Scientists are saying that ecstasy-an illegal drug largely connected with hardcore clubgoers-can actually treat several forms of cancer.

However, a market-ready medication doctors can prescribe to patients may take another ten years to develop, researchers told BBC Radio.

"This is an exciting next step," said Professor John Gordon, lead author of a groundbreaking study on the topic, during a radio interview.

"Where we've tested these new compounds, we can wipe out 100% of the cancer cells in some cases."

Birmingham University researchers first discovered the unlikely link between the illegal substance and a viable therapy for common blood cancers like leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma in 2006. Additional research produced an atomically tweaked version of ecstasy's active compound, MDMA, which bolsters the drug's cancer-fighting power 100-fold in test tubes.

The original 2006 study found a fatally large dose of MDMA would be needed to make a dent in the disease. But the Birmingham team, toiling for five years along with scientists from The University of Western Australia, found a way to maximize MDMA's cancer-fighting properties, while minimizing its toxic effect on the brain.

This is how it works: The drug attaches itself to the fat in diseased cells, weakening the membrane and making them "soapy."

The cancer cells are then essentially washed away, Gordon said.

The news is "genuinely exciting," said Dr. David Grant, director of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Research charity.

"Further work is required but this research is a significant step forward in developing a potential new cancer drug," he said.

-->Read more...

Queen of Soul Aretha Franklin has cancer, her family announced Wednesday.

The music legend's relatives and sources close to her confirmed the sad news to Detroit's Fox 2 station and The Detroit News, adding they are deeply worried about the icon's health.

Franklin, 68, underwent a mysterious surgery last Thursday at a Detroit hospital for an undisclosed condition.

She released a statement after the procedure to reassure her fans, but did not specify the reason for her operation.

"The surgery was highly successful," she said. "God is still in control. I had superb doctors and nurses whom were blessed by all the prayers of the city and the country. God bless you all for your prayers!"

The day after her surgery, Franklin visited with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who said she was making an impressive recovery.

"She's doing very well," Jackson told The Detroit News. "She's very prayerful. She's a woman of deep religious faith."

Speculation about Franklin's poor health has been brewing since November, when the singer canceled all of her upcoming concerts due to "medical reasons."

The National Enquirer claimed Wednesday that Franklin was actually diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer months ago.

The Enquirer "claims doctors made the glum diagnosis after Aretha broke her ribs in a shower fall over the summer," reports Popcrunch, which obtained the report.

The tabloid suggests Franklin has less than a year to live.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

As a professor and chief of thoracic surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital, Raja Flores operates on cancers of the chest, mostly lung and esophageal cancer. Over the past 15 years, he has specialized in mesothelioma and sees more than 50 cases annually.

Who's at risk

Mesothelioma is a relatively rare cancer that affects about 3,000 Americans a year. "Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the lung," says Flores. "It starts in one spot, creeps throughout the chest and can give a slow, painful death."

According to the National Cancer Institute, the incidence of mesothelioma has increased during the past 20 years. Environmental exposures account for the vast majority of patients.

"Asbestos exposure is the No. 1 risk factor," says Flores. "That refers to naturally occurring minerals present in many industrial products, like cement, textiles and insulation."

Asbestos can become dangerous when inhaled or swallowed, often during manufacturing. Most sufferers of the disease had exposure to asbestos on the job, where it is a risk for workers like insulators, rescue teams (such as after 9/11) and shipyard crews.

One challenge in fighting mesothelioma is that asbestos exposure is often silent and invisible. "Many people don't even know they've been exposed," says Flores. "There can be a 20- to 30-year latency, so it's years after they're exposed that they see symptoms."

A small portion of people have a genetic predisposition to the disease.

"There are identified cohorts in Montana and Turkey, where clusters in the same family got mesothelioma and other exposed people didn't get it," says Flores, "but for the most part, it's environmental."

Signs and symptoms

There aren't characteristic symptoms for mesothelioma that make it easy to diagnose. "Basically, the warning signs are not specific," says Flores. "People who have asbestos exposure are the main group that needs to be on the alert."

Most patients don't have symptoms of mesothelioma until the disease has started to spread and progressed to stage 3 or 4, he says.

"Shortness of breath is a red flag," says Flores. "That's usually from fluid accumulating in the chest, which can also result from a number of benign ­reasons."

Doctors will usually drain the fluid and often find some cancer cells.

"If the doctor can't explain the fluid accumulation, you have to get a biopsy to make sure it's not mesothelioma," says Flores. Chest pain is an indication that the disease has developed to a higher stage.

Traditional treatment

There is now no cure for mesothelioma, and the prognosis depends on how early it is caught. "Survival really depends on stage," says Flores. "What we're trying to do is help patients live longer with better quality of life."

There are three types of the disease: epitheliod, mixed and sarcomatoid. The type of tumor can determine treatment.

Doctors don't have a consensus about whether surgery is necessary. "One group says surgery, one group says no surgery," says Flores.

"There are certain things we can do to improve the patient's condition, so all patients should see a thoracic surgeon when making their decisions about treatment."

There's also no agreement about which surgical approach works best.

"The two main surgeries are extra-pleural pneumonectomy, which removes the lung, and pleurectomy/decortication, which spares the lung," says Flores. "The goal of surgery is to get rid of tumor bulk and expand the lung while decreasing the pain and gross size of the disease."

Another procedure is chemotherapy, which one randomized control trial found had a survival benefit of three months.

Surgeons can't always tell which surgical approach is best for a patient until they can get a better look at the lung during surgery. "CT scans often downplay the amount of cancer," says Flores. "There's not a standard way of doing these surgeries, which is why going to a surgeon who has a lot of experience is the most important thing."

Research breakthroughs

Mesothelioma care is constantly improving. "It's just been two years since the paper came out that convinced us we could be sparing the lung," says Flores. "That's not a magic bullet, and early
detection is probably the closest thing we have coming down the pike."

Questions for your doctor

If your test results come back positive, ask: "What kind of mesothelioma do I have?"

When you're considering treatment options, ask: "What treatment other than surgery might I benefit from?" Once you've decided on surgery, ask: "Can I have lung-sparing surgery, or do I need to have my lung removed?"

What you can do

See a specialist.

Both the surgeon and radiation specialist should be experts in treating mesothelioma. Ask how many patients they’ve treated and how many surgeries they've done.

Know your family history.

If you have a family member with mesothelioma or asbestos exposure, you should get a CT scan to have a baseline reading so your doctor can watch for changes.

Take precautions when working with asbestos.

The No. 1 rule when working with asbestos is to wear a mask. But another important precaution is being careful with your clothing. "If you have a relative who comes home after a long day of working with
asbestos, be very careful not to inhale it off the clothes," says Flores.

Get informed.

The Mesothelioma Foundation (curemeso.org) has helpful information about how to get treatment and where to find financial support.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

The specialist: Dr. Steven Gruenstein on hematologic malignancies.

An associate clinical professor at Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Steven Gruenstein splits his practice treating hematology and oncology problems. Over the past 20 years, Gruenstein has seen thousands of patients with hematologic malignancies like myeloma, chronic myeloid leukemias and lymphomas.

Who’s at risk

Hematology is the field of medicine that studies blood and blood diseases. Hematologic malignancies are cancers of the blood, bone marrow and lymph nodes. "Normally all our blood is produced in a broadly similar way, in which progenitor cells produce many types of cells," says Gruenstein. "A malignancy, or cancer, is when a cell mutates and develops clones that are not under normal controls."

A common result of hematologic malignancies is too much or too little blood. Individual hematologic malignancies are not very common in the general population, though some disorders appear more frequently than others. "For instance, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is fairly common, but Hodgkin’s disease is not," says Gruenstein. "As yet, we’re not sure if some groups are more at risk than others." The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society reports that hematologic malignancies account for 9% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the country.

Doctors consider hematologic malignancies to be idiopathic, which means they arise spontaneously or from an unknown cause." There aren’t really risk factors," says Gruenstein. "Some patients have it in the family, but that’s only a small fraction."

Environmental exposure to toxins like benzene also can cause hematologic malignancies.

"There are different pathways — a lot of times a genetic mechanism leads to a change in an enzyme or protein that forms a malignant population of cells," says Gruenstein.

Signs and symptoms

Patients often go undiagnosed for years because hematologic malignancies can be chronic diseases that progress slowly. "Usually, the symptoms are noticed by the internist at the annual physical," says Gruenstein. "After speaking to the patient and performing a physical exam, the doctor makes the diagnosis with a blood test, which is sometimes followed by a radiographic exam or a biopsy of the bone marrow or lymph node."

When bone marrow cells are the ones altered, the symptoms are usually related to too much or too little of certain cells like platelets or hemoglobin or white blood cells. Common red flags are anemia, high hemoglobin or thrombosis accompanied by fatigue, bleeding, night sweats, abdominal pain or pain in general.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

An associate clinical professor of medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Lawrence Cohen is a gastroenterologist who specializes in endoscopy and cancer screening.

Who’s at risk

Gastrointestinal endoscopies are some of the most frequently performed medical procedures done today, with over 10 million colonoscopies performed every year in the U.S.

"Endoscopy is a general term for any examination performed using a tube that has a light on the end of it," says Cohen. "Gastrointestinal endoscopies examine the gastrointestinal, or GI tract, a long conduit that carries food from the mouth to the anus."

The most common GI endoscopy is a colonoscopy, which is often used to screen for colon cancer. GI endoscopies are divided into two major categories: upper and lower.

"The upper endoscopy examines three organs: the esophagus, the stomach and the first portion of the small bowel, called the duodenum," says Cohen. "The lower endoscopy, or colonoscopy, is an exam of the colon, also known as the large bowel."

Upper endoscopies are most often done for patients suffering from chronic acid reflux, unexplained abdominal pain or a swallowing disorder. Lower endoscopies are sometimes done for patients who have symptoms of colon cancer, but are most often done as part of a routine screening for all Americans over the age of 50.

Doctors have set guidelines calling for universal colon cancer screening, because 1 in 18 Americans will have the disease during their life. “We use colonoscopies for cancer prevention, because everyone is at risk of colon cancer,” says Cohen. "It’s a disease that affects men and women, regardless of family history, and it can be deadly."

In many cases, colon cancer can be prevented entirely if caught while still in a precancerous state.

Signs and symptoms

Although the goal of a colonoscopy is to catch polyps before they can develop into full-blown cancer, it’s a good idea to keep an eye out for the symptoms colon cancer can cause once it progresses.

"The warning signs most likely to trigger a doctor to call for a GI endoscopy are painless rectal bleeding, a persistent change in bowel pattern [persistence of symptoms is important] and unexplained abdominal pain or swelling," says Cohen.

Traditional treatment

It’s important for patients to know what to expect from gastrointestinal endoscopy. "First of all, the patient will be asked to come in fasting to prevent stomach contents from fluxing upward, and possibly getting into the lungs," says Cohen. "The bare minimum is ­nothing by mouth for two hours beforehand," he says.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

The first question many infertile couples ask when considering in vitro fertilization (IVF) is whether children born using the reproductive technology will be as healthy as those conceived the old-fashioned way. But the answer is a tricky one because there has been little definitive research to date on the potential long-term health risks of IVF.

The data is accumulating, however. Roughly 3.5 million children worldwide have been conceived by IVF over the past three decades, and many of them are now entering adulthood. With the growing population, researchers have begun pursuing larger studies on various aspects of development in IVF children — including the risks of conditions like autism, diabetes and cancer — and the results have hinted at some possible long-term health problems. (See pictures of a journey into the world of autism.)

The latest of these studies, published in the July issue of the medical journal Pediatrics, sought to evaluate the risk of cancer in childhood and early adulthood in IVF children. First, the bad news: the current study, the largest one of its kind so far, found a statistically significant increase in cancer risk in children conceived via IVF, compared with those who were traditionally conceived. Now the good news: the absolute risk of cancer in these children was still very low, and the authors think it may be due to other factors related to the parents' infertility, rather than the process of IVF itself.

The study of 2.4 million births, including 26,692 children born via IVF, between 1982 and 2005 found 56 cases of childhood and early adulthood cancers in IVF children, versus 38 cases that would be expected in other children of the same age-group. That's an increase in risk of 42%. While that figure sounds a little scary, lead author Dr. Bengt Kallen of the University of Lund in Sweden says the cancers his team studied, which included central-nervous-system tumors and a form of leukemia, are so rare to begin with that the excess risk translates to just one extra case of cancer per every 1,000 babies conceived by IVF. (Comment on this story.)

"There has been some uncertainty about this, and we just haven't had data good enough to show whether the risk is three or five times greater, as some people in the field believed. This paper shows us the risk in absolute terms is very small. That is the main message," says Kallen, adding that the findings persisted after controlling for age, weight and smoking status, among other characteristics, of the mother.

Why IVF babies may be at greater risk for cancer is not clear, but Kallen notes that these children are more likely than other babies to be born preterm and to suffer breathing problems that require oxygen therapy — factors that have been previously associated with an increased risk of cancer.

On the whole, IVF babies also tend to weigh less at birth than traditionally conceived babies — while low birth weight is not a risk factor for cancer, it is associated with other later health problems such as diabetes and obesity. Some researchers have also found epigenetic differences in the DNA of children conceived via IVF, compared with those conceived naturally, which may play a role in the long-term development of disease. (See how to prevent illness at any age.)

But the million-dollar question is whether any of the differences seen in IVF babies — from birth weight and preterm delivery to cancer risk — are the result of IVF treatment or the underlying infertility that caused mothers to pursue IVF in the first place. The new Swedish study cannot answer that question because it compared IVF children with those from the general population — that is, from families with no fertility problems.

According to Dr. William Gibbons, a professor at Baylor College of Medicine and the president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), other studies conducted in Scandinavian countries have used different control groups and revealed interesting findings. Gibbons says that studies comparing IVF children with children of women who were infertile but conceived without IVF found no association between the fertility treatment and preterm birth, low birth weight or cancer risk. One Danish study published in 2007 in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology reported no difference in babies' size for gestational age whether they were born to couples who used IVF to treat their infertility or those who did not. Another study from Norway, published in the Lancet in 2008, compared siblings conceived naturally and by IVF and also found no difference in babies' birth weight or size for gestational age. "There was no effect of IVF on these phenomena," says Gibbons.

University of North Carolina epidemiologist Andrew Olshan agrees that unknown factors relating to underlying infertility may well be contributing to many health conditions in children, but that it is very difficult to tease these factors out in a large enough study. Olshan says the Swedish study is a good one, but it is unlikely to be a game changer in the world of pediatric cancers. "We don't have a lot of leads as to what factors cause childhood cancers. IVF has been on the list of possible risk factors. It is still on the list, but I don't think this study moves it up the list. We'd need to see a collection of studies pointing in the same direction," he says.

Even if the study had confirmed IVF as a risk factor, experts say the level of increased risk is not enough to deter parents from undergoing the treatment. While IVF may bump up a tiny risk of childhood cancer, without it, many infertile couples may not have a baby at all.

time.com

-->Read more...

African-American men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer as white men. And Caribbean-born men in Brooklyn are three times as likely to die from the disease as U.S.-born men.

That's why PSA testing is a hot-button issue at Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center - and why the hospital is a major participant in the Daily News' free PSA testing campaign. The East Flatbush, Brooklyn, hospital sits smack in the middle of Brooklyn's prostate cancer epicenter.

Starting Monday, Kingsbrook will offer free PSA tests together with seven other hospitals and a nonprofit outfit during a week-long campaign The News sponsors to battle prostate cancer.

This is the start of the second decade of the annual campaign.

"Take advantage of the test," said Dr. Jacob Sharaby, Kingsbrook's director of urology. "It's free, and it can help save your life." The list of test locations appears in today's paper and online at NYDailyNews.com.

The PSA test checks the level of prostate-specific antigen, a protein, in blood. An elevated level is a possible early indicator of prostate cancer. The central Brooklyn neighborhoods that constitute the hospital's primary care area are home to big African- and Caribbean-American communities. The area has the highest incidence of prostate cancer in the borough.

The hospital tested 1,000 men last year, a big jump from 800 during 2008's testing week. Kingsbrook spokeswoman Enid Dillard said the hospital is working with local leaders to test even more men this year. Convincing their listeners can be a tough task.

"They think if they have no urinary problems, they don't have prostate cancer," Sharaby said. "They are wrong."

Some don't get tested because they're squeamish.

"I am scared of needles," confessed Geoffrey Davis, who heads the James E. Davis Stop Violence Foundation, which is named after his brother, a city councilman who was slain in 2003.

As a member of the Prostate Cancer Committee, Davis, 46, has spent months urging other guys to go for the test: "The first thing they say to me is, 'Are you gonna take it?'" he said.He already has.

Drawing blood from the crook of his elbow took all of 30 seconds.

"One vial is all it takes," said patient care technician Marcia Waldron, who did the job.

"It didn't hurt at all," Davis said afterward.

lcroghan@nydailynews.com

www.nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

Daily News graphic designer Jeffrey Rosenkrantz, at home in Park Slope with wife Lori, is being treated for prostate cancer, which was detected in the early stages thanks to a PSA test.

A PSA test saved my life. I had one only because I ran into my doctor on the street.

It was a Sunday in late April. I was out walking with my wife, Lori, on Ninth St. in Park Slope, Brooklyn.

My internist, Dr. Lalit Patel, was out in front of his office. He works seven days a week. His philosophy is his patients get sick all the time.

My bronchitis was bothering me - it hits me once or twice a year. I needed a blood test to get cough medicine.

Lori would always bother me to take a blood test to check for diabetes, too, because it runs in my family. It was a perfect opportunity for her to say, "Dear, are you going to take a blood test?"

The doctor wanted me to do the testing right then, but we'd just been out to eat. He said, "Come in tomorrow and don't eat." He included a PSA test in the blood work.

I'm a graphic designer at the Daily News, and I'm 51. I've taken the annual PSA test The News offers at least a half-dozen times. Last year, though, I was really busy at work and missed it.

In the past, my PSA number was around 2, nothing to worry about. This time, my number was 4.75 - catching me off guard.

No one in my family has had cancer.

The doctor talked about having a biopsy done, but said, "Let's wait another month. We'll take your blood again; we'll see what the number is."

Lori and I were going to North Carolina to see my niece for a week. While I was away, I cut down the sugar in my diet. After I came back, I wanted to check my blood-sugar level. So I had a blood test, with a PSA included.

In two weeks, my PSA had gone up a half point. It was over 5. The doctor sent me right away to a urologist, Dr. Jude Barbera.

The urologist found an indentation on my prostate and suggested a biopsy, right away.

It took a while to get the results. I told Lori, "Maybe it's fine, because you'd think if it was cancer, he'd call you and say, 'I want to see you right away.'"

For my next appointment, Lori took the day off from work and went with me. It was a good thing she did: The biopsy showed cancer cells.

As the doctor was explaining everything, Lori backtracked, "You're saying he has cancer?"

"Yes," the doctor replied. "He has cancer."

That's when it hit both of us - that I've got cancer.

On the good side, he explained that I had caught it early. It can be treated. I have a 95% chance of surviving.

He's a surgeon, but he said, "If it was me, I'd do the radiation. It has the least amount of side effects."

It's called external beam radiation therapy. High-speed X-rays come from five different directions to target the cancer cells.

I'm doing it five days a week for nine weeks.

When I went to meet with my radiation oncologist, Dr. Joshua Halpern, he told me that if I'd waited any longer to have the biopsy, I would have been dead within five years.

THE DAY I met my radiation therapist, Michael Plantamura, I told him, "Mike, you're going to be my new best friend. You're going to save my life."

Mike laughed. But it's true.

After I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, I gave away my cigars and humidor. I enjoyed my cigars, but I wasn't going to trade one cancer for another.

I've been telling my friends at work my story.

I tell every one of them: "You take the test. It's free, it's here and it's just a blood test. Chances are, you're perfectly healthy. But I thought I was perfectly healthy."

www.nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

Smokers may want to consider where their cigarettes are coming from before they plunk down money for another pack. American-made butts have up to three times the level of cancer-causing nitrosamines as foreign brands, according to research.

A study by the federal Centers for Disease Control compared the levels of nitrosamines – a major carcinogen – that were ingested by smokers in the United States, U.K., Canada and Australia over a 24-hour period. Included in the study were participants who smoked the most popular brands in their particular country. The U.S. volunteers liked Marlboro, Newport and Camel.

“People smoking the U.S. brand cigarettes (we tested) received a level of this carcinogen in their mouth and lungs that was three times higher compared to smokers in Canada and Australia,” Dr. James Pirkle, deputy director for science at the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, told ABC News.

Still, smokers here shouldn’t assume that if they buy foreign brands, they’re getting a healthier product. The research only looked at nitrosamines but not the other two dozen carcinogenic toxins in cigarettes.

“People might think that by switching brands, they will improve their health outcomes,” Wake Forest University School of Medicine director of tobacco intervention programs Dr. John Spangler told ABC News. But it’s way too premature to know if this is true.

The study information may one day help decide on the formulation of American cigarettes, a practice that’s now regulated by the FDA, thanks to last year’s Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

But making a “healthy” cigarette’s not that easy.

“Tobacco smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals,” Spangler told ABC News. Lowering carcinogens is a positive step but would not reduce “your risk for other tobacco-related illnesses (such as) heart disease, stroke, emphysema and many other(s.)”

The best strategy of all? Instead of waiting for an FDA-sanctioned “healthy” cigarette, just kick the habit.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

Getting cancer from a donated organ is extremely rare. A 2008 study of 230,000 transplants by the United Network for Organ Sharing discovered 64 instances - far less than 1% - in which cancer from the donor was passed to a recipient.

To prevent that from happening, cancer patients - like people with HIV and other infectious diseases - are weeded out as potential organ donors.

"We don't take organs from people who are dying of cancer," UNOS spokeswoman Anne Paschke said.

Doctors can screen donations for infectious diseases but there is generally no time to screen a specific organ for cancer, Paschke said.

"Mostly it's a time factor," she said. "When somebody dies, time is of the essence, and you have to transplant while the organ is still viable."

Paschke said they question the next of kin about the dead person's medical history before taking an organ.

"If they have a cancer that hasn't shown up, it's almost impossible to know it's there in the donated organ," she said.

Organ donation has saved thousands of lives, but like any medical procedure, it's not risk-free, Paschke said.

"You can't rule out disease transmission, but you have to weigh it against the lifesaving good," she said.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

Oxford University researchers say they have pinpointed common traits in genes that mark an increased risk of breast cancer.

Researchers at Oxford University have identified five common genetic variants that are linked to a slightly increased risk of breast cancer, according to the BBC.

The five "spots" bring to 18 the number of genetic clues that link to a slightly higher risk of the disease, which according to the National Cancer Institute kills more than 40,000 women in the United States each year.

"This is a great finding and potentially very good news," says Dr. Kathie-Ann Josephs, assistant professor of surgery at Columbia University School of Medicine. "It will help more women for whom there is a genetic component for breast cancer."

The research, which could lead to targeted screening of women who are at a higher risk to get breast cancer, involved scanning the entire genetic code of some 4,000 British patients with a family history of the disease. Next, the Cambridge-led researchers looked at the DNA of 24,000 more women, some with and some without breast cancer. The researchers located a total of five "spots" on the human genome that are associated with a family history of breast cancer.

"We know for sure that these gene variations are associated with risk," University of Cambridge's Dr. Douglas Easton, the study's lead author, told the BBC. "It is not the whole picture but it will contribute ultimately to genetic profiling of risk."

While the exact causes of breast cancer are still not known, it's believed that 1 in 20 cases may be linked to family history. Having a grandmother who developed breast cancer in her 80s is not as worrisome as having a mother and sisters who got breast cancer before menopause, Josephs says.

It's thought that diet and lifestyle could play a role in the development of some cases.

The women who could be helped by the newly discovered gene variants are those for whom breast cancer runs in the family, Josephs says.

"In some women, we know there may be a genetic link but we can't identify it," she says. "The tests turn out negative because we haven't identified the genes yet. If women are found to be at risk through testing, they can make certain decisions for diminishing their risk. So this new discovery could help a small but a significant number of women."

The research, which appears in Nature Genetics, was funded by Cancer Research UK and is the biggest project of its kind, the BBC reports.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

The federal government should be doing more to protect us from the everyday environmental hazards that surround us, according to a controversial report.

Americans are being "bombarded" with chemicals, gases and radiation that can cause cancer, and the federal government must do far more to protect them, presidential cancer advisers said on Thursday.

Although most experts agree that as many as two-thirds of cancer cases are caused by lifestyle choices like smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise, the two-member panel said many avoidable cancers were also caused by pollution, radon gas from the soil and medical imaging scans.

Some of the advisers' points are not in dispute. Several government-sponsored reports have pointed to cancer risks from X-rays and CT scans, and industry and physician groups are already working on ways to lower the doses given to people.

Radon has been a known source for decades, and the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health are studying the possible effects of the common plastics ingredient bisphenal A or BPA.

But other points have little science to back them.

For instance, the panel said that since so little is known about the potential risks of cell phones, people would be prudent to wear headsets and make calls quickly. Many large studies have found no links between cell phone use and cancer.

"The panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated," reads the report, available at www.pcp.cancer.gov.

The report is sure to stun industry and many cancer specialists. It has already delighted environmental groups, which have had hints for more than a week of the report's content and scheduled news conferences for later on Thursday.

The American Cancer Society said the report downplayed known risks that cause most cases of cancer including tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones and sunlight.

"The report is most provocative when it restates hypotheses as if they were established facts," the society's Dr. Michael Thun said in a statement.

"For example, its conclusion that 'the true burden of environmentally (pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated' does not represent scientific consensus."

The National Cancer Institute -- whose logo is on the report -- had almost nothing to say.

"As the panel is charged with sending a report directly to the president and I don't believe that anyone at NCI has had a chance to review the report yet, we will probably not have an immediate comment," spokesman Mike Miller said by e-mail.

The two sitting members of the panel -- the third seat is empty -- are Dr. LaSalle Leffall, professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington and Margaret Kripke, an emeritus professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Cancer is the No. 2 killer of Americans, after heart disease.

"The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons," the report reads.

"With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread," it adds.

"The American people -- even before they are born -- are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures," Kripke and Leffall wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama at top of the report.

"The panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase healthcare costs, cripple our nation's productivity, and devastate American lives."

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

SYDNEY — Tobacco companies would be forced to use plain, logo-free packaging on their cigarettes in a bid to make them less attractive to smokers under legislation introduced Thursday by Australia's government, which dubbed the move a world-first.

The rules, which would take effect July 1, 2012, would ban tobacco companies from including logos, promotional text or colorful images on cigarette packages. Graphic government health warnings would be prominently displayed instead, with the brand name relegated to tiny, generic font at the bottom.

"The new branding for cigarettes will be the most hard-line regime in the world and cigarette companies will hate it," Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said.

The government also announced it would increase the cigarette tax by 25 percent, driving up the price of a pack of 30 cigarettes by about 2 Australian dollars and 16 cents ($2). The tax was to go into effect at midnight Thursday.

Tobacco companies immediately blasted the packaging crackdown, and vowed to fight it in court.

"Introducing plain packaging just takes away the ability of a consumer to identify our brand from another brand and that's of value to us," Imperial Tobacco Australia spokeswoman Cathie Keogh told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio, adding the company plans to take legal action.

Retailers said the tax hike would hurt their businesses and bolster the cigarette black market.

"It's a lazy policy response being pushed by some health advocates," Mick Daly, National Chairman of Australian supermarket chain IGA, said in a statement. "That amounts to a direct attack on approximately 16 percent of Australians who have made legal and legitimate lifestyle choices."

Tim Wilson, director of intellectual property and free trade at Australia's Institute of Public Affairs, said taxpayers could end up paying around AU$3 billion a year in compensation to tobacco companies.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...

KFC's move to team up with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure to fight breast cancer has some folks clucking in outrage. The fried chicken chain, purveyor of a food that may contribute to obesity, partnering with the world’s largest breast cancer organization?

"A lot of folks are questioning just how appropriate it is for a fast-food chain that sells, well, not exactly the most healthful food, to partner with a group known globally for helping save women's lives," wrote Erin Allday in the San Francisco Chronicle.

The chicken chain is changing the traditional red color of its buckets to pink until the end of May and donating 50 cents for every bucket sold in what’s being billed as the "Buckets for the Cure" campaign. So far, about $1.9 million has been raised, and KFC has set a goal of more than $8 million, according to the Buckets for the Cure Web site.

It’s not, as the San Francisco Chronicle points out, the first time that "junk food" purveyors and organizations that promote wellness have collaborated. Pepsi is financing a program in obesity studies at Yale, McDonald’s is a long-term sponsor of the Olympics, and a program to promote heart and lung health that partnered with Coke earlier this year drew criticism, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

With the KFC and Susan G. Komen collaboration, as blogger Yoni Freedhoff of Weighty Matters points out, consumers who buy the buckets of chicken are likely to also buy fries, gravy and soda, too. "So, in effect, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is helping to sell deep-fried fast food and, in so doing, help fuel unhealthy diet and obesity across America, an odd plan given that diet and obesity certainly impact on both the incidence and recurrence of breast cancer," Freedhoff wrote. And suggested that a possible alternative would have been for KFC to just hand over a check for breast cancer research to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

nydailynews.com

-->Read more...