fordoctors

Non-melanoma skin cancer linked with increased risk for other cancers


People who have previously had non-melanoma skin cancer appear to face a higher risk of other cancers, US scientists have found.
Researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina analysed data on 769 people with non-melanoma skin cancer - basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma - and a further 18,405 people with no previous history of cancer for 16 years.
They found that the rate of cancer in people with a history of non-melanoma skin cancer was 293.5 cases per 10,000 people per year, while in people with no previous history of cancer it was just 77.8 cases per 10,000 people per year.
This interesting study adds weight to the possibility that non-melanoma skin cancer may somehow increase a person's future risk of developing other types of cancer. - Dr Alison Ross, science information officer, Cancer Research UK
After other risk factors - such as age, sex, body mass index, smoking and education level - had been taken into account, people with a history of non-melanoma skin cancer were found to face a two-fold increase in the risk of subsequent cancers.
Previous research has suggested that non-melanoma skin cancer survivors are at increased risk of developing melanoma in the future, but the researchers found that the disease also increases the risk of other forms of cancer.
The association was strongest in young people between the ages of 25 and 44.
Commenting on the findings, which are published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dr Anthony Alberg of the Medical University of South Carolina said: "This pattern of associations, with earlier age of [non-melanoma skin cancer] diagnosis being linked more strongly to the risk of developing subsequent malignancies, is consistent with the pattern that one would expect for a marker of inherited predisposition to cancer."
Dr Alison Ross, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This interesting study adds weight to the possibility that non-melanoma skin cancer may somehow increase a person's future risk of developing other types of cancer.
"The next steps will be for scientists to investigate the biology behind this link, so they can piece together what's really happening in the body and how."

A gene-based molecular diagnostic test used to detect prostate cancer has completed the clinical trials process and is ready for commercial use in patients who are at a high risk for the disease. These results were recently released in a press release by Health Discovery Corporation.
Prostate cancer is a common cancer among men in the United States. More than 1 million biopsies for prostate cancer (tissue removed from the prostate for laboratory analysis) are performed in this country each year, with 75% of the biopsies being “negative” (no evidence of prostate cancer). However, one-third of these negative results actually contain cancer that is not accurately identified.
The new test produced by Health Discovery Corporation utilizes gene signatures, a concept used in Oncotype DX® for breast cancer, to identify the presence of prostate cancer. The intent of the test is for use among men who have an initial negative reading on their prostate biopsy.
The latest results leading to the clinical availability of the test revealed that the gene-based test correctly identified 90% of all clinically significant prostate cancers, while correctly identifying 97% of non-prostate cancers; these findings represent an overall accuracy of 93%.
The test will initially be performed at Clarient’s Clinical Laboratory in Aliso Viejo, California, and is available for patients with an increased risk of developing prostate cancer.
Patients who are at an increased risk of developing prostate cancer may wish to speak with their physician regarding their individual risks and benefits of this gene-based molecular test.
Reference: Health Discovery Corporation. New Prostate Cancer Test is Ready for Commercialization Following Successful Completion of Final Clinical Trials [press release].

Patients with early prostate cancer who are treated with initial surgery appear to have reduced death from prostate cancer compared with those who undergo watchful waiting as initial therapy. These results were recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Early prostate cancer refers to prostate cancer that has not spread from the prostate to distant sites in the body but is limited to the prostate and nearby lymph nodes. Standard therapy for early prostate cancer may include surgery (radical prostatectomy), radiation therapy, watchful waiting (also referred to as conservative management, in which there is no treatment until disease progression), and hormone therapy. Optimal treatment for early prostate cancer is still under debate, though it appears that individualized approaches may provide the best outcomes. Several variables are considered when selecting treatment options for early prostate cancer; these include age, aggressiveness of cancer, extent of spread, other existing medical conditions, and side effects of therapy.
Researchers from Scandinavia recently conducted a clinical trial that compared initial therapy with a radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting among men with early prostate cancer. This trial included 695 men who had been diagnosed between 1989 and 1999 and were followed for a median of nearly 11 years.
13.5% of men who received an initial radical prostatectomy had died of prostate cancer compared with 19.5% of men who underwent initial watchful waiting.
After approximately 10 years, the rate of death caused by prostate cancer stabilized between the two groups of men.
At 12 years 19.3% of men who received an initial radical prostatectomy and 26% of men who underwent initial watchful waiting had distant spread (metastasis) of their cancer.
Among the group of men who underwent an initial radical prostatectomy, those whose cancer extended outside the capsule of the prostate had 14 times the increased risk of death from the disease than those whose cancer had not extended outside the capsule of the prostate.
The researchers concluded that, when compared with watchful waiting as initial therapy for men with early prostate cancer, “Radical prostatectomy reduces prostate cancer mortality and risk of metastases with little or no further increase in benefit 10 or more years after surgery.” However, it is important for patients with early prostate cancer to discuss their individual risks and benefits of all treatment options with their healthcare provider.
Reference: Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, et al. Radical Prostatectomy Versus Watchful Waiting in Localized Prostate Cancer: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 Randomized Trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute [early online publication]. August 11, 2008. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn255

New research shows just how powerful the phytochemicals in green tea are turning out to be: they are now known to prevent breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer and other forms of cancer.
In fact, if green tea were a prescription drug, it would be called a "miracle cancer cure" drug, no doubt. (And it would be sold for $200 a pill, if not more.) But it's not a drug, and it's available to you right now for mere pennies. Green tea is simply one of the most powerful medicinal herbs known. It is especially useful for preventing cancer, and the research keeps on coming.
Every person suffering from cancer (or at risk of being diagnosed with cancer) should be taking green tea nutritional supplements. It has zero negative side effects, and yet delivers powerful anti-cancer compounds

A study published in the Jan. 17 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute suggests that people can protect themselves from a type of polyp that leads to cancer -- recurrent colorectal adenomas -- for up to five years after discontinuing a daily calcium supplement regiment maintained for four years.
A previous study had shown a link between daily calcium supplementation and reduced colorectal adenoma risk, and the recent follow-up study showed that the supplements continue to offer protection after patients discontinue use.
Data from 587 patients who previously had at least one colonoscopy was analyzed for seven years after the conclusion of the previous study. At the five-year-mark, the former calcium users showed a 31.5 percent rate of adenoma formation, while the group who never used calcium supplements showed 43.2 percent growth, but no apparent effect on either group was noted after that time. The study also showed that the prior use of calcium supplements reduced advanced adenoma risk, but not in a way that was statistically significant.
In an interview with Reuters, study co-author Dr. John A. Baron of Dartmouth Medical School in Lebanon, New Hampshire, said he would like to see future researchers duplicate the results of his study, but noted it was too early to say calcium supplements were a viable way to prevent colorectal cancer. He added that the study turned up evidence that prostate cancer risk might be increased by calcium supplementation.
"I would urge consumers to supplement only with high-grade calcium sources, and avoid products like Tums which actually reduce stomach acid, interfering with the assimilation of minerals like calcium," said Mike Adams, author of "The 7 Laws of Nutrition" and a consumer health advocate. Adams said that calcium carbonate is a poor source of calcium, and that calcium citrate is better. The best sources, he said, include things like calcium malate, and he recommended consumers visit WellnessResources.com for "very high-grade calcium."
"The best way to take calcium is with acidic natural foods such as citrus or strawberries," he said. "A little vinegar, taken with calcium supplements, can also boost absorption and assimilation."