cancer

A Wellness Blogger Who Lied About Having Cancer Has Been Fined $322,000

Source: Motherboard.vice.com
Author: Kaleigh Rogers
Date: September 28, 2017

There are serious consequences that come from hawking pseudoscience online, including harming your readers or yourself. But in case physical harm isn’t enough motivation to quit slinging shady “wellness” advice online, here’s another reason: you could wind up getting fined.

That’s what happened to disgraced Australian wellness blogger Belle Gibson, who has been fined $322,000 for claiming she treated her brain cancer without conventional medicine. Gibson had said she overcame an inoperable brain tumor, stroke, and cardiac arrests through clean eating, and avoiding dairy, gluten, and coffee. Conveniently, these claims helped her to sell her book The Whole Pantry, and app of the same name, raking in nearly half a million AUD. But in 2015, an investigation by Australian Women’s Weekly—complete with Gibson’s confession—revealed it was all a hoax.

In response, Consumer Affairs Victoria brought a case to federal court, and in March Gibson was found guilty of five breaches of consumer law. On Thursday, Gibson was ordered to pay the fine of $410,000 AUD ($322,000 USD).

It’s not the first time shady wellness tips have caused controversy for bloggers. Gwyneth Paltrow’s venture, Goop—the epitome of pseudoscience profiteering—has been called out for flogging all kinds of questionable goods, including a jade vagina egg that some gynecologists warned could cause infections.

Or the wellness trend of eating whole aloe vera leaves that led one vlogger to be hospitalized after eating a poisonous agave plant by mistake.

When wellness bloggers tell the truth, and really do try to fight off cancer without any conventional treatment, it doesn’t usually work out so well. A popular 30-year-old blogger died in 2015 after she tried to cure her cancer with coffee enemas and raw juices. And in case you’re inclined to trust your blogger of choice, lest we forget the former naturopath who told us how easy it was to create and sell a detox diet scam.

Wellness blogging is a trendy, profitable market right now, but let this be a warning: all that easy money can come at a price.

September, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

Cancer is a fungus’?! We need to get serious about evidence-based treatment

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Date: August 3rd, 2017
Author: Judith Potts

Over the last few years I have come across myriad myths about cures for breast cancer – indeed all cancers.  Of course, everyone is looking for a treatment which does not involve chemotherapy, a diagnostic test which does not use radiation, or a treatment without side effects.

While thermography may be an innovative concept, there is little good evidence that it is effective in detecting breast cancer at an early stageEluned Hughes, head of public health and information at Breast Cancer Now

But I have lost count of the number of times I have heard that ‘Cancer is a fungus and Sodium Bicarbonate is the cure’.  I have even been sent an amateur video of a man mixing his sodium bicarbonate potion in an extremely unhygienic-looking  kitchen. Part of the Cancer Research UK’s website carries ‘10 Persistent Cancer Myths Debunked’ which makes an interesting read –  . Alternative therapies abound and all are described as ‘natural’.

The word is applied to food, to beauty products and to fabrics – but, all too often, the list of ingredients denies the description. Last week, an email dropped into my inbox introducing me to Dr Nyjon Eccles and describing his work at his clinic in London’s Harley Street – The ‘Natural’ Doctor.  Was it referring to his treatments as being ‘natural’ in the sense of pure, unadulterated and complementary, or did he mean that he was born a ‘natural’ doctor?

I discovered that Dr Eccles is offering a breast cancer screening clinical test called ThermoCheck, a computer-assisted thermography which is ‘a 15 minute, painless, non-invasive, state of the art clinical test without any exposure to radiation’.  Dr Eccles believes the test can be used on women as young as 20 and it will “identify metabolic changes in the tissue and is a much earlier indicator of breast health compromise than traditional mammograms”.

He says that thermography may identify pre-cancerous changes; thermography, the website script goes, “looks for physiological irregularities, whereas mammography looks for anatomical irregularities.  The infra-red camera takes thermal images of the breasts which show a heat map of the surface of the skin detecting any metabolic changes and signs of abnormal blood vessels- which give off more heat than the surrounding tissue – at an early stage, possibly 6-10 years before a tumour is big enough to be seen on a mammogram.”

Needless to say, there is a price to this test – the initial breast thermography and consultation (up to 90 min) is £395, with a breast thermography scan (up to 30 mins) at £245. Added to this is Dr Eccles’ Breast Nutricheck, which is a home test kit which ‘identifies several nutrients that seem to impact on breast tissue health’. This costs £425.

With so much written about breast cancer, particularly about the genetic varieties, I am concerned that many women (I note that men are not included) – particularly the young – may be persuaded to undertake this test on a regular and expensive basis.  So I turned to Breast Cancer Now to find out whether or not thermography was an accepted and proven way to detect early breast cancer.

It seems to me that not enough has been done to compare thermography to mammography with ultrasound

Eluned Hughes, head of public health and information at Breast Cancer Now told me: “While thermography may be an innovative concept, there is little good evidence that it is effective in detecting breast cancer at an early stage – let alone that it could replace traditional mammography.  Any new screening test would need to demonstrate even greater sensitivity than mammography, as well as better accuracy in detecting breast tumours and distinguishing between cancerous and healthy cells.  Unfortunately, there is currently no evidence to suggest that thermography is capable of either.”

This lack of evidence has led to the Royal College of Radiology, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and The American Society of Breast Imaging specifically not endorsing the process.

One of the concerns raised is that women who undergo thermography may delay visiting their doctor with a significant symptom, or attending for screening, if they believe that thermography is an adequate replacement for a visit to the GP or a mammogram.

I brought these concerns to Dr Eccles, who said that thermography has been shown to have a better sensitivity for detecting existing cancers than mammography, and that the variable results may be because “some thermographic studies have not used accepted standardised protocols.”

Arguing that thermography should be offered by doctors alongside other structural scans, he told me: “It is simply not true that there is no evidence for thermography’s usefulness. It time for doctors to make honest and correct statements about mammography screening based on the latest evidence – i.e. the risks outweigh the benefits. Thermography is at the very least, a valuable non-invasive adjunctive tool to identify women at risk and help detect pre-cancerous changes in the breast. If used correctly, it has the potential to help us significantly reduce breast cancer incidence.”

Studies continue to be conducted in the USA to explore the potential of infrared imaging of the breast, but it seems to me that not enough has been done to compare thermography to mammography with ultrasound, breast MRI, or nuclear imaging. One day there might be and perhaps the results will vindicate Dr Eccles but, until we can be assured that thermography will give an accurate diagnosis, please remember that if you have a family history of breast cancer, regular screening or other interventions can be offered by the NHS at a younger age than the 49-50 age group at which invitations for mammograms arrive.

August, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

Personalized cancer vaccines successful in first-stage human trials

Source: http://newatlas.com/cancer-personalized-vaccine-success-trial/50402/
Author: Rich Haridy
Date: July 9, 2017

A cancer vaccine is one of the holy grails of modern medical research, but finding a way to stimulate the immune system to specifically target and kill cancer cells has proven to be a difficult task. Now two recent clinical trials that have produced encouraging results in patients with skin cancer are are providing hope for the development of personalized cancer vaccines tailored to individual patient’s tumors.

Both studies focus on neoantigens, which are mutated molecules found only on the surface of cancer cells. Neoantigens prove to be ideal targets for immunotherapy as they are not present on healthy cells. A vaccine’s challenge is to train the body’s immune cells, known as T cells, to hunt and kill only those specific tumor cells that hold the target neoantigens.

In the first trial, at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, samples of tumors were taken from six patients with melanoma. The patients were identified as having a high risk for recurrence after first having their tumors removed by surgery. For each individual patient the researchers identified up to 20 neoantigens specific to a subject’s tumor.

Computer algorithms were then utilized to help the researchers select which specific neoantigens would best stimulate the body’s T cells. Those neoantigens were then synthesized, mixed with an adjuvant to stimulate immune response, and injected into the individual patients.

Four out of the six patients in this first trial displayed no recurrence of their cancer 25 months after vaccination. The other two patients did have a recurrence of cancer, although in those cases the cancer had already spread into their lungs. After a secondary treatment with the drug pembrolizumab, they also entered complete remission.

The second trial, by Biopharmaceutical New Technologies (BioNTech) in Germany, used a similar strategy that targeted neoantigens in 13 patients with melanoma. These vaccines targeted up to 10 specific neoantigens in each individual patient, and after 12 to 23 months eight subjects were cancer-free.

The vaccines in both studies successfully stimulated both kinds of cancer-killing T cells: the CD8+ cells and their CD4+ helper cells. The studies also found that the T cells were able to specifically target a patient’s tumor.

It’s still early stages in research terms, but these results are incredibly promising. With more, and broader, clinical trials set for the near future, it is yet to be seen how effective these kinds of personalized vaccines are across a wide range of different cancers. A larger clinical trial that also targets bladder and lung cancers is currently underway.

One of the big challenges to overcome, should this form of personalized treatment prove broadly successful, is the cost and time in developing these customized vaccines. Current estimates claim a single patient’s neoantigen vaccine costs up to $US60,000 to produce. In tandem with other new drug innovations, some patients could be paying several hundred thousand dollars for these treatments should they reach the market.

The time it takes to produce an individual vaccine is also a concern when considering how this treatment could be rolled out on a mass scale. It took several months to produce the vaccines in both studies, but the researchers are confident this time frame could be reduced to six weeks or less. However, this is still a significant amount of time if the process was to be rolled out on a large scale.

Pragmatic challenges aside though, these neoantigen vaccines could pave the way for an exciting new form of personalized cancer treatment. One that allows for specific tumors to be targeted by the immune system through customized vaccines.

The results of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute trial were published in the journal Nature, as were the results of the second trial by Biopharmaceutical New Technologies (BioNTech).

July, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

Study reveals high environmental cost of tobacco

Source: www.cnn.com
Date: May 31st, 2017
Author: Jacopo Prisco

Details of the environmental cost of tobacco are revealed in a study released Wednesday by the World Health Organization, adding to the well-known costs to global health, which translate to a yearly loss of $1.4 trillion in health-care expenses and lost productivity.

From crop to pack, tobacco commands an intensive use of resources and forces the release of harmful chemicals in the soil and waterways, as well as significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Its leftovers linger, as tobacco litter is the biggest component of litter worldwide.

“Tobacco not only produces lung cancer in people, but it is a cancer to the lungs of the Earth,” said Dr. Armando Peruga, who previously coordinated the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative and now works as a consultant. He reviewed the new report for the WHO.

Commercial tobacco farming is a worldwide industry that involves 124 countries and occupies 4.3 million hectares of agricultural land. About 90% of it takes place in low-income countries, with China, Brazil and India as the largest producers.

Because tobacco is often a monocrop — grown without being rotated with other crops — the plants and the soil are weak in natural defenses and require larger amounts of chemicals for growth and protection from pests.

“Tobacco also takes away a lot of nutrients from the soil and requires massive amounts of fertilizer, a process that leads to degradation of the land and desertification, with negative consequences for biodiversity and wildlife,” Peruga said.

The use of chemicals directly impacts the health of farmers, 60% to 70% of whom are women. This is especially prominent in low- and middle-income countries, where some compounds that are banned in high-income countries are still used.

300 cigarettes = one tree

Farming also uses a surprisingly large amount of wood, rendering tobacco a driver of deforestation, one of the leading causes of climate change.

About 11.4 million metric tonnes of wood are utilized annually for curing: the drying of the tobacco leaf, which is achieved through various methods, including wood fires. That’s the equivalent of one tree for every 300 cigarettes, or 1.5 cartons.

This adds to the impact of plantations on forest land, which the study describes as a significant cause for concern, citing “evidence of substantial, and largely irreversible, losses of trees and other plant species cause by tobacco farming.”

Deadly gases

In 2012, 967 million daily smokers consumed approximately 6.25 trillion cigarettes worldwide, the WHO estimates.”That means about 6,000 metric tones of formaldehyde and 47,000 metric tonnes of nicotine are released into the environment,” Peruga said.

Tobacco smoke contains about 4,000 chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to be harmful. It also contains climate-warming carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides. “The combination of greenhouse gases from combustion is equivalent to about 1.5 million vehicles driven annually,” Peruga said.

Secondhand smoke is particularly deadly: It contains twice as much nicotine and 147 times more ammonia than so-called mainstream smoke, leading to close to 1 million deaths annually, 28% of them children.

Some of these pollutants remain in the environment (and our homes) as “third-hand smoke,” accumulating in dust and surfaces indoors, and in landfills. Some, like nicotine, even resist treatment, polluting waterways and potentially contaminating water used for consumption, the study notes.

Non-biodegradable litter

Tobacco litter is the most common type of litter by count worldwide.

“We calculate that two-thirds of every cigarette ends up as litter,” Peruga said.

The litter is laced with chemicals including arsenic and heavy metals, which can end up in the water supply. Cigarette butts are not biodegradable, and tossing one on the ground is still considered a socially acceptable form of littering in many countries.

The WHO estimates that between 340 million and 680 million kilograms of tobacco waste are thrown away every year, and cigarette butts account for 30% to 40% of all items collected in coastal and urban clean-ups.

“In addition to that, there are 2 million tons of paper, foil, ink and glue used for the packaging,” Peruga said.

A way forward?

Even though smoking is declining globally, it is increasing in some regions, such as the eastern Mediterranean and Africa. China is a world leader both in production (44%) and consumption, with 10 times more cigarettes smoked than in any other nation.

Every stage of the production of a cigarette has negative effects on the environment and the people who are involved in manufacturing tobacco products, even before the health of smokers and non-smokers is affected.

Although governments worldwide already collect $270 billion in tobacco taxes a year, the WHO suggests that increasing tax and prices is an effective way of reducing consumption and help development priorities in each country, adding that by collecting 80 cents more per pack, the global tax revenue could be doubled.

“Tobacco threatens us all,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said in a note. “It exacerbates poverty, reduces economic productivity, contributes to poor household food choices, and pollutes indoor air.”

May, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

Cancer patients sometimes can’t get coverage at the hospitals they want

Source: Washington Post

Author: Michelle Andrews

Published: January 15

Getting cancer is scary. Discovering that your health plan doesn’t give you access to leading cancer centers may make the diagnosis even more daunting.

As insurers participating in the health marketplace shrink their provider networks and slash the number of plans that offer out-of-network coverage, some consumers with cancer are learning that their treatment options can sometimes be limited.

One reader wrote to Kaiser Health News last month saying that she was dismayed to learn that none of the plans offered on the New York marketplace provides access to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, where she is a patient.

Memorial Sloan Kettering is a well-regarded cancer center that is affiliated with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the National Cancer Institute.It participates in New York’s Essential Plan, which is available to lower-income people but not to people enrolling in plans with the familiar categories of bronze, silver, gold and platinum.

NCCN is an alliance of 27 cancer centers whose physicians and researchers develop clinical practice guidelines that are widely respected. The National Cancer Institute’s 69 designated cancer centers, which are recognized for their scientific leadership and research, can offer patients access to cutting-edge treatments and clinical trials.

A 2015 survey found that three-quarters of NCI-designated cancer centers said they participated in at least some exchange plans, and 13 percent said they were included in all exchange plans in their state. Among centers that didn’t participate in any exchanges, many were in states with large numbers of exchange enrollees, including Texas and New York.

Does it matter whether someone with a cancer diagnosis gets treatment at one of these centers rather than at a community hospital or some other site? Research suggests that it may.

A large study published in 2015 found that patients newly diagnosed with several types of cancer — breast, colorectal, lung, pancreatic, gastric and bile duct — were 20 to 50 percent more likely to die of it if they were initially treated somewhere other than at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center.

Researchers hypothesize that the cancer centers’ multidisciplinary approach to decision-making, supportive care and access to the latest treatment, among other things, contribute to the superior outcomes, said Julie Wolfson, a pediatric oncologist at the Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who co-authored the study.

Often, factors besides a hospital’s survival rates contribute to decisions about where to go for care, said Robert Carlson, NCCN’s chief executive. Those include a patient’s social and support systems and concerns about nonmedical costs such as housing and transportation.

“Most patients, if offered the option to go to a major cancer center, especially if it involves traveling, will decline it,” Carlson said.

Some cancer centers aim to give patients access to a variety of facilities. For example, City of Hope cancer center’s main academic campus is in Duarte, Calif., in Los Angeles County. That’s the best site for patients when their cancers are rare or advanced, when optimal treatment isn’t clear or when they could participate in a clinical trial, said Harlan Levine, the chief executive of the City of Hope Medical Foundation. But the cancer center also owns 14 community cancer clinics around southern California for patients who can be effectively treated in that setting.

City of Hope participates in two plans on California’s exchange, Blue Shield and Anthem, and its physicians are in network for the exchange’s Oscar health plan. But most people don’t check about cancer care when they shop for a plan.

“Cancer is an ‘infrequent purchase’ from a marketing point of view,” Levine said. In many cases, patients don’t realize their lack of access until after their diagnosis, when it may be too late.

Cancer centers may try to aid patients regardless of gaps in coverage. “We understand that each patient has a unique financial situation and we work with our patients, especially those in active treatment, to ensure they receive the care needed and that their treatment is uninterrupted,” said Ruth Landé, senior vice president for patient revenues at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

Patients who believe that it’s critical to be treated at a cancer center that’s not in their insurance network have some recourse.

When people receive a cancer diagnosis, it’s “overwhelming,” said Anna Howard, a principal for policy development at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “You may not be aware of the fact that if your insurance plan says you don’t have coverage at a cancer center, you can file an appeal.”

 

“This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.”

January, 2017|Oral Cancer News|

Why won’t our doctors face up to the dangers of radiotherapy?

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1089091/Why-wont-doctors-face-dangers-radiotherapy.html

Author: Isla Whitcroft

It’s a life-saver for thousands – but the side-effects can be devastating.

A year after he’d undergone treatment for cancer of the tonsils, Richard Wayman felt a painful tingling in his legs. Within weeks, the 59-year- old shopkeeper was struggling to walk. He was admitted to hospital, where doctors carried out scans, X-rays and tests.

‘The scans revealed lesions on my lungs, which raised fears that the cancer had spread, so I was admitted to another hospital for a biopsy and, as a result, contracted MRSA and pneumonia,’ recalls Richard, from Colchester in Essex.

‘From 11-and-a-half stone I went down to eight-and-a-half stone. I thought I was never going to get out of there.’

Finally, the lung lesions were diagnosed as a side-effect of the radiotherapy Richard had undergone for his cancer. However, his problems only got worse: a few weeks after a routine tooth extraction, the bone around the extraction started to crumble and become infected.

Within months he had an open weeping wound, running from his lower cheek through his jaw and into his mouth. The diagnosis: bone necrosis as a direct result of radiotherapy damage to the jaw.

Richard is one of the many thousands of cancer survivors who have developed terrible conditions as a result of the radiotherapy treatment that helped save them.

Around 4 to 5 per cent of all head and neck cancer patients suffer problems with swallowing or breathing, fistulas (open holes) in the jaw and gum, loss of taste and hearing.

But the problem is not unique to these cancers. Up to 10 per cent of breast cancer patients suffer radiation damage to their heart, lungs or the nerves to the arms (leading to loss of circulation and movement).

Every year, another 6,000 patients who’ve had pelvic radiotherapy treatment for conditions such as bowel cancer suffer long-term damage (including incontinence). A thousand of these patients go on to suffer even worse problems, such as intestinal failure or heavy bleeding.

It is clear that radiation damage is a significant health care issue. Yet, to date, there has been no national attempt to collate statistics that would enable any significant research work to begin.

Remarkably, it is not even officially classified as a specific medical condition; nor is there any definitive information on how to deal with it.

As a result, when it comes to treating the problems, patients can be offered a mix of options. Some are treated by a urologist, others are referred to a gastroenterologist, or an ear, nose and throat expert, while women often see a gynaecologist. This means many people will go undiagnosed for months and often years.

‘Until recently, radiotherapy damage has not been a priority in the treatment of cancer,’ says oncologist Paul Cornes, who runs clinics for patients with radiotherapy damage.

‘It is not a deliberate cover up; but in the past, cancer medicine was all about the treatment and giving patients a chance of life. Now we must address quality of life after cancer.’

Dr Sylvie Delanian, a radiologist and oncologist at the Hospital St Louis in Paris, is one of the few radiologists around the world to research and treat the condition. ‘Long-term radiotherapy damage is a taboo subject,’ she argues.

‘Radiologists are often frightened to discuss the matter with patients in case they refuse treatment. There is also the feeling that “we’ve saved your life, now go away and live with the side-effects”.’

Indeed, some hospitals seem to actively discourage discussion about the subject. While we were investigating this article, one London trust refused to allow Good Health to speak to their specialist, while another major cancer centre barred us from a conference on pelvic radiotherapy damage.

Radiotherapy is an incredibly successful method of treating cancer, increasing survival rates by around 50 per cent. It works by bombarding the tumour or tumour site with X-rays to kill the dividing cancer cells. In doing so, it inevitably affects surrounding healthy cells.

But areas such as the bowel, lung and jaw seem to be more susceptible to long-term damage. The precise reason is not clear, although it is thought that the mucus which lines the bowel and the delicate sacs in the lung are extremely vulnerable.

Long-term damage can appear as fibrosis (an overgrowing of healthy cells as they go into overdrive to repair the radiotherapy damage) or necrosis (the death of the tissue, causing open holes or fistulas).

Radiotherapy can also damage nerves, reducing blood circulation or causing breathing difficulties, with side-effects often not appearing for several years after treatment.

When Alan Warren was diagnosed with rectal cancer four years ago, it was, understandably, very worrying. The taxi driver and father-of-two underwent chemotherapy, then radiotherapy, to shrink the tumour, before it was removed along with several inches of his bowel.

‘My oncologist said I would be back working within four months. Fours years on, I’m still unable to work,’ says Alan, 55.

During those years, Alan, from Christchurch, Dorset, has suffered unimaginable pain. He has also suffered the indignity of urine leaking out through his back passage after he developed an internal fistula 12cm long, running from the top of his bladder to what was left of his lower bowel.

An operation to close the fistula failed. After that, the only option was a permanent catheter.

‘My problems were all blamed on scar tissue from the original cancer surgery, so I was referred to a urologist for treatment.

‘By chance, Alan’s wife Jackie, a nurse, came across an article on radiotherapy damage. ‘My urologist reluctantly admitted that I probably did have it,’ says Alan.

In the UK treatment tends towards cutting out the afflicted area if necessary – which often results in more scar tissue and pain. But there are other options.

Jervoise Andreyev, a gastroenterologist at the Royal Marsden, London, uses anti-diarrhoea medication, pelvic exercises, antibiotics and dietary changes to treat the problem if it’s in the pelvis.

Meanwhile, Dr Delanian uses a combination of three drugs: vitamin E, pentoxifylline (for vascular and circulatory problems) and clodronate (bone disorders).

Her success rates are impressive, with research to back these up going back over a decade. After contacting the radiotherapy damage action group RAGE, Alan and Jackie found out about Dr Delanian, and in October last year they visited her in Paris. Thanks to treatment, by January 2008 Alan’s fistula was gone and he was healed.

Richard Wayman also saw Dr Delanian. Six months later, the hole in his face healed.

The leg weakness and tingling have stabilised, too.

But despite the fact that some UK doctors are quietly following her method, it is not a mainstream treatment, and many of her patients find that in the UK they are refused the drugs she prescribes.

In 2006, the Royal Marsden carried out a trial into Delanian’s treatment on breast cancer patients, but announced that it failed to show any significant improvement.

Paul Cornes says: ‘Newer radiation therapies such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy deliver more accurate beams with significantly lesser side-effects.

‘Unfortunately, IMRT is not yet widely available in the UK, and proton beam therapy is considered too expensive for the NHS.’

Dr Delanian adds: ‘Radiation is a great tool, but can also be very dangerous. As a profession, we should try to find a way to minimise the risk and deal with the effects.’

 

Originally posted:  

“This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

December, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

We Now Know Exactly How Many DNA Mutations Smoking Causes

Every 50 cigarettes you smoke gives you one extra DNA mutation per lung cell.

large

Source: The Verge
Author: James Vincent

A common tactic for people trying to give up smoking is to quantify exactly how much damage — financial or physical — each cigarette or pack of cigarette does. How much does smoking cost you per month, for example, or how much shorter is your life going to be for each drag you take? Well, a new study into the dangers of smoking now lets us measure this damage right down to the number of mutations in your DNA.

A research team led by scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory compared tissue samples from 1,063 non-smokers and 2,490 smokers, examining each individual’s DNA to look for mutations. They found that for every 50 cigarettes smoked, there is one extra DNA mutation for each cell in the lungs. Over the course of a year, this means that someone who smokes a pack a day (20 cigarettes) has 150 extra mutations per cell in the lung, 97 per larynx cell, 23 per mouth cell, 18 per bladder cell, and six per liver cell.

These changes to the cells aren’t dangerous in themselves, but each one has the potential to turn into a cancerous growth. “Smoking is like playing Russian roulette: the more you play, the higher the chance the mutations will hit the right genes and you will develop cancer,” Ludmil Alexandrov, the co-lead author of the study, told the New Scientist. “However, there will always be people who smoke a lot but the mutations do not hit the right genes.”

The reason for all these extra mutations is found in tobacco smoke — a substance that contains some 7,000 different chemicals, over 70 of which are known to cause cancer. How exactly different types of cell mutations lead to cancer is less clear, and the team from Los Alamos are hoping next to drill down further into this line of research and find out the probabilities that any individual DNA mutation will turn into cancer.

The good news for smokers, though, is that it’s never too late to quit. Although smoking causes regular DNA mutations, as soon as people give up cigarettes, the mutations stop too. One UK study from 2004 found that those who quit smoking at age 30 nearly eliminate the risk of dying prematurely, while those who quit at 50 halve it. For people trying to give up, those are certainly some more comforting odds.

 

This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

November, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Smokeless Tobacco Use and the Risk of Head and Neck Cancer: Pooled Analysis of US Studies in the INHANCE Consortium.

Source: www.pubmed.gov
Author: Wyss AB, Gillison ML, Olshan AF

Abstract

Previous studies on smokeless tobacco use and head and neck cancer (HNC) have found inconsistent and often imprecise estimates, with limited control for cigarette smoking. Using pooled data from 11 US case-control studies (1981-2006) of oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal cancers (6,772 cases and 8,375 controls) in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) Consortium, we applied hierarchical logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ever use, frequency of use, and duration of use of snuff and chewing tobacco separately for never and ever cigarette smokers. Ever use (versus never use) of snuff was strongly associated with HNC among never cigarette smokers (odds ratio (OR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08, 2.70), particularly for oral cavity cancers (OR = 3.01, 95% CI: 1.63, 5.55). Although ever (versus never) tobacco chewing was weakly associated with HNC among never cigarette smokers (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.77), analyses restricted to cancers of the oral cavity showed a stronger association (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.17). Few or no associations between each type of smokeless tobacco and HNC were observed among ever cigarette smokers, possibly reflecting residual confounding by smoking. Smokeless tobacco use appears to be associated with HNC, especially oral cancers, with snuff being more strongly associated than chewing tobacco.

© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.  

October, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

America’s Most Popular ‘Legal’ Drug is Responsible for 25% of ALL Cancer

Source: www.thefreethoughtproject.com
Author: John Vibes

There are many factors contributing to the massive rise in cancer cases in the US, but according to a new study from the American Cancer Society, cigarette smoke is by far the leading cause. The study found that roughly 25% of all cancer deaths could be attributed to cigarette smoking.

Although cigarette smoking has waned somewhat in recent years, nearly 40 million adults in the U.S. currently smoke cigarettes. The CDC says cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the U.S., responsible for more than 480,000 deaths annually.

According to the study:

We estimate that at least 167133 cancer deaths in the United States in 2014 (28.6% of all cancer deaths; 95% CI, 28.2%-28.8%) were attributable to cigarette smoking. Among men, the proportion of cancer deaths attributable to smoking ranged from a low of 21.8% in Utah (95% CI, 19.9%-23.5%) to a high of 39.5% in Arkansas (95% CI, 36.9%-41.7%), but was at least 30% in every state except Utah. Among women, the proportion ranged from 11.1% in Utah (95% CI, 9.6%-12.3%) to 29.0% in Kentucky (95% CI, 27.2%-30.7%) and was at least 20% in all states except Utah, California, and Hawaii. Nine of the top 10 ranked states for men and 6 of the top 10 ranked states for women were located in the South. In men, smoking explained nearly 40% of cancer deaths in the top 5 ranked states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky). In women, smoking explained more than 26% of all cancer deaths in the top 5 ranked states, which included 3 Southern states (Kentucky, Arkansas, and Tennessee), and 2 Western states (Alaska and Nevada).

Smoking is one of the leading causes of illness and death in the world. The use of tobacco has become more widespread than ever and the substance itself is far more dangerous than it has ever been before.

Today, cigarettes are mass produced and treated with thousands of additives and chemicals. Carcinogenic, poisonous chemicals and toxic metals can all be found in modern tobacco products. These chemicals are present for many reasons ranging from taste and preservation to being purposely addictive. There are over 4000 of these chemicals in cigarettes and all of them are not revealed to the public. They are protected under law as “trade secrets” — meaning they can add anything they want in there without our knowledge.

The financial advantage alone should be enough of an argument to quit smoking. In most states, cigarettes are now over 6 dollars a pack, more than half of which is taxes. So people are literally paying the government and rich multinational corporations an average of 10 dollars every day, for a product that destroys their bodies. It is true that there are addictive chemicals in cigarettes but their strength and power has been blown way out of proportion.

The psychological addiction is always much stronger than the physical addiction even with harsh narcotics like heroin and especially with nicotine. All you have to do is stop and get through a few days without it. Soon enough the smell and taste will no longer be desirable to you and you will be happy to have that extra 6 dollars a pack in your pocket. It will be easier to breathe, you won’t get sick as often and you will overall be in better spirits. Quitting cigarettes is one decision that you can make that will drastically improve your life in a number of ways and it will give the elite less control of your money and your health.

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy.

October, 2016|Oral Cancer News|

Can your own immune system kill cancer?

Source: www.cnn.com
Author: Jacqueline Howard

screen-shot-2016-10-26-at-9-38-07-am

There was another big win in the advancement of immunotherapy treatments for cancer this week.

The Food and Drug Administration approved an immunotherapy drug called Keytruda, which stimulates the body’s immune system, for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

In other words, the drug could be the very first treatment a patient receives for the disease, instead of chemotherapy. Keytruda is the only immunotherapy drug approved for first-line treatment for these patients.

So it seems, the future of cancer care may be in our own immune systems, but how exactly does it work, and what are its pros and cons?

“It’s certainly going to become an independent way of treating cancers,” said Dr. Philip Greenberg, head of immunology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, during a Q&A session at the International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference in New York in September.

“We always talk about the three pillars of cancer therapy — radiation therapy, chemotherapy and surgery — and it’s become quite clear now that there’s going to be a fourth pillar, which is immunotherapy,” he said. “There are times where it will be used alone, and there will be times that it will be used in conjunction with the other therapies, but there’s very little to question that this is going to be a major part of the way cancers are treated from now on, going forward.”

Here’s a look at the past, present and future of cancer immunotherapy.

It began with Bessie

In the summer of 1890, 17-year-old Elizabeth Dashiell, affectionately called “Bessie,” caught her hand between two seats on a passenger train and later noticed a painful lump in the area that got caught, according to the Cancer Research Institute.

She met with a 28-year-old physician named Dr. William Coley in New York to address the injury. He performed a biopsy, expecting to find pus in the lump, probably from an infection. But what he found was more disturbing: a small gray mass on the bone. It was a malignant tumor from a type of cancer called sarcoma.

Dashiell had her arm amputated to treat the cancer, but the disease quickly spread to the rest of her body. She died in January 1891. A devastated Coley went on to devote his medical career to cancer research.

Coley is sometimes referred to as the “father of cancer immunotherapy,” according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

During his career, he noticed that infections in cancer patients were sometimes associated with the disease regressing. The surprising discovery prompted him to speculate that intentionally producing an infection in a patient could help treat cancer.

To test the idea, Coley created a mixture of bacteria and used that cocktail to create infections in cancer patients in 1893. The bacteria would sometimes spur a patient’s immune system to attack not only the infection but also anything else in the body that appeared “foreign,” including a tumor. In one case, when Coley injected streptococcal bacteria into a cancer patient to cause erysipelas, a bacterial infection in the skin, the patient’s tumor vanished — presumably because it was attacked by the immune system.

Coley’s idea was occasionally studied by various researchers in the 1900s but was not widely accepted as a cancer treatment approach until more recently.

“Immunotherapy has essentially undergone a sort of revolution in the last decade in the sense that something that was experimental — and there were still questions about what role it would have in the way cancer is treated — is completely turned around, and now it’s clear it’s effective,” Greenberg said.

German physician Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1908, proposed using the immune system to suppress tumor formation in the “immune surveillance” hypothesis — an idea that seems to follow Coley’s.

Yet it wasn’t until the early 2000s that the hypothesis became more widely accepted, according to the Cancer Research Institute. A landmark review published in the journal Nature Immunology in 2002 supported the validity of cancer immunosurveillance.

“Cancer immunotherapy really refers to treatments that use your own immune system to recognize, control and hopefully ultimately cure cancers,” said Jill O’Donnell-Tormey, CEO of the Cancer Research Institute, during the conference in New York last month.

“Many people for many years didn’t think the immune system was really going to have a role in any treatment for cancer,” she said, “but I think the entire medical community (and) oncologists now agree that immunotherapy’s here to stay.”

‘Turning oncology on its head’

One of the most famous cancer patients to have received a form of immunotherapy is former President Jimmy Carter, who had a deadly form of skin cancer called melanoma. Last year, he announced that he was cancer-free after undergoing a combination of surgery, radiation and immunotherapy.

Carter was taking Keytruda. It’s approved to treat melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and head and neck cancer. However, it’s not the only approved immunotherapy option out there.

“The advances and the results we’ve seen with using the immune system to treat cancer in the last five years or so are turning the practice of oncology on its head,” said Dr. Crystal Mackall, a professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine and expert on cancer immunotherapy.

You don’t want to overstate it. As an immunotherapist, I see things from my vantage point, which is biased, but my clinical colleagues use words like ‘revolution,’ ” she said. “When I hear them say that, I think, ‘Wow, this really is a paradigm shifting for how we think about treating cancer.’ ”

Immunotherapy comes in many forms — treatment vaccines, antibody therapies and drugs — and can be received through an injection, a pill or capsule, a topical ointment or cream, or a catheter.

The FDA approved the first treatment vaccine for cancer, called sipuleucel-T or Provenge, in 2010. It stimulates an immune system response to prostate cancer cells and was found in clinical trials to increase the survival of men with a certain type of prostate cancer by about four months.

Another treatment vaccine, called T-VEC or Imlygic, was approved by the FDA in 2015 to treat some patients with metastatic melanoma.

Some antibody therapies have been approved, as well. Antibodies, a blood protein, play a key role in the immune system and can be produced in a lab to help the immune system attack cancer cells.

The FDA has approved several antibody-drug conjugates, including Kadcyla for the treatment of some breast cancers, Adcetris for Hodgkin lymphoma and a type of non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma, and Zevalin for a type of non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma.

The FDA also has approved some immunotherapy drugs known as immune checkpoint inhibitors. They block some of the harm that cancer cells can cause to weaken the immune system.

Keytruda, which Carter took, is a checkpoint inhibitor drug. Other such drugs include Opdivo to treat Hodgkin lymphoma, advanced melanoma, a form of kidney cancer and advanced lung cancer. Tecentriq is used to treat bladder cancer, and Yervoy is used for late-stage melanoma.

Additionally, there are many immunotherapy treatments in clinical trials, such as CAR T-cell therapy. The cutting-edge therapy involves removing T-cells from a patient’s immune system, engineering those cells in a lab to target specific cancer cells and then infusing the engineered cells back into the patient. The treatment is being tested to treat leukemia and lymphoma.

“The real excitement now in cellular therapy, in T-cell therapies, is it reflects the developments in an area that we call synthetic biology, which is that you can add genes to cells and you can change what they do, how they behave, how they function, what they recognize,” Greenberg said.

The high price of new immunotherapy drugs has also garnered attention in the field, according to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. For instance, some estimates suggest that checkpoint inhibitor treatments could cost as much as $1 million per patient.

As approvals continue, many scientists caution that doctors and patients alike should prepare for potential severe side effects and downsides.

Boosting the immune system with such therapies may cause skin reactions, flu-like symptoms, heart palpitations, diarrhea and a risk of infection. New cancer immunotherapy drugs have even been linked to arthritis in some patients.

A clinical trial conducted by Juno Therapeutics to test the effectiveness of an experimental immunotherapy treatment for lymphoblastic leukemia was halted after three patients died. They suffered cerebral edema or brain swelling.

Greenberg is a scientific co-founder of Juno Therapeutics.

However, “one of the best attributes of immunotherapy and the future of medicine is that it’s very precise in the way that it kills tissue and spares normal tissue, so in some way, immunotherapy is less toxic (than other therapies). There are patients who are treated with checkpoint inhibitors who have essentially no side effects,” Mackall said. “That would never happen with chemotherapy. They would always have side effects.

“Still, you know, the fact remains that probably nothing is perfect, and there are likely to be some side effects, but as far as we know now, they are less likely to be as severe or prevalent.”

As immunotherapy continues to develop as an option for cancer treatment, experts plan to be realistic about forthcoming challenges.

The challenges of immunotherapy

Experts say they hope to better understand why some patients may have different responses to immunotherapy treatments than others — and why some treatments may result in remissions instead of relapses, or vice versa.

“There’s this whole problem of, you give people an immunotherapy, it looks like it’s working, and then it stops working. We get recurrences or progression after some period, and the question is, why did that happen? How can you change it?” Greenberg said.

“This is where the science has come to play an important part: Is it because the immune response was working and somehow the tumor turned it off? And if that’s the case, then we have to look at ways in which we can reactivate the immune system,” he said. “Or is it not that, is it just that the immune system did what it’s supposed to do, but now a variant grew out, now a tumor grew out that’s no longer recognized by the immune response you are enforcing? If that’s the case, then we need ways to build subsequent immune responses to tackle that.”

Therefore, researchers have to better understand the behavior of not only the immune system but also cancerous tumors — and it’s no simple task.

“If there’s a perception that it’s easy, that’s a mistake. I think our lab has spent decades trying to figure out how to manipulate the immune response,” Greenberg said.

“Some patients are anticipating things to change overnight and be immediately available as a therapy. It takes quite a while,” he said, “but I’m quite certain immunotherapy is going to be enormously useful. It’s just, right now, we are limited in what can be done.”

*This news story was resourced by the Oral Cancer Foundation, and vetted for appropriateness and accuracy

October, 2016|Oral Cancer News|