HelpWithCancer.Org

More Good Reasons For Cancer Patients/Survivors To Eat Broccoli...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:51:00 +0000

Seems like a slow news day. When in doubt, feature broccoli! Click-on headline link below to get your fix:

Cancer-fighting agents in broccoli target diseased cells

Relaxnews,com

Feel good and keep smiling while I head off to lunch which includes broccoli, of course! Pat

Cancer Friendly Grilling Tips From Health News Digest

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:30:00 +0000

I saved this article to share with all of you about cancer friendly tips for grilling-out this summer, courtesy of HealthNewsDigest.com:

Cancer Experts Offer Four Tips for Healthy Grilling

By American Institute for Cancer Research - June 10, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC - It's that time of year again. Hot weather sets picnic fever - and the nation's barbeque grills - ablaze; in fact, according to the Hearth, Patio and Barbeque Association, 4 out of 5 American households will fire up backyard grills this summer.

Today, in time for the first day of summer, experts at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) issued their yearly advice for healthy grilling. This year, that advice is bolstered by new evidence in a just-published report on the prevention of colorectal cancer.

As part of its groundbreaking Continuous Update Project, AICR and the World Cancer Research Fund released a report on May 23 that added recent research findings to its growing database on the role of diet, physical activity and weight in colorectal cancer risk, re-evaluated the combined evidence, and updated the judgments of the AICR/WCRF 2007 Expert Report.

One finding of the new report, that diets high in red and processed meat are a convincing cause of colorectal cancer, made international headlines. Today, AICR experts placed that finding in a useful context for devotees of the backyard barbeque.

"Two aspects of the traditional American cookout, what you grill and how you grill it, can have a role in raising risk for cancer," said AICR spokesperson Alice Bender, MS RD. "Big portions of red and processed meat are a well-known concern with respect to colorectal cancer. And although the evidence on the link between grilling itself and cancer risk is less strong, it only makes sense to take some easy cancer-protective precautions."

Bender noted that when any kind of meat, poultry or fish is cooked at high temperatures, especially when well-done or charred, cancer-causing compounds called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) form. These substances can theoretically damage DNA in ways that make cancer more likely.
"The good news is that there are four simple strategies you can use to make allowances, manage risks, and grill more safely," said Bender.

1. Get the Red (Meat) Out, Add Other Colors
Focus first on grilling colorful vegetables and fruits, and cut back on the amount of red and processed meat on your cookout menu. Plant foods contain a variety of naturally occurring compounds called phytochemicals, many of which provide their own anti-cancer protection.

Vegetables like asparagus, onions, mushrooms, zucchini, eggplant and corn on the cob are favorites, because grilling brings out flavors that even the pickiest eaters enjoy. Cut into chunks for kabobs, cook in a grill basket, or toss with a small amount of olive oil and grill whole.

Cut fruit before putting it on the grill: apples, peaches and pears can be halved and bananas split lengthwise. Use fruit that is about a day or two away from being completely ripe so it retains its texture. If you brush fruit or the grill with a bit of oil, it won't stick, and remember to watch closely so it doesn't get overdone. Serve as is, with a sprinkle of cinnamon or a dollop of plain frozen yogurt.

2. Marinate the Meat
If you choose to grill meat, mix it up: Try chicken or fish instead of sticking with burgers and hot dogs. Whatever meat you choose, start by mixing up a marinade with some of your favorite herbs along with vinegar or lemon juice. Keep the meat marinating in the fridge while you prepare the sides. Marinating meat has been shown to reduce the formation of HCAs. Precisely why marinades are protective is still under investigation; some evidence points to the acids (vinegar and citrus) or the antioxidant content. Even just 30 minutes in the marinade can help.

3. Partially Pre-cook
You can do this in the microwave, oven or stove to help reduce the amount of time the meat sits on the grill exposed to high heat. To ensure safe food handling, just be sure to put the partially cooked meat on the preheated grill immediately to complete cooking.

4. Go Slow and Low
To reduce the amount of HCAs and PAHs that end up in, and on, the meat, slow down the cooking time with a low flame and keep burning and charring to a minimum. More tips: cut off any visible fat (to reduce flare-ups), cook food in the center of the grill and move coals to the side (to prevent fat and juices from dripping on them) and cut off any charred portions of the meat.

There is a tasty recipe for grilled tuna at the end. Go to: Healthy grilling/grilled ginger tuna to get the recipe.

Feel good, keep smiling and avoid charring/burning things on the grill this summer! Pat

Compelling Editorial Against Drinking Soda With Artificial Sweetners...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:51:00 +0000

Oops! I drink too much diet soda. I knew it wasn't good, so I cut back to the equivalent of two, 12 oz cans daily.

I don't drink coffee, so Diet Coke is my weapon of choice. I was going to try and cut back some more, because I was aware the phosphorus in soda can block calcium absorbtion in bone--not a good thing for someone with bone marrow cancer!

But now sounds like there are a lot more reasons to stop. My excuse: Chemotherapy is dragging me down and I need the caffeine.. Maybe switch to coffee?

Here is the first part of the article, with link to commentary following:

Be Aware: this "Food" Radically Increases Your Risk of Cancer...

Posted By Dr. Mercola - June 08 2011

Tom Philpott got much more of a reaction to his February 10, 2011, aspartame article than he expected. He reports, "I guess in the back of my mind, I was thinking, people still drink that stuff?"

Well, they do—by the bucketful. Overall, U.S. soda consumption is declining slowly, but Americans still drink more soda than anyone else on the planet, by a wide margin. According to one reckoning, the average American drinks 736 "eight-ounce servings" each year.

Adam Ozimek of the Modeled Behavior blog quickly mounted a vigorous defense of aspartame, the artificial sweetener of choice for the soda industry, claiming, "the unnecessary stress caused by worrying about the aspartame in your diet soda is far more dangerous for you than the aspartame in your soda."

Ozimek also compared warnings about aspartame's danger to 9/11 conspiracy theories, claiming the FDA "adequately followed its food additive approval process in approving aspartame."

Philpott goes on to point out recent studies that shed new light on aspartame's dangers to your health (including risk of cancer, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), as well as discussing the pro-business and regulatory-shy Obama administration that has failed to recognize "public health is being harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests."

Sources:

Grist February 14, 2011

Modeled Behavior February 10, 2011

American Journal of Industrial Medicine July 2010

Link to Dr. Mercola's commentary. Simply scroll-down one page.

Feel good, keep smiling and--sorry--cut back on the diet soda! Pat

Studies Continue To Confirm Ovarian Cancer Screening Doesn't Seem To Help Much

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 01:59:00 +0000

Statistics say breast cancer, prostate cancer and now ovarian cancer screening doesn't save lives. Read this latest article and see what you think...

Ovarian cancer screening does more harm than good, study shows

An 18-year study by the National Cancer Institute finds that ultrasounds and blood tests aimed at early detection don't save lives, but expose women to avoidable complications.

Click on the link below to read this excellent, LA Times article:
NCI study found no benefit for widespread screening.

I'm not sure how I feel about all of this. Let me sleep on it and get back to you later this week...

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Positives About Living With Cancer...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:20:00 +0000

You often hear and read about cancer survivors who say things like "Cancer is the best thing that ever happened to me." Or "I wouldn't change a thing!" Sure, if you are newly diagnosed you may want to throw stones at them or burn down their house. But give it time. According to Dr. Patricia Mumby, associate professor Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences Department and director of Loyola Cardinal Bernadine Cancer Center Psychosocial Oncology Service:

“When we first ask people to find something good about having cancer they pause and give us a puzzled look, but a majority of cancer survivors and patients can find positives. The longer it’s been since their diagnosis the more positives they can find,” said Mumby. “It’s amazing to watch as they look for benefits. They mentally make a shift and start to have a broader perspective. People who can find positives early on often have less anxiety overall.”

Read the rest of the article I found on a great site called People Beating Cancer, and see what you think:

Cancer: A Silver Lining?

I don't believe a positive attitude or unrealistic expectations can defeat cancer alone. A good medical team, insurance and drugs don't hurt! But there is no question how you view your life and future can affect the outcome. Reading blogs like this are a good place to start, right!

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

High Cost Of Cancer Meds Hurting Lots Of Our Fellow Cancer Patients...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:08:00 +0000

Here is headline link to a Reuters article with some sobering news about how the high cost of cancer care affects us all:

Cancer costs put treatments out of reach for many

I understand this is discouraging, but try and feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Cancer Becoming A Chronic Disease? ASCO Says We Are Moving In That Direction...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:10:00 +0000

I understand most of our readers here are not interested in a lot of specific cancer related research details, so I will save those for our http://www.cancernews.us/ site.

But on a more general and philosophical level, here is part of an ASCO release I picked-up from Sunday morning's news conference:

CHICAGO – New research results focusing on cancer as a chronic disease were released today at a press briefing at the 47th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

“We are increasingly translating our growing understanding of cancer biology into longer lives for people with cancer” said news briefing moderator Mark G. Kris, MD, chief of the Thoracic Oncology Service and The William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

There didn't seem to be much media interest in this topic. These days, most medical writers work for investment publications or online sites. This is general news which doesn't move stock prices, so no one is interested.

But as a multiple myeloma survivor, where the word "chronic" is becoming a realistic, short term goal of researchers and hematologists, I was interested!

As a matter of fact, many blood cancers can already be viewed as chronic. Solid tumor cancers not so much--yet. They tend to be curable or not. Cut the tumor out, radiate the surrounding area and/or use chemotherapy and the patient is OK or relapses.

Such is the case with my wife's uterine, cervical and later, ovarian cancer.

Without continued treatment, many leukemia, lymphoma and now myeloma patients wouldn't live very long.

This is considered chronic--like diabetes, for example. This is also the reason I am not more anti big pharma. You can argue about the cost--and the toll taking these toxic drugs for extended periods have on our bodies. But they are keeping a lot of patients like me alive.

I thank God for that everyday. Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

When In Doubt, Nurses Are Usually Right...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:32:00 +0000

I try not to get too political here, but I thought this short article was fascinating:

Union Nurses Call for Single-Payer System
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: June 07, 2011

WASHINGTON -- Several hundred members of National Nurses United held a rally here on Tuesday to call for a single-payer healthcare system, an end to tax breaks for big corporations, and workers' rights.

The nurses started their march in front of the White House and walked across the street to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce chanting "Hey Chamber, you can't hide, we can see your greedy side."

The union wants Congress to levy higher taxes on Wall Street, which would include the big companies that the Chamber of Commerce represents, Dan Rec, RN, of Jamaica Plain, Mass., explained.

The nurses then bussed over to the Capitol where they were serenaded by a singer/guitar player who belted social justice tunes, and then heard brief speeches from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Sanders, like the 175,000-strong nurses union, is a major proponent of a single-payer healthcare system.

"If you have the money, you have good healthcare," Rec told MedPage Today. "If you don't have the money, it's 'oh well.' It needs to be healthcare for all."

Boxer spoke out against Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to drastically change Medicare for those who are currently under 65, saying many in Congress don't want to change the insurance program for the elderly.

Nurses are the backbone of our health care system. I have often said I want to return as an oncology nurse in my next life! Maybe they know something the polititians or pencil pushers in the business offices don't?

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

A Different Take On This Weekend's ASCO Breast Cancer News Event, Featuring The New Drug, Exemestane

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:46:00 +0000

Release of data showing the new, breast cancer preventing drug, Exemestane, had both the mainstream and medical media all a twitter (pun intended!) this weekend. I wrote about it Sunday:

Hey Ladies: Big, Big News From ASCO Yesterday

Here is a different take on the experimental drug from the always sceptical blog, Medicynic:

Exemestane Prevents Breast Cancer? Maybe. Costly? Definitely

This is the week of the American Society for Clinical Oncology's meeting so we can expect to inundated with news of medical progress, some real, some maybe real, some imagined. But all can be expected to be costly.

One of the most publicized studies is that of using exemestane (Aromasin) to prevent breast cancer in women at moderately increased risk for breast cancer. 4560 women were randomly assigned to a group using the drug or to placebo. The abstract from an article on the study published this week in the NEJM states:

At a median follow-up of 35 months, 11 invasive breast cancers were detected in those given exemestane and in 32 of those given placebo, with a 65% relative reduction in the annual incidence of invasive breast cancer (0.19% vs. 0.55%; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.70; P=0.002). The annual incidence of invasive plus noninvasive (ductal carcinoma in situ) breast cancers was 0.35% on exemestane and 0.77% on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.79; P=0.004). Adverse events occurred in 88% of the exemestane group and 85% of the placebo group (P=0.003), with no significant differences between the two groups in terms of skeletal fractures, cardiovascular events, other cancers, or treatment-related deaths. Minimal quality-of-life differences were observed.

The drug has fewer side-effects than other agents used to prevent breast cancer (tamoxifen and the aromatase inhibitors) but still in 3-4% of patients severe joint pain was reported.

Medicynical Note: The cost of the drug is considerable, about $3600/year. In this study about 2280 (half of the number randomized) patients were treated with exemestane for three years and according to the study 21 fewer cancers occurred than in the placebo group. This reduction of incidence from 32 in placebo to 11 given drug was cited in news articles as a "65% reduction in cancer occurrence."

The costs of this preventive strategy/case prevented is $3600 (yearly cost) X 3 (number of years treated) X 2280 (number of patients treated)/ 21 (number of cases of cancer prevented) and was $1,172,571/case prevented.

In fact, relatively few cancers occurred in either group (32 and 11). The reduction of 21 cases was significant but the cost/cancer prevented is prohibitive. Given that these patients will also be followed with mammograms and physician exams (adding to the cost) it's doubtful that this intervention will lead to a measurable survival benefit.

I follow this site. I doubt this blogger, Paul Goff, has cancer, or it might give him a different perspective. But it does make you think, doesn't it?

Here is a link back to Paul's home page: Medycinic on Word Press. You might want to tune-in from time to time for another dose of reality!

More from ASCO tomorrow. Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Hey Ladies: Big, Big News From ASCO Yesterday

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:06:00 +0000

I have showered, shaved and ready for another long day at ASCO. There was some surprisingly significant news released here yesterday--especially for women:

Exemestane Significantly Reduces Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer in High-Risk, Postmenopausal Women: A large randomized double-blind phase III trial has shown that in postmenopausal women who are at increased risk of developing breast cancer, the aromatase inhibitor exemestane (Aromasin) reduces this risk by 65 percent compared with placebo.

This is the news which made all of the Sunday morning shows. I saw reports about Aromasin as lead stories in the opening news segments on ABC and NBC.

Apparently, there are other drugs which perform similarly. Problem is, they bring with them a high risk of side-effects. Unlike these, Aromasin doesn't seem to cause any life threatening or debilitating issues. Good news, to be sure! More positive news for women:

Adding Regional Nodal Irradiation Decreases Recurrences in Women with Early Breast Cancer: Interim analysis data from a randomized Phase III trial showed that, in women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer, additional radiation treatment to the regional lymph nodes (regional nodal irradiation, or RNI) improves disease-free survival, reducing cancer recurrences both near the tumor site and in other parts of the body.

Bevacizumab Extends Progression-Free Survival In Recurrent Ovarian, Peritoneal, and Fallopian Tube Cancers: The randomized Phase III OCEANS study of bevacizumab (Avastin) in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy showed that women with recurrent ovarian cancer who took bevacizumab lived significantly longer without their disease getting worse. A 52 percent reduction in the risk of disease progression was seen.

Initial Data on Use of Bevacizumab for Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer Suggests Survival Benefit for Women at High Risk of Recurrence: Interim survival data from a randomized Phase III trial suggested that adding bevacizumab (Avastin) to standard carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for treatment of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients may offer benefit over treatment with chemotherapy alone, particularly for patients with more aggressive disease.

I'm sure I can dig-up some positive ASCO news for men today. I will keep my eyes open.
Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Hello From The American Society Of Clinical Oncology Meetings In Chicago!

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 22:07:00 +0000

I arrived here in Chicago earlier today for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings. The meetings/conference is the largest oncology related event in the world. There are enough clinicians, physicians, researchers, drug reps and support staff here to populate a small city.

Coming off my third cycle of chemotherapy, I need to take it easy. Lots of walking can't be avoided, but I'm trying to plan my routes and time more carefully than in the past.

I will be returning home to Florida late Monday night. Since I am a freelance medical writer now by trade, I need to cover what the companies I'm doing work for think is important.

I'm used to more freedom when covering an event like this. But someone needs to pay the bills, right? That means this trip is all about medical technology and multiple myeloma research--the interests of my two paying clients.

That won't leave much extra time to devote to more general cancer related topics. Not that I'm going to let that stop me! So watch for up-to-date research info from the world of alternative medicine, supplements and... Oops! I forgot. There is rarely much of that kind of news at an event for and about oncologists and big-time pharmaceutical companies. Not much money in curcumin and wheat grass, you know.

Guess we will have to make-do with groundbreaking news from the more traditional, cancer related medical world.

That's OK. Expect a few blockbusters that may soon be available at your formally trained doctor's office.

So tune-in for updates, starting Sunday and running all next week.
Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Will new "My Plate" program help Americans improve their eating habits?

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:40:00 +0000

For me, any nutritional news is cancer related. Check-out the replacement for the government's outdated food pyramid by clicking-on the headline link below:

Food Pyramid replaced with My Plate-
MLive.com

Colorful, to be sure. But until parents take the time to enforce the "three bites" rule and make sure their kids eat healthier, I'm not sure any logo or government program will really make a difference.

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Grapes Could Hold The Key To Destroying Cancer Cells

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:31:00 +0000

This could be good news from Colorado State University researchers...

CSU Study Finds that Whole Grape May be the Perfect Colon Cancer-Fighting Food

By Deanna Garcia

Researchers at Colorado State University may have unlocked the secret to why drinking wine and eating grapes can fight colon cancer.

Scientists have known for years that compounds in grape skin and grape seed extract may prevent colon cancer cells from growing. But they haven’t known if the two compounds would work better together. Now, they do.

“Individually they are not as effective but together, even at low concentration, they can cause the cancer cells to self-destruct but they are harmless to healthy colon cells,” says Jairam Vanamala, assistant professor in CSU’s Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition.

The next step is to determine whether or not the combination also kills cancer stem cells. While the compound does kill most colon cancer cells, if cancer stem cells are left behind then colon cancer is more likely to reoccur.

The study was funded by the College of Applied Human Sciences Challenge Grant and the National Research Initiative Grant from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture.

The study was published this week in the elite edition of frontiers in bioscience

Sounds like a good first step. There most likely won't be a single cure for cancer. But reserach like this might help us unlock the key to more affective ways to isolate and destroy cancer cells.

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Isn't This Old News: Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:30:00 +0000

The NBC Today Show featured this story a few moments ago. The Twitter world is buzzing about this, so I just grabbed the first Twitter link about this British Story I found on a site called Zeenews.com:

Mobile phones can cause cancer: World Health Organization

There is no clinical evidence cell phone use
causes cancer. But parents might want to consider
limiting their children's exposure...

London: A respected international panel of scientists says cellphones are possible cancer-causing agents, putting them in the same category as the pesticide DDT, gasoline engine exhaust and coffee.

The classification was issued Tuesday in Lyon, France, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer after a review of dozens of published studies. The agency is an arm of the World Health Organization and its assessment now goes to WHO and national health agencies for possible guidance on cellphone use.

Classifying agents as "possibly carcinogenic" doesn't mean they automatically cause cancer and some experts said the ruling shouldn't change people's cellphone habits.

"Anything is a possible carcinogen," said Donald Berry, a professor of biostatistics at the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas. He was not involved in the WHO cancer group's assessment. "This is not something I worry about and it will not in any way change how I use my cellphone," he said — speaking from his cellphone.

The same cancer research agency lists alcoholic drinks as a known carcinogen and night shift work as a probable carcinogen. Anyone's risk for cancer depends on many factors, from genetic makeup to the amount and length of time of an exposure.

After a weeklong meeting on the type of electromagnetic radiation found in cellphones, microwaves and radar, the expert panel said there was limited evidence cellphone use was linked to two types of brain tumors and inadequate evidence to draw conclusions for other cancers.

"We found some threads of evidence telling us how cancers might occur, but there were acknowledged gaps and uncertainties," said Jonathan Samet of the University of Southern California, the panel's chairman.

"The WHO's verdict means there is some evidence linking mobile phones to cancer but it is too weak to draw strong conclusions from," said Ed Yong, head of health information at Cancer Research U.K. "If such a link exists, it is unlikely to be a large one."

Last year, results of a large study found no clear link between cellphones and cancer. But some advocacy groups contend the study raised serious concerns because it showed a hint of a possible connection between very heavy phone use and glioma, a rare but often deadly form of brain tumor. However, the numbers in that subgroup weren't sufficient to make the case.

The study was controversial because it began with people who already had cancer and asked them to recall how often they used their cellphones more than a decade ago. In about 30 other studies done in Europe, New Zealand and the US, patients with brain tumors have not reported using their cellphones more often than unaffected people.

Because cellphones are so popular, it may be impossible for experts to compare cellphone users who develop brain tumors with people who don't use the devices. According to a survey last year, the number of cellphone subscribers worldwide has hit 5 billion, or nearly three-quarters of the global population.

People's cellphone habits have also changed dramatically since the first studies began years ago and it's unclear if the results of previous research would still apply today.

Since many cancerous tumors take decades to develop, experts say it's impossible to conclude cellphones have no long-term health risks. The studies conducted so far haven't tracked people for longer than about a decade.

All this report says is let's keep collecting data, because common sense tells us there must be a risk of brain cancer from repeated, extended cell phone use. Pretty weak... Must be a slow news day! Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Reminder: Keep Eating Those Raw Fruits & Veggies!

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Tue, 31 May 2011 12:51:00 +0000

It must sound like a broken record, as I constantly push my healthy, anti-cancer agenda on my fellow cancer survivors. You heard it all before here: Eat more raw fruits and vegetables daily!

Need a review? Re-read my article from November of last year...

Friday, November 26, 2010

If I Have Told You Once I Have Told You A Thousand Times--Eat Lots Of Fruits & Vegetables!

Here I go again--nagging you about healthy eating!

Eat Your Fruits & Veggies for Longer Life

MONDAY, Nov. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Consuming high amounts of beta-carotene's less well-known antioxidant cousin, alpha-carotene, in fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of dying from all causes, including heart disease and cancer, new research suggests.

Both nutrients are called carotenoids -- named after carrots -- because of the red, yellow and orange coloring they lend to a range of produce. Once consumed, both alpha- and beta-carotene are converted by the body to vitamin A, although that process is believed to unfold more efficiently with beta-carotene than with alpha-carotene.

However, the new study suggests alpha-carotene may play the more crucial role in defending cells' DNA from attack. This might explain the nutrient's ability to limit the type of tissue damage that can trigger fatal illness, researchers say

Learn more by going to: Fruits/Veggies at CancerCare.com.

On a more specific, cancer therapy related note, I just ran an article about how certain foods rich in ursolic acid can enhance the effectiveness of several different chemotherapy drugs, on my other daily site, HelpWithCancer.org. Here is a link to that story:

An Important Reminder: Don't Forget To Consume Lots Of Foods/Spices Containing Ursolic Acid After Taking Thalidomide, Revlimid and/or Velcade

My guess is ursolic acid may help other types of chemo function better, too.

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Two Companies Merge To Help Create New Opportunities For Cancer Related Supplements. Good For The Bottom Line, But How Will Patients Benefit?

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Mon, 30 May 2011 15:06:00 +0000

Here is a link to a business related story about how a nutrtitional supplement company views their role working with cancer patients:

Thorne Research: 80-90% of cancer patients take dietary supplements, but don’t tell doctor

According to the company's CEO, there is "a sizable gap in the market for dietary supplements and nutritional advice specifically targeting people living with cancer."

A possible business opportunity? You bet! But how about the cancer patient? Will any of this really make a difference?

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

45% Of All Colon Cancer Cases Could Be Avoided With High Fiber/Less Red Meat Consumption/Regular Exercise

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sun, 29 May 2011 22:41:00 +0000

More information, including graphs and statistics, about comprehensive study on affects of red meat and fiber on colon health and cancer:

Cancer Links with Meat and Fiber Confirmed
Sunday, May 29, 2011 :: Staff infoZine
Most Authoritative Report on Colorectal Cancer and Diet Ever Conducted

Washington, D.C. - infoZine - The most comprehensive and authoritative report on colorectal cancer risk ever published has concluded that red and processed meat increase risk of the disease and found that the evidence that foods containing fiber offer protection against colorectal cancer has become stronger.

Here is a link the InfoZine.com article: 45 percent of colorectal cancer cases could be prevented if we all ate more fiber–rich plant foods and less meat, drank less alcohol, moved more and stayed lean.

Eat more raw vegetables, people! Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

By Interacting With A Protein Called AMACR, Ibuprofen Could Help Slow Prostate, Bowel And Other Cancers...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sat, 28 May 2011 21:47:00 +0000

Here is an interesting article I found on SpireHealth.com:

Ibuprofen to be used in cancer treatment?
May 27th, 2011 - Posted by Jeanette Royston

The painkiller ibuprofen could become a part of cancer treatment after a study found that it stifles cancer growth.

A team of Cancer Research UK scientists based at the University of Bath found that a class of common painkillers, which includes ibuprofen, could interact with a protein which fuels cancer growth.

Non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are all processed by the body through the protein AMACR, which is overactive in prostate, bowel and various others types of cancer.

Lead author Dr Matthew Lloyd, said: "Some early laboratory studies have suggested that high doses of ibuprofen can halt the growth of prostate cancer cells, but the reasons for this aren't well understood."

He added that understanding more about how this protein acts and what molecules it interacts with could provide vital clues about future treatments for prostate cancer.

According to figures from Cancer Research UK, prostate cancer affects over 37,000 men in the UK. Around a quarter of all new cases of cancer diagnosed in men are prostate cancers.

If only a fraction of research studies like these turn-out to help, it will mean longer lives for many of us with cancer.

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

New Chemotherapy Drug, Cabozantinib, Shows Promise By Shrinking Breast, Lung, Ovarian And Prostate Cancer Tumors

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Fri, 27 May 2011 13:15:00 +0000

Here is a link to one of the promising new chemo drugs which will be featured at next months American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meetings in Chicago the first week of June:

ASCO 2011: Phase II Cabozantinib Trial in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors and Bone Metastases -
Cancer Network

Cabozantinib looks like it may work on solid tumors in both hard and soft tissue, caused by breast, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancers.

Not exactly alternative medicine. But when fighting solid tumor type cancers, sometimes the "hard stuff" is the only way to go.

This is the type of post I usually feature on http://www.cancernews.us/. But since cabozantinib looks like it has so many potential applications--against so many different types of cancers--I wanted to share this news with you here today.
Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Beef Industry Rebuttal To Research Data Featured In Tuesday's Post...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Thu, 26 May 2011 11:08:00 +0000

Apparently, a beef industry backed site called "The Daily Herd," took exception to data supplied to the media about the increased risk of colon cancer in people who eat a lot of red meat. I wrote about this study on Tuesday; Eating Meat May Raise Colon Cancer Risk.

Calling the study "an overreach," here is what the group had to say:

Cancer-beef judgements “overreached”
Geni Wren, Bovine Veterinarian Magazine - Updated: May 25, 2011

The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) and the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) released a research report this week concluding that there is convincing evidence that both red and processed meat increase colorectal cancer risk. Based on that research, AICR recommends that people limit consumption to 18 ounces (cooked weight) of red meat a week – roughly the equivalent of five or six small portions of beef, lamb or pork – and avoid processed meat (the report showed that ounce for ounce, consuming processed meat increases risk twice as much as consuming red meat).

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) released a statement following that report that indicates Americans are already within that recommended limit.
In the NCBA statement, Shalene McNeill, PhD, RD, Executive Director, Human Nutrition Research at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), says, “WCRF’s judgments overreach the science on red meat and cancer. Americans should continue to build healthier diets with beef knowing the scientific evidence to support the role of nutrient-rich, lean beef in a healthy, balanced diet is strong. Nothing in this update should change the way Americans consume beef. In fact, Americans are consuming beef well within WCRF’s 500 gram (18 ounces) per week recommendation.

“As a scientist, registered dietitian and a mother, I will continue to recommend lean beef to Americans trying to build a healthier plate because of the unique package of nutrients and enjoyment it brings to a healthy diet,” McNeill continues.

The statement also discusses the fact that publicly available research has been funded and shared with the scientific community and health professionals that evaluates the science on red meat and cancer. This research concluded the available epidemiological evidence is not supportive of a causal association between red meat and colorectal cancer. The research findings and conclusions have been vetted among the scientific community at more than 10 national and international cancer, epidemiology and nutrition conferences and published in four peer-reviewed manuscripts in top-tier medical and scientific journals (see references here).

The statement continues with: “A single food can’t cause or cure cancer. Responsible health experts agree the best advice for reducing our risk of all types of cancer is don’t smoke, consume alcohol in moderation, maintain a healthy body weight by getting regular physical activity and enjoy a balanced diet that is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean protein, such as beef.”

Actually, the article makes some good points. But let's face it: A majority of Americans exhibited the good judgement to carefully plan their meals around guidelines like these. I'm just saying...

Feel good, keep smiling and eat lots of raw fruits and vegetables! Pat

Cutting Sugar Consumption Is The Number One Way People Can Reduce Their Cancer Risk

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Wed, 25 May 2011 18:32:00 +0000

This is hard for a sugar junkie to accept, but listen to what alternative cancer medicine guru, Dr. Mercola, has to say about sugar and cancer:

Radically Reduce Your Sugar Intake!

Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program.

Chronic insulin resistance will cause major damage in your body. The most recognized of these is diabetes, but that is far from the only one. As Ron Rosedale, M.D. said in one of my most popular articles, Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:

"It doesn't matter what disease you are talking about, whether you are talking about a common cold or cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or cancer, the root is always going to be at the molecular and cellular level, and I will tell you that insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally control it."

The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward. First, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars/fructose as much as possible to prevent your insulin levels from becoming elevated in the first place.

Limiting intake is my problem... One sweet bite and I it is so hard to stop!

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Eating Meat May Raise Colon Cancer Risk

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Tue, 24 May 2011 12:26:00 +0000

Read this article I found on WebMD yesterday, about a study which suggests how eating less red and processed meat may cut your chances of getting colon cancer:

Eating Meat May Raise Colon Cancer Risk

Isn't this old news? How much risk? According to the report:

People who eat 3.5 ounces or red meat every day (24.5 ounces per week) will have a 17% increased risk of colon cancer compared to someone who eats no red meat, according to the report. People who eat 7 ounces per day (49 ounces per week) will have a 34% increased risk...

Eating less than 18 ounces per week of red meat, such as beef, lamb, or pork, shows very little increase in colon cancer risk, the report states.

The report goes on to suggest how a combination of regular exercise and a high fiber diet--along with cutting most red and processed meat from one's diet--reduces colon cancer risk by 45%.

Feel good, keep smiling and skip the big burger for lunch today! Pat

Anti-Cancer Radio Wave Therapy Continues To Show Promise

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Mon, 23 May 2011 11:40:00 +0000

One of our readers, Linda, emailed me a few months back about ongoing research using radio waves as an anti-cancer therapy. I saved her email because I was intrigued, and felt this was something I should share with my readers...

Pat, are you familiar with John Kanzius’s work? I first learned about him on 60 Minutes a few years ago. Caught my attention because not only did he have leukemia but lived in my hometown of Erie, PA. He developed a non evasive treatment for cancer. Unfortunately he died before any testing began. Pepsi had a competition for the public to vote for various worthy causes and the Kanzius foundation won one of the two big grants. I believe it is of great interest as another tool in our box of possible cures. I told my oncologist I wanted in since Pittsburgh, where I live now, is one of the testing sites. Doc told me to get in line. Here is the link if you are interested: http://www.kanziuscancerresearch.org.

Living in the now. Linda

Thank you, Linda! I also saw the 60 Minute story about this. I must admit the television report was more exciting than the group's Website. I'm a bit of a skeptic, but only because I don't know enough about using radio waves to treat cancer. It appears much of the current focus is on pancreatice cancer. Talk about starting on a difficult project!

If there is any truth or hope to this line of anti-cancer research, I'm all for it! Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Modified Stem Cells May Help Protect Us Against Toxic Effects Of Chemotherapy In Near Future...

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sun, 22 May 2011 14:23:00 +0000

This looks like very exciting news...

Gene-modified cells could protect against chemotherapy's toxic effects

Published: Saturday, May 21, 2011 - DNA Daily News & Analysis

The usual doses of chemotherapy drugs can cause serious toxic effects in quickly dividing tissues such as the bone marrow.

But now, researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center suggest that one possible approach to reduce this toxic effect on bone marrow cells is to modify the cells with a gene that makes them resistant to chemotherapy.

Hans-Peter Kiem and colleagues presented data from a clinical trial in which bone marrow stem cells from patients with brain tumors were removed and modified with a retrovirus vector to introduce the chemotherapy-resistant gene. The cells were then re-infused into the patients.

In the trial, which was designed to evaluate safety and feasibility, patients were safely administered gene-modified blood stem cells that persisted for more than one year and did not show any apparent harmful effects.

"Our initial results are encouraging because our first patient is still alive and without evidence of disease progression almost two years after diagnosis," Kiem said.

The results of the trial suggest the administration of the modified cells represent a safe method for protecting marrow and blood cells from the harmful effects of chemotherapy in brain tumor patients.
The research was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy in Seattle.

I will follow this closely. It isn't a cure, but imagine if we could endure a lot more "poison" for a lot more time. Wouldn't that equal longer median life expectancies--and a lot more money for drug companies!

I'm surprised they aren't all over this like a cartel! Feel good and keep smiling! Pat

Are Gay Men And/Or Women At Higher Risk For Getting Cancer?

noreply@blogger.com (Pat and Pattie Killingsworth) — Sat, 21 May 2011 12:51:00 +0000

Here is a study I never would have thought about launching...

Link between Sexual Orientation and Cancer

By Anna Azvolinsky, PhD
May 12, 2011

While populations are often analyzed by age, sex, and race with respect to cancer risk and cancer outcomes, sexual orientation has previously not been studied as a factor for either cancer incidence or cancer outcome. A study published in the journal Cancer on May 9, 2011 has now specifically examined the outcome of cancer survivorship of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual population (DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25950). The study authors found that cancer outcomes differ based on sexual orientation...

Really? Let's skip ahead...

The study found a significant difference for cancer outcomes among heterosexual compared to homosexual men. Homosexual men were found to be 1.9 times more likely to self-report a cancer diagnosis than were heterosexual men. No differences in cancer survivorship were found between the two groups. Homosexual men reported a significantly lower frequency of prostate cancer--one-third the frequency of other men. Homosexual and bisexual men had a greater incidence of all other cancers.

What about gay women?

Although homosexual women did not have a higher incidence of cancer, these women did report lower overall health as cancer survivors compared to heterosexual women. Unilke the male population, which did not differ in self-reported health based on sexual orientation, lesbian women were 2.0 times and bisexual women were 2.3 times more likely to report poor or fair health compared with their heterosexual cancer survivor counterparts.

The study found that bisexual women had a two-fold higher prevalence of cervical cancer compared to other women. Uterine cancer was the most prevalent among homosexual women and all other cancer incidence was higher among heterosexual women

You can read more by going to: Study has implications for the U.S. cancer control efforts.
I found the analysis of this study on CancerNetworks.com.

No blockbuster news here, but I found it interesting to examine similarities and differences between people with different sexual orientations.

Feel good and keep smiling! Pat