smoking

Rodeo Insider: Cowboy takes it on himself to ride home a message

Source: www.star-telegram.com
Author: Brett Hoffman
 
0125 rodeoBronc rider Cody Kiser is trying to encourage cowboys to abstain from tobacco. Richard W. Rodriguez Star-Telegram

 

In a day when rodeo riders are approaching the sport from an athletic standpoint more than ever, there’s a heavier emphasis on physical fitness and many competitors are taking a closer look at abstaining from substances such as alcohol and tobacco.

One cowboy attempting to send a message about abstaining from frequent tobacco consumption is bareback bronc rider Cody Kiser.

“A lot of these cowboys don’t smoke or chew, and if they do, it’s really rare,” Kiser said. “A lot of the guys consider themselves as athletes. So they want to keep their bodies at an optimum performance and they don’t want to do anything that would break them down.”

When the Fort Worth Stock Show conducted the opening performance of its 16-day Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association show on Friday, Kiser turned in a bareback score of 80, the highest marking of the night.

As he competed in the renowned rodeo, Kiser wore a patch on his shirt that said: “Oral Cancer Foundation.”

The foundation’s website lists Kiser and a spokesman and states: “The western/rodeo environment has had a long-term relationship with tobacco, and until 2009 the PRCA had a lengthy history of tobacco sponsorship money. While that has ended, tobacco use, and smokeless/spit tobaccos still thrive in the sport. While adults have the right to make any lifestyle choice, they inadvertently expose impressionable young people to what are sometimes harmful habits though poor examples like the use of tobacco products. This is particularly harmful as kids look up to athletes.”

Kiser, 25, who is from Carson City, Nev., aspires to set a great example.

“My message is for the younger generation, to expand the sport of rodeo and help it become more mainstream,” he said. “Rodeo can be like NASCAR. When NASCAR started getting rid of most of their alcohol and tobacco sponsors and then started bringing in sponsors such as Tide and Kellogg, which are more family oriented, then the sport exploded. Today, there’s so much more money in NASCAR and it can become the same for rodeo.”

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

Depressed Head and Neck Cancer Patients Have Lower Survival and Higher Recurrence Risk

Source: www.OncologyNurseAdvisor.com
Author: Kathy Boltz, PhD
 

Depression is a significant predictor of 5-year survival and recurrence in patients with head and neck cancer, according to a new study published in Pyschosomatic Medicine (doi: 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000256). These findings represent one of the largest studies to report on the impact of depression on cancer survival.

Although depression can have obvious detrimental effects on a person’s quality of life, its impact on cancer patients is more apparent, explained lead author Eileen Shinn, PhD, assistant professor of Behavioral Science at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston. Increasing evidence shows modest associations between elevated symptoms of depression and greater risk for mortality among patients with lung, breast, ovarian, and kidney cancers.

The research team sought to clarify the influence of depression on survival, focusing their analysis on a single cancer type. By limiting the sample set and adjusting for factors known to affect outcome, such as age, tumor size, and previous chemotherapy, they were able to uncover a more profound impact of depression.

The researchers followed 130 patients at MD Anderson with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), a type of cancer in which the tumor originates at the back of the throat and base of the tongue.

At the beginning of their radiation therapy, Patients completed a validated questionnaire at the beginning of their radiation therapy to identify symptoms of clinical depression. Researchers monitored the participants, all of whom completed treatment, until their last clinic visit or death, a median period of 5 years.

“The results of this study were quite intriguing, showing depression was a significant factor predicting survival at 5 years, even after controlling for commonly accepted prognostic factors,” said senior author Adam Garden, MD, professor, Radiation Oncology. Furthermore, depression was the only factor shown to have a significant impact on survival.

Patients who scored as depressed on the questionnaire were 3.5 times less likely to have survived to the 5-year interval compared with those who did not score as depressed. The degree of depression was also found to be significant, as every unit increase on this scale indicated a 10% higher risk for reduced survival.

The results were replicated with a different psychological health survey and were not influenced by how soon following diagnosis the depression assessment was done.

OSCC is diagnosed in 10 000 to 15 000 Americans each year. Major risk factors known to be associated with OSCC include smoking and tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Incidence of OSCC has doubled in the last 20 years due to increasing HPV infection rates, noted Shinn.

Neither alcohol nor tobacco use, also surveyed in this group, had a significant impact on survival. HPV infection status, when available, also did not appear correlated.

Despite a high cure rate, normally 60% to 80%, recurrence rate of disease is unusually high in these patients (approximately 30%). The researchers also investigated a potential link between depression and disease recurrence.

“When we controlled for all variables, depression was linked with a nearly 4 times higher risk of recurrence,” said Shinn. In addition, never smokers had a 73% lower chance of recurrence, compared with current smokers. Those were the only two factors associated with cancer recurrence.

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

December, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

E-cigarettes contain flavouring chemical linked to deadly ‘popcorn lung’

Source: The Telegraph
Author: Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

e-cigarette_2700991b

Public health experts are sharply divided about e‑cigarettes Photo: ALAMY

 

Three quarters of e-cigarettes tested by Harvard scientists contained the chemical diacetyl which is known to cause lung damage.

Vapers could be at risk of developing the deadly disease ‘popcorn lung’ after scientists found a toxic chemical in 75 per cent of flavoured electronic cigarettes. Diacetyl, a chemical which is used as a butter substitute in flavours like Cotton Candy and Cupcake, has been linked to respiratory disease bronchiolitis obliterans

Although it is thought to be safe when eaten, the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has said it could be hazardous when inhaled over a long period.

It follows incidences in several factories which manufacture microwave popcorn where workers developed bronchiolitis obliterans.

Diacetyl is known to cause inflammation, scarring and constriction of the tiny airways in the lung known as bronchioles, reducing air flow. There is currently no known cure except for a lung transplantation. Researchers said ‘urgent action’ was needed to ‘evaluate this potentially widespread exposure via flavoured e-cigarettes.’

“Recognition of the hazards associated with inhaling flavouring chemicals started with ‘Popcorn Lung’ over a decade ago,” said lead author Joseph Allen, assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“However, diacetyl and other related flavouring chemicals are used in many other flavours beyond butter-flavoured popcorn, including fruit flavours, alcohol flavours, and, we learned in our study, candy flavoured e-cigarettes.”

E-cigarettes use battery-powered cartridges to produce a nicotine hit via inhalable vapor without the tar and other carcinogens in inhaled tobacco smoke.

Scientists and health officials are divided over whether they are safe. Earlier this year Public Health England urged smokers to switch to vaping, saying e-cigarettes were far safer than traditional tobacco. But the World Health Organisation and scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Liverpool remain concerned about their safety.

Dr. Allen and colleagues tested 51 types of flavoured e-cigarettes and liquids sold by leading brands for the presence of diacetyl, acetoin, and 2,3-pentanedione, two related flavouring compounds which may pose a respiratory hazard in the workplace.

VAPING_2873974bVapers enjoy different flavours at Vape Lab in Shoreditch, London  Photo: JANE MINGAY FOR THE TELEGRAPH

 

Each e-cigarette was inserted into a sealed chamber attached to a lab-built device that drew air through the e-cigarette for eight seconds at a time with a resting period of 15 or 30 second between each draw. The air stream was then analyzed.

At least one of the three chemicals was detected in 47 of the 51 flavours tested. Diacetyl was detected above the laboratory limit of detection in 39 of the flavours tested. Acetoin and 2,3-pentanedione were detected in 46 and 23 and of the flavours, respectively.

“Since most of the health concerns about e-cigarettes have focused on nicotine, there is still much we do not know about e-cigarettes” said study co-author Dr David Christiani, Professor of Environmental Genetics.

“In addition to containing varying levels of the addictive substance nicotine, they also contain other cancer-causing chemicals, such as formaldehyde, and as our study shows, flavouring chemicals that can cause lung damage.”

Although the study was conducted in the US, last year Greek researchers found that diacetyl was present in 70 per cent of European brands. American brands are also available online.

The study was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

At a glance: Are e-cigarettes helpful or harmful?

index

  • Public health officials are at odds with scientists over whether or not e-cigarettes are safe
  • In August, Public Health England issued a report concluding that e-cigarettes were 95 per cent less harmful than conventional tobacco and urged Britain’s eight million smokers to start vaping.
  • But health experts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Liverpool claim evidence used in the report was flawed, based on inconclusive evidence which was tainted by vested interests.
  • Writing in the BMJ, Professor Martin McKee and Professor Simon Capewell said there was no reliable evidence to show that e-cigarettes were safe or that they did not provide a ‘gateway’ to smoking for youngsters.
  • Although the PHE report was welcomed by bodies like Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and the Royal College of Physicians of London, other leading health bodies – including the British Medical Association, the UK Faculty of Public Health, the European Commission and the World Health Organization, have expressed caution.

index2

Nearly 80,000 people a year die of a smoking related illness and smoking costs the NHS £2 billion a year. 2.6 million people use e-cigarettes in the UK and they are now the most popular quitting aid.

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

December, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Researchers Find Hookah Smoking Can Lead to Serious Oral Conditions – Equivalent To Smoking 100 Cigarettes

Source: www.multivu.com
Author: PR Newswire
 
e3ead314-ce94-429b-9664-5c475f1c4d80.HR

CHICAGO, Oct. 28, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.3 million Americans smoke tobacco from pipes, and many of those who smoke waterpipes, or hookahs, believe it’s less harmful than cigarettes. However, research published in The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) suggests hookah smoking is associated with serious oral conditions including gum diseases and cancer.

“We found that waterpipe smoking is associated with serious health problems affecting the head and neck region,” said study author Teja Munshi, B.D.S., M.P.H of Rutgers University. “The public needs to know they are putting themselves at risk. They should be made aware of the dangers of smoking hookahs.”

The authors conducted a literature review that focused on waterpipe smoking and head and neck conditions. They found waterpipe smoking to be associated with gum diseases, dry socket, oral cancer and esophageal cancer among other conditions. According to the World Health Organization, smoking a hookah is the equivalent of smoking 100 cigarettes, based on the duration and number of puffs in a smoking session.

“This study sheds light on the common misconception that smoking from a waterpipe is somehow safer than smoking a cigarette,” said JADA Editor Michael Glick, D.M.D. “Whether you are smoking a cigarette, an e-cigarette, a cigar, or tobacco from a waterpipe, smoking is dangerous not only to your oral health but to your overall health.”

The American Cancer Society is hosting The Great American Smokeout on November 19, 2015, an annual event that encourages smokers of all kinds to give up the habit. The event asks smokers to quit even for just one day to take a step toward a healthier life.

Millions of Americans still use traditional methods of smoking, but emerging trends in the smoking industry, such as hookah smoking and e-cigarettes pose dangers as well. E-cigarettes are devices that turn liquid into a vapor containing nicotine. In an editorial in the September 2015 issue of JADA, authors warned readers of the potential dangers of e-cigarettes, indicating that oral health effects of their use has been inadequately investigated.

“Additional research is needed on the impact smoking has on overall health, but it’s clear that smoking of all kinds has the potential to be dangerous,” said Dr. Glick.

Dentists have an important role in advising patients of the dangers of smoking. The American Dental Association has long been a proponent of educating the public about its hazards and has urged for continued research into the adverse health effects of tobacco use. For more information on smoking and its oral health effects, visit MouthHealthy.org.

a6f163f2-97e1-485c-849b-0b19dbcef848.HR

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

October, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Athletes drive increase in high schoolers’ use of smokless tobacco, CDC study shows

Source: www.kyforward.com
Author: www.kyforward.com web staff

Sept.-2015-100-percent-smoke-free-schools

High-school athletes are using more smokeless tobacco, even though overall tobacco use among high-school students has declined, according to a study published by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

We can do more to protect America’s youth from a lifetime of addiction,” Tom Frieden, CDC director, said in a press release. “The fact is, smokeless tobacco products, such as chewing tobacco, snuff or dip, can cause cancer of the mouth, esophagus and pancreas. And the nicotine in these products is harmful to the developing brain. Because we know tobacco-free policies in schools and other public recreational areas work, we must take action now so that our children are safe from these toxins.”

Student responses to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey from 2001 through 2013 show that the share reporting any tobacco use dropped to 22.4 percent from 33.9 percent, and the rate of those smoking combustible tobacco products dropped to 19.5 percent from 31.5 percent. However, those who reported using smokeless tobacco products increased to 8.8 percent from 8.2 percent.

The increased use of smokeless tobacco was driven by athletes. The rate among non-athletes remained unchanged at 5.9 percent but has “increased significantly” to 11.1 percent from 10 percent in youth athletes.

Researchers suggest that athletes are aware of the adverse consequences of smoking on athletic performance, but may view smokeless tobacco as “less harmful, socially acceptable, or even a way to enhance athletic performance.”

The 2013 YRBS found that 26.3 percent of Kentucky’s high school youth reported any use of tobacco; 17.9 percent were smoking cigarettes, and 13.2 percent reported using smokeless tobacco.

“Tobacco use among youth athletes is of particular concern because most adult tobacco users first try tobacco before age 18,” Brian King, deputy director for research translation in the CDC Office on Smoking and Health, said in a press release. “The younger people are when they start using tobacco, the more likely they are to become addicted and the more heavily addicted they can become.”

The reports calls for increased education about the dangers of smokeless tobacco; recognition that the tobacco industry pushes smokeless tobacco as an alternative to smoking where it is prohibited; that the role of professional athletes, many who use smokeless tobacco, must be part of the discussion because they are often considered role models by youth; and that “implementing and enforcing tobacco-free policies that prohibit all tobacco use on school campuses and at all public recreational facilities, including stadiums, parks, and school gymnasiums, by players, coaches, referees, and fans might help reduce tobacco use among student athletes.”

As of September, Kentucky had 47 school districts with comprehensive tobacco free policies. These policies cover 45 percent of Kentucky’s students and represents 27 percent of the school districts in the state, according to the Kentucky 100% Tobacco Free Schools website.

“Creating 100 percent tobacco-free environments is one of the best ways we can set our kids up for a healthy future,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy said in the release. “It helps them see that being tobacco-free is the way to better health and a longer life.”

Screen-Shot-2015-10-19-at-10.13.13-AM-1

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

October, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Alternative Tobacco Products as a Second Front in the War on Tobacco

Source: www.jamanetwork.com
Authors: Samir Soneji, PhD; James D. Sargent, MD; Susanne E. Tanski, MD, MPH; Brian A. Primack, MD, PhD

Associations Between Initial Water Pipe Tobacco Smoking and Snus Use and Subsequent Cigarette Smoking: Results From a Longitudinal Study of US Adolescents and Young Adults

Importance Many adolescents and young adults use alternative tobacco products, such as water pipes and snus, instead of cigarettes.

Objective To assess whether prior water pipe tobacco smoking and snus use among never smokers are risk factors for subsequent cigarette smoking.

Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a 2-wave national longitudinal study in the United States among 2541 individuals aged 15 to 23 years old. At baseline (October 25, 2010, through June 11, 2011), we ascertained whether respondents had smoked cigarettes, smoked water pipe tobacco, or used snus. At the 2-year follow-up (October 27, 2012, through March 31, 2013), we determined whether baseline non–cigarette smokers had subsequently tried cigarette smoking, were current (past 30 days) cigarette smokers, or were high-intensity cigarette smokers. We fit multivariable logistic regression models among baseline non–cigarette smokers to assess whether baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and baseline snus use were associated with subsequent cigarette smoking initiation and current cigarette smoking, accounting for established sociodemographic and behavioral risk factors. We fit similarly specified multivariable ordinal logistic regression models to assess whether baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and baseline snus use were associated with high-intensity cigarette smoking at follow-up.

Exposures Water pipe tobacco smoking and the use of snus at baseline.

Main Outcomes and Measures Among baseline non–cigarette smokers, cigarette smoking initiation, current (past 30 days) cigarette smoking at follow-up, and the intensity of cigarette smoking at follow-up.

Results Among 1596 respondents, 1048 had never smoked cigarettes at baseline, of whom 71 had smoked water pipe tobacco and 20 had used snus at baseline. At follow-up, accounting for behavioral and sociodemographic risk factors, baseline water pipe tobacco smoking and snus use were independently associated with cigarette smoking initiation (adjusted odds ratios: 2.56; 95% CI, 1.46-4.47 and 3.73; 95% CI, 1.43-9.76, respectively), current cigarette smoking (adjusted odds ratios: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.01-6.06 and 6.19; 95% CI, 1.86-20.56, respectively), and higher intensity of cigarette smoking (adjusted proportional odds ratios: 2.55; 95% CI, 1.48-4.38 and 4.45; 95% CI, 1.75-11.27, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance Water pipe tobacco smoking and the use of snus independently predicted the onset of cigarette smoking and current cigarette smoking at follow-up. Comprehensive Food and Drug Administration regulation of these tobacco products may limit their appeal to youth and curb the onset of cigarette smoking.

JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(2):129-136. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.2697

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

 

October, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

UC Davis will use dogs to sniff out cancer

Source: www.willitsnews.com
Author: staff

A university team of physicians, veterinarians and animal behaviorists has begun training a pair of very special canines to sniff out cancer. One of the 4-month-old puppies is Alfie, a Labradoodle. months old.

A university team of physicians, veterinarians and animal behaviorists has begun training a pair of very special canines to sniff out cancer. One of the 4-month-old puppies is Alfie, a Labradoodle. months old.

UC Davis clinicians are hoping to advance cancer screenings with the innate olfactory skills of man’s best friend. A university team of physicians, veterinarians and animal behaviorists has begun training a pair of very special canines who may represent high-tech health care on four feet in the effort to better screen for cancer, especially at early stages of the disease.

About 4-months old, the puppies Alfie (a Labradoodle) and Charlie (a German Shepherd) are undergoing a rigorous twelve-month training program to develop their abilities to identify the scent of cancer in samples of saliva, breath and urine.

According to sensory scientists, the olfactory acuity of dogs enables them to detect odorant concentration levels at 1 to 2 parts per trillion, roughly 10,000 to 100,000 times that of a human. UCD physicians and researchers believe Alfie and Charlie have the potential to add an important diagnostic element to patient care. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, and early detection of the disease gives patients the best chance of survival.

“For the past number of years, we have been developing very high-end, expensive new tests to try and detect the presence of cancer,” said Ralph de Vere White, distinguished professor of urology and director of the UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center. “Dogs have been doing this, detecting disease in the urine of people suspected of having bladder cancer, for example. This work marries sophisticated technology with low-tech, yet sophisticated, dogs’ noses to see if they can help us identify the molecules that differentiate cancer from non-cancer.”

Hilary Brodie, professor and chair of the UCD Department of Otolaryngology, hopes that the identification of these molecules will lead to innovative and readily available methods of detection.

“Much like the hand-held devices used to detect alcohol, drugs and explosives have revolutionized our safety, having a new tool to detect early-stage cancer would have incredible benefits for patient care,” noted Brodie, whose department treats many head, neck and throat cancer patients.

Researchers have established that dogs can recognize melanoma as well as bladder, lung, breast and ovarian cancers. Canines have been successfully trained to distinguish the breath samples of lung and breast cancer patients from those of healthy volunteers. Such promising results have cancer experts at UCD enthusiastic about the potential for the dogs to represent a safe, noninvasive method for detecting cancer before it is too late.

Current cancer screening methods frequently result in the disease being identified at a later stage, often past the so-called golden hour when treatment is most effective and when the cases aren’t as challenging.

“Identifying patients at earlier stages could be extremely helpful in the fight against cancer,” said Gregory Farwell, professor of otolaryngology and director of the university’s Head and Neck Oncology and Microvascular Surgery program.

Alfie and Charlie are being trained by Dina Zaphiris, director of the In Situ Foundation in Chico. Zaphiris has trained more than two dozen dogs in their ability to detect cancer. As in training for drug and explosives detection, the UCD canines are learning how to distinguish samples from cancer patients and healthy individuals. According to Zaphiris, almost any dog can be trained to detect cancer. She prefers German Shepherds, Labradors, poodles and herding breeds because of their work ethic.

Alfie and Charlie’s human-cancer screening work will begin in early 2016 with a clinical trial to establish the safety and efficacy of the new diagnostic canine approach. UCD physicians say their ultimate goal is to bring more comprehensive cancer-screening capabilities to the public.

“Despite all the advances of modern medicine, we still can’t reliably detect many types of cancers in their early stages,” said Peter Belafsky, professor of otolaryngology and a physician who often deals with cases involving advanced cancer. “Our new canine colleagues represent a unique weapon in the battle against cancer. It’s the first of its kind at UC Davis, and the dogs’ incredible talent for scent detection could offer us humans a real jump on diagnosing cancer much earlier and thus save many more lives.”

September, 2015|Oral Cancer News|

Testimony by otolaryngologists in defense of tobacco companies 2009–2014

Source: www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Author: Robert K. Jackler, MD
 

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis

To examine expert testimony offered by otolaryngologists in defense of the tobacco industry and to assess whether opinions rendered were congruent with evidence in the scientific literature.

Methods

Data sources include publically available expert witness depositions and trial testimony of board-certified otolaryngologists employed by the tobacco industry in defense of lawsuits brought by smokers suffering from head and neck cancer. The cases, adjudicated in Florida between 2009 and 2014, focused on whether smoking caused the plaintiff’s cancer.

Results

The study includes nine legal cases of upper aerodigestive tract cancer involving six otolaryngologists serving as expert witnesses for the tobacco industry. Cancer sites included larynx (5), esophagus (2), mouth (1), and lung (1). Five of the six otolaryngologists consistently, over multiple cases, offered opinions that smoking did not cause the plaintiff’s cancer. By highlighting an exhaustive list of potential risk factors, such as human papillomavirus (HPV), alcohol, asbestos, diesel fumes, salted fish, mouthwash, and even urban living, they created doubt in the minds of the jurors as to the role of smoking in the plaintiff’s cancer. Evidence shows that this testimony, which was remarkably similar across cases, was part of a defense strategy shaped by tobacco’s law firms.

Conclusions

A small group of otolaryngologists regularly serve as experts on behalf of the tobacco industry. Examination of their opinions in relation to the scientific literature reveals a systematic bias in interpreting the data relating to the role played by smoking in head and neck cancer causation.

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

For the war against oral cancer, what’s in your arsenal?

Source: www.dentistryiq.com
Author: Dennis M. Abbott, DDS

The face of oral cancer has changed: No longer is oral cancer a disease isolated to men over 60 years of age with a long history of smoking and alcohol consumption. Today, the demographic for the disease includes younger people of both sexes with no history of deleterious social habits who are otherwise healthy and active. It spans all socioeconomic, racial, religious, and societal lines. In other words, oral and oropharyngeal cancer is an equal opportunity killer. Today, as you read this article, 24 people in the US will lose their battles with oral cancer. That is one person for each hour of the day, every day of the year. Each of those lost is someone’s sister, a father’s son, a small child’s mommy, or maybe even a person you hold dear to your heart. The truth is, oral and oropharyngeal cancer has several faces . . . and each of those faces is a human being, just like you and me. So how can we, as dental professionals, be instrumental in the war against oral and head and neck cancer?

Views of the oropharynx, the base of the tongue, and the epiglottis, taken with the Iris HD USB 3.0 intraoral camera using different points of focus. Photos courtesy of the author.

Views of the oropharynx, the base of the tongue, and the epiglottis, taken with the Iris HD USB 3.0 intraoral camera using different points of focus.
Photos courtesy of the author.

The answer, as with most other cancers, lies in early detection. When oral and oropharyngeal cancer is detected early, the five-year survival rate can be as high as 80% to 90%. The harsh reality is that most oral and head and neck cancers are only found at late stages after the cancer has advanced—often to the lymph system. As a result, the chance of the person living for five years after diagnosis falls to approximately 55%.

As dentists and dental hygienists, we—like it or not—are on the front line of this war. We often have the opportunity to see potential cancer patients more frequently than our medical colleagues do, and we are trained to see abnormalities inside the mouth and in the head and neck region. (This is a huge part of the solution!) Many of my medical colleagues tell me that they do not have the training to see what I can see in the mouth. But I do not have the training to practice oncological medicine like they do. The truth is, it takes all of us doing our jobs to care and manage the individual person—not just the teeth, not just the liver, not just the breast, but the whole patient.

Years ago, we could almost profile who would or would not be likely to present with oral cancer. It was always the “Marlboro man”—that guy who was older, drank alcohol frequently, and had a smoking pack-year history that was two or three times his age. But those days are long gone. With the recent understanding that the human papillomavirus (HPV), the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, is an etiological factor for oral and oropharyngeal cancer, virtually everyone is a potential cancer patient. As such, everyone should be screened. While the individual with classic risk factors still remains at risk for developing oral cancer, many who present with HPV-related oral and head and neck cancers have no other discovered risk factors, other than exposure to HPV and an immune system that, for reasons still unknown, will not adequately clear the virus without repercussions.

It is believed that 80% to 90% of all Americans have been exposed to HPV at least once in their lifetimes. Most people manage to clear the virus through the immune system’s normal defense function within six to seven months; in some patients, however, damage takes place at the cellular level that may take months, years, or even decades to manifest as cancer. The majority of HPV-related oral and head and neck cancers present in areas that are difficult for us as dental professionals to visualize, such as the tonsils, the base of the tongue, the oropharynx, the posterior pharyngeal wall, and the larynx. That, however, does not give us an excuse not to screen in these areas . . . we just have to think outside of the box and get creative about how we screen.

Visual inspection combined with palpation remains the essential foundation of screening for oral and oropharyngeal cancers, but where visualization is difficult—such as with the base of the tongue and the lower oropharynx—knowing and asking the right questions can become critically important for identifying potential concerns:
“Are you noticing any unusual hoarseness?”
“Are you having any difficulty swallowing?”
“Do you ever have a sensation as though something is caught in your throat?”
“How long has that tonsil been inflamed?”
“Have you noticed any sinus or allergy issues since that tonsil has been enlarged?”
While these questions may seem unrelated to teeth, they are not unrelated to oral health. Simply asking the right questions can open a dialogue of discovery that may lead to the detection of an oropharyngeal cancer early. And early detection is the key to beating the disease and maintaining a good quality of life during the survivorship years.

Technology-based adjunctive devices to assist the dental professional in the early detection of oral cancer have existed in the market for the past 10 to 15 years. Much has been written about fluorescence and reflective technologies, which help the examiner to detect subtle changes in tissue through the usage of light in the violet and yellow ranges of visible light, respectively. Examination with these wavelength-specific devices enhances visualization by highlighting changes in the oral mucosa and vasculature. Usage of these adjuncts has also demonstrated value in enabling clinicians to better understand the size of affected tissue surrounding suspected lesions. As such, these may be useful in selecting a field for biopsy that may produce clear, or noncancerous, margins.

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) in 2003, there exists a more clearly defined understanding of how diseases such as cancer affect our cells at the nucleic acid level and how genetic mutations can serve as risk factors or catalysts for cancerous changes in cells. Technology used in the HGP has also provided insight into the genotyping of viruses, leading to a sharper picture of how viral interaction with our genetic code can lead to disease. Today, the dentist and dental hygienist have this technology readily available to move their practice into the era of personalized health.

Salivary tests, such as the MOP (Molecular Oral Testing) by PCG Molecular, take advantage of innovative, advanced genetic testing to establish the risk or presence of oral or oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. MOP does this by evaluating cellular abnormalities in the oral cavity and oropharynx, DNA damage associated with oral and oropharyngeal cancer, and the presence of HPV. With this information, the clinician can better determine the appropriate course of action for the patient.

Sometimes striving to provide the best possible patient care means thinking outside of the box to use technology designed for one purpose and discovering a new application to meet an unanswered need. Most of us are at least familiar with intraoral cameras, and many of us have them in our offices. Using the magnified imagery of a quality intraoral camera and a high-resolution monitor, this tool is a favorite device for illustrating the need for proposed treatment and for establishing patient trust. But what if we could use those images to possibly save a life?

The Iris HD USB 3.0 intraoral camera by Digital Doc LLC has catapulted intraoral photography into the high-definition age. Using the Iris HD precision optical lens array and an advanced HD sensor from Sony, the Iris HD USB 3.0 provides unmatched 720p-resolution clarity that is perfect for the magnification and photographic capture of suspicious areas discovered during a thorough head and neck examination/oral cancer screening. Because of the size of the camera head, the device even makes it possible to examine areas of the oropharynx that were previously difficult for dentists and hygienists to visualize.

Of course, the camera cannot substitute for laryngeal endoscopy, especially if cancer inferior to the epiglottis is suspected, but the camera’s ability to see beyond the palatopharyngeal arch is an improvement over an angled dental mirror. Most patients can tolerate the necessary posterior placement of the camera to capture an oropharyngeal image either by breathing through the nose or with placement of a topical anesthetic on the posterior soft palate and uvula to suppress the gag reflex.

Regardless of the power of the technology, the ultimate skill in detecting early-stage oral and oropharyngeal cancer lies in the eyes, hands, and brain of the examiner. Careful inspection, knowledge, discernment, and experience are the real tools of the professional for acquiring and processing all of the available data and for correctly fitting the puzzle pieces into a picture that illustrates either health, concern with reason for reevaluation, or the need to biopsy the area in question. When reevaluation is required, no more than two weeks should elapse between the initial examination and follow-up, as time is of the essence in proceeding to treatment should the suspicious area indeed be cancerous.

Responsibility to the patient does not end with an abnormal screening result. The dental professional should have a plan in place to either biopsy or refer. The dental professional should biopsy only if he or she is well-experienced in the removal of suspected cancerous lesions. Otherwise, the patient should be referred to an oral/maxillofacial surgeon, periodontist, otolaryngologist, or head and neck surgeon who is comfortable with and experienced in the safe and effective biopsy of a potentially cancerous area. It is most often the case that only one opportunity to obtain a diagnostic tissue sample exists, so the skills of the doctor performing the biopsy should be without question. Every effort should be made to ensure that the patient is seen promptly for biopsy and that the pathology results are returned and shared with the patient expeditiously. Delay can be detrimental to the survival of a patient with oral or oropharyngeal cancer.

Should a screening result from your office lead to a diagnosis of oral or oropharyngeal cancer, be prepared to counsel and educate your patient about what to expect in his or her cancer journey. Learn about and be prepared to meet the unique dental and oral health needs of patients with oral and head and neck cancers, and become equipped to continue care for your patients throughout their treatment and into survivorship. For all of the destruction and hardship that cancer brings, it can form unbreakable bonds, between doctor and patient and between dentist and physician.

Don’t be afraid to reach out to your counterparts in the medical community and bridge the gap between medicine and dentistry in your area. Form alliances with head and neck surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and oncology nurses. Let them know about your skills and the services and technology available in your office that place you on the front line of this war on oral cancer. Take time to understand your medical colleagues’ role in treating the disease and become familiar with the technology they are using to save lives and diminish the long-term effects of oral cancer treatment. We are, after all, fighting the same war, and we’re all on the same side. It is all of us against oral and oropharyngeal cancer, with the needs and health of that one patient we’re fighting for leading us in the battle.

About the author:
Dennis M. Abbott, DDS, is the founder and CEO of Dental Oncology Professionals, an oral medicine-based practice dedicated to meeting the unique dental and oral health needs of patients battling cancer. In addition to private practice, he is a member of the dental oncology medical staff at Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Abbott is also the founder of the American Academy of Dental Oncology and serves as a consultant to the national American Cancer Society in the development of oral monitoring guidelines for post-treatment cancer survivors. Dr. Abbott lectures internationally on the topics of dental oncology and oral cancer.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

Source: www.nytimes.com
Author: Danny Hakim
 
01cigarette-web2-master675A demonstration against World No Tobacco Day in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 2013. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its foreign affiliates have joined efforts to fight antismoking laws around the world. Credit Romeo Gacad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

KIEV, Ukraine — A parliamentary hearing was convened here in March to consider an odd remnant of Ukraine’s corrupt, pre-revolutionary government.

Three years ago, Ukraine filed an international legal challenge against Australia, over Australia’s right to enact antismoking laws on its own soil. To a number of lawmakers, the case seemed absurd, and they wanted to investigate why it was even being pursued.

When it came time to defend the tobacco industry, a man named Taras Kachka spoke up. He argued that several “fantastic tobacco companies” had bought up Soviet-era factories and modernized them, and now they were exporting tobacco to many other countries. It was in Ukraine’s national interest, he said, to support investors in the country, even though they do not sell tobacco to Australia.

Mr. Kachka was not a tobacco lobbyist or farmer or factory owner. He was the head of a Ukrainian affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s largest trade group.

From Ukraine to Uruguay, Moldova to the Philippines, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its foreign affiliates have become the hammer for the tobacco industry, engaging in a worldwide effort to fight antismoking laws of all kinds, according to interviews with government ministers, lobbyists, lawmakers and public health groups in Asia, Europe, Latin America and the United States.

The U.S. Chamber’s work in support of the tobacco industry in recent years has emerged as a priority at the same time the industry has faced one of the most serious threats in its history. A global treaty, negotiated through the World Health Organization, mandates anti-smoking measures and also seeks to curb the influence of the tobacco industry in policy making. The treaty, which took effect in 2005, has been ratified by 179 countries; holdouts include Cuba, Haiti and the United States.

Facing a wave of new legislation around the world, the tobacco lobby has turned for help to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with the weight of American business behind it. While the chamber’s global tobacco lobbying has been largely hidden from public view, its influence has been widely felt.

Letters, emails and other documents from foreign governments, the chamber’s affiliates and antismoking groups, which were reviewed by The New York Times, show how the chamber has embraced the challenge, undertaking a three-pronged strategy in its global campaign to advance the interests of the tobacco industry.

In the capitals of far-flung nations, the chamber lobbies alongside its foreign affiliates to beat back antismoking laws.

In trade forums, the chamber pits countries against one another. The Ukrainian prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, recently revealed that his country’s case against Australia was prompted by a complaint from the U.S. Chamber.

And in Washington, Thomas J. Donohue, the chief executive of the chamber, has personally taken part in lobbying to defend the ability of the tobacco industry to sue under future international treaties, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement being negotiated between the United States and several Pacific Rim nations.

“They represent the interests of the tobacco industry,” said Dr. Vera Luiza da Costa e Silva, the head of the Secretariat that oversees the W.H.O treaty, called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. “They are putting their feet everywhere where there are stronger regulations coming up.”

01cigarette-web1-master315Thomas J. Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has defended the tobacco industry’s right to sue under future international treaties. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

The increasing global advocacy highlights the chamber’s enduring ties to the tobacco industry, which in years past centered on American regulation of cigarettes. A top executive at the tobacco giant Altria Group serves on the chamber’s board. Philip Morris International plays a leading role in the global campaign; one executive drafted a position paper used by a chamber affiliate in Brussels, while another accompanied a chamber executive to a meeting with the Philippine ambassador in Washington to lobby against a cigarette-tax increase. The cigarette makers’ payments to the chamber are not disclosed.

It is not clear how the chamber’s campaign reflects the interests of its broader membership, which includes technology companies like Google, pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and health insurers like Anthem. And the chamber’s record in its tobacco fight is mixed, often leaving American business as the face of a losing cause, pushing a well-known toxin on poor populations whose leaders are determined to curb smoking.

The U.S. Chamber issued brief statements in response to inquiries. “The Chamber regularly reaches out to governments around the world to urge them to avoid measures that discriminate against particular companies or industries, undermine their trademarks or brands, or destroy their intellectual property,” the statement said, adding, “we’ve worked with a broad array of business organizations at home and abroad to defend these principles.”

The chamber declined to say if it supported any measures to curb smoking.

The chamber, a private nonprofit that has more than three million members and annual revenue of $165 million, spends more on lobbying than any other interest group in America. For decades, it has taken positions aimed at bolstering its members’ fortunes.

While the chamber has local outposts across the United States, it also has more than 100 affiliates around the world. Foreign branches pay dues and typically hew to the U.S. Chamber’s strategy, often advancing it on the ground. Members include both American and foreign businesses, a symbiotic relationship that magnifies the chamber’s clout.

For foreign companies, membership comes with “access to the U.S. Embassy” according to the Cambodian branch, and entree to “the U.S. government,” according to the Azerbaijan branch. Members in Hanoi get an invitation to an annual trip to “lobby Congress and the administration” in Washington.

Since Mr. Donohue took over in 1997, he has steered the chamber into positions that have alienated some members. In 2009, the chamber threatened to sue if the Environmental Protection Agency regulated greenhouse gas emissions, disputing its authority to act on climate change. That led Nike to step down from the chamber’s board, and to Apple’s departure from the group. In 2013, the American arm of the Swedish construction giant Skanska resigned, protesting the chamber’s support for what Skanska called a “chemical industry-led initiative” to lobby against green building codes.

The chamber’s tobacco lobbying has led to confusion for many countries, Dr. da Costa e Silva said, adding “there is a misconception that the American chamber of commerce represents the government of the U.S.” In some places like Estonia, the lines are blurred. The United States ambassador there, Jeffrey Levine, serves as honorary president of the chamber’s local affiliate; the affiliate quoted Philip Morris in a publication outlining its priorities.

The tobacco industry has increasingly turned to international courts to challenge antismoking laws that countries have enacted after the passage of the W.H.O. treaty. Early this year, Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill Gates set up an international fund to fight such suits. Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group that administers the fund, called the chamber “the tobacco industry’s most formidable front group,” adding, “it pops up everywhere.”

In Ukraine, the chamber’s involvement was no surprise to Hanna Hopko, the lawmaker who led the hearing in Parliament. She said the chamber there had fought against antismoking laws for years.

“They were against the tobacco tax increase, they were against placing warning labels on cigarettes,” she said. “This is just business as usual for them.”

01cigarette-web3-articleLargePlain packaged tobacco products with health warnings in Sydney, Australia. Credit Andrew Quilty for The New York Times

 

Country-by-Country Strategy

More than 3,000 miles away, in Nepal, the health ministry proposed a law last year to increase the size of graphic warning labels from covering three-fourths of a cigarette pack to 90 percent. Countries like Nepal that have ratified the W.H.O. treaty are supposed to take steps to make cigarette packs less appealing.

Not long afterward, one of Nepal’s top officials, Lilamani Poudel, said he received an email from a representative of the chamber’s local affiliate in the country, warning that the proposal “would negate foreign investment” and “invite instability.”

In January, the U.S. Chamber itself weighed in. In a letter to Nepal’s deputy prime minister, a senior vice president at the chamber, Tami Overby, wrote that she was “not aware of any science-based evidence” that larger warning labels “will have any discernible impact on reducing or discouraging tobacco use.”

A 2013 Harvard study found that graphic warning labels “play a lifesaving role in highlighting the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit.”

While Nepal eventually mandated the change in warning labels, cigarette companies filed for an extension and compliance has stalled.

“Since we have to focus on responding to the devastating earthquake, we have not been able to monitor the state of law enforcement effectively,” said Shanta Bahadur Shrestha, a senior health ministry official.

The episode reflects the chamber’s country-by-country lobbying strategy. A pattern emerged in letters to seven nations: Written by either the chamber’s top international executive, Myron Brilliant, or his deputies, they introduced the chamber as “the world’s largest business federation.”

Then the letters mention a matter “of concern.” In Jamaica and Nepal, it was graphic health warnings on packages. In Uruguay, it was a plan to bar cigarettes from being displayed by retailers. The Moldovan president was warned against “extreme measures” in his country, though they included common steps like restricting smoking in public places and banning advertising where cigarettes are sold.

A proposal to raise cigarette taxes in the Philippines would open the floodgates to smugglers, the government there was told. Tax revenue has increased since the proposal became law.

“We are not cowed by them,” said Jeremias Paul, the country’s under secretary of finance. “We meet with these guys when we’re trying to encourage investment in the Philippines, so clearly they are very influential, but that doesn’t mean they will dictate their ways.”

Protecting tobacco companies is portrayed by the chamber as vital for a nation’s economic health. Uruguay’s president is warned that antismoking laws will “have a disruptive effect on the formal economy.” El Salvador’s vice president is told that “arbitrary actions” like requiring graphic health warnings in advertisements undermine “investment and economic growth.”

On the ground, the chamber’s local affiliates use hands-on tactics.

After Moldova’s health ministry proposed measures in 2013, Serghei Toncu, the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Moldova, laid out his objections in a series of meetings held by a regulatory review panel.

“The consumption of alcohol and cigarettes is at the discretion of each person,” Mr. Toncu said at one meeting, adding that the discussion should not be about “whether smoking is harmful.”

“You do not respect us,” he told the health ministry at another.

At a third, he called the ministry’s research “flawed from the start.”

His objections were not merely plaintive cries. The American chamber has a seat on Moldova’s regulatory review panel giving it direct influence over policy making in the small country.

“The American Chamber of Commerce is a very powerful and active organization,” said Oleg Chelaru, a team leader on the staff that assists the review panel. “They played a very crucial role in analyzing and giving an opinion on this initiative.”

Mr. Toncu, who has since left the chamber, declined to comment. Mila Malairau, the chamber’s executive director, said its main objective was to make sure the industry “was consulted” in “a transparent and predictable manner.”

After recently passing in Parliament, the long-stalled measures were subject to fresh objections from the chamber and others, and have not yet been enacted.

01cigarette-web4-articleLargeProtesters displayed fake body bags at a tobacco trade show at Pasay, the Philippines, in 2013. Credit Bullit Marquez/Associated Press

 

Fighting a Trade Exception

In Washington, the U.S. Chamber’s tobacco lobbying has been visible in the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a priority of the Obama administration that recently received critical backing in Congress.

One of the more controversial proposals would expand the power of companies to sue countries if they violate trade rules. The U.S. Chamber has openly opposed plans to withhold such powers from tobacco companies, curbing their ability to challenge national antismoking laws. The chamber says on its website that “singling out tobacco” will “open a Pandora’s box as other governments go after their particular bêtes noires.”

The issue is still unresolved. A spokesman for the United States trade representative said negotiators would ensure that governments “can implement regulations to protect public health” while also “ensuring that our farmers are not discriminated against.”

Email traffic shows that Mr. Donohue, the chamber’s head, sought to raise the issue in 2012 directly with Ron Kirk, who was then the United States trade representative. In email exchanges between staff members of the two, Mr. Donohue specifically sought to discuss the role of tobacco in the trade agreement.

“Tom had a couple of things to raise, including urging that the tobacco text not be submitted at this round,” one of Mr. Donohue’s staff members wrote to Mr. Kirk’s staff. The emails were produced in response to a Freedom of Information request filed by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which provided them to The Times.

Mr. Kirk is now a senior lawyer at Gibson, Dunn, a firm that counts the tobacco industry as a client. He said in an interview that during his tenure as trade representative, he met periodically with Mr. Donohue but could not recall a specific conversation on tobacco.

He said trade groups were generally concerned about “treating one industry different than you would treat anyone else, more so than doing tobacco’s bidding.”

The chamber declined to make Mr. Donohue available for an interview.

A Face-Saving Measure

In Ukraine, it was Valeriy Pyatnytskiy who signed off on the complaint against Australia in 2012, which was filed with the World Trade Organization. At the time, he was Ukraine’s chief negotiator to the W.T.O. His political career has survived the revolution and he is now an adviser to the Ukrainian prime minister, Mr. Yatsenyuk.

In a recent interview, he said that for Ukraine, the case was a matter of principle. It was about respecting the rules.

He offered a hypothetical: If Ukraine allowed Australia to use plain packaging on cigarettes, what would stop Ukraine from introducing plain packaging for wine? Then Ukrainian winemakers could better compete with French wines, because they would all be in plain bags marked red or white.

“We had this in the Soviet times,” he said. “It was absolutely plain packaging everywhere.”

Some Ukrainian officials have long been troubled by the case.

“It has nothing to do with trade laws,” said Pavlo Sheremeta, who briefly served as Ukraine’s economic minister after the revolution. “We have zero exports of tobacco to Australia, so what do we have to do with this?”

Last year, he urged the American Chamber in Kiev to reconsider.

“I wrote a formal letter, asking them, ‘Do you still keep the same position?’ ” Mr. Sheremeta said. “Basically I was suggesting a face-saving way out of this.” But when he met with chamber officials, the plain packaging case was outlined as a top priority.

They refused to back down. After Mr. Pyatnytskiy, a tobacco ally, was installed as his deputy, Mr. Sheremeta resigned.

“The world was laughing at us,” he said of the case.

Shortly after The Times discussed the case with Ukrainian government officials, there were new protests from activists. Mr. Yatsenyuk called for a review of the matter. Ukraine has since suspended its involvement, but other countries including Cuba and Honduras are continuing to pursue the case against Australia.

Andy Hunder, who took over as president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Kiev in April, said the organization was moving on, adding, “We are looking forward now.”

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