 |
| Breast Cancer | Cervical Cancer | Liver Cancer | Lung Cancer | Pancreatic Cancer | Testicular Cancer | Bladder Cancer | Colon Cancer | Ovarian Cancer | Prostate Cancer | Skin Cancer |
Prostate Cancer CenterQuestion: I'm looking for a Cancer survivor/supporter pendant. Where should I look? My mom and dad are in Tulsa at the Cancer Treatment Center.
My dad is being treated for prostate cancer. I would like to purchase a pendant I can wear in support of him. Does anyone know of a website I can look at?
P.S. I don't want one of those rubber bracelets.
Question: I am looking desperatly for a recipe please help? This recipe is from a gold medal cookbook, that I had gotten a few years ago , its a christmas edition. the little paper ones that you would buy at the check out counter in the grocery store.
the recipe i want is called peppermint bon bon brownies. They are to go onto a tray of cookies we are selling for women and men (breast and prostate cancer) fundraiser. Someone tore out the recipe from my book, and i really need this asap. I posted the question before but I thought that it was a betty crocker book, my mistake . anyone who can help with the right one,gets the points. it has cream cheese center that you bake with the brownie , and chocolate chips in the cream cheese middle-is tinted green. thank you in advance.
Question: Does Staying up all night give you CANCER ? WOW I am NO LONGER staying up all night working and watching tv.
i am really scared because im 30 year sold an dhave been doing this most of my life!!!!!!!
Tonight is the LAST NIGHT i plan to stay up til midnight.
mmm now when i have kids ill tell my future husband to get up for me to check on the kids. this seems to affect women the worst!
Night-shift work linked to cancer
Digg
del.icio.us
Newsvine
Reddit
Facebook
What's this?
LONDON (AP) — Like UV rays and diesel exhaust fumes, working the graveyard shift will soon be listed as a "probable" cause of cancer.
It is a surprising step validating a concept once considered wacky. And it is based on research that finds higher rates of breast and prostate cancer among women and men whose work day starts after dark.
Next month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, will add overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen. The American Cancer Society says it will likely follow. Up to now, the U.S. organization has considered the work-cancer link to be "uncertain, controversial or unproven."
The higher cancer rates don't prove working overnight can cause cancer. There may be other factors common among graveyard shift workers that raise their risk for cancer.
However, scientists suspect that overnight work is dangerous because it disrupts the circadian rhythm, the body's biological clock. The hormone melatonin, which can suppress tumor development, is normally produced at night.
If the graveyard shift theory eventually proves correct, millions of people worldwide could be affected. Experts estimate that nearly 20% of the working population in developed countries work night shifts.
Among the first to spot the night shift-cancer connection was Richard Stevens, a cancer epidemiologist and professor at the University of Connecticut Health Center. In 1987, Stevens published a paper suggesting a link between light at night and breast cancer.
Back then, he was trying to figure out why breast cancer incidence suddenly shot up starting in the 1930s in industrialized societies, where nighttime work was considered a hallmark of progress. Most scientists were bewildered by his proposal.
But in recent years, several studies have found that women working at night over many years were indeed more prone to breast cancer. Also, animals that have their light-dark schedules switched develop more cancerous tumors and die earlier.
Some research also suggests that men working at night may have a higher rate of prostate cancer.
Because these studies mostly focused on nurses and airline crews, bigger studies in different populations are needed to confirm or disprove the findings.
There are still plenty of skeptics. And to put the risk in perspective, the "probable carcinogen" tag means that the link between overnight work and cancer is merely plausible.
Among the long list of agents that are listed as "known" carcinogens are alcoholic beverages and birth control pills. Such lists say nothing about exposure amount or length of time or how likely they are to cause cancer. The American Cancer Society website notes that carcinogens do not cause cancer at all times.
Still, many doubters of the night shift link may be won over by the IARC's analysis to be published in the December issue of the journal Lancet Oncology.
"The indications are positive," said Vincent Cogliano, who heads up the agency's carcinogen classifications unit. "There was enough of a pattern in people who do shift work to recognize that there's an increase in cancer, but we can't rule out the possibility of other factors."
Scientists believe having lower melatonin levels can raise the risk of developing cancer. Light shuts down melatonin production, so people working in artificial light at night may have lower melatonin levels.
Melatonin can be taken as a supplement, but experts don't recommend it long-term, since that could ruin the body's ability to produce it naturally.
Sleep deprivation may be another factor in cancer risk. People who work at night are not usually able to completely reverse their day and night cycles.
"Night shift people tend to be day shift people who are trying to stay awake at night," said Mark Rea, director of the Light Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who is not connected with the IARC analysis.
Not getting enough sleep makes your immune system vulnerable to attack, and less able to fight off potentially cancerous cells.
Confusing your body's natural rhythm can also lead to a breakdown of other essential tasks. "Timing is very important," Rea said. Certain processes like cell division and DNA repair happen at regular times.
Even worse than working an overnight shift is flipping between daytime and overnight work.
"The problem is re-setting your body's clock," said Aaron Blair, of the United States' National Cancer Institute, who chaired IARC's recent meeting on shift work. "If you worked at night and stayed on it, that would be less disruptive than constantly changing shifts."
Anyone whose light and dark schedule is often disrupted — including frequent long-haul travelers or insomniacs — could theoretically face the same increased cancer risk, Stevens said.
He advises workers to sleep in a darkened room once they get off work. "The balance between light and dark is very important for your body. Just get a dark night's sleep."
Meanwhile, scientists are trying to come up with ways to reduce night workers' cancer risk. And some companies are experimenting with different lighting, seeking a type that doesn't affect melatonin production.
So far, the color that seems to have the least effect on melatonin is one that few people would enjoy working under: red.
Copyright 2007 The Associated
Blask, D.E., G.C. Brainard, et al. 2005. Melatonin-depleted blood from premenopausal women exposed to light at night stimulates growth of human breast cancer xenografts in nude rats. Cancer Research 65(Dec. 1):11174-11184. Abstract available at http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/23/11174.
Schernhammer, E.S., and S.E. Hankinson. 2005. Urinary melatonin levels and breast cancer risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97(July 20):1084-1087. Abstract available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji190.
wow what a bunch of mediocre minds reading this important news.
ill explain as simply as possible
melatonin slows down cell division and this reduces cancer rates.
the peak for melatonin acitivity is at 2-3 AM.
Blind women get 60% less breast cancer and this is attributed to melatonin production not being impeded.
Im really shocked by how quickly and foolishly all of you laugh at brilliant researchers findings.
Question: Why do cancer survival rates in europe lag behind the U.S.? Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States
Zosia Chustecka
Information from Industry
October 15, 2008 — New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However, comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe is still lagging behind the United States.
One of the main messages from both reports is that in Europe, "for most cancers, survival has increased and between-country survival differences have decreased over time," notes an accompanying commentary by Mike Richards, CBE, from the United Kingdom's Department of Health. However, the differences between countries are not trivial, and "many more lives could be saved if the outcomes of all countries were brought up to the standards of the best" (ie, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), he comments. The United Kingdom in particular comes out badly in the tables, showing cancer survival rates that are among the worst in Europe. The findings suggest that the national cancer plan for England, which began in 2000, is not working, a second editorial comments.
Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe
One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2006.
Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment.
Further analysis of these figures shows that, in the case of men, more than half of the difference in survival between Europe and United States can be attributed to prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is excluded, the survival rates decreased to 38.1% in Europe and 46.9% in the United States. For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment.
Lancet Oncol. Published online December 21, 2008.
Question: I just want to tell you guys something? I'm a cancer survivor. It was discovered early and quite by accident. Reddish looking semen was the sign. I immediately went to a local urologist and was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He sent me to the world famous cancer center M.D. Anderson in Houston where I was assigned to a world known surgeon. He said that the only way to be sure was to remove the prostate. It took me 5 minutes to make up my mind to do what he said. I've been cancer free for 5 years and they say that I'm cured. What I'm trying to tell you guys is that if you even suspect that you might have cancer get right to a doctor instead of asking idiots like us on Answers if you have cancer. The sooner you catch it the better your chances for survival are. Try to get to a large city for surgery or treatment. That is where the best doctors are that are on the cutting edge of medicine. I know that I had it easy compared to many of you. Many of these large famous hospitals will treat you for free if you can't afford it. Just do the best you can and the sooner the better. Bless you all.
Shelly, Peter, thanks for backing me up. I know that we are right. So many people can be saved. Like they said on MASH "Why do people wait so long to go see their gorilla"?
Thanks to all of you. It's good to see that there are people that really care. I only wish that we could reach more people. C C , I don't know what problems you are still having but there is a wonderful neurosurgeon in Houston named Charles Neblett. There is also Diagnostic Clinic, one of the world's best medical facilities. They assign a team of doctors to you. If anyone can fix you they can.
I can't choose a best answer. You guys are all so caring and compassionate. I'll let the voters do it or one of you do it. I'm making all of you contacts.
Question: Can you write this in your own words please ???!! Bouns Poins for this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? WRite this in your own words please!!
"We always want to see the grand-slam home run," said Dr. Martin Abeloff, director of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. "But what we are seeing are incremental gains."
Abeloff added: "We are clearly on the right path. . . . We are seeing that cancer is really beginning to convert to a chronic disease."
Among men, deaths from lung cancer, prostate cancer and colorectal cancer dropped the most. In women, the greatest decline was recorded in breast and colorectal cancers.
Experts attributed the progress to a variety of forces, including improved screening, a decline in smoking and the development of better drugs and therapies
The absolute drop in the number of cancer deaths continues a trend that started in the 1990s, when cancer death rates started to level off and then decline, said Elizabeth Ward, director of surveillance for the American Cancer Society
Please help please help !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Question: Can I get cancer from coworker? I was at work today, and I have a coworker who has polups in his colon, cancer in his prostate, and a cyst on his spleen. I think he takes a lot of medication for this. I don't know what caused it, but today he passed gas while he was standing next to me without telling me. It smelled horrible. Worse than most farts. Is it irresponsible for him to do this? And could I contract cancer from inhaling the gasses, especially considering his ailment is centered in that region?
I need a serious answer to this, and fast! If I need to see a doctor, I want to do it sooner rather than later.
Question: State what the problem you are fixing in the main body of the following article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it.
This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing.
Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others.
“Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.”
Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480.
Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both.
The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years.
A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option.
One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004.
“Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.”
Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer.
“We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.”
Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either.
Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials.
By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years.
“This is the state of prostate cancer,” Mr. Kirk of Us Too said. “There aren’t any clear answers.”
Question: please explain the problem about the following article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it.
This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing.
Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others.
“Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.”
Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480.
Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both.
The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years.
A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option.
One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004.
“Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.”
Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer.
“We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.”
Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either.
Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials.
By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years
Question: jut one paragram to explain the main idea and prbolem about this article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it.
This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing.
Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others.
“Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.”
Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480.
Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both.
The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years.
A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option.
One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004.
“Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.”
Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer.
“We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.”
Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either.
Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials.
By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years
Question: please explain the problem of the following article, please!? A diagnosis of prostate cancer is scary enough. But just as scary is that nobody can tell a man the best way to treat it.
This month, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality issued a sweeping review of prostate cancer treatments, including surgical removal, radiation, hormone therapy and so-called watchful waiting, which involves careful monitoring but no active treatment until the cancer shows signs of growing.
Because none of these treatments emerged as superior, the agency came to the troubling conclusion that it could not recommend one over the others.
“Having been involved in this area for a long time, it was not shocking, but it is disappointing,” said Dr. Timothy J. Wilt, lead researcher on the report, from the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research. “Information is really lacking to determine whether over all one treatment is more effective and preferred.”
Prostate cancer is the single most common cancer in the United States and the second most lethal among men after lung cancer. In 2008, the American Cancer Society estimates, 186,320 men will learn that they have it and 28,660 will die from it. The estimates for breast cancer are 182,460 and 40,480.
Prostate cancer is often diagnosed with a blood test that looks for prostate-specific antigen, P.S.A. There is widespread consensus that the test casts too wide a net, resulting in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And the treatment can be devastating, leaving men impotent, incontinent or both.
The reasons behind the lack of data on prostate cancer are complex. A lack of financing and advocacy have roles. But so does the fact that prostate tumors grow slowly and can take 10 or more years to turn deadly. Not only does that make the disease particularly expensive and time consuming to study, but it is also a built-in disincentive for the drug industry, which typically has patent protection from 7 to 20 years.
A bigger obstacle to finding answers may be the patients, who have long been reluctant to participate in clinical trials, and their doctors, who tend to scorn such trials because they are already convinced that their chosen treatment is the best option.
One major clinical trial called Spirit, for Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial, would have compared surgical removal with brachytherapy, which involves implanting radioactive seeds. Just 56 of the 1,980 needed patients enrolled, and the trial was called off in 2004.
“Men don’t go into the clinical trials,” said Dr. Daniel P. Petrylak, associate professor of medicine and director of the genitourinary oncology program at the Columbia University Medical Center. “That’s the whole problem. Patients ask me all the time, ‘What is the best treatment?’ And I can’t give them an evidence-based approach for that, because we don’t have the data.”
Prostate doctors and patient advocates often compare their cause with that of the other leading sex-specific cancer: one of the largest prostate cancer support groups is called Us Too, a play on the Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization. The dismal state of prostate cancer research and advocacy pales in comparison to the campaign against breast cancer.
“We’re at least a decade behind where breast cancer awareness is,” Thomas Kirk, president of Us Too, said. “We need to catch up. The lessons learned by breast cancer are the ones we’re trying to apply to prostate cancer.”
Prostate cancer groups have tried to replicate the success of the pink ribbon campaign with their own blue ribbon, but it has yet to gain widespread acceptance. A group advocating the development of imaging technology for prostate screening created a mascot, Prosty the Spokesgland, complete with a theme song, to the tune of “Frosty the Snowman.” Not surprisingly, it has not caught on, either.
Government spending for prostate cancer lags, too. In 2007, the National Cancer Institute spent an estimated $551.1 million on breast cancer research and $305.6 million on prostate cancer. For 2008, the Defense Department, which has a history of supporting health research, has allocated $138 million for breast cancer and $80 million for prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer researchers say the real problem is not so much financing as enlisting doctors and patients on board for clinical trials.
By 2010, men should have some answers from Pivot, the Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial, which is comparing surgical removal with watchful waiting. Results of studies looking at P.S.A. screening as well as the preventive benefits of the supplements vitamin E and selenium are also expected in a few years
Question: Should I get a tubal ligation?? I am currently 38 weeks pregnant with my fourth child. My oldest is 4. During the middle of this pregnancy I was pretty sure that I would be okay with a tubal but found out that the doctors would not preform it b/c it is a catholic hospital. I was okay with that b/c somewhere in the back of my head I kept asking myself what if I wanted another baby in 15 years? (I'm in my early 20's) My husband comes up with excuse after excuse not to get a vasectomy (prostate cancer, costs, days off work). Last week at my doctor visit they told me I could get a tubal they would just wait a few weeks and I would have to go to a different medical center to have the surgery. My doctor would still preform it. Now I'm not sure I want one especially if I have to wait 3 weeks after this birth to go in and have another surgery. This baby is scheduled for c-sect in two weeks. My husband wants me to but I just don't think I can handle 2 stomach surgeries and take care of 4 under 4. Should I try IUD instead?
My husband is concerned about the side effects of an IUD. Mainly the increase in blood pressure (mine is around 100-110 over 68, I'm not worried about that) the increase in moodiness, worse cramping, bad PMS, risk of infection, etc....he's really not wanting the IUD.
Question: I have a hard lump like the size of a big meat ball in the front of my neck. Is this a cause of alarm? I have a hard lump on a bit left side of my neck that moves when I talk, swallow, or sing. It is growing slowly. This is the third year since I first noticed it when I looked at myself on the mirror. Wonder if it should be a cause of alarm. It is about three times bigger now from the very first time I noticed it three years ago. I really do not know when it was there because I get lumps here and there and they disappear. But this particular lump has not disappeared. It became harder and larger and rounder. It is like having an Adam's apple slightly to the left.
It is now about double my thumb size. Get to think of it, it may have grown four times bigger from the first time I saw it three years ago.
The lump is on my thyroid. I believe this because it is located on the near center front of my neck -- slightly left from where an Adam's Apple should be. I saw several pictures on my researches about that exact location/spot. It is definitely not within the lymphatic system.
I know those little soft lumps that the lymphatic system create that moves about from place to place especially when I have a cold, allergies, and some hair spray on my hair. When these are gone, the nodes disappear, too.
But this particular nodule I have on my thyroid, is growing by the millimeter. It is protruding outward like an Adam's apple and it is round like a huge grape or a small plum. It is a hard mass. Only moves as I swallow, talk or sing just like how an Adam's apple would move.
I still feel well though. Other than having regular bleeding left nose and having constant swollen lower legs (feet, ankles and calves) when I sit more than 20 minutes without moving, I am fine. I have to keep my legs up whenever I sit or lie down to avoid the inflammations. Now, I have frequent tingling and burning feeling inside my arms, legs, shoulders. Sometimes, I have numb feeling on my entire head and a piercing pain on a single vein on my head (somewhere side top portion to the back portion of the head). And sometimes, I have my entire back feeling the tingling - burning and numbness. When pressed to the bones, the bone and nerves hurt. I do not like to be massaged because pressing on my back aches.
I have a family filled with cancer. My father's siblings: 4 out of 6 have/had cancer. Two are dead. One is leukemia and one from breast cancer. The other two are male who are still alive. My father has prostate cancer and my uncle has thymus cancer. On my mother's side, one out of three siblings have cancer. My aunt (sister of my mom) has breast cancer and still living.
I am 47 years old. My aunt who died of leukemia was 5 years old when she died. The other aunt who died of breast cancer was around 60 when she died.
Question: Why is this kind of thing happening with regulations in place? Dr. Kao, graduate of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, BOTCHED 92 out of 116 Prostate Cancer treatments. And then he tried to cover it up.
The VA Hospital in Philadelphia was Accredited by the Joint Commission days after discoveries that something was wrong.
"Soon after, the N.R.C. sent its own inspectors to Philadelphia. And the more the inspectors looked, the more they found. All told, 57 of the implants delivered too little radiation to the prostate, either because the seeds missed the prostate or were not distributed properly inside the prostate. Thirty-five other cases involved overdoses to other parts of the body. An unspecified number of patients were both underdosed in the prostate and overdosed elsewhere."
As for one of the patients who got a botched treatment, this is what happened:
"At first, Pastor Flippin’s implant seemed fine. But 10 months later, he said, he began experiencing bowel pain that worsened with time. Now back in West Virginia, Pastor Flippin sought treatment at a V.A. hospital in Huntington. Doctors there suspected constipation, hemorrhoids or gas.
“They gave me suppositories, they gave me flushings, they gave me a rinse where you sit in and everything else,” Pastor Flippin said. “I’m saying none of this is working.”
Doctors then prescribed narcotics. “It was just a succession of painkiller after painkiller after painkiller, and it got to the point where I said, ‘I don’t want any more morphine,’ ” Pastor Flippin said. His weight dropped to 109 pounds, a 20 percent loss. He had to quit his job coordinating after-school programs for a coalition of churches in Charleston, W.Va.
“This is not working,” he told his doctors. “I’m barely alive, I’m wasting away and you all are not doing anything.”
Increasingly desperate, Pastor Flippin sought help from the Ohio State University Medical Center, where a doctor finally made a diagnosis: “Radiation injury to anal canal,” he wrote. Surgery was performed to cover the damaged area with a tissue flap.
It would be another year and a half before a letter from the V.A. arrived, informing Pastor Flippin in August 2008 that he had received a flawed implant. “The treatment you received did not meet V.A.’s high standard of care,” the letter said.
At this point, it hardly mattered that the V.A. rendered Pastor Flippin’s first name wrong, calling him Richard, rather than Ricardo."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/21radiation.html?pagewanted=1
Question: Would someone plz post an Accomplishments BIO of OBama as I am of Hillary?
Question: When does the pain and hurting stop? My husband Jim of 43 years asked me for a divorce in january 2009.? I was in California visiting my dad when he called one morning saying I want a divorce. He said we could divorce...he'd still live here on our property and would take care of me financially.(right) I immediately flew back home. To make a long story short and after much investigating and pictures we have had two hearings. I found out he had a girlfriend (Mary M.) whom he met in excercise class at a senior center. He has known her for 9 months. I never seen it coming. He was impotent because of his prostate cancer treatments but started on Viagra for her in January....also bought a Penile Vac Pump. He moved out completely in February. Lives mostly at her house. Flaunts her to public resturants and buys her gifts. He is a real winner. Oh the things I have overheard on his telephone calls to her and found out about my husband is enough to make your skin crawl. I can't believe this was the man I loved for 43 years and AM STILL MARRIED TO. Now he is so angry and full of hate toward me because I won't let him live in the RV on the property or give him access to the property when he wants. We don't even talk. I was never granted the priviledge of sitting down and talking to him before he moved out. This is the most painful and hurtful time of my life. I still don't understand why he has done what he's done. Guess I'll never know. We have had two prelimanary hearings, final trial scheduled for October. I have possession of the home at this time but no financial support as yet. I am unable to work. He runs our family business I started 13 years ago. Please give some advice. I need all the help I can get both physically and emotionally. What can I expect in the end.
Types of Cancer |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- 2010 CancerHelp.net
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Service