4/29/2007 West Palm Beach, FL staff TheRecord.com Peter Billias says he is dying of oral cancer, the kind that eats away the insides of your mouth, and the kind that may have been preventable. Or at least treatable, giving him a chance at survival, if it had been diagnosed earlier. At 50, he recognizes the heavy smoking and drinking he has done all his life are undoubtedly responsible. So, even though his prognosis isn't good, the Lake Worth man gave up the cigarettes and booze and has been clean and sober, he says, for five of the eight months since his diagnosis. He doesn't complain or rail about his fate. He just wants to get the word out about making sure that lumps and bumps that aren't right in your mouth get the proper attention. That may prevent others from facing his fate. "If you see anything in your mouth, and it doesn't go away, something is wrong. See an ear, nose and throat doctor. Insist on getting it biopsied," he says. "Or just make sure you request an oral cancer check when you see your dentist. "It's a horrifying disease. (Treatment can mean) they cut part of your tongue out. And it's hitting more and more people that don't drink or smoke." You can find all the information you need about this condition at www.oralcancerfoundation.org. The site says: "At least 34,000 Americans will be diagnosed with oral or pharyngeal (throat) cancer this year. It will cause over 8,000 deaths, [...]

4/29/2007 New York, NY staff eMaxHealth.com The Health Department unveiled a two-pronged effort to help smokers quit smoking. From now through May 15, the Health Department will offer nicotine replacement at no cost to smokers who request it through 311. This year's offer includes nicotine gum as well as patches. The Health Department is also launching a multimedia advertising campaign featuring Ronaldo Martinez, a former smoker who lost his voice to throat cancer at age 39. "Nine out 10 smokers want to quit, but quitting can be tough," said Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas R. Frieden. "Most New Yorkers who ever smoked have already quit. For those who are still smoking, a nicotine patch or gum can double your chances of quitting for good. New Yorkers who want help quitting should call 311 today." Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in New York City. Cigarettes kill 9,000 New Yorkers a year—more than 25 every day—and more than 1 million people still smoke. In the new advertising campaign launched today—which includes an interactive internet component—Mr. Martinez recounts how much he has suffered from smoking. He developed throat cancer at 39, and now breathes through a hole in the front of his neck and can only speak through a mechanical device. The campaign features Mr. Martinez speaking in amplified vibrations from his throat to produce monotone speech. The tagline: Nothing Will Ever Be the Same. The ads will run on television and radio, as well as in subways, check cashing outlets [...]

4/28/2007 web-based article staff CancerConsultants.com Researchers from France have reported that intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was associated with improved quality-of-life (QOL) measurements compared to conventional radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer. The details of this study appeared as an early online publication in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics on April 1, 2007.[1] A recent study by researchers from MD Anderson has shown that head and neck RT causes oral mucositis in 100% of patients.[2] They reported that oral mucositis was more common in patients who received chemotherapy and those who received fractionated schedules. Oral mucositis was associated with severe pain in over half the patients and weight loss of over 5 pounds in 60%. They estimated that oral mucositis added $1700–$6000 to the medical costs, depending on severity. There are few treatments for oral mucositis due to RT. Amifostine (ethyol) is approved by the FDA for prevention of xerostomia in patients receiving RT for head and neck cancer but has little, if any, impact on oral mucositis. Kepivance® (palifermin, keratinocyte growth factor) decreases mucositis associated with total body irradiation but has not been evaluated in head and neck cancer. However, an animal model has shown that Kepivance has a protective role in mice receiving chemoradiotherapy.[3] Newer methods of radiotherapy delivery should decrease side effects. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a relatively new way of delivering radiation that theoretically delivers more radiation to cancers while delivering less radiation to normal tissues than conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation (3D-CRT). [...]

4/28/2007 web-based article staff CancerConsultants.com A phase II multicenter trial has demonstrated that Ethyol (amifostine) can be administered subcutaneously for the prevention of radiation induced xerostomia in patients receiving radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. The details of this study appeared in the February 2007 issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. Radiation therapy is commonly used to treat patients with head and neck cancers, and xerostomia is a frequent side effect. The intravenous administration of Ethyol has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for prevention of radiation induced xerostomia. The necessity of administering Ethyol intravenously has severely limited its use. Thus, researchers have explored the subcutaneous route of administration. These researchers treated 54 patients with subcutaneous Ethyol followed by radiation therapy. The incidence of grade 2 or greater early Xerostomia was 56% and the incidence of late xerostomia was 45%. These incidences of early and late xerostomia are similar to that observed with the use of Ethyol intravenously in a previous randomized trial and lower than the control group of that trial. Nausea and vomiting were the most frequent side effects. Local control and survival rates were not inferior to those expected. These authors concluded that subcutaneous Ethyol could substitute for intravenous administration for the prevention of xerostomia. Comments: These are important observations that should increase the use of Ethyol in preventing xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer. It is anticipated that the FDA will approve this route of administration. [...]

4/28/2007 web-based article staff CancerConsultants.com Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital have reported that the dose of Taxol® (paclitaxel) given with hyperfractionated radiotherapy can be dose escalated in patients receiving Ethyol (amifostine). The details of this dose escalation trial were reported in the October 1, 2005, issue of Cancer. Combined radiation therapy and chemotherapy are standard treatments for patients with advanced head and neck cancers, but most patients have recurrent disease after treatment. Ethyol is a radiation protector and the only drug of this class that has been approved by the FDA for this use in patients receiving radiation therapy for cancers of the head and neck. Clinical trials have demonstrated that Ethyol can reduce both acute and late radiation-induced side effects. In the pivotal trial involving patients with head and neck cancer, Ethyol reduced the incidence of xerostomia but had no effect on the incidence or severity of oral mucositis. Ethyol has also been shown to reduce the incidence of grade 2-3 bladder and GI toxicities in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy and more recently has been associated with decreased toxicities in patients receiving high-dose melphalan. The current study was a multi-institution phase I clinical trial that included 36 patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Patients were treated with radiation therapy plus weekly Taxol. The number of doses of Taxol was escalated from a minimum of three to a maximum of six. Twenty-eight of these patients received Ethyol; eight received no Ethyol. Patients not receiving Ethyol tolerated four doses [...]

4/24/2007 New York, NY Megan Rauscher Scientific American.com (www.sciam.com) Detecting head and neck cancer early, when the odds of successful treatment are best, may be as simple as gargling with saline and spitting in a cup, according to a study conducted by a Miami, Florida-based research team. Oral rinsing flushes out a protein called CD44 -- a known biomarker for cancers of the head and neck. It also detects altered DNA related to these tumors. And the combination of these two biomarkers reliably detects head and neck tumors, the research shows. Dr. Elizabeth J. Franzmann of the University of Miami's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center reported her team's work at the annual American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles. "Cancer of the head and neck is a very debilitating and deadly disease that is often detected in late stages when cure rates are only about 30 percent," Franzmann told Reuters Health. "If we could catch it earlier, we should be able to cure it at least 80 percent of the time but we really need an early detection test." The CD44 protein is involved in normal cell functions, but in cancer it is over expressed and appears in alternative forms that are also involved in tumor formation. Importantly, the protein and altered form can be found in bodily fluids. "Initially, we found that if a patient swishes and gargles for 5 seconds each with saline and spits in a cup, we can actually measure the CD44 level; and it [...]

4/24/2007 San Diego, CA press release Biocompare News (news.biocompare.com) Researchers at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego report that they have developed a new method for detecting cancer very early in its development, when it consists of just a few cells. The best existing detection methods are not able to detect a tumor until it consists of about one million cells. The paper, published in the April 18 issue of the online journal PLoS ONE, describes a series of proof-of-concept experiments in which the researchers, working with two cancer cell lines, were able to select out and amplify tiny amounts of cancer-causing DNA in the presence of more than 99.9 percent of normal DNA. Current methods for identifying deleted DNA would not work in clinical settings because they require isolation of relatively pure cancer cells. This is not feasible for clinical samples, which typically contain large amounts of the person’s normal cells. “We have developed a new technology for very early detection of virtually any type of solid-tumor cancer based upon damaged DNA, which is where all cancers begin,” said co-author Dennis A. Carson, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Moores Cancer Center. “We are now working with engineers toward the fabrication of the clinical devices that will enable this to be widely used in patients.” Carson said they are several years away from clinical testing, but ultimately individuals will be able to be screened for DNA markers of cancer cells using simple [...]

4/24/2007 Haifa, Israel Oded Hershkovich et al. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 62:361-366 (2007) Oral cancer's much higher prevalence among older people may be due to an age-related reduction in protective salivary antioxidant mechanisms and/or an age-related increase in the magnitude of oral carcinogen attack, such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), causing DNA aberrations. This study found a significantly reduced total value of salivary antioxidant capacity in elderly persons (as measured by overall antioxidant capacity [ImAnOx] assay), (46% of healthy individuals, p =.004), increased oxidative stress (86% increase in carbonyl concentrations—indicators of enhanced ROS attack, p =.001), and increased salivary concentrations and total values of RNS (7-fold and 3-fold higher respectively, p =.001), all contributing to increased DNA oxidation of oral epithelial cells. Salivary oxidative stress-related changes in the intimately related saliva and oral epithelium compounded with higher viscosity of saliva may explain the higher prevalence of oral cancer in the elderly population. Administration of local therapeutic agents (i.e., antioxidants) to the oral cavity should be considered. Authors: Oded Hershkovich (1), Itay Shafat (2) and Rafael M. Nagler (3) Authors' affiliations: 1 Oral Biochemistry Laboratory, 2 Cancer and Vascular Biology Research Center, and 3 Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Rambam Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.

4/22/2007 Los Angeles, CA WebWire (www.webwire.com) As the first FDA-approved cancer vaccine, designed to protect against human papillomavirus, has moved from scientific discussion to social debate, other vaccine studies are continuing to make progress. While HPV vaccine efforts had the "benefit" of a viral source for the disease, other researchers are developing vaccines for cancers that are not virally based, in an effort to coax the immune system into attacking cancerous cells. Today at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, presentations on ongoing HPV trials and other new approaches to stimulating the immune system are injecting momentum into cancer vaccine research. Substantial impact on precancerous lesions and HPV infections through 5.5 years in women vaccinated with the HPV-16/18 L1 VLP AS04 candidate vaccine: Abstract 4900 Ongoing evaluation of a phase II trial of a human papillomavirus vaccine, developed to prevent cervical cancer, shows that the vaccine continues to protect against HPV types 16 and 18 at five and a half years into the study, according to researchers from the University of Louisville. Their findings also show that the vaccine offers significant cross-protection for HPV types 45 and 31. The study follows 1113 women between the ages of 15 and 25 in North America and Brazil randomized to receive three doses of either the vaccine or the control. The vaccine, made by GlaxoSmithKline, which funded the study, is designed to protect against two strains of HPV, types 16 and 18, which together are thought to cause [...]

4/22/2007 web-based article Lory Laughter, RDH, BS Woman Dental Journal (rdh.pennnet.com) When I present a concept or technique to dental hygienists, more often than not someone asks for evidence. We are an evidence-based group of professionals. Every educational program that offers a degree in dental hygiene might as well have a disclaimer that states, “Gullible need not apply.” While evidence may be the universal requirement, there are varying opinions on what exactly constitutes acceptable proof. Journals, opinions of key leaders and even common sense are often accepted as viable research by many in the dental profession. But somewhere in the search we need to look for trials, systematic reviews, case studies, and our own clinical experience. In October 2006 I attended the Idaho Conference on Health Care in Pocatello, Idaho. The focus was “Quality Health Care: Sifting Through the Evidence.” Being among scientists and evidence-based decision makers brought on an excitement that is hard to explain to anyone who doesn’t share a passion for research. My anticipation was never dampened by the possibility that some of my strongly held opinions might be challenged. Mark Lingen, DDS, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Pathology at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. His presentation, “Oral Cancer: New Technologies for Early Detection and Prevention” was more than enlightening, it was somewhat discouraging. Dr. Lingen provided evidence that oral cancer is often associated with the papillomavirus, the same virus found in several types of cervical cancer. Medical research has [...]