The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Statistics 2009 report finds an encouraging 19.2 percent drop in cancer death rates among men from 1990 to 2005, as well as an 11.4 percent drop in women’s cancer death rates during the same time period.

Overall, cancer death rates fell 2 percent per year from 2001 to 2005 in men and 1.6 percent per year from 2002 to 2005 in women. By comparison, between 1993 and 2001, overall death rates in men declined 1.5 percent per year and, between 1994 and 2002, 0.8 percent in women.

“We continue to see a decrease in death rates from cancer in both men and women and this is mainly because of prevention - mostly a reduction in smoking rates; detection which includes screening for colorectal cancer, for breast cancer and for cervical cancer; and also improved treatment,” said report author Ahmedin Jemal, strategic director for cancer surveillance at the American Cancer Society.

“To put this in perspective, the number of lives saved is more than the population of Washington, D.C.,” said Dr. Louis M. Weiner, director of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University. “In my mind, that’s a cause for some celebration. However, there are some sobering trends that we have to be aware of. The death rate for cardiovascular disease has dropped much more dramatically over that period than has the death rate from cancer, indicating the difficulty of developing new strategies to reduce the incidence of cancer and also to treat it more effectively. This is a very complex set of diseases. While we have come a long way, we have a lot further to go.”

Hopefully, continued reductions in smoking rates, especially among women, should push cancer rates further down in the future, the researchers noted.

Although some 45 million Americans continue to smoke, for a prevalence rate of about 20 percent, “smoking prevalence is going in the right direction,” Jemal said. “We’re going to see a reduction in lung cancer death rates, although I don’t know when it might be. In particular, we will see a reduction in cancer death rates among women that’s going to drive [down] the overall cancer death rate.”

Better screening could also further fuel the trend. Only 50 percent of Americans over the age of 50 currently get regular screening for colorectal cancer, he said.

Here is a summary of the report’s findings:

* In 2009, an estimated 1,479,350 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S. (766,130 in men and 713,220 in women) and 562,340 people will die of the disease (292,540 men and 269,800 women). This means 1,500 deaths from cancer every day).
* Between 2001 and 2005, the incidence of cancer in men declined by 1.8 percent per year; from 1998 to 2005 the incidence rate in women dropped 0.6 percent per year. In men, the gains were largely as a result of decreases in the incidence of lung, prostate and colorectal cancer (the three most common cancers). In women, the decline was largely attributable to declines in both breast and colorectal cancer, the two most common tumor types in women.
* Cancer death rates dropped by 11.4 percent for women between 1991 and 2005, with a 37 percent decline in deaths from breast cancer and a 24 percent decrease in deaths from colorectal cancer.
* The three leading cancer killers in men are lung, prostate and colorectal cancer. In women, they are lung (accounting for 26 percent of all cancer deaths), breast and colorectal cancer.
* Men have a 44 percent chance of developing cancer during their lifetime and women a 37 percent chance, although women are more likely to have the disease earlier (before age 60).
* Lung cancer shows the greatest regional variation in cancer incidence, ranging from a low of 39.6 cases per 100,000 in men and 22.4 per 100,000 in women in Utah to 136.2 in men and 76.2 in women in Kentucky. These statistics correlate directly to smoking rates in the two states, with Utah having the lowest prevalence in adult smoking in the country, and Kentucky the highest.
* Blacks still assume a disproportionate share of the cancer burden, with black men being 18 percent more likely to develop cancer and 36 percent more likely to die. Black women have a 6 percent lower incidence rate but this is more than made up for with a death rate, which is 17 percent higher than that seen in white women.
* The five-year survival rate for children with cancer is now 80 percent, up from only 58 percent for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s. But cancer is still the second leading cause of death in youngsters aged 1 to 14 (after accidents), with leukemia being the most common cancer diagnosed.
* And in a special section, the report finds that cancer survivors are about 14 percent more likely to develop a new cancer than individuals who have never had a cancer diagnosis; almost 900,000 cancer survivors have been diagnosed with more than one cancer. Patients diagnosed with tobacco-related cancers, such as cancers of the oral cavity, lung, esophagus, kidney, and urinary bladder, have the highest risk for a second cancer because smoking is a risk factor for at least 15 types of cancer. Breast cancer survivors comprise almost half of women who develop a second cancer.

Unfortunately, cancer remains the leading killer (surpassing heart disease) for persons under 85, and one-quarter of deaths in the United States still come from cancer, the report stated.

“It’s good news that the death rates for the most common cancers are on the decline, but there are still too many Americans dying of cancer every year,” said Dr. Alan Astrow, director of medical oncology and hematology at Maimonides Cancer Center in New York City. “It’s troubling that African-Americans continue to experience higher rates of mortality from cancer than whites. It’s also troubling that Americans with less education have higher death rates. There are continued high rates of deaths from lung cancer. It’s hard to feel good about 160,000 Americans dying of lung cancer every year. That’s a disturbing statistics which we, as a nation, need to address.”

The report appears online and in the July/August print issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Citalopram, a medication commonly prescribed to children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), was no more effective than a placebo at reducing repetitive behaviors, according to researchers funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and other NIH institutes. The study was published in the June 2009 issue of Archives of General Psychiatry.

“Parents of children with autism spectrum disorders face an enormous number of treatment options, not all of which are research-based,” said NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D. “Studies like this help us to better understand which treatments are likely to be beneficial and safe.”

The researchers say their findings do not support using citalopram to treat repetitive behaviors in children with ASD. Also, the greater frequency of side effects from this particular medication compared to placebo illustrates the importance of placebo-controlled trials in evaluating medications currently prescribed to this population.

Citalopram is in a class of antidepressant medications called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that is sometimes prescribed for children with ASD to reduce repetitive behaviors. These behaviors, a hallmark of ASD, include stereotypical hand flapping, repetitive complex whole body movements (such as spinning, swaying, or rocking over and over, with no clear purpose), repetitive play, and inflexible daily routines.

Past research suggested that some children with ASD have abnormalities in the brain system that makes serotonin, a brain chemical that, among many other functions, plays an important role in early brain development. Children with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) may also have serotonin abnormalities and have repetitive or inflexible behaviors. OCD is effectively treated with SSRIs, leading some researchers to wonder whether similar treatment may reduce repetitive behaviors in children with ASD. So far, studies have produced mixed results, but SSRIs remain among the most frequently prescribed medications for children with ASD.

Researchers in the Studies to Advance Autism Research and Treatment (STAART) network, funded by five NIH institutes, conducted a six-site, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of using the SSRI citalopram (Celexa) versus placebo to treat repetitive behaviors in children with ASD. The study included 149 participants, ages 5–17, who had autism, Asperger disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS).

After 12 weeks of treatment, roughly 1 out of 3 children in both groups—32.9 percent of those treated with citalopram and 34.2 percent those treated with placebo—showed fewer or less severe repetitive symptoms.

“Adverse symptoms were common in both groups, probably reflecting common childhood ailments as well as the changing nature of symptoms associated with ASD,” according to Bryan King, M.D., director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Seattle Children’s Hospital and lead author on the study. However, reports of increased energy, impulsiveness, decreased concentration, hyperactivity, diarrhea, insomnia, and dry skin were more common in the citalopram group.

According to the researchers, the study results may challenge the underlying premise that repetitive behaviors in children with ASD are similar to repetitive and inflexible behaviors in OCD.

The authors on the paper include Bryan H. King, M.D., Seattle Children’s Hospital; Eric Hollander, M.D., Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Linmarie Sikich, M.D., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; James T. McCracken, M.D., University of California Los Angeles; Lawrence Scahill, M.S.N., Ph.D., Yale University; Joel D. Bregman, M.D., North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System; Craig L. Donnelly, M.D., Dartmouth Medical School; Evdokia Anagnostou, M.D., Mount Sinai School of Medicine (currently at the University of Toronto); Kimberly Dukes, Ph.D., DM-STAT; Lisa Sullivan, Ph.D., Boston University; Deborah Hirtz, M.D., National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS); Ann Wagner, Ph.D., NIMH; Louise Ritz, M.B.A., NIMH (currently at NINDS); and the STAART Psychopharmacology Network.

The STAART network is jointly funded by NIMH, NINDS, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), all part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The mission of the NIMH is to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research, paving the way for prevention, recovery and cure. For more information, visit www.nimh.nih.gov.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation’s Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Ultraviolet (UV) rays are an invisible form of radiation. They can penetrate your skin and damage your skin cells. Sunburns are a sign of skin damage. Suntans aren’t healthy, either. They appear after the sun’s rays have already killed some cells and damaged others. UV rays can cause skin damage during any season or at any temperature. They can also cause eye problems, wrinkles, skin spots, and skin cancer.

To protect yourself

* Stay out of the sun when it is strongest (between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.)
* Use sunscreen with an SPF of 15 or higher
* Wear protective clothing
* Wear wraparound sunglasses that provide 100 percent UV ray protection
* Avoid sunlamps and tanning beds

Check your skin regularly for changes in the size, shape, color or feel of birthmarks, moles and spots. Such changes are a sign of skin cancer.

In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the doctors said they prescribed the regimen to 85 patients and monitored them for an average of 70 months.

Of these, 80 patients went into complete remission and the researchers did not find any associated long-term problems in their heart or lungs and there was no development of secondary cancers.

“Two years after their treatment, the patients had arsenic blood and urine levels well below safety limits, and only slightly higher than controls,” they wrote.

“The treatment was effective … and worked better than either drug given alone.”

The authors recommended that the treatment be given to patients with blood and bone marrow cancer, or acute promyelocytic Leukemia.

While vitamin A is regarded by some experts as a viable treatment, this is the first time that its use has been monitored for such an extended period of time.

Since the 18th century, arsenic compounds have been used as medicines to treat certain ailments. The US Food and Drug Administration approved it for the treatment of people with blood and bone marrow cancer in 2000.

(Reporting by Tan Ee Lyn; Editing by Alex Richardson)

pat-pedraja2

Research shows that about two-thirds of children with cancer will experience at least one late health consequence as a result of their earlier treatment. For example, a child with Hodgkin’s disease who had radiation to her chest is at risk for skin cancer, thyroid cancer and breast cancer as an adult.

Research from the American Society of Clinical Oncology shows that childhood survivors have a five- to 10-times greater risk than their healthy siblings of developing heart disease in early adulthood. The class of chemo drugs known as anthracyclines can be toxic to children’s developing hearts, causing heart failure and enlarged hearts in adulthood.

“The effects get worse with time,” Aarati Didwania, M.D., from Northwestern University said in a press release. “The further out patients get from their treatment, the more likely they are to develop late effects.”

A NEW PROGRAM: Northwestern University is one of only about a handful of centers across the country to offer a new type of program for childhood cancer survivors. The program is called STAR, which stands for “Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility.” It focuses on the comprehensive health care of adults who are survivors of childhood cancer.

Staff members track down patients’ health records from 10, 20, 30 or more years ago to compile those records into a clinical summary for patients. The summary includes information on the chemo drugs, radiation exposures and surgeries that the patients may have experienced in the past.

Doctors say these details may predict certain health problems that lie ahead. The information also helps clinicians decide on diagnostic screenings that may protect the patients. The STAR program is unique because different medical specialists collaborate to meet the patients’ specific needs.

NOT JUST PHYSICAL PROBLEMS: Many childhood cancer survivors have also experienced psychological problems as a result of their illnesses. Because of their time away from school during treatment, many may have missed out on important milestones like dating or maintaining close friendships. Doctors with the STAR program offer the survivors support and teach them valuable social skills.

James

“For the first time, we used a genome-wide strategy to interrogate over 500,000 variations in inherited DNA to find common gene variations called SNPs, or single nucleotide polymorphisms, that predicted response to chemotherapy,” said lead researcher Mary V. Relling, who chairs the pharmaceutical department at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.

Much of the emphasis in research on why chemotherapy works better on some people than others has focused on differences in the leukemia cells themselves, Relling noted.

“Our findings imply that the DNA patients inherit from their parents also explains why some patients respond to chemotherapy better than others,” she said. “We also found some interesting genes that were previously under-appreciated and may provide new targets for new drug development.”

The report is published in the Jan. 28 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

For the study, Relling’s team studied genetic variations in 487 children with lymphoblastic leukemia. Their goal was to find evidence of disease that persisted after treatment.

The researchers found 102 SNPs associated with minimal residual disease. “A high proportion of the gene variations were related to levels of the chemotherapy in blood and in leukemia cells; some were related to leukemia cell biology,” Relling said.

An equal number, 21, were also associated with blood-related relapse and with the performance of antileukemic drugs. Overall, 61.7 percent of the SNPs were linked to early response, relapse risk or the performance of antileukemic drugs, the researchers found.

“Some of the gene variation is likely to cause differences among patients in how quickly their bodies rid themselves of the chemotherapy, and some of the variations are likely to penetrate through to the leukemia cells and have an influence on the inherent sensitivity of the leukemia cells to chemotherapy,” Relling said.

Knowing the genetics of patients and knowing the genetics of their tumors are both important in designing effective treatments, she explained.

“When modern genomics is used to try to personalize medication regimens for cancer, we will need to consider the genetic variation that each patient has inherited, in addition to the genetic variation that is unique to the tumor cells,” Relling said. “It will be necessary to continue to do genomic research in as many patients with cancer as possible in order to be able to apply these results in the future.”

Dr. Barton Kamen, chief medical officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, noted that almost 20 percent of children treated for lymphoblastic leukemia suffer cognitive damage from chemotherapy.

“The problem is that the high cure rate of lymphoblastic leukemia still has a price,” Kamen said. But knowing the genetic makeup of people and their disease, he said, might make it possible to make treatment less toxic by using lower doses for a shorter time.

In addition, knowing the genetic makeup of children with lymphoblastic leukemia “might point to the reasons for the failure of treatment so we can do something better for the 20 percent of the kids who are destined to fail,” Kamen said.

(SOURCES: Mary V. Relling, Pharm.D., chair, pharmaceutical sciences, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn.; Barton Kamen, M.D., Ph.D., chief medical officer, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, White Plains, N.Y.; Jan. 28, 2009, Journal of the American Medical Association )

carrots

Vitamin A  Also  Produces Astonishing Leukemia Cure Rate, Even Without Chemotherapy

New research conducted at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center shows that vitamin A cures as many as 33% of patients with a rare form of leukemia — without using chemotherapy. In the study, the vitamin A was being delivered inside “bubbles of fat” to enhance bioavailability. Out of 34 patients participating in the trial, an astonishing 10 remained cancer-free after five years, despite receiving no chemotherapy.

So what’s the real story here? Researchers are calling this form of vitamin A a “drug,” which seems odd, since it’s just vitamin A. Perhaps they don’t want to admit that a vitamin is better than chemotherapy for curing cancer. And this is definitely a cure — that term is even being used by the researchers here. To take a group of cancer patients and watch them remain cancer-free for five years is nothing short of astonishing, especially since they were only taking one vitamin. Imagine how well they’d do if they also consumed chlorella (a strong anti-cancer superfood), spirulina (another superfood containing phytochemicals known to destroy breast cancer tumors), graviola (an Amazonian herb known for its powerful ability to destroy cancer cells), licorice root (a more popular anti-cancer herb) and other health-promoting foods and supplements. With the help of this collection of health-promoting substances, the cure rate could have easily risen to 75% or more.

Still, that’s just a guess. Organized medicine isn’t really interested in studying things that don’t generate profits, and herbs and superfoods certainly fall into that category. But it is exciting to see vitamin A having such a dramatic, positive impact on patients with leukemia who might otherwise be subjected to chemotherapy. And perhaps someday these researchers will have the courage to admit that it’s a vitamin, not a drug, that’s working the healing magic here.

The article by Ray Copes, MD and Prabjit Barn, M.Sc. of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control was entitled, “Is living near power lines bad for our health?” Its conclusions are of interest to consulting engineers who work in the power sector and land planning sectors.

James Drawing In Bed

However, the authors say, a more recent study in the U.K. found that there was an increased risk for children living as far as 600 metres (more than half a kilometre) from the power lines.

The authors say, “Although distance of homes from power lines can be considered a crude measure of exposure, the results of this study do merit attention.”

Still, they add, since the underlying biological mechanism is unknown it’s difficult to determine which measure of EMF is most appropriate for measuring health outcomes.

As well, the risk remains very small. In their estimations for the impact in B.C., based on current population patterns and on a statistical bases, living near power lines would add up to one additional case of leukemia in the province every year.

They conclude that to eliminate any risk would mean locating every residence farther than 600 metres away from a power line, a plan that would require “substantial changes to existing land use patterns and would require significant resources.”

They think those resources could be better spent elsewhere, “… based on best available evidence, one can achieve much greater risk reduction or health benefits if resources are directed to other larger, better established risks.”

The article was in BCMJ, Vol. 50, No. 9, November 2008. See www.bcmj.org

ALL is a cancer of the white blood cells, which are the cells in the body that normally fight infection. With current treatments, more than 95 percent of these children attain remission and an average of 80 percent become cancer free at least 5 years from diagnosis. However, some children do not respond to treatment and many patients differ greatly in their responses to their treatments. According to researchers from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, genetic variations play a role in how children will respond to ALL therapy.

The researchers have identified more than 100 inherited genetic variations that affect a child’s response to ALL treatment that might lead to the development of better therapies. The findings of this new study were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

According to Mary Relling, Pharm.D. of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and a member of the research team, “This study differs from most previous investigations of gene variations linked to chemotherapy outcome because those studies focused only on the genes of the leukemic cells themselves.” She explained that the new study “focused on genomic variation that is inherited and affects all cells in the body, not just the leukemic cells.”

Relling’s team analyzed genetic variations in 487 children with ALL searching for evidence of the disease persisting after treatment and found 102 inherited variations called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with small amounts of enduring disease. Relling said, “A high proportion of the gene variations were related to levels of the chemotherapy in blood and in leukemia cells. Some were related to leukemia cell biology.”

The research team also found that 21 of these variations were associated with relapse, and an equal amount was linked to early response to treatment. In addition, the findings showed that a cluster of variations around a gene called IL15 that produces a protein called interleukin 15, causes leukemia cells to multiply. Prior studies have suggested that IL15 shields tumors from chemotherapy drugs. According to Relling, drugs that thwart the activity of this gene might help some patients respond better to treatment.

Overall results revealed that a total of 61.7 percent of the SNPs were associated with early response, relapse risk or the performance of antileukemic drugs. Relling stated, “Some of the gene variation is likely to cause differences among patients in how quickly their bodies rid themselves of the chemotherapy, and some of the variations are likely to penetrate through to the leukemia cells and have an influence on the inherent sensitivity of the leukemia cells to chemotherapy.”

Relling said the findings suggest that whole-body exposure to medications is really important to curing leukemia, which sends a different message to the cancer community. In addition, genes children inherit from their parents may affect the type of leukemia they develop.

Children may begin to ask questions right after diagnosis or may wait until later. Here are some common questions and some ideas to help you answer them.

Why Me?

A child, like an adult, wonders “Why did I get cancer?” A child may feel that it is his or her fault, that somehow he or she caused the illness. Make it clear that not even the doctors know exactly what caused the cancer. Neither you, your child, nor his or her brothers or sisters did, said, or thought anything that caused the cancer. Stress also that cancer is not contagious, and your child did not “catch” it from someone else.

Can I still hug and kiss my Mom and Dad?

Yes! You can’t give your cancer to your Mom or Dad, and a big hung will help you feel better.

Will I Get Well?

Children often know about family members or friends who died of cancer. As a result, many children are afraid to ask if they will get well because they fear that the answer will be “no.” Thus, you might tell your child that cancer is a serious disease, but that treatment - such as medicine, radiation, or an operation - has helped get rid of cancer in other children, and the doctors and nurses are trying their best to cure your child’s cancer, too. Knowing that caring people - such as family, doctors, nurses, counselors, and others - surround your child and your family may also help him or her feel more secure.

What Will Happen to Me?

When your child is first diagnosed with cancer, many new and scary things will happen. While at the doctor’s office, hospital, or clinic, your child may see or play with other children with cancer who may not be feeling well, have lost their hair, or have had limbs removed because of cancer. Your child may wonder, “Will these things happen to me?” Yet, your child may be too afraid to ask questions. It is important to try to get your child to talk about these concerns. Explain ahead of time about the cancer, treatment, and possible side effects. Discuss what the doctor will do to help if side effects occur. You can also explain that there are many different types of cancer and that even when two children have the same cancer, what happens to one child will not always happen to the other.

Children should be told about any changes in their treatment schedule or in the type of treatment they receive. This information helps them prepare for visits to the doctor or hospital. You may want to help your child keep a calendar that shows the days for doctor visits, treatments, or tests. Do not tell younger children about upcoming treatments far ahead of time if it makes them nervous.

Will my hair fall out or will I loose my hair?

Sometimes chemotherapy, which is a medicine you will probably be given, will cause your hair to fall our. But, when your treatment is over your hair will grow back.

What is chemotherapy?

That’s a big question but the simple answer is chemotherapy is the use of different medicines to treat your cancer.

Why Do I Have to Take Medicine When I Feel Okay?

With cancer, your child may feel fine much of the time but need to take medicine often. Children do not understand why they have to take medicine when they feel well. You may want to remind your child of the reason for taking the medicine in the first place. For example, a child could be told: “Although you are feeling well, the bad cells are hiding. You must take the medicine for a while longer to find the bad cells and stop them from coming back.”

See Also Questions Adults Ask

Edited by: Kevin Hart MA

CHILDHOOD-LEUKEMIA.COM OFFERS YOU A FREE REPORT FROM Dr Laurence Magne on ‘A Shocking Expose of the 10 Ways To Fight Cancer The Medical Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know. ‘ click here for more information’

PLUS receive a special free report, from Dr. Magne, valued at $29.00, on “The 10 Ways To Fight Cancer”. Visit her webiste here