Hmmm.... I like this concept of mapping the DNA of cancer patients. Actually the UK's National Health Service has announced a plan to map the DNA of 100,00 patients with rare diseases and cancers. (And the immediate comments on the article are how did the British government come up with the 100 million pounds to pay for this during the time of austerity.)
Politics and financing (and squabbling) aside I think this is a good idea. I have always wondered why I have been lucky enough to have cancer twice while the rest of my family remains healthy. If my DNA would tell something about it, I would welcome the opportunity to learn more about me.
Actually I would not be surprised if a lot of the secrets of us less than healthy people could be discovered in our DNA. Now that the price has dropped significantly to between 5 and 10 thousand pounds, it is getting within the range of affordability (come on, work with me if some cancer drugs can cost upwards of $100,000/year this is affordable). Maybe a little more money should be spent on looking at why some people seem to get the ailments. (I could be their poster child.) Instead of just throwing money at a cure.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Showing posts with label cancer cause. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer cause. Show all posts
Combating Cancer Cell Communication
One of the latest theories in cancer research is that its not about the cancer cells themselves but its about the environment in which they live - the tumor micro environment - where all these cells, proteins, and whatchamacallits hangout and communicate. How they communicate, how evil cancer cells trick good cells into doing bad things - like turning into cancer cells or creating blood supplies for tumors - and how those triggers could be altered to make them kill off the bad guys (cancer cells).
There is a lot of science involved but if you read this article slowly with a cup of coffee and then think about it, it makes a lot of sense and shows a lot of progress in what is going on in cancer research.
This kind of research, while complicated for the layperson to understand at first, has been going on for a while. I heard Dr Susan Love speak a couple of years ago and she was talking about it then. The tumor micro environment is the area of interest.
What is in the 'neighborhood' of the tumor that made regular cells turn into cancer cells? If you take the average kid and put them in a 'good' neighborhood chances are they will be a good kid. But if you take the average kid and put them in a 'bad' neighborhood, full of gangs and drugs, how long will they stay good? The chances are greater they will be pulled into the 'bad' forces in neighborhood. Is this true in the tumor's neighborhood? Are there bad influences there?
This area of research is very interesting to me and think that this is called progress.
There is a lot of science involved but if you read this article slowly with a cup of coffee and then think about it, it makes a lot of sense and shows a lot of progress in what is going on in cancer research.
This kind of research, while complicated for the layperson to understand at first, has been going on for a while. I heard Dr Susan Love speak a couple of years ago and she was talking about it then. The tumor micro environment is the area of interest.
What is in the 'neighborhood' of the tumor that made regular cells turn into cancer cells? If you take the average kid and put them in a 'good' neighborhood chances are they will be a good kid. But if you take the average kid and put them in a 'bad' neighborhood, full of gangs and drugs, how long will they stay good? The chances are greater they will be pulled into the 'bad' forces in neighborhood. Is this true in the tumor's neighborhood? Are there bad influences there?
This area of research is very interesting to me and think that this is called progress.
Blood tests and brain tumors
This is a good news/bad news kind of post. No, not about me - I'm fine, well as fine as I ever am these days. But two bits of news to think on this morning.
Sheryl Crowe has a benign brain tumor. We knew that unless you have been living under a rock. (She's a celebrity so of course it is more important than anything about the European economic crisis or the slaughter in Syria. Nothing against Sheryl but the media gets its hype all wrong.) Its been all over the news. Its stable, it does not require surgery, its not that uncommon. But what is the bad news is that if you had breast cancer, the ER/PR positive type, your risk for a brain tumor is increased.
"But Crow’s meningioma isn’t due to breast cancer cells spreading to her brain. Rather, it may be driven by the same reproductive hormones that also played a role in her breast cancer.
A quick literature search revealed more than 350 studies examining the connection between meningiomas and breast cancer. One published in the journal Surgical Oncology found that both meningiomas and the most common form of breast cancer are associated with an increase in estrogen and progesterone receptors on cells. They’re also both likely to strike women in their 50’s and 60’s. Crow is 50.
Other research has shown that women with meningiomas are 40 percent more likely to have breast cancer than those without and are 50 percent more likely to have endometriosis where the uterine lining grows outside the uterus causing pelvic pain."
So that puts all of us ER/PR breast cancer women in the increased risk of a brain tumor. Gee, thanks. Cancer, the gift that keeps on giving.
But on to a more positive note, there is a new blood test being studied (because we needed another study you might recall) that may help determine which women are more likely to have their early stage breast cancer recur. Blood tests done before surgery are done to look for circulating tumor cells in the sample. If you have more circulating tumor cells (or CTCs for short), you are more likely to have a recurrence. And maybe if you don't have any CTCs, you don't need chemo. I would have liked that test and maybe been able to skip chemo and all its lovely side effects.
I will put this one in the good news category and even dare to call it progress, even though it still needs more research - like everything else.
Sheryl Crowe has a benign brain tumor. We knew that unless you have been living under a rock. (She's a celebrity so of course it is more important than anything about the European economic crisis or the slaughter in Syria. Nothing against Sheryl but the media gets its hype all wrong.) Its been all over the news. Its stable, it does not require surgery, its not that uncommon. But what is the bad news is that if you had breast cancer, the ER/PR positive type, your risk for a brain tumor is increased.
"But Crow’s meningioma isn’t due to breast cancer cells spreading to her brain. Rather, it may be driven by the same reproductive hormones that also played a role in her breast cancer.
A quick literature search revealed more than 350 studies examining the connection between meningiomas and breast cancer. One published in the journal Surgical Oncology found that both meningiomas and the most common form of breast cancer are associated with an increase in estrogen and progesterone receptors on cells. They’re also both likely to strike women in their 50’s and 60’s. Crow is 50.
Other research has shown that women with meningiomas are 40 percent more likely to have breast cancer than those without and are 50 percent more likely to have endometriosis where the uterine lining grows outside the uterus causing pelvic pain."
So that puts all of us ER/PR breast cancer women in the increased risk of a brain tumor. Gee, thanks. Cancer, the gift that keeps on giving.
But on to a more positive note, there is a new blood test being studied (because we needed another study you might recall) that may help determine which women are more likely to have their early stage breast cancer recur. Blood tests done before surgery are done to look for circulating tumor cells in the sample. If you have more circulating tumor cells (or CTCs for short), you are more likely to have a recurrence. And maybe if you don't have any CTCs, you don't need chemo. I would have liked that test and maybe been able to skip chemo and all its lovely side effects.
I will put this one in the good news category and even dare to call it progress, even though it still needs more research - like everything else.
ASCO announcements
Every June, ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncologists) has their annual conference where all sorts of announcements are made on the latest advances in oncology and cancer treatments. The conference this year is going on right now, June 1-5 in Chicago. This is why the news is full of all sorts of 'exciting' cancer advances.
PD-1 is one of these announcements.
T-DM1 is another advancement. It was used to treat aggressive Her2 positive breast cancers. It was tested on a group of about 1000 women who were split into two groups so it was tested on about 500 women.
"Women getting T-DM1 had 9.6 months of progression-free survival, the time between starting the treatment and the cancer getting worse again, compared with 6.4 months in the standard therapy group. That's a median improvement of three months.
This may not seem like a long time, but as Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston explains, it means a lot to the individual patient.
"I've had patients on this drug for one, two, three years," he explained. Winer says that if a patient gets an additional three months before the tumors start growing again each time she goes through a treatment cycle, that can add up to almost a year.
Blackwell says that after two years, 65% of women getting T-DM1 were still alive, compared with 48% in the control group."
I would hope that today and tomorrow more advances will be announced that will expand on these and we will see more progress towards a cure.
PD-1 is one of these announcements.
"Researchers gave the drug to nearly 240 patients with advanced melanoma, colorectal, prostate, kidney and lung cancers. All the patients had tried up to five other treatments, which failed. After up to two years on the drug, tumors shrank in 26 of 94 patients with melanoma, nine of 33 patients with kidney cancer and 14 of 76 patients with lung cancer.
The drug was not without side effects. About 14 percent of patients in the trial reported conditions such as skin rashes, diarrhea or breathing problems."
If you look at the numbers closely that is 27% of the melanoma patients, 27% of the kidney cancer patients, and 18% of the lung cancer patients. And 14% had side effects. So less than 1/3 of the people had success with this drug after running out of other options. But what happened to the 2/3 of the patients who didn't have success? Another treatment failed them.
But hidden in this, I do see a glimmer of hope. What made those 1/3 of the people different from the 2/3? Is there something in their genetic make up which made this successful? That's where I see hope.
Another note is that the rate in which kidney cancer reacted is significant in that normally the rate is around 7%. See this article for more explanation.
"Women getting T-DM1 had 9.6 months of progression-free survival, the time between starting the treatment and the cancer getting worse again, compared with 6.4 months in the standard therapy group. That's a median improvement of three months.
This may not seem like a long time, but as Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston explains, it means a lot to the individual patient.
"I've had patients on this drug for one, two, three years," he explained. Winer says that if a patient gets an additional three months before the tumors start growing again each time she goes through a treatment cycle, that can add up to almost a year.
Blackwell says that after two years, 65% of women getting T-DM1 were still alive, compared with 48% in the control group."
I would hope that today and tomorrow more advances will be announced that will expand on these and we will see more progress towards a cure.
The ugly side of pinkification exposed
Finally the film, Pink Ribbons Inc, is opening in the US. I blogged about this Canadian made film earlier this year. But now that it is out, there are more reviews available which gives a better idea of its focus.
Forbes.com has reviewed the film and provides these insights.
"Patients with various stages of breast cancer, public health advocates and researchers raise three important points:
No. 1: “Pink ribbon” marches, marathons and events (illuminating the Empire State Building in pink to create breast cancer awareness, for example) not only waste resources, they mislead public opinion about what’s necessary to treat the disease.
No. 2: Financial benefits to research efforts from “cause marketing” (in which brands such as Yoplait and Ford declare themselves “pink”) are minimal, as is the gain from manufacture and marketing of pink merchandise.
No. 3: The pink industry’s heavy use of war imagery (describing “battle” against breast cancer, for example) is misleading and harmful to the physical and psychological well-being of those whose cure–and lives–depend on effective medicine, not metaphor."
The LA Times makes these comments:
"Even after massive fundraising efforts ($1.9 billion in the last 30 years from Susan G. Komen for the Cure alone), a woman's lifetime odds of contracting the disease have narrowed from 1 in 22 in 1940 to 1 in 8 today. Little of that money has made its way into research into causes, notably environmental factors like contaminants from plastics or livestock treated with hormones, the film argues.
Instead the push has been for early detection and developing a cure—two areas that benefit pharmaceutical companies but not necessarily patients, a mere 20% — 30% of whom come from high-risk groups. You can't cure what you don't understand is one of the film's sobering messages."
NPR also states:
"As one woman observes, describing the treatment of cancer as a "fight" or a "battle" suggests that the disease is always beatable if patients make a heroic effort. The implication is that people who die "weren't trying very hard.""
[Anyone who tries to tell a woman with breast cancer that she isn't trying very hard needs is pretty damn stupid.]
"The disconnect between research and results is one of Pink Ribbons, Inc.'s keenest points. On-screen commentators contend that breast-cancer research is poorly coordinated and badly focused. Fewer than 30 percent of patients have a genetic proclivity for the illness, which indicates that most cases stem from environmental causes — yet relatively little attention is paid to prevention, or to chemicals that mimic estrogen and disrupt the human endocrine system."
A very thought provoking documentary on the ugly side of pinkification. Yes the film gives opportunities to for Komen and other non profits to offer their side but I think these messages are clear. Pink isn't helping. So please go watch the documentary if you can and learn more. If you wish to wear pink ribbons, just be sure to understand what the pink portion is going to and who or what it benefits.
My only problem with this film is that the closest it is showing to me is about 60 miles away - on the very tip of Cape Cod - which isn't very convenient in the summer.
Forbes.com has reviewed the film and provides these insights.
"Patients with various stages of breast cancer, public health advocates and researchers raise three important points:
No. 1: “Pink ribbon” marches, marathons and events (illuminating the Empire State Building in pink to create breast cancer awareness, for example) not only waste resources, they mislead public opinion about what’s necessary to treat the disease.
No. 2: Financial benefits to research efforts from “cause marketing” (in which brands such as Yoplait and Ford declare themselves “pink”) are minimal, as is the gain from manufacture and marketing of pink merchandise.
No. 3: The pink industry’s heavy use of war imagery (describing “battle” against breast cancer, for example) is misleading and harmful to the physical and psychological well-being of those whose cure–and lives–depend on effective medicine, not metaphor."
The LA Times makes these comments:
"Even after massive fundraising efforts ($1.9 billion in the last 30 years from Susan G. Komen for the Cure alone), a woman's lifetime odds of contracting the disease have narrowed from 1 in 22 in 1940 to 1 in 8 today. Little of that money has made its way into research into causes, notably environmental factors like contaminants from plastics or livestock treated with hormones, the film argues.
Instead the push has been for early detection and developing a cure—two areas that benefit pharmaceutical companies but not necessarily patients, a mere 20% — 30% of whom come from high-risk groups. You can't cure what you don't understand is one of the film's sobering messages."
NPR also states:
"As one woman observes, describing the treatment of cancer as a "fight" or a "battle" suggests that the disease is always beatable if patients make a heroic effort. The implication is that people who die "weren't trying very hard.""
[Anyone who tries to tell a woman with breast cancer that she isn't trying very hard needs is pretty damn stupid.]
"The disconnect between research and results is one of Pink Ribbons, Inc.'s keenest points. On-screen commentators contend that breast-cancer research is poorly coordinated and badly focused. Fewer than 30 percent of patients have a genetic proclivity for the illness, which indicates that most cases stem from environmental causes — yet relatively little attention is paid to prevention, or to chemicals that mimic estrogen and disrupt the human endocrine system."
A very thought provoking documentary on the ugly side of pinkification. Yes the film gives opportunities to for Komen and other non profits to offer their side but I think these messages are clear. Pink isn't helping. So please go watch the documentary if you can and learn more. If you wish to wear pink ribbons, just be sure to understand what the pink portion is going to and who or what it benefits.
My only problem with this film is that the closest it is showing to me is about 60 miles away - on the very tip of Cape Cod - which isn't very convenient in the summer.
Breast cancer is even more complicated than previously thought
And this is supposed to be good news? Personally I always look for the easy way out as my inherent laziness takes over. But this is supposed to be progress.
There was a study in England (because we needed yet another study)of the protein coding in 100 breast cancer tumors. The result showed how complex breast cancer really is.
The authors wrote in the online edition of Nature “A sobering perspective on the complexity and diversity of the disease is emerging,” ... which is publishing a series of studies of the genetic changes in breast cancer.
The scientists ... found 73 different combinations of disease-causing mutations in the tumors, each involving up to six different genes from a set of 40 “driver genes.”
Seven of the 40 individual driver genes were mutated in more than 10% of cases, but 33 others that were less common also contributed to the development of the cancers, the team reported. In 28 cases, a single mutation was enough to cause disease.
The researchers identified nine new genes that caused the cancers, and also found mutations in genes that were already known to cause breast and other cancers.
Discovering that a single disease — breast cancer — can appear in so many different guises means that developing targeted therapies tailored to a patient’s tumor type will remain a tall order in the near future.
After I read this about six times, it dawned on my tiny chemo brain that:
- they discovered nine new genes that cause breast cancer
- there are driver genes which are the real 'bad guys'
And this is progress? Well I guess if they find the genes that's a good start but its sort of like getting through a locked door and finding nine more locked doors behind them which you need to get through. The good news is you go through the first door. The bad news is there are nine more. And you have no idea what's behind them.
There was a study in England (because we needed yet another study)of the protein coding in 100 breast cancer tumors. The result showed how complex breast cancer really is.
The authors wrote in the online edition of Nature “A sobering perspective on the complexity and diversity of the disease is emerging,” ... which is publishing a series of studies of the genetic changes in breast cancer.
The scientists ... found 73 different combinations of disease-causing mutations in the tumors, each involving up to six different genes from a set of 40 “driver genes.”
Seven of the 40 individual driver genes were mutated in more than 10% of cases, but 33 others that were less common also contributed to the development of the cancers, the team reported. In 28 cases, a single mutation was enough to cause disease.
The researchers identified nine new genes that caused the cancers, and also found mutations in genes that were already known to cause breast and other cancers.
Discovering that a single disease — breast cancer — can appear in so many different guises means that developing targeted therapies tailored to a patient’s tumor type will remain a tall order in the near future.
After I read this about six times, it dawned on my tiny chemo brain that:
- they discovered nine new genes that cause breast cancer
- there are driver genes which are the real 'bad guys'
And this is progress? Well I guess if they find the genes that's a good start but its sort of like getting through a locked door and finding nine more locked doors behind them which you need to get through. The good news is you go through the first door. The bad news is there are nine more. And you have no idea what's behind them.
Infections cause cancer
Who knew infections cause cancer. I think of them as completely different things. You get an infection as a result of a cut that doesn't heal or strep throat or something like that. Treat it with antibiotics and it usually goes away - unless its MRSA or something nasty. Then I think of cancer as rogue cells which go rampant and take over portions of your body unless cut out or killed off with chemotherapy. I'm not a medical person so I don't claim any education in this area but they don't seem related.
Now they (the proverbial 'them') say that one in six cancers are caused by an infection. HPV, Hepatitis B&C, and a stomach bacteria have been shown to cause cancer - primarily cervical, stomach, liver and other gastric cancers. In developed countries only 7.4% of cancers are caused by infections but 22.9% in less developed countries. That shows the power of vaccines. Younger people are more likely to get the infection related cancers.
So this is food for thought. I have also heard that they are now considering cancer to be a virus, which doesn't necessarily align with the infection idea but is another avenue to pursue. So what if more cancers are also caused by infections? Or by viruses? Cancer is not one disease but hundreds of diseases. Mankind has just lumped them together and called them cancers perhaps out of ignorance. Are we now getting closer to the truth? Perhaps this might lead to the cure.
Now they (the proverbial 'them') say that one in six cancers are caused by an infection. HPV, Hepatitis B&C, and a stomach bacteria have been shown to cause cancer - primarily cervical, stomach, liver and other gastric cancers. In developed countries only 7.4% of cancers are caused by infections but 22.9% in less developed countries. That shows the power of vaccines. Younger people are more likely to get the infection related cancers.
So this is food for thought. I have also heard that they are now considering cancer to be a virus, which doesn't necessarily align with the infection idea but is another avenue to pursue. So what if more cancers are also caused by infections? Or by viruses? Cancer is not one disease but hundreds of diseases. Mankind has just lumped them together and called them cancers perhaps out of ignorance. Are we now getting closer to the truth? Perhaps this might lead to the cure.
Cancer myths
There are more myths about breast cancer and all other cancers. You know the ones - you can get breast cancer from wearing deodorant, underwire bras, living near power lines, blah, blah, blah. If anyone tells you they know how you got your cancer, just like if they tell you their 'cure' for cancer, they are full of you know what. And you can tell them (as politely as you want) to go take a hike.
One myth I think is overwhelmingly stupid. 1 in 8 is not your chance of getting breast cancer in your lifetime. 1 in 8 is the chance you will get breast cancer when you are 85. The stupidity that allows this one never ceases to amaze me. If anyone says it, I would reply 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.
But there is one myth that is still a myth unfortunately. That is that breast cancer is preventable.
'Alas, no. Although it is possible to identify risk factors (such as family history and inherited gene mutations) and make lifestyle changes that can lower your risk (reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, losing weight, getting regular exercise and screenings, and quitting smoking), roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors, meaning that the disease occurs largely by chance and according to as-yet-unexplained factors.'
You can try as much as you might but you can not eliminate the risk of breast or any other cancer in your life. This is the one myth I would like to see proven.
One myth I think is overwhelmingly stupid. 1 in 8 is not your chance of getting breast cancer in your lifetime. 1 in 8 is the chance you will get breast cancer when you are 85. The stupidity that allows this one never ceases to amaze me. If anyone says it, I would reply 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.
But there is one myth that is still a myth unfortunately. That is that breast cancer is preventable.
'Alas, no. Although it is possible to identify risk factors (such as family history and inherited gene mutations) and make lifestyle changes that can lower your risk (reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, losing weight, getting regular exercise and screenings, and quitting smoking), roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors, meaning that the disease occurs largely by chance and according to as-yet-unexplained factors.'
You can try as much as you might but you can not eliminate the risk of breast or any other cancer in your life. This is the one myth I would like to see proven.
The 'Real' Causes of breast cancer
Of course when I stumble across an article entitled 'The Real Causes of Breast Cancer' my inquiring mind needs to find out what they are - e.g., where did I go wrong.
First of all I will state I have two problems with the article. It is in slide show format - when did the media decide we needed 'life by PowerPoint' and are in capable of reading more than two sentences without another picture. Second this article is in Third Age magazine which claims to be: '...a leading online lifestage media, marketing and consumer insight company exclusively focused on serving baby boomers.' And I didn't see any scientific basis to this article although they do refer to studies but do not link to any. This is not a medical journal by any stretch.Therefore I revoke its right to put me on any kind of guilt trip.
But here are the causes:
Okay to summarize the bad things are drinking, HRT, fatness, the pill, smoking and not breast feeding. So skinny, sober, women with many children who breast fed and never took HRT have the lowest risk. Gee. I am not skinny, like my wine, have no kids, but never took HRT. Can I have an undo and try life all over again? Ha, ha. No guilt trip for me.
But we can be stressed, play contact sports, smell good, live in clean smelling rooms, and wear under wire bras with out increasing our risk of breast cancer.
And you will note that all of these talk about reducing or increasing risk. But they do not give answers as to why some women get breast cancer in the first place. You can do all the right things and still get cancer. Ask anyone who has lung cancer and never smoked a day in their life.
So this is not the definitive list of things that cause breast cancer after all.
First of all I will state I have two problems with the article. It is in slide show format - when did the media decide we needed 'life by PowerPoint' and are in capable of reading more than two sentences without another picture. Second this article is in Third Age magazine which claims to be: '...a leading online lifestage media, marketing and consumer insight company exclusively focused on serving baby boomers.' And I didn't see any scientific basis to this article although they do refer to studies but do not link to any. This is not a medical journal by any stretch.Therefore I revoke its right to put me on any kind of guilt trip.
But here are the causes:
- Alcohol - strong link to to drinking more than two drinks a day will increase a woman's breast cancer risk.
- Stress - weak link
- Hormone Replacement Therapy - strong link
- Breast trauma - weak link
- Weight gain - strong link if a woman gains more than 30 lbs in her adult life.
- Household cleaning products - weak link but there was a study that found that women who used air freshener sprays were 20% more likely to get breast cancer. My advice - open the damn windows
- Taking the pill - strong link to slightly increasing the risk of breast cancer but also a strong link to reducing risk of getting ovarian or uterine cancers
- Underwire bras - weak link - oh, please what paranoid person thought this one up.
- Smoking - strong link - well, duh
- Not breast feeding - strong link
- Anti-perspirant - weak link - another one from the files of the paranoid that actually started as an email hoax
Okay to summarize the bad things are drinking, HRT, fatness, the pill, smoking and not breast feeding. So skinny, sober, women with many children who breast fed and never took HRT have the lowest risk. Gee. I am not skinny, like my wine, have no kids, but never took HRT. Can I have an undo and try life all over again? Ha, ha. No guilt trip for me.
But we can be stressed, play contact sports, smell good, live in clean smelling rooms, and wear under wire bras with out increasing our risk of breast cancer.
And you will note that all of these talk about reducing or increasing risk. But they do not give answers as to why some women get breast cancer in the first place. You can do all the right things and still get cancer. Ask anyone who has lung cancer and never smoked a day in their life.
So this is not the definitive list of things that cause breast cancer after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
