Just as it's harmful for women who take a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) like fluouxetene (Prozac) and paroxetine (Paxil) or a cardiac or antipsychotic drug along with the breast cancer drug tamoxifen, the results of a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test may be altered by the use of common drugs, like statins, thiazide diuretics and non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

The effect of 10 drugs in these three categories had on lowering serum PSA levels among more than 1,850 men (age 40 and older) with no history of prostate cancer was slight but noticeable after one year, with a high of 6 percent for thaizide diuretics (drugs used to treat edema and hypertension). Real change came at the five-year mark, however, when the use of any one kind of drug artificially and exponentially lowered PSA levels anywhere from four to six times below normal. For example, the use of thaizide diuretics reduced PSA levels by a surprising 26 percent.

The drop in PSA levels was even more pronounced after five years among men who took a diuretic along with a statin drug by 36 percent, although using a calcium channel blocker to treat high blood pressure inhibited that effect. And, because many older patients use at least one, if not more, of these medications at the same time, researchers estimate their effect on artificially lowering PSA levels among far greater numbers of men could be huge.

But there's one more tantalizing possibility scientists are considering: This trio of drug classes may create a protective effect against cancer, not at all a pipe dream, considering statin drugs and NSAIDs are already being studied for that reason.

Journal of Clinical Oncology August 2, 2010

Drugwatch.com August 9, 2010

healthfinder.gov August 6, 2010

At the same time cancer rates keep dropping in America, medical experts are beginning to realize what they don't know about this second leading killer of Americans. But they're beginning to catch up, as evidenced by a recent joint report by a group of health agencies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer and American Cancer Society, identifying 20 "new" causes of cancer, including one you wouldn't expect.

Some of these culprits should be very familiar to you -- formaldehyde, lead, chloroform and PCBs. Then, there's relative newbies, like atrazine and indium phosphide, a binary semiconductor made of indium and phosphorus used in the production of flat-screen TVs.

Probably, the most interesting cancer concern comes straight out of left field, isn't a chemical or substance at all, and it's not the RF energy emitted by mobile phones either.

Think shift work, changing 24/7 schedules that often plays havoc with a patient's circadian rhythms, often leaving them sleep-deprived and vulnerable to a slew of health problems.

International Agency for Research on Cancer Technical Publication No. 42 Free Full Text PDF

Environmental Health Perspectives July 13, 2010 Free PDF Supplement

ScienceDaily July 15, 2010

Chicago Tribune July 15, 2010

You may recall a study I posted earlier this year about the link between sugary, sweet soft drinks, often laced with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and pancreatic cancer. Apparently, the connection between sugary substances and pancreatic cancer may be far deadlier than anyone imagined.

UCLA researchers made their alarming discovery after exposing separate sets of pancreatic tumor cells (extracted from patients, then cultured and grown in Petri dishes) to glucose and fructose, respectively, then used mass spectrometry to monitor how these sugars were used by cells.

Although fructose and glucose have a similar molecular structure, scientists learned both substances were metabolized by pancreatic cancer cells very differently. Fructose activates an important pathway that spurs cell division, thus speeding the growth of pancreatic cancer cells.

These results prompted researchers to suggest the federal government mandate a reduction of HFCS in American diets, while the near century-old Corn Refiners Association slammed the study for "several premature and potentially misleading conclusions."

Just a reminder, another recent study estimated the average American's daily intake of added sugars from eating processed foods alone amounts to 21 teaspoons of sugar and more than 350 calories. Hard to imagine all that extra sugar swimming around in our bodies not having some kind of harmful effect on our collective health.

Cancer Research, Vol. 70, No. 15, pp. 6368-6376, August 1, 2010

EurekAlert August 2, 2010

Yahoo News August 2, 2010

For all the important news we've shared in this space at the intersection of Emotions Ave. and Cancer Blvd. -- from the importance of laughing at cancer to the toll caregiving can have on a loved one -- it's a bit embarrassing to admit that we haven't touched on one very important subject, until today. Namely, how to share the news that you're fighting cancer with your young children.

No question, the American Cancer Society provides many sources to guide parents who want and need to talk about their illness with their kids gently. But, for this daunting task, a parent needs age-specific guidance.

That's why one of the best ways to get the conversation going with your child also happens to be the easiest: Sharing a book written just for them. A recent book tackling this subject -- Let My Colors Out, lovingly written by Courtney Filigenzi and beautifully illustrated by Shennen Bersani -- has been on the receiving end of many kudos, all of them well-deserved.

Courtney shares her perspectives about cancer as a writer and Mom, along with what parents can do to prepare their children for this difficult journey.

Q: The hardest part of dealing with cancer -- separate from the toll it takes on a person's mind and body -- is how to share that information with loved ones, particularly their children, then observing how they deal with this knowledge. How did you develop the idea for Colors?

More...

More often than not, strong emotions can be problematic to one's health -- not to mention contagious -- and adding cancer to the mix will worsen things. So, why would doctors choose an impersonal way of conveying the news that their patients had X kind of cancer?

Imagine receiving that call, then your doctor hanging up before you could ask more questions. Or being left the most frightening news of your life on a 30-second voice-mail message…

Based on a recent study of 437 patients, just 54 percent of them were told about their cancer diagnosis in an office setting. Of the remaining 46 percent, however, 18 percent were told over the phone (sometimes, a very prudent thing to do depending on the situation) and the rest received the news at a hospital, with little-to-no privacy whatsoever. Arguably, the most damning number of them all: Thirty-nine percent of patients received the news by themselves.

No surprise, then, that 57 percent of the patients polled changed doctors after their diagnoses for multiple reasons, apart from distance or choosing an alternative treatment, like losing trust and general dissatisfaction. That said, doctors earned a median satisfaction score of 74 percent, and 16 percent of their patients expressed absolute trust in them.

Patients need and expect their oncologists, not only to have the necessary expertise to treat their cancer, but to possess the emotional intelligence that makes receiving this life-changing news simpler to digest intellectually AND emotionally.

Journal of Clinical Oncology July 6, 2010

Yahoo News July 7, 2010

For another year, cancer rates in America appear to be in decline, according to Cancer Statistics 2010, the latest annual deluge of numbers amassed every summer by the American Cancer Society (ACS).

While the general consensus is positive -- cancer-related mortality rates have declined by an estimated 767,000 Americans over the past two decades -- the ACS predicts some 1.5 million new cases will be diagnosed along with almost 570,000 cancer-related deaths this year. That's a very slight increase, compared to last year's 1.48 million new cases and 562,000 deaths.

Additionally, even though cancer rates among women are falling, as are those for men, it's happening a bit more slowly among the fairer sex, based on historical data. For example, the incidence of cancer among men fell 1.3 percent from 2000-06, but only 0.5 percent among women (albeit over a longer time frame from 1998-2006). And, after a 6 percent decrease in the incidence of breast cancer among women in 2002-03, rates from 2003-06 have remained flat.

Also, the news is worse for African-Americans. The mortality rate among black men and women is far greater, 34 and 17 percent respectively, than that of their white counterparts.

Fortunately, survival rates are much better among children with cancer than they were 35 years ago. Cancer survival rates among children have increased significantly from 58 percent in 1975-77 to 81 percent for kids diagnosed from 1999-2005.

Because the news is more of a mixed bag, depending on where you're looking for it, you can't stop being vigilant about all the variables that may contribute in a positive or negative way to your cancer risks. Which reminds me to remind you that making lifestyle changes is a great place to start.

CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians July 7, 2010 Free Full Text Study

ScienceDaily July 7, 2010

USA Today July 8, 2010

A future proving ground for research in angiogenesis -- a natural process that governs the delicate balance of blood vessel formation throughout the human body -- and, subsequently, the spread of many chronic diseases, not to mention cancer, will soon be bearing fruits, herbs and vegetables on a farm 25 miles west of Milwaukee.

The goal of the NuGenesis Farm in neighboring Delafield, Wis.: Growing foods with the strongest disease-preventing properties in an organic setting, then testing their impact on human health. Interestingly, the estimated $3 million project, including classrooms and a kitchen, already has one very high-profile donor: Regional health care provider ProHealth Care has already donated 37 acres for the project and plans to lend their medical expertise and buy the whole foods grown at NuGenesis for their hospital in Waukesha.

The real push for NuGenesis has come from Kathy Bero, a driven mother of two who believes eating the best anti-cancer foods in tandem with conventional medical treatments has helped her survive three separate bouts of cancer, including two with breast cancer. Despite some pushback from the medical community, Bero reminded the Journal-Sentinel that support remains strong. "We know this is a need. We know this is an area that's not being fulfilled. Doctors aren’t necessarily comfortable with it, but people are starved for information about this."

After reading about the NuGenesis Farm project, you'll want to take a few minutes to learn more about angiogenesis by watching Dr. William Li's presentation at the recent TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Long Beach, Calif.

Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel June 6, 2010

The Angiogenesis Foundation

Cancer detection may have gotten a whole lot easier, faster and cheaper, with the help of a $400 digital camera attached to fiber-optic cables that allowed researchers and bioengineers at Rice University and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center to discern healthy cells from diseased ones.

Scientists captured images of three kinds of cells -- lab-grown cancer cells, tissue samples from tumors and healthy cells viewed from the mouths of patients -- with fiber-optic cables attached to an Olympus E-330 camera and a fluorescent dye that lit up cell nuclei. Even on a 2.5-inch LCD screen, the distorted nuclei of cancer cells and pre-cancerous cells were easy to distinguish from healthy ones.

Interestingly, these techniques used by researchers to spot cancer cells are the same ones used for a long time by pathologists on biopsied tissues, though never before with a device that handy, portable and battery-powered. And, how nifty would it be for your oncologist to be able to spot cancer cells immediately or to track how responsive your body is to your current treatment regimen?

All the more reason to get more knowledgeable about the technology that, one day, may be a life-saver for you and yours.

Image source: Rice University

PLOS One June 24, 2010 Free Full Text Study

Rice University June 24, 2010

CNET Health Tech June 24, 2010

Despite the obvious benefits of taking daily medications every day -- especially for those fighting cancer -- you may be very surprised how many folks are skipping or stopping them altogether. Try more than half, according to a study of some 8,800 female patients fighting stages 1-3 hormone-sensitive breast cancer who stopped taking hormone therapy on their own.

Just 49 percent of the women surveyed over the 11-year span of the study completed their regimen of hormone therapy, and 72 percent of this smaller group completed it on time. Among the interesting commonalities shared by patients who took hormone therapy for 4.5 years: They were married, had undergone therapy before, had longer intervals between prescription refills and were of Asian/Pacific Islander descent.

Conversely, patients gave up on hormone therapy for a variety of reasons, including high costs, not understanding the benefits and side effects (hot flashes, fatigue and joint pain). The latter isn't surprising at all, considering some 40 percent of female patients taking aromatase inhibitors experience joint pain and the side effects connected with taking tamoxifen (especially in tandem with other drugs) may be severe, lead researcher Dr. Dawn Hershman told USA Today.

Even worse, patients under age 40 were more likely than any other group to drop therapy, even though their life expectancy was the longest. Some experts point out children -- wanting them or caring for them -- may be a factor in recidivism rates among younger patients too.

I don't mind sounding like a broken record when reminding you to go see your doctor before make any changes to your treatment… Please?

Journal of Clinical Oncology June 28, 2010

healthfinder.gov June 29, 2010

USA Today June 28, 2010

We've discussed the value of probiotics, live microorganisms similar to the beneficial ones in the human gut that are contained in some foods before in this space. These are considered friendly or good bacteria.

The trick to good health is maintaining a healthy balance in all things, including bacteria. When bad bacteria outnumbers the good in your gut, however, that may signal a greater risk of colon cancer ahead, according to University of North Carolina scientists reviewing 45 samples from biopsies taken during colonoscopies.

Unfortunately, bad bacteria may be elevating a patient's colon cancer risks by generating waste products than harm colon tissues and make them more vulnerable to malignancies. By the same token, researchers say it's possible that adenomas, benign tumors that may serve as a warning sign of colon cancer, could be triggering the production of bad bacteria too.

Interestingly, you may be familiar with one group of bad bacteria, if you've been paying attention to our posts about food safety: The Proteobacteria made up of E.coli, salmonella and heliobacter, among others.

The good news: Scientists may be able to spot the signs of colon cancer faster and more accurately some day by detecting this bacterial shift from good to bad in fecal samples, than by a colonoscopy, a medical procedure many would prefer to avoid…

Image source: Nephron, GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.3

Gut Microbes, Vol. 1, No. 3, May/June 2010 Free Full PDF Study

PhysOrg.com June 22, 2010

The Suncoast News June 22, 2010

It was only a matter of time before the words Gulf oil spill and cancer were mentioned, almost in the same sentence. Even as the Gulf of Mexico bleeds oil, however, some of the nation's best health experts, speaking at a recent Institutes of Health panel in New Orleans, weren't willing to go out on a limb to predict the long-term physical health effects of this disaster, much less cancer risks (apart from the propensity of mental health problems) any time soon.

That said, University of Rhode Island professor Dr. Bongsup Cho, who has studied the effect of environmental toxins on DNA mutations for nearly two decades at the behest of the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health, believes some of the very same cancer-causing components in overcooked meats, cigarette smoke and diesel fumes are also present in the gooey tar balls and muck washing up on beaches and marshes along the Gulf Coast.

Dr. Cho may be just as cautious as his peers at the federal level about predictions, but he isn't shy about discussing his concerns with the aforementioned tar balls that contain "non-volatile, benzene-like, heavily unsaturated hydrocarbons with high boiling points." One of the components of these tarballs: Benzo[a]pyrene, a five-ring, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that is mutagenic (meaning it can change the DNA of an organism) and carcinogenic. So, it should come as no surprise that scientists found damaged DNA in the blood of workers cleaning up after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill too.

Another concern: The orange sheen you've seen on news reports floating on top of the Gulf waters is "the result of a chemical reaction involving the sun, the crude oil and the oil dispersants," Dr. Cho says. Nobody knows what that color is made from or how toxic it may be, largely due to the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act that "protects" an unknown amount of chemicals from public and private scrutiny.

The EPA has been attempting to unravel and reform the act, and it can't come soon enough to help us deal with this toxic mess in the Gulf.

Image source: EPA photo by Eric Vance

University of Rhode Island June 21, 2010

New Scientist June 28, 2010

Medscape June 28, 2010 Free Registration Required

Scientific American June 24, 2010

Mindful that, sometimes, the treatment can be almost as hard as having the disease, a recent Swedish study demonstrated the advantages of watchful waiting as an alternative for doctors and their patients to handle low-risk (slow growth) or intermediate cases of prostate cancer, particularly for older men and those experiencing other serious health problems.

Researchers compared the long-term health and treatment choices of nearly 7,000 Swedish men with prostate cancer (younger than age 71). Of the 2,021 patients who opted for watchful waiting, 19.2 percent in the watchful waiting group died from competing causes -- reasons other than prostate cancer -- versus those in the radiation (10.9 percent) and prostatectomy (6.8 percent) groups.

Although the risk of death due to prostate cancer was higher among patients in the surveillance group than those who chose prostatectomy, the difference in risk between the two groups over a decade-long follow-up period was a small 1.2 percent.

Which reminds us to remind the men in your lives that stressing out about prostate cancer can be very bad for their health.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute June 18, 2010 Free Full Text Study

EurekAlert June 18, 2010

Bloomberg Businessweek June 18, 2010

Chemotherapy can be a double-edged sword: It can kill cancerous cells, unfortunately, at the expense of healthy ones (for example, bone marrow cells). Texas A&M scientists may have found a way to trigger the eradication of breast cancer cells without harming normal cells, with the help of organic, phenolic compounds found in plum and peach extracts.

Breast cancer cells (including the most aggressive kind) and normal cells were treated with extracts from two popular commercial varieties of both fruits: The Black Splendor plum and Rich Lady peach.

Specifically, the two phenolic acid compounds that eliminated cancer cells without harming normal cells -- neochlorogenic and chlorogenic -- are very common in fruits but found in far greater levels in peaches and plums, both stone fruits.

Makes you wonder if there's any chemical connection between the makeup of these phenolic acid compounds and the derivative of the herb feverfew that prevents resistance to tamoxifen, the go-to drug for breast cancer patients.

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp. 5219-5226, June 24, 2009

AgriLife News June 2, 2010

Exercise is a wonderfully, dynamic tool that transforms the health of everyone and everything it touches, no matter how much (or how little) you use it. Anything and everything from a five-minute walk in the park that improves your state of mind to short-term, high-intensity interval training contributes to the greater good: A healthier life.

In light of the growing number of recent studies that have proven the value of exercise for cancer patients, a 13-member panel, led by associate professor Dr. Kathryn Schmitz of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, has developed national guidelines to keep patients moving during and after their treatments.

Unfortunately, there's a dire exercise gap at work here that has everything to do with attitudes of doctors, not patients, says Dr. Schmitz. "We have to get doctors past the ideas that exercise is harmful to their cancer patients. There is still a prevailing attitude out there that patients shouldn't push themselves during treatment, but our message -- avoid inactivity -- is essential."

The panel suggests cancer survivors and patients strive to get 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise each week, the same recommended time allotment for everyone else. A reason some doctors may be hesitant about making such recommendations: An exercise program should be tailored to the individual patient's needs, accounting for the diagnosis, fitness level and variables specific to their disease that could affect their safety.

For example, a recent study led by Dr. Schmitz (published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine) demonstrated the value of gradual, supervised weight training for survivors of breast cancer-related lymphedema.

You'll also want to watch this short video interview with Dr. Schmitz discussing her Physical Activity and Lymphedema study at a research conference convened by the American Institute for Cancer Research late last year.

Penn Medicine May 28, 2010

Los Angeles Times: Booster Shots June 3, 2010

Living Beyond Breast Cancer May 28, 2010

American Institute for Cancer Research November 9, 2009

If you're taking medications -- for example, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) such as fluoxetine (Prozac) or paroxetine (Paxil) -- or other antipsychotic or cardiac drugs and you're a female patient taking tamoxifen, you may want to schedule an appointment with your doctor very soon.

The problem: Some drugs suppress the presence of the CYP2DG enzyme, a critical trigger that allows the liver to convert tamoxifen into the more active endoxifen that, in turn, may prevent breast cancer or a repeat battle with this frightening disease.

Follow-up research to previous studies conducted at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine that identified fluoxetene and paroxetene as potentially harmful for breast cancer patients taking tamoxifen has expanded the list of drugs inhibiting CYP2D6 levels to include drugs that treat infectious diseases, depression, psychosis and heart problems. (Check the Medscape link below for a full list of drugs that affect CYP2DG levels and many alternatives.)

As a result of this research, the Mayo Clinic has been testing breast cancer patients for the CYP2DG enzyme before prescribing tamoxifen in excess of three years, considered a controversial practice among some experts.

Still, there's no question, avoiding drugs that interact poorly with tamoxifen is the best course of action for patients taking tamoxifen. For your own peace of mind, however, PLEASE do your homework and talk to your doctor before making any changes to your treatment regimen.

Receive Daily Health Updates from CNCA Subscribe to Our Blog: RSS or Email

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 28, No. 16, pp. 2768-2776, June 1, 2010

Medscape May 5, 2010 Free Subscription/Registration Required

HealthCentral June 1, 2009