ATLANTA – Cancer will overtake heart disease as the world's top killer by 2010, part of a trend that should more than double global cancer cases and deaths by 2030, international health experts said in a report released Tuesday. Rising tobacco use in developing countries is believed to be a huge reason for the shift, particularly in China and India, where 40 percent of the world's smokers now live.
So is better diagnosing of cancer, along with the downward trend in infectious diseases that used to be the world's leading killers.
Cancer diagnoses around the world have steadily been rising and are expected to hit 12 million this year. Global cancer deaths are expected to reach 7 million, according to the new report by the World Health Organization.
An annual rise of 1 percent in cases and deaths is expected — with even larger increases in China, Russia and India. That means new cancer cases will likely mushroom to 27 million annually by 2030, with deaths hitting 17 million.
Underlying all this is an expected expansion of the world's population — there will be more people around to get cancer.
By 2030, there could be 75 million people living with cancer around the world, a number that many health care systems are not equipped to handle.
"This is going to present an amazing problem at every level in every society worldwide," said Peter Boyle, director of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Boyle spoke at a news conference with officials from the American Cancer Society, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the National Cancer Institute of Mexico.
The "unprecedented" gathering of organizations is an attempt to draw attention to the global threat of cancer, which isn't recognized as a major, growing health problem in some developing countries.
"Where you live shouldn't determine whether you live," said Hala Moddelmog, Komen's chief executive.
The organizations are calling on governments to act, asking the U.S. to help fund cervical cancer vaccinations and to ratify an international tobacco control treaty.
Concerned about smoking's impact on cancer rates in developing countries in the decades to come, the American Cancer Society also announced it will provide a smoking cessation counseling service in India.
"If we take action, we can keep the numbers from going where they would otherwise go," said John Seffrin, the cancer society's chief executive officer.
Other groups are also voicing support for more action.
"Cancer is one of the greatest untold health crises of the developing world," said Dr. Douglas Blayney, president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
"Few are aware that cancer already kills more people in poor countries than HIV, malaria and tuberculosis combined. And if current smoking trends continue, the problem will get significantly worse," he said in a written statement.
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe, Ap Medical Writer – Tue Dec 9, 5:43 pm ET
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
CEA test used for tracking Colon Cancer
The carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test is a laboratory blood study. CEA is a substance which is normally found only during fetal development, but may reappear in adults who develop certain types of cancer.
Purpose
The CEA test is ordered for patients with known cancers. The CEA test is most commonly ordered when a patient has a cancer of the gastrointestinal system. These include cancer of the colon, rectum, stomach (gastric cancer), esophagus, liver, or pancreas. It is also used with cancers of the breast, lung, or prostate.
The CEA level in the blood is one of the factors that doctors consider when determining the prognosis, or most likely outcome of a cancer. In general, a higher CEA level predicts a more severe disease, one that is less likely to be curable. But it does not give clear-cut information. The results of a CEA test are usually considered along with other laboratory and/or imaging studies to follow the course of the disease.
Once treatment for the cancer has begun, CEA tests have a valuable role in monitoring the patient's progress. A decreasing CEA level means therapy is effective in fighting the cancer. A stable or increasing CEA level may mean the treatment is not working, and/or that the tumor is growing. It is important to understand that serial CEA measurements, which means several done over a period of time, are the most useful. A single test result is difficult to evaluate, but a number of tests, done weeks apart, shows trends in disease progression or regression.
Certain types of cancer treatments, such as hormone therapy for breast cancer, may actually cause the CEA level to go up. This elevation does not accurately reflect the state of the disease. It is sometimes referred to as a "flare response." Recognition that a rise in CEA may be temporary and due to therapy is significant. If this possibility is not taken into account, the patient may be unnecessarily discouraged. Further, treatment that is actually effective may be stopped or changed prematurely.
CEA tests are also used to help detect recurrence of a cancer after surgery and/or other treatment has been completed. A rising CEA level may be the first sign of cancer return, and may show up months before other studies or patient symptoms would raise concern. Unfortunately, this does not always mean the recurrent cancer can be cured. For example, only a small percentage of patients with colorectal cancers and rising CEA levels will benefit from another surgical exploration. Those with recurrence in the same area as the original cancer, or with a single metastatic tumor in the liver or lung, have a chance that surgery will eliminate the disease. Patients with more widespread return of the cancer are generally not treatable with surgery. The CEA test will not separate the two groups.
Patients who are most likely to benefit from non-standard treatments, such as bone marrow transplants, may be determined on the basis of CEA values, combined with other test results. CEA levels may be one of the criteria for determining whether the patient will benefit from more expensive studies, such as CT scan or MRI.
Precautions
The CEA test is not a screening test for cancer. It is not useful for detecting the presence of cancer. Many cancers do not produce an increased CEA level. Some noncancerous diseases, such as hepatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, pancreatitis, and obstructive pulmonary disease, may cause an elevated CEA level.
Description
Determination of the CEA level is a laboratory blood test. Obtaining a specimen of blood for the study takes only a few minutes. CEA testing should be covered by most insurance plans.
Preparation
No preparation is required.
Aftercare
None.
Risks
There are no complications or side effects of this test. However, the results of a CEA study should be interpreted with caution. A single test result may not yield clinically useful information. Several studies over a period of months may be needed.
Another concern is the potential for false positive as well as false negative results. A false positive result means the test shows an abnormal value when cancer is not present. A false negative means the test reveals a normal value when cancer actually is present.
Normal results
The absolute numbers which are considered normal vary from one laboratory to another. Any results reported should come with information regarding the testing facility's normal range.
Abnormal results
A single abnormal CEA value may be significant, but must be regarded cautiously. In general, very high CEA levels indicate more serious cancer, with a poorer chance for cure. But some benign diseases and certain cancer treatments may produce an elevated CEA test. Cigarette smoking will also cause the CEA level to be abnormally high.
Purpose
The CEA test is ordered for patients with known cancers. The CEA test is most commonly ordered when a patient has a cancer of the gastrointestinal system. These include cancer of the colon, rectum, stomach (gastric cancer), esophagus, liver, or pancreas. It is also used with cancers of the breast, lung, or prostate.
The CEA level in the blood is one of the factors that doctors consider when determining the prognosis, or most likely outcome of a cancer. In general, a higher CEA level predicts a more severe disease, one that is less likely to be curable. But it does not give clear-cut information. The results of a CEA test are usually considered along with other laboratory and/or imaging studies to follow the course of the disease.
Once treatment for the cancer has begun, CEA tests have a valuable role in monitoring the patient's progress. A decreasing CEA level means therapy is effective in fighting the cancer. A stable or increasing CEA level may mean the treatment is not working, and/or that the tumor is growing. It is important to understand that serial CEA measurements, which means several done over a period of time, are the most useful. A single test result is difficult to evaluate, but a number of tests, done weeks apart, shows trends in disease progression or regression.
Certain types of cancer treatments, such as hormone therapy for breast cancer, may actually cause the CEA level to go up. This elevation does not accurately reflect the state of the disease. It is sometimes referred to as a "flare response." Recognition that a rise in CEA may be temporary and due to therapy is significant. If this possibility is not taken into account, the patient may be unnecessarily discouraged. Further, treatment that is actually effective may be stopped or changed prematurely.
CEA tests are also used to help detect recurrence of a cancer after surgery and/or other treatment has been completed. A rising CEA level may be the first sign of cancer return, and may show up months before other studies or patient symptoms would raise concern. Unfortunately, this does not always mean the recurrent cancer can be cured. For example, only a small percentage of patients with colorectal cancers and rising CEA levels will benefit from another surgical exploration. Those with recurrence in the same area as the original cancer, or with a single metastatic tumor in the liver or lung, have a chance that surgery will eliminate the disease. Patients with more widespread return of the cancer are generally not treatable with surgery. The CEA test will not separate the two groups.
Patients who are most likely to benefit from non-standard treatments, such as bone marrow transplants, may be determined on the basis of CEA values, combined with other test results. CEA levels may be one of the criteria for determining whether the patient will benefit from more expensive studies, such as CT scan or MRI.
Precautions
The CEA test is not a screening test for cancer. It is not useful for detecting the presence of cancer. Many cancers do not produce an increased CEA level. Some noncancerous diseases, such as hepatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, pancreatitis, and obstructive pulmonary disease, may cause an elevated CEA level.
Description
Determination of the CEA level is a laboratory blood test. Obtaining a specimen of blood for the study takes only a few minutes. CEA testing should be covered by most insurance plans.
Preparation
No preparation is required.
Aftercare
None.
Risks
There are no complications or side effects of this test. However, the results of a CEA study should be interpreted with caution. A single test result may not yield clinically useful information. Several studies over a period of months may be needed.
Another concern is the potential for false positive as well as false negative results. A false positive result means the test shows an abnormal value when cancer is not present. A false negative means the test reveals a normal value when cancer actually is present.
Normal results
The absolute numbers which are considered normal vary from one laboratory to another. Any results reported should come with information regarding the testing facility's normal range.
Abnormal results
A single abnormal CEA value may be significant, but must be regarded cautiously. In general, very high CEA levels indicate more serious cancer, with a poorer chance for cure. But some benign diseases and certain cancer treatments may produce an elevated CEA test. Cigarette smoking will also cause the CEA level to be abnormally high.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
steps to avoid cancer
Some do’s and don’ts for helping to avoid and fight cancer.
Your mental state
* Be positive.
* Resolve stress and past traumas.
* Accept yourself and your emotions, including the negative ones.
* Practice meditation, yoga, tai chi or some other form of relaxation.
Your diet
* These vegetables have great cancer-fighting characteristics: beets, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, garlic, kale, leeks and scallions.
* Also good are onions, blueberries, raspberries, cherries, red wine, soy.
* Increase your intake of omega-3s, typically found in fish (herring, trout, sardines, mackerel, halibut) and flax seeds and oils.
* Avoid sugar, white flour, vegetable oils, white rice and non-organic animal fat (meat, eggs, milk, cheese).
* Filter your tap water.
Your activity
* Spend 20 to 30 minutes a day on a physical activity like tennis, swimming or walking.
* Be out in the sun for 20 minutes every day.
And...
* Avoid being surrounded by people who smoke.
* Use cosmetic products that don’t contain parabens or phthalates.
* Use skin-care products without estrogens or placental by-products.
* Use cleaning products without synthetic chemicals.
* Don’t prepare food in a scratched Teflon pan.
* Reduce the influence of cell phones by using a headset consistently.
Source: David Servan-Schreiber, Anticancer 11-05-08
David Servan-Schreiber | November 2008 issue of ODE Magazine
Your mental state
* Be positive.
* Resolve stress and past traumas.
* Accept yourself and your emotions, including the negative ones.
* Practice meditation, yoga, tai chi or some other form of relaxation.
Your diet
* These vegetables have great cancer-fighting characteristics: beets, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, garlic, kale, leeks and scallions.
* Also good are onions, blueberries, raspberries, cherries, red wine, soy.
* Increase your intake of omega-3s, typically found in fish (herring, trout, sardines, mackerel, halibut) and flax seeds and oils.
* Avoid sugar, white flour, vegetable oils, white rice and non-organic animal fat (meat, eggs, milk, cheese).
* Filter your tap water.
Your activity
* Spend 20 to 30 minutes a day on a physical activity like tennis, swimming or walking.
* Be out in the sun for 20 minutes every day.
And...
* Avoid being surrounded by people who smoke.
* Use cosmetic products that don’t contain parabens or phthalates.
* Use skin-care products without estrogens or placental by-products.
* Use cleaning products without synthetic chemicals.
* Don’t prepare food in a scratched Teflon pan.
* Reduce the influence of cell phones by using a headset consistently.
Source: David Servan-Schreiber, Anticancer 11-05-08
David Servan-Schreiber | November 2008 issue of ODE Magazine
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
How Often Should You Get a Colonoscopy?
If you are at low risk for colorectal cancer, how long should you wait between colonoscopy screenings? Johns Hopkins looked into this question and provides advice.
Most of us grudgingly accept the need for regular colonoscopy screenings but may wonder: Is it really safe to wait a decade before your next colonoscopy? Some researchers have wondered as well.
The 10-year interval, the gold-standard period between screening colonoscopies for people at low risk, is based in part on the amount of time it usually takes a benign polyp to become cancerous. Until recently, there was little evidence to support this practice in people whose previous colonoscopies showed no evidence of cancer or polyps.
But new research suggests that the 10-year standard is more than adequate. In fact, it may be safe -- although not recommended -- to wait up to 20 years between colonoscopy screenings. For example, a Canadian study that reviewed colonoscopy records of 35,975 people confirms that those with a negative (cancer-free) test result had a 72% lower risk of developing cancer over 10 years than the general population.
A German study that spanned more than a decade confirmed this finding and went even further: For people with a prior negative colonoscopy, the low-risk period can extend to 20 years. We're not suggesting that you allow 20 years to pass between your colonoscopy screenings. But if you have a normal colonoscopy result, you can most likely wait at least a decade before undergoing the procedure again.
Important: If a screening colonoscopy catches even one polyp, your risk of colon cancer goes up and so does the recommended frequency of screenings. The same is true if you have a family history of colorectal cancer or other risk factors for colorectal cancer.
Posted in Colon Cancer on October 7, 2008
Most of us grudgingly accept the need for regular colonoscopy screenings but may wonder: Is it really safe to wait a decade before your next colonoscopy? Some researchers have wondered as well.
The 10-year interval, the gold-standard period between screening colonoscopies for people at low risk, is based in part on the amount of time it usually takes a benign polyp to become cancerous. Until recently, there was little evidence to support this practice in people whose previous colonoscopies showed no evidence of cancer or polyps.
But new research suggests that the 10-year standard is more than adequate. In fact, it may be safe -- although not recommended -- to wait up to 20 years between colonoscopy screenings. For example, a Canadian study that reviewed colonoscopy records of 35,975 people confirms that those with a negative (cancer-free) test result had a 72% lower risk of developing cancer over 10 years than the general population.
A German study that spanned more than a decade confirmed this finding and went even further: For people with a prior negative colonoscopy, the low-risk period can extend to 20 years. We're not suggesting that you allow 20 years to pass between your colonoscopy screenings. But if you have a normal colonoscopy result, you can most likely wait at least a decade before undergoing the procedure again.
Important: If a screening colonoscopy catches even one polyp, your risk of colon cancer goes up and so does the recommended frequency of screenings. The same is true if you have a family history of colorectal cancer or other risk factors for colorectal cancer.
Posted in Colon Cancer on October 7, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
PET Scans for Recurrent Colorectal Cancer
September 10, 2008 — The use of positron emission tomography (PET) scans led to changes in disease management for more than half of all patients with suspected or proven recurrent colorectal cancer, according to the results of a study published in the September issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
In this large multicenter trial, PET scanning detected additional disease sites in 48.4% of patients in 1 study group (group A) and in 43.9% of patients in the second study group (group B). The use of PET scanning also changed the planned disease management in 65.6% of patients in group A and 49.0% of those in group B.
"The data from our study, as well as from other studies, clearly demonstrates that PET can alter management decisions, and in many meaningful ways," lead study author Andrew M. Scott, MD, director of the Centre for PET and the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, told Medscape Oncology in an interview. "It can help confirm the presence of disease, identify additional sites of disease, and assist in making the most appropriate treatment decisions."
"It should be emphasized that some patients have isolated disease that can be resected, which will allow them to have long progression free survival periods or even a potential cure," Dr. Scott added. "PET scanning can more appropriately identify patients that will benefit from these treatments."
Prompted Changes in More Than Half of Patients
PET scans have been shown to demonstrate a high degree of accuracy in the detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer, and although sensitivity is comparable with a computed tomographic (CT) scan in the detection of metastases to the liver, it is superior in the detection of extrahepatic disease. Previous reports estimate that the use of PET has changed estimates of the extent of disease in approximately one third of patients and that it can influence management decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
However, few prospective studies evaluating the use of PET in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer have been performed, and none have been large multicenter trials. The study authors note that the effect of PET on patient outcomes, such as progression-free survival, has also not been previously reported.
The goal of the current trial was to evaluate the effect of PET on management change in patients with proven or suspected recurrent colorectal cancer and to assess the effect of management change on disease-free survival.
A total of 191 patients from 4 institutions were enrolled in the study between November 23, 2003, and August 12, 2004, and they were subsequently separated into 2 study groups. Group A consisted of 93 symptomatic patients with a residual structural lesion suggestive of a recurrent tumor, whereas group B consisted of 98 patients with potentially resectable liver or lung metastases.
Lesions Detected by PET, Management Changes
In group A, 90 (96.8%) patients underwent both PET and CT scans, whereas 3 (3.2%) patients underwent a PET scan only. In group B, 83 (84.7%) patients underwent both PET and CT scans, whereas 15 (15.3%) patients underwent a PET scan only.
Additional disease sites were identified in 45 (48.4%) patients in group A, and in the second group, additional sites were detected in 43 (43.9%) patients. Undergoing a PET scan also resulted in changes in disease management plans. On the basis of PET scan results, 61 (65.6%) patients in group A had management plans altered, and in group B, 48 (49.0%) patients had a change in management plans. In 96% of the patients participating in this study, the treatment management plan that was actually implemented was consistent with the stated post-PET management plan.
Progression-Free Survival
At 12 months, the investigators evaluated clinical outcomes by comparing the progression-free survival of patients in both groups. The researchers found that patients who had additional lesions detected on PET scan had poorer progression-free survival vs those who had conventional imaging. On follow-up, 60.5% of patients in group A had progressive disease, with additional lesions identified by PET scanning vs patients who underwent conventional imaging. In group B, progressive disease was identified in 65.9% of patients with additional lesions that were detected with PET scans.
Patients in group B who had localized disease to the liver or lungs on PET scan had a better prognosis vs those with more disseminated disease. The researchers also noted that these data clearly showed the powerful prognostic ability of PET to accurately stratify patients who are thought to have localized disease on conventional imaging. Stratification into curative and palliative groups was also improved after PET scans for patients in both groups. In addition, those in group B who planned to have surgery after undergoing a PET scan had superior progression-free survival vs patients who planned surgery before undergoing a PET scan.
"The data from our study shows that using PET scanning can impact outcomes and therapeutic decisions, and while our study did not look at cost effectiveness, there is substantial data showing that PET scanning is cost effective," said Dr. Scott.
Inappropriate treatment not only has a substantial effect on patient well-being, but also can be very costly, Dr. Scott emphasized. "PET scanning can contribute to more appropriate treatment decisions and ultimately be cost saving, but that was not specifically examined in our study."
This study was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1451-1457.
In this large multicenter trial, PET scanning detected additional disease sites in 48.4% of patients in 1 study group (group A) and in 43.9% of patients in the second study group (group B). The use of PET scanning also changed the planned disease management in 65.6% of patients in group A and 49.0% of those in group B.
"The data from our study, as well as from other studies, clearly demonstrates that PET can alter management decisions, and in many meaningful ways," lead study author Andrew M. Scott, MD, director of the Centre for PET and the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, told Medscape Oncology in an interview. "It can help confirm the presence of disease, identify additional sites of disease, and assist in making the most appropriate treatment decisions."
"It should be emphasized that some patients have isolated disease that can be resected, which will allow them to have long progression free survival periods or even a potential cure," Dr. Scott added. "PET scanning can more appropriately identify patients that will benefit from these treatments."
Prompted Changes in More Than Half of Patients
PET scans have been shown to demonstrate a high degree of accuracy in the detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer, and although sensitivity is comparable with a computed tomographic (CT) scan in the detection of metastases to the liver, it is superior in the detection of extrahepatic disease. Previous reports estimate that the use of PET has changed estimates of the extent of disease in approximately one third of patients and that it can influence management decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
However, few prospective studies evaluating the use of PET in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer have been performed, and none have been large multicenter trials. The study authors note that the effect of PET on patient outcomes, such as progression-free survival, has also not been previously reported.
The goal of the current trial was to evaluate the effect of PET on management change in patients with proven or suspected recurrent colorectal cancer and to assess the effect of management change on disease-free survival.
A total of 191 patients from 4 institutions were enrolled in the study between November 23, 2003, and August 12, 2004, and they were subsequently separated into 2 study groups. Group A consisted of 93 symptomatic patients with a residual structural lesion suggestive of a recurrent tumor, whereas group B consisted of 98 patients with potentially resectable liver or lung metastases.
Lesions Detected by PET, Management Changes
In group A, 90 (96.8%) patients underwent both PET and CT scans, whereas 3 (3.2%) patients underwent a PET scan only. In group B, 83 (84.7%) patients underwent both PET and CT scans, whereas 15 (15.3%) patients underwent a PET scan only.
Additional disease sites were identified in 45 (48.4%) patients in group A, and in the second group, additional sites were detected in 43 (43.9%) patients. Undergoing a PET scan also resulted in changes in disease management plans. On the basis of PET scan results, 61 (65.6%) patients in group A had management plans altered, and in group B, 48 (49.0%) patients had a change in management plans. In 96% of the patients participating in this study, the treatment management plan that was actually implemented was consistent with the stated post-PET management plan.
Progression-Free Survival
At 12 months, the investigators evaluated clinical outcomes by comparing the progression-free survival of patients in both groups. The researchers found that patients who had additional lesions detected on PET scan had poorer progression-free survival vs those who had conventional imaging. On follow-up, 60.5% of patients in group A had progressive disease, with additional lesions identified by PET scanning vs patients who underwent conventional imaging. In group B, progressive disease was identified in 65.9% of patients with additional lesions that were detected with PET scans.
Patients in group B who had localized disease to the liver or lungs on PET scan had a better prognosis vs those with more disseminated disease. The researchers also noted that these data clearly showed the powerful prognostic ability of PET to accurately stratify patients who are thought to have localized disease on conventional imaging. Stratification into curative and palliative groups was also improved after PET scans for patients in both groups. In addition, those in group B who planned to have surgery after undergoing a PET scan had superior progression-free survival vs patients who planned surgery before undergoing a PET scan.
"The data from our study shows that using PET scanning can impact outcomes and therapeutic decisions, and while our study did not look at cost effectiveness, there is substantial data showing that PET scanning is cost effective," said Dr. Scott.
Inappropriate treatment not only has a substantial effect on patient well-being, but also can be very costly, Dr. Scott emphasized. "PET scanning can contribute to more appropriate treatment decisions and ultimately be cost saving, but that was not specifically examined in our study."
This study was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1451-1457.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Size of a Pea
The Size of a Pea and a Lot More Dangerous
Colorectal polyps are small, noncancerous (benign) clumps of cells that grow in the rectum and colon. Over the course of 10-15 years, some of these polyps -- usually the ones that are larger than a pea -- can become cancerous. Fortunately, regular screening for colorectal cancer helps to identify and remove polyps, often before they progress to cancer.
It is not known why polyps develop, but some people are more prone than others. For instance, the older you get -- especially after age 50 -- the more likely you are to have polyps. You're also more likely to develop polyps if you've had them before (polyps tend to recur) or if someone in your family has had polyps or cancer of the colon.
Your behavior also influences your risk: Eating a lot of fatty foods, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, not exercising, and being over weight can all contribute to the formation of polyps.
Q. I've had a colon polyp removed. What can I do to prevent colorectal cancer?
A. One crucial step is to have a follow-up colonoscopy every three to five years, depending on the number and size of your polyps.
You also need to get moving. The American Cancer Society stresses the importance of exercise for those trying to prevent polyp recurrence. Excess body weight and inactivity are linked with shorter survival times; one study found that people who exercised regularly were about half as likely to die of colorectal cancer within four years as those who did not exercise.
No diet is guaranteed to prevent colorectal cancer recurrence, but experts suggest this recipe to help lower your risk:
* Get most of your foods from plant sources (fresh vegetables, fruits, and nuts).
* Avoid processed foods and limit those high in saturated fats (especially beef).
* Choose chicken, fish, or beans as your main protein sources.
* Avoid junk foods, including sodas and sugar-laden snacks.
* Have no more than one alcoholic drink per day.
* Get most of your nutrients from foods rather than supplements.
Finally, although some research has suggested that NSAIDs may prevent colorectal cancer, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the risks of long-term NSAID use -- such as gastrointestinal bleeding, kidney problems, and hemorrhagic (bleeding) stroke -- exceed the potential benefits for people at average risk for colorectal cancer.
Johns Hopkins Health Alerts 09.16.08
Colorectal polyps are small, noncancerous (benign) clumps of cells that grow in the rectum and colon. Over the course of 10-15 years, some of these polyps -- usually the ones that are larger than a pea -- can become cancerous. Fortunately, regular screening for colorectal cancer helps to identify and remove polyps, often before they progress to cancer.
It is not known why polyps develop, but some people are more prone than others. For instance, the older you get -- especially after age 50 -- the more likely you are to have polyps. You're also more likely to develop polyps if you've had them before (polyps tend to recur) or if someone in your family has had polyps or cancer of the colon.
Your behavior also influences your risk: Eating a lot of fatty foods, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, not exercising, and being over weight can all contribute to the formation of polyps.
Q. I've had a colon polyp removed. What can I do to prevent colorectal cancer?
A. One crucial step is to have a follow-up colonoscopy every three to five years, depending on the number and size of your polyps.
You also need to get moving. The American Cancer Society stresses the importance of exercise for those trying to prevent polyp recurrence. Excess body weight and inactivity are linked with shorter survival times; one study found that people who exercised regularly were about half as likely to die of colorectal cancer within four years as those who did not exercise.
No diet is guaranteed to prevent colorectal cancer recurrence, but experts suggest this recipe to help lower your risk:
* Get most of your foods from plant sources (fresh vegetables, fruits, and nuts).
* Avoid processed foods and limit those high in saturated fats (especially beef).
* Choose chicken, fish, or beans as your main protein sources.
* Avoid junk foods, including sodas and sugar-laden snacks.
* Have no more than one alcoholic drink per day.
* Get most of your nutrients from foods rather than supplements.
Finally, although some research has suggested that NSAIDs may prevent colorectal cancer, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the risks of long-term NSAID use -- such as gastrointestinal bleeding, kidney problems, and hemorrhagic (bleeding) stroke -- exceed the potential benefits for people at average risk for colorectal cancer.
Johns Hopkins Health Alerts 09.16.08
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Improving Survival after Colon Rectal Cancer
African Americans are between 30 to 50 percent more likely to die from Colon Rectal Cancer than their white counterparts. Finding explanations for this disparity has been the focus of many studies.
Is it access to health care?
Is it education?
Is it due to the type of cancer treatment?
Researchers have not solved this mystery.
09-09-08
Quoted from the Northern California Cancer Center 2007 Annual Report.
Is it access to health care?
Is it education?
Is it due to the type of cancer treatment?
Researchers have not solved this mystery.
09-09-08
Quoted from the Northern California Cancer Center 2007 Annual Report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)