Nature vs. Nurture. Nature 2, Nurture 0.
Source: BBC Health
A single gene (GSTP) may be responsible for protecting against bowel cancer and lung cancer. Studies in which the gene was removed from laboratory subjects (mice, not people -sorry PETA) suggest that the gene protects against the formation of adenomas (pre-cancerous growths).
How? Good question, glad you asked. Adenomas and polyps appear to form as an inflammatory response. The GSTP gene plays an apparent role in reducing or insulating against inflammation.
Does this mean you should start smoking and eating poorly? Of course not. That would just be ignorant. However, for those with the gene, you may have some inherent protection which could prevent you from developing colon cancer or lung cancer in the future. You know, should you happen to stray a bit.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
Fat, Old and Angry bad for your heart? Seriously?
Source: BBC Health; Stress Research Institute, Stockholm
2,755 working men in Stockholm (the city, not the syndrome) were studied between 1992 and 1995. 47 of those in the study died from a heart attack or complications of heart disease. While the study considered the traditional factors, over age 41, high BP, high BMI, smoking, drinking and low physical activity, the primary focus was upon how the individuals dealt with anger.
Researchers concluded that those men who did not openly express their anger from conflict situations in the workplace and instead “bottled it up” had double the risk of death from heart disease.
According to a cardiac RN with the British Heart Foundation, “Stress itself is not a risk factor…but…responses to stress…” Indeed. Thought of the day.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
Mammography here we go again!
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services November 2009 Release
The US Preventative Services Task Force has released the latest (11/2009) recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening. Were I a woman or performing breast self-examination (BSE) on, well myself, I’d be confused.
The Task Force has un-recommended (hey if “un-friend” is now a word, this can’t be far behind) screening mammography for women under 50. In fact, they specifically recommend against routine screening mammography in women ages 40-49.
This represents a return to the previous recommendation for biennial screening mammograms for women ages 50-74. The Task Force saw no benefit to routine screening for women under 50 or 75 and over.
The Task Force additionally recommends against teaching patients to perform breast self- examination, a position which runs contrary to that taken by this pro BSE blogger. See http://www.medicalmalpracticelawyerblogphiladelphia.com/?p=376 It is the anecdotal and lay experience of the author that many women under age 50 discover masses or lumps on breast self-examination and that this discovery directly leads to their diagnosis.
That aside, anticipate the pro-mammography lobby to push for a formal adoption/return to the 40 and over recommendation for various reasons both medical and economic.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
Mediterranean diet says what?
Source: The Beeb
Okay, it’s not the mediterranean but most of you in North America won’t know the difference. A medical study was carried out in conjunction with Cairo’s (in Egypt) Museum of Antiquities on mummies of all people. 22 of them and the results are interesting.
16 of the 22 mummies were preserved sufficiently to identify arteries, or at least pathways for the arteries, and residual areas of the heart. of those 16, 9 had calcifications in what would have been their coronary arteries. Yep atherosclerosis, a build up of cholesterol. So while they weren’t eating fast food or processed foods, there is something going on here because they have evidence, albeit very retrospectively of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD).
Okay, admittedly it’s not “earth-shattering” and it certainly doesn’t offer any kind of excuse for the majority of those overweight and sedentary eating processed and highly fat-saturated meals, but it is interesting. Given that the populace of ancient Egypt is generally believed to have consumed a “healthy diet” by our standards today, why the plaque?
Well it may simply represent a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol or it could also mean that the closely related and highly affluent who were fortunate enough (if that’s the right phrasing) to be mummified were also privy to a diet higher in proteins and fats. I’ll defer to the actual biological anthropologists and not we “dabblers.”
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
Dyslexic students affected by noies? Er, noise.
Source: BBC Health; Medical News today; University of Southern California
In what appears to be a slow medical news cycle, it is reported that a Northwestern University (Chicago) research team have found that students identified with reading and learning skills associated with dyslexia experienced more difficulty with noisy background environments.
This is actually interesting information for a number of reasons. First, dyslexia affects 5-10% of children. Second, it suggests that dyslexia may have a component in auditory versus visual processing. Third, it provides potential for remediation including the reduction of noise in classrooms.
But none of those reasons are why I find this study interesting. I find this story interesting because it echoes a broader issue in the timely dissemination of medical information. I first encountered the story on the BBC Health website. I’m an anglophile, deal with it. However, I found it astounding that no one studying such a condition which has been around since at least when I was a young school child picked up on this. Particularly for those of us victims of the broad educational social experiments of the 70′s. Open Classrooms anyone?
So with very little effort on my part I found that the same results were reported on 12/12/2006 in Medical News Today, referencing a then researching team from USC. Going directly to the source, I found that the USC Team not only came to these conclusions in 12/2005 but that they built upon a Northwestern University study from 2003. OMG WTG?! -you might question/exclaim. OMG WTF?! Indeed.
The research is a paradigm shift (look it up, you should know that phrase) from the long-standing notion that dyslexia is a neurological wiring/processing issue having nothing at all to do with hearing. In other words big news! So why is it just this week being reported as new? This is a problem. A big one. Just imagine all of the quality information out there that is being missed. Anyway have a nice yad! (I kid because I care).
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
FDA to take a bold stand…on raw oysters.
Source: FDA; Biennial Meeting of the ISSC (Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference)
Surely with all of us dying in mass from H1N1 (do I have to?), AIDS and numerous other maladies, the FDA needed to take action against the barbaric practice of…eating raw oysters (gasp!)
Why pick on the humble oyster, long a seafood staple and extensively harvested throughout the coastal states of the US, Atlantic and Pacific? Two words -Vibrio vulnificus. Huh? It’s a bacteria present in raw oysters. The “at-risk” populace? The usual suspects, those with immune systems or otherwise impaired health, including those with: AIDS; cancer; kidney disease; diabetes; and, alcohol abuse.
The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) has stated that the ISSC has not yet achieved the goal of a 60% reduction in infections of Vibrio vulnificus in CA, FL, LA, and TX, coming in at only a 35% reduction.
The answer, the dreaded “post-harvest processing” -Rapid freezing, high hydrostatic pressure, mild heat, and low dose gamma radiation (look what it did for Bruce Banner). All of which may be bad for Vibrio vulnificus, but it’s also not really all that great for those of us who love to eat raw oysters.
15% of Gulf Coast oysters are currently processed post-harvest. The FDA insists that the Gulf States could easily increase that to 100%, a practice they endorse. Don’t even get me started on Vibrio parahaemolyticus (no, I don’t make this up) the other common oyster bacteria.
In brief, when we weigh the relative health hazards facing the US, it’s fairly safe to say that bacterial infection from raw oysters doesn’t make the “short list.” So to the FDA, I say this, “Please keep your hands, heat and gamma radiation off of my plate.” Thank you. VTY.
Who thought that one day in the future we might be fighting to legalize raw oysters along with marijuana.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
Lung cancer drug showing promise
Source: journal of Cancer Research
Lung cancer is one of the deadliest cancers -small cell lung cancer in particular, the 5 year survival rate for which is 3%. Given that 20% of all lung cancer diagnoses are small cell carcinomas, treatment for this variant is essential.
Chemotherapy (cocktails of toxic chemicals) and radiation shrink small cell cancer but it returns quickly and becomes resistant to treatment. A great combination.
The drug, you were wondering when I was getting to that I’m sure, is presently known as PD173074. Yes “Tylenol” is a better name, but this is how drugs are commonly named during development and trials. The clever names don’t arrive until later. True story.
PD173074 works by blocking a growth hormone (FGF-2, if you really care) which is thought to be responsible for the immunity and rapid metastasis of small cell lung cancer. But does it work? Well, according to researchers in the UK it killed 50% of such tumors…in mice. So it’s still in the mouse stage, but if these results are capable of being reproduced, expect clinical trials soon. In places other than the US, drugs don’t take nearly as long to go from R&D to market. Another one to watch for.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
I seem to be on a breast theme here, but…
Source: BBC Health, Radiological Society of North America
In what might simply represent serendipitous reporting, a study of approximately 1000 women at a private London Hospital has found that women living in the city had denser breast tissue.
The significance of this is that recent research (see previous post) suggests that women with denser breast tissue are at greater risk for recurrence of cancer.
So what’s the correlation with the city? Hard to say. Fortunately, fairly easy to post. Women in the study who lived in the city tended to be thinner than those in the country and breast density tends to be inversely proportional (meaning the opposite of what you’d think) in relation to body weight. In other words, thin = denser breasts. But given that the researchers only found 25% more dense breast tissue in city women, that’s not the whole picture.
So what is it? Air pollution (don’t laugh, it’s been suggested)? Higher protein diets?
Apparently researchers are dealing with an urban population, many of which are under 50 and living in central London, who do not take part in screening for breast cancer (ie. annual mammograms). So perhaps the difference is really one in reporting? In any event it does present another opportunity to discuss breasts and to remind women 40 and over to have annual mammograms.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire
Cancer recurrence linked to breast density
Source: Cancer (the journal, not the disease); Cancer Research UK
Women jealous of their neighbor’s firm breasts? Well, here’s good reason not to be. A 10 year study of women cancer patients in Canada (that odd country North of the US) reveals that women with dense breasts are 4x more likely to have a recurrence of cancer. Although not readily apparent, the study also suggested that for those receiving radiation therapy the risk was only 2x greater, but still.
According to researchers, the hormonal composition of dense breast tissue may make it more cancer prone. Of course there’s always the possibility that dense breast tissue makes it more difficult to detect breast cancer or to discern it from cysts -just a thought, don’t mind the blogger.
As the overall goal is to aid in the prevention, detection and treatment of cancer, such information is always welcome.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire.
Breast Cancer changes as it spreads
Source: BBC Health; Annals of Oncology
UK researchers in Edinburgh (Scotland for you geographically challenged) have determined that up to 40% of breast cancer tumors actually change form as they metastasize (spread). The analysis of 211 tumors which spread from the breast to lymph nodes in the armpits, a common occurrence, demonstrated surprising results.
20 tumors changed from estrogen receptor negative to positive while others did the reverse. The significance is that medications such as tamoxifen which would not work on estrogen receptor negative tumors could be helpful in treating the spreading tumor.
If borne out in clinical trials, this research could have dramatic implications for the treatment of breast cancer in women.
~Posted by David Marc Schwadron, Esquire