The CDC analyzed 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data from four states, Delaware, Hawaii, New York and Rhode Island. The study, one of the first to present state-level information on any sleep-related measure, found that the prevalence of insufficient sleep was greater in young adults. Of those ages 18 — 34, 13.3% reported insufficient rest or sleep every day over the past month. Of those aged of 35 — 54, only 10% reported insufficient rest or sleep every day over the past month. The percentage was smallest (7.3%) for those aged ≥ 55 years. Similar trends were observed for shorter periods of time. Interestingly however, for people reporting only 1 — 6 days of insufficient rest or sleep during the preceding 30 days, young adults had the lowest percentage (27.8%), while adults aged 35 — 44 had the highest percentage (38.2%), followed by adults aged 45 — 54 (36%) and people aged ≥ 55 years (31.7%).

Persons unable to work were significantly more likely to report insufficient rest or sleep everyday than people employed, students or homemakers, people unemployed or people retired. With increasing education, respondents were less likely to report no days of insufficient rest or sleep.

The study is subject to a number of limitations. Chief among them is that it uses the results of a survey. The principle limitations of a survey are the validity and reliability of responses. Poor recall, intentional deception and misunderstanding can all contribute to inaccuracies in the data. The survey method is also descriptive and cannot offer insights into cause-and-effect relationships. Lastly, the data only reflects sleep trends in four states and may not be representative of the entire United States. Nevertheless, it is consistent with another CDC study using data from the National Health Interview Study, which found that the percentage of adults at all ages reporting six hours or less of sleep per night increased from 1985 to 2006 [3].

According to the National Sleep Foundation, most healthy adults require 7 to 9 hours of sleep each night [4]. Children and adolescents need even more sleep than adults. Children aged 3 — 5 years require 11 to 13 hours of sleep each night, children aged 5 — 12 require 9 to 11 hours and adolescents require 8.5 to 9.5 hours [4].

Here’s some tips to get a good night’s sleep:

• Keep your room quiet and dark
• Make sure your bed is comfortable
• Avoid or limit caffeine and alcohol consumption
• Don’t smoke
• Eat dinner at least 2 — 3 hours before bedtime
• Relax prior to bedtime
• Don’t exercise right before bedtime
• Establish regular bedtime and waketime schedule

Additional information on sleep and sleep disorders can be found at The National Sleep Foundation, Sleep Education.com and The Insomnia blog.

The results of this study should come as no surprise, especially to many of you who are undoubtedly reading this late in the evening. How about you? Do you get enough sleep every night?

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Sleep disorders and sleep deprivation: an unmet public health problem. By the Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research. Edited by Harvey R. Colten and Bruce M. Altevogt. 404 pp. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 2006.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Perceived insufficient rest or sleep–four states, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008 Feb 29;57(8):200-3.
   View abstract
3. QuickStats: Percentage of Adults Aged >18 Years Who Reported an Average of <6 Hours of Sleep per 24-Hour Period, by Sex and Age Group — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 1985 and 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008 Feb 29;57(8):209.
4. How Much Sleep is Enough? National Sleep Foundation. Accessed 2008 May 6.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• Overeating Fast Food Carbs Causes Signs of Liver Damage
• Living Healthy Isn’t Cost Saving, It’s Cost Effective
• Overweight Kids and TV: An Advertising Epidemic
• HEALTH Highlights - June 26th, 2007
• Cancer Research Carnival #7

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• HEALTH Highlights - September 30th, 2007
• HEALTH Highlights - August 9th, 2007
• Health Highlights - March 3rd, 2008
• Searching for Health Information Online Dangerous
• HEALTH Highlights - January 14, 2008

Want to reduce your stress level, spend less money at the pump and do your part to help save the planet? Here’s one of the most simple yet effective tips that will accomplish all three: Slow Down.

Improve Your Financial Health: Use Less Gas

At highway speeds, wind resistance increases exponentially and fuel economy is reduced by approximately 4 miles per gallon for every 10 mile per hour increase [1]. Thus, the faster you drive, the more it will cost you. Consider this [1].

In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline going up about 54 cents a gallon. That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to start with.

That’s based on a $3.25 price per gallon, which is less than the current price of gas. So we’re talking more than 54 cents a gallon.

Additionally, if you do the math, speeding doesn’t save you anywhere near the time you might think it does. An average 30 mile commute traveling at 65 miles/hour takes 28 minutes, while that same trip at 80 miles/hour takes 23 minutes. You save a whole 5 minutes by driving 15 MPH faster.

How much money is that 5 minutes worth?

Reduce Stress and Stay Safe

Moderate levels of stress from a variety of sources, including other motorists, traffic congestion and roadway conditions, are common in everyday driving. However, driver stress has been shown to also be influenced by a combination of situational and personal factors, including factors external to the driving context [2].

Not surprisingly, studies have found that life stress is associated with higher rates of accidents and disease [3]. It’s been estimated that drivers who have experienced a recent stressful event are five times more likely to cause fatal accidents than unstressed drivers [4].

If you’re running late, remember that no matter how fast you drive, you’re still going to be late. If you’re under a great deal of personal stress, it’s probably best to avoid driving altogether.

Statistically, people who drive too fast cause or contribute to almost one-third of all fatal crashes. In 2006,13,543 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes [5]. Excessive speed does a number of things:

• it increases the distance a vehicle travels when a driver reacts to a dangerous situation
• it reduces a driver’s ability to steer safely around objects in the road
• it extends the distance necessary to stop

Want to reduce your stress level, spend less money on gas and do your part to help save the planet?

      Just Slow Down!

David over at The Good Human has some additional tips on saving money, saving fuel and saving the environment.

References

1. Slow down a little, save a lot of gas. Issue #1: America’s Money. CNN Money. 2008 Mar 27.
2. Hennessy et al. The Influence of Traffic Congestion, Daily Hassles, and Trait Stress Susceptibility on State Driver Stress: An Interactive Perspective. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research 5(2);162–179
   doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9861.2000.tb00072.x
3. Stuart and Brown. The relationship of stress and coping ability to incidence of diseases and accidents. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 25(4), 255-260. 1981.
   View abstract
4. Brenner and Selzer. Risk of causing a fatal accident associated with alcoholism, psychopathology, and stress: further analysis of previous data. Behav Sci. 1969 Nov;14(6):490-5.
   View abstract
5. Traffic Safety Facts 2006 Data. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 2006.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• The Genetics of Panic Disorder
• Novel Gene Suppresses Tumor Growth in Multiple Cancers
• HEALTH Highlights - August 9th, 2007
• Healthy Tips for the Fourth of July
• HEALTH Highlights - June 26th, 2007

John Kanzius was diagnosed with terminal leukemia six years ago. Watching children endure difficult chemo treatments while he was undergoing his own chemotherapy motivated him to come up with an alternative. At the start of his interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, he said [1]:

I have no business being in the cancer business. It’s not something that a layman like me should in, it should be left to doctors and research people.
[Lesley Stahl: But sometimes it takes an outsider.]
Sometimes it just — maybe you get lucky.

And lucky he has been. Kanzius is a retired radio technician and station owner. As an alternative to chemotherapy, his idea was to build a radio-wave machine that focused radio waves to destroy cancer cells. Kanzius knew that strong radio waves could heat metal and wondered if metal injected in a tumor would heat up when placed in a radio-wave field, thereby killing the cells. Following initial experiments with a garage-built prototype, he spent about $200,000 to have an advanced version of his radio-wave machine built. Using hotdogs injected with copper sulfate (an aqueous metal solution), Kanzius found that he could heat up small regions injected with the metal by placing them in a radio-wave field, leaving surrounding areas unharmed.

Dr. Steven Curley and colleagues at the MD Anderson Cancer Center have begun testing Kanzius’ radio-wave technology on animals. Instead of copper sulfate, the researchers are using single-walled carbon nanotubes — molecular-scale tubes of graphitic carbon that, among other unique properties, are efficient conductors of heat. The nanoparticles are so small, thousands of them can fit inside a single cell. In a paper published in the December 2007 issue of the journal Cancer, the researchers demonstrated that, when exposed to a non-invasive radiofrequency (RF) field, an aqueous suspension of carbon nanotubes injected in malignant liver cancer tumors in rabbits produced lethal thermal injury to cancer cells [2]. The controls, tumors exposed only to the RF field or only to the nanotubes, were undamaged. However, some healthy liver tissue surrounding the cancerous tissue sustained heat damage due to nanotube leakage from the tumor.

Thus far, the technique has only been used on solid, localized tumors in animals by injection. The next step is to evaluate methods for targeting the nanotubes so they attach to and are taken up by cancer cells and not normal cells. According to Curley, the targeting of nanotubes to cancer cells and not to normal cells is a major challenge in advancing the therapy [3]. Researchers are looking to bind the nanotubes to antibodies, peptides or other agents that would target molecules expressed exclusively on cancer cells.

Gold nanoparticles have also been shown recently to enhance non-invasive RF thermal destruction of human gastrointestinal cancer cells in vitro [4].

Dr. Curley estimates that human clinical trials are at least three to four years away [3]. Using physics-based concepts, the Kanzius Machine is a potential new cancer treatment that may one day replace chemotherapy and surgery. That said, remember that many cancer therapies that have been promising in vitro and in animal models didn’t work in humans. There is zero evidence this will work in humans and targeting is a major issue that has to be overcome first.

References

1. The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure? 60 Minutes. 2008 Apr 13.
2. Gannon et al. Carbon nanotube-enhanced thermal destruction of cancer cells in a noninvasive radiofrequency field. Cancer. 2007 Dec 15;110(12):2654-65.
   View abstract
3. Radio Waves Fire Up Nanotubes Embedded in Tumors, Destroying Liver Cancer. M.D. Anderson News Release. 2007 Nov 1.
4. Gannon et al. Intracellular gold nanoparticles enhance non-invasive radiofrequency thermal destruction of human gastrointestinal cancer cells. J Nanobiotechnology. 2008 Jan 30;6:2.
   View abstract

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• Cancer Research Carnival #7
• Cancer Research Carnival #7 Call for Submissions
• Alternative to Dichloroacetate
• Vitamin C
• Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy

Pausch’s lecture has since made its way to the web and has been viewed by millions of people. Hyperion published a book this week, The Last Lecture, based on his talk.

Pausch writes frequently on his battle with pancreatic cancer. In an interview with Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America, Pausch said [1]:

I’ve never understood pity and self-pity as an emotion. We have a finite amount of time. Whether short or long, it doesn’t matter. Life is to be lived.
You know, life is a gift. Again, it sounds trite, but if you wait long enough, other people will show you their good side. If there’s anything I’ve [learned] that is absolutely true. Sometimes it takes a lot longer than you might like. But the onus is on you to keep the hope and keep waiting.

His talk is inspiring, heartbreaking and filled with the wisdom and clarity that perhaps only a dying man can share.

There is no method for early detection of pancreatic cancer. The disease is asymptomatic and only 7% of cases are diagnosed early [2]. Symptoms may include weight loss, abdominal discomfort, occasional glucose intolerance and, as in the case of Pausch, jaundice (caused by tumors that develop near the common bile duct and cause blockage). Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive disease, and the 1- and 5- year survival rates are quite low at 24% and 5%, respectively [2].

More information on “Pancreatic cancer” can be found at iMedix and Organized Wisdom. Additionally, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN), the first national patient advocacy organization for the pancreatic cancer community, provides public and professional education embracing the urgent need for more research, effective treatments, prevention programs and early detection methods. PanCAN also provides patient services and funds grants for pancreatic cancer research.

References

1. Dying Professor’s Lecture of a Lifetime. ABC News, Good Morning America. 2008 Mar 21.
2. Cancer Facts & Figures 2008. American Cancer Society. Atlanta, Ga. 2008.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• No Related Post

There are three types of NF tumors that result from mutation or loss of different tumor suppressor genes:

• Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is the most frequent inherited cause of brain and nerve tumors. One in every 3,000 children is born with NF1, making it also one of the most common inherited human diseases worldwide. Enlargement and deformation of bones may also occur. Approximately 50% of people with NF1 also have learning disabilities. NF1 is caused by a mutation or loss of the tumor suppressor gene NF1.

• Neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) is much rarer, occurring in one in 25,000 births. NF2 is characterized by the development of multiple tumors on the cranial and spinal nerves. The hallmark of NF2 is the formation of tumors that affect auditory nerves. Hearing loss beginning in the teens or early twenties is typically the first symptom of NF2. NF2 is caused by a mutation or loss of the tumor suppressor gene NF2.

• Schwannomatosis is even rarer than NF2, affecting one in 40,000 individuals. SImilar to NF1 and NF2, Schwannomatosis tumors can develop on cranial, spinal and/or peripheral nerves. Although patients with Schwannomatosis do not have learning disabilities, they experience chronic pain and occasionally numbness, tingling and weakness. The candidate Schwannomatosis tumor suppressor gene is named INI1.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary source of federal funding for biomedical research. However, other agencies also support research initiatives. In 1996, Congress added Neurofibromatosis to the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP-NFRP). This program has been responsible for many advances in NF research, including NF mouse models, learning disabilities and nerve signaling pathways. In 2005, the Neurofibromatosis Research Program (NFRP) established the NF Clinical Trials Consortium, which is comprised of 10 major hospitals nationwide. The Consortium was established, not for drug discovery, but as a pipeline to test drugs repurposed to treat NF, including rapamycin (a relatively new immunosuppressant drug) and lovastatin (a statin used for lowering cholesterol). The Consortium will initially focus on NF1 for proof of concept. Once established, it will have the option of expanding to encompass NF2 and Schwannomatosis studies.

NF research program funding in jeopardy

The U.S. House and Senate included an $8 million appropriation for the CDMRP-NFRP in the FY2008 Defense Bill. This is a decrease of $2 million from 2007 and is over a 66% decrease from the high-water mark of $25 million in FY2005. Recently, I wrote about Flat Funding of Biomedical Research and The Threat to America’s Health. Separate from the NIH, the CDMRP is another funding source that supports research initiatives. The drastic funding cuts in the CDMRP-NFRP, specific to NF studies, endanger the research investment made to date, particularly with the NF Clinical Trials Consortium described above.

The Children’s Tumor Foundation (CTF), a non-profit medical foundation dedicated to improving the health and well being of individuals and families affected by the neurofibromatoses, is the largest non-government funder of NF research in the world. In 1991, the CTF began a formal advocacy and lobbying program for federal funding of NF research. Recently, the CTF announced an advocacy campaign to increase federal funding of the CDMRP-NFRP [1]:

We are all aware of the budget pressures our country faces, and understand that the $25 million funded in 2005 is not realistic in the current environement. However, this small program has accomplished so much, and as we enter what we believe will be a period of rapidly increasing clinical trials, this is a particularly important time for continued support of this funding. We are asking all of you to contact your Congressman and Senators to seek their support. There is much discussion of earmark reform in Washington. It is important to note that this funding is not an earmark. It is not directed to any one institution, state or district. It is a long standing program that makes grants solely on a peer review basis. Further, this is not a partisan issue - this funding has benefited over the years from strong support from both Democrats and Republicans. The accomplishments and return on investment from the CDMRP are a shining example of what the federal government can achieve when legislators work with the scientific community and non-profit organizations.

Indeed, the CDMRP-NFRP is a small program. Congressional appropriations for NF from 1996 to 2008 totaled just $190.3 million. By comparison, CDMRP funding for breast cancer totaled $2222.7 million, for prostate cancer, $890 million [2]. Nevertheless, CDMRP funding for NF research in 2008 is critically important to address the needs of translational research (meaning to connect basic research to patient care), complications of NF with high morbidity and mortality, and refinement and standardization of imaging techniques and biomarkers for use in future clinical trials.

You can read more on the Children’s Tumor Foundation and Neurofibromatosis here at Highlight HEALTH. Additional non-profit organization resources are listed in the Highlight HEALTH Web Directory.

I’m actively involved in neuro-oncology, specifically NF research, and can attest to the importance of CDMRP-NFRP funding. I encourage you to take a moment and email your Senator and Representative and urge them to support increased Neurofibromatosis research funding through the CDMRP. You can find your legislators contact information by visiting the House and Senate websites. For the House website, simply enter your zip code in the box in the upper left corner; for the Senate website, select your state from the pulldown menu in the upper right corner. Use the contact information provided to email, fax or mail your request for support.

UPDATE: April 1st, 2008

Sample letters are now available (in MS Word format) for download, making it that much easier to email, fax or mail your Senator and Representative.

References

1. The Children’s Tumor Foundation: Advocacy. Accessed 2008 Mar 30.
2. Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs: Funding History. Accessed 2008 Mar 30.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• Flat Funding of Biomedical Research: The Threat to America’s Health
• Neurofibromatosis and The Children’s Tumor Foundation
• More Steps for Open Access
• Bill in Senate to Expand Public Access to Taxpayer-funded Research
• ScienceCures: Today’s Science, Tomorrow’s Cures

I’ve featured content from TED previously. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design, and is a global and growing community that brings together the world’s most fascinating thinkers and doers, challenging them to give the talk of their lives in just 18 minutes.

In 1996, neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had a massive hemorrhagic stroke and experienced the complete deterioration of her ability to walk, talk, dial a phone or recall any of her life “from the inside out”. Her TED talk last month is a powerful recount of this devastating condition, and her vision that we can project peace into the world by spending more time running the deep inner peace circuitry of the brains right hemisphere truly is an idea worth spreading.

In her TED talk, Taylor explains that:

Our [brains] right hemisphere is all about this present moment. It’s all about right here right now. Our right hemisphere, it thinks in pictures and it learns kinesthetically through the movement of our bodies. Information in the form of energy streams in simultaneously through all of our sensory systems. And then it explodes into this enormous collage of what this present moment looks like. What this present moment smells like and tastes like, what it feels like and what it sounds like. I am an energy being connected to the energy all around me through the consciousness of my right hemisphere.

The left hemisphere of the brain is very different:

Our left hemisphere thinks linearly and methodically. Our left hemisphere is all about the past, and it’s all about the future. Our left hemisphere is designed to take that enormous collage of the present moment. And start picking details and more details and more details about those details. It then categorizes and organizes all that information. Associates it with everything in the past we’ve ever learned and projects into the future all of our possibilities. And our left hemisphere thinks in language. It’s that ongoing brain chatter that connects me and my internal world to my external world. … But perhaps most important, it’s that little voice that says to me, “I am. I am.” And as soon as my left hemisphere says to me “I am,” I become separate. I become a single solid individual separate from the energy flow around me and separate from you.

Taylor’s stroke was caused by an arteriovenous malformation (AVM), a malformed cluster of blood vessels in the brain that is characterized by a tangle of arteries and veins. The golf ball size hemorrhage placed pressure on the language centers in the left hemisphere of her brain and caused functions of her right hemisphere to flourish [3]. Today, among other things, Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor creates and sells unique stained glass brains and has published a book (above) about her recovery and the insights she gained, titled My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist’s Personal Journey.

References

1. Hirtz et al. How common are the “common” neurologic disorders? Neurology. 2007 Jan 30;68(5):326-37.
   View abstract
2. Rosamond et al. Stroke incidence and survival among middle-aged adults: 9-year follow-up of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Stroke. 1999 Apr;30(4):736-43.
   View abstract
3. Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, the Singin’ Scientist: Biography. Accessed 2008 Mar.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• Chiropractic Adjustments and Artery Dissection: Is Your Neck in Safe Hands?
• The Link Between Biology and Energy
• Updated Rates of the Most Common Neurological Disorders

The report, “A Broken Pipeline? Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk,” was written by a consortium of seven institutions, including:


• Brown University
• Duke University
• Harvard University
• The Ohio State University
• Partners Healthcare
• University of California Los Angeles
• Vanderbilt University

The report profiles 12 exceptional junior researchers from institutions across the country who were selected by senior scientists and university leadership for their potential to make significant scientific contributions. The young researchers are working on new methods to manipulate adult stem cells to repair the heart, identifying critical biological pathways involved in cancer and progressive brain diseases, determining the mechanisms of pain and heat sensation, searching for genetic causes of age-related hearing loss, and using new technologies to detect kidney disease in its earliest stages.

The report, which I’ve linked to below, summarizes the problem quite succinctly:

Science itself is taking a hit. As the NIH has less grant money to award, the scientists who review grant applications are predictably becoming more and more risk averse in their evaluations, preferring to see incremental steps rather than bold visions. This conservatism among reviewers is changing the way researchers write grant applications and design experiments. There has been a fundamental narrowing of the scientific vision, with the primary scientific query shifting from “what is possible?” to “what is fundable?” 


The harmful effects of these breaks in the scientific pipeline are felt, ultimately, in America’s health and economy. Conservatism and delays at the research bench reduce the scope and pace of scientific discovery and, eventually, the rate at which medical advances improve health outcomes for all of us.

The report can be downloaded directly from BrokenPipeline.org. You can also download a related report released last year by a group of nine institutions across the country titled “Within Our Grasp — Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress”. The report showed how flat NIH funding, combined with inflation, was eroding research budgets and forcing scientists to downsize their laboratories and abandon innovative and promising work [2].

In spite of all this, the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2009 recommends a sixth year of flat (and with inflation, decreased) funding for the NIH.

What can you do?

Congress has begun work on funding for biomedical research to improve health in fiscal year 2009. Several Representatives are leading an effort to increase NIH finding by 6.5% and have invited their colleagues to join them on a letter to Appropriations Chair David Obey (WI) and Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (CA). Research!America, an alliance for discoveries in health, makes it easy to contact your Representative and urge them to sign this important letter.

Biomedical research innovation and advancement are critical to transformation of medicine from reactive to preventative, predictive, and personalized. I encourage you to support increased funding for research to improve American’s health.

UPDATE: March 14th, 2008

Research!America reports that the Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the FY09 budget resolution that calls for an extra $2.1 billion to the NIH budget. You can read more about this First Step Toward Unflattening the NIH Budget at Research!America.

References

1. 
A Broken Pipeline? Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk. Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, The Ohio State University, Partners Healthcare, the University of California Los Angeles, and Vanderbilt University. 2008 Mar 11.
2. Within Our Grasp — Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress. The University of California, Columbia University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Partners Healthcare, The University of Texas, Washington University in St. Louis, The University of Wisconsin, and Yale University. 2007 Mar 19.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy
• More Steps for Open Access
• Bill in Senate to Expand Public Access to Taxpayer-funded Research
• ScienceCures: Today’s Science, Tomorrow’s Cures
• HEALTH Highlights - January 14, 2008

I believe it’s important to maintain perspective on the significance of cancer research and the impact it has on patients. As such, this months edition of the Cancer Research Carnival includes narratives from some people affected by the disease. I think their stories will inspire us all with their determination and courage, and serve as motivation to continue searching for therapies to combat cancer.

How is research progressing on the battle against cancer?

The latest American Cancer Society (ACS) annual cancer statistics report finds that cancer deaths have decreased by 18.4% in men and 10.5% in women since mortality rates began to decline in the early 1990s [1]. However, despite a declining death rate, there was an increase in the number of cancer deaths in 2005 compared to 2004. The ACS says that it’s [2]:

… important to understand that for the number of cancer deaths to decrease, the decline in the overall cancer mortality rate must be large enough to offset the increasing numbers due to growth and aging of the population.

Over the last 15 years, researchers have been making progress. Although the rate of decline in cancer deaths in 2005 wasn’t enough to exceed population factors, cancer mortality rates continue to decrease. Indeed, between 1990/1991 and 2004, over a half million deaths from cancer were averted [2].

With these statistics in mind, let’s get to the research highlighted in this months edition of the Cancer Research Carnival.

Cancer Research Carnival #7

Adventures in Ethics and Science

A recent New York Times essay by Andrew Vickers ponders why cancer researchers are so reluctant to share their data [3]. Dr. Janet Stemwedel discusses the essay, asking Should Researchers Share Data?.

Bayblab

Autophagy, the self-removal of cellular components, is frequently observed in tumor cells following radiotherapy. Researchers have found that inhibition of genes associated with autophagy results in enhanced cytotoxicity of radiotherapy to otherwise resistant carcinoma cells [4]. Kamel talks about Autophagy and Radiation Resistance.

Mark’s Daily Apple

Increased body-mass index (BMI) is associated with the risk of some types of cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Lancet journal last month assess the strength of associations between BMI and different sites of cancer [5]. Mark’s Daily Apple reports there’s a Higher Cancer Risk if You’re Fat and questions whether public education on the risks of obesity is truly enough.

The Pink Tee Shirt

Beep Beep - Emmy describes what it’s like to be living with breast cancer.

Stage 4 cancer is like a hungry coyote out there, watching, setting traps.
I wonder when he will catch me.

Cancer and Your Genes

Two papers in the February 28th issue of Nature provide understanding into a subset of breast and ovarian cancers, the action of drugs used to treat them and a novel mechanism of drug resistance to chemotherapy [6-7]. Dr. Matt Mealiffe reviews the articles and their significance, describing the Mechanism of Cisplatin-Resistance in BRCA2-Related Ovarian Cancers.

Cancer Genetics

SNPs (pronounced “snips”) are DNA sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide in the genome is altered, producing different alleles (meaning sequences that code for the same gene). Two papers in the March issue of Nature Genetics identify multiple new SNPs associated with prostate cancer [8-9]. Ramunas breaks it down, describing Prostate Cancer — Old & New SNPs and deCODEPrCa.

Eye on DNA

As research identifies more disease-associated SNPs, new genetic tests allow consumers to test themselves for disease susceptibility. Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei discusses this competitive market, reporting that deCODE Launches PrCa Prostate Cancer DNA Test.

Mystery Rays from Outer Space

Although it’s widely accepted that metastasis is a late event in cancer progress, a recent study demonstrated that tumor cells can spread systemically from early alterations in breast cancer [10]. Dr. Ian York deliberates Early Metastasis.

Z-Mail 101

David’s daughter Beth presents her thoughts on the situation her Aunt Wendy is in as she battles colon cancer.

You have to live life day by day and for each moment. Enjoy what you have in front of you and not take for granted the little things. We’re all going to die at some point; cancer patients just have more information.

Terra Sigillata

The internet is increasing used as a source of health information. A current study of quality criteria for online content, specifically for breast cancer information, finds that most resources are accurate [11]. However, websites that contain information on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) were likely to contain inaccurate statements. Abel Pharmboy suggests we Beware of Alternative Medicine Sites Offering Breast Cancer Advice.

Doctor David’s Blog

An investigation examining the role of BRCA1 in human mammary stem cell fate found that BRCA1 plays a critical role in the differentiation of ER-negative stem/progenitor cells to ER-positive luminal cells [12]. Dr. David Loeb reviews study and discusses Cancer Stem Cells and Familial Cancer Risk for Breast Cancer.

Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You

Men with a family history of prostate cancer have a much greater risk of developing the disease than men with no family history. A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that the risks are greatest for relatives of those diagnosed when they were young and those with more than one affected relative
[13]. The Dr. Steve Murphy evaluates the study and its shortcomings, discussing the New England Journal, Prostate Cancer and Babel.

Britannica Blog

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has been conducting research on the increased risk of cancer in night-shift workers as well as the increased cancer risk in painters and firefighters [14]. Kara Rogers reviews the biology of melatonin secretion and disruption of circadian rhythm, writing about Cancer on the Night Shift: Why Night Workers Are at Risk.

Chrysalis Angel

Chrysalis Angel worries when she hears the word “cured” and reminds us all to Remain Vigilant.

Stay on top of your check ups, follow the recommendations of your doctors, do your own breast self exams. Take back your life and your health. You can only do that by remaining vigilant. Then, get out, enjoy your life and loved ones. Make your life as much of what you want it to be as you can, and maybe someday soon – there will be an absolute cure for cancer.

Conclusion

Thanks to everyone that contributed articles — it’s been a pleasure to host this months edition of the Cancer Research Carnival. Be sure to take a moment and let your fellow bloggers know this issue is available so that everyone’s hard work can be appreciated and enjoyed by all. You can find more information about the carnival as well as the hosting schedule and past editions at the Cancer Research Blog Carnival.

References

1. Cancer Facts & Figures 2008. American Cancer Society. Atlanta, Ga. 2008.
2. Report Says Half a Million Cancer Deaths Have Been Averted Since Death Rate Drop. American Cancer Society Press Release. 2008 Feb 20.
3. Vickers A. Cancer Data? Sorry, Can’t Have It. The New York Times. 2008 Jan 22.
4. Apel et al. Blocked autophagy sensitizes resistant carcinoma cells to radiation therapy. Cancer Res. 2008 Mar 1;68(5):1485-94.
   View abstract
5. Renehan et al. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet. 2008 Feb 16;371(9612):569-78.
   View abstract
6. Edwards et al. Resistance to therapy caused by intragenic deletion in BRCA2. Nature. 2008 Feb 28;451(7182):1111-5. Epub 2008 Feb 10.
   View abstract
7. Sakai et al. Secondary mutations as a mechanism of cisplatin resistance in BRCA2-mutated cancers. Nature. 2008 Feb 28;451(7182):1116-20. Epub 2008 Feb 10.
   View abstract
8. Eeles et al. Multiple newly identified loci associated with prostate cancer susceptibility. Nat Genet. 2008 Mar;40(3):316-21. Epub 2008 Feb 10.
   View abstract
9. Thomas et al. Multiple loci identified in a genome-wide association study of prostate cancer. Nat Genet. 2008 Mar;40(3):310-5. Epub 2008 Feb 10.
   View abstract
10. Hüsemann et al. Systemic spread is an early step in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2008 Jan;13(1):58-68.
    View abstract
11. Bernstam et al. Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer. Cancer. 2008 Feb 11;112(6):1206-1213 [Epub ahead of print].
    View abstract
12. Liu et al. BRCA1 regulates human mammary stem/progenitor cell fate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 5;105(5):1680-5. Epub 2008 Jan 29.
    View abstract
13. Johns and Houlston. A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial prostate cancer risk. BJU Int. 2003 Jun;91(9):789-94.
    View abstract
14. Straif et al. Carcinogenicity of shift-work, painting, and fire-fighting. Policy Watch, The Lancet Oncology. 2007 Dec;8(12):1065-1066.

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• The Best of Highlight HEALTH 2007 - The Year in Review
• Cancer Research Carnival #7 Call for Submissions
• The Kanzius Machine: A Future Alternative to Chemotherapy?
• Individual Genetics, Coffee Consumption, BRCA1 and Breast Cancer
• Decrease in US Cancer Deaths

Bookmark or Share

Related articles

• HEALTH Highlights - May 6th, 2008
• HEALTH Highlights - Monday, December 10th
• HEALTH Highlights - August 21st, 2007
• HEALTH Highlights - June 1st, 2007
• Cancer Research Carnival #7