogen promotes the development of endometrial cancer." They also "noted that more research is needed to determine if the timing of weight gain and 'yo-yo' dieting...during adulthood play a role in women's risk for endometrial cancer and whether or not weight loss reduces this risk."

Reuters (9/29, Norton) reports findings published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in which researchers analyzed 14 international studies and found that people with diabetes have a 38% higher risk of being diagnosed with colon cancer than people who do not, and males with diabetes have a 20% higher risk of rectal cancer. However, it is unclear what contributes to this increased risk. One theory is that higher levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factors in people with diabetes may stimulate cell growth.

The Los Angeles Times (9/20, Kaplan) "Booster Shots" blog reports that according to a study presented Sept. 19 at the American Association for Cancer Researcher's conference, University of Illinois-Chicago researchers surveyed 989 women with a recent breast cancer diagnosis and "found that stressed women were 38% more likely to have cancers that were estrogen receptor-negative." The study authors acknowledged that it is unclear whether "the women with more aggressive cancers were already more stressed out before they were told they had breast cancer" or were stressed during the interview because they had more aggressive tumors

Bloomberg News (8/16, Ostrow) reports, "Vitamin D, which some studies have found may protect against diabetes, heart disease and cancer, appears to raise the risk of non-melanoma malignancies," according to a study published online Aug. 15 in the Archives of Dermatology. "An analysis of data on 3,223 patients found those with the highest amounts of vitamin D from sun exposure had a 60 percent greater risk of developing the most common form of skin cancer than those with lowest levels."

HealthDay (8/16, Gardner) reports that the study "stops short of saying that high vitamin D levels might actually cause these types of cancer." And, "because ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure is necessary for vitamin D production in the body, it might simply mean that people with more sun exposure tend to develop more non-melanoma skin cancers." However, "it's unclear whether it's the damage from UV rays that accounts for the risk, or rising vitamin D levels that accompany exposure to the rays." MedPage Today (8/16, Smith) also covers the story.

The Los Angeles Times (7/11, Brown) "Booster Shots" blog reported that "in a piece published Monday, Paule Latino-Martel, a cancer researcher at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, and co-authors argued that many countries' alcohol consumption guidelines...fail to take into account long-term risks associated with drinking," including an increased risk for "mouth, throat, breast, colorectal and possibly liver cancers." The authors stated that "there is no level of alcohol consumption for which the cancer risk is null," and also noted that the WHO has recently concluded that alcohol consumption does not prevent heart disease.

HealthDay (7/13, Preidt) reported, "Wearing flip-flops and baseball caps can increase your risk of skin cancer," warned Rebecca Tung, MD, director of the dermatology division at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, IL. Dr. Tung explained, "The problem with flip-flops and baseball caps is that they leave the tips of the ears and the tops of the feet dangerously exposed to sun damage. The potential for skin cancers in those areas are real, especially on the tips of the ears." This is because those areas of the body, which have little protection against the sun's rays, are frequently overlooked when people apply sunscreen.

BBC News (7/14, Brimelow) reports, "Rising cancer rates mean four in 10 people in the UK get the disease at some point in their lives," Macmillan Cancer Support, "a health charity, says." The projections "are drawn from projections published two years ago in the British Journal of Cancer, which concluded that at the end of 2008 there were two million cancer survivors in the UK and that the figure was rising every year." The charity "also looked at recent cancer incidence and mortality statistics for the UK, indicating that 310,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2008."

MedPage Today (7/27, Bankhead) reported "data from the National Cancer Institute" published in Hepatology indicated that "patients with metabolic syndrome had as much as a twofold increased risk of liver cancer as compared with people who did not have the syndrome." Specifically, "metabolic syndrome was associated with a significantly increased risk of both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)," with a higher HCC risk. Researchers hypothesize that metabolic syndrome underlies unexplained HCC and ICC cases in the US, and propose that "approaches to control the recent worldwide epidemic of metabolic syndrome could contribute to a reduction in the liver cancer burden." The study authors cautioned that they may have underestimated or missed the prevalence of smoking, overweight, obesity, and central adiposity.

The UK's Telegraph (7/28, Beckford) reports that, according to a study published in journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, researchers in New Zealand found that people who worked on farms, especially poultry and beef cattle, had elevated risks of dying of "blood cancers such as leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." The study authors suggested that this may be due to early childhood exposure to certain viruses.

The Los Angeles Times (8/31, Hennessy-Fiske) reports that according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in "173 white and Latino seniors in Tulare, Fresno and Kern counties who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer" and 162 control subjects, men "who lived within 500 meters of places where methyl bromide, captan and eight other organochlorine pesticides had been applied" were more likely to have prostate cancer. The Times noted that researchers chose "prostate cancer in part because...the risk factors are relatively few." However, critics point out that "attempts to reconstruct exposure in retrospect are extremely uncertain," and that living near an area doesn't guarantee exposure. The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

High vitamin D levels may reduce mortality among colorectal cancer patients: Reuters (July 11, 2008)
This article describes a JCO study indicating that patients with colorectal cancer with higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D) levels prior to diagnosis have a significant reduction in overall mortality. Researchers report that further research on vitamin D levels in colorectal cancer patients must be performed before further recommendations can be made.
Article: Reuters; Abstract: JCO

The UK's Telegraph (7/27, Adams) reports that male lifetime risk of colon cancer has increased from one in 29 to one in 15 since 1975, and women's chances have gone from one in 29 to one in 19. According to the Telegraph, weight gain, more drinking, less exercise, and the fact that people live longer are all contributing to the increased risk. However, the chance of survival has also increased since 1975. The Telegraph notes, "The chance of surviving for 10 years after diagnosis is now close to 90 per cent for those identified early, while overall about half do." The statistics were published in the British Journal of Cancer. The UK's Independent (7/27, Laurance) also covers the story.

Smokeless tobacco increases risk of oral cancer: Reuters
This article discusses a study published in the journal Lancet Oncology showing that the use of chewing tobacco and snuff increases the risk of oral cancer by 80 percent and esophageal and pancreatic cancer by 60 percent. The article notes that the use of smokeless tobacco products varies widely depending on sex, age, ethnic origin and economic background, and is highest in the United States, Sweden and India.
Article: Reuters

The CBS Evening News (7/28, story 8, 2:15, Couric) reported that, according to a paper published online July 29 in The Lancet Oncology, tanning beds may "pose as big a risk as tobacco and asbestos." Medical correspondent Jon LaPook, MD, explained that the "international panel of cancer experts upgraded the warning on tanning beds from probably to definitely able to cause cancer."

The AP (7/29, Cheng) points out that "a new analysis of about 20 studies concludes the risk of skin cancer jumps by 75 percent when people start using tanning beds before age 30." In addition, researchers from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the "cancer arm" of the World Health Organization, "found that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused worrying mutations in mice, proof the radiation is carcinogenic. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal." Now, "the new classification means tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation are definite causes of cancer, alongside tobacco, the hepatitis B virus, and chimney sweeping, among others."

Canada's CBC News (7/29) explains that "until now, only UVB radiation from solar rays was known to cause a genetic mutation," but the IARC team "found the same mutation in the skin of mice treated with UVA." Therefore, "the agency decided to reclassify all types of ultraviolet radiation -- UVA, UVB, and UVC -- as carcinogenic to humans, or Group 1 carcinogens. Previously, the three UV types were grouped as probable carcinogens." CBC points out that the "WHO has warned people younger than 18 to avoid tanning beds."

According to HealthDay (7/28, Reinberg), the Food and Drug Administration "is considering strengthening its warnings about the risk of skin cancer and eye damage" related to tanning bed use, the agency said. New York's Newsday (7/29, Altherr), BBC News (7/29), and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (7/29), as well as the UK's Sun (7/29), Press Association (7/29), and Daily Telegraph (7/29) also covered the story.

The Wall Street Journal (6/21, Lukits, Subscription Publication) reports that, according to a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, sedentary behaviors, particularly those that require minimal energy expenditure, may increase the risk of developing chronic diseases including colon cancer and heart disease. Researchers collected data from 2005 to 2007 on 918 colon-cancer patients and 1,021 controls and found that those who spent 10 or more years in sedentary jobs had a twofold risk of colon cancer and a 44% increased risk of rectal cancer, compared with those whose occupations were never sedentary. Notably, those with jobs requiring heavy physical activity had a 44% decreased risk of colon cancer.

Chemical used in making rubber linked to increased cancer risk
This article reports that workers exposed to 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), a chemical used in the manufacturing process of rubber, are twice as likely to develop colon cancer and four times as likely to develop bone marrow cancer, compared to the general population. The article notes that researchers believe the increased risk of cancer may be associated with length of exposure to MBT, though further confirmatory research is being conducted.
Article: Reuters

Granite used in kitchen countertops may emit cancer-causing gas: The New York Times
This article discusses that some granite kitchen countertops may emit dangerous levels of radon, a radioactive gas that can cause lung cancer. The article notes that marble industry officials claim that the amount of radioactive materials found in granite countertops is not enough to pose a health risk, though researchers are conducting studies of granite widely used in kitchen counters. Article: The New York Times

Estrogen-like compounds in skin moisturizers may increase breast cancer risk: Reuters
This article reports on research from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium finding that six widely available moisturizers contain estriol or estrone, two estrogen-like compounds that could increase breast cancer risk if absorbed through the skin. One researcher urged women with breast cancer to forgo using these topical moisturizers, as they may interfere with their treatment. Article: Reuters

HealthDay (7/18, Mann) reported that "a large, new study" published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology "appears to quell concerns that taking statins might raise the risk of cancer." For roughly "91,000 adults whose full medical records were available via an electronic database, researchers report there was no significant difference in cancer risk among those who took statins and those who didn't." The investigators found that, "after an average of five years of follow-up among nearly 46,000 pairs of people who either used the cholesterol-lowering drugs or did not use them, 11.37 percent of participants taking a statin developed cancer, compared to 11.11 percent of those individuals not taking a statin."

Medscape (3/18, Barclay, subscription required) reported that higher alcohol consumption is "associated with an increased risk" for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but not with esophageal adenocarcinoma (OA) or adjacent tumors at the esophagogastric junction (OGJA), according to an analysis in the journal Gut. Researchers extracted data from seven studies comprised of 10,854 controls, 1,821 OA patients, 1,837 OGJA patients, and 1,016 OSCC patients. For increasing levels of "any of the alcohol intake measures evaluated, there was no apparent increase in the risk" for OA or OGJA. For the "highest-frequency category (defined as â‰¥ 7 drinks per day), the OR" was 0.97 for OA and 0.77 for OGJA. In contrast, however, alcohol intake was "strongly associated with an increased risk for OSCC, with an OR of 9.62 for seven or more drinks per day."

The Wall Street Journal (7/21, Stovall, Subscription Publication) reports, reports that for every four inches above five feet a woman is, she has a 16% increase risk of developing cancer, according to a study in The Lancet Oncology

Bloomberg News (7/21, Mead) reports that the researchers "studied more than 1 million women in the UK who reported an average height of 161 centimeters to the state-run National Health Service between 1996 and 2001." They found more than "97,000 incidents of cancer by June 2008"; and every "10 centimeters of height translated to an 17-percent increase for incidents of breast cancer, which comprised more than a third of all the observed malignancies."

The BBC News (7/21, Gallagher) reports that the researchers found that the tallest women in the group, those "over 5ft 9in, were 37% more likely to have developed a tumour than those in the shortest group, under 5ft." They study authors linked 10 cancers to height: "colon, rectal, malignant melanoma, breast, endometrial (uterus), ovarian, kidney, lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukaemia." Although the study looked "only at women, the researchers said the height link was also present in men."

MedPage Today (4/7, Bankhead) reported that the "use of talc-based powder significantly increases the risk of invasive ovarian," according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research. The researchers analyzed data from a "case-control study involving more than 2,000 women with ovarian cancer and a similar number of women without the cancer." Talc applications were estimated from "patient-reported frequency and duration of use." After adjusting for "age, parity, oral contraceptive use, tubal ligation," BMI, smoking or alcohol use, and ethnic/racial or familial breast or ovarian cancer history, the study team performed analyses for cases of nonmuscinous-invasive, nonserous-invasive, and serous-invasive cancer. They found that for all analyses, talc use was associated with "an increased prevalence of ovarian cancer; the magnitude of the difference between users and nonusers ranged between 20% and 40%, most often about 30%.

Exposure To Bright Light During Sleep May Increase Breast Cancer Risk. Today (1/9, Phend) reported, "Sleeping with the lights on could increase the risk of breast cancer, results from a large 10-year observational study suggest." After looking at "more than 1,670 Israeli women," investigators "found that those routinely exposed to higher intensity light in their sleeping environment had 22% higher odds of developing breast cancer than women who slept in full darkness," according to the paper in Chronobiology International. "It may be that leaving the lights on while sleeping interferes with melatonin production, which, in turn, modulates endogenous estrogen levels," and "several studies have also associated the circadian rhythm-regulating hormone with a protective effect against breast cancer."

The UK's Daily Mail (10/29, Macrae) reports that an "analysis of 45,000 men aged 45 to 79" appearing in the British Journal of Cancer found that "those who had highly physical jobs were 28 percent less likely to develop the disease than those who spent most of their working lives sitting." The study further found that "men who walked or cycled for more than an hour a day having a 14 percent lower risk than those who walked or cycled for 40 minutes or less a day." The researchers, from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, concluded, "Findings from this study show that not sitting for most of the time during work or occupational activity and longer daily durations of the main component of active living (walking or cycling) may be associated with reduced prostate cancer incidence."

HealthDay (5/17, Salamon) reported that penile foreskin can "harbor the human papillomavirus (HPV)," which is responsible for genital warts and 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. According to findings presented at the American Urological Association meeting, about 30 percent of the 40 foreskin tissue samples examined contained HPV strains. The samples were from males "between seven months and 82 years old who had undergone circumcision to treat phimosis." Although none of the patients had "clinical symptoms of disease," the study team found "low-risk HPV genotypes in 18.8 percent" of the foreskin tissue samples and "high-risk HPV in 9.77 percent."

Following an article in Bloomberg News, CBS News (7/28) reported on its website that "divorce and widowhood have a lingering, detrimental impact on health -- even after remarriage," according to a study expected to appear in the August issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Linda Waite, PhD, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, and Mary Elizabeth Hughes, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, "examined the marital history and health indicators for 8,652 middle-aged people in research funded by the National Institute on Aging," according to CNN (7/28, Park). They found "that divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, or cancer than married people," and they "also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block." WebMD (7/28, Boyles) and the New York Daily News (7/28, Chernikoff) also cover the story.

USA Today (6/15, Shorman) reports that, according to a study published online in April by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, "people in the USA are more likely to develop skin cancer, such as melanoma and merkel cell carcinoma, on the left side of their bodies." Investigators theorize that "driving may be to blame, because the left arm receives more UV." After analyzing data from a government database, researchers "found that when skin cancer occurred on one side of the body, 52% of melanoma cases and 53% of merkel cell carcinomas were on the left side. On the upper arms, 55% of merkel cell cases developed on the left side." In Australia, where people drive on the right side of the road, researchers noted a similar pattern of precancerous skin growths on the right side.

Bloomberg News (6/16, Ostrow) reports, "Men with lean physiques at age 18 have a lower chance of dying from cancer later in life than those who are obese at that age," according to a study published in the Annals of Oncology. Investigators found that "men with the lowest body mass index at age 18 were 35 percent less likely to die from cancer than those with the highest BMIs." The researchers also found that "smoking and physical activity as a young adult didn't affect results." The UK's Telegraph (6/16, Beckford) also covered the story.

The AP (6/16, Marchione) reports that despite all the "recent news about possible cancer risks from cellphones, coffee, styrene, and formaldehyde in building materials," health experts say that most people "probably face little if any danger from these things with ordinary use." Linda Birnbaum from the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences concurs. The government agency "just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk. ... Levels of styrene that leach from food containers 'are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,' where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers," she said. Experts emphasize, however, that "inactivity and obesity may pose a greater cancer risk than chemicals for some people."

Medscape (6/21, Gandey) reported that the issue of cell phones as a potential health risk resurfaced recently: A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that using a cell phone "for as little as 50 minutes at a time appears to affect brain glucose metabolism," and a World Health Organization panel announced (pdf) that cell phone use "should be considered 'possibly carcinogenic.'" The 2B classification "is very weak, and I think people are now focusing too much on the possibly carcinogenic part," said neuro-oncologist Lynne Taylor, MD, from Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle. This is "neither new research nor at odds with previous findings," noted a National Cancer Institute statement. Meanwhile, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is currently conducting a large, laboratory study on "cell phone radiofrequency exposures and potential health hazards."

The Food and Drug Administration's long-awaited announcement yesterday of significant changes to sunscreen labeling was widely reported both by television and print media. The changes will empower consumers to make better decisions in choosing a product to prevent sun damage as well as reduce overall confusion about sunscreens.

The CBS Evening News (6/14, story 9, 0:30, Pelley) reported, "The government put out new rules today for sunscreens. From now on, the gold standard will be broad-spectrum protection. Manufacturers may put that on the label only if the sunscreen protects [against] ultraviolet B which causes burning and ultraviolet A which causes wrinkling." Both forms of UV rays "cause skin cancer, and only sunscreens with an SPF 15 or higher may claim to lower the risk of cancer."

On NBC Nightly News (6/14, lead story, 2:50, Williams), chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman, MD, explained, "One of the biggest changes is this, a drug facts label showing ingredients and differentiating between products that protect against cancer from those that only prevent sunburn."

On ABC World News (6/14, lead story, 3:20, Sawyer), correspondent Lisa Stark pointed out why the change is so important. "Despite the explosion of sales of sunscreens, there's also been an explosion of skin cancer," as evidenced by the fact that "cases of the most deadly kind of skin cancer, melanoma, increased 45% between 1992 and 2004," particularly in young people.

In a follow-on analysis piece on ABC World News (6/14, story 2, 1:15, Sawyer), chief health and medical editor Richard Besser, MD, explained that the action taken by the FDA on sunscreen labeling was "done five years ago" by European regulators. Besser suggested that consumers looking for sunscreen should examine "the UVB number. I recommend 30, at least. That will protect you against that. But for UVA, you need to go to" a list put together by Consumer Reports specifically for products "tested for UVA. By next year you'll be able to trust the labels for everything."

The AP (6/15, Perrone) reports that beginning next summer, if sunscreens do not protect against both UVA and UVB rays, "or the sun protection factor is below 15," then sunscreens must "carry a warning: 'This product has been shown only to help prevent sunburn, not skin cancer or early skin aging.'"

Bloomberg News (6/15, Larkin) reports, "Lawmakers have urged the FDA for more than a decade to revise sunscreen labels to address cancer-causing UVA rays that penetrate deeper into skin cells and aren't blocked by window glass." Unfortunately, "'twenty percent of Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime,' said" Moy at yesterday's press conference at FDA's headquarters. "Ultraviolet exposure is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer."

The Los Angeles Times (6/15, Maugh) reports that the FDA "has been considering such regulations since 1978 and released some proposed rules in 2007, but subsequently concluded that the labeling system under consideration would be too confusing for consumers."

The Washington Post (6/15, Stein) reports that "the agency is barring the use of the term 'sunblock' as well as claims that sunscreens are 'waterproof' or 'sweatproof,' saying those terms are inaccurate." Under the new guidelines, "sunscreen makers will only be allowed to claim that products are 'water-resistant' and will have to specify whether they work for 40 or 80 minutes." Sunscreens "that do not must carry warnings advising people to use a water-resistant product if they are going to be exposed to water or sweat."

On its front page, the New York Times (6/15, A1, Harris, Subscription Publication) reports that FDA "regulators said they had yet to decide whether to end an SPF arms race in which manufacturers are introducing sunscreens with SPF numbers of 70, 80 and 100, even though such lotions offer little more protection than those with an SPF of 50." In fact, the FDA "had proposed allowing manufacturers to use SPF numbers no higher than 50, but that remains only a proposal (pdf) for which the agency will seek further comment."

USA Today (6/15, Szabo) reports that currently, "the American Academy of Dermatology recommends both adults and children use a sunscreen with an SPF of at least 30."

Also covering the story are the UK's Financial Times (6/15, Rappeport, Subscription Publication), the Wall Street Journal (615, D1, Dooren, Subscription Publication), the Wall Street Journal (6/15, Hobson, Subscription Publication) "Health Blog," the Star-Ledger (6/15, Todd), the CNN (6/14, Willingham) "The Chart" blog, the Columbus Dispatch (6/15, Jacobson), the NPR (6/14, Thrasybule) "Shots" blog, WebMD (6/14, DeNoon), HealthDay (6/14, Reinberg), MedPage Today (6/14, Walker), and Reuters (6/14). An FDA webcast of the press conference announcing the rule is available for viewing here.

On its website, ABC News (6/10, Murray) reported that HHS added "eight more substances to its 'known human carcinogen' or 'reasonably anticipated to be carcinogen' lists today, one week after a World Health Organization study concluded that cell phones may cause cancer."

The Los Angeles Times (6/10, Dennis) "Booster Shots" blog reported that formaldehyde "now officially falls into the 'known to be a human carcinogen' category," and styrene can now "officially be described as 'reasonably anticipated' to be cancer-causing," according to the Department of Health and Human Services' updated " Report on Carcinogens."

In a front-page story, the New York Times (6/13, A1, Harris, Subscription Publication) reports that the federal government on Friday issued warnings about the "two materials used daily by millions of Americans." The report by NIH's National Toxicology Program found evidence that styrene, which is used in "boats, bathtubs, and in disposable foam plastic cups and plates," may increase the risks of "cancer of the pancreas and esophagus," the report found. Consumers can be exposed to styrene from the "fumes of building materials, photocopiers and tobacco smoke." According to the AP (6/11), NIH says the greatest exposure to styrene is "through cigarette smoking."

The Time (6/10, Walsh) "Healthland" explained that the report found that "concerning amounts of formaldehyde could be encountered in plywood and particle boards, as well as in hair salons and in mortuaries," and the exposure is "most intense" among workers in "some manufacturing plants." With formaldehyde and styrene, the government also added captafol, cobalt-tungsten carbide, "certain inhalable glass wool fibers, o-nitrotoluene," and riddelliine to its twelfth report, bringing the total to 240 carcinogens. Notably, studies of mortuary workers "exposed to high levels of formaldehyde have shown increased incidences of certain kinds of rare nasal cancers."

The New York Daily News (6/10) noted that the report also linked formaldehyde to leukemia. The American Cancer Society "said consumers should not worry about cups or food containers, but should shelve personal products with formaldehyde."

The Washington Post (6/11, Stein) noted that most of the cancer risk evidence "came from people exposed to relatively high levels in industrial settings. 'A listing...does not by itself mean that a substance will cause cancer,'" said Dr. John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program. Moreover, Dr. Bucher said the updated listings "do not trigger any immediate new restrictions on the substances, but other government agencies may use the information in the future as part of their regulatory decisions." He said individuals can use the list to "make personal choices," noting that most people's "routine exposure to the newly listed substances was probably low."

Bloomberg News (6/10, Young) pointed out that aristolochic acids, which are "found in herbal products used to treat arthritis and gout," were also listed as carcinogens, because they "can cause bladder or urinary-tract cancer in people with kidney disease." Meanwhile, American Chemistry Council CEO Cal Dooley released a statement saying the report "makes 'unfounded classifications' about formaldehyde and styrene that will scare consumers," and the American Composite Manufacturers Association disputed the styrene and cancer link with a statement saying, "styrene-based composite material system has been used safely for over 60 years."

Also covering the updated carcinogens report were Reuters (6/11, Simao), CNN (6/11), the Washington Post (6/12, Stein) "The Checkup" blog, HealthDay (6/10, Goodwin), and WebMD (6/10, DeNoon).

The Wall Street Journal (6/8, Feintzeig, Subscription Publication) "Bankruptcy Beat" blog suggests that those consider restructuring could learn something from research presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. In the study, which is also published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers analyzed National Cancer Institute data and bankruptcy-court records from Washington state. They found that out of 231,799 patients with cancer, 4,805 (2.1%) sought personal bankruptcy protection within one to five years following diagnosis. Those most likely to file for bankruptcy were individuals diagnosed with lung, thyroid, and leukemia and lymphoma cancers. The study team noted that surgery and chemotherapy increased the likelihood that patients would seek bankruptcy protection.

Cancer Patients Struggling As Out-Of-Pocket Healthcare, Drug Expenses Continue To Escalate. In continuing coverage, HealthDay (6/7, Preidt) reported that increasing "out-of-pocket expenses" are forcing many cancer patients in the US to "forgo drugs and doctor appointments and to cut back on food and other necessities," according to findings presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. Researchers reviewed data on "216 cancer patients" contacted the HealthWell Foundation, which "helps underinsured patients afford expensive medications." Of the all but one patient who had health insurance, 66 percent were "covered by Medicare and 83 percent had prescription drug coverage." The patients' out-of-pocket costs "averaged $712 a month for things such as prescription drugs, doctor visit copays, lost wages and travel to medical appointments. These expenses were a significant problem for 30 percent of the patients and a catastrophic problem for 11 percent," according to the study authors.

Metformin diabetes and breast cancer. Breast cancer and associated diabetes mellitus have gained raising interest as an elevated risk of breast cancer prognosis resulting in increased mortality in diabetic patients. In this context, the long-acting insulin analog glargine and other antidiabetics have been discussed to promote tumorigenesis. In contrast, the biguanide class oral antidiabetic metformin has been shown capable of enhancing cell cycle arrest and inducing apoptosis as well as reducing growth factor signaling. Consequently, several studies are underway to evaluate a possible role of metformin in breast cancer treatment. Although mechanisms involved are not definitely clear yet, here, we discuss metformin's anticancer effects including the potential impact of the immune system

According to the Wellness blog, hosted by Time (8/19, Blue), "burning everyday paraffin-wax candles can emit a storm of toxic chemicals, including toluene and benzene." While "it's nowhere near as harmful to light an occasional candle as it would be, say, to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day," researchers at South Carolina State University "say that frequent candle burning in tight, unventilated areas has been implicated in lung cancer, asthma, and skin rash."

Speaking before a chemical society meeting, the researchers explained that the "candles, which are made from petroleum, are a source of known human carcinogens and indoor pollution," HealthDay (8/19, Thompson) reported. So, "lighting many paraffin candles every day for years or lighting them frequently in an unventilated bathroom around a tub, for example, may cause problems." However, "candles made from beeswax or soy, although more expensive, apparently are safer, because they do not release potentially harmful pollutants." The UK's Daily Mail (8/20, Macrae) and the Telegraph (8/20, Alleyne) also cover the study.

Experts urge caution on high consumption of yerba mate tea:
This article discusses research suggesting that lifelong drinkers of yerba mate tea - a tea native to South America that is gaining popularity for its high caffeine and antioxidant content - are at increased risk of developing some cancers. The article notes two studies finding that regular consumption of yerba mate increased risk of lung, respiratory or digestive cancers by as much as 60 percent. The article notes, however, that cancer and epidemiology experts disagree somewhat on the association between yerba mate consumption and cancer risk. Los Angeles Times

Folic acid supplements associated with increased prostate cancer risk: These articles report on a JNCI study finding that men who took folic acid supplements were more than twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, compared with men who took a placebo. Researchers note that the estimated prostate cancer risk was 9.7 percent for participants in the folic acid group and 3.3 percent for the placebo group . They also found, however, that prostate cancer incidence was slightly lower in men who had adequate amounts of folate in their diet. HealthDay News

The New York Times (6/14, D5, O'Connor, Subscription Publication) "Really?" column takes on the claim that oxybenzone, "a chemical in sunscreen, absorbed through the skin, may be even more hazardous than the sun's rays." A study in rats concluded that animals consuming large doses of the substance developed side effects, such as abnormal growth of the uterus. However, "in March, researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York published an independent report examining all the evidence on the subject and concluded that the alarming findings from early animal studies relied on unrealistic dosages" that human beings would never encounter while using sunscreen. The column concludes, "Exposure to oxybenzone, through normal sunscreen use, is safe, studies find."

HealthDay (7/26, Gardner) reported that last spring, the "Environmental Working Group...called on the US Food and Drug Administration to finish a review of data on the safety of retinyl palmitate, a derivative of vitamin A added to many sunscreens" that the group believes "elevates the risk of skin cancer." The "EWG also objected to oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), another ingredient of many sunscreens, which it says is a hormone disruptor." But, the "research behind these allegations...has mostly been in lab animals and is dubious at best, said Dr. Jeffrey Dover, president of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery." Nevertheless, "Shelly L. Burgess, FDA spokeswoman, on Friday said the FDA is awaiting a final review of data on retinyl palmitate by the National Toxicology Program of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences."

BBC News (7/14, Willey) reported, "Some 60 huge steel aerials were erected on farmland owned by the Vatican during the last century" to "transmit Vatican Radio programs around the world on medium and short wave." For the last 10 years, "Italian courts have been investigating" whether the "abnormally high number of deaths from cancer among families living near the aerials just north of the Italian capital can be attributed to electromagnetic radiation." Now, a "300-page report, ordered by the courts and carried out by Italy's most prestigious cancer research hospital...concludes that there is a connection between radiation and the cancer incidents."

The "claims of Professor Andrea Micheli, from Milan's National Tumor Institute, focus on 19 child deaths from leukemia or lymphoma between 1980 and 2003 in the Cesano area," the UK's Independent (7/15, Day) reports. Micheli "said the raised cancer risk occurred in children under 14 who lived less than 7.5 miles from the masts," and he also "found evidence of a link between the radiation and adult cancers -- but only among those who lived much closer to the antennae." Consequently, "six officials of Vatican Radio have been placed under investigation for manslaughter." AFP (7/14) also covered the story

The AP (6/23, Cheng) reports that "children whose mothers lived close to a mobile phone tower while pregnant did not appear to be at any higher risk of cancer than children whose mothers lived farther away," according to a study published in the British Medical Journal. Investigators "analyzed 1,397 cancer cases in children up to age four from 1999 to 2001 in the United Kingdom. Using a national birth registry, they identified 5,588 similar children without cancer."

The Los Angeles Times (6/22, Kaplan) "Booster Shots" blog reported that "the team also gathered detailed data about all 81,781 cellphone towers that were operational in the country during that time, including each tower's location, height, output power, and how many antennas it had." The researchers found that, "in virtually every permutation of their calculations, there was no correlation between the cellphone towers and the cancer cases."

Bloomberg News (6/23, Hallam) reports that "the study is the largest of its kind, and the findings should put any reports of cancer clusters around mobile-phone towers into context, the researchers wrote."

The Washington Post (6/22, Stein) "The Checkup" blog reported that, "in an editorial accompanying the study, John Bithell of the University of Oxford said that while the study had some shortcoming, the findings should be reassuring to people living near cell phone towers."

According to the UK's Independent (6/23, Laurance), "reports of clusters of cancer cases among families living close to the masts led to demands that the masts be moved." However, "the numbers involved have been too small, and the risks of a biased selection of cases too high, to draw firm conclusions."

AFP (6/22) reported that "the authors cautioned that they were unable to get information about individual exposure among mothers-to-be to a mobile phone handset. Electromagnetic radiation from a handset during conversation is many times higher than that from a phone mast." The UK's Press Association (6/22), HealthDay (6/22, Reinberg), and Reuters (6/23, Kelland) also covered the story.

ABC World News (5/31, lead story, 3:10, Sawyer) reported, "An important new alert about the safety of cell phones and the possible risk of cancer, brain cancer in particular...comes from the World Health Organization." NBC Nightly News (5/31, lead story, 3:10, Williams) reported, the WHO "statement labeling cell phones as a possible carcinogenic hazard comes from a panel of 31 scientists."

According to the AP (6/1, Cheng), the statement was "issued in Lyon, France, on Tuesday by the International Agency for Research on Cancer" (IARC) after a "weeklong meeting" during which experts reviewed "possible links between cancer and the type of electromagnetic radiation found in cellphones, microwaves and radar." The IARC classified cellphones in "category 2B, meaning they are possibly carcinogenic" to humans. The assessment now "goes to WHO and national health agencies for possible guidance on cellphone use."

The Wall Street Journal (6/1, Martin, Hobson, Subscription Publication) reports that the IARC working group did not conduct new research. Instead, the panel reviewed existing literature that focused on the health effects of radio frequency magnetic fields. Its findings are slated to be published July 1 in Lancet Oncology.

The New York Times (5/31, Parker-Pope, Barringer, Subscription Publication) "Well" blog noted that the panel's decision to "classify cellphones as 'possibly carcinogenic' was based largely on epidemiological data showing an increased risk among heavy cellphone users of a rare type of brain tumor called a glioma." Most "major medical groups," including the National Cancer Institute, have "said the existing data on cellphones and health has been reassuring." Earlier this year, the Journal of the American Medical Association "reported on research from the National Institutes of Health, which found that less than an hour of cellphone use can speed up brain activity in the area closest to the phone antenna."

The Los Angeles Times (6/1, Roan, Gabler) reports that a 2010 study (pdf) published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found a "40% increase risk of gliomas for people who used a cellphone an average of 30 minutes a day over a 10-year period." The Orange County (CA) Register (5/31, Brennan) reported that the literature review also indicated "long-term or heavier use" of cell phones may increase risk for a "cancer type called acoustic neuroma."

Bloomberg News (5/31, Kresge) reported that the most recent research "considered dated to 2004, and exposure levels from handsets have dropped over time," said IARC Working Group Chair Dr. Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California. The age of the studies also means the participants "had used their phones for no more than 10 to 15 years, leaving open the question of the effect of longer-term exposure," he noted.

Preliminary Study Suggests Antihistamines May Increase Risk Of Tumor Development.

The CNN (2/7, Landau) "The Chart" blog reports, "More than dozen small studies have suggested that people with allergies are less likely to develop gliomas." However, in an analysis in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, when researchers looked at information from 419 patients who had glioma and 612 who did not, they found that antihistamine use "actually increased a person's chance of developing a glioma." Co-author Dr. Bridget McCarthy of the University of Illinois, theorizes that certain medications may take "away the protective value of the allergic reaction against cancer." To further explore these ideas, Dr. Bondy and colleagues are "recruiting 6,000 cases and 6,000 controls for a large-scale epidemiological study on protective factors in glioma."

Medscape (2/24, Fox) reported, "Vietnam veterans who were exposed to the defoliate Agent Orange are 49% more likely than nonexposed veterans to be diagnosed with prostate cancer," according to a study presented at the Genitourinary Cancers Symposium. The researchers reviewed clinical data from 2,270 veterans, of whom 869 had prostate cancer. After adjusting for "all significant confounders," they concluded that "veterans with prostate cancer were 49% more likely to have been exposed to Agent Orange than men who didn't have cancer." Exposure to Agent Orange was also associated with "younger age at diagnosis. Men found to have prostate cancer were roughly five years younger at diagnosis than men without exposure."

The Chicago Sun-Times (5/31, Szabo) reported that "since 1992, rates of melanoma -- once considered an old person's disease -- have risen three percent a year in white women 15 to 39, the American Cancer Society says." Unfortunately, "people who have used tanning beds are 74 percent more likely than others to develop melanoma, a 2010 study shows." For that reason, among others, "the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Dermatology and World Health Organization all have called on states to ban children under 18 from tanning salons."

The UK's Press Association (9/25) reports that, according to a study published online Sept. 24 in the International Journal of Andrology, "pollutant chemicals in mothers' breast milk have been linked to an increased rate of testicular cancer." Researchers found that "Danish men are up to four times more likely to have testicular cancer as men in neighboring Finland." The populace "also suffers high rates of other male reproductive disorders, including poor semen quality and genital abnormalities." There has been speculation that "man-made pollutants that alter the effect of hormones" are to blame.

For the study, investigators "measured levels of 121 chemicals in 68 samples of breast milk from women in Denmark and Finland," the UK's Telegraph (9/25) reported. "They found a dramatic difference between the two countries," as "Danish breast milk had significantly higher levels of some chemicals, including dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides, than Finnish breast milk." Still, "why women in Denmark should have more of the chemicals in their breast milk than their Finnish neighbors remains unclear." The work "reinforces," however, "the view that environmental exposure to EDCs may explain some of the temporal and between-country differences in incidence of male reproductive disorders." HealthDay (9/24, Preidt) also covered the story.

Heavy drinking may be linked to increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer, research suggests.Heavy drinking, especially when it's beer, increases the risk for highly aggressive prostate cancer," according to a University of California-San Francisco study published online in Cancer. The team "did not set out to determine the effect of alcohol consumption on prostate cancer risk, but rather to test the effectiveness of finasteride (Proscar, Propecia), a drug prescribed to prevent prostate cancer." While they discovered "that heavy drinking reduces the cancer-preventing effect of finasteride," investigators also developed a better understanding about the "relationship between alcohol consumption and prostate cancer risk."

Apparently, "men who consumed at least 50 grams of alcohol (at least four drinks) daily doubled their risk of high-grade prostate cancer," a finding that held true in both the "placebo and finasteride arms of the trial," according to MedPage Today (7/13, Bankhead). "Heavy drinking did not influence the risk of low-grade cancer in the placebo arm, but significantly increased the risk in men taking finasteride." The "overall risk increase in the finasteride group came about from a significant risk reduction in men who drank less than 50 grams of alcohol, combined with finasteride's lack of effect among heavier drinkers." Reuters (7/14) also covers the trial.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune (2/8, Hanson) reports that "a University of Minnesota study suggests that drinking two or more soft drinks a week nearly doubles the risk of developing pancreatic cancer." Investigators "studied the dietary habits of more than 60,000 adults in Singapore for 14 years." The researchers "found that those who drank high amounts of sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages were 87 percent more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who did not."

The Washington Post (2/8, Huget) "The Checkup" blog reported that "the study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, notes that lifestyles in Singapore have much in common with those in the US and that the findings should apply to Caucasians as well as to the Asians who were tracked."

The UK's Daily Mail (2/8, Derbyshire) reports that "the findings are published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention." Reuters (2/8), the UK's Press Association (2/8), and the UK's Telegraph (2/8, Alleyne) also cover the story.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (3/28) reported, "Tanning, whether outdoors in the sun or indoors, increases a teen's risk of getting melanoma, a potentially deadly skin cancer," according to Robin Gehris, MD, chief of pediatric dermatologic surgery at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. "Her advice to teens is to avoid indoor tanning," which "can lead to burning, which is riskier for cancer on a teen than on an adult." In any case, tanning, whether outside on the beach or indoors in a tanning bed, causes skin to wrinkle and age prematurely, Dr. Gehris explained.

Reuters (9/10, Harding) reports that since 1979, scientists have been trying to discern whether improperly laid power lines or kitchen appliances exacerbated children's cancer risk. Prior studies have established a flimsy association between extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MFs) and leukemia. Now, a review of 10 studies, which is detailed by University of California-Los Angeles researchers in the American Journal of Epidemiology, indicates that the link between ELF-MF and brain tumors is even weaker.

The Wall Street Journal (1/12, Winslow, subscription required) reports that there may be a link between the time an individual spends watching television and his or her risk of death, according to a study published in the journal Circulation.

Bloomberg News (1/12, Matsuyama, Saminather) reports that investigators "tracked the TV-viewing habits of 8,800 adults and followed them for six years."

The study findings indicated that "every hour of daily TV watching increased the risk of dying from any cause by 11 percent," HealthDay (1/11, Reinberg) reported. The researchers found that "for cardiovascular diseases the increased risk was 18 percent, and for cancer it was nine percent."

MedPage Today (6/21, Neale) reported that "exposure to the long-banned organochloride insecticide chlordecone may be associated with a greater chance of developing prostate cancer," according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Investigators found that, "among residents of Guadeloupe, those who had the highest plasma levels of the chemical had 1.77-fold (95% CI 1.21 to 2.58) higher odds of being diagnosed with prostate cancer." These "findings...were similar when past exposure to chlordecone was assessed using a combination of years of residence in the French West Indies and plasma concentration of the insecticide, which was used in that country for over 30 years."

Study Suggests Chronic Acetaminophen Use May Increase Risk For Developing Blood Cancers.

Reuters (5/9, Joelving) reported that chronic users of painkillers containing acetaminophen may be at slightly higher risk for developing blood cancers, according to a study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The researchers followed approximately 65,000 older men and women who had used acetaminophen-containing painkillers over the past 10 years and did not have cancer. Over an average of six years, however, 577 participants (slightly less than 1%) developed a blood cancer, such as lymphoma or myelodysplastic syndrome. When the study team looked at the acetaminophen use, they found that over 9% of those who developed the blood cancers had used high amounts of the OTC painkiller chronically.

The Salt Lake Tribune (6/23) reports that "coffee may protect drinkers from cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx," according to a study published online by the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

The CNN (6/22, Henry) "Paging Dr. Gupta" blog reported that investigators "looked at nine existing studies and analyzed how much coffee was consumed by more than 5,000 cancer patients and about 9,000 healthy people." The investigators "found that regular coffee drinkers -- those who drank more than four cups of coffee a day -- had a 39 percent decreased risk of two types of head and neck cancer: oral cavity and pharynx cancers." However, "coffee did not decrease the risk of a third type of oral cancer -- laryngeal cancer."

The UK's Press Association (6/23) reports that, according to lead researcher Dr Mia Hashibe, "Since coffee is so widely used and there is a relatively high incidence and low survival rate of these forms of cancers, our results have important public health implications that need to be further addressed."

The UK's Guardian (6/23, Jha) reports that the research "adds to the growing body of evidence on the benefits of caffeinated drinks." Researchers "at Imperial College London also found that people who drank more than five cups of coffee or tea a day had a decreased risk of a type of brain tumour called a glioma. And, last year, Harvard University researchers showed that men who drank coffee had a 60% reduced risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer, compared with men who drank no coffee." Reuters (6/23) also covers the story.

Reuters (5/6, Kelland) reported that 35-year study has found no evidence to link living near nuclear power plants with an increased risk for developing childhood leukemia. Scientists on the Committee of the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) said that within 3.1 miles of nuclear power stations from 1969 to 2004, they found only 20 cases of childhood leukemia. And, when they expanded the nuclear power plant radius out to 15.5 miles, they found only 430 cases of childhood leukemia during the same 35 years.

MedPage Today (5/2, Fiore) reports, "Despite warnings about melanoma risk, young women and teens still prefer to tan," according to a survey from the American Academy of Dermatology. The survey found that, "among almost 4,000 girls ages 14 to 22, the vast majority (81%) said they sunbathe outdoors either frequently or occasionally." In a statement, Ronald Moy, MD, FAAD, AAD president, said, "Exposure to UV radiation is the leading risk factor for skin cancer, yet -- despite this knowledge -- droves of teens and young women are flocking to tanning bed facilities and beaches or pools to tan every year."

Bloomberg News (4/7, Lawrence) reports, "Antidepressants may be linked to a risk of breast and ovarian cancer." According to a study in the journal PLoS ONE, the "risk of cancer increased 11 percent on average for patients taking antidepressants." The researchers analyzed "61 studies and found 20 that identified a link. The connection was stronger" in cases of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Of 16 studies that looked at SSRIs, "15 detected a higher chance of cancer. ... 'The findings point to a need for more research on SSRI use in women and the link to cancer,'" said lead study author Lisa Cosgrove, a "research lab fellow at Harvard's Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics in Cambridge."

Cured meats associated with increased risk for childhood acute leukemia
This article reports on a BMC Cancer study finding that Taiwanese children and teenagers who ate cured meats and fish more than once a week had a 74 percent higher risk of developing acute leukemia than children and teens who rarely ate those foods and consumed more vegetable and soy products. The article notes that cured meats contain nitrites, precursors to nitrosamines, which can trigger tumor growth , while vegetables and soy contain antioxidants that neutralize these compounds. The article also notes that further research is needed to confirm the preliminary findings.Article: Reuters

Exposure to nighttime artificial light may increase prostate cancer risk: The Washington Post (February 17)
This article reports on a Chronobiology International study suggesting that exposure to artificial light at night may increase a man's prostate cancer risk. The article notes that the study analyzed satellite measurements of nighttime light emissions and cancer rates in 164 countries, finding that nations that emit the most light at night are more likely to have the highest prostate cancer rates. The article explains that the Unites States, which has among the highest nighttime light emissions, has a prostate cancer rate of about 125 cases per 100,000, compared with about 67 per 100,000 among countries with the lowest nighttime light emissions. Article: The Washington Post

BBC News (4/7) reported that "one-in-10 of all cancers in men and one-in-33 of all cancers in women are caused by past or current alcohol intake," according to a study in the British Medical Journal. The researchers found that individuals who drank "more than two standard drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women were particularly at risk of alcohol-related cancers." Essentially, alcohol-related cancers which were "one-in-three in men and one-in-20 in women are caused by any excessive drinking." The study authors calculated that in 2008, "current and past drinking habits were responsible for about 13,000 cases of alcohol-related cancer in the UK, out of a total of 304,000 cancer cases." The results were gathered as part of a large study following "363,988 men and women in eight European countries."

According to Reuters (4/8, Kelland), the study authors defined a standard drink as one containing approximately 12 grams of alcohol. This equates to a 125-ml glass of wine or about half of a pint of beer.

Heavy Beer Drinkers With ADH1 Gene Variant May Have Increased Risk Of Gastric Cancer.

Medscape (4/15, Nelson, Subscription Publication) reported that a "genetic variant might predispose heavy beer drinkers to a higher risk for gastric cancer," according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. The researchers found that drinking "30 g of pure ethanol/alcohol or more a day derived from beer was associated with a 75% increased risk for gastric cancer." Notably, when they looked at interactions between the alcohol dehydrogenase gene cluster (ADH1) "locus SNPs and baseline alcohol consumption, the authors noted a statistically significant interaction between rs1230025 and beer consumption." The presence of "SNP rs230025 was associated with a 30% increased risk for gastric cancer."

The Los Angeles Times (4/11, Cevallos) "Booster Shots" blog reports that cancer risk "increases with every extra daily drink," according to a study in the British Medical Journal. The analysis of "364,000 people in eight countries," found that "44% of cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract" in men and 25% in women "might be linked to alcohol"; liver cancer "(33% in men, 18% in women)"; colorectal cancer "(17% in men, 4% in women)"; and about 5% of "breast cancers in women." The American Cancer Society agrees that alcohol "raises the risk of cancer in the mouth, throat, voice box and esophagus." Alcohol may act as a "solvent," to tissue lining, "allowing harmful chemicals through (especially tobacco from smoking)," ACS explained. Alcohol may also raise drinkers' cirrhosis risk by "further damaging liver cells"; and it may "change estrogen levels," increasing breast cancer risk.

Reuters (4/8, Gillam) reported that Although for over 30 years, glyphosate -- an essential ingredient in Roundup herbicide -- has been promoted a safe element in global food production, critics say it could cause infertility or cancer. Now, amid increased pressure from environmentalists, consumer groups and scientists, the Environmental Protection Agency is conducted an examination and has set a 2015 deadline for determining if glyphosate should continue to be sold as is, limited, or banned. The EPA is working with Canadian regulators to assess the herbicide's safety, Meanwhile, there are several pending lawsuits about the product's health effects.

NBC Nightly News (9/14, story 6, 2:30, Williams) reported that people often "worry about whether or not" cell phones are "safe. It was a concern that led to some sharp questioning on Capitol Hill in Washington" on Monday. NBC's Bazell added, "Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), who has survived two bouts of lymphoma, requested the hearing, asking whether cell phones might cause cancer." One scientist at the hearing, "from the cell phone industry...said huge numbers of studies found no link between cell phone use and cancer." However, "an Israeli physician, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, said one study showed preliminary evidence there might be some risk after ten years of use."

The panel told the Senate appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services that "more research is needed to determine whether cell phone radiation is harmful to humans, especially children," USA Today (9/15, Cauley) reports. "One thing most panelists agreed on: Children, because of their thinner skulls, are far more susceptible to radiation than adults."

Still, the FDA, on its website, says, "The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems," ABC News (9/15, De Nies) points out. Likewise, ABC senior health and medical editor Dr. Richard Besser said, "The best science doesn't show a link between cell phone use and cancer of any kind. No link whatsoever."

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (9/14) explained that the hearing Monday "was held to examine whether to provide additional funding to the National Institutes of Health to study cell phone use as it relates to cancer." Currently, NIH "is conducting a $24 million study in which mice are exposed to cell-phone radiation over a period of several years. Results are not due until 2014, according to testimony from John R. Bucher, associate director of the national toxicology program for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is part of NIH."

Dr. Bucher said, "Children have a configuration of their skull that does allow penetration of cell-phone radiation," CNN (9/15) reports, but notes, "Bucher stopped short of declaring a causal link between cell-phone use and human cancer."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) -- the new chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education -- vowed to continue investigating a possible link in the HELP committee and with the NIH, according to Reuters (9/15, Fox). CBS News /CNET (9/15, Reardon), and the Dow Jones Newswire (9/15, Johnson) also cover the story.

The Forbes (3/10, Tobias) "Green Conversations" blog notes that a "2009 report by the President's Cancer Panel warns of growing evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, recognizing that these risks may be prevented." Notably, there are "more than 100,000 chemicals in commercial use," including pesticides; and more data are "emerging pointing to exposures in humans at younger ages than previously thought." Such chemicals may even be in the "foods we consume," a point highlighted in a study by the Department of Health and Human Services, which "cites two 'linked' reasons why people may get cancer: 'an increasingly toxic landscape in which we live, both indoors and outdoors, contaminated by potentially carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the food we choose to eat.'" Conversely, according to an "important publication from the NIH," in the US, "only 41% (of the human population) ever get cancer."

MedPage Today (3/19, Fiore) reported that although "individual cancer risk from airport x-ray machines is probably small, the large number of Americans passing through these backscatter x-ray devices every year could result in a slightly increased population risk." And that could "raise concerns 'about the long-term consequences of an extremely large number of people all being exposed to a small radiation-induced cancer risk,'" especially considering that there will be about one billion "passenger scans in the US alone this year," wrote David Brenner, PhD, DSc, of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. Dr. Brenner and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Director David Schauer, ScD, CHP, offered their views on airport scans in this month's issue of the journal Radiology.

Bloomberg News (3/29, Ostrow) reports, "Airport body scanners pose little radiation risk to travelers, emitting less than 1 percent of the dose a person would get from cosmic rays while flying at high altitudes," according to an online-first study in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The American College of Radiology's Safety Committee Chair Dr. Richard Morin "said radiation isn't well understood. 'The levels we're talking about are lower than actual background radiation,'" said Morin, who wasn't involved in the study.

According to the Boston Globe (3/28, Kotz) "Daily Dose" blog, the study "equated the small dose of radiation delivered by the scanner with other radiation doses from medical devices and our environment." For example, "every time you fly, you get some extra radiation due to your closer proximity to the sun. 'The backscatter X-ray scans deliver radiation equivalent to around 1 to 3 minutes of flight time,'" wrote the study authors from the University of California. Their research revealed that "50 airport scans equals the amount from a single dental X-ray, 1000 scans is equivalent to a chest X-ray, 4000 scans equals a mammogram, and 200,000 scans equals the amount in a single abdominal computed tomography scan."

Metabolic Syndrome May Be Risk Factor For Developing Liver Cancer.

Medscape (4/5, Nelson, Subscription Publication) reported that metabolic syndrome is a "known risk factor for diabetes and heart disease," but according to data presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting, "it might also place individuals at higher risk for the development of liver cancer." The researchers used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) Medicare-linked database to identify "3,649 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 743 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma cases" and 195,953 individuals "without cancer." They found that "37.1% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and 29.7% with intrahepatic carcinoma had preexisting metabolic syndrome." In contrast, only "17.1% of individuals without cancer had metabolic syndrome."

The Los Angeles Times (1/7, Healy) "Booster Shots" blog reported, "In a study suggesting that red wine might be the next big thing in breast cancer prevention, a study has found that women who drank just under two servings of red wine daily experienced hormonal changes that mimic the effects of a drug used to prevent malignant breast tumors from coming back." The research, "published Friday in the Journal of Women's Health, found that consuming the same amount of white wine did not have the same effect in premenopausal women participating in the study."

MedPage Today (1/7, Smith) reported that the "study...suggests that substances in red wine act as aromatase inhibitors, compounds that are used to treat breast cancer in post-menopausal women, according to" the researchers

MedPage Today (11/11, Gever) reports, "Individuals eating three daily servings of whole grains had a significantly, though modestly, lower risk of colorectal cancer, according to pooled data from nearly 800,000 individuals -- perhaps the largest and strongest analysis ever conducted." Researchers found that "a 90-gram per day increase in dietary fiber from whole grains -- the amount a person would consume from three servings -- was associated with a risk reduction of 17% (95% CI 11% to 22%) for colorectal cancer." The study, published online in BMJ, "also found that 'high' versus 'low' intake of total dietary fiber was associated with a significant reduction in risk (12%, 95% CI 6% to 18%)."

The UK's Telegraph (11/11, Adams) points out that "bowel cancer kills about 16,000 people in Britain a year, more than breast or prostate cancer."

BBC News (10/4, Roberts) reports, "Fair-skinned people who are prone to sunburn may need to take supplements to ensure they get enough vitamin D," according to research (pdf) published in Cancer Causes and Control. The study of 1,200 people revealed that "those with pale skin, while not deficient, may still be lacking in the essential vitamin that the body makes from sunlight," and that "even with a lot of sun exposure, those with fair skin may not be able to make enough vitamin D."

The study "suggests the optimal amount of vitamin D required by the body is at least 60nmol/L," the UK's Telegraph (10/4) reports. "In the new study, people with fair skin did not, on average, reach 60nmol/L unless they were taking supplements." In addition, the investigators "found that patients with melanoma skin cancer may need vitamin D supplements."

The Los Angeles Times (11/23, Stein) "Booster Shots" blog reports that research published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention suggests that "drinking four or more cups of caffeinated coffee may protect against endometrial cancer."

Reuters (11/23) reports that for the study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, investigators analyzed data on approximately 67,000 women.

Time (11/23, Park) reports in "Healthland" that the researchers found "that women who drank four or more cups of coffee a day over 26 years had a 25% lower risk of endometrial cancer, compared with those consuming less than a cup a day." Meanwhile, "women who drank two or three cups a day had a 7% lower risk."

CNN /Health.com (11/23, Gardner) reports, "Although the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health, doesn't prove that drinking coffee was directly responsible for reducing cancer risk, the researchers say a cause-and-effect relationship is plausible."

WebMD (11/23, Doheny) reports that the study also found that "the link between four or more cups of coffee and reduced risk of endometrial cancer was...stronger" among "past or current smokers."

HealthDay (11/23, Mozes) reports, "Drinking fewer than four cups a day did not appear to offer any preventative benefit, however. Nor did drinking tea." Also covering the story are the UK's Press Association (11/23) and Medscape (11/23, Hitt, Subscription Publication).

Medscape (10/28, Nelson) reports, "Randomized trials have shown that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce precancerous polyps, but a new study suggests that long-term use can reduce colorectal-cancer-specific mortality." Investigators found that "postmenopausal women who participated in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and who used NSAIDs for an extended period of time had a lower risk for death from colorectal cancer than those who did not use NSAIDs at enrollment." The findings "of this analysis were presented during a poster session...at the Tenth Annual American Association for Cancer Research International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research."

HealthDay (10/28, Dallas) reports, "Older people who walk more slowly than their peers may be at greater risk for complications and disability following surgery, according to a new study" presented at the 2011 Annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons. The study included nearly 200 older patients who were having either cardiac or colorectal surgery. All participants took a brief walking test that was timed. Among those undergoing heart surgery, just "13 percent of" those classified as "fast walkers had more than one complication following surgery, compared with 37 percent of the slow group." The researchers also found that "nearly 60 percent of slow walkers who had a colorectal operation needed institutional care after surgery, compared with 5 percent of the fast group."

NBC Nightly News (10/27, lead story, 2:40, Williams) reported that research suggest that aspirin may help reduce the risk for colon cancer in individuals with a specific genetic mutation.

USA Today (10/28, Hellmich) reports, "Observational studies have shown that aspirin lowers the risk of developing colorectal cancer, but this is the first randomized controlled trial to find the effect." Investigators "from the Universities of Newcastle and Leeds in England followed almost 1,000 patients from 43 medical centers in 16 countries." Participants "all had Lynch syndrome, a genetic condition that predisposes people to develop colorectal cancer and other types of cancer."

The Los Angeles Times (10/28, Brown) "Booster Shots" blog reports, "Some of the patients took two 600 mg aspirins every day, others took a placebo."

Bloomberg News (10/28, Kitamura) reports, "People who took" aspirin "for at least two years had a 63 percent lower rate of colorectal cancer than those who took a placebo."

The AP (10/28) points out that "rates of side effects like bleeding and ulcers in the stomach were similar in both groups." The research is published in the Lancet.

MedPage Today (10/28, Gever) reports, "For participants who took aspirin for less than two years there was no apparent benefit (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.41) relative to placebo." HealthDay (10/28, Gardner) also covers the story.

Aspirin and breast cancer
Animal and in vitro studies suggest that the use of aspirin may be associated with reduced risk for breast cancer, but results from these studies of the association have been inconsistent. The objective of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively summarize the current evidence for such a relationship. We searched MEDLINE for studies of aspirin use and breast cancer risk that were published in any language, from January 1, 1966, to July 1, 2011. A total of 33 studies (19 cohort studies, 13 case–control studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial [RCT]) that included 1,916,448 subjects were identified. We pooled the relative risks from individual studies using a random-effects model, heterogeneity, and publication bias analyses. In a pooled analysis of all studies, aspirin use was associated with reduced risk for breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81, 0.92). In the subgroup analysis by study design, results were similar except for RCT (OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.87, 1.09). In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that regular use of aspirin may be associated with reduced risk of breast cancer. More RCT were needed to confirm this association in the future.

Lou et al 2012Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Volume 131, Number 2, 581-587, DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1747-0

The Los Angeles Times (10/25, Brown) reports that according to research presented yesterday at the American Association for Cancer Research International Conference on Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, "drinking coffee was associated with decreased risk of a common and slow-growing form of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma (BCC)." After "examining data from the Nurses' Health Study, which followed 72,921 people between 1984 and 2008, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which followed 39,976 people between 1986 and 2008," researchers found that "women who drank more than three cups of coffee had a 20% reduction in risk for basal cell carcinoma."

"Men who drank more than three cups of coffee benefited from a 9% reduction in risk of this type of skin cancer," WebMD (10/25, Warner) reports. However, "drinking decaffeinated coffee did not have any effect on skin cancer risk, which leads researchers to suspect caffeine is the key ingredient." Researchers are now "also looking into whether caffeine should be added to sunscreen to increase its effectiveness against skin cancer."

HealthDay (10/25, Reinberg) noted, "The amount of caffeine consumption was inversely associated with risk," the study's lead author pointed out, "meaning the more coffee consumed, the lower the risk of skin cancer." Still, "the study could not prove cause-and-effect...and at this point the finding remains an association only."

In continuing coverage, ABC World News (10/3, story 6, 1:50, Sawyer) reports, "Physical activity has previously been linked with a lower risk of breast and colon cancer, but now scientists are beginning to understand why. For starters, the more fat cells you have in your body, the more insulin and estrogen which can both help cancer cells grow." In addition, exercise may "reduce stress and inflammation, both of which can help cancer cells grow. A study of 4,000 women found those with the highest level of physical activity had half the risk of dying compared to those without exercise."

Reuters (5/12, McCook) reports that, according to a study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, patients taking the pain medication Celebrex (celecoxib) over a three-year period were less likely to develop polyps that could lead to colorectal cancer, but at the expense of a higher risk of cardiovascular problems. For the study, 1,561 patients with diagnosed colorectal adenomas removed within three months of the study's initiation were assessed after three years on the drug followed by two years off the treatment. New polyps were found in 58 percent of the patients on placebo, compared to 51 percent on celecoxib. However, celecoxib users were more likely to develop heart problems, including a 66-percent greater risk of serious cardiac disorders.

Reuters (4/8, Grens) reported that people who use non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) painkillers regularly, may have a 50% reduced risk of developing colon or rectal cancer, according to a study in the American Journal of Gastroenterology. The researchers reviewed survey data from 300,000 adults, who indicated how often they took any of 19 NSAIDs. They found that daily NSAID use was associated with a 28% decreased risk of colon cancer risk, while monthly NSAID use was linked to a 14% reduced risk. Among people with immediate family members diagnosed with colon cancer, daily NSAID users had a 28% reduced risk of colon or rectal cancer, and there was an 11% risk among weekly NSAID users.

Aspirin reduces the risk of developing precancerous colorectal polyps: The Washington Post
Additional coverage of a JNCI study finding that prolonged use of low-dose aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces the risk of precancerous colorectal polyps in people at high risk for the disease. The article notes that study participants who took aspirin more than four days a week were 17 percent less likely to develop colorectal polyps than people who took aspirin less than two days a week, and were 28 percent less likely to develop polyps compared with those who did not take aspirin.
Article: The Washington Post

HealthDay (6/23, Preidt) reported that "being married improves the likelihood of survival for colon cancer patients," according to a study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology. Investigators "analyzed 127,753 patient records." They found that "married men and women with colon cancer were 14 percent less likely to die than other colon cancer patients."

An aspirin a day may keep melanoma at bay," according to a new study. "After scrutinizing the medical records of 1,000 people, an international team of researchers have determined that the risk of melanoma was cut by almost half when people took a daily dose of aspirin for at least five years." Interestingly, "there was also a hint that other NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen (marketed as Advil and Motrin) and naproxen (Aleve), might reduce melanoma risk if taken regularly over a long period of time."

In "The Checkup" blog, the Washington Post (7/7, Huget) reported new research published in the July issue of Gastroenterology "suggests that consuming folate in any form may reduce risk of colorectal cancer." The same "research also finds that folic acid - the man-made form of this vitamin that's used to fortify foods and in dietary supplements - does not, as had been worried, increase risk of developing that cancer." The Post added that the study "analyzed data for 99,523 participants in the Cancer Prevention Study II Nutrition Cohort," 1,023 of which "were diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 1999 and 2007."

Bloomberg News (7/11, Mead) reports that a study in BMJ Open suggests that "people with adverse reactions to common metals and chemicals were less likely to get skin and breast cancers," a result that "backs up a theory known as immunosurveillance hypothesis, which says people with allergies have immune systems that are more vigilant at patrolling the body and eliminating transformed cells, reducing the risk of cancer." However, "the scientists also observed a higher incidence of bladder cancer in those with allergies, possibly because more chemical remains accumulated in their blood."

Bloomberg News (9/16, von Schaper) reports that a study in the medical journal Gut found that "people who take even a very low dose of aspirin every day for five years can cut the risk of developing colon cancer by almost a third." According to researchers, "as little as 75 milligrams of aspirin a day...lowered the risk of colon cancer by 22 percent after just a year." While it was already know that aspirin can protect the colon, the "study showed for the first time that a low dose of aspirin is sufficient to ward off cancer, and that the drug needs to be taken for at least five years to get the full benefit."

According to MedPage Today (9/15, Walsh), "Aspirin has not as yet been recommended for primary chemoprevention of colorectal cancer...because of unanswered questions on dose, duration, and effects on survival." WebMD (9/15, Hendrick), the UK's Press Association (9/15) also covered this study.

Medscape (7/30, Gandey) reported that, according to a study published in the July issue of Cancer Epidemiology: Biomarkers & Prevention, "Women with a history of migraine had a 26 percent reduced risk for breast cancer." For the study, researchers examined "more than 4,500 cases and another 4,500 controls" from the Women's Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study, which included women aged 35 to 64 who "had been diagnosed with invasive breast cancer." Their analysis revealed that the reduced risk for breast cancer "did not differ by menopausal status, age at migraine diagnosis, or use of prescription medications." In fact, "the risk was the same even when researchers restricted the analysis to women who avoided various migraine triggers, such as alcohol, exogenous hormones, and smoking." The researchers noted, however, that "it is also possible that medications used to treat or prevent migraine, rather than the occurrence of migraines, may be responsible for the reductions in risk."

Reuters (6/1, Pittman) reported that taking cholesterol-lowering statins are less likely to develop prostate cancer than many not on the medication, according to a study in the Journal of Urology. Researchers reviewed medical data on more than 4,000 men who had a biopsy to test for prostate cancer between 2000 and 2007. About 1,000 of the men were taking statins, and after their biopsies, 55 percent of them were diagnosed with prostate cancer compared to 58 percent of the 3,000 who were not taking statins.

Vegetables may alter cancer genes: Reuters
This article reports on research published in the journal PLoS One finding that men with pre-cancerous prostate lesions who eat extra servings of broccoli each week for a year have hundreds of positive genetic changes, including alterations that activate genes known to fight cancer and switch off genes known to contribute to tumors. The article notes that researchers did not track men long enough to see who developed cancer, but that men with a gene called GSTM1 had the most genetic changes. Article: Reuters

Medscape (5/4, Mulcahy, Subscription Publication) reported, "In the past year, sunscreen was shown -- for the first time -- to prevent melanoma in one of the only randomized controlled trials ever conducted on this subject." However, "there is a caveat about the results that has important public health implications and was not highlighted in the original study, according to a letter published online April 4 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology." People who participated in the trial were middle-aged Australians whose sun exposure occurred during the course of their daily activities. In other words, their sun exposure was incidental, not intentional, as would be the sun exposure of dedicated beachgoers. Therefore, the authors of the letter say that "white people in other parts of the world should not interpret the study results as a 'green light' to tan on the beach."

WebMD (6/29, DeNoon) reported that "chemical dyes used for food coloring carry serious health risks and should be banned, says a new report from a consumer group," the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). CSPI "notes that none of the nine artificial food dyes approved for US use have been proven safe." CSPI also "points to animal studies suggesting that the dyes -- and other chemicals bound to them -- can cause cancer."

BBC News (1/18) reported that drinking "wine with an alcohol content of 10 percent rather than 14 percent might" lower the risk of some cancers, according to research conducted by the World Cancer Research Fund. An analysis of "figures in a 2007 report which looked at the evidence for a link between alcohol consumption and cancer" revealed "the likely extra risk posed by each extra 10 grams of alcohol...regularly consumed."

The UK's Telegraph (1/18, Smith) reported that people who switch "from a 14 percent wine to a 10 percent wine" could "reduce their risk of developing bowel cancer or breast cancer by seven percent." In fact, researchers found that "for every 100 people who switched, five would develop bowel cancer at some point in their lives, instead of six."

The UK's Daily Mail (1/18, Hope) reported, "As well as cutting" the number of bowel cancer diagnoses, "switching to a lower-alcohol wine would reduce breast cancer, liver cancer, oesophageal cancer, and cancers of the mouth, pharynx, and larynx." The study showed that "the reduction in risk for each type of these cancers is similar to that for bowel cancer."

The UK's Press Association (1/18) reported that Dr. Rachel Thompson, science program manager at the charity, said, "If you drink quite a lot at the moment, the best advice is to reduce the number of drinks you have." The World Cancer Research Fund recommends that men "should limit consumption to two drinks a day...and one for a woman," the UK's Independent (1/18, Laurance) reported.

HealthDay (2/27, Dotinga) reported that it "takes far more vitamin D than initially thought to dramatically cut the risk of several major diseases, including breast cancer," according to a study in the in the journal Anticancer Research. The study was based on a survey of "several thousand people who took supplements ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 IU per day. ... 'We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4,000-8,000 IU are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases -- breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes,'" said study co-author Dr. Cedric Garland from the University of California in a news release. The Institute of Medicine's recommended daily level is only "600 IU."

Studies have indicated that aspirin chemoprevention may be effective in preventing colorectal cancer within the general population, and aspirin, celecoxib, and calcium may be effective in preventing adenomas within those people who have previously undergone polypectomy. Celecoxib chemoprevention is unlikely to be considered to be cost-effective. Calcium chemoprevention is likely to be a cost-effective option for individuals who have undergone polypectomy. Further research is required to assess the long-term benefits and harms of calcium compared with aspirin chemoprevention. Chemoprevention appears less economically attractive within the general population.

HealthDay (8/14, Mundell) reported that, according to a study published in the August issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, "a glass of wine a day" may "cut the risk of treatment-linked skin toxicity by two-thirds in women undergoing radiation therapy for breast cancer." To see "if the natural antioxidants found in wine might work to ward off radiation-linked damage," researchers from Catholic University and the National Research Council in Italy divided "348 women with breast cancer...into three groups, depending on the dose of radiation received." The team found that "patients who drank wine on the days they had their treatment had lower rates of Grade 2, or higher acute toxicity, than those who did not. In fact, women who drank one glass of wine a day had a 13.6 percent rate of skin toxicity compared to a 38.4 percent incidence among patients who did not consume wine," the authors said

Green tea may help reduce levels of some compounds associated with prostate cancer progression, investigators say.

Following a BBC News story, Shari Roan pointed out in the Los Angeles Times (6/22) Booster Shots blog that "men with prostate cancer might want to include green tea with their meals," because Louisiana State University researchers have found that it may actually "reduce the levels of some compounds linked to prostate cancer progression." Through their study of 26 prostate patients, who were given "a concentrated extract of tea polyphenols for an average of 34 days," the team was able to see "a significant reduction in the levels of several growth factors that promote cancer as well as reductions in prostate specific antigen." In fact, "some men had reductions in growth factors of up to 30 percent." But, according to the paper detailed Cancer Prevention Research, "the response varied among the men for reasons that researchers don't yet understand."

The AP (6/23, Marchione) reports that in a "$20 million study" that "will be sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, with the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and other federal agencies," both vitamin D and fish oil "will be tested...to see whether either nutrient can lower a healthy person's risk of getting cancer, heart disease, or having a stroke." The study will also "be one of the first big nutrition studies ever to target a specific racial group -- blacks, who will comprise one quarter of the participants." The study, which starts "later this year, will enroll 20,000 people with no history of heart attacks, stroke or a major cancer -- women 65 or older and men 60 or older," who "will be randomly assigned to take vitamin D, fish oil, both nutrients, or dummy pills for five years." Participants will receive a "daily dose of vitamin D" that "will be about 2,000 international units of D-3," and a "daily dose" of approximately one gram of fish oil, an amount "five to 10 times what the average American gets."

According to the Boston Globe (6/23, Cooney), "The researchers believe higher rates of cancer, heart disease, and stroke among blacks, compared with whites, might be related to dark skin's lower ability to make vitamin D from absorbing sunlight, and they want to establish whether taking vitamin D supplements could reduce or eliminate these disparities." In addition, the researchers hope to establish the safety and efficacy of taking large doses of fish oil. In the past, "vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene, folic acid, selenium, and other supplements have looked promising for disease prevention, but their benefits have not been borne out in large trials, and some risk has been found with high levels." The new study will start recruiting participants in January. More details can be found on the study's website.

AFP (8/16, Sheridan) reports that according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "moderate caffeine drinking, or perhaps even applying coffee to the skin, could be useful in warding off non-melanoma cancer." Researchers found that mice with suppressed levels of ATR enzyme were able to ward off UV-induced skin cancer longer than normal mice, and also showed that "caffeine -- when consumed or applied to the skin -- works by inhibiting ATR." Researchers called for the study to be extended to humans.

The UK's Daily Mail (8/16) reports, "Despite their results, the researchers say that people shouldn't start consuming vast amounts of tea or coffee just so that they can lie out in the sun. But they say their finding could be used to create a caffeine-based sun cream. As an added bonus, caffeine absorbs UV light -- stopping it from damaging and wrinkling the skin." The Voice of America (8/16) also covers the story.

The health impact of coffee: The New York Times
This article discusses myths and scientific research on the health impact of coffee consumption. The article cites multiple studies suggesting that coffee consumption does not increase the risk of developing cancer and that coffee drinkers may actually have a 50 percent decreased risk of developing liver cancer. Article: The New York Times

The UK's Telegraph (5/6, Beckford) reported that as "many as 20,000 British women could avoid developing" breast cancer "each year, if they took more exercise, drank less and ate better." Latest figures "suggest that 47,600 women developed breast cancer in 2008," and the World Cancer Research Fund estimates that estimates that "42 per cent of these cases...would be preventable if women developed healthier lifestyles." The WCRF's "10 Recommendations for Cancer Prevention include being 'as lean as possible without becoming underweight'; keeping fit; limiting consumption of fatty, salty and sugary food and drink; eating fruit, vegetables and pulses; eating less red meat and processed meat; drinking less and choosing a balanced diet rather than vitamin supplements.

The Los Angeles Times (8/17, Healy) "Booster Shots" blog reports a study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention showing "that African American women who had given birth to more children were more likely to develop estrogen or progesterone-negative" breast "cancer than their peers who had not given birth or who had given birth to only one child," but breastfeeding lowered that risk. The study authors hypothesized that "given the prevalence of infectious diseases in Africa, women of African origins may respond to pregnancy with a particularly strong immune response, which in turn can allow cancers to gain a foothold," but lactation lowers the effect. They also noted that receptor-negative breast cancers are more aggressive. The researchers suggested that efforts to promote breastfeeding, which is less common in African American than white women, should include the information that breastfeeding may lower their risk of this cancer.

The CNN (8/17, Curley) "Chart" blog reports, "Women who gave birth to two or more children had a 50% associated increase in aggressive ER-/PR- cancer, but the association was not found when the women had breastfed. ... The results were 'strikingly different' when researchers compared the number of births and breastfeeding among women with hormone receptor positive cancers. Women who had two or more children had lower associations of ER+/PR+ cancers, and breastfeeding didn't change that association." Researchers said that African American women tend to have more children than white women, and lower breastfeeding rates, which given the data may explain why they are at higher risk for developing receptor negative cancer.

WebMD (8/17, Doheny) reports the researchers noted that "if a woman does not breastfeed, the breast goes through a process called involution...marked by increasing inflammation in the breast tissue. This inflammation may be associated with breast cancer." Breastfeeding is believed to reduce the inflammation in the tissue. HealthDay (8/17, Dallas) also covers this story.

HealthDay (6/30, Dallas) reported, "Women diagnosed with breast cancer who also suffer from other health problems have higher death rates than women who just have breast cancer," according to a study published in the June 30 online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. To reach this conclusion, Jennifer Patnaik, of the University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, and colleagues, "identified more than 64,000 women aged 66 years and older with breast cancer. Forty-two percent had a history of one or more of the following 13 health conditions: stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney failure, congestive heart failure, dementia, diabetes, liver disease, heart attack, paralysis, peripheral vascular disease, previous cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcers." The researchers found "that each of these conditions was associated with increased risk of death from any cause, including cancer."

The Huffington Post (6/30, Pearson) reported, "In an editorial accompanying the study, Dr. Worta McCaskill-Stevens and Dr. Jeff Abrams of the National Cancer Institute, said the study has significant implications for clinical care of breast cancer patients over the age of 65, who comprise of over half of the 200,000 some women diagnosed with breast cancer in the US each year." Drs. McCaskill-Stevens and Abrams "said that physicians may reduce treatment or diminish its intensity in patients with multiple conditions. They also pointed out that there could be a biological interplay between cancer and other diseases that impacts the efficacy of certain treatments."

Experts Attribute UK's High Breast Cancer Rates To Obesity, Excessive Alcohol Intake.

The UK's Press Association (1/24) reports that the UK ranks "11th out of 50 countries for rates of breast cancer." Overall, the UK ranked "22nd for cancers in both sexes while Denmark is the cancer capital of the world," according to the most recent estimates from the World Health Organisation, for 2008.

According to the UK's Independent (1/24), the UK overall ranks "33rd for male cancers and 12th highest for female cancers." On breast cancer, more women "per 100,000 develop the disease in the UK (260.5) than in France (254.9), Italy (251.6), Germany (245.7), Sweden (241.2), Switzerland (236) or Spain (187)." The highest rates are in "Denmark (325.3), New Zealand (287.1) and Ireland (285.1)."

The UK's Daily Telegraph (1/24, Beckford) adds that experts "said that many of the 46,000 breast cancer cases in the UK each year could be avoided if British women drank less, ate more healthily or took more exercise." Notably, more than 25 percent of "women who develop the disease in Britain die from it, as survival rates have remained low despite record investment in the NHS under Labour."

HealthDay (6/22, Gordon) reported, "Obesity is already linked to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure, but new research finds those extra pounds can also significantly increase a woman's risk of developing endometrial cancer," according to a study appearing in the July issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. For the study, investigators "reviewed data from the CDC's Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study," finding "421 women between the ages of 20 and 54 who had been diagnosed with endometrial cancer." Meanwhile, the control group consisted of "3,159 women" who were "randomly selected...from the same areas of the country." The study showed that "women who were younger than 45 when they had their last period and had a BMI above 35 had a 21.7 times greater risk of developing endometrial cancer than a woman of normal weight." The investigators also found, however, that "in women older than 45 at their last menstrual period, those with BMIs above 35 had 3.7 times greater odds of developing endometrial cancer than their normal-weight peers."

reported that approximately "340,000 cancer cases" in the US could be prevented "each year if more Americans ate a healthy diet, got regular exercise and limited their alcohol intake," according to the World Cancer Research Fund. The WCRF said such lifestyle changes could lead to "significant reductions in particularly common cancers such as breast (38% fewer cases per year), stomach (47% fewer) and colon (45% fewer). ... 'Physical activity is recommended for people of all ages as a means to reduce risks for certain types of cancers and other non-communicable diseases,'" said Dr. Tim Armstrong of World Health Organization. The research "was released Feb. 3 to mark World Cancer Day."

Reuters (2/4, Kelland) notes that the WCRF recommendations are supported by WHO's suggestions for the prevention cancer, which is a leading cause of death worldwide. WebMD (2/3, Hendrick) added that the World Cancer Declaration "outlines 11 targets it says could be achieved by 2020" to fight cancer. These goals include "significant drops in global tobacco use, obesity, and alcohol intake; universal vaccination programs for hepatitis B and human papilloma virus (HPV); universal availability of effective pain medication; and efforts to dispel misconceptions about cancer." The CNN (2/3, Bixler) "The Chart" blog also covered the WCRF recommendations

HealthDay (4/6, Preidt) reported, "Poor overall health seems to be associated with worse outcomes for breast cancer survivors," according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. Researchers analyzed data from almost "9,400 early stage breast cancer survivors participating in the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project," and found that a health assessment survey "shortly after diagnosis" and a survey seven years after diagnosis showed that "about half the women were in poor physical health." Women with poor physical health scores had a "27-percent increased risk of experiencing either a recurrence of their breast cancer or a new breast cancer, and a 65-percent increased risk of death from any cause," the researchers said. They also found that breast cancer survivors with low health scores were "less physically active, more likely to have sleep problems, had 50-percent higher rates of high blood pressure and diabetes, and were twice as likely to have arthritis."

BBC News (6/30) reported, "Vegetarians are generally less likely than meat eaters to develop cancer," according to a study appearing in the British Journal of Cancer. The study included "61,566 British men and women" who were "meat eaters, those who ate fish but not meat, and those who ate neither meat nor fish." Researchers found that "while in the general population about 33 people in 100 will develop cancer during their lifetime, for those who do not eat meat that risk is reduced to about 29 in 100." In particular, "they found marked differences between meat eaters and vegetarians in the propensity to cancers of the lymph and the blood, with vegetarians just over half as likely to develop these forms of the disease." Data indicated that "vegetarians were 75 percent less likely to develop" multiple myeloma "than meat eaters." But, the researchers said that "the reasons...were unclear," noting that "potential mechanisms could include viruses and mutation-causing compounds in meat -- or alternatively that vegetables confer special protection."

In continuing coverage, the New York Times (6/21, D7, Brody, Subscription Publication) reported in "Personal Health" that "the Food and Drug Administration has finally issued new rules that should help reduce the confusion that currently prevails when consumers confront the aisle-long array of products in most pharmacies." Until the new rules take effect, "dermatologists suggest choosing only products that are labeled 'broad spectrum' and have an SPF rating of 30 to 50." Consumers need to remember to "apply the sunscreen just before exposure, and reapply it two hours later -- it loses effectiveness over time. And, even if the label claims the sunscreen is water resistant, be sure to reapply it after swimming or sweating heavily."

The Orlando Sentinel (3/12, Shrieves) reported, "Men who take statins -- one type of cholesterol-lowering drugs -- may be 60 percent less likely to be diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer, according to a" study of "patient files from the Veteran Affairs New England Healthcare System." Investigators identified 55,875 patients using either a statin or a blood pressure drug. Investigators found that "men taking statins were 30 percent less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than those on anti-hypertensive medication" and that "statin users also were 60 percent less likely to be diagnosed with high-grade prostate cancer."

The New York Times (6/21, D5, Rabin, Subscription Publication) reports, "Top plastic surgeons from around the country met in Manhattan last month to observe an experimental surgery that may cure lymphedema, a serious complication of breast cancer treatment." As some surgeons "crowded into an operating room at New York Eye and Ear Infirmary and others watched a live video broadcast," Dr. Corinne Becker, who "pioneered the procedure, harvested lymph nodes from a patient's groin to transplant to her underarm, where nodes had been removed earlier during cancer treatment." This innovative procedure, called "an autologous vascularized lymph node transfer, is used to treat lymphedema." In the surgery, the missing lymph nodes are "replaced with a handful of healthy nodes transplanted from elsewhere" in the patient.

MedPage Today (8/11, Walker) reports a study published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reviewing "30 trials with a total of 1,891 cancer patients who underwent music therapy interventions as part of their treatment." The study "found that both music interventions appeared to be more effective at reducing anxiety than no music or white noise or nature sounds delivered through headphones." One exception was that "patients didn't like listening to music via headphones during a procedure, because they couldn't hear what the doctor was saying, which causes anxiety and could actually increase the perception of pain."

WebMD (8/11, Hendrick) reports, "Music also seemed to help with the mood and pain levels of patients, though not depression. And smaller beneficial effects were seen on heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure."

Reuters (8/11, Pittman) reports on two papers published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showing that persistent insomnia and fatigue can afflict cancer patients. In one of the studies, Julienne Bower of the University of California, Los Angeles, and co-authors, discovered that almost 66% of participants had problems with insomnia and fatigue. Bower noted that it is just recently that the medical community is becoming aware of such issues. Meanwhile, researchers are looking into cognitive behavior therapy and tai chi for insomnia, and yoga for fatigue

Plant may protect cancer patients' skin during radiation therapy: Research indicating that ointment containing Calendula plant extracts may reduce dermatitis in cancer patients who apply the ointment before radiation therapy. Researchers found that 41 percent of patients using the ointment suffered moderate-to-severe dermatitis, compared with 63 percent of those using trolamine, a standard cream used in Europe to prevent dermatitis.

HealthDay (9/1, Dotinga) reported that "chemotherapy in breast cancer patients disrupts cycles of sleep and wakefulness, and continued treatment leads to worse and more lasting problems," according to findings appearing in the Sept. 1 issue of Sleep. Investigators examined "95 women with breast cancer who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy," finding that "during the first week of" treatment, they "took longer to get to high activity levels after waking." The women "also decreased their activity levels earlier at night," which "continued in the first week of the fourth cycle of chemotherapy." The researchers concluded that "during chemotherapy, our biological clock gets out of sync, especially after the first cycle of treatment. The clock seems to regulate itself after only one cycle, but with repeated administration of chemotherapy, it becomes more difficult for the biological clock to readjust."

Medscape (5/16, Nelson, Subscription Publication) reported that fatigue is a "common problem in breast cancer survivors," and a study in Psychoneuroendocrinology suggests that it "might be the result of alterations in the autonomic nervous system." The researchers analyzed a cohort of "109 women who had completed treatment for stage 0 to IIIA breast cancer in the previous two years, and who were at least two months past surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy." They found that women who "reported higher levels of fatigue also had significantly higher norepinephrine levels and lower heart rate variability (HRV) before and after stress was induced than those who reported less fatigue."

Medscape (5/27, Brauser, Subscription Publication) reported that, according to two studies presented recently at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting, "psychiatric treatment and psychosocial support may make a significant difference to survival and quality of life in women with cancer." In the first study, which was recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, "a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 125 women with metastatic breast cancer, investigators found that the median survival time for those who had decreasing depression symptom scores during a one-year period was double that of those with increasing scores (53.6 vs. 25.1 months)." And, in a second study, which was also "published online March 2 in Psycho-Oncology, researchers found that women who receive a cancer diagnosis during pregnancy were at particular risk of experiencing high levels of distress."

In continuing coverage, MedPage Today (6/8, Phend) reported that flaxseed "will not ease hot flashes for women with menopausal symptoms or breast cancer survivors taking anti-estrogen drugs," according to findings presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. Researchers randomized "188 postmenopausal women" to eat a "fiber bar daily that contained either 410 mg of the active flaxseed lignans or 2 g protein as a placebo for six weeks." According to results, mean "vasomotor symptom scores dropped 33% with flaxseed-spiked fiber bars, but also fell 29% with placebo fiber bars without a significant difference between groups. ... The 'disappointing' randomized trial results showed why clinical trials are necessary, noted Mark G. Kris, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, who chaired" the ASCO Cancer Communications Committee

HealthDay (8/2, Dallas) reports that the skin of cancer patients who have received radiation therapy have increased risk for sun damage, so patients need to be careful about sun damage, according to researchers at the University of Alabama-Birmingham. The experts also said that children with cancer are at the greatest risk. HealthDay Added, "Skin cancer patients should pay particular attention to the areas of skin being treated, advised the American Society of Clinical Oncologists. Dark, tightly woven fabrics are best for guarding against sun exposure, the group noted."

Prof Matthew During from Ohio State University conducted an experiment in mice with implanted cancers which was reported in the journal cell. Those living in a stimulating healthy environment had a slower rate of progression compared to those in a more confined environment. Levels of leptin were lower in the more stimulated mice

In the "First Person" column in the Miami Herald (1/3), Miami Herald editor Andrea Torres, a breast cancer patient, wrote, "Experts in psychosocial oncology say that women with breast cancer have the third highest rate of depression among cancer diagnostic groups, and that major depression is an under-recognized and under-treated problem." Torres goes on to describe her particular battle with depression. Currently, she is being treated with antidepressants and "staying connected to others with the help of social media" to improve her outlook on matters. She is also "set to begin behavioral therapy soon."

Medscape (11/15, Nelson) reports that "Mindfulness training might prove beneficial for patients who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), according to researchers who conducted a randomized trial of the intervention." The investigators "evaluated the longitudinal and short-term effects of mindfulness meditation training in 241 cancer patients who were hospitalized for HSCT." The researchers found that "although an intent-to-treat analysis did not reveal long-term group differences, there were significant immediate improvements in symptoms and mood in patients who underwent the training, compared with those who didn't." The research was presented at a Society for Integrative Oncology conference.

Medscape (12/23, Lowry, Subscription Publication) reports, "Cerebral white matter is altered and cognitive function declines after chemotherapy," according to a study published online Dec. 19 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The study, which used magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging "to document actual physical changes in the brain, along with a detailed cognitive assessment before and after a course of chemotherapy for breast cancer, adds to the emerging body of literature attesting to the effects of chemotherapy on brain structure and function, comments the author of an accompanying editorial." Researchers found that "patients who had received chemotherapy performed significantly worse on attention and concentration tests, psychomotor speed, and memory compared with baseline," which correlated with "significant decreases in fractional anisotropy in the frontal, parietal, and occipital white matter tracts after chemotherapy."

The Los Angeles Times (11/15, Kaplan) "Booster Shots" blog reports, "A study of breast cancer patients finds that women who had chemotherapy along with surgery to treat their disease had more trouble kicking their brains into high gear than women who were treated with surgery alone." The breast cancer patients "also performed much worse on tests of mental function than a group of healthy women who served as controls." The research was published in Archives of Neurology.

MedPage Today (11/15, Gever) reports that investigators "recruited 44 breast cancer survivors and 18 healthy controls matched for age, menopausal status, and education level." All "participants underwent functional MRI scans while performing a card-sorting task in order to measure brain activation in specific regions." Participants "also were evaluated with a series of other neurocognitive tests, including one to identify potentially confounding psychiatric symptoms such as depression."

HealthDay (11/15, Gardner) reports that the participants "with breast cancer, whether or not they had had chemotherapy, showed reduced activity in two areas of the prefrontal cortex, including one heavily involved in memory, the investigators found." Individuals who "had undergone chemotherapy also had reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex and tended to repeat errors and complete tasks more slowly compared to both other groups." Reuters (11/15, Steenhuysen) also covers the story.

Medscape (5/24, Harrison, Subscription Publication) reported that group sessions "during which cancer survivors are taught meditation, mindful yoga, and communication techniques significantly improve psychological symptoms and quality of life (QoL)," according to findings presented at the American Society of Breast Surgeons meeting. Researchers randomly assigned 77 female cancer survivors to either attend "weekly two-hour classes for eight weeks plus a single for-hour weekend retreat" or be on a waiting list (control group). Patients in the intervention group "showed a significant improvement on the SCL-90-R," with an effect size of 0.373 and a QoL of "P=.005 in terms of significance." All domains in "symptoms of stress improved in the intervention group" achieved significance. In contrast, the control group "did not achieve statistical significance" on any of the parameters.

Group therapy may prolong survival for women with breast cancer
This article describes a Cancer study indicating that women with breast cancer who participate in group therapy sessions - consisting of a year of small-group meetings led by clinical psychologists - may live longer and have a lower risk of cancer recurrence. Researchers found that after 11 years, women who participated in the one-year group sessions were 56 percent less likely to die of breast cancer and 45 percent less likely to experience cancer recurrence, compared to women who did not participate

Researchers to examine cognitive rehabilitation program for women with breast cancer. Chemo brain is a common, and disconcerting, side effect of chemotherapy" that is "generally described as changes in cognitive abilities that occur during" treatment. Patients who suffer from chemo brain typically "complain that they are mentally tired, can't think clearly, or can't think as fast as they used to." Now, researchers are "evaluating a cognitive rehabilitation program for women with breast cancer who may be experiencing cognitive difficulties." They speculate that variations "in genes that regulate the immune system render some patients more vulnerable to" these symptoms. The researchers aim "to develop and evaluate a rehabilitation program for breast cancer survivors who believe they are having trouble thinking and concentrating after receiving treatment."

Breast Cancer-Recurrence Worry Level May Vary By Race, Ethnicity.

MedPage Today (4/1, Smith) reported, "Worry about a recurrence of breast cancer varies markedly according to racial and ethnic background," according to a study in the journal Cancer. The researchers analyzed data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of women whose "nonmetastatic breast cancer was diagnosed from June 2005 to February 2007." They found that "46% of Latinas" who spoke primarily Spanish "reported they worry 'very much' about recurrence, compared with 25% for Latinas who mainly spoke English." In contrast, only "14% of white women and 13% of African Americans said they worried 'very much.'" High levels of worry were also "significantly associated with younger age, having a job, frequency of pain and fatigue, and receipt of radiation therapy."

This article reports on a Cancer study finding that breast cancer survivors who report marital distress have greater difficulty recovering from treatment, compared to women who said they were in a non-distressed relationship. The article notes that participants who reported marital distress were more likely to experience slower recovery of physical functioning, more severe side effects, an increase in depressive symptoms and unwanted thoughts and fear about cancer recurrence. Researchers suggested women in this group may benefit from psychosocial referrals. Article: Reuters

Reuters (5/31, Joelving) reported that findings from two preliminary studies suggest that women with breast cancer who take blood pressure drugs known as beta-blockers may have a better chance for surviving the disease. The results are published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In one study, women taking beta-blockers who survived longer were less likely to be diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer. In the other study, after five years, women taking propranolol had an average, estimated 9% risk for dying of breast cancer, compared with 27% of the control group

Medscape (2/23, Nelson) reported, "Cancer survivors who received multidisciplinary interventions, which included physical, psychological, and vocational components, were nearly twice as likely to overcome challenges and successfully return to work as those who received usual care," according to a meta-analysis published online in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included in the analysis were "14 randomized controlled trials and four controlled before/after studies, for a total of 1,652" subjects. The researchers found that "there was moderate-quality evidence that showed that multidisciplinary interventions led to higher return-to-work rates than care as usual (OR, 1.87)."

Reducing stress before prostate surgery helps outcome. Helping men cope with the stress of prostate cancer surgery before the operation may speed up both their physical and psychological recovery, new research suggests. The study, published this month in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine, showed that stress management did more than just ease a man’s anxiety about surgery. Men who performed the simple stress relief exercises had a stronger immune response in the days after the operation. “It’s showing that something as brief as a few sessions of stress management can change the postoperative biological functioning,” said Lorenzo Cohen, professor and director of the integrative medicine program at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “These results speak to the fact that you can get someone more immunologically competent even with something that is very brief.”Researchers at M.D. Anderson studied the effect of stress management techniques as part of a study of 159 men with early-stage prostate cancer. All of the men were scheduled for radical prostatectomy, which is the surgical removal of the prostate gland. The surgery is highly successful at eliminating the cancer but takes a physical and mental toll, often leaving men impotent and incontinent for weeks, months or longer.

A third of the men in the study received routine care. Another group was given “supportive care,” meaning they had access to psychologists one to two weeks before surgery as well as right before the operation and in the days after the procedure. But a third group received stress management training. These men met with a psychologist for support but also learned deep breathing and guided-imagery techniques to help cope with the stress of surgery. They were led through a mental imagery exercise so they understood everything that would be happening to them as they were taken into surgery and recovery. They also were given booster sessions the morning of the operation and two days after surgery as well as a guide and audiotapes so they could practice on their own.

Two days after surgery, the men who had received stress management had a measurably stronger immune response, based on higher levels of natural killer cell function and circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines, which affect the healing process.

More research is needed to determine if the boost in immune function that occurs with stress management techniques has a meaningful effect on a man’s recovery after surgery. However, the research did show that men who learned stress management reported better physical functioning a year after surgery.

Acupuncture May Relieve Hot Flashes Associated With Prostate Cancer Treatment.

HealthDay (4/25, Dotinga) reported that acupuncture might help "reduce the hot flashes that frequently affect prostate cancer patients while they're on hormone therapy," a small study suggests. The findings "don't confirm that the ancient Chinese discipline relieves hot flashes, and only 14 men participated in the study," which was conducted by researchers at New York Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University. Still, "our study shows that physicians and patients have an additional treatment for something that affects many men undergoing prostate cancer treatment and actually has long-term benefits, as opposed to more side effects," said lead author Dr. Hani Ashamalla in a news release from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

WebMD (7/22, Hendrick) reported, "Most Americans believe that prescription medications are the most effective treatments for many common illnesses, but a Consumer Reports survey of more than 45,000 people finds that three-fourths of us are turning to alternative therapies like yoga and acupuncture." Specifically, "38 million adults make more than 300 million visits per year to acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists, and other practitioners of alternative and complementary techniques," the report found. The report appears in the September issue of Consumer Reports Health, an online publication.

The UK's Telegraph (2/15, Adams) reported that an "organic compound in the wine called resveratrol can double the effect of the chemotherapy drug rapamycin," according to an analysis published in the journal Cancer Letters. Cancer cells "often develop resistance to rapamycin, an immunosuppressant. ... 'Our findings show that resveratrol seems to mitigate rapamycin-induced drug resistance in breast cancers, at least in the laboratory,'" said lead researcher Dr. Charis Eng of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio. She added that their "lab study on human breast cancer cell lines found that when rapamycin was used in conjunction with resveratrol, it was twice as effective at killing those cells than using rapamycin alone.

Herbal supplement may help treat cancer: Los Angeles Times
This article describes claims that the herb curcumin, derived from turmeric, has anti-inflammatory benefits and may be a treatment for various cancers. Experts note the lack of research on the effects of the herb in humans, but note data suggesting that curcumin can block inflammation, eliminate free radicals and kill cancer cells in the laboratory.
Article: Los Angeles Times

A study from Seattle demonstrate the importance of exercise guidelines after cancer
The 2008 Physical Activity (PA) Guidelines recommend engaging in at least 2.5 h (10 MET-hours/week) of moderate intensity PA per week (defined as 4 METs) to reduce risk of morbidity and mortality. This analysis was conducted to investigate whether this recommendation can be extended to breast cancer survivors. Data from four studies of breast cancer survivors measuring recreational PA from semi-quantitative questionnaires a median of 23 months post-diagnosis (interquartile range 18–32 months) were pooled in the After Breast Cancer Pooling Project (n = 13,302). Delayed entry Cox proportional hazards models were applied in data analysis with adjustment for age, post-diagnosis body mass index, race/ethnicity, menopausal status, TNM stage, cancer treatment, and smoking history. Engaging in at least 10 MET-hours/week of PA was associated with a 27% reduction in all-cause mortality (n = 1,468 events, Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.66–0.82) and a 25% reduction in breast cancer mortality (n = 971 events, HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.85) compared with women who did not meet the PA Guidelines (<10 MET-hours/week). Risk of breast cancer recurrence (n = 1,421 events) was not associated with meeting the PA Guidelines (HR = 0.96, 95% CI, 0.86–1.06). These data suggest that adhering to the PA guidelines may be an important intervention target for reducing mortality among breast cancer survivors Jeannette M. Beasley et al .

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volume 131, Number 2, 637-643, DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1770-1

Further evidence fro the mechanism of the benefit of exercise
There is convincing evidence from numerous clinical and epidemiological studies that physical activity can reduce the risk for breast and prostate cancer. The biological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain elusive. Herein we suggest a role for naturally produced antibodies reactive with the vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) in the suppression of breast and prostate cancer, which we believe could offer a possible molecular mechanism underlying control of these cancers by physical exercise. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTSWe found that sera from individuals having breast and prostate cancers have decreased titers of VIP natural antibodies as demonstrated by a lower reactivity against peptide NTM1, having similar informational and structural properties as VIP. In contrast, sera collected from elite athletes, exhibited titers of natural NTM1-reactive antibodies that are significantly increased, suggesting that physical activity boosts production of these antibodies. SIGNIFICANCE Presented results suggest that physical exercise stimulates production of natural anti-VIP antibodies and likely results in suppression of VIP. This, in turn, may play a protective role against breast and prostate cancers. Physical exercise should be further investigated as a potential tool in the treatment of these diseases.Physical Activity and Natural Anti-VIP Antibodies: Potential Role in Breast and Prostate Cancer Therapy; Veljkovic M, Dopsaj et al 2012 pLoS One. 2011;6(11):e28304. Epub 2011 Nov 30.

Factors which predict reduced physical activity after Breast Cancer
Physical activity offers many benefits to breast cancer survivors, yet research on physical activity during the immediate period following a breast cancer diagnosis is limited. In a prospective cohort study of 1,696 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Medical Care Program from 2006–2009, we describe change in self-reported physical activity levels from around diagnosis to 6 months post-diagnosis and determine factors associated with change. Participants completed a comprehensive physical activity questionnaire at baseline (2 months post-diagnosis) and at follow-up (8 months post-diagnosis). Predictors of physical activity change were determined by multivariable linear regression. Reductions in all physical activity levels were observed (P < 0.0001); mean (SD) change (h/week) of moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was −1.28 (4.48) and sedentary behavior was −0.83 (6.95). In fully-adjusted models, overweight and obesity were associated with greater declines in MVPA of −1.58 h/week (SD = 0.92) and −1.29 h/week (SD = 0.93), respectively (P = 0.0079). Receipt of chemotherapy only was also associated with a greater decrease in MVPA (−2.12 h/week; SD = 0.92; P < 0.0001), specifically for recreational activities (−1.62 h/week; SD = 0.64; P = 0.0001). These data suggest challenges in maintaining physical activity levels during active treatment among women with breast cancer. Interventions to encourage physical activity in breast cancer survivors should be pursued. Marilyn L. Kwan 2012

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volume 131, Number 2, 679-690, DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1788-4

Medscape (11/9, Yin) reports, "Between 8% and 30% of all cancers are potentially related to physical inactivity, according to a researcher who reports that exercise can lower the risk." Christine Friedenreich, PhD, a cancer epidemiologist at the Department of Population Health Research, Alberta Health Services, "reported the results from the Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention (ALPHA) trial, which found that physical activity can lower the risk for cancer in postmenopausal women...at the American Institute for Cancer Research 2011 Research Conference on Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Cancer." The results "add to existing evidence that physical activity reduces the risk for colon, breast, and probably endometrial cancer, and possibly prostate, lung, and ovarian cancer, by 10% to 30%, said Dr. Friedenreich."

USA Today (11/3, Hellmich) reports, "More than 90,000 new cancer cases a year in the United States may be due to physical inactivity and prolonged periods of sitting," according to an analysis presented at the annual conference of the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR). The research "cites about 49,000 cases of breast cancer and 43,000 of colon cancer."

Walking for just 30 minutes a day could lower the risk of dying from colon cancer, new research shows. "Â The Telegraph added, "Taking on an exercise program could also reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and other cancers," while "regular physical activity can...be beneficial after a cancer diagnosis has already been made."

BBC News (8/8) reports that a study called Move More recommends that "adult cancer patients and cancer survivors should undertake 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity per week," which can reduce side effects, lower chances of other diseases, and reduce the chance of cancer recurring. The report also found that "physical exercise does not increase fatigue during treatment, and can in fact boost energy after treatment."

HealthDay (10/6, Thomas) reported, "Exercising during adolescence may help guard against" gliomas "in adulthood," according to a study published Nov. 1 in the journal Cancer Research. Researchers "examined data on nearly 500,000 men and women aged 50 to 71" who responded to "questionnaires on height and weight at various points during their lives." They found that participants "who'd reported doing substantial amounts of light, moderate, and vigorous exercise between the ages 15 and 18 were 36 percent less likely to develop glioma than those who were sedentary." The study also showed that "those who were obese during their teen years had a three to four times greater risk of developing glioma than those of a normal weight." Notably, "tall people were also at increased risk of glioma," with "each 10 centimeter...increase" linked to "a nearly 20 percent increase in risk of developing glioma."

The UK's Daily Mail (10/1) reports, "A daily dose of housework could cut the risk of breast cancer," according to a study appearing in BMC Cancer. For the study, investigators surveyed over "110,000 postmenopausal women to rate their activity levels at different ages." They found that "women in the group who had done more than seven hours a week of moderate-to-vigorous exercise were less likely to develop breast cancer than inactive women." In fact, data indicated that "women who stay fit and physically active after the menopause are 17 percent less likely to develop the disease than those who rarely leave the sofa." But, "light exercise in later life did not help, nor did exercise at younger ages." The researchers speculated that "exercise may affect hormones in a way that helped prevent breast cancer."

Medscape (12/17, Mulcahy, Subscription Publication) reported, "The practice of yoga might reduce psychological distress and modulate abnormal cortisol levels and immune responses in patients with metastatic breast cancer, according to a study presented...at the 34th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. ... In a three-month study, 45 patients were randomized to a daily yoga intervention and 46 to standard supportive counseling. The subjects, with an average age of 50.5 years, were assessed at baseline and after the intervention." After the yoga intervention, researchers reported "a statistically significant decrease in anxiety" and depression, "as well as cortisol levels, compared to the controls." Those in the yoga group also had "a significant increase in the percentage of natural killer cells."

On the front page of the New York Times (8/18, D1) Science Times section, Tara Parker-Pope writes in the Well column that women who undergo "surgery for breast cancer" are typically advised not to "lift anything heavier than 15 pounds" or "carry a heavy purse or grocery bags" in order to "prevent lymphedema." The condition is "a painful and unsightly swelling of an arm or leg that can occur near the site where lymph nodes have been removed or damaged by radiation." But, "new research," published in The New England Journal of Medicine, "suggests that much of that advice may be too restrictive." In the "study of 141 breast cancer patients who had lymphedema," women who "embarked on a slow, progressive program of weight lifting" had "significantly fewer flare-ups than the women who restricted their activity." Still, Parker-Pope cautions patients not to "disregard everything their doctors tell them about lymphedema," noting that "some patients never fully recover."

BBC News (5/25, Roberts) reports that men who "power walk for at least three hours a week can halve how much their cancer will grow and spread over the next couple of years," according to a study in Cancer Research. Strolling, however, "does not have the same effect," the study authors cautioned.

WebMD (5/24, Hendrick) reported that the researchers followed "1,455 men who had been diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer." The results showed that survivors who walk briskly "at a pace of at least three miles per hour for three hours or more per week were 57% less likely to develop the biochemical markers of cancer recurrence or to need a second round of treatment for their disease." Also covering the study were HealthDay (5/24, Mozes) and the UK's Telegraph (5/25, Beckford). Author: Erin L. Richman, a research associate in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.June 1 issue of Cancer Research.

The Wall Street Journal (11/11, McKay, Subscription Publication) reports that in 2010, 69% of adult smokers wished to quit, according to a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Of those, 6.2% succeeded. Most smokers did not utilize advice, counseling, or other assistance to help them quit.

Bloomberg News (11/11, Lopatto) reports, "Smokers could double or triple their chances of quitting by getting counseling, medicine or both, said the US Centers for Disease Control."

The National Journal (11/11, Quinton, Subscription Publication) reports that "Tim McAfee, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health," expressed concern that "many of the states have drastically cut back their efforts, not only because of tough economic times," but also because "the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have made it easier to get quit-smoking services. Until recently, Medicaid did not offer states the flexibility to help smokers quit with medication or counseling, said McAfee; and until recently, Medicare only offered such services to seniors who had already contracted a smoking-related disease."

Reuters (11/11, Steenhuysen) reports that having health insurance increased the odds of succeeding in smoking cessation, since insurance increased access to doctors, counseling, and reimbursements for aids, such as nicotine patches.

HealthDay (11/11, Reinberg) reports, "Other factors that are equated with quitting are education, where 11 percent of those with a college degree were able to quit, compared with three percent of those who did not graduate from high school. ... In addition, blacks had the highest interest in quitting and the highest quit attempt rate than any other group, but blacks also had the lowest rate of successful quitting" and "were also less likely to use medication or counseling." Based on the report's conclusions, advocates said that "to help more smokers quit, it is critical that all private and government health plans provide affordable and accessible coverage for smoking-cessation medication and counseling, and that states use more of their tobacco revenues to properly fund tobacco prevention and cessation programs."

MedPage Today (11/11) reports, "The findings come from analysis of the National Health Interview Surveys from 2001 through 2010, and are being released a week ahead of the annual Great American Smokeout on Nov. 17, according to Tim McAfee, MD, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health." CQ (11/11, Bunis, Subscription Publication) also covers the story

CNN /Health.com (6/22, McMillen) reports, "Men with prostate cancer who are cigarette smokers at the time of their diagnosis are much more likely to die of the disease or experience a recurrence than nonsmokers, including former smokers who kicked the habit at least 10 years before diagnosis," according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers followed 5,366 men with prostate cancer "for about eight years" and found that nearly "10% of the men ultimately died from the disease, and 16% experienced a recurrence after treatment." Those who were "actively smoking when their cancer was diagnosed were 61% more likely to die and 61% more likely to experience a recurrence." Notably, even when the researchers factored in the severity of the cancer, smokers were still "38% more likely to die and 47% more likely to have a recurrence."

"However, former smokers who had quit 10 years or more before they were diagnosed saw a risk of recurrence and death similar to men who never smoked," AFP (6/21) reported. The story was also covered by Reuters (6/22, Steenhuysen), MedPage Today (6/21, Neale), and HealthDay (6/21, Preidt).

HealthDay (1/19, Preidt) reported that a "team at the University of California-San Diego School of Medicine conducted tests on mice with early lung cancer lesions and found that those repeatedly exposed to tobacco smoke developed larger tumors -- and developed tumors more quickly -- than those that weren't exposed to tobacco smoke." Investigators say their work in Cancer Cell "offers definitive proof that lung inflammation caused by chronic exposure to tobacco smoke promotes lung cancer growth."

The AP (1/22, Cheng) reports that "there has been little proof that quitting smoking after developing lung cancer makes any difference to survival." Now, however, researchers in the UK are saying those who do "could double their chances of surviving."

In fact, "63 to 70 percent of" their study participants "who quit survived" for five years, HealthDay (1/21, Gardner) reported. Conversely, "only 29 to 33 percent of early stage lung cancer patients who kept smoking survived" for that long. According to the paper in the BMJ, the "survival seemed to come from a lower likelihood of tumor recurrence, not from heart/lung improvements." WebMD (1/21, Stacy) also covered the study.

Reuters (12/15, Grens) reports that, according to a study published online in the American Journal of Epidemiology, kids with fathers who smoked may face a greater risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Investigators surveyed families of approximately 400 kids with the disease. The researchers found that while the mothers' smoking status did not impact the children's risk of developing ALL, children whose fathers smoked near the time they were conceived faced a roughly 15 percent higher risk of developing the condition.

HealthDay (6/29, Dotinga) reported that "smoking may boost the risk of colon cancer in older women by causing certain genetic mutations," according to the paper in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. "Previous research has indicated that current and former smokers are 18 percent more likely to develop colorectal cancer than those who never smoked," but it was unclear "how smoking and tumors are connected, especially at the molecular level." After examining "statistics from the Iowa Women's Health Study," Mayo Clinic researchers eventually discovered "a strong link between smoking and a specific type of colorectal cancer that's connected to genetic mutations and variations."

The AP (4/4, Marchione) reports, "Smoking raises the risk of breast cancer for healthy-weight and overweight women but not for those who are obese," according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. The researchers analyzed data from the Women's Health Initiative, and found that of the "3,378 breast cancer cases," those who were "healthy-weight or overweight, with BMIs under 30," had a 16- to 25-percent increased risk to "develop breast cancer if they smoked." Conversely, the study team saw "no added breast cancer risk in obese" smokers (BMI 30+) compared to obese nonsmokers. The researchers speculated that because fat tissue makes estrogen, which fuels many breast cancers, obesity may be contributing "so much risk" that the risk from smoking "is less apparent."

According to HealthDay (4/1, Preidt), Juhua Luo, an assistant professor in the department of community medicine at West Virginia University, emphasized that previous research has shown "obesity alone is a risk factor" for breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Moreover, Luo stressed that because this is the "first study to examine the interaction between smoking, obesity and breast cancer risk," more research is needed to confirm the results.

HealthDay (3/18, Preidt) reported, "Women in smoke-free homes and workplaces are less likely to develop or die from breast cancer," according to a study in the journal Tobacco Control. Researchers compared "rates of non-smoking homes and workplaces with state-specific rates of breast cancer incidence and death," and found that states with "higher numbers of smoke-free homes and workplaces had significantly fewer breast cancer deaths, particularly among younger premenopausal women." The study authors estimated that about "20 percent of the change in breast-cancer death rates is due to changes in smoke-free home and workplace policies."

AFP (8/17) reports a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that women smokers have a 52% risk of bladder cancer, while men's risk is 50%. Previous studies reported a lower risk for women, which the research attributes to "the composition of cigarettes" having changed "during the past 50 years," specifically a "reduction in tar and nicotine," but an "increase in the concentration of specific carcinogens, including beta-napthylamine, a known bladder carcinogen." Also, more women are smoking now than in the past. AFP notes the study was conducted by Neal Freedman of the National Cancer Institute and funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The Canadian Press (8/17) reports, "Researchers found that former smokers were twice as likely as people who never used tobacco to develop bladder cancer. Those who had been smoke-free for at least 10 years had a lower incidence than those who quit for shorter periods or who still smoked."

WebMD (8/17, Mann) reports that the National Cancer Institute's Neal D. Freedman, PhD, MPH, who authored the study, said that "future studies should try to replicate these findings and analyze the constituents of tobacco smoke and identify the components that may have led to this increase" in bladder cancer risk.

HealthDay (8/17, Gordon) reports, "Although the incidence rates for bladder cancer appear to be remaining stable, the researchers noted that findings from several studies suggested that rates for smokers seemed to be rising."

MedPage Today (8/17, Bankhead) notes, "A limitation of the study included lack of information on the year smoking started, thereby eliminating calculation of duration or pack years of smoking. Also, there was a lack of follow-up data on smoking after the baseline survey to know how many people may have quit."

Medscape (5/24, Nelson, Subscription Publication) reported that the impact of "smoking on breast cancer might be larger than previously assumed," according to findings presented in advance of the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. Researchers found that women between the ages of 15 and 35 "who smoked for had a 34% higher risk for breast cancer than women who never smoked." Notably, women who smoked for "at least 35 years had a 59% higher risk, whereas those who smoked for less than 15 years had no increased risk for breast cancer."

HealthDay (5/16, Preidt) reported that for men who "had their prostate surgically removed due to prostate cancer, smoking seems linked to a rise in blood levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA)," according to findings presented at the American Urological Association meeting. Among "321 smokers and 309 nonsmokers who underwent radical prostatectomy" between 1989 and 2005, the study team found that smokers had a "higher volume and a greater volume of high-grade cancer than nonsmokers." Smokers also tended to "chart a steeper rise in their blood levels of PSA, signaling a greater risk of 'biochemical recurrence' of prostate cancer."

Smoking increases colon cancer risk: Reuters
This article reports on a JAMA study indicating that regular smokers are 18 percent more likely to develop colorectal cancer and 25 percent more likely to die of the disease than people who have never smoked. Researchers suggest that smokers may need to undergo colorectal cancer screenings earlier than people who do not smoke. Article: Reuters

The Winston-Salem (NC) Journal (4/3, Craver) reported, "Researchers at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center recently conducted a study of 742 cancer patients and caregivers to determine why they can't throw the cigarettes away, and whether there are reasons beyond their addiction to nicotine." The study, which was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, found is that "having cancer 'creates a very stressful period of time for everyone involved, and the added stress may make it a difficult time to quit.'" The researchers found that "18 percent of lung-cancer patients and 12 percent of colorectal-cancer patients continued to smoke after their diagnosis." Among caregivers, "25 percent continued to smoke, even though a family member had been diagnosed with lung cancer, as well as 20 percent" who had a family member with colorectal cancer.

Dow Jones Newswire (8/17, FitzGerald, Subscription Publication) reports that four of the largest US tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday over new graphic cigarette label warnings, which they say violate their constitutional right to free speech.

The AP (8/17) reports that the companies, led by "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co.," also said the labels, which include the "sewn-up corpse of a smoker and a picture of diseased lungs" will cost them "millions of dollars to print." The tobacco firms said rather than simply conveying "facts to allow people to make a decision whether to smoke," the warnings force them to "put government anti-smoking advocacy more prominently on their packs than their own brands. ... 'Never before in the US have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products,'" the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

Reuters (8/17) notes that FDA refused to comment on the suit, saying the agency does not discuss pending litigation. However, Reuters quotes HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as saying when she announced the new warnings in June that the new warnings would guarantee that every "person who picks up a pack of cigarettes is going to know exactly what risks" he or she is "taking."

HealthDay (11/17, Gardner) reports that individuals "who are diligent about keeping their heart healthy have a good chance of staving off cancer as well," according to a study scheduled to be presented at the American Heart Association meeting. In a study of approximately 13,000 healthy participants, researchers found that "between 1987 and 2006, the participants developed more than 1,800 new cancers, namely prostate, breast, lung and colon." The investigators found that "individuals who don't smoke and who maintain a healthy body-mass index (BMI), normal blood pressure and two to four other 'ideal' measures of heart health have a 38 percent lower risk of developing cancer."

HealthDay (11/3, Dalls) reports that according to study results published in the November issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, "Obese women who undergo elective breast surgery, such as a breast reduction or reconstruction, are nearly 12 times more likely than non-obese women to have complications following their operation." The study analyzed "insurance claims of about 8,000 women undergoing elective breast surgery" and found "30 percent, or 2,400 women, were obese." Procedures and complications were compared between obese women and non-obese women. The researchers also noted that "obese women were more than 20 times as likely to experience inflammation as other women."

Vitamin D tests increase after deficiencies are linked to diseases: USA Today (July 13, 2008)
This article reports that testing for vitamin D levels, once uncommon, has skyrocketed since medical studies linked deficiencies to a variety of diseases, including cancer. The article notes that between 2006 and 2008, vitamin D testing increased by 74 percent and that manufacturers of vitamin D diagnostic tests have seen similar increases in demand. Article: USA Today

In continuing coverage, Reuters (8/16, Pittman) reports a study published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews showing that cancer patients' anxiety and pain may be improved by music therapy. However, depression and fatigue did not show improvement. Drexel University creative arts therapist Joke Bradt, who performed the analysis, suggests that participating in the therapy may be empowering for the patient.

MedPage Today (2/28) reports, "The risk of triple-negative breast cancer increased by almost 50% in women who had given birth three times or more," according to a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In contrast, the analysis found that "nulliparity was associated with a 40% lower risk of triple-negative breast cancer but a 35% greater risk of estrogen receptor-positive cancer." The analysis was based on Women's Health Initiative data, which included "155,723 women, of whom 5,194 developed invasive breast cancer during a median follow-up of 7.9 years." Although the findings have implications for individualized care, they require confirmation, the study authors cautioned.

The Los Angeles Times (6/28) editorialized that the President's Cancer Panel, which published a report in May that "raises alarms about 'grievous harm' caused by synthetic chemicals and asserts that the number of cancer cases they're responsible for has been 'grossly underestimated,'" was "right to broaden the discussion of cancer." The report indicates "just how little we know, at our possible peril." Even though it is difficult "to track direct links to cancer, which would not show up for years after prolonged exposure," the public should "be wary about the long list of chemicals to which it is exposed." For their part, "the Endocrine Society...and the American Medical Assn. adopted positions last year calling for federal policies to reduce public exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals." The Times concluded, "We hope the [panel's] report...helps convince Congress that better testing and research for chemicals are in everyone's interest."

HealthDay (12/7, Edelson) reported that "diabetes, heart attacks, and other cardiovascular problems appear to be more common in men with prostate cancer who are treated with androgen deprivation therapy," according to a study published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Investigators looked at data on "37,000 men treated for prostate cancer at Veterans Affairs hospitals." The researchers found that "surgical removal of the testes was associated with a 40 percent increased risk for heart disease and a more than doubled risk for heart attack. Use of multiple hormone-blocking agents was associated with a 27 percent increased risk for heart disease."

Bloomberg News (2/1, Von Schaper) reports that a dog "trained to sniff out colorectal cancer was almost as accurate as a colonoscopy." According to a study in the journal Gut, a "Labrador retriever was at least 95 percent as accurate as colonoscopy when smelling breath samples, and 98-percent accurate when sniffing stool samples." The dog's sense of smell was "especially effective in early-stage cancer"; and the canine could "discern polyps from malignancies, which colonoscopy can't."

The CNN (1/31, Bonifield) "The Chart" blog noted that the dog "sniffed out the cancer sample in 33 out of 36 breath tests and in 37 out of 38 stool tests." In contrast, a "fecal occult blood test to screen for cancer at early stages" is accurate in "only one in 10 cases," the study authors noted. According to WebMD (1/31, Warner), the samples "came from 48 people with confirmed colorectal cancer and 258 volunteers with no cancer." Half of the comparison samples "came from people with bowel polyps," which are thought to be a "precursor of colorectal cancer."

The Los Angeles Times (1/31, Kaplan) "Booster Shots" blog reported that the although it is not yet clear whether "each cancer has its own chemical signature," the dog in the study has "been able to detect breast, lung, prostate, uterine, ovarian, bladder, gastric, pancreatic and esophageal cancers from breath samples, along with hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma."

Still, according to Medscape (1/31, Chustecka), the researchers are "not suggesting using dogs in clinical practice." Instead, they propose using the findings to "develop cancer detection tests based on 'odor materials.'" MedPage Today (1/31, Fiore) and HealthDay (1/31, Reinberg) also covered the study.

HealthDay (4/3, Gordon) reported that the risk of dying from a cancer is "higher in people with diabetes -- 11 percent greater for women and 17 percent higher in men," according to findings presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting. The researchers analyzed data on "55,888 men and 26,364 women" with cancer. Notably, lead study author, Gabriel Lai, a fellow at the National Cancer Institute, said diabetes was associated with an "8-percent increase in cancer risk in women, and there was a similar pattern in men, except for prostate cancer." She said that when prostate cancer rates were included, diabetic men's "odds for cancer generally were reduced by 4 percent. But, once the statistics on prostate tumors were factored out," men with diabetes had a "9-percent higher risk for cancer overall, compared to nondiabetic men."

Following a MedPage Today article, Medscape (7/30, Mulcahy) reported, "HPV-positive cancers of the head and neck have dramatically better prognoses and are more responsive to chemotherapy and radiotherapy than HPV-negative cancers, which have a poor prognosis, experts noted at a press conference organized by the American Association for Cancer Research." Therefore, they maintain that "clinicians who diagnose oropharyngeal cancer should now test their patients' tumor tissue for" the virus. Although the suggestion is not new, the new study, led by researchers at the University of Maryland "makes an important contribution to the understanding of this link." What's more, it demonstrates, "for the first time, that the well-known difference in survival between black and white patients" is not "racially based. Instead, it is due to the fact that blacks are much more likely to have difficult-to-treat HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancer than whites, and thus have greater mortality."

Delving into the specifics of the study, which was published online July 29 in Cancer Prevention Research, HealthDay (7/30, Preidt) reported that the team "found that median overall survival was 70.6 months for white patients and 20.9 months for black patients treated with chemotherapy and radiation." Yet, "median survival was 26.6 months for HPV-negative patients, while the survival rate for HPV-positive patients couldn't be calculated because most were still alive." Notably, "four percent of black patients and 34 percent of white patients were HPV-positive."

The CBS Evening News (3/10, story 8, 0:20, Couric) reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "said today about one in 20 Americans over the age of 20 is a cancer survivor."

According to the New York Times (3/11, A14, Belluck), the study in the CDC's most recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that the "number of cancer survivors increased by about 20 percent in just six years, to 11.7 million in 2007, the latest year for which figures were analyzed, from 9.8 million in 2001." CDC Director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden said the increase was due to many factors. "In some cases of breast cancer and colon cancer, for example, improved treatment and increased follow-up after treatment have helped increase survival." He added that in others, such as prostate cancer, an "explosion in screening has identified many men with the disease, but the cancer is often so slow-growing that they would be unlikely to die from it."

The CNN (3/11, Willingham) "The Chart" says that researchers believe the increase is due to a "growing aging population, early detection, improved diagnostic methods, more effective treatment, and improved clinical follow-up after treatment." Moreover, Dr. Frieden said, "Not smoking, getting regular physical activity, eating healthy foods, and limiting alcohol use can reduce the risk of many cancers."

On ABC World News (3/10, lead story, 2:50, Stephanopoulos), Dr. Frieden was shown saying, "Life doesn't have to end with cancer. If you get a diagnosis of cancer, there's a lot you can do to ensure that you lead a long, healthy, productive life as much as possible."

The AP (3/11) notes that the data showed "7 million -- 60 percent -- of the cancer survivors were 65 or older." Women diagnosed with breast cancer "made up the largest share of cancer survivors, at 22 percent, followed by men with prostate cancer, at 19 percent."

The Los Angeles Times (3/11, Maugh) "Booster Shots" blog reports that trailing "far behind" survivors of breast and prostate cancers were the "1.1 million survivors of colorectal cancer; in fourth place were the nearly 800,000 survivors of kidney and renal pelvis cancers." The data come from the "nine Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results programs."

According to the Fox News (3/10) Body & Mind column, CDC defines a cancer survivor as "anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer, from the time of diagnosis through the balance of his or her life."

The National Journal (3/11, Fox, subscription required) reports, "Approximately 1.1 million of the 11.7 million cancer survivors had lived with a diagnosis of cancer for 25 years or more."

In contrast, notes the NPR (3/11, Knox) "Shots" blog, in "1971, when cancer was considered pretty much a death sentence, there were only one-fourth as many survivors, and they made up less than 2 percent of the population."

MedPage Today (3/21, Smith) reported, "Girls and young women who live in wealthier neighborhoods and get more sun-soaked recreation appear to have a higher risk of melanoma," according to a study published online March 21 in the Archives of Dermatology. "Data from" one "state's cancer registry linked greater melanoma incidence among women and girls ages 15 through 39 with socioeconomic status and the average ultraviolet-B light exposure in their neighborhoods."

HealthDay (3/21, Salamon) reported, "In research examining the relationship between melanoma incidence, ultraviolet (UV) light exposure and socioeconomic status, scientists studied data from 3,800 white girls and women in California aged 15 to 39 during two periods a decade apart." In these "women, 3,842 melanomas were diagnosed, with diagnoses increasing most significantly over time in the three highest socioeconomic levels."

WebMD (3/21, Boyles) reported, "Among women living in neighborhoods with the highest UV radiation levels, melanoma rates were 70% higher for those living in the highest income neighborhoods, compared to the lowest."

Reuters (3/22) also covers the story, pointing out that, according to the National Cancer Institute, melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer.

(3/8, Reinberg) reported, "High levels of 'good' cholesterol" may reduce the risk of colon cancer, according to a study published online March 7 in Gut. The researchers compared 1,238 people (779 had colon cancer and 459 had rectal cancer) with 1,238 healthy people, and found that "those with the highest levels of HDL cholesterol and another blood fat called apolipoprotein A (apoA) had the least chance of developing colon cancer, but no impact was seen on rectal cancer." Specifically, for each "16.6 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) increase in HDL and 32 mg/dL increase in apoA, the risk of colon cancer was cut by 22 percent and 18 percent," respectively.

WebMD (3/8, Boyles) noted that in an interview, study co-researcher Bas Bueno-De-Mesquita, MD, PhD, from the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Bilthoven, the Netherlands, said that if the "findings are confirmed, HDL levels may be a useful indicator of colon cancer risk, along with other risk factors that are already known." The UK's Press Association (3/8) also covered the study results.

HealthDay (3/1, Reinberg) reported, "Both smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke appear to increase the risk for breast cancer among postmenopausal women," according to a study in the BMJ. The researchers collected 10 years of follow-up data on "79,990 women aged 50 to 79 who took part in the Women's Health Initiative" and found that "3,250 women developed breast cancer." The women who smoked had a "16-percent increased risk of developing breast cancer. Among women who quit, the increased risk was 9 percent."

BBC News (3/2, Roberts) adds that "women who had never smoked but had lived or worked with smokers for prolonged times also appeared to be at increased risk for breast cancer." For example, over "10 years' exposure in childhood, over 20 years' exposure as an adult at home and over 10 years' exposure as an adult at work, increased the risk by 32%," the researchers concluded. The same trend, however, was not seen "among women who had been exposed to lesser amounts." AFP (3/2) also covers the study.

Reuters (3/2, Steenhuysen) notes that research has already shown that being overweight increases the risk of breast cancers, but excessive body weight may also increase the risk of triple-negative breast cancers, according to a new study in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. The researchers analyzed study data from the 155,723 women and found that women with the highest BMIs had a 35% increased chance for developing triple-negative breast cancers. HealthDay (3/1, Doheny) and WebMD (3/1, Boyles) also covered the study.

BBC News (3/2, Hughes) reports, people who engage in regular exercise are "16% less likely to develop bowel polyps and 30% less likely to develop large or advanced polyps," according to an analysis of 20 previous studies published in the British Journal of Cancer. AFP (3/2) also covers the study; as does the UK's Press Association (3/2), which notes that bowel cancer is the "third most common cancer in the UK after breast and lung cancer, with more than 38,000 new cases each year."

Study Refutes Cellphone, Brain Cancer Risk.

The Washington Post (2/21, Huget) "The Checkup" blog reported that a study published in the journal Bioelectromagnetics in January suggests that cellphones do not cause cancer. Researchers fanalyzed data for cases of brain cancer reported by the "UK Office of National Statistics from 1998 to 2007," and reasoned that if the radio frequencies cellphones emit caused brain cancer, there would have been a "notable uptick in the number of such cancers in cellphone-using societies during the past 20 years as cellphone use has risen. In short, the paper finds, no such uptick is evident."

According to HealthDay (2/18), the study did find a "very small increase (0.6 more cases per 100,000 people) in the incidence of cancers of the brain's temporal lobe." That equates to "31 extra cases per year in England's population of nearly 52 million people," the researchers said.

The CNN (2/21, Landau) "The Chart" blog reported that experts are saying that it is crucial for teens to understand that "oral sex carries many of the same risks as vaginal sex, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of oral cancers in America in people under age 50." During a conference on Sunday, researchers said that the "latest data suggest that 64% of oropharynx cancers -- growing in the middle part of the throat -- in the United States are caused by HPV, which is more than tobacco causes." Notably, the

Medscape (1/25, Mulcahy) reported, "Melanoma in adults might be preventable with the regular use of sunscreen -- that is, with the daily application to the head, neck, arms, and hands," according to a study published in the Jan. 20 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In a study in which 1,621 adults were randomized "to regular sunscreen use or to discretionary use, which included no use at all," researchers found that "regular application of sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 15 or more during a five-year treatment period reduced the incidence of new primary melanomas during a subsequent 10-year follow-up period."

The AP (2/16, Marchione) reports, "A new study suggests a way to help men with early, low-risk prostate cancer avoid being overtreated." According to results "released Tuesday in a telephone news conference sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology," the study enrolled about 300 men with low-risk prostate cancer. Biopsies taken 1-1/2 years later showed that prostate cancer got worse in "38 percent" of men taking Avodart (dutasteride) and "49 percent of those" on placebo. Final biopsies at three years, however, "showed no signs of cancer in 36 percent of men on Avodart versus 23 percent of those on dummy pills." The researchers concluded that Avodart, which is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, can "slow the growth of these tumors in men who opt to be monitored instead of having treatment right away."

FDA Panel Rejects Bid To Include Prostate Cancer Prevention In Dutasteride's Indications. MedPage Today (2/15, Bankhead) reports that the FDA in January "rejected a bid to expand dutasteride's indications to include prostate cancer prevention." The decision followed a "December meeting of an FDA advisory committee, whose members voted overwhelmingly against the indication for both dutasteride" and Proscar (finasteride). The advisory committee "cited evidence of an increased risk of high-grade cancer among" men treated with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors as the "key factor in their thumbs-down votes."

Reuters (2/11, Norton) reported that studies have shown that women who smoke have a higher-than-average cervical cancer risk. Now, a new study of 4,400 women, in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, reveals that women who are exposed to second-hand smoke have damaged cervical cells. Although the study did not confirm that the women had an increased cervical cancer risk, it did show that one out every 14 women, who reported second-hand smoke exposure, had an abnormal Pap test result. Overall, the researchers found that 70 percent more women who reported second-hand smoke exposure were likely have abnormal Pap results, even after the women's own smoking habits and sexual history were considered.

Obesity May Influence Molecular Pathogenesis Of Colon Cancer.

MedPage Today (12/28, Fiore) reports, "Obese patients are less likely to have a genetic mutation that is associated with better outcomes in colorectal cancer," according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Researchers found, "in a retrospective study," that "obese patients were significantly less likely to have a tumor with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) status -- a phenotype predictive of improved outcomes -- than normal-weight patients (P<0.001)." According to the investigators, "Obesity may influence the molecular pathogenesis of colon cancer and reduce the favorable prognostic dMMR subtype."

Some Scientists Attribute Childhood Leukemia, Brain Cancer Increases To Environmental Chemicals.

WebMD (1/27, Mann) reports that the rise in childhood leukemia and brain cancer rates "may be partially" blamed on exposure to environmental chemicals such as "chlorinated solvents and the head lice treatment lindane," according to experts speaking at a conference call sponsored by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. The group is seeking to "overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)." Sean Palfrey, MD, of Boston University, "says that chemical exposures can be passed down, much like genes. ... 'They may not harm the first organ, but they may harm the blood cells related to leukemia and brain cells related to brain cancer,'" Dr. Palfrey said. However, "not everyone in the scientific community agrees" with the chemical-exposure connection. Some suggest that "improvements in diagnosing childhood cancers may also have a role."

Meta-Analysis Shows Having Both Breast Cancer, Diabetes Doubles Mortality Risk.

HealthDay (1/20, Goodwin) reported, "Having both breast cancer and diabetes greatly increases the chances of dying," according to a study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of seven studies and determined that six of them "found pre-existing diabetes was associated with significantly higher long-term, all-cause mortality." Specifically, the studies showed "breast cancer patients with diabetes were nearly 50-percent more likely to die than those who didn't have diabetes."

AFP (1/18) reports, "Those first few puffs on a cigarette can within minutes cause genetic damage linked to cancer," according to a study in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. The researchers "said the 'effect is so fast that it's equivalent to injecting the substance directly into the bloodstream,' in findings described as a 'stark warning' to those who smoke."

According to HealthDay (1/18, Mozes), the investigators "focused on a class of cancer-causing culprits found in cigarette smoke called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs." They labeled and tracked the PAH phenanthrene "through the bodies of 12 volunteer smokers" and found that the PAH "began to cause havoc on the DNA of the smokers within just 15 to 30 minutes after smoking," suggesting that a smoking habit "causes immediate genetic damage and quickly raises the short-term risk for cancer." BBC News (1/15) also covers the study.

ABC World News (1/26, story 7, 2:10, Sawyer) reported, "An important health warning tonight from the FDA about a possible link between breast implants and a rare form of cancer." ABC (Stark) added, "The government says they may be linked to a rare form of lymphoma. ... There are 60 cases worldwide, in as many 10-million women with implants."

The Washington Post (1/27, Stein) reports that the FDA on Wednesday announced it had "detected a possible association between saline and silicone gel-filled breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL)" The agency said most women with implants "do not have to have them removed or take any other steps," but they should "immediately seek medical care" if they develop "unusual problems," such as "swelling or pain around the implant."

According to the AP (1/27), the FDA based its warning on a review of "scientific literature going back to 1997 along with information provided by international governments and manufacturers." Most of the cases were "reported after patients sought medical care" for problems "around the surgical site."

The Wall Street Journal (1/27, Dooren, Mundy, subscription required) reports the FDA has identified 60 ALCL cases in women who had breast implants, of which 34 cases have thus far been verified, according to a statement released by the agency. HealthDay (1/26, Reinberg) noted that 24 of the cases were "related to silicone implants, seven to saline implants and the type of implant in the remaining three cases are not known," according to the FDA. The agency also said that "19 of the implants were inserted for cosmetic reasons and 11 were used in reconstructive procedures. The reasons for the other four procedures are not known."

The New York Times (1/27, A18, Grady) reports that in some cases, simply "removing the implant and scar tissue gets rid of the disease, but some women might need chemotherapy and radiation," said Center for Devices and Radiological Health Deputy Director Dr. William Maisel. He noted that although 60 cases is "a tiny number compared" with the number of women who have implants, it is an excess when "compared with the usual incidence." ALCL in the breast is "normally found in only three in 100-million women who do not have implants."

The Boston Globe (1/19, Kotz) "Daily Dose" blog reports that a study in the journal Cancer Epidemiology "compared 6,386 healthy women with 3,074 breast cancer patients." The researchers then "calculated the percentage of cancer cases attributed" to particular risk factors and found that about "37 percent of all postmenopausal breast cancers are caused by factors women can't change, such as their family history, their age, or the age of their first and last menstrual period." However, the researchers also determined that nearly "30 percent of breast cancers could be prevented by modifying certain lifestyle habits." The biggest lifestyle habits were "use of hormone replacement therapy and a lack of physical activity," while excess "body weight and alcohol consumption" played minor roles.

The Wall Street Journal (1/11, Hobson, subscription required) "Health Blog" reported that some 65% of men experience incontinence after undergoing surgery for prostate cancer. Some patients opt for more surgery to correct the issue. Now, however, a paper appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that a therapy, often prescribed for women, may help relieve the problem.

The "behavioral intervention consisted of four visits scheduled two weeks apart," WebMD (1/11, Mann) reported. "Men received education on their pelvic floor anatomy and learned how to do the pelvic-floor-muscle exercises." They "were also advised to hold their urine stream during voiding once a day for two weeks, keep a bladder diary, avoid caffeine, and to distribute their fluid throughout the day."

The University of Alabama study participants, 208 men, were "randomly assigned to one of three groups," HealthDay (1/11, Gordon) reported. "After eight weeks, the researchers found that the average number of incontinence episodes dropped from 28 to 13 a week, a 55 percent decline, for the men in the behavioral therapy group, and from 26 to 12 episodes a week, down 51 percent, for men who'd had biofeedback and electrical stimulation as well as behavioral therapy. The control group had a 24 percent reduction, on average, in incontinence episodes."

Medscape (1/11, Chustecka) reported "that light at night, specifically in the bedroom, increases the risk for breast cancer," researchers in Israeli concluded after evaluating 1,679 women. The study detailed in Chronobiology International, the authors asserted, is the "first...to have identified an unequivocal positive association between bedroom light intensity and breast cancer risk." However, two "experts in the field took issue with the word 'unequivocal.'" Richard Stevens, PhD, of the University of Connecticut, said "there is a serious potential for recall bias, he emphasized," while Johnni Hansen, PhD, from the Danish Cancer Society's Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, "noted that there was a large difference is the response rates -- only 52% of controls, compared with 86% of cases, agreed to answer the questions on light in the bedroom."

Vitamin and mineral supplements increase the risk of skin cancer (SU.VI.MAX study)

A study in France compared supplementation with Vitamin A, C & E with selenium and zinc against placebo. After 7.5 years the incidence of skin cancers including melanoma were higher in the supplementation group although only in women. Fortunately a study published in the EJC (2010, 46, 3316-3322) showed that stopping the supplements reduced the risk in the normal levels within 5 years. This study did not measure baseline levels of this vitamins an mineral and confirms the importance of measuring levels before taking supplement with the aim of correcting specific deficiencies avoiding excess levels which are clearly carcinogenic.

Medscape (12/30, Nelson) reported, "The evidence continues to be unclear as to whether dietary supplements are helpful or harmful during cancer treatment." Yet, researchers at Vanderbilt University were unable to find "evidence that the use of vitamins during first six months after a diagnosis of breast cancer adversely affected outcomes. In fact," according to their paper in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, "vitamin use -- and the use of vitamins C and E in particular -- appeared to be associated with reduced risk for mortality and recurrence." Specifically, those "who used antioxidants (vitamin E, vitamin C, multivitamins) had an 18% reduction in their mortality risk, and the risk for recurrence was decreased by 22%," an association that "was observed whether vitamin use was concurrent or nonconcurrent with chemotherapy."

According to a study published online Dec. 22 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, long-term use of soy isoflavones does not appear to increase the risk for breast cancer in menopausal women. In a study of 403 women who were randomized to placebo or to 80- or 120-milligram tablets of soy hypocotyls isoflavone supplementation over the course of two years, researchers detected no differences in screening tests, blood tests, and blood pressure measurements taken during well-woman examinations.

USA Today (9/7, Hellmich) reports, "If you're trying to cut carbs, it may be better for your health to eat more protein and fat from plant sources than animal sources," according to research published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Investigators "followed 85,168 women and 44,548 men for several decades." The researchers found that "participants who replaced carbs with protein and fat from animal sources were more likely to die from all causes, including cancer and heart disease." The Los Angeles Times (9/6, Stein) "Booster Shots" blog, the CNN (9/6) "The Chart" blog, and HealthDay (9/6, Gardner) also covered the story

The Los Angeles Times (9/9, Khan) "Booster Shots" blog reported, "Obesity doesn't just increase postmenopausal women's risk of developing colon cancer, it might even raise their risk of dying from it," according to a paper published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. "That doesn't mean going on a crash diet and emaciating yourself." The "term 'healthy body weight' is the key here," considering that "being underweight is also dangerous: Underweight women diagnosed with colon cancer were 89% more likely to die of any cause than women with a normal BMI."

Before reaching those conclusions, the team looked at data on 1,096 women and eventually discovered that "obese women -- those with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher -- had a 45 percent increase in all causes of death compared to women with a healthy weight," HealthDay (9/9, Doheny) reported. Investigators also discovered that an "unhealthy waist-to-hip ratio and large waist...were associated with a higher risk of dying from colon cancer." Specifically, "women with waists of 37.5 inches or higher had a higher death risk than those with a healthier waist size."

Consuming Even Moderate Amounts Of Alcohol May Raise Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk In Certain Women.

HealthDay (8/30, Mozes) reported, "Drinking even moderate amounts of alcohol may raise the risk for breast cancer recurrence in some women," according to a paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The "association seems confined to former breast cancer patients who are postmenopausal or overweight or obese." In fact, Kaiser Permanente researchers found that "participants who were postmenopausal or overweight/obese raised their risk for breast cancer recurrence by nearly 1.5 times if they regularly consumed a minimum of three to four drinks of any type of alcohol a week."

Oklahoma Researchers Studying Effects Of Turmeric On Prostate Cancer.

The Oklahoman (7/27) reports "Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist Biji Kurien is studying the effects of curcumin, a chemical in the spice turmeric, on prostate cancer." Turmeric is a "widely used spice in Asia, where the rate of prostate cancer is much lower" than in the US. So far, "published studies have shown that curcumin can induce death in some cancer cells, which absorb more of the chemical than normal cells," he said

MedPage Today (8/2, Fiore) reported, "High intake of nitrite and nitrate added to processed meats to aid preservation may be tied to bladder cancer," NIH researchers found. "In a prospective cohort study that followed more than 300,000 men and women for seven years, dietary nitrite and nitrate, and nitrite alone, were associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer among individuals with the highest consumption of processed meat -- but it was of borderline statistical significance," according to the paper in Cancer. "However, consumption of processed meat itself was not associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer."

Apparently, during the cooking process, chemicals that are naturally present in meat can combine with nitrates and nitrites to form N-nitroso compounds, which have been known to cause cancer, Reuters (8/3, Peeples) reports. Upon exiting the system, the compounds may come in contact with the bladder's lining -- hence the potential cancer risk.

Long Ring Finger Linked To Prostate Cancer Risk.

The UK's Telegraph (7/21, Jamieson) reports that "hospital patients...whose ring finger on the right hand was significantly longer than the index finger were more likely to" develop prostate cancer "than those fingers were roughly same length," South Korean researchers found after looking at 366 men. "Blood tests showed that men whose ring fingers were much longer than their index finger, next to the thumb, had almost double the normal levels of prostate specific antigen." And, "three times as many of these men went on to be diagnosed with prostate cancer."

The AP (6/29, Neergaard) reports that the medical community has "long advised that being overweight and sedentary increases the risk for various cancers." Now, new "guidelines issued this month" from a panel commissioned by the American College of Sports Medicine "advise cancer survivors to aim for the same amount of exercise as recommended for the average person: about 2 1/2 hours a week." Indeed, "patients still in treatment may not feel up to that much, the guidelines acknowledge, but should avoid inactivity on their good days." Notably, "innovative new studies are under way to start answering" questions regarding exercise type and intensity.

NBC Nightly News (7/7, story 7, 2:20, Williams) reported, "It's long been a fear -- more than that, a belief held by many people that things in our environment, our daily life that we come in contact with cause certain kinds of cancer." Specifically, "for breast cancer," there are concerns about "pesticides and chemicals like BPA in plastic bottles and can liners that can disrupt hormone function in animal studies." Yesterday, however, "a panel of experts...in San Francisco heard so far there is no proof of a connection, but it is critical to look." Therefore, the "panel from the Institute of Medicine...is holding studies to determine what further research is needed."

CNN /Health.com (7/8, Gardner) reported, "Millions of Americans already take fish oil to keep their hearts healthy and to treat ailments ranging from arthritis to depression." Now, a paper appearing in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention indicates that the "supplements may also help women lower their risk of breast cancer." In fact, "postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 76 who took fish oil were...less likely to develop certain types of breast cancer than women who didn't," researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found.

Delving into specifics, the UK's Press Association (7/8) reports that the "Vitamins and Lifestyle (Vital) study recruited 35,000 post-menopausal women who had no history of breast cancer." Each participant was "asked to fill out a 24-page questionnaire about their use of dietary supplements and monitored for six years." Eventually, "880 of the women went on to develop breast cancer."

Yet, "researchers found a 32-percent reduction in breast cancer risk among women taking fish oil," Canwest News Service (7/7, Kirkey) reported. "The results held for ductal breast cancer, the most common type of the disease, but not for lobular cancers." Lead investigator Emily White said, "To find that it reduced a specific type of breast cancer adds a little support to the association."

Still, according to the UK's Independent (7/8, Laurance), the findings are "likely to further boost the booming market for the supplements, worth about $2bn (£1.31bn) globally in 2007, doubling since 2003." The UK's Daily Mail (7/8, Borland) also covers the study.

The UK's Daily Mail (7/6) reports, "Eating fruit and vegetables regularly may lower the risk of lung cancer," according to "research based on 700 people." Meanwhile, "another study...found eating 1½ pieces of fruit or a large tablespoonful of vegetables every day can protect against emphysema and chronic bronchitis." In fact, those "who ate the most celery had a 60 percent lower risk than those who ate the least," while those who ate carrots experienced a 50 percent reduction.

The UK's Daily Mail (7/5) reported, "Tea tree oil may provide a fast, cheap and effective treatments for some skin cancers, according to researchers." A team of researchers from the University of Western Australia found that the common remedy was able "to shrink non-melanoma skin cancers in mice in just one day and wiped them out within three days." Study leader Dr. Sara Greay said, "We are very excited about these results and are hoping to find funding for a small clinical trial of about 50 people with pre-cancerous lesions, with the aim of preventing the development of skin cancers."

The UK's Telegraph (5/25) reported that "women who drink a single cup every day are ten per cent less likely to develop" ovarian cancer "than those who never drink tea," according to a study published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control. Investigators found that "a single daily cup of black tea appeared to lower the risk by around ten per cent, two to three cups by 13 per cent and four or more by 12 per cent." The researchers also found that "those drinking green tea saw their risks decline by 20 per cent for one cup a day, eight per cent for two to three cups, and 18 per cent for four cups or more."

WebMD (6/16, Doheny) reported that, according to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, "eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, low-fat dairy foods, and fish may reduce your risk of colorectal cancer." After comparing the diets of "431 men and women with colorectal cancer and the diets of 726" matched controls without colon cancer, researchers found that "eating a largely plant-based diet with higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, vegetable oils, and low-fat dairy in women and fish in men" appeared to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer by 62% in men and by 65% in women.

High blood sugar risk of cancer The UK's Telegraph (1/3, Alleyne) reported that, according to findings published in the Public Library of Science journal, "excess blood sugar means someone could be more likely both to develop cancer and also to die from it." In a study of "blood sugar levels in 274,126 men and 275,818 women from Norway, Austria, and Sweden," researchers found that "women were more vulnerable than men, and high blood sugar is linked to a range of different cancers for each gender." Notably, "the increased likelihood of cancer occurred regardless of the participants' body mass index levels."

Canada's Globe and Mail (11/18, Weeks) reports that, according to research published Nov. 18 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "heart-disease patients treated with a combination of folic acid and vitamin B12 had an increased risk of cancer and death, compared to patients who didn't receive the vitamins as treatment." The finding "fuels fears that mandatory fortification of the food supply with folic acid could yield unintended consequences."

The Los Angeles Times (11/17, Dennis) "Booster Shots" blog reported that the researchers "analyzed data from 6,837 people with ischemic heart disease treated with folic acid, B6 and B12; folic acid and B12; just B6 or a placebo," finding that "those treated with folic acid and B12 had higher rates of cancer, cancer deaths, and deaths in general over the course of several years."

In fact, 10 percent "of patients getting folic acid and vitamin B12 developed cancer, compared with 8.4 percent who didn't receive this treatment," Bloomberg News (11/18, Cortez) reports. Meanwhile, "four percent died from cancer and 16 percent died from any cause among those getting folic acid and vitamin B12" compared to "2.9 percent of people who died from cancer and 13.8 percent who died from any cause among those who didn't get the combination."

Notably, "the most common cancers associated with folic acid were colorectal, lung, prostate, and blood cancer," HealthDay (11/17, Reinberg) reported. But, "other researchers cautioned that the results should not turn women away from normal folic acid supplements that can help prevent birth defects," MedPage Today (11/17, Walsh) reported. WebMD (11/17, Boyles) also covered the story.

USA Today (12/9, Szabo) reports that, according to a study published Dec. 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "soy foods may be safe, and possibly even beneficial, for breast cancer survivors." Until now, "many breast cancer doctors have been cautious about recommending soy products -- such as soy milk, tofu, edamame, or miso soup -- because they contain plant estrogens. Most breast cancers are fueled by estrogen, which can make it risky to take additional hormones, such as for menopausal symptoms."

The Los Angeles Times (12/9, Roan) reports that researchers at Vanderbilt University "analyzed data from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study of 5,042" Chinese women "ages 20 to 75." The investigators found that "patients with the highest intake had a 29% lower risk of death during the study period and a 32% lower risk of breast cancer recurrence compared to patients with the lowest intake of soy foods," which "was measured by either soy protein or soy isoflavone intake."

Bloomberg News (12/9, Ostrow) reports, "The study, which followed women for an average of about four years, is the largest to examine the influence of soy intake on breast cancer survival and recurrence, the authors said. More than 192,000 women in the US will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, according to the National Cancer Institute."

HealthDay (12/8, Gordon) reported, "What's more, the association between soy and a reduced risk of death held true even for women with estrogen receptor-positive cancers and women taking tamoxifen," the investigators found. In fact, the research team "found that soy actually reduces the availability of naturally occurring estrogen by binding to its receptors," having "a very similar effect to tamoxifen."

MedPage Today (12/8, Phend) noted that "the study was done in China, where soy intake tends to be higher than in the US and eaten in less processed forms." But, "while American women typically eat less than one-tenth as much soy as their counterparts in China, the results should be reassuring regardless of consumption, according to an accompanying editorial." The editorialists also "cautioned that any potential benefits cannot be extrapolated to dietary supplements containing soy," but said that "patients with breast cancer can be assured that enjoying a soy latte or indulging in pad thai with tofu causes no harm and, when consumed in plentiful amounts, may reduce risk of disease recurrence."

MedPage Today (12/21, Woznicki) reported that "exposure to aristolochic acid, found in some Chinese herbal products such as Mu Tong and Fangchi, significantly increased the risk for urinary tract cancer, according to a" study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Investigators "found prescription of more than 60 grams of Mu Tong and consumption of more than 150 mg aristolochic acid were independently associated with an increased risk for urinary tract cancer." MedPage pointed out, "Once used in Chinese herbal preparations taken for weight loss or urinary tract infections, aristolochic acid has been banned in several countries, including in Taiwan and in the US."

The Time (12/8, O'Callaghan) "Wellness" blog reported, "Prostate cancer researchers are enthusiastic about new findings that suggest a natural compound found in hops plants might help to prevent the disease." Previous research revealed that xanthohumol "can effectively bind to estrogen receptors, blocking estrogen and potentially helping to prevent breast cancer." The new work suggests that it "may work similarly with testosterone, potentially interrupting the development of prostate cancer."

Bloomberg News (12/8, Bennett) reported that Harvard scientists have discovered that "drinking coffee may lower the risk of developing the deadliest form of prostate cancer." In fact, "the five percent of" study participants "who drank six or more cups a day had a 60 percent lower risk of developing the advanced form of the disease than those who didn't consume any." The work, Bloomberg notes, "is the first to associate coffee with prostate cancer, contradicting previous research that's found no link."

The team is quick to point out, however, that "it's too early to start recommending that men start drinking coffee to help prevent prostate cancer, but the results are encouraging," WebMD (12/7, Warner) reported. BBC News (12/8) and the UK's Telegraph (12/8, Smith) also cover the study.

Research explores role exercise could play in fight against prostate cancer. A presentation made "at the Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research conference" touched on the "role that exercise...could play in the fight against prostate cancer," the Time (12/7, O'Callaghan) "Wellness" blog reported. "An analysis of activity levels among 2,686 prostate cancer patients showed that men who jogged, played tennis, or participated in other comparable exercise for an average of three or more hours per week had 35% lower mortality rates than those who exercised less frequently or not at all." As for walking, those who did so "for four or more hours per week" had "overall mortality rates [that] were 23% lower than those of men who walked for fewer than 20 minutes per week."

HealthDay (10/9, Preidt) reported, "Many breast cancer patients have low levels of vitamin D, which could lead to weaker bones and increased risk of fractures," according to research presented Oct. 8 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's breast cancer symposium. Researchers examined "166 women undergoing treatment for breast cancer," finding that "nearly 70 percent had low levels of vitamin D in their blood." On average, there were "27 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood," while "levels of 32 nanograms per milliliter are adequate, according to the US Institute of Medicine." Notably, researchers found "the lowest levels of vitamin D...in non-whites and those with late-stage breast cancer." But, "weekly supplementation with high doses of vitamin D (50,000 IU or more) boosted the levels of the vitamin among all women."

The UK's Daily Mail (11/16, Hope) reports, "Almost 80,000 patients diagnosed with cancer each year could have avoided the disease by adopting a healthier lifestyle," according to data from the World Cancer Research Fund. In fact, "39 percent of cases of the 12 major cancers are preventable through better diet, drinking, and exercise habits." For the UK in particular, "record levels of drinking" have "risen more sharply...than in any other developed country," which means "the UK has one of the highest levels of preventable cancers." Research has shown that "bowel cancer can be cut by eating less red and processed meat, while drinking less alcohol would reduce the chances of breast cancer." Meanwhile, "eating more fresh fruit and [vegetables] and keeping a healthy weight reduces cancers of the stomach and pancreas."

USA Today (11/11, Szabo) reports, "Nearly half of breast cancer survivors suffer from persistent pain, even two to three years after surgery," according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The findings highlight "the need to improve care, both by finding ways to reduce nerve damage during surgery and by learning why some women have so much pain and others do not," researchers noted.

The New York Times (11/10, Rabin) reports in Vital Signs that the study of "3,253 women who were breast cancer patients" showed that "the patients most likely to" report chronic pain "were those under 40, those who had undergone radiation treatment, and those who had surgery to remove all of the lymph nodes in the armpit rather than...a sentinel node biopsy."

Of those who reported "severe pain, 77 percent said they had it daily," while 36 percent of patients experienced "light" pain every day, HealthDay (11/10, Doheny) reported. Patients reported "pain...in the breast area, the armpit, the arm and the side of the body."

WebMD (11/10, Boyles) reported that the researchers concluded "that the cause of most chronic pain following breast cancer treatment is injury to key nerves during surgery." As a result, they called for "more delicate surgical techniques to avoid nerve damage." MedPage Today (11/10, Phend) also covered the story.

The Toronto Sun /QMI Agency (8/18) reports, "Patients undergoing chemotherapy may think they're helping their treatment by taking herbal supplements" such as "acai berry, herbal teas, cumin, turmeric and...garlic," but they "can intensify or weaken the effect of chemotherapy drugs, and in some cases may cause a toxic or even lethal reaction." Some supplements can also interfere with the metabolism of chemotherapy drugs, while garlic taken over a long time may increase bleeding risk during surgery. The results were presented at an American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting. Lead investigator Dr. June M. McKoy recommended that patients always tell their doctors what supplements they are taking.

MedPage Today (10/28, Walsh) reported, "Although many carcinogens have been removed from working and living environments, many potential hazards remain, including building materials, additives, or contaminants in food and water, and pollutants, indoors and out, the American Cancer Society reported" in the Nov./Dec. issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. The report stated that "concerns remain because of the vast and increasing number of potentially risky substances and the involuntary nature of many exposures."

ACS "calls for new strategies to more effectively and efficiently screen the chemicals to which the public is exposed," WebMD (10/28, Wilbert) reported. The authors outlined several goals, including "new strategies for toxicity testing, for occupational and community exposures to meet regulatory standards, [and] funding for research to identify and reduce carcinogenic hazards." The Time (10/28, Guthrie) "Wellness" blog also covered the story.

The UK's Telegraph (10/24, Beckford, Winnett) reported that "the World Health Organization (WHO) will publish evidence that heavy users" of cell phones "face a higher risk of developing brain tumors later in life." The "decade-long investigation" was "conducted...in 13 countries" where researchers interviewed "tumor sufferers and people in good health to see whether their mobile phone use differed." The review of "12,800 people" showed that "six of eight...studies found some rise in the risk of glioma (the most common brain tumour), with one finding a 39 percent increase." Meanwhile, "two of seven studies into acoustic neurinoma (a benign tumor of a nerve between the ear and brain) reported a higher risk after using mobiles for 10 years." But, the "inquiry has faced criticism for including people who made just one call a week, and leaving out children, which some experts said could underplay the risks."

Bloomberg News (9/24, Cortez, Kresge) reported, "Obesity may have caused 124,050 new cases of cancer last year in Europe," according to research presented at the European Cancer Organization and European Society for Medical Oncology. That estimate, "based on information from sources including the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer," was "77 percent higher...than in 2002, when 70,000 of the 2.2 million cancers diagnosed across Europe could be linked to extra weight."

For the study, researchers "designed a model to estimate the number of cancers that could be blamed on being fat in 30 European countries," finding that "being overweight or obese accounts for up to eight percent of cancers in Europe," the AP (9/25) reports. But, experts said that the "figure is poised to increase substantially as the obesity epidemic continues, and as major causes of cancer, such as smoking and hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women, drop dramatically."

Researchers found that the "65 percent of all cancers linked to being fat" included "colorectal cancer, breast cancer in menopausal women, and endometrial cancer," the UK's Telegraph (9/24) reported. While researchers remain uncertain "why being fat boosts...cancer risk," they "suspect it is connected to hormones," as those who "become fatter...produce more hormones like oestrogen that helps tumors grow."

The UK's Daily Mail (9/25) reports that "almost one in ten new cases of the disease among women in Europe are currently attributed to being overweight or obese -- almost three times more than men," the study showed. Specifically, 8.6 percent "of new cancers could be attributed to being overweight or obese" in women, compared to "3.2 percent...in men," the UK's Press Association (9/24) noted.

In the New York Times (9/29) "Well" blog, Dana Jennings discussed how he has been "ambushed" by depression, despite the fact that he is "recovering well from an aggressive case of prostate cancer." Jennings noted that "as many as 25 percent of cancer patients develop depression, according to the American Cancer Society," compared to "about seven percent of the general population." Currently, Jennings is "seeing a psychiatrist who specializes in cancer patients," and has begun "a course of medication." Even though his physician has assured him that "depression isn't unusual among those who are on the far side of [cancer] treatment," Jennings said he is still "grieving for the person" he was before cancer.

Many People Continue Unhealthy Habits After Disease Diagnosis.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (6/27, Gormly) reported, "Even when faced with a health scare like a heart attack or stroke, or a life-changing diagnosis like diabetes or cancer, many people continue unhealthy habits with eating, smoking, exercising and the like." One "study of more than 9,000 cancer survivors, Canadian researchers found that few people had made significant lifestyle changes." Approximately "80 percent of people in the study, published in 2008 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, had quit smoking, but fewer than 20 percent were consuming five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, and exercising regularly."

Reuters (6/27, Pittman) reported that taking a vitamin D and calcium supplement may help some women reduce their risk for developing melanoma, according to a study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Researchers analyzed medical data from roughly 36,000 women between the age 50 and 79, were randomized to either take both calcium (1,000 mg) and vitamin D3 (400 IUs) supplements or placebo, daily for seven years. The study team found that women who previously had non-melanoma skin cancer were less likely to get melanoma, if they were in the calcium and vitamin D group.

HealthDay (6/27, Reinberg) reported that the women taking the supplements who had had previous non-melanoma skin cancer reduced their risk of developing melanoma "by 57 percent," compared with women taking the placebo supplements. Overall, "176 cases of melanoma developed." Lead researcher Dr. Jean Tang from Stanford University School of Medicine "speculated that cancer cells lurking in the skin of women who have had a previous skin cancer may be waiting to develop into melanoma. 'But if they take calcium and vitamin D that reduces the risk of developing an actual tumor,' she said." Although the US Institute of Medicine "recommends 600 IU of vitamin D" daily, the findings indicated that as little as 400 IU "may be protective," Dr. Tang added.

HealthDay (9/1, Reinberg) reported, "Men who pack on excess pounds as young adults are at heightened risk of developing prostate cancer, although the risk varies by ethnic group," according to a University of Hawaii study appearing online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. Investigators reviewed "data on almost 84,000 men" of varying ethnicity. "In all, more than 5,500 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer." However, it was important to note the specific timeframe in which the men gained weight. For instance, "higher weight in older adulthood was associated with increased risk of prostate cancer among white and Native Hawaiian men," but "a decreased risk of prostate cancer among Japanese men." And, "excessive weight gain in young adulthood increased the risk of advanced and high-grade prostate cancers...for white men," while it "upped risks for less hazardous, localized, and low-grade forms of the disease" in black men.

The New York Times (9/1, D6, Rabin) reports in Vital Signs, "Married cancer patients live longer than single ones, presumably because they have a built-in support system, are more likely to stick to their treatment regimens, and may even be in better health to begin with," according to a study published in the journal Cancer. Data indicated that 65 percent "of married patients survived at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 57 percent of those who had never been married, 52 percent of the divorced patients and 47 percent of widowed patients."

The UK's Daily Mail (9/1, Hope) reports, "Thousands of women could avoid breast cancer if they adopted healthier lifestyles," according to experts at the World Cancer Research Fund. For the report, which "updates the fund's cancer prevention report in 2007," researchers examined "many different types of the disease," finding that "over 40 percent of breast cancer cases in the UK could be prevented just by making...relatively straightforward changes." In fact, researchers said that "at least 18,000" breast cancers "could be prevented" each year in the UK if women "drank less, kept healthy weight, and were more active." Research also showed that "breastfeeding babies is...an important factor in cutting the risk of the disease." The UK's Telegraph (9/1, Devlin) also covers the story.

Lifestyle after cancer - New self help book launched. This practical guide book summarises the lifestyle evidence from across the world, and is based only on proven facts. It explains how lifestyle after a cancer diagnosis can optimise the chances of living longer and living better, both during treatments and afterwards. The author Robert Thomas is Director of the Primrose Research Unit, visiting Professor at Cranfield University and Oncologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital Cambridge University NHS trust. He specialises in communication and lifestyle research and was awarded the UK “Hospital Doctor of the Year” and “Oncologist of the Year”. More information and how to order

The CBS Evening News (3/10, story 8, 0:20, Couric) reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "said today about one in 20 Americans over the age of 20 is a cancer survivor."

Healthier lifestyles can reduce cancer cases worldwide: Reuters
This article reports on a World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research study suggesting that healthier living can prevent one-third of the most common cancers in developed countries and a quarter of cancers in developing countries. Researchers suggest that diets based on fruits, vegetables and whole grains, instead of red meats, dairy and fats, as well as exercise and weight control, can reduce the risk of many cancers, including cancers of the breast, prostate, kidneys and lungs. Reuters

The CNN (8/18, Rice) "The Chart" blog reports that four dogs were trained on "test tubes containing breath samples of 220 patients, both those with lung cancer and those without it," and were able to correctly find 71 out of 100 patients who had lung cancer. The study, published in the European Respiratory journal, also found that dogs could find cancer in COPD patients as well as otherwise healthy patients. The theory is that "cancer cells may produce chemical compounds that circulate throughout the body and can be breathed out." The blog notes that previous studies have "shown promise in sniffing out breast cancer, bowel cancer, colon cancer, COPD and lung cancer, and even type 1 diabetes." Researchers say that while the study is encouraging, more study is needed to identify what exactly the dogs are smelling.

WebMD (8/18, Goodman) reports that Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Emory University's Winship Cancer Institute, "is developing technology that aims to replicate the ability of dogs to smell trace amount of chemicals produced by cancerous tumors." WebMD notes that "doctors have previously reported cases in which dogs have alerted their owners to undiagnosed skin, breast, and lung cancers by repeatedly pawing or nosing an affected body part," and that "in June, researchers in Japan reported that dogs could detect the presence of colon cancer in human breath and stool samples with nearly 90% accuracy, a success rate only slightly lower than colonoscopy."

Also covering the story are BBC News (8/18, Gallagher), CBC News (8/18), and the UK's

Carbohydrate-Rich Foods May Be Linked To Increased Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk.

Heavy Milk Consumption By Teens May Be Linked To Prostate Cancer.

Statins May Be Linked To Reduced Risk Of Dying From Prostate Cancer.

Soy May Not Be Linked To Reduced Risk Of Stomach Cancer.

Low Vitamin D May Not Increase Mortality Risk For Women.

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked To Multiple Conditions.

Studies Fail To Find Health Benefits Of Multivitamins.

Vitamin D May Lower Colon Cancer Risk.

Broccoli, Other Cruciferous Vegetables May Block Genes Associated With Cancer Growth.

Researcher Seeking To Combine Anti-Cancer Foods.

New Data Reiterate Association Between Processed Meat Intake, Higher Colorectal Cancer Risk.

Meta-Analysis Finds No Evidence Linking Selenium With Cancer Prevention.

Strawberries May Inhibit Pre-Cancerous Esophageal Lesion Growth, Study Suggests.

Some Cancer Patients May Have Low Vitamin D.

Veggies, Fruits May Differentially Decrease Colon Cancer Risk.

Reducing Red Meat Consumption May Lower Risk For Bowel, Other Cancers.

Low Vitamin D Levels May Be Associated With More Aggressive Breast Cancers.

Heavy Coffee Drinkers May Have Reduced Risk For Developing Prostate Cancer, Study Suggests.

Fish Oil May Help Prevent Weight, Muscle Loss During Chemotherapy For NSCLC.

Piperine plus curcumin may help halt growth of stem cells leading to breast cancer.

Multivitamins May Not Improve Colon Cancer Survival.

High levels of vitamin D linked to reduced colorectal cancer risk.

Extreme Weight Gain May Increase Survivors' Risk For Breast Cancer Recurrence, Death.

Multivitamins Not Protective Against Dying From Heart Disease Or Cancer.

Soy Foods May Prevent Breast Cancer Recurrence, Lessen Mortality Risk.

Omega-3s May Increase Risk For Developing Prostate Cancer.

Alcohol May Increase Breast Cancer Risk In Teens With Family History Of Disease.

Trace Elements Associated With Exocrine Pancreatic Cancer.

Report Addresses Environmental Impact On Breast Cancer Risk.

Alcoholics May Have Higher Death Rates From Certain Cancers.

Study Suggests Diabetes Tied To Precancerous Colon Growths.

Study Suggests Obesity May Increase Risk Of Colon Cancer.

Researchers Probe Whether HCAs Raise Cancer Risk From Barbecued Meat.

Research Increasingly Suggesting Alcohol Increases Risk Of Certain Cancers.

Consuming Eggs May Be Linked To Prostate Cancer Lethality.

Low-Sugar Fluids May Be Linked To Reduced Bladder Cancer Risk In Men.

Modern Shift Patterns May Not Carry Same Cancer Risks.

Weight Gain After Menopause May Increase Risk For Endometrial Cancer.

Diabetes May Increase Risk Of Colon Cancer.

Stressed Women May Show Higher Risk Of Aggressive Breast Tumors.

Vitamin D Associated With Increased Risk Of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancers.

Cancer Researchers Say No Amount Of Alcohol Consumption Is Safe.

Wearing Flip-Flops, Baseball Caps May Increase Risk Of Skin Cancer.

Four In 10 People In UK Will Develop Cancer At Some Point.

Metabolic Syndrome May Raise Liver Cancer Risk.

Farm Workers May Have Elevated Risks For Blood Cancers.

Certain Pesticides Linked To Prostate Cancer Prevalence.

Colon Cancer Incidence Increasing.

Researchers say tanning beds may cause cancer.

Long-Term Sedentary Jobs Linked To Cancer, Heart Disease Risk.

Researchers See No Increased Cancer Risk Among Statin Users.

Heavy Drinking Only Increases Risk For Some Esophageal Cancers.

Study Suggests Taller Woman May Have Higher Risk For Developing Common Cancers.

Having a desk job may be linked to higher prostate cancer risk.

People In US More Likely To Develop Skin Cancer On Left Side Of Body.

Men With Lean Physiques At Age 18 May Have Lower Chance Of Dying From Cancer Later In Life.

Inactivity May Pose Greater Cancer Risk Than Cellphones, Coffee.

Specialists See Studies Linking Cell Phones To Health Risks As Inconclusive.

FDA Issues New Guidelines For Sunscreen Labeling.

Updated Government Carcinogens Report Links Two Common Chemicals With Cancer Risk.

Study Illustrates Association Between Cancer Diagnosis, Bankruptcy.

Burning paraffin-wax candles without proper ventilation could raise lung cancer risk, scientists say.

Expert Says "Dubious" Research Links Sunscreen Compounds, Skin Cancer.

Individuals Living Near Vatican Radio Antennas May Face Increased Cancer Risk.

Researchers Find No Link Between Cell Phone Towers And Children's Cancer Risk.

International Panel Of Experts Categorizes Cell Phones As "Possibly Carcinogenic."

Chemicals in breast milk may be linked to testicular cancer.

Soft drink consumption may be linked to pancreatic cancer risk.

Tanning Increases Teens' Risk Of Getting Melanoma, Dermatologic Surgeon Explains.

Evidence Linking ELF-MFs To Brain Tumors Considered Insubstantial.

Time spent watching television may be linked to increased risk of cancer death.

Coffee May Reduce Risk Of Oral Cavity, Pharynx Cancers.

Survey Indicates Young Women, Teens Continue To Tan Regardless Of Health Risks.

Analysis Suggests SSRIs May Increase risk For Breast, Ovarian Cancers.

Preliminary Findings Suggest Daily Consumption Of More Than One Alcohol Drink Raises Cancer Risk.

Daily Alcohol Drinking May Increase Risk For Certain Cancers.

US, Canadian Officials To Analyze Herbicide's Potential Link To Infertility, Cancer.

Link between cell-phone use, cancer.

Data Increasingly Confirm Link Between Environmental Exposure, Cancer.

Experts Contemplate Cancer Risk From Airport Scans.