Stand Up To Cancer

According to a new study in the journal Cancer, the price tag associated with the disease in the US has climbed from $25 billion to more than $48 billion in the last 18 years. The study says advances in cancer treatment aren't the culprit - instead, it's a rise in the number of total cancer cases, which may be a result of our population aging, as older people tend to get cancer at higher rates. However, the study's authors note that cancer still accounts for just 5% of total US medical costs, and that proportion has not changed in the last few decades.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irxd94N2Maqjt6E3z3XjCJ5uwvtwD9FJOA8G2

Four US hospitals are currently conducting trials in the use of a fluorescent compound to better treat glioma, the most common form of brain tumor. Even with aggressive treatment, the average life expectancy for a patient with a glioma is only 13 months; but promising results from clinical trials suggest that the compound, called 5-aminolevulinic acid, might change that. It works by illuminating brain cancer cells, making them easier for surgeons to remove. Said the director of one hospital's neurosurgical oncology unit, "It turns out that the stuff that looks perfectly normal under the surgical microscope is tumor. We didn't know that until we had the drug."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/10/earlyshow/health/main6470978.shtml

New research indicates that all forms of prostate cancer therapy have the potential to impact men's quality of life. According to a report in the Journal of Urology, surgery, radiation and even hormone-blocking drugs can all result in long-term effects on sexual and urinary function. But when it came to men's ratings of their overall quality of life, none of the prostate cancer treatments seemed to have a significant impact: "All treatment types adversely impact urinary and sexual function but do not appear to significantly impact the overall sense of well-being," the researchers said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B5EA20100512

A new study out of UC San Francisco aims to identify ways to better predict breast cancer risk following removal of a ductal carcinoma in situ - the earliest form of the disease. Among 1,200 women who had a DCIS removed, researchers found that those occurrences detected by palpation, i.e. those that were obvious to the touch, were far more likely to be predecessors of invasive, spreading cancer. Cancers with three particular chemical marks on their surfaces were also found to be dangerous, and it may be possible to develop a diagnostic test based on these three proteins to determine which DCIS occurrences are most likely to turn into invasive breast cancer.
http://www.healthkey.com/a-z/cancer/sns-health-predicting-breast-cancer-risk,0,7380772.story

Finally, I'm as drawn as the next girl to cancer news about particular foods or beverages. As this fantastic editorial in the Guardian notes, cancer scare headlines are a hundred-year-old tradition, and it can be overwhelming trying to keep up with what's healthy and what's not. (Does this quote from a 1927 newspaper article sound familiar? "It would be difficult to think of any article of diet which has not, at one time or another, been blamed as a cancer-producing substance. The list includes tea, coffee, cocoa, white bread - and also brown bread - cheese, butter, eggs, meat, fish, and poultry." 1927. Seriously.) The author points out, however, that what we do know is powerful: that excess body fat, drinking too much alcohol and eating red and processed meats all increase cancer risk.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/13/cancer-scare-headlines-not-new

That's all for this week, but I'll be back next Thursday with more!

--Cat