Therapist Unlimited Blog

According to a recent medical study the Hispanic population groups have higher incidence rates of certain cancers and worse cancer outcomes if they live in the United States, than they do if they live in their homelands.
Paulo S. Pinheiro, M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc., researcher in the Department of Epidemiology at the University Of Miami Miller School Of Medicine said Hispanics are not all the same with regard to their cancer experience.
Pinheiro, who is also the study’s lead researcher, added targeted interventions for cancer prevention and control should take into account the specificity of each Hispanic
subgroup: Cubans, Puerto Ricans or Mexicans.
Amelie G. Ramirez, Dr.P.H. director of the Institute for Health Promotion Research, and co-associate director of the Cancer Prevention and Population Studies research program at the Cancer Therapy & Research Center at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio for her part said Hispanics are really heterogeneous from cultural and socioeconomic perspectives and represent several population groups.
Ramirez said the Hispanic population in the United States is increasing nearly one in every three people will be Hispanic by 2050.
She said it is important to conduct studies like this to better understand these differences and learn what predisposes different population groups to certain types of cancer, in order to improve health outcomes.
To get the data they are searching for, Pinheiro and colleagues evaluated the kinds of cancers occurring in each Hispanic population group and compared their risk after moving to the United States.

Studies have shown that Hispanics are probe to suffer from cancer in the United States.

They conducted the study in Florida, which has a diverse Hispanic community composed of Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Central and South Americans.
The results indicated that these population groups showed different patterns of cancer once they moved to the United States; Mexicans had the lowest rates of cancer overall and Puerto Ricans had the highest rates of cancer. Cubans’ risk of cancer most closely resembles that of non-Hispanic whites. Similar to the U.S. non-Hispanic white population, Cubans and Puerto Ricans seemed to acquire higher risk for diet-related cancers relatively quickly.
Furthermore, Cuban males had higher incidence of tobacco-related cancers; Puerto Rican men had high incidence of liver cancer; and Mexican women had a higher incidence of cervical cancer. For all cancers combined, risk for most cancers was higher (at least 40 percent) among Hispanics living in the United States compared with those who live in their countries of origin.
The researchers also discovered that colorectal cancer risk among Cubans and Mexicans who moved to the United States was more than double that in Cuba and Mexico.
The same was said for lung cancer among Mexican and Puerto Rican Floridian women compared to those in Mexico or Puerto Rico.
Pinheiro explained this suggests that changes in their environment and lifestyles make them more prone to develop cancer.
He said it is puzzling that the groups, for which integration in mainstream American society is easier, including access to health care, are also those with higher cancer rates even after accounting for the increased detection of certain cancers in the United States.
Furthermore, the researchers said the results present important opportunities for United States and international collaborations in the prevention, treatment and research of cancer.
Ramirez said while physicians may not have to change the care they provide they should be more aware of the diversity and differences in cancer prevalence among this population.
She said physicians should probe Hispanic patients more on their background and family history to identify any problematic behaviors that could contribute to health problems.
The researchers said patients should become better informed of some of the positive aspects of their original lifestyles and should be strongly discouraged from adopting unfavorable lifestyles that may be more common in the United States, such as unhealthy diets, smoking and alcohol use.

A recent study conducted in Denmark has shown that those who took hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after menopause had a significantly higher risk of developing ovarian cancer than those who did not.
In a study conducted on 910,000 Danish women aged 50 to 79 for an average of 8 years (equivalent of 7.3 million women-years).
During that time 3,068 incident ovarian malignancies (2,681 of which were epithelial cancers) were diagnosed.
Epithelial ovarian cancers are those that start on the surface layer of the ovaries as opposed to in the eggs (germ cell cancers).
At the end of the follow up period, 63 per cent of the women had never used HRT, 22 per cent had used it but were using it no longer, and 9 per cent were still using it.
Based on the study it as also discovered that compared to women who never took HRT, current and previous users had a higher risk of developing an ovarian cancer (relative risk, 1.38 and 1.15, respectively).
The research also yielded results that the incidence rates in current and never users of hormones were 0.52 and 0.40 per 1000 years, respectively, an absolute risk increase of 0.12 per 1000 years.

Women who undergo hormone therapy need to be careful since the medical procedure could lead to ovarian cancer.

With the findings, the researcher concluded that regardless of the duration of use, the formulation, estrogen dose, regimen, progestin type, and route of administration, hormone therapy was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer.
These findings appear to confirm those from the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative study, which was stopped early because researchers found an increased risk of ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and other diseases linked to use of HRT.

Those women who are undergoing treatment for breast cancer through radiotherapy on their left breast better be careful.
This developed after medical researchers have found pieces of evidence that breast cancer patients are at risk of heart disease after radiotherapy.
Radiotherapy is a treatment use to those patients who have had breast conservation surgery, and those who are at high risk of the cancer returning after mastectomy.
The researchers discovered that when the breast tumor is on the left side, a small part of the heart is within the treatment range which can lead to heart disease.
Dr. Paul Symonds, of the University of Leicester’s Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, made the study involving 149 patients who had undergone radiotherapy for breast cancer.
Symonds revealed after treatment some patients developed red dilated blood vessels (telangiectasia) on the breast or chest wall, previously thought to be unsightly rather than of any medical significance.
He said based on the study, only those who had radiotherapy on the left side developed heart problems, which occurred between three and 12 years after treatment.
He added over half of those who developed heart problems showed signs of telangiectasia.

Women undergoing radiotherapy to treat breast cancer need to be vigilant since the medical procedure could lead to a heart disease.
 

The medical expert believes these figures are significant enough to suggest that telangiectasia could be a marker to predict the risk of heart disease after radiotherapy for breast cancer on the left side.
The medical expert added ultimately this research could lead to a test to predict which patients will develop severe radiotherapy side-effects.
He said clinicians can then use this information to advice patients of their risk before treatment and help the radiotherapist give the most appropriate treatment.
Meanwhile, Pamela Goldberg, Chief Executive, Breast Cancer Campaign, which funded the study said, "More and more women are living with breast cancer as a long term manageable condition rather than an incurable disease.
Goldberg said it is therefore vital that treatment not only improves the chance of survival but does not lead to other negative health consequences and maintains a good quality of life.

Those people who are marijuana addicts better stop their unhealthy activity now of face strong chances of suffering from cancer.
According to the result of a new research, “convincing evidence" has shown that marijuana smoke damages the genetic material DNA in ways that could increase the risk of cancer.
Based on the study made by Rajinder Singh and his team, they also found out that toxic substances in tobacco smoke could damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers.
Despite the data they gathered, Singth and his team are still uncertain over whether marijuana smoke has the same effect.
Singh and the other researchers are currently concerned on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, present in both tobacco and marijuana.

Constant marijuana users better stop the habit now or face risk of suffering from cancer.

The researchers however admitted it is difficult to measure DNA damage from acetaldehyde with conventional tests.
The researchers added the development and use of a modified mass spectrometry method that showed clear indications that marijuana smoke damages DNA.
Moreover, the researchers explained the results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis [marijuana] smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development.
The team revealed the data obtained from this study suggesting the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke highlight the need for stringent regulation of the consumption of cannabis cigarettes, thus limiting the development of adverse health effects such as cancer.
The team said the finding is an indication that marijuana should be avoided and to be stopped for those who are addicted to it since it can also lead to cancer.

Looks like being a vegetarian has countless benefits attached to it.
Based on a latest medical study it was discovered that vegetarians are 12 per cent less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters are.
In a study conducted by the Cancer Research scientists in Oxford University involving 61,000 vegetable and meat eaters for over 12 years, it was discovered that 3,350 were diagnosed with cancer.
The researchers found out that the risk of being diagnosed with cancers of the stomach, bladder and blood was lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
The researchers revealed the most striking difference was in cancers of the blood including leukaemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The risk of these diseases was 45 per cent lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
Professor Tim Key, who is part of the research team, explained their large resulted to the findings that likelihood of people developing some cancers is lower among vegetarians than among people who eat meat.

Vegetarians had reasons to smile these days since they are less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters are.

Key said that in particular vegetarians were much less likely to develop cancers of the blood, which include leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
However, more research is needed to substantiate these results and to look for reasons for the differences.
Furthermore, Key said the study looked at 20 different types of cancers.
The differences in risks between vegetarians and meat eaters were independent of other lifestyle behaviours including smoking, alcohol intake and obesity, which also affect the chance of developing cancer.

Those women, who survived cancer during their childhood, need to closely monitored since recent medical studies has shown that they are at higher risk of birth complications.
Dr. Sharon Lie Fong, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands and her colleagues get the data after studying the pregnancies of 40 women who had been treated for cancer during their childhood, the majority of them for leukaemia, but also for solid tumours.
Fong said from their subjects, six had had radiation treatment directly to the abdomen.
She said the data they gathered were compared with those from a control group of more than 9,000 women who had not had cancer treatment.
She added all data were obtained from The Netherlands Prenatal Register, a nationwide database of pregnancy outcomes.
The medical expert said data were matched for age at pregnancy, year and month of delivery, and the number of times the woman had given birth.
The medical expert added the team did not investigate overall fertility and miscarriage rates, but they believe that it is possible that the fertility of all the cancer survivors will be compromised.
Fong said the ovarian reserve or capacity of the ovary to provide eggs capable of fertilisation, is established in the foetus and decreases during a woman’s reproductive lifetime.

Women who survived cancer during their childhood need to be careful since they are at higher risk of birth complications.

Fong added women with a poor ovarian reserve are less likely to conceive, even with assisted reproduction therapies, than those with a normal number of eggs.
She said women might also have an earlier menopause, as their stock of eggs is exhausted at a younger age.
She revealed long-term, multi-disciplinary follow-up for female child cancer survivors is mandatory.
Furthermore, the researchers said although at the start of treatment, future fertility may not be of great concern to care providers; it is to the patient’s parents.
The researchers added during follow-up, survivors should be made aware of the possible late effects of their treatment.
They said in addition to the deleterious effects of abdominal radiotherapy on reproductive function, radiotherapy to the head can also cause problems by causing the hypothalamus to reduce the production of follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone, both important in promoting ovulation.
The team believe that it is particularly important for all female children who are treated for cancer, and their parents, to be made aware of this risk.
They said their research has also shown how important it is that, if they do become pregnant, childhood cancer survivors should be closely monitored throughout their pregnancy and that they are delivered in a clinical setting, rather than at home.
The researchers concluded that even if at first fertility seems normal for childhood cancer survivors, there may be problems later in life.
 

According to a latest medical study, those children who are physically abused are most likely to end up having cancer when they reach adulthood.
Based on the research it is discovered that childhood physical abuse is associated with 49 per cent higher odds of cancer in adulthood.
Lead researcher Esme Fuller-Thomson, a faculty in Social Work and Department of Family and Community Medicine from the University of Toronto said few talk about childhood physical abuse and cancer in the same breath.
Thomson said from a public health perspective, it is extremely important that clinicians be aware of the full range of risk factors for cancer.
The lead researcher said through their study should provide important new knowledge about a potential childhood abuse-cancer relationship.

More care should be given to physically abuse children since they are prone to cancer.

Meanwhile, co-author Sarah Brennenstuhl, a doctoral student at Uof T, notes that various psychophysiological factors could help to explain the link between childhood physical abuse and cancer. Brennenstuhl revealed one important avenue for future research is to investigate dysfunctions in cortisol production - the hormone that prepares us for ‘fight or flight’ as a possible mediator in the abuse-cancer relationship.
The researchers hoped that the result of their study would compel the parents and the government in general to care more for physically abused children so that they will not end up having cancer when they reaches adulthood.

Those patients suffering from prostate cancer need to be careful since a recent study has shown that an intake of high levels of selenium could worsen their medical condition.
Selenium is a mineral found widely in rocks and dirt. Small amounts of selenium are essential for health: 40 to 70 micrograms is the recommended daily intake.
In recent years, supplemental selenium has been sold and promoted, as a means of preventing prostate cancer, largely based on observational studies that found higher risk of prostate cancer incidence and mortality in areas of the country that are naturally low in selenium.
Based on the research conducted by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the University of California, San Francisco it was discovered that a higher risk of more-aggressive prostate cancer was seen in men with a certain genetic variant found in about 75 percent of the prostate cancer patients in the study.
The researchers said in those subjects, having a high level of selenium in the blood was associated with a two-fold greater risk of poorer outcomes than men with the lowest amounts of selenium were.
The researchers revealed by contrast, the 25 percent of men with a different variant of the same gene and who had high selenium levels were at 40 percent lower risk of aggressive disease.

Men suffering from prostate cancer need to be careful in using selenium since it could further worsen their medical condition.

The group added the variants are slightly different forms of a gene that instructs cells to make manganese superoxide dismutase (SOD2), an enzyme that protects the body against harmful oxygen compounds.
Philip Kantoff, MD, director of Dana-Farber’s Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology and senior author of the study said the research findings suggest that if you already have prostate cancer, it may be a bad thing to take selenium.
Kantoff explained the unexpected results are the first to raise concern about this potentially harmful consequence of taking supplemental selenium.
Kantoff added the findings are interesting particularly in light of the recent negative results from the SELECT prevention study, which asked if selenium could protect against prostate cancer.
He said the new study also reveals the strong interaction between selenium and SOD2 to influence the biology of prostate cancer, a finding that these investigators had shown in a previous study.
Furthermore, the researchers said the current research demonstrated that variations in the make up of the SOD2 gene dramatically alter the effects of selenium on the risk of aggressive prostate cancer.

Green Tea drinkers around the world had reasons to smile these days.
This developed after medical experts found pieces of evidence that shows that green tea can effectively slows down the growth of prostate cancer among the male population.
In a study recently published at the Cancer Prevention Research, an American Association for Cancer Research journal it was discovered that green tea had an active compounds that effectively reduce serum markers predictive of prostate cancer progression.
According to James A. Cardelli, Ph.D., professor and director of basic and translational research in the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, LSU Health Sciences Center-Shreveport the investigational agent used in the trial, Polyphenon E (provided by Polyphenon Pharma) may have the potential to lower the incidence and slow the progression of prostate cancer.
Cardell explained green tea, the second most popular drink on the planet, has shown health benefits, which included a reduced incidence of prostate cancer.
Despite the positive trial result, Cardelli said some human trials had come up with conflicting results citing that the medical inquiry so far had only looked at the clinical efficacy of green tea consumption, rather than evaluating the change in biomarkers, which may predict prostate cancer progression.
In the experiment conducted by Cardelli and his team, they carried out an open-label, single-arm, and Phase II clinical trial to find out what effect short-term supplementation with green tea’s active compounds might have on serum biomarkers in patients with prostate cancer.

Studies have shown that green tea can effectively slow down the growth of prostate cancer among patients worldwide.

Accordingly, the biomarkers include HGF (hepatocyte growth factor), VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) and PSA (prostate specific antigen). HGF and VEGF are good prognostic indicators of metastatic disease.
Twenty-six men, 26 men, aged 41 to 72 years were included in the trial. They had all been diagnosed with prostate cancer and scheduled for radical prostatectomy.
The patients were given four capsule containing Polythenon E daily up to the day of surgery. Four capsules are equivalent to about 12 cups of green tea.
The study for 25 of the 26 patients took 12 to 73 days, with a median time of 34.5 days.
The researcher then found considerable reduction in serum levels of HGF, VEGF, and PSA after treatment.
They observed that some of the patients had reductions of over 30%,
It was also discovered that liver function remained normal, other biomarkers were also positively affected, and side effects were minimal.
In fact, a 12-month clinical trial carried out in Italy found that consumption of green tea polyphenols lowered the risk of developing prostate cancer in men with high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN).
Cardelli said their studies are just the beginning and a lot of work remains to be done.
Meanwhile, William G. Nelson, V., M.D., Ph.D., professor of oncology, urology and pharmacology Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, believes the reduced serum biomarkers of prostate cancer may be due to some kind of benefit relating to green tea components.

According to a recent study, men are prone to cancer than women are as far as statistics from United Kingdom revealed.
Based on the records from the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) and Cancer Research UK it was discovered that men are 40 per cent more likely to die of cancer than women are and 16 per cent more likely to get it in the first place.
According to their records, it was also discovered that after excluding breast cancer and cancers that only affect one sex, the difference between men and women was even greater, with men being about 70 per cent more likely to die from cancer than women and over 60 per cent more likely to develop it in the first place.
The researchers revealed even when they excluded lung cancer, which removes the counfounder introduced by the fact more men smoke than women, the underlying figures were the same.
The remaining cancers that were included in the analysis were cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, colorectal, liver, pancreas, kidney, bladder, brain and central nervous system (CNS), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, malignant melanoma, multiple myeloma and leukaemia.
The team of experts explained more research was needed to understand the gap, but speculated it could be behavioural: perhaps men have unhealthier lifestyles and they do not notice early cancer symptoms, or they are more reluctant to deal with them, whereas women tend to notice them earlier and do not delay in going to the doctor about them.

Men need to be careful since they are more prone to cancer than women according to a study done in the United Kingdom.

For, Alan White, Professor of Men’s Health at Leeds Metropolitan University and Chair of the Men’s Health Forum, the evidence shows that men are generally not aware that, as well as smoking, carrying excess weight around the waist, having a high alcohol intake and a poor diet and their family history all contribute to their increased risk of developing and dying prematurely from cancer, adding that more research needs to be done before we can be sure exactly why this gender gap exists.
White added the report clearly shows that we need to try much harder to get the public, health professionals and the people who make the policies to understand the risks that men face.
He said many of these deaths could be avoided by changes in lifestyle and earlier diagnosis.
Moreover, Professor David Forman of the NCIN said for many of the types of cancer we looked at that affect both sexes, there’s no known biological reason why men should be at a greater risk than women, so we were surprised to see such consistent differences.
Forman said after taking out the effect of age, men were significantly more likely than women to die from every one of the specific types of cancer considered and, apart from melanoma; they were significantly more likely to develop the disease.
He revealed men have a reputation for having a ’stiff upper lip’ and not being as health-conscious as women do.
To get the data, the researchers looked at cancer deaths in the UK for 2007 and new cases categorized by cancer type for 2006.
They summed cancer cases that were not sex-specific and then looked at male and female ratios in each category.