WEDNESDAY, Feb. 18 (HealthDay News) -- New tobacco company marketing campaigns that target women and girls are the most aggressive in more than a decade, a new report concludes.
That marketing needs to be curbed by giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco products, according to the report, released Wednesday by a coalition of major U.S. public health organizations.Campaigns launched in recent years by the nation's two largest tobacco companies -- Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds -- depict cigarette smoking as feminine and fashionable rather than the harmful and deadly addiction it really is, according to Deadly in Pink: Big Tobacco Steps Up Its Targeting of Women and Girls. The report was issued by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Late last year, for example, Philip Morris USA announced it would sell its Virginia Slims brand in "purse packs" -- small, rectangular cigarette packs that are half the size of regular cigarette packs. The packs resemble cosmetics cases and come in mauve and teal.
And in early 2007, R.J. Reynolds introduced a new version of its Camel cigarettes, called Camel No. 9. The name evokes famous Chanel perfumes, and the cigarettes are packaged in shiny black boxes with hot pink and teal borders. Magazine ads for the cigarettes featured flowery imagery, vintage fashion and promotional giveaways that included lip balm, cell phone jewelry, tiny purses and wristbands, all in hot pink.
"These new marketing campaigns by Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds show contempt for the health of women and girls," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a news release. "The tobacco industry's aggressive marketing demands an equally aggressive response from our nation's elected leaders. By granting the FDA authority over tobacco products, the Congress can crack down on the industry's most harmful practices."
The new campaigns are the latest in the tobacco industry's long history of targeting women and girls, the report said.
Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death among women, killing more than 170,000 women in the United States each year, according to the report. Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer of U.S. women, and deaths are not decreasing among women as they are among men, according to cancer statistics released in December. In addition to lung cancer, smoking increases women's and girls' risk of numerous serious health problems, including heart attack, stroke, emphysema and many other types of cancer.
"Big tobacco's blatant targeting of women is just an extension of a decades-long campaign of fraud and deception designed to addict children and adults to its deadly products," John R. Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society and its affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said in the news release. "Congress must empower the FDA to regulate tobacco products to put a stop to the harmful practices of an industry that has had free reign for far too long."
Though they're the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., tobacco products are virtually exempt from regulation. That would change if the FDA gains authority over tobacco products, said the health coalition, which is urging Congress to pass legislation expected to be reintroduced by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts.
The legislation would:
* Restrict tobacco marketing that appeals to children
* Ban misleading health claims, such as "light" and "low tar" and strictly regulate all health claims about tobacco products
* Require larger, more effective health warnings on tobacco packages and advertising
* Require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of their products
* Grant the FDA authority to require changes in new and existing tobacco products to protect public health, such as the removal or reduction of harmful ingredients
"This report is a sober reminder that the tobacco industry has become more aggressive in marketing deadly products to women," Nancy Brown, chief executive of the American Heart Association, said in the news release. "Hip and trendy packages cannot disguise the health hazards of smoking and the risk for heart disease and stroke. We must give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to rein in the industry's relentless campaign to manipulate young women with products that send the wrong message."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Push is on to tailor cancer care to tumor's genes
WASHINGTON (AP) — The days of one-size-fits-all cancer treatment are numbered: A rush of new research is pointing the way to tailor chemotherapy and other care to what's written in your tumor's genes.
Everyone with advanced colon cancer now is supposed to get a genetic test before taking two of the leading treatments. It's a major change adopted by oncologists last month after studies found that those pricey drugs, Erbitux and Vectibix, won't work in 40 percent of patients.
Scientists are furiously testing similar genetically tailored care in breast and lung cancer. It's a flurry of work that reflects a huge problem: Most medications today benefit at best about half of patients but it usually takes trial-and-error to tell.
That means a lot of people suffer side effects for nothing, and it's incredibly costly. When the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended giving colon cancer patients that $300 test for a gene called KRAS, it estimated the move could save a stunning $600 million a year — by keeping drugs that cost up to $10,000 a month away from patients who won't benefit.
Here's the critical consumer issue: As tantalizing as this personalized medicine is, gene testing is like the Wild West. Laboratories often introduce new tests at the first clues they might work, not waiting for final proof. Few tests so far have won the backing of major medical groups like ASCO, the cancer specialists, making research studies a best bet for many patients.
"A bad test is as dangerous to a patient as a bad drug," notes Dr. Richard Schilsky, ASCO president and a University of Chicago oncologist. "The tricky part is to figure out which of those (genetic differences) are clinically important and which are just variations that exist."
This is not about testing if people carry so-called cancer genes that make them prone to illness. Instead it's about finding a tumor's genetic signature — a pattern of gene and protein activity that signals if the cancer will grow fast or slowly, be more or less likely to recur, and whether it would be susceptible to treatment.
"We're getting into science fiction sort of, if now medicine is being able to analyze things at the genome level," breast cancer patient Claire Weinberg of Oxford, N.C., says in wonder.
A community hospital initially dismissed Weinberg's breast lump but she fortunately sought a second opinion at Duke University Medical Center — where, cancer confirmed, she enrolled in a study of gene-directed chemotherapy.
"I felt it could only benefit me for them to know even more about me," she says.
The ultimate goal: "What's the right recipe for those patients?" explains Dr. Matthew Ellis of Washington University in St. Louis, co-inventor of a different breast cancer genetic approach.
Under study:
_A less precise test already can tell certain breast cancer patients if they're at high or low risk of relapsing, helping the chemo-or-not decision. But which chemo? Duke's Dr. Kelly Marcom is genetically profiling breast biopsy tissue from nearly 300 newly diagnosed patients headed for pre-surgery chemo. Some are randomly assigned to one of two standard chemotherapy cockails; the rest get the cocktail that matches their tumor profile.
It's too early to tell if the gene-directed approach helps more tumors shrink.
But, "I can have no regrets," says Weinberg, who learned after surgery that she'd been in the gene-tailored group and her tumor shrank enough to save her breast. She's also getting post-surgery chemo in case any rogue cells remain.
_Instead of custom profiling, an experimental test unveiled last week examines 50 breast cancer genes to determine which of four disease subtypes the woman has.
If it pans out — and much larger studies are planned — the Breast Bioclassifier could change breast cancer's very names. When studied on stored samples of old tumors, researchers found some women safely skipped chemo — their subtype responded better to post-surgery tamoxifen, or hormone therapy. A more aggressive type was sensitive to most chemo choices but not hormone treatment, the team reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
And still another group didn't respond well to either care, a group that desperately needs new options, said Ellis, who co-developed the test with doctors at the University of Utah and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
_Next up, lung cancer. Hospitals nationwide are recruiting 1,200 lung cancer patients to study who carries extra copies of the tumor-spurring gene EGFR. They'll get either of two top treatments, Tarceva or Alimta, to see which is best for which genetic condition.
EDITOR's NOTE _ Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.
Everyone with advanced colon cancer now is supposed to get a genetic test before taking two of the leading treatments. It's a major change adopted by oncologists last month after studies found that those pricey drugs, Erbitux and Vectibix, won't work in 40 percent of patients.
Scientists are furiously testing similar genetically tailored care in breast and lung cancer. It's a flurry of work that reflects a huge problem: Most medications today benefit at best about half of patients but it usually takes trial-and-error to tell.
That means a lot of people suffer side effects for nothing, and it's incredibly costly. When the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended giving colon cancer patients that $300 test for a gene called KRAS, it estimated the move could save a stunning $600 million a year — by keeping drugs that cost up to $10,000 a month away from patients who won't benefit.
Here's the critical consumer issue: As tantalizing as this personalized medicine is, gene testing is like the Wild West. Laboratories often introduce new tests at the first clues they might work, not waiting for final proof. Few tests so far have won the backing of major medical groups like ASCO, the cancer specialists, making research studies a best bet for many patients.
"A bad test is as dangerous to a patient as a bad drug," notes Dr. Richard Schilsky, ASCO president and a University of Chicago oncologist. "The tricky part is to figure out which of those (genetic differences) are clinically important and which are just variations that exist."
This is not about testing if people carry so-called cancer genes that make them prone to illness. Instead it's about finding a tumor's genetic signature — a pattern of gene and protein activity that signals if the cancer will grow fast or slowly, be more or less likely to recur, and whether it would be susceptible to treatment.
"We're getting into science fiction sort of, if now medicine is being able to analyze things at the genome level," breast cancer patient Claire Weinberg of Oxford, N.C., says in wonder.
A community hospital initially dismissed Weinberg's breast lump but she fortunately sought a second opinion at Duke University Medical Center — where, cancer confirmed, she enrolled in a study of gene-directed chemotherapy.
"I felt it could only benefit me for them to know even more about me," she says.
The ultimate goal: "What's the right recipe for those patients?" explains Dr. Matthew Ellis of Washington University in St. Louis, co-inventor of a different breast cancer genetic approach.
Under study:
_A less precise test already can tell certain breast cancer patients if they're at high or low risk of relapsing, helping the chemo-or-not decision. But which chemo? Duke's Dr. Kelly Marcom is genetically profiling breast biopsy tissue from nearly 300 newly diagnosed patients headed for pre-surgery chemo. Some are randomly assigned to one of two standard chemotherapy cockails; the rest get the cocktail that matches their tumor profile.
It's too early to tell if the gene-directed approach helps more tumors shrink.
But, "I can have no regrets," says Weinberg, who learned after surgery that she'd been in the gene-tailored group and her tumor shrank enough to save her breast. She's also getting post-surgery chemo in case any rogue cells remain.
_Instead of custom profiling, an experimental test unveiled last week examines 50 breast cancer genes to determine which of four disease subtypes the woman has.
If it pans out — and much larger studies are planned — the Breast Bioclassifier could change breast cancer's very names. When studied on stored samples of old tumors, researchers found some women safely skipped chemo — their subtype responded better to post-surgery tamoxifen, or hormone therapy. A more aggressive type was sensitive to most chemo choices but not hormone treatment, the team reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
And still another group didn't respond well to either care, a group that desperately needs new options, said Ellis, who co-developed the test with doctors at the University of Utah and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
_Next up, lung cancer. Hospitals nationwide are recruiting 1,200 lung cancer patients to study who carries extra copies of the tumor-spurring gene EGFR. They'll get either of two top treatments, Tarceva or Alimta, to see which is best for which genetic condition.
EDITOR's NOTE _ Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.
Regimens: Multivitamins Not Found to Reduce Risks
Many postmenopausal women take multivitamins in the belief that they help prevent cardiovascular disease or cancer, but a large study has found that they do neither.Previous studies have had mixed results, some suggesting that multivitamin supplements are associated with a reduced risk for some cancers, others finding little or no effect.
For the new findings, published in the February issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed data from 68,132 women who were enrolled in a clinical trial and 93,676 in an observational study. They followed the women for an average of about eight years to track the health effects of multivitamins.
After controlling for age, physical activity, family history of cancer and many other factors, the researchers found that the supplements had no effect on the risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, heart attack, stroke, blood clots or mortality.
The scientists acknowledge that women who take vitamins also engage in other healthy behaviors, and that there may be unknown variables affecting their results.
“Consumers spend money on dietary supplements with the thought that they are going to improve their health, but there’s no evidence for this,” said Marian L. Neuhouser, the lead author and a nutritional epidemiologist with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “Buying more fruits and vegetables might be a better choice.”
For the new findings, published in the February issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers analyzed data from 68,132 women who were enrolled in a clinical trial and 93,676 in an observational study. They followed the women for an average of about eight years to track the health effects of multivitamins.
After controlling for age, physical activity, family history of cancer and many other factors, the researchers found that the supplements had no effect on the risk for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, heart attack, stroke, blood clots or mortality.
The scientists acknowledge that women who take vitamins also engage in other healthy behaviors, and that there may be unknown variables affecting their results.
“Consumers spend money on dietary supplements with the thought that they are going to improve their health, but there’s no evidence for this,” said Marian L. Neuhouser, the lead author and a nutritional epidemiologist with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “Buying more fruits and vegetables might be a better choice.”
Tobacco pitchman hoping to beat cancer in time for lawsuit
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL--A south Florida man who once made his living selling cigarettes now hopes he lives long enough for his lawsuit against the tobacco industry to make it to trial.
Alan Landers was the actor who appeared as the Winton Man in print and billboard advertising across America in the 1960's and 70's.
A life long smoker, he was diagnosed with his first bout of lung cancer in 1987. In 1992, doctors found cancer in his other lung. Multiple surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy treatments followed, some with devastating side effects.
During one operation, for example, a nerve was cut to his vocal cords, making normal sounding speech impossible, a crushing blow to a man who once owned Alan Landers Acting Studio in Hollywood.
Landers now lives in Ft. Lauderdale and is one of thousands of Floridians who have lawsuits pending against various tobacco companies, seeking to hold those corporations responsible for their precarious health.
In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court threw out a $145 billion class action verdict that would have included Landers and others, calling the award excessive. But the court allowed the case's conclusion that tobacco companies sold dangerous products and hid the health risks associated with smoking.
Landers' case may have gotten a boost last week when a Broward County jury agreed the widow of Stuart Hess that his death from lung cancer came from his addiction to nicotine. The jury held tobacco giant Philip Morris responsible for Hess's death and determine how much the company should pay Hess's estate.
On his blog, called 'Winston Man,' Landers wrote that he receiving radiation treatments for a tumor in his throat.
"I feel very positive about this whole journey because I know the doctors are doing their best to keep me alive," he wrote.
Copyright 2009 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Alan Landers was the actor who appeared as the Winton Man in print and billboard advertising across America in the 1960's and 70's.
A life long smoker, he was diagnosed with his first bout of lung cancer in 1987. In 1992, doctors found cancer in his other lung. Multiple surgeries, radiation and chemotherapy treatments followed, some with devastating side effects.
During one operation, for example, a nerve was cut to his vocal cords, making normal sounding speech impossible, a crushing blow to a man who once owned Alan Landers Acting Studio in Hollywood.
Landers now lives in Ft. Lauderdale and is one of thousands of Floridians who have lawsuits pending against various tobacco companies, seeking to hold those corporations responsible for their precarious health.
In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court threw out a $145 billion class action verdict that would have included Landers and others, calling the award excessive. But the court allowed the case's conclusion that tobacco companies sold dangerous products and hid the health risks associated with smoking.
Landers' case may have gotten a boost last week when a Broward County jury agreed the widow of Stuart Hess that his death from lung cancer came from his addiction to nicotine. The jury held tobacco giant Philip Morris responsible for Hess's death and determine how much the company should pay Hess's estate.
On his blog, called 'Winston Man,' Landers wrote that he receiving radiation treatments for a tumor in his throat.
"I feel very positive about this whole journey because I know the doctors are doing their best to keep me alive," he wrote.
Copyright 2009 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Climb to Conquer Cancer kick-off scheduled for Feb. 17
From a press release issued by Climb to Conquer Cancer organizers:
On Tuesday, February 17th at 6:30 PM, the Climb to Conquer Cancer volunteer planning committee will host a Climb KICK-OFF at Warner Pacific College.
The public is welcome to attend the Kick-Off, where they'll enjoy live music - The Harry Weirdos (a local husband and wife act performing acoustic folk/indie music), food, REI prizes, great speakers, and discounted registration fees!
Climb volunteer and cancer survivor, Lauren Bowles will speak, telling her story about her personal uphill battle with cancer. As a non-smoker diagnosed with stage-four lung cancer, Lauren isn't letting cancer get in the way of living life to its fullest. Lauren has just recently completed the Disney World half and full marathons...in two days she ran nearly forty miles! An American Cancer Society representative will also speak about how fundraising dollars are being spent to support both local and national initiatives.
Teams and individuals, including residents and businesses of SE Portland and the greater Portland Metro area and beyond, will gather on the campus of Warner Pacific College on May 2, 2009 at 8:00 AM for the Climb to Conquer Cancer rolling start. Teams of up to 15 members made up of co-workers, club members, family and friends will form gather donations prior to the event, and then take on the uphill Climb together. Teams with at least 10 members will have the option to customize their t-shirt backs, to represent a business or a loved one with cancer.
Funds raised at Climb to Conquer Cancer will enable the American Cancer Society to support local services and resources for cancer patients and their families. Funds also support critical cancer research and community education programs designed to teach people how to reduce their risk of developing cancer. The American Cancer Society is a nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy and service.
On Tuesday, February 17th at 6:30 PM, the Climb to Conquer Cancer volunteer planning committee will host a Climb KICK-OFF at Warner Pacific College.
The public is welcome to attend the Kick-Off, where they'll enjoy live music - The Harry Weirdos (a local husband and wife act performing acoustic folk/indie music), food, REI prizes, great speakers, and discounted registration fees!
Climb volunteer and cancer survivor, Lauren Bowles will speak, telling her story about her personal uphill battle with cancer. As a non-smoker diagnosed with stage-four lung cancer, Lauren isn't letting cancer get in the way of living life to its fullest. Lauren has just recently completed the Disney World half and full marathons...in two days she ran nearly forty miles! An American Cancer Society representative will also speak about how fundraising dollars are being spent to support both local and national initiatives.
Teams and individuals, including residents and businesses of SE Portland and the greater Portland Metro area and beyond, will gather on the campus of Warner Pacific College on May 2, 2009 at 8:00 AM for the Climb to Conquer Cancer rolling start. Teams of up to 15 members made up of co-workers, club members, family and friends will form gather donations prior to the event, and then take on the uphill Climb together. Teams with at least 10 members will have the option to customize their t-shirt backs, to represent a business or a loved one with cancer.
Funds raised at Climb to Conquer Cancer will enable the American Cancer Society to support local services and resources for cancer patients and their families. Funds also support critical cancer research and community education programs designed to teach people how to reduce their risk of developing cancer. The American Cancer Society is a nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy and service.
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals of Tustin study progresses
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc. announced Wednesday that it achieved a significant milestone in the clinical trials of its lead product candidate, bavituximab.
The drug reached primary efficacy endpoint in the first stage of its Phase II clinical trial in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
The open-label, Simon two-stage study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of bavituximab with the chemotherapy drugs carboplatin and paclitaxel in NSCLC patients.
Seventeen of the 21 patients enrolled in Stage A were deemed evaluable for tumor response by the end of four treatment cycles, with six patients achieving partial tumor responses and one patient achieving a complete tumor response, according to testing criteria.
These preliminary results exceed the pre-specified benchmark criteria established for enrolling an additional 28 patients in Stage B of this trial, up to a total of 49 patients.
"We are very pleased with the promising early results from this pilot Phase II lung cancer trial and will now move forward to initiate the second stage of the study," says Steven W. King, president and CEO of Peregrine. "We are encouraged by the number of tumor responses seen at this early time point of approximately 12 weeks in patients with NSCLC, a leading cause of cancer deaths that responds poorly to current treatments.
“As these patients continue on treatment, we will be assessing them for further signs of anti-tumor activity, and we look forward to sharing more data from this study as patient treatment and follow-up progress," King continues.
Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. In the U.S., lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and women and is the leading cause of cancer deaths, according to the American Cancer Society.
Estimates from the American Cancer Society show that in 2008, there were approximately 215,020 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 161,840 lung cancer deaths in the United States alone. NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for approximately 85-90 percent of lung cancer cases.
The drug reached primary efficacy endpoint in the first stage of its Phase II clinical trial in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
The open-label, Simon two-stage study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of bavituximab with the chemotherapy drugs carboplatin and paclitaxel in NSCLC patients.
Seventeen of the 21 patients enrolled in Stage A were deemed evaluable for tumor response by the end of four treatment cycles, with six patients achieving partial tumor responses and one patient achieving a complete tumor response, according to testing criteria.
These preliminary results exceed the pre-specified benchmark criteria established for enrolling an additional 28 patients in Stage B of this trial, up to a total of 49 patients.
"We are very pleased with the promising early results from this pilot Phase II lung cancer trial and will now move forward to initiate the second stage of the study," says Steven W. King, president and CEO of Peregrine. "We are encouraged by the number of tumor responses seen at this early time point of approximately 12 weeks in patients with NSCLC, a leading cause of cancer deaths that responds poorly to current treatments.
“As these patients continue on treatment, we will be assessing them for further signs of anti-tumor activity, and we look forward to sharing more data from this study as patient treatment and follow-up progress," King continues.
Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. In the U.S., lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and women and is the leading cause of cancer deaths, according to the American Cancer Society.
Estimates from the American Cancer Society show that in 2008, there were approximately 215,020 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 161,840 lung cancer deaths in the United States alone. NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer, accounting for approximately 85-90 percent of lung cancer cases.
Doc shares FMH experience at national conference
Much of Dr. Paul Chomiak's day revolves around a $6 million machine.
The CyberKnife sits behind a 12-ton door at the Frederick Memorial Healthcare System's Regional Cancer Therapy Center. From there, Chomiak oversees the treatment of cancer patients. The machine treats tumors with concentrated bursts of radiation, significantly reducing treatment time and protecting surrounding tissues.
Chomiak is one of three thoracic surgeons in Maryland certified to use the CyberKnife to treat lung cancer. He's also the medical director of the FMH CyberKnife Center, so he supervises every other doctor works with the system.
Chomiak trained at the University of Wisconsin and began practicing thoracic surgery in 1994. He was recruited from Milwaukee to Sinai Hospital in Baltimore in 2003 to run its CyberKnife program. Sinai was the fourth hospital in the U.S. to acquire a CyberKnife, he said.
He came to FMH last year when the Cancer Center's CyberKnife Center opened. Today, more than 90 hospitals in the U.S. have a CyberKnife.
Chomiak has become used to travel: He said he's on the road once every two months, presenting the history of the CyberKnife and the patient outcomes he has seen. Most recently, he shared his experiences from both Sinai and FMH at the annual Society of Thoracic Surgeons conference, held in San Francisco in January.
The FMH CyberKnife Center is part of an international trial studying the effectiveness of the CyberKnife versus traditional lobectomy to treat lung cancer.
Chomiak is passionate about using and sharing the new technology.
Though it's relatively new, the CyberKnife could transform the practice of cancer treatment, he said.
"The outcomes have been wonderful," he said. "We're heading toward the CyberKnife being used for all cancers. There's literally no down time, and the risks are minimal."
The CyberKnife sits behind a 12-ton door at the Frederick Memorial Healthcare System's Regional Cancer Therapy Center. From there, Chomiak oversees the treatment of cancer patients. The machine treats tumors with concentrated bursts of radiation, significantly reducing treatment time and protecting surrounding tissues.
Chomiak is one of three thoracic surgeons in Maryland certified to use the CyberKnife to treat lung cancer. He's also the medical director of the FMH CyberKnife Center, so he supervises every other doctor works with the system.
Chomiak trained at the University of Wisconsin and began practicing thoracic surgery in 1994. He was recruited from Milwaukee to Sinai Hospital in Baltimore in 2003 to run its CyberKnife program. Sinai was the fourth hospital in the U.S. to acquire a CyberKnife, he said.
He came to FMH last year when the Cancer Center's CyberKnife Center opened. Today, more than 90 hospitals in the U.S. have a CyberKnife.
Chomiak has become used to travel: He said he's on the road once every two months, presenting the history of the CyberKnife and the patient outcomes he has seen. Most recently, he shared his experiences from both Sinai and FMH at the annual Society of Thoracic Surgeons conference, held in San Francisco in January.
The FMH CyberKnife Center is part of an international trial studying the effectiveness of the CyberKnife versus traditional lobectomy to treat lung cancer.
Chomiak is passionate about using and sharing the new technology.
Though it's relatively new, the CyberKnife could transform the practice of cancer treatment, he said.
"The outcomes have been wonderful," he said. "We're heading toward the CyberKnife being used for all cancers. There's literally no down time, and the risks are minimal."
Lebanon firm makes cancer-screening agent
LEBANON – Woomera Therapeutics Inc. has entered a strategic partnership with a West Coast company to produce an antibody for clinical trial for use in detection and treatment of breast and small-cell lung cancers.
The company will create the monoclonal antibody this year, said CEO Roy Pang.
Dartmouth Medical School professor William North, graduate Brendan Keenan, and Pang, a past executive of multiple biotech and venture capital companies, founded Woomera in 2004. The company has secured $400,000 in venture capital to date and has produced a mouse-model antibody called MAG-1.
The New Hampshire Innovation Research Center has also granted the company in excess of $80,000. Woomera will use the grant to learn why MAG-1 is effective on breast and small-cell lung cancers and to screen other types of cancers for potential treatment with such an antibody, Pang said.
"The data is very encouraging," North said. "The antibody shrinks tumor cells in mice, and now we want to find out why this happens. We call this understanding the mechanism."
Woomera derived its insights into the cancer treatment from North's 35 years of research into vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones made in the brain that regulate water retention through action in the kidneys.
It turns out that vasopressin can also tell researchers a lot about some sorts of cancer. Breast and small-cell lung cancers produce abnormal vasopressin receptors and pro-vasopressin, a molecular precursor to the hormone, on membranes. North discovered these cancers express certain genes involved in making vasopressin and its receptor, and build pro-vasopressin onto the surface of cell membranes. Since no normal cells use pro-vasopressin to build membranes, it becomes an excellent marker for cancer.
Cancer cells' unique expression of pro-vasopressin in their cell walls means doctors can target cancer cells in treatment without harming healthy cells in the process, avoiding the collateral damage caused in radiation and chemotherapy, North said.
North said MAG-1 reduced breast cancer tumors in mice up to 50 percent.
The antibody did not reduce the size of small-cell lung cancer tumors, but did slow their growth and could be a candidate to treat recurrence, he said.
Genentech, Inc. of California already has a breast-cancer antibody on the market called Herceptin, a naked antibody that attaches to a receptor called HER2.
Receptors enable cancer cells to develop, and the most successful treatments on the market target three receptors: HER2, estrogen and progesterone receptors.
Breast-cancer drugs have been limited in their fight.
A 2001 report published in Nature Medicine showed only 20 to 30 percent of breast cancers produce HER2, meaning Herceptin is limited in the number of breast-cancer cases in which the drug can be effectively applied.
There is a pressing medical need for research and clinical trials.
In the U.S. there are 42,000 new cases of small-cell lung cancer per year with a six percent survival within five years, and 217,440 new cases of breast cancer with an 86 percent survival rate after five years.
North and Pang caution that their work so far has only been shown effective in mouse models, but say their findings are promising.
"In the mice we checked to see if the breast cancer returned, and found that it did not," Pang said.
The company will create the monoclonal antibody this year, said CEO Roy Pang.
Dartmouth Medical School professor William North, graduate Brendan Keenan, and Pang, a past executive of multiple biotech and venture capital companies, founded Woomera in 2004. The company has secured $400,000 in venture capital to date and has produced a mouse-model antibody called MAG-1.
The New Hampshire Innovation Research Center has also granted the company in excess of $80,000. Woomera will use the grant to learn why MAG-1 is effective on breast and small-cell lung cancers and to screen other types of cancers for potential treatment with such an antibody, Pang said.
"The data is very encouraging," North said. "The antibody shrinks tumor cells in mice, and now we want to find out why this happens. We call this understanding the mechanism."
Woomera derived its insights into the cancer treatment from North's 35 years of research into vasopressin and oxytocin, hormones made in the brain that regulate water retention through action in the kidneys.
It turns out that vasopressin can also tell researchers a lot about some sorts of cancer. Breast and small-cell lung cancers produce abnormal vasopressin receptors and pro-vasopressin, a molecular precursor to the hormone, on membranes. North discovered these cancers express certain genes involved in making vasopressin and its receptor, and build pro-vasopressin onto the surface of cell membranes. Since no normal cells use pro-vasopressin to build membranes, it becomes an excellent marker for cancer.
Cancer cells' unique expression of pro-vasopressin in their cell walls means doctors can target cancer cells in treatment without harming healthy cells in the process, avoiding the collateral damage caused in radiation and chemotherapy, North said.
North said MAG-1 reduced breast cancer tumors in mice up to 50 percent.
The antibody did not reduce the size of small-cell lung cancer tumors, but did slow their growth and could be a candidate to treat recurrence, he said.
Genentech, Inc. of California already has a breast-cancer antibody on the market called Herceptin, a naked antibody that attaches to a receptor called HER2.
Receptors enable cancer cells to develop, and the most successful treatments on the market target three receptors: HER2, estrogen and progesterone receptors.
Breast-cancer drugs have been limited in their fight.
A 2001 report published in Nature Medicine showed only 20 to 30 percent of breast cancers produce HER2, meaning Herceptin is limited in the number of breast-cancer cases in which the drug can be effectively applied.
There is a pressing medical need for research and clinical trials.
In the U.S. there are 42,000 new cases of small-cell lung cancer per year with a six percent survival within five years, and 217,440 new cases of breast cancer with an 86 percent survival rate after five years.
North and Pang caution that their work so far has only been shown effective in mouse models, but say their findings are promising.
"In the mice we checked to see if the breast cancer returned, and found that it did not," Pang said.
Regular Physical Activity Linked to Better Quality of Life in Early-Stage Lung Cancer Survivors
Survey led by Fox Chase Cancer Center researcher shows how moderate exercise a few times a week might improve the mental and physical health of lung cancer survivors
Survivors of early-stage lung cancer who take part in regular physical activity have a better quality of life, according to a study in the February issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, available online now. Patients who are more physically active report better mood, more vigor, and greater physical functioning, the study shows.
"The take-home message is that early-stage lung cancer survivors may benefit, both mentally and physically, from simple moderate exercise," says the paper's lead author Elliot Coups, Ph.D., associate member of Fox Chase Cancer Center's faculty and a participant in the Fox Chase Keystone Program in Cancer Risk and Prevention. "Of course, we're generally not talking marathons here, but smaller, everyday forms of activity like going for a brisk walk several times a week."
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society, and the disease tends to strike older adults who have a history of smoking. Coups and his colleagues studied patients diagnosed with early-stage, non-small cell lung carcinomas. These individuals have a five-year survival rate of nearly 50 percent, compared to three percent for those diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer.
"With early detection and treatment, more people may live longer following surgery for early-stage lung cancer," Coups says. "For these individuals, the act of surviving cancer will follow them the rest of their days, and we are interested in understanding what we can do to promote their overall health and well-being."
Coups and his colleagues at Fox Chase and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center followed 175 people who had completed surgical treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer within the previous six years. On average, patients were about 68 years old at the time of the study and did not currently have cancer. Patients were asked to estimate their level of physical activity six months before the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer, during the six months following surgery and their current activity levels. The survey included standardized questionnaires to assess quality of life in terms of a patient's physical, mental and social well-being.
Approximately one in four participants met physical activity guidelines, which call for about 60 minutes each week of strenuous activity, such as jogging, or 150 minutes of moderate exercise, such as walking briskly. Overall, the level of activity for survey participants was comparable to that of the population at large for their age group, Coups says.
Coups and his colleagues also found that those participants who met the guidelines reported fewer depressive symptoms, greater vitality, and less shortness of breath when compared to their more sedentary counterparts.
"Unfortunately, we see that most lung cancer survivors do not meet guidelines set for physical activity, especially in the six months following surgery," Coups says. "While it is certainly understandable that people might not be able to exercise as vigorously as they had done before lung surgery, our study suggests that healthcare providers ought to discuss the potential benefits of moderate physical activity among early-stage lung cancer survivors as a means of increasing their quality of life."
###
Funding for this research comes from grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Byrne Foundation.
Founded in 1904 in Philadelphia as the nation's first cancer hospital, Fox Chase became one of the first institutions to be designated a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center in 1974. Today, Fox Chase conducts a broad array of nationally competitive basic, translational, and clinical research, with special programs in cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and community outreach. For more information, visit Fox Chase's web site at www.fccc.edu or call 1-888-FOX-CHASE or 1-888-369-2427.
Survivors of early-stage lung cancer who take part in regular physical activity have a better quality of life, according to a study in the February issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, available online now. Patients who are more physically active report better mood, more vigor, and greater physical functioning, the study shows.
"The take-home message is that early-stage lung cancer survivors may benefit, both mentally and physically, from simple moderate exercise," says the paper's lead author Elliot Coups, Ph.D., associate member of Fox Chase Cancer Center's faculty and a participant in the Fox Chase Keystone Program in Cancer Risk and Prevention. "Of course, we're generally not talking marathons here, but smaller, everyday forms of activity like going for a brisk walk several times a week."
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society, and the disease tends to strike older adults who have a history of smoking. Coups and his colleagues studied patients diagnosed with early-stage, non-small cell lung carcinomas. These individuals have a five-year survival rate of nearly 50 percent, compared to three percent for those diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer.
"With early detection and treatment, more people may live longer following surgery for early-stage lung cancer," Coups says. "For these individuals, the act of surviving cancer will follow them the rest of their days, and we are interested in understanding what we can do to promote their overall health and well-being."
Coups and his colleagues at Fox Chase and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center followed 175 people who had completed surgical treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer within the previous six years. On average, patients were about 68 years old at the time of the study and did not currently have cancer. Patients were asked to estimate their level of physical activity six months before the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer, during the six months following surgery and their current activity levels. The survey included standardized questionnaires to assess quality of life in terms of a patient's physical, mental and social well-being.
Approximately one in four participants met physical activity guidelines, which call for about 60 minutes each week of strenuous activity, such as jogging, or 150 minutes of moderate exercise, such as walking briskly. Overall, the level of activity for survey participants was comparable to that of the population at large for their age group, Coups says.
Coups and his colleagues also found that those participants who met the guidelines reported fewer depressive symptoms, greater vitality, and less shortness of breath when compared to their more sedentary counterparts.
"Unfortunately, we see that most lung cancer survivors do not meet guidelines set for physical activity, especially in the six months following surgery," Coups says. "While it is certainly understandable that people might not be able to exercise as vigorously as they had done before lung surgery, our study suggests that healthcare providers ought to discuss the potential benefits of moderate physical activity among early-stage lung cancer survivors as a means of increasing their quality of life."
###
Funding for this research comes from grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Byrne Foundation.
Founded in 1904 in Philadelphia as the nation's first cancer hospital, Fox Chase became one of the first institutions to be designated a National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center in 1974. Today, Fox Chase conducts a broad array of nationally competitive basic, translational, and clinical research, with special programs in cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and community outreach. For more information, visit Fox Chase's web site at www.fccc.edu or call 1-888-FOX-CHASE or 1-888-369-2427.
Kaiser Health Disparities Report: A Weekly Look At Race, Ethnicity And Health
Recent Releases | Study Looks at Survival, Racial Disparities Among Lung Cancer Patients Who Undergo Surgery
[Jan 22, 2009]
"Racial Disparities Among Patients With Lung Cancer Who Were Recommended Operative Therapy," Archives of Surgery: Researchers led by Farhood Farjah of University of Washington's Surgical Outcomes Research Center examined 17,739 patients who were diagnosed with early stage lung cancer between Jan. 1, 1992, and Dec. 31, 2002, and were recommended to receive lung resection. Among those patients, 69% of blacks received the surgery, compared with 83% of whites. However, after making adjustments, researchers found no significant association between race and death, despite the 14% difference in the receipt of surgery. The findings suggest that "distrust, beliefs and perceptions about lung cancer and its treatment, and limited access to care (despite insurance) might have a more dominant role in perpetuating racial disparities than previously recognized," according to the study (Archives of Surgery, January 2009).
[Jan 22, 2009]
"Racial Disparities Among Patients With Lung Cancer Who Were Recommended Operative Therapy," Archives of Surgery: Researchers led by Farhood Farjah of University of Washington's Surgical Outcomes Research Center examined 17,739 patients who were diagnosed with early stage lung cancer between Jan. 1, 1992, and Dec. 31, 2002, and were recommended to receive lung resection. Among those patients, 69% of blacks received the surgery, compared with 83% of whites. However, after making adjustments, researchers found no significant association between race and death, despite the 14% difference in the receipt of surgery. The findings suggest that "distrust, beliefs and perceptions about lung cancer and its treatment, and limited access to care (despite insurance) might have a more dominant role in perpetuating racial disparities than previously recognized," according to the study (Archives of Surgery, January 2009).
Four More Reasons To Drink Red Wine
The heart-healthy beverage may also keep you from developing physical disabilities or Alzheimer's Disease.It's common knowledge that a glass or two of red wine a night will do more than enhance a great meal or put you to sleep: it can reduce production of "bad" cholesterol, boost "good" cholesterol and reduce blood clotting, all of which will help reduce the risk of heart disease. But recent studies are showing that wine aficionados may also reap even more benefits, from inhibiting tumor development to helping form nerve cells. Here's a roundup of four recent studies that might encourage you to uncork that bottle of merlot:
1. It Can Help Keep You Fit: For senior citizens who are already in shape, moderate alcohol intake can help prevent the development of physical disabilities, according to a new UCLA study in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (The National Institutes of Health recommends no more than one drink a day for women and two for men.) Researchers found that moderate drinkers in a national survey had a lower risk than heavy drinkers or abstainers of developing physical problems that impeded their abilities to walk or dress or groom themselves. But don't take that as a cue to rest easy: the benefits only applied to seniors who were already in good health. Seniors in poor health may already be too close to developing disabilities for the wine to be of much use, researchers said.
2. It May Help Fight Alzheimer's. In animal trials, UCLA researchers found that compounds known as polyphenols, which naturally occur in red wine, can inhibit the development of proteins that deposit in the brain and form the plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease. Polyphenols also are highly concentrated in tea, nuts, berries and cocoa, the researchers, who did the study with Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, reported in the November issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The polyphenols block the formation and decrease the toxicity of the Alzheimer's-associated protein deposits, scientists found; they plan to start human clinical trials next.
Quantcast
3. It Boosts Heart-Healthy Omega 3 Levels. Moderate alcohol consumption helps boost the body's omega-3 levels, European researchers report in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The fatty acids are usually derived from fish and help protect against coronary heart disease, but people who consumed alcohol, especially wine, in moderation (one drink for women, two drinks for me) had higher omega-3 levels independent of their fish intake, the researchers found after studying populations in England, Belgium and Italy. They hypothesize that this effect is due in part to polyphenols as well.
4. It May Lower Lung Cancer Risk. Moderate consumption of red wine may decrease the risk of lung cancer in men, researchers reported in the October issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. Analyzing data collected from the California Men's Health Study, they found that each glass of red wine consumed a month correlated with a 2 percent lower lung cancer risk. Men who drank one or two glasses of red wine a day saw a 60 percent reduced lung cancer risk. There were no similar benefits for white wine, beer or liquor drinkers, though, and smokers who drank red wine still, of course, had a higher lung-cancer risk than non-smokers.
© 2009
1. It Can Help Keep You Fit: For senior citizens who are already in shape, moderate alcohol intake can help prevent the development of physical disabilities, according to a new UCLA study in the American Journal of Epidemiology. (The National Institutes of Health recommends no more than one drink a day for women and two for men.) Researchers found that moderate drinkers in a national survey had a lower risk than heavy drinkers or abstainers of developing physical problems that impeded their abilities to walk or dress or groom themselves. But don't take that as a cue to rest easy: the benefits only applied to seniors who were already in good health. Seniors in poor health may already be too close to developing disabilities for the wine to be of much use, researchers said.
2. It May Help Fight Alzheimer's. In animal trials, UCLA researchers found that compounds known as polyphenols, which naturally occur in red wine, can inhibit the development of proteins that deposit in the brain and form the plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease. Polyphenols also are highly concentrated in tea, nuts, berries and cocoa, the researchers, who did the study with Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, reported in the November issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The polyphenols block the formation and decrease the toxicity of the Alzheimer's-associated protein deposits, scientists found; they plan to start human clinical trials next.
Quantcast
3. It Boosts Heart-Healthy Omega 3 Levels. Moderate alcohol consumption helps boost the body's omega-3 levels, European researchers report in the January issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The fatty acids are usually derived from fish and help protect against coronary heart disease, but people who consumed alcohol, especially wine, in moderation (one drink for women, two drinks for me) had higher omega-3 levels independent of their fish intake, the researchers found after studying populations in England, Belgium and Italy. They hypothesize that this effect is due in part to polyphenols as well.
4. It May Lower Lung Cancer Risk. Moderate consumption of red wine may decrease the risk of lung cancer in men, researchers reported in the October issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. Analyzing data collected from the California Men's Health Study, they found that each glass of red wine consumed a month correlated with a 2 percent lower lung cancer risk. Men who drank one or two glasses of red wine a day saw a 60 percent reduced lung cancer risk. There were no similar benefits for white wine, beer or liquor drinkers, though, and smokers who drank red wine still, of course, had a higher lung-cancer risk than non-smokers.
© 2009
Study: Do more to help patients quit smoking
FAIRMONT — A survey of cancer patients being treated at the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center indicates that many of the smokers did not quit the habit in light of their diagnosis and some of them were not even advised to do so by their doctors.
“It absolutely benefits patients to quit,” said Dr. Jame Abraham, chief of oncology at WVU Hospitals and the medical director of the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center in Morgantown. “No. 1, we know that smoking can potentially alter the effectiveness of chemotherapy.
“No. 2, smoking can cause many other conditions, including lung cancer and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and smoking can increase the chance of getting pneumonia and lung disease, which can complicate the ability to take the treatment.”
The study was the idea of Lola Burke, now a second-year medical student who performed much of the survey work, Abraham said.
Burke sent surveys to 1,000 cancer patients, and 200 of them responded. Of the 200 who responded, 52 percent had a history of smoking, but only 20 percent had been actively smoking at the time of the diagnosis, Abraham said.
Of the active smokers, 44 percent quit while 56 percent did not, Abraham said.
“Another thing we found was that 40 percent were not told by the doctors to quit,” he added. “They didn’t even hear this from their doctors or their health-care provider.”
Bruce Adkins, director of the Division of Tobacco Prevention for the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, has teamed up with Marshall University’s Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine in an effort to offer training to physicians who would teach them how to counsel patients to quit smoking.
“We started doing some provider training about two and a half year ago,” he said. “It’s a tough addiction to break. You have to keep reinforcing it. People don’t usually quit smoking the first time they attempt to quit. The average number of times it takes someone to quit using tobacco is eight to 10 times.”
Staff members from Marshall’s School of Medicine travel throughout the state offering a three-hour course to physicians, covering topics such as cessation counseling, spit tobacco, smoking and pregnancy, and the pharmacotherapy of tobacco cessation, Adkins said.
In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that West Virginia had the second-highest rate of adult smokers in the United States at 25.7 percent, second to Kentucky at a rate of 28.6 percent.
The findings of the study at the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center, which have been released in this month’s edition of Journal of Oncology, published by the American Society of Clinic Oncology, illustrate that more must be done in order to help cancer patients quit, Abraham said.
“Many times, that person has been smoking for a long time,” he said. “That addictiveness is so high, so you can’t just walk away from this in one day.”
The news came during the same week that the CDC released a report in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report stating that Kentucky and West Virginia have the highest death rates from smoking.
It also comes during the same month that actor Patrick Swayze, undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer, admitted that he still smokes.
“We do see similar behavior all the time,” Abraham said of Swayze’s admission. “But I’m not going to blame the patient. Last week, I was talking to a patient who, because of her cancer treatment has lost her hair, and she said, ‘I know it looks ridiculous to smoke.’ She knows that, but she’s still smoking. It’s more complicated than that.”
The study was filled out by people being treated for a variety of different cancers, not just those that generally have been associated with cigarette smoking, which include cancer of the lungs, head and neck, bladder, stomach and pancreas.
“Many times, some early-stage cancer patients get cured from the primary cancer and then come back with a second cancer,” Abraham said. “We had a stage-one breast cancer patient. I gave her the treatment and I told her, ‘You’re going to be fine. There is a 90 percent chance that it’s not going to come back.’
“But she was an active smoker and two years later, she had a large mass in her lung and died of lung cancer.”
The situation frustrates anti-smoking activist Adkins, who smoked in college and was treated for cancer of the tongue three years ago, about 30 years after he quit his smoking habit.
When he had cancer, Adkins said, radiation treatments were very uncomfortable, and he could not imagine smoking during that time period.
“I could barely swallow. I could barely eat. Nothing tasted good. Everything was yucky,” he said. “Smoking could not have made that better. It could only have made things worse if I was a smoker.”
E-mail Mary Wade Burnside at mwburnside@timeswv.com.
“It absolutely benefits patients to quit,” said Dr. Jame Abraham, chief of oncology at WVU Hospitals and the medical director of the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center in Morgantown. “No. 1, we know that smoking can potentially alter the effectiveness of chemotherapy.
“No. 2, smoking can cause many other conditions, including lung cancer and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and smoking can increase the chance of getting pneumonia and lung disease, which can complicate the ability to take the treatment.”
The study was the idea of Lola Burke, now a second-year medical student who performed much of the survey work, Abraham said.
Burke sent surveys to 1,000 cancer patients, and 200 of them responded. Of the 200 who responded, 52 percent had a history of smoking, but only 20 percent had been actively smoking at the time of the diagnosis, Abraham said.
Of the active smokers, 44 percent quit while 56 percent did not, Abraham said.
“Another thing we found was that 40 percent were not told by the doctors to quit,” he added. “They didn’t even hear this from their doctors or their health-care provider.”
Bruce Adkins, director of the Division of Tobacco Prevention for the West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, has teamed up with Marshall University’s Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine in an effort to offer training to physicians who would teach them how to counsel patients to quit smoking.
“We started doing some provider training about two and a half year ago,” he said. “It’s a tough addiction to break. You have to keep reinforcing it. People don’t usually quit smoking the first time they attempt to quit. The average number of times it takes someone to quit using tobacco is eight to 10 times.”
Staff members from Marshall’s School of Medicine travel throughout the state offering a three-hour course to physicians, covering topics such as cessation counseling, spit tobacco, smoking and pregnancy, and the pharmacotherapy of tobacco cessation, Adkins said.
In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that West Virginia had the second-highest rate of adult smokers in the United States at 25.7 percent, second to Kentucky at a rate of 28.6 percent.
The findings of the study at the Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center, which have been released in this month’s edition of Journal of Oncology, published by the American Society of Clinic Oncology, illustrate that more must be done in order to help cancer patients quit, Abraham said.
“Many times, that person has been smoking for a long time,” he said. “That addictiveness is so high, so you can’t just walk away from this in one day.”
The news came during the same week that the CDC released a report in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report stating that Kentucky and West Virginia have the highest death rates from smoking.
It also comes during the same month that actor Patrick Swayze, undergoing treatment for pancreatic cancer, admitted that he still smokes.
“We do see similar behavior all the time,” Abraham said of Swayze’s admission. “But I’m not going to blame the patient. Last week, I was talking to a patient who, because of her cancer treatment has lost her hair, and she said, ‘I know it looks ridiculous to smoke.’ She knows that, but she’s still smoking. It’s more complicated than that.”
The study was filled out by people being treated for a variety of different cancers, not just those that generally have been associated with cigarette smoking, which include cancer of the lungs, head and neck, bladder, stomach and pancreas.
“Many times, some early-stage cancer patients get cured from the primary cancer and then come back with a second cancer,” Abraham said. “We had a stage-one breast cancer patient. I gave her the treatment and I told her, ‘You’re going to be fine. There is a 90 percent chance that it’s not going to come back.’
“But she was an active smoker and two years later, she had a large mass in her lung and died of lung cancer.”
The situation frustrates anti-smoking activist Adkins, who smoked in college and was treated for cancer of the tongue three years ago, about 30 years after he quit his smoking habit.
When he had cancer, Adkins said, radiation treatments were very uncomfortable, and he could not imagine smoking during that time period.
“I could barely swallow. I could barely eat. Nothing tasted good. Everything was yucky,” he said. “Smoking could not have made that better. It could only have made things worse if I was a smoker.”
E-mail Mary Wade Burnside at mwburnside@timeswv.com.
National Lung Cancer Partnership And LUNGevity Foundation Announce 2009 Grant Recipients
The 2009 winners of the National Lung Cancer Partnership/LUNGevity Foundation Research Grants are Prasad Adusumilli, M.D. and Lee Goodglick, Ph.D. The $100,000 grants will fund the scientist's research on visceral pleural invasion and the role of estrogen in lung cancer tumors, respectively.
Dr. Adusumilli, a general thoracic surgeon specializing in lung cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was awarded the grant focused on basic research for his proposed study of Visceral Pleural Invasion, a condition that affects one in four early stage lung cancer patients in which their cancer spreads to the membrane covering the lungs surface and is associated with poorer treatment outcomes.
Using a mouse model, Dr. Adusumilli's will use genetic engineering to program immune cells to target and suppress tumor cells on the lung membrane.
Dr. Goodglick of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles was awarded the grant for research in the area of sex differences in lung cancer. His research will focus on estrogen, which many lung cancers either make or are responsive to, similarly to breast cancer. Aromatase-inhibitors, drugs which turn off the enzyme aromatase which can cause some cancers to grow and have long been used in breast cancer treatment, will be studied in a pre-clinical trial to determine their effectiveness in treating lung cancer. Additional research will use new technology to address other ways that estrogen may affect lung cancer in order to identify future therapies.
"Only by continuing to fund this type of lung cancer research can we keep the momentum towards better treatments for patients," Dr. Joan Schiller, president of the National Lung Cancer Partnership and chief of hematology/oncology of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center said. "Supporting the work of scientists like Drs. Adusumilli and Goodglick is critical to our continued battle against the world's number 1 cancer killer."
----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------
National Lung Cancer Partnership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to decreasing deaths due to lung cancer, and helping patients live longer and better, through research, awareness and advocacy.
The LUNGevity Foundation is the only organization in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to funding lung cancer research. The 501(c) (3) organization was founded in 2000 by seven Chicago-area lung cancer survivors to increase funding for lung cancer research.
Dr. Adusumilli, a general thoracic surgeon specializing in lung cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was awarded the grant focused on basic research for his proposed study of Visceral Pleural Invasion, a condition that affects one in four early stage lung cancer patients in which their cancer spreads to the membrane covering the lungs surface and is associated with poorer treatment outcomes.
Using a mouse model, Dr. Adusumilli's will use genetic engineering to program immune cells to target and suppress tumor cells on the lung membrane.
Dr. Goodglick of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles was awarded the grant for research in the area of sex differences in lung cancer. His research will focus on estrogen, which many lung cancers either make or are responsive to, similarly to breast cancer. Aromatase-inhibitors, drugs which turn off the enzyme aromatase which can cause some cancers to grow and have long been used in breast cancer treatment, will be studied in a pre-clinical trial to determine their effectiveness in treating lung cancer. Additional research will use new technology to address other ways that estrogen may affect lung cancer in order to identify future therapies.
"Only by continuing to fund this type of lung cancer research can we keep the momentum towards better treatments for patients," Dr. Joan Schiller, president of the National Lung Cancer Partnership and chief of hematology/oncology of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center said. "Supporting the work of scientists like Drs. Adusumilli and Goodglick is critical to our continued battle against the world's number 1 cancer killer."
----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------
National Lung Cancer Partnership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to decreasing deaths due to lung cancer, and helping patients live longer and better, through research, awareness and advocacy.
The LUNGevity Foundation is the only organization in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to funding lung cancer research. The 501(c) (3) organization was founded in 2000 by seven Chicago-area lung cancer survivors to increase funding for lung cancer research.
Study examines racial disparities in survival among patients diagnosed with lung cancer
Disparities in survival among black patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer are not seen when patients are recommended appropriate treatment, according to a report in the January issue of Archives of Surgery, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.
Lung cancer causes more deaths in the United States than any other cancer, according to background information in the article. Pulmonary resection—or surgery to remove a portion of the lung—provides the best chance for patients with early-stage disease to be cured. "Black patients with early-stage lung cancer have lower five-year survival rates than white patients, and this difference in outcome has been attributed to lower rates of resection among black patients," the authors write. "Several potential factors underlying racial differences in the receipt of surgical therapy include differences in pulmonary function, access to care, refusal of surgery, beliefs about tumor spread on air exposure at the time of operation and the possibility of cure without surgery, distrust of the health care system and physicians, suboptimal patterns of patient and physician communication and health care system and provider biases." Of these, access to care is often considered the most important of factors underlying racial disparities.
Farhood Farjah, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues designed a study to address whether differences in survival persist when evaluating only patients who had been recommended to receive optimal therapy, in this case lung resection. Patients recommended for therapy were considered likely to have "cleared" at least one major hurdle of access to care. The investigators analyzed data from 17,739 patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer between 1992 and 2002 (average age 75, 89 percent white and 6 percent black) and who were recommended to receive surgical therapy. They tracked whether or not the patients underwent surgery, and their overall survival, through 2005.
While black patients recommended to surgery had lung resections less frequently than white patients (69 percent vs. 83 percent, the authors write. After adjustment, there was no significant association between race and death.
Several possible explanations exist for the differences in rates of surgery, the authors note, and these may be important for understanding patient decision-making and improving care delivery systems. Black patients may be more likely to refuse surgery than white patients, or may have more limited access to recommended care.
"Although these findings do not refute the likely roles of health care system and provider biases and patient characteristics as important causal factors underlying health disparities, the findings do suggest that other factors (i.e., distrust, perceptions and beliefs about lung cancer and its treatment and limited access to subspecialty care) may have a more dominant role in causing disparities than previously recognized. The implication of these findings is that interventions designed to narrow gaps in health care should target structural aspects of care, providers and patients and communities at risk for lung cancer and suboptimal care." The study findings suggest that referral of all patients with potentially curable lung cancer for consideration of lung resection may be a helpful tool in mitigating previously identified racial differences in survival.
###
(Arch Surg. 2009;144[1]:14-18. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org.)
Editor's Note: Dr. Farjah was supported by a Cancer Epidemiology and Biostatistics Training Grant and a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award from the National Cancer Institute. Additional resources were available through the Department of Surgery and the Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington and the generosity of the Schilling family. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.
Lung cancer causes more deaths in the United States than any other cancer, according to background information in the article. Pulmonary resection—or surgery to remove a portion of the lung—provides the best chance for patients with early-stage disease to be cured. "Black patients with early-stage lung cancer have lower five-year survival rates than white patients, and this difference in outcome has been attributed to lower rates of resection among black patients," the authors write. "Several potential factors underlying racial differences in the receipt of surgical therapy include differences in pulmonary function, access to care, refusal of surgery, beliefs about tumor spread on air exposure at the time of operation and the possibility of cure without surgery, distrust of the health care system and physicians, suboptimal patterns of patient and physician communication and health care system and provider biases." Of these, access to care is often considered the most important of factors underlying racial disparities.
Farhood Farjah, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues designed a study to address whether differences in survival persist when evaluating only patients who had been recommended to receive optimal therapy, in this case lung resection. Patients recommended for therapy were considered likely to have "cleared" at least one major hurdle of access to care. The investigators analyzed data from 17,739 patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer between 1992 and 2002 (average age 75, 89 percent white and 6 percent black) and who were recommended to receive surgical therapy. They tracked whether or not the patients underwent surgery, and their overall survival, through 2005.
While black patients recommended to surgery had lung resections less frequently than white patients (69 percent vs. 83 percent, the authors write. After adjustment, there was no significant association between race and death.
Several possible explanations exist for the differences in rates of surgery, the authors note, and these may be important for understanding patient decision-making and improving care delivery systems. Black patients may be more likely to refuse surgery than white patients, or may have more limited access to recommended care.
"Although these findings do not refute the likely roles of health care system and provider biases and patient characteristics as important causal factors underlying health disparities, the findings do suggest that other factors (i.e., distrust, perceptions and beliefs about lung cancer and its treatment and limited access to subspecialty care) may have a more dominant role in causing disparities than previously recognized. The implication of these findings is that interventions designed to narrow gaps in health care should target structural aspects of care, providers and patients and communities at risk for lung cancer and suboptimal care." The study findings suggest that referral of all patients with potentially curable lung cancer for consideration of lung resection may be a helpful tool in mitigating previously identified racial differences in survival.
###
(Arch Surg. 2009;144[1]:14-18. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org.)
Editor's Note: Dr. Farjah was supported by a Cancer Epidemiology and Biostatistics Training Grant and a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award from the National Cancer Institute. Additional resources were available through the Department of Surgery and the Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington and the generosity of the Schilling family. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc.
New England Journal changes policies
Excerpts from the Globe's blog on the Boston-area medical community.In more fallout from publication of a lung cancer screening study, the New England Journal of Medicine has changed its procedures for disclosing potential conflicts of interests by its authors, according to The New York Times.
The Journal published a correction and an editorial in April after reports that Dr. Claudia Henschke and Dr. David Yankelevitz of Cornell had failed to reveal a potential conflict of interest and a funding source for their October 2006 article, which said screening with CT scanners was effective in detecting early lung cancer among smokers and former smokers.
The authors received royalty payments from licensing imaging patents to General Electric, maker of the CT scanners in the study. And a foundation that helped fund the study was largely supported by the parent company of Liggett Tobacco.
Last week's Times story related to a document written by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, to The Cancer Letter, a research newsletter. It said the New England Journal and its publisher, the Massachusetts Medical Society, had erred in failing to disclose financial conflicts of interests of the authors.
In a letter to the accreditation group, the Journal's editors say that in 2006, it was not routine to publish details about pending patents, but "since that time our thinking on this issue has evolved."
Risky talk on social networking sites
Researchers studying teens and risky behaviors have followed young people onto social networking sites, where more than half of them are talking about sex, substance use, and violence, according to a new survey of MySpace.com.
A second part of the study showed how such online behavior can be changed relatively easily. Online communities such as MySpace and Facebook allow users to create personal profiles to communicate with designated friends.
Dr. Megan A. Moreno, lead author of both studies appearing in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, and her colleagues at the University of Washington, surveyed 500 public profiles of self-described 18-year-olds.
The researchers found that 54 percent contained references to sexual activity, drinking, or drug use, or violence. In the second study, Moreno sent an e-mail to half of 190 young people from 18 to 20 years old whose public MySpace profiles included at least three references to sexual behaviors or substance use, including alcohol and tobacco.
She called herself "Dr. Meg,'' and identified herself as an adolescent medicine doctor and researcher. You seemed to be quite open about sexual issues or other behaviors such as drinking or smoking,'' the message said. "Are you sure that's a good idea? After all, if I could see it, nearly anybody could.'' A significant proportion changed their profiles.
The Journal published a correction and an editorial in April after reports that Dr. Claudia Henschke and Dr. David Yankelevitz of Cornell had failed to reveal a potential conflict of interest and a funding source for their October 2006 article, which said screening with CT scanners was effective in detecting early lung cancer among smokers and former smokers.
The authors received royalty payments from licensing imaging patents to General Electric, maker of the CT scanners in the study. And a foundation that helped fund the study was largely supported by the parent company of Liggett Tobacco.
Last week's Times story related to a document written by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, to The Cancer Letter, a research newsletter. It said the New England Journal and its publisher, the Massachusetts Medical Society, had erred in failing to disclose financial conflicts of interests of the authors.
In a letter to the accreditation group, the Journal's editors say that in 2006, it was not routine to publish details about pending patents, but "since that time our thinking on this issue has evolved."
Risky talk on social networking sites
Researchers studying teens and risky behaviors have followed young people onto social networking sites, where more than half of them are talking about sex, substance use, and violence, according to a new survey of MySpace.com.
A second part of the study showed how such online behavior can be changed relatively easily. Online communities such as MySpace and Facebook allow users to create personal profiles to communicate with designated friends.
Dr. Megan A. Moreno, lead author of both studies appearing in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, and her colleagues at the University of Washington, surveyed 500 public profiles of self-described 18-year-olds.
The researchers found that 54 percent contained references to sexual activity, drinking, or drug use, or violence. In the second study, Moreno sent an e-mail to half of 190 young people from 18 to 20 years old whose public MySpace profiles included at least three references to sexual behaviors or substance use, including alcohol and tobacco.
She called herself "Dr. Meg,'' and identified herself as an adolescent medicine doctor and researcher. You seemed to be quite open about sexual issues or other behaviors such as drinking or smoking,'' the message said. "Are you sure that's a good idea? After all, if I could see it, nearly anybody could.'' A significant proportion changed their profiles.
Low-Cost Strategies to Maintain Health in Hard Times
MONDAY, Jan. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Everyone needs to make sacrifices during hard economic times, but you don't have to shortchange your health.
Experts with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston say people can live healthy and cut their risk of cancer without breaking the bank by following several free and low-cost strategies. * Get moving. Moderate to intensive aerobic exercise, including brisk walking, are good for the heart and can help cancer survivors reduce the risk of recurrence. "The most consistent evidence we have so far for reducing the risk of several types of cancer is exercise and avoiding becoming obese," D. Jeffrey Meyerhardt, a Dana-Farber gastrointestinal cancer specialist, said in a news release issued by the institute. Activities can include taking the stairs instead of an elevator, using a stationary bicycle or treadmill while watching TV, or playing a team sport.
* Eat healthy. Keeping consumption of processed sugars, red meat and calories low, but fruits and vegetables high, helps you maintain a healthy weight and cuts the risk of certain cancers. "Many of the beneficial nutrients in fruits and vegetables are concentrated in the pigment or rich colors, which are often in the skins," said Stacy L. Kennedy, a nutritionist at Dana-Farber. An apple a day is a good start. The uncooked skin contains the cancer-fighting antioxidant quercitin. Pumpkin, sweet potato, squash (butternut and acorn), carrots and other orange fruits and vegetables contain carotenoids, cancer-fighting nutrients shown to lower one's chances of getting of colon, prostate, lung and breast cancer.
* Quit smoking. Kicking the habit will save you money later in health-care costs. "Even though there have been many recent advances in lung cancer treatments, the most effective way to eradicate lung cancer is to prevent it from ever happening," said Dr. Bruce Johnson, director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, noting that smokers who stay off tobacco for at least 10 to 20 years cut lower their chances of developing lung cancer by 50 percent. Though smoking is the cause of 80 percent of all lung cancers, according to the American Cancer Society, it also increases the risk of oral, throat, pancreatic, uterine, bladder and kidney cancers.
* Mind your Ps and Qs. Obviously you save money by cutting out alcohol consumption, but you may also lower the risk of developing some cancers. For example, Dana-Farber researchers found one drink a day for postmenopausal women may raise their risk for breast cancer.
More information
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has more about healthy living.
Experts with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston say people can live healthy and cut their risk of cancer without breaking the bank by following several free and low-cost strategies. * Get moving. Moderate to intensive aerobic exercise, including brisk walking, are good for the heart and can help cancer survivors reduce the risk of recurrence. "The most consistent evidence we have so far for reducing the risk of several types of cancer is exercise and avoiding becoming obese," D. Jeffrey Meyerhardt, a Dana-Farber gastrointestinal cancer specialist, said in a news release issued by the institute. Activities can include taking the stairs instead of an elevator, using a stationary bicycle or treadmill while watching TV, or playing a team sport.
* Eat healthy. Keeping consumption of processed sugars, red meat and calories low, but fruits and vegetables high, helps you maintain a healthy weight and cuts the risk of certain cancers. "Many of the beneficial nutrients in fruits and vegetables are concentrated in the pigment or rich colors, which are often in the skins," said Stacy L. Kennedy, a nutritionist at Dana-Farber. An apple a day is a good start. The uncooked skin contains the cancer-fighting antioxidant quercitin. Pumpkin, sweet potato, squash (butternut and acorn), carrots and other orange fruits and vegetables contain carotenoids, cancer-fighting nutrients shown to lower one's chances of getting of colon, prostate, lung and breast cancer.
* Quit smoking. Kicking the habit will save you money later in health-care costs. "Even though there have been many recent advances in lung cancer treatments, the most effective way to eradicate lung cancer is to prevent it from ever happening," said Dr. Bruce Johnson, director of the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber, noting that smokers who stay off tobacco for at least 10 to 20 years cut lower their chances of developing lung cancer by 50 percent. Though smoking is the cause of 80 percent of all lung cancers, according to the American Cancer Society, it also increases the risk of oral, throat, pancreatic, uterine, bladder and kidney cancers.
* Mind your Ps and Qs. Obviously you save money by cutting out alcohol consumption, but you may also lower the risk of developing some cancers. For example, Dana-Farber researchers found one drink a day for postmenopausal women may raise their risk for breast cancer.
More information
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has more about healthy living.
South Florida Man Beats The Odds And Cancer
A South Florida man diagnosed with lung cancer was told he had 3 months to live.
Now 5 years later, Barry Kersner is all smiles and very much alive. Diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, Kersner said four oncologists all told him the same thing.
"That I had three months to live and I was not a candidate for surgery, I had three tumors," said Kersner.
Then one of Barry's many doctors said he may want to go to Mt. Sinai and see an oncologist there who may have something up his sleeve. And lucky for Barry the doctor did.
"I think he's done extraordinarily well," admitted Dr. Rogerio Lilebaum.
Lilebaum was part of a clinical trial for Avastin; a drug that was already approved for colon cancer patients but not yet for lung cancer patients. Kersner who was supposed to die in 3 months was put in the trial and 5 years later he's doing great.
For him it made a difference between life and death.
"I would not be here today. There's no question about it," said Kersner.
And there's no question it's been a hard run for Kersner's family.
"For my wife it's been tough. If it wasn't for her or him, Dr. Lilenbaum, I wouldn't be here today," admitted Kersner.
But now he's watching his grandson's 4-year-old Alex and 6-year-old Evan grow up. Evan was just one when Kersner was diagnosed with lung cancer.
"When he was an infant I had a little talk with him and I promised him I was going to be there for his wedding," said Kersner.
It wasn't just his family, the doctors or the Avastin that helped him through but one other thing - he always had hope.
"I try to give people hope. I can't do anything more than that," explained Kersner.
He beat the odds and it's his purpose in life to give others hope that they can too. But Kersner did have one more wish,
"That we can have another interview in a year from now, 2 years from now." Demos siad, "3, 4 and 5 years."
"Absolutely," said Kersner.
Kersner did have one setback in his treatment; he developed a medical issue and had to stop taking the Avastin. When he did, the cancer came back. But he says he's back on Avastin again and he will beat it one more time! Since the trial, Avastin has been approved by the FDA thanks in part to his participation. Incidentally the place he went to participate in that clinical trial that saved his life, Mt. Sinai, is the very place he was born.
Now 5 years later, Barry Kersner is all smiles and very much alive. Diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, Kersner said four oncologists all told him the same thing.
"That I had three months to live and I was not a candidate for surgery, I had three tumors," said Kersner.
Then one of Barry's many doctors said he may want to go to Mt. Sinai and see an oncologist there who may have something up his sleeve. And lucky for Barry the doctor did.
"I think he's done extraordinarily well," admitted Dr. Rogerio Lilebaum.
Lilebaum was part of a clinical trial for Avastin; a drug that was already approved for colon cancer patients but not yet for lung cancer patients. Kersner who was supposed to die in 3 months was put in the trial and 5 years later he's doing great.
For him it made a difference between life and death.
"I would not be here today. There's no question about it," said Kersner.
And there's no question it's been a hard run for Kersner's family.
"For my wife it's been tough. If it wasn't for her or him, Dr. Lilenbaum, I wouldn't be here today," admitted Kersner.
But now he's watching his grandson's 4-year-old Alex and 6-year-old Evan grow up. Evan was just one when Kersner was diagnosed with lung cancer.
"When he was an infant I had a little talk with him and I promised him I was going to be there for his wedding," said Kersner.
It wasn't just his family, the doctors or the Avastin that helped him through but one other thing - he always had hope.
"I try to give people hope. I can't do anything more than that," explained Kersner.
He beat the odds and it's his purpose in life to give others hope that they can too. But Kersner did have one more wish,
"That we can have another interview in a year from now, 2 years from now." Demos siad, "3, 4 and 5 years."
"Absolutely," said Kersner.
Kersner did have one setback in his treatment; he developed a medical issue and had to stop taking the Avastin. When he did, the cancer came back. But he says he's back on Avastin again and he will beat it one more time! Since the trial, Avastin has been approved by the FDA thanks in part to his participation. Incidentally the place he went to participate in that clinical trial that saved his life, Mt. Sinai, is the very place he was born.
Michigan lags in protecting workers from smoke
There have been a lot of letters in The Ann Arbor News over the last couple of months about the proposed Michigan workplace smoking ban, which the Michigan Legislature hasn't passed yet. Many smokers have responded in the blog to these letters, sometimes questioning whether smoking is even bad for your health. Therefore, I feel compelled to present to smokers the stark facts.
Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable disease and illness and premature death worldwide. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly, such as babies born prematurely due to prenatal maternal smoking and victims of secondhand exposure to tobacco's carcinogens. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. By the way, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. My brother-in-law, a smoker for a number of years, died of lung cancer at the young age of 54. My grandfather, also a smoker, died of throat cancer at the age of 62. The list of diseases caused by smoking includes coronary heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, throat, cervical, kidney, stomach, and pancreatic cancers. Smoking is also a major factor in a variety of other conditions and disorders, including high blood pressure and slow healing of wounds.
Every so often I hear smokers talk about some relative of his/hers who smoked and lived to some ripe old age, like 80 or 85. That doesn't prove a thing! There are exceptions to every rule, but smoking does in fact decrease your chance of living a long, healthy life. That is precisely why insurance companies charge smokers substantially higher premiums for life-insurance policies.
Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished, and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections and asthma. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700 to 69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars are two to five times higher than in residences with smokers and two to six times higher than in office workplaces. The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.
Workplaces nationwide are going smoke-free to provide clean indoor air and protect employees from the life-threatening effects of secondhand smoke. Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy in 1999, but the percentage of workers protected varies by state, ranging from a high of 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.
Nineteen states as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Other states prohibit smoking in some public places and workplaces. Michigan prohibits smoking in some public places, but has a long way to go to catch up with the other states.
It is pretty obvious to me that smoking is a very unhealthy habit. Personally, I can't think of anything worse for your health than smoking. Besides the things I already mentioned, it increases littering, stinks up people's clothing, makes the fingernails and teeth yellow, takes away the sense of taste and smell, pollutes the air, and makes many smokers cough and gag. I personally would never smoke, even for all the money in the world. I challenge all readers, especially if they smoke, to go to the Web site referenced below for a wealth of information about smoking.
There are seven medications approved by the FDA to aid in quitting smoking. Nicotine patches, nicotine gum and nicotine lozenges are available over the counter, and a nicotine nasal spray and inhaler are currently available by prescription. buproprion SR (Zyban) and varenicline tartrate (Chantix) are non-nicotine pills available by prescription.
Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable disease and illness and premature death worldwide. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly, such as babies born prematurely due to prenatal maternal smoking and victims of secondhand exposure to tobacco's carcinogens. Cigarette smoke contains over 4,800 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer. Smoking is directly responsible for approximately 90 percent of lung cancer deaths. By the way, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. My brother-in-law, a smoker for a number of years, died of lung cancer at the young age of 54. My grandfather, also a smoker, died of throat cancer at the age of 62. The list of diseases caused by smoking includes coronary heart disease, stroke, emphysema, and bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, throat, cervical, kidney, stomach, and pancreatic cancers. Smoking is also a major factor in a variety of other conditions and disorders, including high blood pressure and slow healing of wounds.
Every so often I hear smokers talk about some relative of his/hers who smoked and lived to some ripe old age, like 80 or 85. That doesn't prove a thing! There are exceptions to every rule, but smoking does in fact decrease your chance of living a long, healthy life. That is precisely why insurance companies charge smokers substantially higher premiums for life-insurance policies.
Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished, and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections and asthma. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700 to 69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars are two to five times higher than in residences with smokers and two to six times higher than in office workplaces. The current Surgeon General's Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.
Workplaces nationwide are going smoke-free to provide clean indoor air and protect employees from the life-threatening effects of secondhand smoke. Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy in 1999, but the percentage of workers protected varies by state, ranging from a high of 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.
Nineteen states as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Other states prohibit smoking in some public places and workplaces. Michigan prohibits smoking in some public places, but has a long way to go to catch up with the other states.
It is pretty obvious to me that smoking is a very unhealthy habit. Personally, I can't think of anything worse for your health than smoking. Besides the things I already mentioned, it increases littering, stinks up people's clothing, makes the fingernails and teeth yellow, takes away the sense of taste and smell, pollutes the air, and makes many smokers cough and gag. I personally would never smoke, even for all the money in the world. I challenge all readers, especially if they smoke, to go to the Web site referenced below for a wealth of information about smoking.
There are seven medications approved by the FDA to aid in quitting smoking. Nicotine patches, nicotine gum and nicotine lozenges are available over the counter, and a nicotine nasal spray and inhaler are currently available by prescription. buproprion SR (Zyban) and varenicline tartrate (Chantix) are non-nicotine pills available by prescription.
Hope for Lung Cancer Research Dollars in California: The Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation (BJALCF) Applauds Landmark Legislation to Push throu
Working hand-in-hand with BJALCF for over two years, California Assembly Member Tom Torlakson introduced legislation that imposes higher taxes on cigarettes earmarked directly for Lung Cancer SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Today is "a moment in history" in the battle against Lung Cancer -- the Number One Cancer Killer, thanks to California Assembly Member Tom Torlakson (D-11th District). His compassion and tireless efforts working with our Foundation, doctors, patients and researchers to get legislation fighting this killer cancer, became reality with the introduction of Assembly Bill (AB 89) in the California legislature, today.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090109/LAF050)
"Senator Tom Torlakson and I have been working together to get a bill like this introduced for over two years," said Bonnie Addario, BJALCF founder and Lung Cancer survivor. (http://www.lungcancerfoundation.org) "This has been a long time in planning and we are overjoyed that in the midst of such turmoil in our economy and in our country, Assembly Member Tom Torlakson made the time to move this forward."
"AB 89 will provide much needed funding for Lung Cancer research while saving our state billions in tobacco-related health care costs," said California Assembly Member Torlakson. "This creative solution will help protect our most precious resources -- our children and our health. I look forward to working with organizations on the front lines of Lung Cancer research, such as the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation, to get this important law passed this year."
Addario, who trekked to the state Capitol to meet the then California State Senator Torlakson, last August, to push for Lung Cancer research legislation, said it will take a considerable amount of work to see this through, but today "has been a long time coming."
Addario has pledged the Foundation's ongoing endorsement and commitment to push this through and to create a united front with alliance partners. "Our 'survivors', their families and the other organizations we are partnering with like the Lung Cancer Alliance and the Beverly Fund, to name a few, are aligned in doing all they can to assist Assembly Member Tom Torlakson and his staff," said Addario. "Senators Chuck Hagel, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback, and others, have been working hard and fast on the Federal level. It's going to take a village, every state, the entire country, our new President, and a worldwide determination to bring the survival rate up, up, up for Lung Cancer. It's our turn."
Lung Cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths nationally, internationally, and in California. Lung Cancer claims more lives each year than breast, prostate, colon, liver, melanoma, and kidney cancers combined.
In 2008, an estimated 18,060 Californians will be diagnosed with Lung Cancer and 13,100 will die from the disease. Over 70% are diagnosed at late stage -- accounting for the abysmal 15.5% five-year survival rate. It's time to change this.
Torlakson's Bill, introduced today, imposes an additional $2.10 tax on a pack of cigarettes and will generate approximately $2 billion annually that will fund Lung Cancer research, tobacco cessation services, education, children's health care and general health care.
About Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation (BJALCF)
BJALCF is one of the nation's largest philanthropies devoted exclusively to eradicating Lung Cancer through research, early detection, education, prevention, and treatment. The Foundation works with a diverse group of physicians, organizations, individuals, and survivors to identify solutions and make timely and meaningful change. BJALCF was established in 2006 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and has raised over 3.5 million dollars for Lung Cancer. Contact: Sheila Von Driska, Executive Director, sheila@lungcancerfoundation.org/415.357.1278
SOURCE Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090109/LAF050)
"Senator Tom Torlakson and I have been working together to get a bill like this introduced for over two years," said Bonnie Addario, BJALCF founder and Lung Cancer survivor. (http://www.lungcancerfoundation.org) "This has been a long time in planning and we are overjoyed that in the midst of such turmoil in our economy and in our country, Assembly Member Tom Torlakson made the time to move this forward."
"AB 89 will provide much needed funding for Lung Cancer research while saving our state billions in tobacco-related health care costs," said California Assembly Member Torlakson. "This creative solution will help protect our most precious resources -- our children and our health. I look forward to working with organizations on the front lines of Lung Cancer research, such as the Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation, to get this important law passed this year."
Addario, who trekked to the state Capitol to meet the then California State Senator Torlakson, last August, to push for Lung Cancer research legislation, said it will take a considerable amount of work to see this through, but today "has been a long time coming."
Addario has pledged the Foundation's ongoing endorsement and commitment to push this through and to create a united front with alliance partners. "Our 'survivors', their families and the other organizations we are partnering with like the Lung Cancer Alliance and the Beverly Fund, to name a few, are aligned in doing all they can to assist Assembly Member Tom Torlakson and his staff," said Addario. "Senators Chuck Hagel, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Sam Brownback, and others, have been working hard and fast on the Federal level. It's going to take a village, every state, the entire country, our new President, and a worldwide determination to bring the survival rate up, up, up for Lung Cancer. It's our turn."
Lung Cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths nationally, internationally, and in California. Lung Cancer claims more lives each year than breast, prostate, colon, liver, melanoma, and kidney cancers combined.
In 2008, an estimated 18,060 Californians will be diagnosed with Lung Cancer and 13,100 will die from the disease. Over 70% are diagnosed at late stage -- accounting for the abysmal 15.5% five-year survival rate. It's time to change this.
Torlakson's Bill, introduced today, imposes an additional $2.10 tax on a pack of cigarettes and will generate approximately $2 billion annually that will fund Lung Cancer research, tobacco cessation services, education, children's health care and general health care.
About Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation (BJALCF)
BJALCF is one of the nation's largest philanthropies devoted exclusively to eradicating Lung Cancer through research, early detection, education, prevention, and treatment. The Foundation works with a diverse group of physicians, organizations, individuals, and survivors to identify solutions and make timely and meaningful change. BJALCF was established in 2006 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and has raised over 3.5 million dollars for Lung Cancer. Contact: Sheila Von Driska, Executive Director, sheila@lungcancerfoundation.org/415.357.1278
SOURCE Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation
Inexpensive Test Can Help Prevent Lung Cancer Caused By Radon
Gov. Rendell Proclaims January 'Radon Action Month'
HARRISBURG, Pa., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Using a simple, inexpensive test to detect radon gas seeping into homes could help prevent lung cancer and save thousands of lives, Acting Department of Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger said today.
"Homeowners can protect themselves and their families from this known carcinogen by using a test kit available for about $25 at hardware stores or by contacting a Pennsylvania certified radon laboratory," said Hanger. "If radon is present above a minimal recommended level, the home can be fixed for less than $1,500. It's never too late to reduce your risk of lung cancer. Test your home now and if a problem is found, get it fixed right away."
Governor Edward G. Rendell has proclaimed January as "Radon Action Month," and is urging all homeowners to test for radon.
Radon is the nation's second-leading cause of lung cancer and is responsible for an estimated 22,000 deaths every year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Radon is a colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally through the breakdown of uranium in soil and rocks. It seeps into homes through cracks in basements and foundations, and can build up inside. The EPA recommends taking action to lower the level of radon in your home if a test finds the level is 4.0 picocuries per liter or higher.
An estimated 40 percent of the homes in Pennsylvania are believed to have elevated radon levels. While radon problems may be more common in some regions, any home may have a problem. The only way to know for certain is to test the air.
"The heating season is the best time to test because your home is closed and it is more likely radon will be at its peak concentrations," Hanger said. "Knowing whether radon is present and fixing your home -- if necessary -- will provide peace of mind to you and your family."
At the Governor's direction, Pennsylvania has taken the lead on radon education and outreach. More than 83 hospitals now participate in DEP's newborn radon program, which gives new parents information about radon along with a certificate for a free radon test kit.
Radon test kits are available at many home improvement, hardware, outdoor supply, lawn and garden, and department stores, as well as from Pennsylvania-certified radon laboratories. Most people can perform radon tests themselves. Completed test kits are sent to a Pennsylvania-certified lab where the sample is analyzed and the results sent to the homeowner.
Radon mitigation systems typically cost between $800 and $1,200. Most homeowners will choose to hire a radon mitigation professional to install the system.
In Pennsylvania, anyone who tests or performs mitigation work for radon on a home other than the one in which they live must be certified by DEP. A list of state-certified radon contractors is available online at www.depweb.state.pa.us, keyword: Radon, then click on "Radon Services Directory," or by calling 1-800-23-RADON. Pennsylvania-certified radon mitigation and testing professionals are issued radon photo-identification cards by DEP.
Homeowners are not required to test for radon. However, if a home has been tested, the results of that test must be disclosed when the home is sold.
For more information, visit www.depweb.state.pa.us, keyword: Radon.
CONTACT: Teresa Candori
(717) 787-1323
SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
HARRISBURG, Pa., Jan. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Using a simple, inexpensive test to detect radon gas seeping into homes could help prevent lung cancer and save thousands of lives, Acting Department of Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger said today.
"Homeowners can protect themselves and their families from this known carcinogen by using a test kit available for about $25 at hardware stores or by contacting a Pennsylvania certified radon laboratory," said Hanger. "If radon is present above a minimal recommended level, the home can be fixed for less than $1,500. It's never too late to reduce your risk of lung cancer. Test your home now and if a problem is found, get it fixed right away."
Governor Edward G. Rendell has proclaimed January as "Radon Action Month," and is urging all homeowners to test for radon.
Radon is the nation's second-leading cause of lung cancer and is responsible for an estimated 22,000 deaths every year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Radon is a colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally through the breakdown of uranium in soil and rocks. It seeps into homes through cracks in basements and foundations, and can build up inside. The EPA recommends taking action to lower the level of radon in your home if a test finds the level is 4.0 picocuries per liter or higher.
An estimated 40 percent of the homes in Pennsylvania are believed to have elevated radon levels. While radon problems may be more common in some regions, any home may have a problem. The only way to know for certain is to test the air.
"The heating season is the best time to test because your home is closed and it is more likely radon will be at its peak concentrations," Hanger said. "Knowing whether radon is present and fixing your home -- if necessary -- will provide peace of mind to you and your family."
At the Governor's direction, Pennsylvania has taken the lead on radon education and outreach. More than 83 hospitals now participate in DEP's newborn radon program, which gives new parents information about radon along with a certificate for a free radon test kit.
Radon test kits are available at many home improvement, hardware, outdoor supply, lawn and garden, and department stores, as well as from Pennsylvania-certified radon laboratories. Most people can perform radon tests themselves. Completed test kits are sent to a Pennsylvania-certified lab where the sample is analyzed and the results sent to the homeowner.
Radon mitigation systems typically cost between $800 and $1,200. Most homeowners will choose to hire a radon mitigation professional to install the system.
In Pennsylvania, anyone who tests or performs mitigation work for radon on a home other than the one in which they live must be certified by DEP. A list of state-certified radon contractors is available online at www.depweb.state.pa.us, keyword: Radon, then click on "Radon Services Directory," or by calling 1-800-23-RADON. Pennsylvania-certified radon mitigation and testing professionals are issued radon photo-identification cards by DEP.
Homeowners are not required to test for radon. However, if a home has been tested, the results of that test must be disclosed when the home is sold.
For more information, visit www.depweb.state.pa.us, keyword: Radon.
CONTACT: Teresa Candori
(717) 787-1323
SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Non-Surgical Procedure To Blast Lung Cancer
If you made a New Year's resolution to quit smoking, here's more incentive to stick with it: More than 150,000 Americans will likely die of lung cancer this year.
Quitting can greatly reduce your chance of getting sick, but cancer isn't completely preventable. The good news is tumors are having a harder time hiding these days with a new, non-surgical procedure.
Ceil Hall cherishes memories galore; this Wisconsin farm girl who married the love of her life Charlie, 58 years ago. Her decades of photos show children and grandchildren.
Although some more recent images document some uninvited guests. A cancerous tumor was found in each of Hall's lungs. It was metastatic cancer, meaning it had spread, first to a chest muscle.
"Three months later there was another one, and that was on my spine. That was also treated with CyberKnife. And three months after that there was another one on the adrenal gland," said Hall.
She was immediately scheduled for surgery and was offered chemotherapy as follow-up care.
Instead she opted to attack each tumor with CyberKnife. It basically delivers pinpoint, targeted radiation to tissue at two to three times the saturation of conventional radiation in a fraction of the time.
"Each beam is pretty weak," said Dr. Andrew Fink, HealthEast Medical Director of Surgery. "But then rotates slightly, and shoots another beam. Rotates slightly, shoots another beam. Does that 150 to 200 times."
The advantage is greater precision to blast the tumor with every beam, while healthy surrounding tissues are mostly spared.
"You can see how close it is to the kidney ... the bowel, the spinal cord, the aorta. These are all what we call critical structures," said Fink.
Fink said CyberKnife is often a good option for those whose medical complications would make standard surgery too risky. A study currently underway comparing it to surgery for early stage lung cancers shows it to be quite promising.
"We're able to kill that cancer at least 80 percent of the time, which is comparable to surgery," Fink said.
Hall has had no new growths in six months. She also was spared the down time from surgery and the side-effects of chemo, and she is amazed by the technology.
"A robotic machine can deliver radiation. And as you're lying on the table breathing, the machine breathes with you," recalled Hall.
Hall is a former smoker, but she quit nearly 30 years ago. For those of you who'd like a little free help quitting and for a virtual tour of how the CyberKnife works, click on the links below.
Quitting can greatly reduce your chance of getting sick, but cancer isn't completely preventable. The good news is tumors are having a harder time hiding these days with a new, non-surgical procedure.
Ceil Hall cherishes memories galore; this Wisconsin farm girl who married the love of her life Charlie, 58 years ago. Her decades of photos show children and grandchildren.
Although some more recent images document some uninvited guests. A cancerous tumor was found in each of Hall's lungs. It was metastatic cancer, meaning it had spread, first to a chest muscle.
"Three months later there was another one, and that was on my spine. That was also treated with CyberKnife. And three months after that there was another one on the adrenal gland," said Hall.
She was immediately scheduled for surgery and was offered chemotherapy as follow-up care.
Instead she opted to attack each tumor with CyberKnife. It basically delivers pinpoint, targeted radiation to tissue at two to three times the saturation of conventional radiation in a fraction of the time.
"Each beam is pretty weak," said Dr. Andrew Fink, HealthEast Medical Director of Surgery. "But then rotates slightly, and shoots another beam. Rotates slightly, shoots another beam. Does that 150 to 200 times."
The advantage is greater precision to blast the tumor with every beam, while healthy surrounding tissues are mostly spared.
"You can see how close it is to the kidney ... the bowel, the spinal cord, the aorta. These are all what we call critical structures," said Fink.
Fink said CyberKnife is often a good option for those whose medical complications would make standard surgery too risky. A study currently underway comparing it to surgery for early stage lung cancers shows it to be quite promising.
"We're able to kill that cancer at least 80 percent of the time, which is comparable to surgery," Fink said.
Hall has had no new growths in six months. She also was spared the down time from surgery and the side-effects of chemo, and she is amazed by the technology.
"A robotic machine can deliver radiation. And as you're lying on the table breathing, the machine breathes with you," recalled Hall.
Hall is a former smoker, but she quit nearly 30 years ago. For those of you who'd like a little free help quitting and for a virtual tour of how the CyberKnife works, click on the links below.
Doctors remove tumors with use of surgical robot
An Akron hospital is among the first in the country using a high-tech robot to remove cancerous lobes in some patients' lungs without spreading open their chests. Summa Health System recently became one of several hospitals nationwide offering a robotic procedure to remove an entire cancerous lobe of a lung for some patients with early-stage lung cancer.
The less invasive version of the lung surgery allows doctors to operate through small incisions rather than using openings as (Akron Beacon Journal (OH), 975 words.)
The less invasive version of the lung surgery allows doctors to operate through small incisions rather than using openings as (Akron Beacon Journal (OH), 975 words.)
Study: Protein helps impede spread of lung cancer
U.S. researchers who worked on genetically engineered mice found that the PKC-zeta gene generates a protein that inhibits the activity of the Ras gene, which is known to play a role in the development of lung cancer. The scientists are conducting further studies to find a drug that will stimulate the production of PKC-zeta. Cincinnati Enquirer, The (01/06)
Unusual means of detecting cancer early show great promise
Sniff and spit tests show promise
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Angela Townsend
Plain Dealer Reporter
The start of a new year symbolizes beginnings, resolutions and, for researchers across the country, one step closer to finishing work that could change the way we fight cancer.
Although years away from hitting the market -- all must stand up to much larger studies and approval from the Food and Drug Administration -- the following tests show great promise in the quest for early detection of some of the most deadly cancers around.
The sniff test
Dr. Peter Mazzone imagines a day when patients suspected of having lung cancer will be able to skip having a biopsy -- an effective but risky procedure -- or a PET scan, an expensive imaging test. For several years, Mazzone, a pulmonologist with the Cleveland Clinic, has been working on perfecting his version of an "electronic nose."
Here's how the nose works: A person breathes into the machine for about five minutes, activating a small sensor. A miniature camera inside takes pictures of the sensor, which changes color. The camera sends the photos to a computer that is hooked up to the machine. The computer stores the images and analyzes the color changes for distinctive patterns.
Mazzone is now studying how the sensor picks up different compounds in a person's breath, whether or not a distinct color pattern occurs when compounds containing cancerous cells are present, and if the "nose" can sniff them out.
An earlier configuration of the "electronic nose" device was the size of a large copying machine that nearly filled a small office. On Dec. 1, Mazzone began using the newer, smaller version to test patients. He hopes to observe 1,000 patients before moving on to the next phase of the study.
Mazzone sees great potential in the nose, either to help identify people at high risk of developing lung cancer, or to catch the cancer early, in its most treatable form, before any noticeable symptoms appear.
"Everybody breathes anyway, so nobody seems to mind taking this," Mazzone said.
The blood test
Preliminary research led by Dr. David Cohn and Dr. Kimberly Resnick, gynecologic oncologists at Ohio State University, may pave the way for an effective new way to screen for ovarian cancer. Cohn and Resnick designed a blood test to find the presence of microRNAs, molecules that help regulate the proteins made by cells.
No one thought much of miRNAs being useful for anything. "In the basic sense, miRNAs were previously thought to be junk," Cohn said.
But that changed after Dr. Carlo M. Croce, director of human cancer genetics at OSU, did some breakthrough work on the subject. Cohn and Resnick used Croce's research to prove that it's possible to find microRNAs in the blood of women with ovarian cancer. Their blood looks much different from what is found in cancer-free women.
The findings are published in the journal Gynecologic Oncology.
Cohn and Resnick will continue their research this year by studying a larger population to get more significant results. They also have applied with Croce for a patent to develop the blood test.
If created, the test would be a huge improvement over the current CA-125 blood test, which is used mostly to detect recurrent ovarian cancer and is not always accurate.
The cure rate of women with ovarian cancer plunges drastically from 90 percent at stage one to 25 percent after that.
"Unfortunately, the symptoms are not easy to spot," Resnick said. They often include bloating, abdominal pain and frequent or urgent urination, symptoms so common that "everyone on this planet has at one time or another had them," she said.
The potential for a new blood test is enormous, Cohn said. "Whatever we can do to help decrease suffering is very exciting."
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Angela Townsend
Plain Dealer Reporter
The start of a new year symbolizes beginnings, resolutions and, for researchers across the country, one step closer to finishing work that could change the way we fight cancer.
Although years away from hitting the market -- all must stand up to much larger studies and approval from the Food and Drug Administration -- the following tests show great promise in the quest for early detection of some of the most deadly cancers around.
The sniff test
Dr. Peter Mazzone imagines a day when patients suspected of having lung cancer will be able to skip having a biopsy -- an effective but risky procedure -- or a PET scan, an expensive imaging test. For several years, Mazzone, a pulmonologist with the Cleveland Clinic, has been working on perfecting his version of an "electronic nose."
Here's how the nose works: A person breathes into the machine for about five minutes, activating a small sensor. A miniature camera inside takes pictures of the sensor, which changes color. The camera sends the photos to a computer that is hooked up to the machine. The computer stores the images and analyzes the color changes for distinctive patterns.
Mazzone is now studying how the sensor picks up different compounds in a person's breath, whether or not a distinct color pattern occurs when compounds containing cancerous cells are present, and if the "nose" can sniff them out.
An earlier configuration of the "electronic nose" device was the size of a large copying machine that nearly filled a small office. On Dec. 1, Mazzone began using the newer, smaller version to test patients. He hopes to observe 1,000 patients before moving on to the next phase of the study.
Mazzone sees great potential in the nose, either to help identify people at high risk of developing lung cancer, or to catch the cancer early, in its most treatable form, before any noticeable symptoms appear.
"Everybody breathes anyway, so nobody seems to mind taking this," Mazzone said.
The blood test
Preliminary research led by Dr. David Cohn and Dr. Kimberly Resnick, gynecologic oncologists at Ohio State University, may pave the way for an effective new way to screen for ovarian cancer. Cohn and Resnick designed a blood test to find the presence of microRNAs, molecules that help regulate the proteins made by cells.
No one thought much of miRNAs being useful for anything. "In the basic sense, miRNAs were previously thought to be junk," Cohn said.
But that changed after Dr. Carlo M. Croce, director of human cancer genetics at OSU, did some breakthrough work on the subject. Cohn and Resnick used Croce's research to prove that it's possible to find microRNAs in the blood of women with ovarian cancer. Their blood looks much different from what is found in cancer-free women.
The findings are published in the journal Gynecologic Oncology.
Cohn and Resnick will continue their research this year by studying a larger population to get more significant results. They also have applied with Croce for a patent to develop the blood test.
If created, the test would be a huge improvement over the current CA-125 blood test, which is used mostly to detect recurrent ovarian cancer and is not always accurate.
The cure rate of women with ovarian cancer plunges drastically from 90 percent at stage one to 25 percent after that.
"Unfortunately, the symptoms are not easy to spot," Resnick said. They often include bloating, abdominal pain and frequent or urgent urination, symptoms so common that "everyone on this planet has at one time or another had them," she said.
The potential for a new blood test is enormous, Cohn said. "Whatever we can do to help decrease suffering is very exciting."
Two Key Cases Challenge Philip Morris on Early-Stage Lung Cancer Detection
A Massachusetts federal judge sent legal questions raised by a lawsuit, which demands that cigarette maker Philip Morris USA Inc. provide early-stage lung cancer detection, to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, while a similar New York federal case awaits a decision on class certification.
The purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has two named plaintiffs, but is filed on behalf of Massachusetts residents at least 50 years old who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 so-called pack years, which the complaint defines as the number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years the plaintiff smoked. Donovan v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-12234 (D. Mass.).
The complaint further defines the class as current smokers, or those who have quit within the past year, who do not have lung cancer. The lawsuit asks Philip Morris to provide low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning, which detects lung cancer when it is at an early, curable stage.
The claims include breach of implied warranty, defective design and negligent design and testing based on the allegation that the company knew that cigarettes were not safe for human use. Other claims include violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices under Massachusetts state law.
In an order dated Dec. 31, 2008, and released on Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner certified two questions about the case to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. Gertner asked the state's highest court to answer whether the plaintiffs' medical monitoring lawsuit states a claim under state law "based on the subcelluar effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and consequent increased risk of lung cancer." Gertner also asked the court to answer whether the statue of limitations has expired on such claims.
Gertner ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed statement of facts by Jan. 12.
Steven Phillips, a partner at the lead firm on the case, New York's Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, said he's confident the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will rule in favor of allowing the medical monitoring claims. "We both hope and expect that they see things our way," Phillips said.
A similar case is awaiting a decision on class certification in the Eastern District of New York. Claims in that case include strict liability for defective design, negligent design and testing and breach of implied warranty. Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y.).
Nobody is opposed to medical monitoring as a public health tool, but the question is whether this is a viable legal theory that can be pursued in a lawsuit, said Jack Marshall, a spokesman for Philip Morris' parent company Altria Group Inc.
"Although the plaintiffs' counsel has come up with a creative and innovative theory in this instance, most states don't recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or a cause of action," said Marshall. "We expect the cases to be dismissed."
"None of the plaintiffs are going to put a penny in their own pockets"; they're just looking for a life-saving medical test, Phillips said. "If successful, the cases have national implications because people smoke Marlboros in the other 48 states, too, and have the same dangers and the same needs," Phillips said.
The purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has two named plaintiffs, but is filed on behalf of Massachusetts residents at least 50 years old who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 so-called pack years, which the complaint defines as the number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years the plaintiff smoked. Donovan v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-12234 (D. Mass.).
The complaint further defines the class as current smokers, or those who have quit within the past year, who do not have lung cancer. The lawsuit asks Philip Morris to provide low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning, which detects lung cancer when it is at an early, curable stage.
The claims include breach of implied warranty, defective design and negligent design and testing based on the allegation that the company knew that cigarettes were not safe for human use. Other claims include violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices under Massachusetts state law.
In an order dated Dec. 31, 2008, and released on Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner certified two questions about the case to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. Gertner asked the state's highest court to answer whether the plaintiffs' medical monitoring lawsuit states a claim under state law "based on the subcelluar effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and consequent increased risk of lung cancer." Gertner also asked the court to answer whether the statue of limitations has expired on such claims.
Gertner ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed statement of facts by Jan. 12.
Steven Phillips, a partner at the lead firm on the case, New York's Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, said he's confident the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will rule in favor of allowing the medical monitoring claims. "We both hope and expect that they see things our way," Phillips said.
A similar case is awaiting a decision on class certification in the Eastern District of New York. Claims in that case include strict liability for defective design, negligent design and testing and breach of implied warranty. Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y.).
Nobody is opposed to medical monitoring as a public health tool, but the question is whether this is a viable legal theory that can be pursued in a lawsuit, said Jack Marshall, a spokesman for Philip Morris' parent company Altria Group Inc.
"Although the plaintiffs' counsel has come up with a creative and innovative theory in this instance, most states don't recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or a cause of action," said Marshall. "We expect the cases to be dismissed."
"None of the plaintiffs are going to put a penny in their own pockets"; they're just looking for a life-saving medical test, Phillips said. "If successful, the cases have national implications because people smoke Marlboros in the other 48 states, too, and have the same dangers and the same needs," Phillips said.
If smoking is so bad for you, who still does it?
(CNN) -- Smoking is bad for you, and by now, most of us know it.
An estimated 4.5 million U.S. adolescents are cigarette smokers.
An estimated 4.5 million U.S. adolescents are cigarette smokers.
It seems that studies on the dangers of smoking come out every week. Just recently, after an article appeared in the journal Pediatrics, we were introduced to the concept of third-hand smoke, the potentially toxic residue that lingers in curtains, clothing, hair, etc. after the smoke itself blows away.
To recap: Smoking exponentially increases your risk of developing lung cancer (and other lung diseases, like emphysema and chronic bronchitis) and puts you at higher risk for cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, kidney, cervix and stomach. Smoking also elevates the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and insulin resistance. And, as if all that weren't bad enough, it causes wrinkles.
Yet stand on virtually any streetcorner of any city or town in the United States, and you will see people smoking.
So, who exactly -- in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence, social stigma and legal bans -- still lights up?
According to the CDC, about 43.4 million Americans (19.8 percent of the population) smoke.
Look around you. If you are in Kentucky, the state with the highest smoking rate, more than one out of every four people (28.3 percent) around you smokes. On the other end of the spectrum is Utah, with just over one person in 10 (11.7 percent) a smoker. Find the smoking rate in your state »
Here's the good news: "Smoking prevalence in the entire country has gone under 20 percent for first time in over 50 years," said Dr. Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic. "For women, it's 18 percent in most places, and for men it's hovering at about 20 percent. We have gone from one in two men smoking to one in five -- a very dramatic change -- and one in three women to one in five."
Here's the bad news: Smoking rates are unlikely to drop to the national health objective of 12 percent by 2010. Hurt, who is also a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, is a former three-pack-a-day smoker. Unlike most smokers, he picked up the habit during college; according to the CDC, about 90 percent of heavy smokers start in high school. And studies show that the younger you are when you start, the more likely you'll become a heavy smoker as an adult.
According to the American Cancer Society, each day more than 3,500 people younger than 18 try their first cigarette, and 1,100 others become regular daily smokers. About one-third of these kids will eventually die from a smoking-related disease.
Retired radio broadcaster and iReporter Gerald Dimmitt, 65, has smoked since he was 14.
"I've always smoked a pipe," he said. "I have successfully quit about 40 times." But, he says, he always restarted, because "it calms me down." iReport.com: Do you still smoke?
Dimmitt has even more incentive to quit now, since developing lesions and irritation in his mouth. After speaking to his doctor, he received a prescription for Chantix, a pill to aid with smoking cessation. But when he went to pick up his prescription at the pharmacy, he was charged $139 (because it's not generic) for two weeks worth. Outraged, he left the Chantix behind.
"If smoking is so dangerous ... why then do they want to charge $139 to make me stop? There is something very wrong with that. I guess they would rather pay to take care of lung cancer," he said.
Some would-be smokers pick up their first cigarette to fit in.
"I started smoking at 12 years old to be part of the 'in' crowd. It never got me into the 'in' crowd, but with my first cigarette, I was totally hooked," wrote Lori Jerome, 45, a former bartender and now full-time university student from Canada. Said Lisa "Smith," 44, a recently laid-off administrator from Minnesota, "I began smoking in junior high school because I wanted to fit in with a certain crowd. However, that group of friends is looooong gone from my life and I still have the nasty habit." Smith didn't want her last name used.
Hurt says the reason many people start, and continue, is peer influence. But he also blames targeted promotions by tobacco companies (like Virginia Slims targeting women in the 1970s and other brands targeting inner-city minority groups today) and the movies. "There is a lot of research right now that shows that smoking in the movies has made a comeback. ... It clearly affects start-up smoking among young people."
As for things that prevent children from smoking, Hurt cites higher cigarette taxes and smoke-free zones, like offices and restaurants.
"Those two public health policies do three things: reduce smoking among continuing smokers, help people to stop smoking and reduce the chances of our children starting to smoke, because it de-normalizes it. ... The child interprets smoke-free as the social norm," he said. That's why children of smokers are much more likely to become smokers themselves: Smoke-filled surroundings is their norm.
Of course, society's perception of smoking has changed a lot since the days of doctors actually endorsing one brand or another in the first half of last century. Dimmitt recalls "ashtrays in church pews, smoking in the classroom and blowing pipe smoke all over the students!"
"When I was born, my mother was allowed to smoke in the hospital room with me in there," Jerome said. "When I had my adult children, we were allowed to smoke in the day room on the maternity ward floor, although the babies were not allowed in there. When I had my youngest children, ages 5 and 8 now, you couldn't smoke in the hospital. How the times have changed."
Now, smokers in some places face smoking bans in certain public and private spaces, and unspoken -- and sometimes overt -- hostilities.
Smith, a mother of six, wrote, "It's so socially unacceptable where I live, and none of my current friends or relatives smoke. In fact, I don't even smoke out in public anymore -- unless it's dark and I'm in my car. I feel it's such a disgusting and stinky habit."
Dulcie Long, 50, of Denver, Colorado, said, "I won't say I feel actual 'social discrimination,' but it is something I feel a sense of shame about and do my best not to smoke in the presence of friends. None of my friends smoke, and I'm very uncomfortable doing it anywhere near them."
Even Dimmitt switched from a pipe to cigarettes when he was working with youngsters so he wouldn't reek so much.
Not only have attitudes towards smoking changed, the profile of smokers has changed, too.
An estimated 4.5 million U.S. adolescents are cigarette smokers.
An estimated 4.5 million U.S. adolescents are cigarette smokers.
It seems that studies on the dangers of smoking come out every week. Just recently, after an article appeared in the journal Pediatrics, we were introduced to the concept of third-hand smoke, the potentially toxic residue that lingers in curtains, clothing, hair, etc. after the smoke itself blows away.
To recap: Smoking exponentially increases your risk of developing lung cancer (and other lung diseases, like emphysema and chronic bronchitis) and puts you at higher risk for cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, kidney, cervix and stomach. Smoking also elevates the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and insulin resistance. And, as if all that weren't bad enough, it causes wrinkles.
Yet stand on virtually any streetcorner of any city or town in the United States, and you will see people smoking.
So, who exactly -- in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence, social stigma and legal bans -- still lights up?
According to the CDC, about 43.4 million Americans (19.8 percent of the population) smoke.
Look around you. If you are in Kentucky, the state with the highest smoking rate, more than one out of every four people (28.3 percent) around you smokes. On the other end of the spectrum is Utah, with just over one person in 10 (11.7 percent) a smoker. Find the smoking rate in your state »
Here's the good news: "Smoking prevalence in the entire country has gone under 20 percent for first time in over 50 years," said Dr. Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic. "For women, it's 18 percent in most places, and for men it's hovering at about 20 percent. We have gone from one in two men smoking to one in five -- a very dramatic change -- and one in three women to one in five."
Here's the bad news: Smoking rates are unlikely to drop to the national health objective of 12 percent by 2010. Hurt, who is also a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, is a former three-pack-a-day smoker. Unlike most smokers, he picked up the habit during college; according to the CDC, about 90 percent of heavy smokers start in high school. And studies show that the younger you are when you start, the more likely you'll become a heavy smoker as an adult.
According to the American Cancer Society, each day more than 3,500 people younger than 18 try their first cigarette, and 1,100 others become regular daily smokers. About one-third of these kids will eventually die from a smoking-related disease.
Retired radio broadcaster and iReporter Gerald Dimmitt, 65, has smoked since he was 14.
"I've always smoked a pipe," he said. "I have successfully quit about 40 times." But, he says, he always restarted, because "it calms me down." iReport.com: Do you still smoke?
Dimmitt has even more incentive to quit now, since developing lesions and irritation in his mouth. After speaking to his doctor, he received a prescription for Chantix, a pill to aid with smoking cessation. But when he went to pick up his prescription at the pharmacy, he was charged $139 (because it's not generic) for two weeks worth. Outraged, he left the Chantix behind.
"If smoking is so dangerous ... why then do they want to charge $139 to make me stop? There is something very wrong with that. I guess they would rather pay to take care of lung cancer," he said.
Some would-be smokers pick up their first cigarette to fit in.
"I started smoking at 12 years old to be part of the 'in' crowd. It never got me into the 'in' crowd, but with my first cigarette, I was totally hooked," wrote Lori Jerome, 45, a former bartender and now full-time university student from Canada. Said Lisa "Smith," 44, a recently laid-off administrator from Minnesota, "I began smoking in junior high school because I wanted to fit in with a certain crowd. However, that group of friends is looooong gone from my life and I still have the nasty habit." Smith didn't want her last name used.
Hurt says the reason many people start, and continue, is peer influence. But he also blames targeted promotions by tobacco companies (like Virginia Slims targeting women in the 1970s and other brands targeting inner-city minority groups today) and the movies. "There is a lot of research right now that shows that smoking in the movies has made a comeback. ... It clearly affects start-up smoking among young people."
As for things that prevent children from smoking, Hurt cites higher cigarette taxes and smoke-free zones, like offices and restaurants.
"Those two public health policies do three things: reduce smoking among continuing smokers, help people to stop smoking and reduce the chances of our children starting to smoke, because it de-normalizes it. ... The child interprets smoke-free as the social norm," he said. That's why children of smokers are much more likely to become smokers themselves: Smoke-filled surroundings is their norm.
Of course, society's perception of smoking has changed a lot since the days of doctors actually endorsing one brand or another in the first half of last century. Dimmitt recalls "ashtrays in church pews, smoking in the classroom and blowing pipe smoke all over the students!"
"When I was born, my mother was allowed to smoke in the hospital room with me in there," Jerome said. "When I had my adult children, we were allowed to smoke in the day room on the maternity ward floor, although the babies were not allowed in there. When I had my youngest children, ages 5 and 8 now, you couldn't smoke in the hospital. How the times have changed."
Now, smokers in some places face smoking bans in certain public and private spaces, and unspoken -- and sometimes overt -- hostilities.
Smith, a mother of six, wrote, "It's so socially unacceptable where I live, and none of my current friends or relatives smoke. In fact, I don't even smoke out in public anymore -- unless it's dark and I'm in my car. I feel it's such a disgusting and stinky habit."
Dulcie Long, 50, of Denver, Colorado, said, "I won't say I feel actual 'social discrimination,' but it is something I feel a sense of shame about and do my best not to smoke in the presence of friends. None of my friends smoke, and I'm very uncomfortable doing it anywhere near them."
Even Dimmitt switched from a pipe to cigarettes when he was working with youngsters so he wouldn't reek so much.
Not only have attitudes towards smoking changed, the profile of smokers has changed, too.
Wash. Rep. Bill Grant dies of lung cancer
WALLA WALLA, Wash. —
Rep. Bill Grant has died just one month after he was diagnosed with lung cancer.
Grant, 71, died at a hospital in Walla Walla on Sunday, House Democratic spokeswoman Melinda McCrady said Monday.
Grant, who had served 22 years in the Legislature, was re-elected in November. He represented the 16th District, which covers Walla Walla and Columbia counties, as well as portions of Benton and Franklin Counties.
His seat will be filled by an appointment until a special election can be held in November, McCrady said.
He is survived by his wife, Nancy, four children and 11 grandchildren.
Rep. Bill Grant has died just one month after he was diagnosed with lung cancer.
Grant, 71, died at a hospital in Walla Walla on Sunday, House Democratic spokeswoman Melinda McCrady said Monday.
Grant, who had served 22 years in the Legislature, was re-elected in November. He represented the 16th District, which covers Walla Walla and Columbia counties, as well as portions of Benton and Franklin Counties.
His seat will be filled by an appointment until a special election can be held in November, McCrady said.
He is survived by his wife, Nancy, four children and 11 grandchildren.
Former big-league pitcher Dave Roberts dies at 64
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) — David Arthur Roberts, a left-handed pitcher who played for eight Major League teams including the 1979 World Series champion Pittsburgh Pirates, died of lung cancer Friday. He was 64.
Roberts died at his home in Short Gap, W.Va., according to his wife, Carol, and stepdaughter Kristy Rogan.
Rogan said Roberts had developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure as a young man. During offseasons, he worked as a boilermaker and was regularly exposed to the cancer-causing material.
Roberts went 103-125 with a 3.78 earned-run average in 13 seasons, beginning in 1969 with the San Diego Padres and ending in 1981 with the New York Mets. The Pirates acquired him from the San Francisco Giants in a five-player, midseason trade in 1979 that also brought Bill Madlock to Pittsburgh.
Roberts also played with the Houston Astros, Detroit Tigers, Chicago Cubs and the Seattle Mariners.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Ohio | Maryland | New York Mets | Chicago Cubs | West Virginia | Pittsburgh Pirates | San Diego Padres | San Francisco Giants | Houston Astros | Detroit Tigers | Seattle Mariners | MLB World Series | Dave Roberts | Carol | Major League | Tal Smith | Bill Madlock | Gallipolis
"Dave was the consummate pro," said Tal Smith, Astros president of baseball operations. "He averaged 35 starts and 12 wins a year for the club during his four years as an Astro, but he'll really be remembered and missed for the leadership he provided and for being such a good guy."
Born in Gallipolis, Ohio, he had lived in West Virginia for more than a decade. Short Gap is about 120 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.
Roberts is also survived by stepdaughter Melaney Lloyd of Short Gap and three sons, Chris Roberts of Richmond, Texas; Rick Roberts of Katy, Texas; and Kyle Roberts of Cresaptown, Md. He also had seven grandchildren.
Roberts was last hospitalized about a week ago but wanted to die at home, Rogan said.
Funeral arrangements were to be announced later Friday.
Roberts died at his home in Short Gap, W.Va., according to his wife, Carol, and stepdaughter Kristy Rogan.
Rogan said Roberts had developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure as a young man. During offseasons, he worked as a boilermaker and was regularly exposed to the cancer-causing material.
Roberts went 103-125 with a 3.78 earned-run average in 13 seasons, beginning in 1969 with the San Diego Padres and ending in 1981 with the New York Mets. The Pirates acquired him from the San Francisco Giants in a five-player, midseason trade in 1979 that also brought Bill Madlock to Pittsburgh.
Roberts also played with the Houston Astros, Detroit Tigers, Chicago Cubs and the Seattle Mariners.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Ohio | Maryland | New York Mets | Chicago Cubs | West Virginia | Pittsburgh Pirates | San Diego Padres | San Francisco Giants | Houston Astros | Detroit Tigers | Seattle Mariners | MLB World Series | Dave Roberts | Carol | Major League | Tal Smith | Bill Madlock | Gallipolis
"Dave was the consummate pro," said Tal Smith, Astros president of baseball operations. "He averaged 35 starts and 12 wins a year for the club during his four years as an Astro, but he'll really be remembered and missed for the leadership he provided and for being such a good guy."
Born in Gallipolis, Ohio, he had lived in West Virginia for more than a decade. Short Gap is about 120 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.
Roberts is also survived by stepdaughter Melaney Lloyd of Short Gap and three sons, Chris Roberts of Richmond, Texas; Rick Roberts of Katy, Texas; and Kyle Roberts of Cresaptown, Md. He also had seven grandchildren.
Roberts was last hospitalized about a week ago but wanted to die at home, Rogan said.
Funeral arrangements were to be announced later Friday.
Lung cancer cells activate inflammation to induce metastasis
A research team from the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine has identified a protein produced by cancerous lung epithelial cells that enhances metastasis by stimulating the activity of inflammatory cells. Their findings, to be published in the January 1 issue of the journal Nature, explain how advanced cancer cells usurp components of the host innate immune system to generate an inflammatory microenvironment hospitable for the metastatic spread of lung cancer. The discovery could lead to a therapy to limit metastasis of this most common lethal form of cancer. The scientists – headed by Michael Karin, Ph.D., UC San Diego Distinguished Professor of Pharmacology and Pathology, who has been investigating the effects of inflammation on cancer development and progression – used a straightforward biochemical approach to identify proteins produced by metastatic cancer cells that are responsible for generation of an inflammatory microenvironment that supports the growth of metastases. Focusing on macrophages, white blood cells that are key players in the immune response to foreign invaders as well as in cancer growth and progression, they screened for factors produced by metastatic cancer cells in mice that could stimulate the activity of this inflammatory cell type.
Among the mouse cell lines screened, a highly metastatic cell line called Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) showed particularly potent activation of macrophages. Furthermore, macrophage activation was mediated by a secreted protein. Biochemical purification of proteins secreted by LLC cells resulted in identification of an extracellular matrix protein called versican as the major macrophage activator and metastasis enhancing factor. Versican is also found in very low amounts in normal human lung epithelial cells, but is upregulated in human lung cancer, where a very large amount of this protein is found, especially in aggressive tumors.
The scientists found that versican strongly enhances LLC metastatic growth by activating receptors that lead to production of cytokines – signaling proteins that regulate the immune system. One of these receptors, TLR2, and a cytokine, TNFα, were found to be required for LLC metastasis. However, the normal function of TLR2 and TNF is in host defense-innate immunity to microbial infections. According to Karin, these findings are relevant, not just to the mouse model, but also to human lung cancer – the most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The major cause of lung cancer is tobacco smoking.
"By usurping these elements of the host immune system, versican helps generate an inflammatory environment that spurs the growth and spread of metastatic cancer," said Karin. "If we can find a way to block the production of versican or its binding to TLR2, therapeutic intervention could be used to limit metastasis of lung cancer."
Among the mouse cell lines screened, a highly metastatic cell line called Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) showed particularly potent activation of macrophages. Furthermore, macrophage activation was mediated by a secreted protein. Biochemical purification of proteins secreted by LLC cells resulted in identification of an extracellular matrix protein called versican as the major macrophage activator and metastasis enhancing factor. Versican is also found in very low amounts in normal human lung epithelial cells, but is upregulated in human lung cancer, where a very large amount of this protein is found, especially in aggressive tumors.
The scientists found that versican strongly enhances LLC metastatic growth by activating receptors that lead to production of cytokines – signaling proteins that regulate the immune system. One of these receptors, TLR2, and a cytokine, TNFα, were found to be required for LLC metastasis. However, the normal function of TLR2 and TNF is in host defense-innate immunity to microbial infections. According to Karin, these findings are relevant, not just to the mouse model, but also to human lung cancer – the most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The major cause of lung cancer is tobacco smoking.
"By usurping these elements of the host immune system, versican helps generate an inflammatory environment that spurs the growth and spread of metastatic cancer," said Karin. "If we can find a way to block the production of versican or its binding to TLR2, therapeutic intervention could be used to limit metastasis of lung cancer."
Test could offer lung cancer clue
Testing a lung cancer patient's blood could help doctors predict the likely success of chemotherapy treatment.
UK scientists identified a molecule made by a more aggressive form of the disease, the journal Clinical Cancer Research reported.
Patients with this in their blood were less likely to respond to drugs, they said.
Cancer Research UK said the discovery could help doctors choose the right kind of treatment for patients.
Lung cancer kills more than 30,000 people in the UK every year, and survival rates have not improved alongside those for breast or bowel cancer in recent years.
There is more than one type of lung cancer, but the variety under investigation by Liverpool-based researchers, small-cell lung cancer, which accounts for between 15% and 20% of cases, is one of the more difficult to treat.
Even small cell lung cancer comes in different forms, with a version called "neuroendocrine" being the least likely to be treated successfully.
The researchers found that a molecule called SCG3 mRNA was more likely to be found in the blood of people with neuroendocrine small cell cancer.
In theory, if larger studies back this up, it could mean that patients arriving at the clinic could be tested to give doctors an idea of the likely success of therapy - or perhaps to predict when a patient was relapsing before other signs emerged.
No tests
It might also make it easier for scientists, when looking at new chemotherapy treatments in trials, to compare their effectiveness in different groups of small cell lung cancer patients.
Dr Judy Coulson, from the University of Liverpool, said: "There are currently no blood-based markers routinely used to monitor patients with this type of lung cancer.
"We found that SCG3 mRNA is an incredibly sensitive marker of these tumours and could be used to detect circulating tumour cells in patients with this disease."
Lesley Walker, from Cancer Research UK, said: "This discovery is an important step to understanding how to treat lung cancer patients more effectively.
"Lung cancer can be very difficult to treat in its later stages, either because it has spread or because there are too many tumours."
UK scientists identified a molecule made by a more aggressive form of the disease, the journal Clinical Cancer Research reported.
Patients with this in their blood were less likely to respond to drugs, they said.
Cancer Research UK said the discovery could help doctors choose the right kind of treatment for patients.
Lung cancer kills more than 30,000 people in the UK every year, and survival rates have not improved alongside those for breast or bowel cancer in recent years.
There is more than one type of lung cancer, but the variety under investigation by Liverpool-based researchers, small-cell lung cancer, which accounts for between 15% and 20% of cases, is one of the more difficult to treat.
Even small cell lung cancer comes in different forms, with a version called "neuroendocrine" being the least likely to be treated successfully.
The researchers found that a molecule called SCG3 mRNA was more likely to be found in the blood of people with neuroendocrine small cell cancer.
In theory, if larger studies back this up, it could mean that patients arriving at the clinic could be tested to give doctors an idea of the likely success of therapy - or perhaps to predict when a patient was relapsing before other signs emerged.
No tests
It might also make it easier for scientists, when looking at new chemotherapy treatments in trials, to compare their effectiveness in different groups of small cell lung cancer patients.
Dr Judy Coulson, from the University of Liverpool, said: "There are currently no blood-based markers routinely used to monitor patients with this type of lung cancer.
"We found that SCG3 mRNA is an incredibly sensitive marker of these tumours and could be used to detect circulating tumour cells in patients with this disease."
Lesley Walker, from Cancer Research UK, said: "This discovery is an important step to understanding how to treat lung cancer patients more effectively.
"Lung cancer can be very difficult to treat in its later stages, either because it has spread or because there are too many tumours."
Family Members Of Critically Ill Patients Want To Discuss Loved Ones' Uncertain Prognoses
Critically ill patients frequently have uncertain prognoses, but their families overwhelmingly wish that physicians would address prognostic uncertainty candidly, according to a new study out of the University of San Francisco Medical Center.
"Our interviews revealed that caregivers appear to believe that some uncertainty is unavoidable, and just the nature of life," said lead author Douglas White, M.D., M.A.S., assistant professor in UCSF's Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and the UCSF Program in Medical Ethics. "The vast majority of families of critically ill patients want physicians to openly discuss the prognosis, even when physicians can't be certain that their estimates are correct."
But past research showing that physicians are reluctant to discuss uncertain prognoses reveals a schism between families' wishes and physicians' comfort.
The results were reported in the second issue for January of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, published by the American Thoracic Society.
Between January 2006 and October 2007, researchers at the University of San Francisco Medical Center conducted face-to-face interviews with 179 surrogate decision-makers for patients in four separate intensive care units (ICUs). The interviews explored surrogates' attitudes about whether physicians should discuss prognoses when they cannot be certain their prognostic estimates are correct.
When asked whether they would prefer to hear physicians' prognoses, 87 percent of caregivers indicated that they would want to be told of all prognostic estimates, even if the estimates were tentative. Most also indicated that they appreciated a physician's candor in discussing uncertain outcomes as honest, rather than seeing it as a source of confusion or anxiety.
"We learned that family members wanted prognostic information in order to know whether they needed to begin to prepare for the chance that their loved one might die, and so begin the bereavement process," Dr. White said. "I think one of the strongest messages that comes from this study is that family members want to have this discussion with the physician, and want to have the opportunity to take care of unfinished personal and familial business before their loved one dies. They need that chance to say their goodbyes, in case the patient does die."
Dr. White also noted that while the majority of family members indicated that they did want physicians to discuss all possible outcomes, a not-insignificant portion - 12 percent - said they did not want to discuss uncertain prognoses, indicating that a "one-size-fits-all" approach is insufficient in critical care situations.
"Our findings suggest that physicians need to develop the skills to understand the unique needs of surrogates, and then tailor their approach to discussing prognosis to meet those needs," he said. "This is an area in need of well-designed quantitative and qualitative studies."
Dr. White and his colleagues are currently involved in a follow-up study to help family members navigate the process of surrogate decision making in the ICU setting.
John Heffner, M.D., past president of the ATS, emphasized that the results of this study parallel previous investigations that examined patient and family preferences in discussing do-not-resuscitate orders and end-of-life care. "In almost all studies, patients and families express a desire for clear information to inform their decisions. Although physicians often wish to shelter their patients and patient families from what might seem to be harsh realities, the human spirit is resilient. Patients and families access to information from their doctors."
"Our interviews revealed that caregivers appear to believe that some uncertainty is unavoidable, and just the nature of life," said lead author Douglas White, M.D., M.A.S., assistant professor in UCSF's Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and the UCSF Program in Medical Ethics. "The vast majority of families of critically ill patients want physicians to openly discuss the prognosis, even when physicians can't be certain that their estimates are correct."
But past research showing that physicians are reluctant to discuss uncertain prognoses reveals a schism between families' wishes and physicians' comfort.
The results were reported in the second issue for January of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, published by the American Thoracic Society.
Between January 2006 and October 2007, researchers at the University of San Francisco Medical Center conducted face-to-face interviews with 179 surrogate decision-makers for patients in four separate intensive care units (ICUs). The interviews explored surrogates' attitudes about whether physicians should discuss prognoses when they cannot be certain their prognostic estimates are correct.
When asked whether they would prefer to hear physicians' prognoses, 87 percent of caregivers indicated that they would want to be told of all prognostic estimates, even if the estimates were tentative. Most also indicated that they appreciated a physician's candor in discussing uncertain outcomes as honest, rather than seeing it as a source of confusion or anxiety.
"We learned that family members wanted prognostic information in order to know whether they needed to begin to prepare for the chance that their loved one might die, and so begin the bereavement process," Dr. White said. "I think one of the strongest messages that comes from this study is that family members want to have this discussion with the physician, and want to have the opportunity to take care of unfinished personal and familial business before their loved one dies. They need that chance to say their goodbyes, in case the patient does die."
Dr. White also noted that while the majority of family members indicated that they did want physicians to discuss all possible outcomes, a not-insignificant portion - 12 percent - said they did not want to discuss uncertain prognoses, indicating that a "one-size-fits-all" approach is insufficient in critical care situations.
"Our findings suggest that physicians need to develop the skills to understand the unique needs of surrogates, and then tailor their approach to discussing prognosis to meet those needs," he said. "This is an area in need of well-designed quantitative and qualitative studies."
Dr. White and his colleagues are currently involved in a follow-up study to help family members navigate the process of surrogate decision making in the ICU setting.
John Heffner, M.D., past president of the ATS, emphasized that the results of this study parallel previous investigations that examined patient and family preferences in discussing do-not-resuscitate orders and end-of-life care. "In almost all studies, patients and families express a desire for clear information to inform their decisions. Although physicians often wish to shelter their patients and patient families from what might seem to be harsh realities, the human spirit is resilient. Patients and families access to information from their doctors."
Test could offer lung cancer clue
Testing a lung cancer patient's blood could help doctors predict the likely success of chemotherapy treatment.
UK scientists identified a molecule made by a more aggressive form of the disease, the journal Clinical Cancer Research reported.
Patients with this in their blood were less likely to respond to drugs, they said.
Cancer Research UK said the discovery could help doctors choose the right kind of treatment for patients.
Lung cancer kills more than 30,000 people in the UK every year, and survival rates have not improved alongside those for breast or bowel cancer in recent years.
There is more than one type of lung cancer, but the variety under investigation by Liverpool-based researchers, small-cell lung cancer, which accounts for between 15% and 20% of cases, is one of the more difficult to treat.
Even small cell lung cancer comes in different forms, with a version called "neuroendocrine" being the least likely to be treated successfully.
The researchers found that a molecule called SCG3 mRNA was more likely to be found in the blood of people with neuroendocrine small cell cancer.
In theory, if larger studies back this up, it could mean that patients arriving at the clinic could be tested to give doctors an idea of the likely success of therapy - or perhaps to predict when a patient was relapsing before other signs emerged.
No tests
It might also make it easier for scientists, when looking at new chemotherapy treatments in trials, to compare their effectiveness in different groups of small cell lung cancer patients.
Dr Judy Coulson, from the University of Liverpool, said: "There are currently no blood-based markers routinely used to monitor patients with this type of lung cancer.
"We found that SCG3 mRNA is an incredibly sensitive marker of these tumours and could be used to detect circulating tumour cells in patients with this disease."
Lesley Walker, from Cancer Research UK, said: "This discovery is an important step to understanding how to treat lung cancer patients more effectively.
"Lung cancer can be very difficult to treat in its later stages, either because it has spread or because there are too many tumours."
UK scientists identified a molecule made by a more aggressive form of the disease, the journal Clinical Cancer Research reported.
Patients with this in their blood were less likely to respond to drugs, they said.
Cancer Research UK said the discovery could help doctors choose the right kind of treatment for patients.
Lung cancer kills more than 30,000 people in the UK every year, and survival rates have not improved alongside those for breast or bowel cancer in recent years.
There is more than one type of lung cancer, but the variety under investigation by Liverpool-based researchers, small-cell lung cancer, which accounts for between 15% and 20% of cases, is one of the more difficult to treat.
Even small cell lung cancer comes in different forms, with a version called "neuroendocrine" being the least likely to be treated successfully.
The researchers found that a molecule called SCG3 mRNA was more likely to be found in the blood of people with neuroendocrine small cell cancer.
In theory, if larger studies back this up, it could mean that patients arriving at the clinic could be tested to give doctors an idea of the likely success of therapy - or perhaps to predict when a patient was relapsing before other signs emerged.
No tests
It might also make it easier for scientists, when looking at new chemotherapy treatments in trials, to compare their effectiveness in different groups of small cell lung cancer patients.
Dr Judy Coulson, from the University of Liverpool, said: "There are currently no blood-based markers routinely used to monitor patients with this type of lung cancer.
"We found that SCG3 mRNA is an incredibly sensitive marker of these tumours and could be used to detect circulating tumour cells in patients with this disease."
Lesley Walker, from Cancer Research UK, said: "This discovery is an important step to understanding how to treat lung cancer patients more effectively.
"Lung cancer can be very difficult to treat in its later stages, either because it has spread or because there are too many tumours."
Two Key Cases Challenge Philip Morris on Early-Stage Lung Cancer Detection
A Massachusetts federal judge sent legal questions raised by a lawsuit, which demands that cigarette maker Philip Morris USA Inc. provide early-stage lung cancer detection, to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, while a similar New York federal case awaits a decision on class certification.
The purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has two named plaintiffs, but is filed on behalf of Massachusetts residents at least 50 years old who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 so-called pack years, which the complaint defines as the number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years the plaintiff smoked. Donovan v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-12234 (D. Mass.).
The complaint further defines the class as current smokers, or those who have quit within the past year, who do not have lung cancer. The lawsuit asks Philip Morris to provide low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning, which detects lung cancer when it is at an early, curable stage.
The claims include breach of implied warranty, defective design and negligent design and testing based on the allegation that the company knew that cigarettes were not safe for human use. Other claims include violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices under Massachusetts state law.
In an order dated Dec. 31, 2008, and released on Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner certified two questions about the case to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. Gertner asked the state's highest court to answer whether the plaintiffs' medical monitoring lawsuit states a claim under state law "based on the subcelluar effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and consequent increased risk of lung cancer." Gertner also asked the court to answer whether the statue of limitations has expired on such claims.
Gertner ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed statement of facts by Jan. 12.
Steven Phillips, a partner at the lead firm on the case, New York's Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, said he's confident the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will rule in favor of allowing the medical monitoring claims. "We both hope and expect that they see things our way," Phillips said.
A similar case is awaiting a decision on class certification in the Eastern District of New York. Claims in that case include strict liability for defective design, negligent design and testing and breach of implied warranty. Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y.).
Nobody is opposed to medical monitoring as a public health tool, but the question is whether this is a viable legal theory that can be pursued in a lawsuit, said Jack Marshall, a spokesman for Philip Morris' parent company Altria Group Inc.
"Although the plaintiffs' counsel has come up with a creative and innovative theory in this instance, most states don't recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or a cause of action," said Marshall. "We expect the cases to be dismissed."
The purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has two named plaintiffs, but is filed on behalf of Massachusetts residents at least 50 years old who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 so-called pack years, which the complaint defines as the number of packs per day multiplied by the number of years the plaintiff smoked. Donovan v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-12234 (D. Mass.).
The complaint further defines the class as current smokers, or those who have quit within the past year, who do not have lung cancer. The lawsuit asks Philip Morris to provide low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning, which detects lung cancer when it is at an early, curable stage.
The claims include breach of implied warranty, defective design and negligent design and testing based on the allegation that the company knew that cigarettes were not safe for human use. Other claims include violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices under Massachusetts state law.
In an order dated Dec. 31, 2008, and released on Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner certified two questions about the case to the state's Supreme Judicial Court. Gertner asked the state's highest court to answer whether the plaintiffs' medical monitoring lawsuit states a claim under state law "based on the subcelluar effects of exposure to cigarette smoke and consequent increased risk of lung cancer." Gertner also asked the court to answer whether the statue of limitations has expired on such claims.
Gertner ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed statement of facts by Jan. 12.
Steven Phillips, a partner at the lead firm on the case, New York's Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, said he's confident the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will rule in favor of allowing the medical monitoring claims. "We both hope and expect that they see things our way," Phillips said.
A similar case is awaiting a decision on class certification in the Eastern District of New York. Claims in that case include strict liability for defective design, negligent design and testing and breach of implied warranty. Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y.).
Nobody is opposed to medical monitoring as a public health tool, but the question is whether this is a viable legal theory that can be pursued in a lawsuit, said Jack Marshall, a spokesman for Philip Morris' parent company Altria Group Inc.
"Although the plaintiffs' counsel has come up with a creative and innovative theory in this instance, most states don't recognize medical monitoring as a remedy or a cause of action," said Marshall. "We expect the cases to be dismissed."
If smoking is so bad for you, who still does it?
It seems that studies on the dangers of smoking come out every week. Just recently, after an article appeared in the journal Pediatrics, we were introduced to the concept of third-hand smoke, the potentially toxic residue that lingers in curtains, clothing, hair, etc. after the smoke itself blows away.
To recap: Smoking exponentially increases your risk of developing lung cancer (and other lung diseases, like emphysema and chronic bronchitis) and puts you at higher risk for cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, kidney, cervix and stomach. Smoking also elevates the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and insulin resistance. And, as if all that weren't bad enough, it causes wrinkles.
Yet stand on virtually any streetcorner of any city or town in the United States, and you will see people smoking.
So, who exactly -- in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence, social stigma and legal bans -- still lights up?
According to the CDC, about 43.4 million Americans (19.8 percent of the population) smoke.
Look around you. If you are in Kentucky, the state with the highest smoking rate, more than one out of every four people (28.3 percent) around you smokes. On the other end of the spectrum is Utah, with just over one person in 10 (11.7 percent) a smoker. Find the smoking rate in your state »
Here's the good news: "Smoking prevalence in the entire country has gone under 20 percent for first time in over 50 years," said Dr. Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic. "For women, it's 18 percent in most places, and for men it's hovering at about 20 percent. We have gone from one in two men smoking to one in five -- a very dramatic change -- and one in three women to one in five."
Here's the bad news: Smoking rates are unlikely to drop to the national health objective of 12 percent by 2010. Hurt, who is also a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, is a former three-pack-a-day smoker. Unlike most smokers, he picked up the habit during college; according to the CDC, about 90 percent of heavy smokers start in high school. And studies show that the younger you are when you start, the more likely you'll become a heavy smoker as an adult.
According to the American Cancer Society, each day more than 3,500 people younger than 18 try their first cigarette, and 1,100 others become regular daily smokers. About one-third of these kids will eventually die from a smoking-related disease.
Retired radio broadcaster and iReporter Gerald Dimmitt, 65, has smoked since he was 14.
"I've always smoked a pipe," he said. "I have successfully quit about 40 times." But, he says, he always restarted, because "it calms me down." iReport.com: Do you still smoke?
Dimmitt has even more incentive to quit now, since developing lesions and irritation in his mouth. After speaking to his doctor, he received a prescription for Chantix, a pill to aid with smoking cessation. But when he went to pick up his prescription at the pharmacy, he was charged $139 (because it's not generic) for two weeks worth. Outraged, he left the Chantix behind.
"If smoking is so dangerous ... why then do they want to charge $139 to make me stop? There is something very wrong with that. I guess they would rather pay to take care of lung cancer," he said.
Some would-be smokers pick up their first cigarette to fit in.
"I started smoking at 12 years old to be part of the 'in' crowd. It never got me into the 'in' crowd, but with my first cigarette, I was totally hooked," wrote Lori Jerome, 45, a former bartender and now full-time university student from Canada. Said Lisa "Smith," 44, a recently laid-off administrator from Minnesota, "I began smoking in junior high school because I wanted to fit in with a certain crowd. However, that group of friends is looooong gone from my life and I still have the nasty habit." Smith didn't want her last name used.
Hurt says the reason many people start, and continue, is peer influence. But he also blames targeted promotions by tobacco companies (like Virginia Slims targeting women in the 1970s and other brands targeting inner-city minority groups today) and the movies. "There is a lot of research right now that shows that smoking in the movies has made a comeback. ... It clearly affects start-up smoking among young people."
As for things that prevent children from smoking, Hurt cites higher cigarette taxes and smoke-free zones, like offices and restaurants.
"Those two public health policies do three things: reduce smoking among continuing smokers, help people to stop smoking and reduce the chances of our children starting to smoke, because it de-normalizes it. ... The child interprets smoke-free as the social norm," he said. That's why children of smokers are much more likely to become smokers themselves: Smoke-filled surroundings is their norm.
Of course, society's perception of smoking has changed a lot since the days of doctors actually endorsing one brand or another in the first half of last century. Dimmitt recalls "ashtrays in church pews, smoking in the classroom and blowing pipe smoke all over the students!"
"When I was born, my mother was allowed to smoke in the hospital room with me in there," Jerome said. "When I had my adult children, we were allowed to smoke in the day room on the maternity ward floor, although the babies were not allowed in there. When I had my youngest children, ages 5 and 8 now, you couldn't smoke in the hospital. How the times have changed."
Now, smokers in some places face smoking bans in certain public and private spaces, and unspoken -- and sometimes overt -- hostilities.
Smith, a mother of six, wrote, "It's so socially unacceptable where I live, and none of my current friends or relatives smoke. In fact, I don't even smoke out in public anymore -- unless it's dark and I'm in my car. I feel it's such a disgusting and stinky habit."
Dulcie Long, 50, of Denver, Colorado, said, "I won't say I feel actual 'social discrimination,' but it is something I feel a sense of shame about and do my best not to smoke in the presence of friends. None of my friends smoke, and I'm very uncomfortable doing it anywhere near them."
Even Dimmitt switched from a pipe to cigarettes when he was working with youngsters so he wouldn't reek so much.
Not only have attitudes towards smoking changed, the profile of smokers has changed, too. "The demographics have changed so much that now, more often than not, it's the disadvantaged who are still smoking compared to the highly educated, highly trained people," Hurt said. "It is pretty clear that the prevalence of smoking in groups of people is related to education status, which is a surrogate for income status. ... When you go down the income ladder, the smoking prevalence rises. Some groups of severely disadvantaged people have smoking rates of 30 to 40-plus percent."
Hurt says that there is also a much higher prevalence of smoking among people with mental health disorders like depression, alcoholics, drug users and schizophrenics.
But movers and shakers are not immune. President-elect Barack Obama has struggled with, and seems to have conquered, his habit. Former President Clinton was known to sit on the balcony of the White House and enjoy a cigar (his wife, Secretary of State-designate Hilary Clinton, officially made the White House a smoke-free zone). First lady Laura Bush admits to being an ex-smoker.
To recap: Smoking exponentially increases your risk of developing lung cancer (and other lung diseases, like emphysema and chronic bronchitis) and puts you at higher risk for cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, esophagus, bladder, pancreas, kidney, cervix and stomach. Smoking also elevates the risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke and insulin resistance. And, as if all that weren't bad enough, it causes wrinkles.
Yet stand on virtually any streetcorner of any city or town in the United States, and you will see people smoking.
So, who exactly -- in the face of all the mounting scientific evidence, social stigma and legal bans -- still lights up?
According to the CDC, about 43.4 million Americans (19.8 percent of the population) smoke.
Look around you. If you are in Kentucky, the state with the highest smoking rate, more than one out of every four people (28.3 percent) around you smokes. On the other end of the spectrum is Utah, with just over one person in 10 (11.7 percent) a smoker. Find the smoking rate in your state »
Here's the good news: "Smoking prevalence in the entire country has gone under 20 percent for first time in over 50 years," said Dr. Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic. "For women, it's 18 percent in most places, and for men it's hovering at about 20 percent. We have gone from one in two men smoking to one in five -- a very dramatic change -- and one in three women to one in five."
Here's the bad news: Smoking rates are unlikely to drop to the national health objective of 12 percent by 2010. Hurt, who is also a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, is a former three-pack-a-day smoker. Unlike most smokers, he picked up the habit during college; according to the CDC, about 90 percent of heavy smokers start in high school. And studies show that the younger you are when you start, the more likely you'll become a heavy smoker as an adult.
According to the American Cancer Society, each day more than 3,500 people younger than 18 try their first cigarette, and 1,100 others become regular daily smokers. About one-third of these kids will eventually die from a smoking-related disease.
Retired radio broadcaster and iReporter Gerald Dimmitt, 65, has smoked since he was 14.
"I've always smoked a pipe," he said. "I have successfully quit about 40 times." But, he says, he always restarted, because "it calms me down." iReport.com: Do you still smoke?
Dimmitt has even more incentive to quit now, since developing lesions and irritation in his mouth. After speaking to his doctor, he received a prescription for Chantix, a pill to aid with smoking cessation. But when he went to pick up his prescription at the pharmacy, he was charged $139 (because it's not generic) for two weeks worth. Outraged, he left the Chantix behind.
"If smoking is so dangerous ... why then do they want to charge $139 to make me stop? There is something very wrong with that. I guess they would rather pay to take care of lung cancer," he said.
Some would-be smokers pick up their first cigarette to fit in.
"I started smoking at 12 years old to be part of the 'in' crowd. It never got me into the 'in' crowd, but with my first cigarette, I was totally hooked," wrote Lori Jerome, 45, a former bartender and now full-time university student from Canada. Said Lisa "Smith," 44, a recently laid-off administrator from Minnesota, "I began smoking in junior high school because I wanted to fit in with a certain crowd. However, that group of friends is looooong gone from my life and I still have the nasty habit." Smith didn't want her last name used.
Hurt says the reason many people start, and continue, is peer influence. But he also blames targeted promotions by tobacco companies (like Virginia Slims targeting women in the 1970s and other brands targeting inner-city minority groups today) and the movies. "There is a lot of research right now that shows that smoking in the movies has made a comeback. ... It clearly affects start-up smoking among young people."
As for things that prevent children from smoking, Hurt cites higher cigarette taxes and smoke-free zones, like offices and restaurants.
"Those two public health policies do three things: reduce smoking among continuing smokers, help people to stop smoking and reduce the chances of our children starting to smoke, because it de-normalizes it. ... The child interprets smoke-free as the social norm," he said. That's why children of smokers are much more likely to become smokers themselves: Smoke-filled surroundings is their norm.
Of course, society's perception of smoking has changed a lot since the days of doctors actually endorsing one brand or another in the first half of last century. Dimmitt recalls "ashtrays in church pews, smoking in the classroom and blowing pipe smoke all over the students!"
"When I was born, my mother was allowed to smoke in the hospital room with me in there," Jerome said. "When I had my adult children, we were allowed to smoke in the day room on the maternity ward floor, although the babies were not allowed in there. When I had my youngest children, ages 5 and 8 now, you couldn't smoke in the hospital. How the times have changed."
Now, smokers in some places face smoking bans in certain public and private spaces, and unspoken -- and sometimes overt -- hostilities.
Smith, a mother of six, wrote, "It's so socially unacceptable where I live, and none of my current friends or relatives smoke. In fact, I don't even smoke out in public anymore -- unless it's dark and I'm in my car. I feel it's such a disgusting and stinky habit."
Dulcie Long, 50, of Denver, Colorado, said, "I won't say I feel actual 'social discrimination,' but it is something I feel a sense of shame about and do my best not to smoke in the presence of friends. None of my friends smoke, and I'm very uncomfortable doing it anywhere near them."
Even Dimmitt switched from a pipe to cigarettes when he was working with youngsters so he wouldn't reek so much.
Not only have attitudes towards smoking changed, the profile of smokers has changed, too. "The demographics have changed so much that now, more often than not, it's the disadvantaged who are still smoking compared to the highly educated, highly trained people," Hurt said. "It is pretty clear that the prevalence of smoking in groups of people is related to education status, which is a surrogate for income status. ... When you go down the income ladder, the smoking prevalence rises. Some groups of severely disadvantaged people have smoking rates of 30 to 40-plus percent."
Hurt says that there is also a much higher prevalence of smoking among people with mental health disorders like depression, alcoholics, drug users and schizophrenics.
But movers and shakers are not immune. President-elect Barack Obama has struggled with, and seems to have conquered, his habit. Former President Clinton was known to sit on the balcony of the White House and enjoy a cigar (his wife, Secretary of State-designate Hilary Clinton, officially made the White House a smoke-free zone). First lady Laura Bush admits to being an ex-smoker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
