• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • msnbc.com sites & shows:
  • TODAY
  • Rock Center
  • Nightly News
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • Morning Joe
  • Hardball
  • Ed
  • Maddow
  • Last Word
  • msnbc tv
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech & science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: Should teen football players be tested for Alzheimer's gene?
  • Recommended: Doctors, insurers are key to fighting obesity
  • Recommended: FDA panel backs at-home HIV test
  • Recommended: Happy colonoscopy! Laxative-free test may be as effective
One body. One mind. That's what each of us gets to last a lifetime. Get the critical news and views to keep yours healthy, sharp -- and safe.
  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 4
    May
    2012
    5:46pm, EDT

    Death of Beastie Boy Yauch puts focus on rare cancer

    Slideshow: Adam Yauch: 1964-2012

    Chris Polk / FilmMagic

    A look back at the career of the Beastie Boys rapper, rocker, director and activist.

    Launch slideshow

    By Rita Rubin

    Beastie Boy Adam Yauch, who died Friday at 47, had been had been battling a type of salivary gland cancer for nearly three years. At the time of his diagnosis in 2009, the gruff-voiced rapper called his cancer “very treatable,” but recent reports said his cancer had returned.

    A statement on the band’s website said, "It is with great sadness that we confirm that musician, rapper, activist and director Adam "MCA" Yauch, founding member of Beastie Boys ... passed away in his native New York City this morning after a near-three-year battle with cancer," the statement said.

    Yauch, known by his stage name MCA, had been unable to attend the Beastie Boys’ induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland last month.  He said last year that he was “continuing treatment, staying optimistic and hoping to be cancer-free in the near future."

    The cancer initially had been found in Yauch’s right parotid gland, the largest type salivary gland, and in a nearby lymph node. Cancer of the parotid gland is rare, representing 3 percent to 7 percent of all head and neck cancers, says Dr. Steven Frank, a radiation oncologist at M.D. Anderson in Houston who treats the disease, but had never seen Yauch as a patient.

    In a video Yauch made with bandmate Adam (Ad-Rock) Horovitz announcing his diagnosis, he said, “I started feeling this little … lump in my throat, like if you have swollen glands or something like that, like you’d feel if you have a cold.” At the time the cancer had not spread, he said. In the video Yauch was explaining to fans why the group was delaying release of their album "Hot Sauce Committee" and a tour.

    “It’s something that’s very treatable and in most cases, they’re able to completely get rid of it and people don’t have continuing problems,” Yauch said in the video. “They’ve caught it early and it’s not anywhere else in my body.”

    http://beastieboys.com

    Parotid cancer, which strikes men and women equally, often is diagnosed because patients or other people had noticed a lump or swelling on one side of their face, Frank says. About 40 percent of parotid tumors are malignant, while the rest are benign, he says.

    Unlike many head and neck tumors, smoking has not been linked to parotid cancer, Frank says. “There’s some data to support alcohol use or exposure to hair dye” as risk factors, he says, and there’s a “strong association” between parotid cancer and prior radiation exposure to that part of the head.

    Yauch was a longtime vegan, but there’s no evidence that diet either protects against or increases the risk of parotid cancer, Frank says.

    About 50 percent to 70 percent of people with parotid cancer survive 10 years after diagnosis, Fran says. The earlier it is caught, the better the chances of a cure.

    Finding parotid cancer in a lymph node at the time of diagnosis cuts five-year survival chances in half, Frank says, although even cancer diagnosed at that advanced stage can still be cured. “It’s hard to know what his prognosis was specifically,” because there are 10 or 11 different types of parotid tumors, Frank says.

    As with Yauch, parotid cancer typically is treated first with surgery. Radiation is then often used to destroy cancer cells that might be near a facial nerve running close to the gland, Frank says. “A lot of time surgeons don’t want to go in there and sacrifice that facial nerve, especially with somebody who might want to be out in the public pretty often.”

    In 30 percent of relapses, the cancer spreads to the lungs, Frank says. The next most common site of metastatic parotid cancer is the bones, he says.

    Related:

    Adam Yauch (MCA) of the Beastie Boys dead at 47

    New cancer screening feeds overdiagnosis debate

    34 comments

    What I cannot understand is why there have not ben any comments made to the correlation between smokeless tobacco use and parotid cancer. It is an natural assumption when baseball players use it- but not when looking at singers/performers although they are often very likely users of smokeless tobacc …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, beastie-boys, adam-yauch
  • 5
    Apr
    2012
    9:54am, EDT

    Birth control shots tied to breast cancer risk, study says

    By Rita Rubin

    Recent use of the injectable contraceptive Depo-Provera for at least a year was associated with a doubling of young women’s breast cancer risk, a new study has found.

    However, users’ breast cancer risk dropped to that of non-users within several months of stopping Depo-Provera injections, researchers report in the journal Cancer Research.

    Depo-Provera, injected every three months, was approved as a contraceptive in the United States 20 years ago. Convenient, highly effective and relatively inexpensive, Depo-Provera is used by about 1.2 million U.S. women, or 3.2 percent of those who practice contraception, according to the latest data from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and education organization that focuses on reproductive health. 

    The injectable birth control method is the only contraceptive in the United States that contains the same progestin, or synthetic hormone, as Prempro, the postmenopausal hormone therapy pill. A landmark government study called the Women’s Health Initiative found that Prempro, a combination of estrogen and progestin, increased women’s breast cancer risk by 24 percent, while Premarin, which contains only estrogen, did not increase risk.  

    ‘’Our hypothesis going into this study was that we did expect to see an increased risk of breast cancer associated with Depo-Provera,” says Dr. Christopher Li, a breast cancer epidemiologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and lead author of the new study.

    Data on the relationship between Depo-Provera and breast cancer risk are limited, the researchers write. Li and his coauthors say theirs is the first large-scale U.S. study specifically designed to evaluate the relationship. Results from similar studies conducted in other countries have been mixed, they write.

    Li’s team recruited 1,028 women who’d been diagnosed with breast cancer and 919 women who had not. All the women were 20 to 44 years of age and lived in the Seattle area. About 3 percent had used Depo-Provera within the last five years.

    Compared to women who had never used Depo-Provera, those who had received injections within the previous five years were 2.2 times more likely to have been diagnosed with breast cancer, the scientists found. Family history, obesity, age and pregnancy history didn’t seem to make a difference.

    Age is the main risk factor for breast cancer, so while a doubling of risk might sound alarming, Li emphasizes that the actual number of breast cancer cases in women in their 20s and 30s is very low.

    “Breast cancer among young women is still a rare disease,” he says. According to the National Cancer Institute, women in their 30s have a 1 in 233 chance of being diagnosed with the disease. By comparison, the odds of being diagnosed with breast cancer for women in their 60s is 1 in 29.

    “However,” Li and his coauthors write, “there are numerous contraceptive options, and so further clarifying the benefits and risks associated with each option is important as women consider what choices might be best for them.”

    Joan Campion, spokewoman of Pfizer, the maker of Depo-Provera, said, "As part of the Depo-Provera label, physicians are already advised on benefits and risks of Depo-Provera, including the risk of breast cancer. Pfizer currently believes that changes to benefits and risk profile are not warranted as a result of this observational study."

    Related: 

    • Mammograms tied to overdiagnosis of breast cancer
    • Childbirth takes 2 hours longer than 50 years ago
    • 5 things you need to know about the birth control mandate

    39 comments

    First we hear about Yaz and Nuvaring , and now this. Then again, newer medications are always riskier...

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, pregnancy, womens-health, breast-cancer, birth-control
  • 4
    Apr
    2012
    6:00pm, EDT

    Suicide risk spikes in week after cancer diagnosis, study finds

    By Linda Carroll

    The risk of suicide spikes in the weeks immediately following a cancer diagnosis, a new study shows. Patients were almost 13 times more likely to commit suicide in the first week after learning they had cancer than they were prior to the diagnosis. Twelve weeks after the diagnosis they were still nearly 5 times as likely to commit suicide as they had been before, according to the study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    The risk dropped after that, but in the year following the diagnosis it still remained 3 times higher  than it was for people without a cancer diagnosis, an international team of researchers reported.

    The study also found that the risk of death from heart attack or stroke also climbed - to almost six-fold  - after a cancer diagnosis. That elevated risk falls in line with other recent research showing that severe stressors, like losing a loved one, can pump up the risk of death from heart attack and stroke, said study co-author Dr. Murray Mittleman, an associate professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health.

    The researchers hope that the new study will alert family members and health professionals of the heightened risk of dire outcomes after patients learn they have cancer.

    “Our study primarily points to the severe stress experienced by newly diagnosed cancer patients," said the study’s lead author, Dr. Fang Fang, a researcher in the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. “We believe it is important that cancer patients, families and caregivers are aware of the stress-related health risks after a cancer diagnosis.”

    Psychologist Anne Coscarelli agreed.

    “This study ought to bring to people’s attention that cancer is an extremely stressful diagnosis and that it’s important to address the psychological and psychosocial needs of patients and their families when a diagnosis is made,” said Coscarelli, a clinical professor in the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles and director of the Simms/Mann-UCLA Center for Integrative Oncology at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center.

    More research might help doctors find a better way to deliver the bad news, Fang said.

    In the meantime, doctors should do their best to figure out which patients might be most at risk, Coscarelli said.

    While suicide might be of concern in patients with a pre-existing mental health issue, “you can’t use just that one single criteria to assess by,” Coscarelli said. “One thing I frequently tell doctors is that you can’t assess the risk unless you spend time understanding other stressors in a patient’s life. Those other stressors might be exacerbated by this.  A patient might be going through a divorce or have some other family-related problems. One’s ability to tolerate stress becomes reduced when you add in multiple stressors. “

    Young people tend to be more distressed by a cancer diagnosis, Coscarelli said. “They may be in the midst of career issues or have problems with financial security,” she explained. “They might have young children at home so now they’re worrying not just about themselves, but also about the children.”

    Patients should be encouraged to join support groups, Coscarelli said. “I think many people do not think they want to participate in a support group because they think it will be more difficult to be around others with cancer. But sometimes they find it’s helpful to be with others who are going through the same processes and they can talk about things they wouldn’t otherwise be able to.”

    To learn whether a diagnosis upped the risk of suicide and death from heart attack or stroke, Fang and her colleagues pored through data on 6,073,240 Swedes who were aged 30 or older. They identified 534,154 patients who were given a diagnosis of cancer, including 95,787 with prostate cancer, 74,977 with breast cancer and 62,619 with colorectal cancer.

    The researchers found a striking increase in the risk of suicide after comparing the recently diagnosed to those who had no cancer diagnosis. And that was even after accounting for factors such as gender, relationship status (cohabiting or not), socioeconomic status and educational level.

    Overall, there were 786 suicides among the patients diagnosed with cancer, including 29 people who killed themselves in the first week after learning they had the disease.

    There were 48,991 deaths due to heart attack or stroke among patients who received a cancer diagnosis. The highest risk was in the first week after diagnosis.

    Ultimately, the new study should be a heads up to everyone around a person getting a cancer diagnosis, Mittleman said.

    "Friends and family members need to realize how devastating it is to receive this kind of news and that they need to be there for the person,” Mittleman said. “And the message to the medical team is to be thoughtful about how the news is delivered and to make sure that there is some sort of social support in place.” 

    More from Vitals:

    Half of all cancer survivors die from other diseases

    Army program aims to predict soldiers' resiliency

    56 comments

    I lost both parents to cancer, my mom at 26 and my dad at 47. I am 57.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, suicide, dr-fang-fang
  • 3
    Apr
    2012
    4:42pm, EDT

    Half of cancer survivors die from other diseases

    By MyHealthNewsDaily Staff

    About half of cancer survivors die from diseases other than cancer, such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, a new study says.

    The findings suggest cancer survivors could benefit from a more comprehensive, less cancer-focused approach to their health, the researchers say.

    "After the detection of cancer, clinicians and cancer survivors pay less attention to the prevention and treatment of other diseases and complications," said study researcher Dr. Yi Ning, assistant professor of epidemiology and community health at Virginia Commonwealth University. "We shouldn't neglect other aspects of health because we are focused on cancer."

    Ning and colleagues looked at data from1,807 adult cancer survivors who had participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys study between 1988 and 2004. Participants were followed for up to 17 years.

    The most common forms of cancer among the participants were breast, prostate, cervical, lung and colorectal cancer; people with skin cancer were excluded from the study.

    About 63.2 percent of men in the study and 66.9 percent of women had a cardiovascular condition, 58.7 percent of men and 62 percent of women had high blood pressure, and 61.3 percent of men and 70.5 percent of women had high cholesterol levels.

    Over the course of the study, 776 cancer survivors died: fifty-one percent from cancer and 49 percent died from other causes. Cardiovascular disease was the primary cause of non-cancer deaths.

    The longer patients survived after their initial cancer diagnosis, the more likely they were to die from another disease: 32.8 percent died from another condition within five years of diagnosis, compared with 62.7 percent after 20 years, the researchers said.

    The study was presented today (April 3) at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Chicago.

    More from MyHealthNewsDaily:

    • 10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer
    • 7 Cancers You Can Ward Off with Exercise
    • Breast Cancer Survivors Face Higher Risk of Brain Problems 

    More from Vitals:

    • For young women, melanoma rates on the rise
    • Mammograms tied to overdiagnosis of breast cancer
    • Size matters for obese cancer patients' drug dose

    105 comments

    Stupid study comes up with stupid results. Just because you survive cancer doesn't mean you're immortal. Let me guess, the ones that don't die of "other diseases" die of "accidents" and "natural causes". And what is this "cancer survivors" died from cancer? How are they then "cancer survivors?"

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer
  • 2
    Apr
    2012
    6:19pm, EDT

    Mammograms tied to overdiagnosis of breast cancer

    By Rachael Rettner
    MyHealthNewsDaily

    Up to a fourth of breast cancers found through mammograms are harmless and would not cause noticeable disease during the women's lifetimes, a new study from Norway suggests.

    Such women are said to be overdiagnosed, because their cancers would not have caused symptoms or death. Overdiagnosis is a problem because women may receive tests and treatment they did not actually need.

    However, researchers currently have no way of knowing which women have these cases; the study showed that it's statistically probable that such cases are occurring.

    "These women are treated with all the harms of treatment, and without the benefit of it," said study researcher Mette Kalager, at the Telemark Hospital in Norway.

    In the study, for every 2,500 women who underwent mammogram screening over a 10-year period, 20 cases of breast cancer were identified that would have caused significant disease if they went undetected, and one death was prevented. However, 6 to 10 cases of overdiagnosis occurred.

    Women should be informed about the benefits and risks of breast cancer screening, including the risk of overdiagnosis, so they can decide if they want a mammogram.

    "You have to weigh the benefits and the harms, and you have to make up your mind [about] what is most important for you," Kalager said.

    Most guidelines recommend mammograms for older women, but there are differences about what age mammograms should start, and how frequently they should be done. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends women ages 50 to 74 receive a mammogram every two years, while the American Cancer Society recommends yearly mammograms beginning at age 40.

    Any screening test that attempts to identify a disease early on will come with a risk of overdiagnosis. Previous studies have found that rates of overdiagnosis from mammograms vary, from 0 percent to 54 percent, Kalager said.

    In the new study, Kalager and colleagues analyzed cases of invasive breast cancer that occurred in Norway between 1996 and 2005, a time period over which the country began a breast cancer screening program for women ages 50 to 69. Different regions of the country began the screening program at different times, and the researchers compared cases among women who had been offered screening with those not offered screening.

    About 7,800 women were diagnosed with breast cancer during the 10-year study period. Of these, the researchers estimated between15 percent and 25 percent were overdiagnosed — in other words, between 1,169 and 1,948 women would never have faced illness due to their cancers.

    Because screening is started earlier in the United States than in Norway, overdiagnosis probably occurs more often here, according to Dr. Joann Elmore, of the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, and Dr. Suzanne Fletcher, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.

    But while a doctor might consider the diagnosis of a cancer that never causes symptoms or death to be overdiagnosis, from a patient's perspective, it might be exactly what they want "because they want control of their lives," said Dr. Leo Twiggs, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Miami School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.

    A person who is diagnosed with pre-cancer might want to change their behavior, such as increasing the frequency of their mammograms, Twiggs said.

    Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could be reduced if researchers had tools to distinguish between cancers that are likely to progress and those that are unlikely to cause any problems within a patient's lifetime, Kalager said. But currently, we don't have those tools, she said.

    A "watch and wait" approach may also be a tough sell for anxious patients, or for radiologists who don't want to be sued if they miss signs of disease, Elmore and Fletcher said in the editorial.

    "Nevertheless, unless serious efforts are made to reduce the frequency of overdiagnosis, the problem will probably increase," as new imaging techniques are introduced, they wrote.

    The study and editorial are published in the April 3 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

    More from MyHealthNewsDaily:

    • 6 Things Women Can Do to Lower Breast Cancer Risk
    • The 10 Deadliest Cancers and Why There's No Cure
    • Most Women Who Get Yearly Mammograms Will Face A False Alarm  

    More from Vitals:

    • Rethinking how we confront cancer: Bad science and risk reduction
    • Daily aspirin may reduce cancer risk
    • Daily serving of red meat raises cancer, heart disease risk

    58 comments

    I'm not a physician but the idea of ignoring cancer, in any form, whether linked to breast cancer or prostate cancer seems absurd.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, breast-cancer, mammograms
  • 28
    Mar
    2012
    2:11pm, EDT

    Rethinking how we confront cancer: Bad science and risk reduction

    A new government report found the overall cancer death rate is falling, and the incidence of cancer deaths is declining in men and has leveled off in women. NBC's Robert Bazell reports.

     By Robert Bazell
    Chief science and medical correspondent
    NBC News

    Two thought provoking and disturbing studies out Wednesday raise major questions about conduct of the “War on Cancer.” One examines  the quality of basic research and the other concludes that half of current cancer deaths could be prevented.

    Almost 90 percent of early stage cancer research looking for improved treatments is wrong, according to scientists at biotechnology giant Amgen and the MD Anderson Cancer Center.  The researchers describe their findings as “shocking.”

    Read Wednesday's news about the decline in cancer death rates.

    The allegations about questionable research in the quest for treatments appear in the prestigious journal Nature.  C. Glenn Begley, the former head of cancer research at Amgen, and surgical oncologist Lee M. Ellis of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston describe how scientists at the Thousand Oaks, Calif.-based Amgen tried to replicate the results of 53 landmark cancer research papers.  By landmark, they mean papers cited by others as significant progress.  All were so-called “pre-clinical,” meaning they were studies in rodents or with cells in petri dishes. The scientists were able to replicate only 11 percent of the conclusions.  In science, replication is proof.  If a study can’t be reproduced reliably, it is wrong. 

    Most of the papers in question describe gene mutations or other changes in cancer cells that could be potential targets for new cancer treatments.  Such research is obviously critical for companies like Amgen deciding how to spend hundreds of millions testing potential drugs in humans.  The findings at Amgen do not differ greatly from those at a team at Bayer HealthCare in Germany, which reported last year that it could not replicate 25 per cent of studies.

    Begley and Ellis assume that fraud plays little or no role in the bad science. “These investigators were all competent, well-meaning scientists who truly wanted to make advances in cancer research,” they write.

    So, what is the problem? Scientists often ignore negative findings that might raise a warning, cherry picking the results and putting the best face on their research. The practice involves many parties -- not just the scientists -- in the research process who turn blind eyes to questionable actions.

    As Begley and Ellis detail it, “To obtain funding, a job, promotion or tenure, researchers need a strong publication record…Journal  editors, reviewers, and grant review committees [and I might add journalists—R.B.] often look for a scientific finding that is simple, clear and complete—a ‘perfect’ story.  It is therefore tempting for investigators to submit suspected data sets for publication, or even to massage data.” 

    Whatever the motivation, the results are all too often wrong.

    Begley and Ellis call for nothing less than a change in the culture of cancer research.  They demand more willingness to admit to imperfections and an end to the practice of failing to publish negative results. 

    “We in the field,” the say, “must remain focused on the purpose of cancer research: to improve the lives of patients.”

    While the Amgen report casts doubt on cancer research, a separate study concludes that fully half of all cancers occurring today are preventable.  It raises questions about the billions spent searching for treatments and concludes that “we must vigorously implement what we already know about preventing cancer.”

    The article about prevention appears in the top-tier journal Science Translational Medicine. Epidemiologists Graham Colditz, Kathleen Wolin and public health researcher Sarah Gehlert of Washington University in St. Louis review the best data. 

    According to the careful Washington University study, smoking remains the biggest cancer-causing environmental factor  -- responsible for  33 percent of cancer deaths, almost 189,000 lives a year in the U.S. alone.  Obesity now follows closely, causing 20 percent of cancer deaths, or 114,000 people a year.  Pollution and radiation (most of it from medical sources) each account for only about 2 percent of cancers. 

    The argument about allocation of funds for reducing the risk of cancer versus treatment is as old as our efforts to confront cancer.  But as these authors show the evidence and the need to act on it grow ever stronger.

    As a society, we have shown we can do a great deal — but not nearly enough  – about tobacco. Obesity is another story, but we must do better if we want to be serious about cancer – and all the other attendant diseases.

    Even short of the huge social challenges in confronting tobacco and obesity, there are many proven relatively simple methods to cut cancer deaths.  They include effective screening tests, such as pap tests and colonoscopies. The vaccines against HPV and hepatitis B both prevent cancer-causing viral infections, and aspirin is looking ever better as a cancer control agent.

    Only 1.5 percent of the U.S. cancer research budget now goes to risk reduction. The rest seeks to find treatments, an effort that Begley and Ellis show is seriously flawed.  As these two powerful studies out Wednesday show, it is high time we reorder our priorities.

    Robert Bazell is NBC's chief science and medical correspondent. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

     Related:

    Daily aspirin linked to reduced cancer risk

    What kills one person every six seconds? 

    More from Robert Bazell:  

    Could weight-loss surgery end diabetes?

    134 comments

    Cancer kills millions of Americans each year. On a per-death basis, or even overall, the government+industry spends so much less on research into preventing and fighting it than it does on national defense (which kills a few thousand at most). And when they do come out with a new drug, it costs over …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: cancer, smoking, featured
  • 21
    Mar
    2012
    9:16am, EDT

    Daily aspirin might reduce cancer risk

    A series of new studies suggest taking a daily dose of aspirin may help prevent, and possibly fight, cancer. Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.

    By Rachael Rettner
    MyHealthNewsDaily

    Taking aspirin once a day may help prevent cancer, and perhaps even in some cases treat it, a growing body of research suggests.

    A new study finds that people who took a low-dose aspirin daily for at least three years were 25 percent less likely to develop cancer than people who didn't take it.

    Aspirin also reduced the risk of death from cancer by nearly 40 percent after five years, the researchers said.

    The reduced risk of death may be due in part to a decrease in cancer's ability to spread to other organs. In a second study, researchers found a daily dose of aspirin led to a 36 percent reduction in the risk of being diagnosed with cancer that spread to other organs.

    This suggests aspirin is likely "to be an effective additional treatment after the diagnosis of cancer," Dr. Peter Rothwell, one of the study's researchers and a neurologist at the University of Oxford in England, told MyHealthNewsDaily.

    Taking a daily aspirin has been found to have a variety of health benefits, said Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital in N.Y., including a reduced risk of heart attack and stroke.

    However, more research is needed before aspirin can be recommended to reduce the risk of cancer. That's because the new study analyzed data from previous studies that were not designed to test the effect of aspirin on cancer prevention. "A study has to be specifically designed to prove a point," said Bernik, who was not involved in either new study.

    People should speak with their doctors before deciding to take a daily aspirin, Bernik said.

    Cancer prevention

    Previous studies have found aspirin reduces the risk of death from cancer over the long term. However, the effect of aspirin on cancer in the short term, as well as its effect on developing cancer in the first place, was less clear.

    Rothwell and colleagues analyzed data from 51 studies involving more than 77,000 people, in which about half of participants were randomly assigned to take a daily dose of aspirin.

    There were fewer deaths among the people assigned to take a daily aspirin, compared with people who did not take aspirin (562 deaths versus 664 deaths).

    In an analysis of six of the studies in which people took low doses of aspirin, there were three fewer cases of cancer yearly per 1,000 people in the aspirin group, compared with the group that did not take aspirin, but this effect did not show up until participants had taken aspirin for three years.

    Side effects

    Aspirin has side effects, including an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the researchers found that after about three years, the increased risk of major bleeding went away, as did aspirin's heart benefits. What was left was the reduced risk of cancer.

    "For most individuals, the risk-benefit calculus of aspirin seems to favor aspirin’s long-term anti-cancer benefit," Drs. Andrew Chan and Nancy Cook, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

    Because the findings are new, it will take time for researchers to decide whether guidelines should be changed to include a recommendation of aspirin for cancer prevention, said Eric Jacobs, strategic director of pharmacoepidemiology at the American Cancer Society. Such guidelines would have to take into account who is most likely to benefit from the recommendation, Jacobs said.

    The study and editorial will be published tomorrow (March 21) in the journal the Lancet. The study had no funding and no input from drug companies, but the lead researcher has has been paid by several pharmaceutical companies for his work with them.

    Related:

    10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer

    7 Cancers You Can Ward Off with Exercise

    Daily Dose of Aspirin May Reduce Colorectal Cancer Risk

    87 comments

    There should be an * asterisk on this article that reads: Like most stories involving drugs, this article was paid for by xxxxx pharmecutical company.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, aspirin
  • 12
    Mar
    2012
    4:21pm, EDT

    Daily serving of red meat raises risk of cancer, heart disease

    NBC's Robert Bazell shares his thoughts on a new study, which claims that red meat, any type or amount, drastically increases a person's risk of dying early.

    By Robert Bazell
    NBC News

    It is far from a shocking revelation that red meat is not health food. But a new study from the highly respected researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health offers some of the best and most detailed evidence yet that a daily serving of meat can increase risk of heart disease or cancer.

    The Harvard scientists followed almost 84,000 women and 38,000 men in the Nurse’s Health Study and Health Professional’s Follow-Up Study for 28 years. It found those eating a daily serving of red meat were 13 percent more likely to die in the study period, and approximately 14 percent more likely to develop heart disease or cancer. Those numbers go up to 20 percent more deaths and an estimated 18 percent more heart problems and cancer for those who reported eating a daily serving of processed meats such as hot dogs, salami and bacon.

    In the realm of health risks, these are not huge numbers.  Daily cigarette smoking adds risk of some 2,000 to 4000 percent for these hazards. But across the U.S. population, Americans love of meat likely accounts for about 1.5 million excess deaths every decade, according to research from the National Institutes of Health.

    According to the American Meat Institute, Americans consume on average 65 pounds of pork and a similar amount of beef per person every year. Those numbers have changed little over the past two decades. At the same time, chicken consumption has climbed sharply to around 80 pounds a year, while turkey logs in at 15 pounds a year. We’re eating more birds, but no fewer mammals.

    The Harvard research is very credible, even though it is a so-called “observational” study. The highest level of proof is a “controlled trial” where half the people would eat meat and the other would not. That’s obviously not practical for multi-decade dietary study.  The Harvard researchers have a long track record with their observations of nurses, doctors, and other health professionals. Blood tests confirm that what people report as their diet tends to be accurate -- as are their health records.

    In addition, these results neatly coincide with a decade long study published in 2009 of more than 500,000 people from the National Cancer Institute. That confirmation strengthens the argument enormously.

    In an editorial in the same issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine with the Harvard study, Dr. Dean Ornish, the preventive medicine guru of the San Francisco Bay area, points out that red meat is harmful not just to our bodies, but also to the planet. It takes enormous amounts of plants, requiring energy-intensive fertilizers, to fatten cattle and pigs. Ornish cites a study finding that the amount of energy required to produce a Quarter Pounder with Cheese equals burning 7 pounds of coal.

    Ornish -- who once opposed most fat in the diet -- now agrees with the Harvard group that there are “good fats,” such as fish oil and vegetable oils and “bad fats,” including the saturated fats found in meat and the industrially created trans fats. Ornish concludes there is an emerging consensus of what constitutes a healthy diet: little or no red meat; more “good carbs,” such as those in fruits vegetables and whole grains; fewer “bad carbs,” such as refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and white flour; more good fats and fewer bad fats. And to the extent possible, we should eat less of everything, especially junk food.

    Those conclusions, the product of decades of many big research projects, will likely stand for a long time. So, we know what a healthy diet is. The question is: Will our taste buds and will power allow us to stay with it?

    Bon appétit.

    Robert Bazell is NBC's chief science and medical correspondent. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter @RobertBazellNBC

    Related story:

    Enjoy your daily burger without killing yourself

    353 comments

    I'm sorry but the tone of this article just REEKS of agenda, specifically the veggie/peta agenda. The message is get them used to rejecting RED meat and then go after them and GET them to quit eating all meat. We'll use the health excuse since the moral outrage hasn't/isn't working.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, heart-disease, meat
  • 22
    Feb
    2012
    6:41pm, EST

    Advanced melanoma drug nearly doubles survival time

    By Linda Thrasybule
    MyHealthNewsDaily

    Zelboraf, a drug used to treat advanced cases of the deadly skin cancer melanoma, nearly doubles the length of patients' lives, a new study has found.

    The drug was approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration to treat patients with malignant melanoma whose tumors carry a specific gene mutation, called BRAF V600E. Almost 50 percent of people with melanoma have the mutation.

    At the time of the drug's approval, it was clear that patients taking the drug lived longer than those not taking it, but exactly how much longer could not be measured from earlier data.

    In the new study, researchers looked at 132 melanoma patients with the mutation, mostly men under age 65.

    Patients who took Zelboraf for a little over a year survived 15.9 months, on average, whereas advanced melanoma patients given other treatments typically live about eight months. The researchers found that 77 percent of these patients survived at least six months, 58 percent survived at least one year and an estimated 43 percent survived at least 18 months.

    About half the patients in the study saw their cancers respond to the drug, and that response lasted for only about seven months.

    "Advanced melanoma is a fatal disease," said Dr. Kim Margolin, a medical oncologist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study. "Rarely can these patients be cured."

    Though the drug isn't a cure, "people live longer than they would have," Margolin said.

    The findings are published today (Feb. 22) in the New England Journal of Medicine.

    In a study published last year, researchers compared the survival rates of 675 malignant melanoma patients who took Zelboraf with patients who took dacarbazine, a chemotherapy drug.

    At six months, they found that 84 percent of patients who took Zelboraf were still alive, compared with 64 percent of those taking dacarbazine.

    Study participants taking Zelboraf experienced side effects, including joint pain, rash, fatigue and a non-threatening form of skin cancer. Nearly half had to have their doses reduced, and 85 people had to get their dose interrupted.

     But with cancer drugs, that's generally common, according to Margolin.

    "It's common to reduce doses of drugs to improve or make side effects more tolerable," she said.

    The drug company Hoffmann-La Roche, which makes Zelboraf, funded the study.

    Related:

    • 7 Cancers You Can Ward Off with Exercise
    • Melanoma: Symptoms, Treatment and Prevention
    • The 10 Deadliest Cancers and Why There's No Cure 

    Related:

    • Hospitals scramble to get scarce cancer drug
    • FDA approves first drug for inoperable skin cancer
    • Chemo usually safe for pregnant women with cancer

    3 comments

    It' $9,400 a month. Ipilimumab, another melanoma drug, is $30,000 a month. I know of one hospital pharmacy that has already been instructed by the hospital administration not to give it inpatient.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, skin-cancer
  • 17
    Feb
    2012
    8:39am, EST

    Hospitals scramble to get scarce kids' cancer drug

    By JoNel Aleccia

    An Ohio drugmaker began releasing limited supplies of a crucial medication to treat childhood leukemia Thursday, sending hospital pharmacists facing life-threatening shortages scrambling for their share.

    Jerrod Milton, chief of pharmacy at Children’s Hospital of Colorado, was among those first in line as Ben Venue Laboratories began accepting new orders for the drug methotrexate, three weeks before the hospital would have run out completely.

    “I had a tip that it was going to be available,” he said. “I put my pharmacy team on notice.”

    Ben Venue officials said product would be allocated starting now and continuing over the next several weeks to oncology clinics, hospitals and pediatric facilities, easing the shortage crisis. No information was available about which sites would get the scarce drugs first, or in what order.

    Milton is awaiting the arrival Friday of what he hopes will be 300 250-milligram vials of the widely-used drug to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia, known as A.L.L., a blood cancer that mostly affects young children. It's a virulent cancer of the white blood cells that spreads to other parts of the body.

    The drug is short-dated, meaning it is set to expire in two weeks, but Milton is requesting it anyway to replenish vital supplies of the medication that makes A.L.L curable in about 90 percent of cases, cancer doctors say. The amount and timing of the drug used varies widely according to age, weight and other patient factors. The Colorado hospital has dozens of patients on the protocol.

    Send idea Send me your story ideas

    Facebook Follow us on Facebook

    Twitter Follow me on Twitter

    “It extends our supply by essentially up to a month,” said Milton, who is also his hospital’s vice president of operations. “But it’s still a very uncomfortable place to be.”

    News this week that hospitals across the country were within a couple weeks of running out of the critical drug prompted herculean negotiations involving the federal Food and Drug Administration and the five manufacturers of methotrexate. The story was first reported in the New York Times.

    Chuck Eaton, facesofhope.org

    Justine Seibel, 13, of Fort Mill, S.C., is among thousands of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or A.L.L., who are treated with the cancer drug methotrexate. Reports of dire shortages worry her mother, Christine Farinick.

    It also prompted anxiety and anger for parents like Christine Farinick of Fort Mill, S.C., whose 13-year-old daughter, Justine, was diagnosed with A.L.L. a year ago. She has received dozens of treatments of methotrexate and is scheduled for another session in three weeks -- as long doctors can get it.

    “Without it, there’s a high rate of relapse,” said Farinick, who is getting a passport and researching ways to obtain methotrexate from suppliers in Europe and Canada if she can’t obtain it in the U.S.  “It is available.”

    Bedford Laboratories, which runs Ben Venue, worked with the FDA to arrange allocation of strictly limited supplies of the drug. The product was produced before the troubled firm voluntarily shut down its operations in November because of manufacturing and quality problems identified during FDA inspections.

    “We hope this supply will help address near-term patient needs while other companies licensed to manufacture methotrexate increase production,” Ben Venue officials said in a statement.

    The four other manufacturers of the drug -- Hospira Inc., Mylan Institutional, Sandoz and APP Pharmaceuticals LLC -- indicated they were trying to increase production or work with the FDA to allow production of the preservative-free version of the drug. Methotrexate without preservative is given intravenously or injected into spinal fluid, where preservatives could cause toxic reactions.

    Neither Bedford officials nor the FDA would say how much product is available, or how many hospitals would be served.  Hospital buyers say they’re being quizzed about patient need and allowed a two-week supply of the drug, said Erin Fox, manager of the Drug Information Service at the University of Utah, which tracks drug shortages.

    The new availability is both a relief and a reminder of the seriousness of drug shortages that now number about 287, the most in U.S. history, cancer experts said.

    “Every little bit helps, but it’s so wrong that we have to live like this,” said Dr. Harvey Cohen, a professor of pediatrics at the Stanford School of Medicine and a member of the American Society of Hematology’s government affairs committee. After decades of progress in finding the right drugs to treat -- and cure -- A.L.L., not being able to obtain them is a huge setback, Cohen said.

    He was waiting to hear Thursday whether he would get an order of 20 grams of methotrexate to treat a 16-year-old boy with a bone tumor on Friday.

    “His tumor responded beautifully to the medicine. We know the medicine works,” Cohen said. “We have the orders in. I signed them myself yesterday. I just don’t know if we will get it.”

    Cohen said he and his colleagues essentially have to ration the drug, giving highest doses to children with difficult-to-treat cancer and lower doses to those whose condition is easier to treat.

    "Given the shortage, we have to be able to give that to the children who will benefit the most," he said.

    Some experts are breathing a brief sigh of relief at the stop-gap supplies of methotrexate. Dr. Michael Link, president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the FDA’s efforts to avert a total shortage.

    “The FDA deserves a fair amount of credit for really stepping up to the plate and resolving this for the short term,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that we had to get to a crisis situation.”

    Five U.S. senators demanded more information about the problem on Thursday, sending a letter to Ben Venue officials saying patients and providers have been given no timeline for fully resolving the crisis. They asked for more information about the quality problems at Ben Venue that prompted the shutdown, stalling production not only of methotrexate, but other drugs in short supply. The senators asked if reimbursements for the drug, which is a low-profit generic, played a role in the current shortage.

    That echoes the concerns of Christine Farinick, who said she believes that low returns are at the root of the problem.

    "All the medication shortages are because the drugs are not profitable to make," she said, adding: “I think that’s absolutely disgusting." 

    Related stories:

    Amid shortages, rules force hospitals to trash scarce drugs

    Lingering shortage of ADHD drugs unravels lives

    90 comments

    The senators asked if reimbursements for the drug, which is a low-profit generic, played a role in the current shortage.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, cancer, methotrexate, drug-shortage
  • 17
    Feb
    2012
    6:53am, EST

    Studies: Health risk from toxic pavement sealant greater than previously believed

    Coal tar sealant is applied at a study site at the University of Texas in Austin.

    By Robert McClure, InvestigateWest

    When you think of pollution, you might picture an industrial center like Camden, N.J., or Jersey City. But new research shows that when it comes to a potent class of cancer-causing toxic chemicals, many American parking lots are a lot worse.

    New studies paint an increasingly alarming picture – particularly for young children – about how these chemicals are being spread across big swaths of American cities and suburbs by what may seem an unlikely source – a type of asphalt sealer. These sealants are derived from an industrial waste, coal tar.

    Four new studies (links are at the end of this article) announced this week further implicate coal tar-based asphalt sealants as likely health risks.  The creosote-like material typically is sprayed onto parking lots and driveways in an effort to preserve the asphalt. It also gives the pavement a dark black coloring that many people find attractive.


    Coal tar is a byproduct of the steelmaking industry. In 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared that it would not be classified as a hazardous waste, even though it met the characteristics of one, because it could be recycled for uses that include coating asphalt. That meant steel mills didn’t have to pay for costly landfilling or incineration of the waste.

     

     

     

    Only in recent years have scientists discovered the ill effects of this practice.

    Coal tar sealants are used most heavily in the eastern United States, but were applied in all 50 states until Washington state banned the products last year. More than a dozen local governments, including Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas, also have banned the coal tar sealants in favor of the other major type of sealant, which is asphalt-based.

    Asphalt-based sealants contain about 1/1000th the concentration of the cancer-causing chemicals that coal tar-based products do. Home Depot and Lowe’s stores have dropped the coal tar sealants from their product lines, but still some 85 million gallons of the coal tar-based sealants are applied annually in the United States.

    The new research, published in peer-reviewed science journals, focuses on a class of chemicals found in coal tar and known as “polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,” or PAHs. Previously, researchers believed that people’s exposure to PAHs came primarily through food, which contains trace amounts produced primarily from smoking food or cooking it at high temperatures in practices such as grilling, roasting, and frying. PAHS are produced when any organic matter burns.

    The new research shows:

    • It appears that children – especially those from 3 to 5 years old – living by coal tar-sealed parking lots and driveways are getting a bigger dose of PAHs from house dust than from their food. The kids who put their hands in their mouth most often are likely receiving 9 ½ times more exposure through house dust than through food, according to research led by E. Spencer Williams, a Baylor University human health risk assessment expert. That’s just from the house dust. When the kids are outside in the yard or playing on coal tar-sealed pavement, they likely are picking up much larger doses.
    • While researchers previously theorized that airborne PAHs come mostly from power plants, factories and cars’ and trucks’ tailpipe emissions, U.S. Geological Survey researchers measured large amounts vaporizing into the air off coal tar-sealed parking lots.  The concentrations coming off parking lots in suburban Austin, where the researchers are based, were higher than in centers of heavy industry, including Jersey City and Camden, N.J.; Chicago; London and Manchester, England; and Guangzhou, China. The Austin parking lots tested were three to eight years old. Much more off-gassing occurs in the first few years after the sealants are applied, researchers said.
    • Concentrations measured four feet above the coal tar-sealed lots in some cases exceeded health-protection guidelines recommended by a European Union science panel to protect against cancer. The United States has no similar guidelines.
    • Extrapolating from the 85 million gallons of coal tar sealants laid down annually and the out-gassing rates measured in Austin, Geological Survey researchers calculated that nationwide, more PAHs are getting into the air from coal tar-sealed parking lots, driveways and playgrounds than from all the auto and truck exhaust.

    “That’s a lot,” said Barbara Mahler, a USGS scientist involved in the research.

    Researchers previously had shown that coal tar-sealed parking lots were shedding tiny bits of the material, which was washed by rain into nearby waterways – killing, sickening and maiming aquatic creatures such as salamanders, minnows and, importantly, bugs at the base of the food chain. The chemicals kill tadpoles, cause tumors on fish, stunt growth of aquatic creatures and reduce the number of species able to live in a waterway.

    As a result of being washed into waterways by stormwater, these chemicals’ concentrations have been rising over the last two decades, even as levels of most contaminants are headed down, Geological Survey researchers showed.

    The chemicals are getting into the house dust, researchers think, when small bits are eroded off pavement and tracked into nearby homes.

    Scientists also had previously demonstrated that toxic constituents of coal tar were showing up in the dust of homes adjacent to parking lots and driveways, raising questions about health effects on children in those homes, especially toddlers who frequently put their hands in their mouths. Coal tar is known to cause cancer in humans, as well as genetic mutations in lab animals.

    One of the new studies helps quantify that risk. Kids who are average in terms of how often they put their hands into their mouths are getting 2 ½ times as many PAHs from house dust as from food, while those in the 95th percentile of hand-to-mouth behavior – they do it more than 94 percent of other kids – get 9 ½ times as much from the dust.

    Researchers still would like to know how much of a toxic dose those same kids are getting when they play outside in yards next to coal tar-sealed asphalt, or on the asphalt itself. The level of cancer-causing chemicals in the dust on the asphalt itself has been measured at about 37 times the levels found in house dust.

    “Those concentrations are a good bit higher and this study doesn’t include that at all,” said Williams, the Baylor researcher. “That may be important because just one little fingerful could be a relevant dose,” meaning one that worries health experts.

    While researchers have known about contamination of water and dust, the findings about air pollution are new. Significant amounts of PAHs continue to vaporize off coal tar-sealed lots even years after the sealant is put down.

    “When we look at a seal-coated parking lots, in any direction we look we see these really strongly elevated concentrations,” said Peter Van Metre, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist based in Austin. Of the dust on the coal tar-sealed pavement, he said: “It would just take a tiny amount of that to be a large enough dose for it to be significant.”

    Companies that sell and use the coal tar sealants have previously disputed the growing body of evidence of the coal tar sealants’ danger being amassed by scientists from the Geological Survey, the University of New Hampshire, Baylor and other institutions.

    Repeated attempts this week to reach an industry representative, Anne LeHuray, executive director of the Pavement Coatings Technology Council, for comment on the new studies were unsuccessful. In an email on Thursday, LeHuray said she was tied up at a meeting of the pavement council in Memphis.

    Generally, the pavement council has attacked previous coal tar research on technical grounds.

    Read previous articles on coal tar sealants:

    Study sees parking lot dust as a cancer risk

    State bans coal tar sealants in big win for foes

    The pavement council has fought bans – sometimes successfully – when they have been proposed by local and state governments. In addition to the local governments that have forbidden use of the coal tar sealants, some governments have placed restrictions on their use, including the state of Minnesota and the California Department of Transportation. Restrictions also are in effect in more than 40 Illinois municipalities.

    U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democratic congressman from the Austin area, has previously filed legislation calling for a nationwide ban on coal tar sealants. He plans to refile the legislation, a Doggett spokeswoman said, but is currently embroiled in a redistricting fight.

    Tom Ennis, an Austin city official who helped get coal tar sealants banned there, has now launched a campaign to support a nationwide ban.

    “You’re looking at a big urban air quality” problem, Ennis said. “It’s completely unacceptable and something needs to be done.”

    The studies announced this week appeared in the science journals Environmental Science and Technology, Chemosphere, Atmospheric Environment,  and  Environmental Pollution.

    InvestigateWest is a non-profit journalism center based in Seattle. If you value this kind of in-depth, independent news reporting, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support further work of this kind.

    Submit ideas Share your story ideas with Open Channel

    Send documents Send us a document

    Facebook Follow Open Channel on Facebook

    Twitter Follow Open Channel on Twitter

    E-mail alerts Sign up for e-mail alerts

    162 comments

    This is not a new story. They have known about this for years. And when it rains it goes into your water. Think about it.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health, featured, cancer, children, risk, dust, parking-lot, asphalt, pavement, coal-tar-sealant
  • 9
    Feb
    2012
    5:34pm, EST

    Chemo usually safe for pregnant women with cancer

    By Rachael Rettner
    MyHealthNewsDaily

    In a finding that is reassuring to pregnant women with cancer, chemotherapy does not appear to pose serious long-term health consequences for the unborn fetus, according to a new study.

    Children in the study whose mothers were treated with chemotherapy during pregnancy did just as well developmentally as children in the general population, the researchers said. Children in the study did not appear to be at risk for brain, heart or hearing problems, the study found.

    And another result from the study suggested that delivering a baby early in order to start cancer treatment was more harmful to the baby than initiating chemotherapy during pregnancy, the researchers said. Children born prematurely did have an increased risk of lower scores on intelligence and memory tests, compared with children not born prematurely.

    "Our findings do not support a strategy of delay in chemotherapy administration or [physician induced] preterm delivery…to avoid harm to the fetus," the researchers wrote in their study.

    The findings back up what physicians have been doing in most cases — doctors typically start chemotherapy in a pregnant woman with cancer after her first trimester.

    "We try to balance the benefits for mom and for baby," said Dr. Diana Contreras, a gynecological oncologist at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., who was not involved in the study. The new findings indicate that doctors should let women carry their babies to full term, and not impose a specific birth date on mothers with cancer, Contreras said. (Typical full-term pregnancies last 40 weeks, though babies born at 37 weeks or later are no longer considered premature.)

    Cancer in pregnancy

    Cancer during pregnancy is rare, and the most common types of cancers are those that occur in women of child-bearing age, including breast and cervical cancer, lymphoma and melanoma, according to the National Institutes of Health.

    The study included 68 pregnant women from Belgium, The Netherlands and the Czech Republic who were treated with three to four cycles of chemotherapy during pregnancy. More than two-thirds of the women gave birth prematurely (at less than 37 weeks.)

    Some children were enrolled in the study at birth, while others were identified later, and the age range of the total group was 1.5-to-18-years old.

    The researchers used a variety of tests to assess the children's general health and development, heart function and mental abilities. Older children also completed hearing, memory, attention and behavior tests.

    Most of the children's scores on all of the tests were within normal ranges. Children born prematurely scored lower on tests of cognitive development, although the researchers noted that this is the case in the general population as well. The score for IQ increased about 12 points for each additional month of gestation.

    One pair of twins in the study had a severe neurodevelopment delay, but the researchers said it was not likely due to the chemotherapy.

    Brain protection

    Although the blood-brain barrier of a fetus was once thought to be leaky, allowing compounds in a mother's blood to reach the developing brain, recent data suggests the brain is actually quite protected against chemotherapy drugs, possibility explaining the overall positive results.

    While any group of children who are born preterm have lower developmental scores, the researchers noted they cannot rule out the possiblility that the scores were made worse by the chemotherapy.

    Because the study was quite small, a larger study in which children are followed for a longer period of time should be conducted to confirm the results, the researchers said.

    The study is published online Feb. 10 in the journal The Lancet Oncology.

    Pass it on: Chemotherapy during pregnancy does not appear to increase the risk of brain, heart and hearing problems in children.

    6 Foods That Are Good for Your Brain

    10 Do's and Don'ts to Reduce Your Risk of Cancer

    11 Big Fat Pregnancy Myths

    1 comment

    Scary article. Chemotherapy isn't really 'safe' for anyone. It amounts to poisoning the body and hoping the cancer dies before the body does. And if the body should die first, the cancer industry blames the cancer, not the chemo.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: cancer, pregnant
Older posts

Browse

  • featured,
  • food-safety,
  • behavior,
  • cancer,
  • health-care,
  • womens-health,
  • mental-health,
  • sexual-health,
  • obesity,
  • childrens-health,
  • salmonella,
  • fda,
  • pregnancy,
  • children,
  • cdc,
  • breast-cancer,
  • hiv,
  • sleep,
  • mens-health,
  • birth-control,
  • alzheimers,
  • autism,
  • listeria,
  • aids,
  • health,
  • flu,
  • cantaloupe,
  • parenting,
  • skin-cancer,
  • recall,
  • food-poisoning,
  • depression,
  • art-caplan,
  • aging,
  • smoking,
  • vaccines,
  • prostate-cancer,
  • norovirus,
  • heart-attack,
  • organ-donation,
  • alcohol,
  • heart-disease,
  • hpv,
  • relationships,
  • cold-and-flu,
  • weight-loss
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Rita Rubin

Rita Rubin is a contributing health and parenting writer for msnbc.com and TODAY.com. Previously, she covered health and medicine for USA Today and U.S. News and World Report. She is also the author of What If I Have a C-Section?

Rita Rubin Blogroll

  • The Body Odd
  • TODAY Moms

Linda Carroll

Linda Carroll is a regular contributor to msnbc.com and TODAY.com. She is co-author of the new book "The Concussion Crisis: Anatomy of a Silent Epidemic.”

  • The Concussion Crisis:Anatomy of a Silent Epidemic

JoNel Aleccia

JoNel Aleccia is an award-winning national health reporter at msnbc.com. She has spent more than 25 years covering health, food safety, education and social issues for newspaper and online readers.

JoNel Aleccia Blogroll

  • Superbug - Wired Science
  • Follow me on Twitter

Archives

  • 2012
    • May (51)
    • April (89)
    • March (87)
    • February (66)
    • January (62)
  • 2011
    • December (64)
    • November (50)
    • October (63)

Most Commented

  • Two children die in hot cars as risky season begins (285)
  • CPSC recalls blow-up pool slide after woman's death (142)
  • Bottles, binkies and sippy cups can hurt kids, study finds (105)
  • Happy colonoscopy! Laxative-free test may be as effective (113)
  • 16 now sick from salmonella in dry dog food; recall expands (67)
  • Pot smoking may help relieve symptoms of MS (71)
  • Awakened: Immune cells revive woman in coma (73)
  • Too fat for anesthesia? Suction cups hold up patients' guts during surgery (50)

Other blogs

  • The Body Odd
  • Cosmic Log
  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • Gadgetbox
  • Technolog
  • Daryl Cagle's Cartoon Blog
  • Open Channel
  • InGame

msnbc.com top stories

3147,10
© 2012 msnbc.com
  • Health on msnbc.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Terms & Conditions
  • MSN Privacy
  • Legal
  • Advertise
Advertise | AdChoices