fordoctors Headline Animator

According to an article recently published in the journal Blood, patients with AML who are at a high risk of cancer progression following standard therapy may benefit from an unrelated allogeneic stem cell transplant.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a cancer of the bone marrow and blood characterized by the rapid, uncontrolled growth of immature white blood cells known as myelocytes. The disease is more common in adults than in children; average age at diagnosis is more than 65 years.

Treatment of AML often begins with induction therapy (initial treatment) that includes chemotherapy to produce a complete remission (defined as the disappearance of leukemia cells in the bone marrow and normalization of the white blood cell, red blood cell, and platelet levels). After induction therapy, patients generally receive additional treatment (consolidation therapy) to reduce the likelihood of leukemia recurrence. Depending upon prognosis, age of the patient, and/or other existing medical conditions, consolidation therapy can range from extremely aggressive to less aggressive.

An allogeneic stem cell transplant, considered an extremely aggressive treatment option, involves the use of high doses of therapy, which kill a greater amount of cancer cells than standard doses. Unfortunately, the high doses of therapy also cause a significant reduction in blood cells, resulting in a patient's susceptibility to infection, bleeding, and the need for blood transfusions. Often, the infections caused by these high doses of therapy are life-threatening.

To restore levels of blood cells
stem cells, which are immature blood cells, are collected from a donor and infused into the patient following high-dose therapy. These donor stem cells can also mount an attack against the patient's cancer cells. Unfortunately, these donor cells can also attack a patient’s healthy cells, causing a potentially life-threatening condition called graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Stem cells donated by a relative (related donor) tend to carry a lower risk of GVHD than those from an unrelated donor.

A drawback of an allogeneic stem cell transplant is that treatment-related mortality and side effects can be substantial; researchers have thus focused on curative options that are more easily tolerated. However, for patients with very aggressive AML and those who are younger, an allogeneic stem cell transplant still appears to provide optimal outcomes.

Researchers affiliated with the International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry recently conducted a clinical study evaluating the use of allogeneic stem cell transplants with unrelated donors for patients with AML. This trial included 261 patients with AML in first remission (when disease is undetectable for the first time following treatment) or second remission (the second time following two different treatment courses that disease is undetectable) who were 60 years of age or younger. Patients in this trial were divided into three groups: those who had a high, intermediate, or low risk of developing a cancer recurrence following standard therapies.

The following results include patients in first remission:

• At five years overall survival was between 29–30% for all groups of patients.
• At five years mortality related to treatment was 47% for patients at a high risk of developing a recurrence, 53% for patients at an intermediate risk of developing a recurrence, and 63% for patients at a low risk of developing a recurrence.
• Cancer recurrence rates were 8%, 17%, and 26%, respectively for patients with low, intermediate, and high risks of developing a cancer recurrence.

The following results include patients in second remission:

• At five years overall survival was 45%, 37%, and 36%, respectively, among patients with a low, intermediate, and high risk of developing a cancer recurrence.
• At five years mortality related to treatment was 46%, 46%, and 30%, respectively among patients with a low, intermediate, and high risk of developing a cancer recurrence.
• Cancer recurrence rates were 12%, 18%, and 32%, respectively, among patients with a low, intermediate, and high risk of developing a cancer recurrence.

The researchers concluded that an unrelated allogeneic stem cell transplant can provide AML patients 60 years of age or younger who are in first remission and have a high risk of a cancer recurrence overall survival rates at five years that are comparable to those among patients with a lower risk of a recurrence. However, this trend did not seem to hold true for patients in second remission. Furthermore, mortality related to treatment was high.

Patients with AML who are at a high risk of developing a cancer recurrence and do not have a related donor for an allogeneic stem cell transplant may wish to speak with their physician regarding their individual risks and benefits of an unrelated stem cell transplant.

Reference: Tallman MS, Dewald GW, Sandham S, et al. Impact of cytogenetics on outcome of matched unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for acute myeloid leukemia in first or second complete remission. Blood. 2007; 110:409-417.

According to an early online publication in the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, children of mothers who take vitamins during pregnancy have a decreased risk of pediatric brain tumors, neuroblastoma, and leukemia.

It is generally recommended that pregnant women receive vitamin supplementation during pregnancy to assure normal growth and development of the fetus. Several studies have suggested that vitamin supplementation during pregnancy can prevent birth defects. There have also been associations established between vitamin supplementation and the child’s risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and brain tumors. In addition, research has suggested that the widespread use of vitamin supplementation in pregnant women has helped decrease the incidence of childhood medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma.

In the current study, researchers
from the University of Toronto conducted a literature review of materials produced between 1960 and 2005. A meta-analysis was performed of data from seven studies to determine the relationship between maternal vitamin intake and childhood cancer incidence. All vitamins evaluated included folic acid. The following comparisons were made between children of women who received vitamin supplements containing folic acid during pregnancy and those who did not:

* There was a 36% reduction for pediatric leukemia; an 18% reduction in pediatric brain tumors; and a 47% reduction in neuroblastoma in children of women taking vitamin supplements.
* It was estimated that, in the U.S., vitamin supplementation during pregnancy could prevent 900 cases of pediatric leukemia and 300–400 cases of pediatric brain tumors annually.

These authors stated that it was not know specifically which vitamins were responsible for these effects. They did speculate, however, that folic acid may be responsible for this decreased risk pediatric brain tumors, neuroblastoma, and leukemia. Women who are pregnant may wish to speak with their physician regarding prenatal vitamin supplementation.

Reference: Goh YI, Bollano E, Einarson TR, et al. Prenatal multivitamin supplementation and rates of pediatric cancers: A meta-analysis. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics [early online publication]. February 21, 2007. DOI: doi:10.1038/sj.clpt.6100100.

Copyright Brain Cancer Information Center on

Copyright Leukemia Information Center on

Preoperative radiation nearly doubles the survival rate for patients with operable pancreatic cancer, according to the results of a study published in the November 15, 2008 issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics.[1]

The pancreas is an organ that is surrounded by the stomach, small intestine, bile ducts (tubes that connect the liver to the small intestine), gallbladder, liver, and spleen. The pancreas helps the body to break down food and also produces hormones, such as insulin, to regulate the body’s storage and use of food.

Pancreatic cancer has one of the highest mortality rates of all cancers. It accounts for approximately 2% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the United States each year but 5% of all cancer deaths. Pancreatic cancer is often called a “silent killer” because its symptoms are usually not recognizable until it has advanced and spread outside the pancreas. As a result the majority of pancreatic cancers are not diagnosed until they have reached advanced stages and are considered incurable.

If pancreatic cancer has not spread to surrounding or distant organs, it is usually considered operable. Historically, patients have been treated with surgery followed by chemotherapy and/or radiation to destroy any micrometastases (cancer cells that have spread outside the pancreas). New research indicates, however, that neoadjuvant radiation therapy (radiation delivered prior to surgery) might offer greater benefit to patients because it can potentially shrink the tumor prior to surgery, thereby ensuring a better chance of removal. Furthermore, because pancreatic surgery

is so invasive, many patients are in no condition to undergo radiation treatment after surgery, so neoadjuvant treatment allows them to receive radiation that they might not receive otherwise.

Researchers from the Weill Cornell Medical College used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry database to perform a retrospective analysis on patients who had surgically resected (removed) pancreatic cancer between 1994 and 2003. The researchers compared the overall survival rates among patients who received neoadjuvant radiation, adjuvant radiation, or no radiation. Patients who received neoadjuvant radiation survived 23 months, compared with 12 months for patients who did not receive radiation and 17 months for those who received adjuvant radiation (following surgery).

The researchers concluded that neoadjuvant radiation therapy offers a significant benefit over surgery alone or surgery with adjuvant radiation therapy in treating pancreatic cancer. Research will likely be ongoing to further explore these findings.

[1] Stessin AM, Meyer JE, Sherr DL. Neoadjuvant radiation is associated with improved survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer: An analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2008; 72: 1128-1133.

A UK company has launched a new genetic risk assessment service which they claim will allow doctors to draw up personalised breast cancer screening and prevention programmes.

The test combines information about a woman's lifestyle with a DNA test. The results are combined to calculate her overall 'absolute risk' of breast cancer, according to the company, BreastHealthUK.

The gene test is provided by Icelandic company deCODE genetics and is carried out using a sample of DNA extracted from a mouth swab.

*With more and more commercial genetic screens emerging, there's an urgent need for well-designed studies evaluating these types of tests.*

- Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information, Cancer Research UK

It looks at seven gene variations - or SNPs - that are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, several of which were discovered by Cancer Research UK scientists.

It combines these with results from a lifestyle risk calculation programme called the Tyrer-Cuzick model, also developed by Cancer Research UK-funded scientists.

Women are then presented with the results in consultation with an experienced breast surgeon or genetic counsellor, so that
their genetic and lifestyle risk factors can be discussed and the implications fully explained.

The test is not available on the NHS but can be obtained privately for ?700.

Breast surgeon Professor Gordon Wishart, medical director of BreastHealth UK, commented: "Although genetic testing is still a relatively young technique, when combined with proven methods to elicit lifestyle and family history factors, it can provide breast surgeons with new insights into detection and prevention of this disease."

However, experts pointed out that there is still a long way to go before the genetics of breast cancer is fully understood, and that research is needed to prove that these commercial tests will actually reduce cancer death rates.

Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information, commented: "Assessing your risk of cancer and interpreting the results of genetic tests is a very complex matter. With more and more commercial genetic screens emerging, there's an urgent need for well-designed studies evaluating these types of tests - we need to know more about their clinical and psychological impacts, and their current scientific value."

Dr Walker continued: "We've still only got a few pieces of the genetic puzzle. Genetic testing without this missing information means we risk worrying women who may never develop the disease. The commercial market for genetic testing should be properly regulated and appropriate information on the pros and cons should be conveyed to customers.

"At this stage, Cancer Research UK would recommend that women worried about their risk of cancer visit their GP or contact Cancer Research UK's information nurses on 0808 800 4040. Women with a strong family history of breast cancer will be offered genetic testing on the NHS."

Women with a strong family history of breast cancer are already eligible for genetic testing on the NHS. According to guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), women can be referred to specialist genetics services if they have a high risk of developing breast cancer.

This risk is usually determined by looking at a number of factors, including the age at which close relatives were diagnosed with breast cancer; whether a relative had cancer in both breasts; and whether any men in the family have had breast cancer.

US scientists have discovered a previously unknown way by which a cancer-causing version of the Myc gene speeds up the progression of the disease.

A faulty version of Myc is already known to interfere with the early stages of DNA activity in the nucleus of the cell. It prevents DNA from being 'transcribed' into RNA, which is an essential first step in making proteins for cell growth and function.

However, scientists at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) have now found that the faulty Myc gene can also act directly on the final stage of protein production.

*Genes like Myc contribute to cancer in many different ways and every time we discover a new one, we give ourselves another potential avenue for beating the disease.*

- Ed Yong, health information manager, Cancer Research UK

Dr Maria Barna, a faculty fellow in the university's Biochemistry and Biophysics Department and one of the study's senior authors, explained that cancer-causing genes such as Myc regulate a number of distinct cellular processes.

"The key to our studies was the ability to generate novel genetic tools to halt Myc's action on protein production. This demonstrates how essential this process is for cancer formation," she revealed.

Co-senior author Dr Davide Ruggero, assistant professor of urology at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, commented: "Control of protein production rapidly affects cell behaviour, and in a robust manner.

"The ability of the Myc oncogene to directly alter this process may well explain the rapid progression of cancer formation."

In order to find out whether Myc-induced protein production plays a role in cancer, the researchers bred two types of mice - one of which was prone to cancer and over-expressed the Myc oncogene, while
the other had lowered protein production.

This resulted in mice which had the destructive Myc traits as well as an enhanced ability to suppress protein production.

The researchers found that in these mice, cell growth, division and death - which is required to counter cancer - were restored to near-normal levels.

This also helped to counter Myc-induced damage to chromosome function, indicating that Myc causes changes in the genetic integrity of cells through control of protein production and that it may disrupt a number of genes.

Dr Ruggero said: "We discovered a previously unrecognised link between alterations in protein synthesis and the mechanism by which cells maintain the integrity of the genome.

"We found that when Myc is overexpressed, this leads to changes in protein levels of a key gene that is essential for normal distribution of genetic material between daughter cells during cell division."

The discovery, which appears in Nature, suggests that existing drugs which counter increased protein production could slow down tumour growth in cancers where Myc is overactive.

Ed Yong, Cancer Research UK's health information manager, said: "Genes like Myc contribute to cancer in many different ways and every time we discover a new one, we give ourselves another potential avenue for beating the disease."

Ref: Barna et al. Nature 456, 971-975 (18 December 2008)

Ovarian cancer has often been referred to as a 'silent killer', but new preliminary findings from an Australian study show the disease is in fact not silent - these latest data show most women (83 per cent) experience at least one symptom of ovarian cancer in the year prior to their diagnosis.

The study also revealed 17 per cent of women waited more than three months after the onset of their symptoms before visiting their doctor, with 8 per cent waiting more than six months.

"The most common reason for the delay was an assumption that the symptoms were not serious, with many women attributing them to another medical condition or the natural process of ageing," said Dr Helen Zorbas, CEO, National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre.

The study by National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre in collaboration with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, examined the pathways taken by 1500 Australian women to their diagnosis of ovarian cancer, strengthening the case for women to be aware of the symptoms of the disease.

"As there is no screening test for ovarian cancer, the first step to diagnosis is a woman identifying symptoms which are persistent and unusual for her and seeking medical attention. It is therefore vital that women are aware of the symptoms to look out for," said Dr Zorbas.

The symptoms of ovarian cancer include:

- abdominal bloating
- abdominal or back pain
- appetite loss or feeling full quickly
- changes in toilet habits
- unexplained weight loss or gain
- indigestion or heartburn
- fatigue

  The most common symptoms, experienced by half of the study participants, were abdominal symptoms such as fullness and pain. Bloating, bowel or urinary symptoms were reported by approximately one third of participants.

"We know many women will experience these symptoms as part of everyday life," said Dr Zorbas. "But if any of these symptoms are unusual for you and they persist, it is important to see your doctor. No one knows your body like you do."

This year about 1300 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Australia. More than half of women diagnosed do not survive five years after their diagnosis. More than 70 per cent of women are diagnosed at an advanced stage, where the cancer has spread and is difficult to treat successfully.

National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre is funded by the Australian Government and works with consumers, health professionals, cancer organisations, researchers and governments to improve care and cancer control in breast and ovarian cancer. Queensland Institute of Medical Research coordinates the Epidemiology core of the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study. The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study is a collaborative research program between clinicians, scientists, patients and advocacy groups aimed at improving the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of ovarian cancer.

Bree Stevens
Senior Communications & Policy Officer
National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre
Level 1, Suite 103, 355 Crown Street SURRY HILLS NSW 2010
Telephone + 61 2 9357 9402 Mobile 0438 209 833 Facsimile + 61 2 9357 9477

Researchers are working to develop a saliva test for breast cancer that could vastly reduce the use of dangerous and invasive breast cancer screening techniques such as mammograms."This will be a noninvasive, quick means of detection," said lead researcher Charles Streckfus, a professor of diagnostic sciences at the Dental Branch of the University of Texas (UT) at Houston. "With it, dentists will be able to catch cancers before a woman can feel a lump."Researchers have discovered that the onset of breast cancer changes the density of different proteins excreted by the salivary glands. In the current study, published in the journal Cancer Investigation, Streckfus and other researchers from the UT-Houston Dental Branch and Medical School compared the protein levels found in the saliva of 10 women with breast cancer, 10 healthy women and 10 women with a type of tumor called fibroadenoma.Fibroadenoma is the most common kind of benign breast tumor."Saliva is a complex mixture of proteins," said researcher William Dubinsky. "We go through a process that compares different samples by chemically labeling them in such a way that we can not only identify the protein, but determine how much of it is in each sample. This allows us to compare the levels of 150-200 different proteins in cancerous versus non-cancerous specimens to identify possible markers for disease."The researchers identified 49 proteins that were present at different levels between the three groups. These proteins should hypothetically allow doctors to use such a saliva test to alert them when a woman has a tumor, and to determine whether it is cancerous or benign."This is a unique finding," Streckfus said, "as it targets both the benign and malignant tumor, which could potentially reduce the number of false positives and false negatives associated with current cancer diagnostics".Previously, the same team of researchers was able to correctly detect whether a woman had breast cancer 85 percent of the time, using only one saliva protein as a marker. With 49 different markers, Streckfus says that the accuracy of the test should be closer to 95 percent.In the current method, the saliva sample is placed onto a hand-held, gold-plated chip or lab dish, developed by UT-Austin biochemists. A laser analyzes the protein content of the sample."I see this as a future public health service by dentists," Streckfus said. "Most folks, especially women and children, visit the dental office way more often than they ever see the physician. Saliva is a non-invasive, quicker way for detection."Many obstacles remain before this test could be available, however. The first step is more studies to confirm the effectiveness of the protein markers as diagnostic tools in a larger group of patients. Streckfus and colleagues hope to launch a large, multicenter clinical trial of the test within the next two years, and to apply for FDA approval within five.The only saliva test currently approved by the FDA is one for HIV/AIDS.A saliva test for breast cancer has many advantages over current diagnostic methods such as ultrasounds, mammograms, biopsies and blood tests. It would be far less invasive and expensive than most such tests, and have a much higher accuracy rate than blood tests, which are not currently favored for breast cancer diagnosis due to their poor accuracy.The higher accuracy of a saliva test comes in part from the fact that saliva proteins are much easier to detect than the proteins in blood, Dubinsky said."In the case of breast cancer, saliva analysis has been used to monitor patient response to chemotherapy or surgical treatment of the disease," said Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser for the British Dental Association. "The mouth itself is a good indicator of an individual's overall health, and dentists already play an important role in diagnosing and detecting oral cancers."Streckfus said that a saliva test would be particularly valuable in places where mammography centers are rare, such as in many Third World countries, or in breast cancer survivors who need to be regularly monitored for potential cancer recurrence.Regular use of mammograms is not only expensive and emotionally distressing, but can also be dangerous. Because women are exposed to X-ray radiation as part of the mammogram procedure, regular mammogram use actually increases women's risk of developing various cancers. For this reason, mammograms are not normally performed for women under the age of 40, in whom the risk of breast cancer is relatively low unless symptoms are present.But Streckfus warned that a saliva test cannot utterly replace mammograms, because the saliva test is unable to determine which breast contains the tumor.Nonetheless, cancer patient advocates have greeted the new research as promising. According to Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, the saliva test will one day be "a terrific advance.""I think advances like this test portend the day when we'll be able to diagnose disease that would be invisible using today's technologies," Lichtenfeld said. "[Patients will] be able to be diagnosed and treated before they would otherwise know they have the disease."Streckfus and colleagues are also researching whether saliva tests can be used to diagnose other cancers, including of the cervix, uterus, head, neck and ovaries. Another group of researchers, at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, is also working on a saliva test for head-and-neck cancer. According to Lichtenfeld, the Johns Hopkins team is farther along than the UT-Houston team, because their test relies on genetic rather than protein markers.

Is it possible that wearing a bra can actually cause cancer? Studies show that this is a very real possibility. The reason is that regularly wearing a bra prevents lymph drainage and circulation, which can greatly increase the possibility of developing breast cancer.The lymphatic and circulatory systems are responsible for both delivering vital nutrients and clearing out toxins. When the body does not have access to nutrients or when it is under the attack of toxins, cancer may develop.A study published in the European Journal of Cancer studied factors for breast cancer such as breast size and handedness. They discovered that premenopausal women who do not wear bras are less than half as likely to get breast cancer that those who regularly wear a bra. A study conducted by researcher David Moth revealed that even the lightest bras place pressure on the lymphatic system.Other research published in Chronobiology International in 2000 discovered that regular bra wearing decreases the production of melatonin, which is a potent natural antioxidant and the hormone that regulates sleep, boosts the immune system and, incredibly fights aging. Balanced melatonin levels are essential for the body to fight many types of cancer, including breast cancer.Researchers Singer and Grismaijer observed 4,500 women and their bra wearing practices. An amazing 3 out of 4 women who wore their bras 24 hours per day developed breast cancer. Women who wore their bras more than 12 hours per day had a 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer. 1 out 152 women who wore their bra less than 12 hours a day got breast cancer and an incredibly low 1 out of 168 women who rarely or never wear a bra developed breast cancer.These same researchers studied the indigenous populations of New Zealand and Australia. The Maoris, who are indigenous to New Zealand, are basically fully integrated into mainstream New Zealand life and interestingly have the same chances of developing breast cancer. The aboriginals of Australia on the other hand have not integrated into regular western society and do not regularly wear bras, and have practically no breast cancer. Japanese, Fijians, and many women from other cultures were found to have a significantly higher chance of developing breast cancer when they began wearing bras.It may be interesting to note that a very small proportion of men do develop breast cancer, exactly the same amount as women who go braless!European, Journal of Cancer 1991 ;27(2): 131-5.Cancer is Not a Disease by Andreas Moritz

Plant phytonutrients found in Brussels sprouts boost the body`s natural defense systems to protect against cancer and other diseases. Brussels sprouts and other cruciferous vegetables disarm cancer causing chemicals and encourage the body`s detoxification enzymes.Evidence in the Netherlands suggests that Brussels sprouts keep the body free from cancer by promoting healthy DNA. DNA is responsible for cell division in the body. When DNA gets damaged, cells may begin to replicate much more rapidly than normal, which can cause a cancerous tumor to begin to form. Several studies reveal that Brussels sprouts have the ability to help protect DNA from damage.Researchers compared two groups of healthy men. Half of these men ate 300 grams of Brussels sprouts daily, while the other men didn`t have any cruciferous vegetables in their diet. After three weeks, the men who ate their daily dose of Brussels sprouts had a 28% decrease in measured DNA damage.Diminish Digestive Cancers with Brussels SproutsThe phytonutrients in Brussels sprouts have been shown to protect against heterocyclic amines, which are the carcinogenic compounds found in grilled and charbroiled meat. These carcinogens are particularly associated with colon cancer. The study, published in Carcinogenesis, found that animals that were given Brussels sprout juice and heterocyclic amine carcinogen were less likely to develop the cancer.The animals given Brussels sprouts had a reduction in pre-cancerous cells in the colon of 41-52% in the colon and 27-67% in the liver, and drastically diminished the size (85-91%) of pre-cancerous lesions in the liver. These amazing results seem to be a result of Brussels sprouts potent ability to detoxify the body and clear out the colon.Brussels sprouts are also packed with fiber, which nourishes the cells lining the walls of the colon and prevents colon problems including cancer.Brussels Sprouts Fight Bladder CancerResearch published in the International Journal of Cancer shows that Brussels sprouts protect against bladder cancer. The diets of 697 people who were recently diagnosed with bladder cancer were compared with 708 people with the same age, gender and ethnicity who were healthy. The average daily intake of Brussels sprouts and other cruciferous vegetables was significantly lower in those with bladder cancer than in their healthy counterparts. Those who had the highest intake of Brussels sprouts and cruciferous vegetables had a 29% lower risk of bladder cancer that those who ate the least.The benefits of these vegetables were highest in those who have the highest risk of bladder cancer, including men, smokers and older individuals.Brussels sprout`s bladder cancer properties appear to come from their high levels isothiocyanates, which are potent anti-carcinogens. Isothiocyanates travel through the bladder to be excreted, making them particularly powerful against this form of cancer.Breast Cancer ProtectionSulforaphane is released by Brussels sprouts and has been proven to trigger the liver to produce enzymes that detoxify the body of cancer-causing chemicals They have been shown to inhibit chemically-induced breast cancers in animal studies. Research published in the Journal of Nutrition shows that sulforaphane can halt the proliferation of breast cancer cells, even in the later stages of their growth.Defend Against Prostate CancerResearch at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle studied 1,000 men. It was shown that eating 28 servings of different vegetables a week reduced their risk of prostate cancer by 35%. But those who ate 3 or more servings of cruciferous vegetables each week had a 44% lower prostate cancer risk.Many people claim to not enjoy eating Brussels sprouts. If you are not a fan of this incredible food, try chopping them up into tiny peices and sprinkling them over a salad. You won`t even be able to taste them but you will still get the health enhancing benefits and defend your body against disease.http://www.whfoods.com

The pectin from apple peels and extracts of apple juice appear to increase the production of a chemical associated with protection from colon cancer, according to a new study conducted by German researchers and published in the journal Nutrition.

The researchers fermented fecal slurry from healthy volunteers with either apple pectin, apple juice extract, or a combination of the two. They found that the concentrations of a short chain fatty acid (SCFA) known as butyrate were higher in the samples that had been fermented with apple pectin. Concentrations of other SCFAs were also elevated.

"Butyrate not only serves as a major nutrient for the colon epithelia [lining] but is also thought to play an important role in the protective effect of natural fiber against colorectal cancer," the researchers wrote.

Butyrate appeared to inhibit the production of histone deacetylases (HDAC), which have been linked to the development of precancerous cells and tumors. When the researchers tested the fermented fecal slurries on both healthy and cancerous colon cells, they found that the production of HDAC was significantly inhibited.

The slurries fermented with apple juice did not have butyrate levels as high as those fermented with pectin, but they inhibited HDAC production just as effectively. A combination of pectin and apple juice, however, was no more effective than pectin alone. This led the researchers to hypothesize that while apple juice contains still-unknown HDAC inhibitors other than butyrate, butyrate is the most significant inhibitor for the human body.

The study is part of a growing interest in the cancer-suppressing qualities of fruits and vegetables. Another recent study found that freeze-dried grape powder appears to hamper the development of colorectal cancer cells. This effect is believed to arise from the chemical resveratrol, rather than from pectin. But researchers have noted that the cancer-fighting properties of fruits and vegetables often arise from complex interactions between different ingredients.

Sources for this story include:

The era of pre-birth genetic screening of babies has commenced. Doctors at University College in London have produced what they called the "world's first breast cancer gene-free baby" by screening a baby for the BRCA1 gene, which they claim causes breast cancer. ( announcement is saturated with so many medical myths, it's difficult to know where to begin. For starters, the idea that the BRCA1 gene causes cancer is pure hogwash. There's no such thing as a gene that causes cancer by itself. The truth is that environmental factors such as exposure to cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products, pesticides or other industrial chemicals causes the expression of the cancer gene. Without all that toxic chemical exposure, the gene never gets expressed in the first place.And it gets even better: You can eat raw broccoli sprouts or other cruciferous vegetables and suppress the BRCA1 gene so that you never grow cancer tumors at all. Thus, the patient has complete control over the expression of their genes based on their diet and environment, and there are literally hundreds of different foods that have an anti-cancer effect: Cruciferous vegetables, onions, garlic, red wine, green tea, raw cacao, omega-3 oils, and of course a whole universe of anti-cancer herbs and superfoods.This doesn't even mention the effects of vitamin D and exercise on the BRCA1 gene, both of which also suppress cancer.But modern medicine -- which is largely based on marketing-motivated quackery -- wants women to believe they have no control over breast cancer and that it all comes down to your genes, not your choices. That's the little trap they set for women, stripping them of their power and condemning them to a lifetime of medical "treatment" that just happens to earn outrageous profits for the drug companies.
Welcome to the new era of eugenicsSo now we have a new era being unleashed where babies born with the BRCA1 gene are going to be considered "defective" while babies born without the gene will be considered "superior."This is leading us into a dangerous new mindset where babies will be condemned as second-class citizens from the moment they're born simply because they carry a gene that the corrupt medical system mistakenly believes is a causative factor for some disease.The relevant movie to watch here is GATTACA (, a film that depicts a future society where your genes determine every opportunity you have in life: Your job, you income, your social standing and much more.GATTACA is a smart movie that sends a highly relevant warning message: If we begin to profile babies for their genes, then we are heading down a slippery slope of defunct medical ethics that could ultimately lead to a new division between the "genetic upper class" and the "genetic lower class."The next class war could very well be based on genetics, and parents will fret over the genetic makeup of their children, choosing to abort babies that don't have the "right" genes, even if those babies are perfectly healthy. And then we'll have medical companies offering to manipulate the genes of the fertilized egg, promising to give parents a baby with blond hair, or a high IQ, or a thin physique...It's just what we need, huh? A whole society of genetically-selected supermodels running around society, thinking they're superior because they've been genetically designed by scientists who think they're God.These gene-pushing doctors mistakenly think they can determine the future of a human being by manipulating the genes of the fetus. It's no surprise, after all: Most conventionally-trained physicians believe in outright determinism, thinking that there is no such thing as a soul, or free will, or a spiritual reality of any kind. You're born with genes, you "play out" your predetermined fate recorded in those genes, and then you die and that's the end of everything. It's a deeply pessimistic, deterministic point of view, and yet it's the view that's held by the vast majority of western doctors.The real truth is that while genes certainly have potential influence over a person's health, it is the environment (foods, health habits, exercise, exposure to chemicals, etc.) that is the far more important factor in determining what happens to an individual's health. I can take a room full of a thousand BRCA1 gene carriers and show every one of them how to live a life 100% free of breast cancer through simple, safe and low-cost methods that are available to everyone.Modern medicine refuses to do that. Because despite all the grand technology, the manipulation of human life and the arrogant playing God that takes place daily in the minds of western doctors, there's one thing they still haven't figured out how to do: Tell the truth to a patient about how they can prevent cancer, regardless of their genes.Modern medicine is a huge technical success and a complete humanistic failure. It offers the most impressive technology in the world and puts it into the hands of the most ethically-deficient professionals who are so pessimistic about the nature of reality that they don't even believe in the existence of their own souls.And do you really want scientists who don't even believe in the existence of the human soul to be playing God with your baby's genes?Disturbing.It should also be noted, by the way, that this whole process of "gene screening babies" involves testing the embryo at the eight-cell stage (when conception has already taken place and the baby is beginning to grow), and then throwing away any embryos that don't fit the desire genetic profile.In effect, the gene screening of babies involves the systematic destruction of viable human embryos that could grow into full-fledged babies. This opens up a whole new debate on the issue of abortion, of course, and I'd like to hear your comments on all this. Simply post your thoughts in the comment section below.The key issues are: At what point is the genetic screening of a baby going too far? Most people might agree, for example, that screening for major birth defects is acceptable, but is it acceptable to screen for things like blue eyes and then toss out the embryos that don't carry that gene?What will happen in the future of society if the gene screening of embryos becomes socially acceptable and is embraced by parents?What are the risks posed by a race of beings that engages in routine genetic selection? (For example, might be lose biodiversity? Might the BRCA1 gene have another positive purpose that doctors haven't identified yet?)Should humans be genetically engineered to insert new traits? Larger brains? Stronger muscles? Bigger boobs? (Parents could actually order up a boob job on their daughter before she's born!)Think carefully about this one. It's a hugely complex sociomedicalethical issue

Recent research published in the journal Breast Cancer Research has found that vigorous activities, which include chores such as digging in the garden and heavy housework, lower the risk of women getting breast cancer. This protective effect, however, only applied to women who were in the normal weight range.About Breast CancerIn 2004, over 185,000 women and more than 1,800 men in the United States alone were diagnosed with breast cancer, while almost 41,000 women and 362 men succumbed to the disease.In that year, breast cancer was the number two cancer killer of American women, ranked only after non-melanoma skin cancer, while also being their number five killer overall. In addition, for Hispanic women, breast cancer was the number one cancer killer.In Canada, the picture isn't much better either. Among Canadian women, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer. The Canadian Cancer Society has estimated that some 22,400 women will be diagnosed with it this year, while about 5,300 will succumb to the disease.Details of StudyExercise has already been heavily linked with the prevention of many chronic diseases. Also, previously, other studies had suggested that women who went through more physical activity had lower risks of getting breast cancer. But this time, the researchers dug deeper.In this study, conducted by the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, more than 32,000 women from across the United States were tracked for a period of 11 years. The average age of the subjects was 61, and all of them were free from chronic diseases at the start of the study. The participants were made to fill out a detailed questionnaire regarding their physical activity.The survey asked the participants to estimate the typical number of hours which they spent each day carrying out various physical activities. These included moderate activities such as bowling, gardening, hiking, jogging lightly, mowing the lawn, vacuuming the floor and walking.They also included vigorous activities such as aerobics, chopping wood, competitive tennis, cycling on hills, digging in the garden, fast dancing, heavy housework, heavy yard work, jogging quickly, running, scrubbing the floors and washing the windows.Findings of StudyOverall, the participants of the study spent an average of 5.9 hours each day taking part in non-vigorous activities, and an average of 1.2 hours doing vigorous activities. By the end of 11 years, 1,506 of the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer.The study found that the women who were the most active had a 13% lower risk of getting post-menopausal breast cancer, when compared with their least active counterparts.A significant finding is that this difference was a lot more pronounced in women in the normal weight range (body mass index below 25). For this group, the difference in risk between the most active and least active women was 30%.On the other hand, for women who were overweight or obese, there was no difference in risk between the most active and least active women."The association with physical activity was essentially limited to the leaner women," said Dr Michael Leitzmann, leader of the study.The ImplicationsOne limitation of the study was that it only measured the level of physical activity once, which would not have given a very accurate reflection of the women's level of physical activity over the whole period of the study. Even then, the study team still felt that physical activity in mid to late adulthood had an important influence on the risk of breast cancer.And, from the findings of the study, we can probably draw two conclusions. Firstly, even for women who are in the normal weight range, a sedentary lifestyle is still a risk factor for breast cancer. Further, for overweight women, being physically more active did not seem to help.The bottomline? If you are serious about averting breast cancer, you may want to watch your weight, and make sure you are getting enough vigorous exercise.Main SourceIntense activity curbs breast cancer risk (

Through many cancer regiments, the results of the treatments leave the patients with debilitating and most of time deadly side effects such as hair loss, vomiting, weight loss, edema, immune dysfunction, etc. For prostate cancer, another consequence of the treatment can be added to the list: the degeneration of cognitive abilities.Typically, prostate cancer patients go through a treatment known as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or hormone deprivation therapy that blocks testosterone production and can slow the growth of the tumor.Though a recent MSNBC article presents the type of cognitive decline as miniscule and limited to functions such as spatial ability and the ability to multitask (and other such actions), can we be certain that the effects of this treatment are as minimal as the mainstrem media make it out to be? I do not think anyone can accurately know the answer to that question, unless there are those who know these effects to be more serious than what is reported here; however, what is sure is that these cognitive decline effects can certainly be avoided through natural means.One way to treat prostate cancer is to cut out low-fat dairy products. Low-fat dairy products are callously promoted under the misconception that saturated fat is unhealthy and "bad" for you. A study conducted by the Cancer Research Center of Honolulu last year found that, after collecting data from 1993-2002 of 82,483 male participants forty-five years old and over, there was a twelve percent decrease in the risk of developing prostate cancer for the whole milk drinkers: there was a sixteen percent increased chance for developing the illness for those who drank 2% milk or skim milk.Another way to treat prostate cancer is to increase the intake of broccoli and tomatoes together. Sheryl Waters of Natural News wrote, when quoting Professor John Erdman of University of Illinois food science and human nutrition, that, "When tomatoes and broccoli are eaten together, we see an additive effect. We think it's because different bioactive compounds in each food work on different anti-cancer pathways," These documented effects demonstrate the wonderful, yet simple, solution to better health that broccoli and tomatoes provide.Unfortunately, there is another added side effect to the purported treatment for prostate cancer; however, that does not have to be the undue fate of the illness's sufferers. There are natural treatments that can help to restore the physical and mental health of the afflicted.Sources:1. ( ( ( (

Drink all of your milk is a phrase many people grew up hearing. Yet evidence increasingly suggests that milk is not as healthy as it has been believed to be. Health concious people are giving up milk and turning to alternatives. Here are 7 reasons why all of us can consider avoiding cow's milk:1) Milk doesn't keep our bones healthy, preventing fractures and osteoporosis. In fact, according the Nurse's Health Study, dairy may actually increase the risk of fractures rather than protecting our bones. Countries such as those in Africa and Asia who don't consume large amounts of dairy actually have the lowest rates of osteoporosis.2) Milk is not the great source of calcium that most people believe it is. First of all, pasteurizing milk kills all of the nutrients, including calcium. Second, spinach, tahini, kale and other green leafy vegetables are the best sources of calcium on the planet.3) Milk is has been linked with acne by at least three large-scale studies reported in the American Journal of Dermatology. Research shows that there is up to 44% more chance of developing acne in those who drink milk.4) Dairy may raise cancer risk. Research has revealed that a higher intake of dairy products may increase a man's risk of prostate cancer by 30 to 50 percent. In addition, the body's insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is a known cancer promoter is increased by drinking milk.5) Approximately 75 percent of the world's population is lactose intolerant, which means that they are unable to fully digest dairy. Lactase is the enzyme needed to digest lactose, and most people stop producing it around the age of 5.6) Dairy is full of saturated fat and is linked to heart disease. Like cancer, countries such as Japan have a very low level of heart disease, and research commissioned by the New Zealand company A2 shows that there could be a link between a protein in milk.7) People with many different healthy complaints notice a significant improvement when they avoid dairy. Health complaints associated with dairy intolerance include irritable bowel syndrome, allergies, sinus problems, and ear infections.So what is the first step in giving up milk?*Get loads of sunshine to ensure plenty of vitamin D.*Start eating masses of green leafy vegetables so you can ensure you are getting your calcium.*Try substituting milk with nut milk.*Many studies show that raw milk (unpasteurized) is far better because the nutrients have not been destroyed. Raw goat's milk and raw sheep's milk are both increasingly popular.*Avocado is a wonderful butter substitute. It offers a creaminess that is people who have given up milk miss. Many vegans and raw foodists find that avocado is one of the most essential transition foods.*Coconut butter is another buttery, creamy substitute for those that want to give up milk. Coconut butter is the healthiest oil in cooking. It can also replace butter as a spread and cream in healthy cakes and desserts.

Newer Posts Older Posts Home

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner