Wouldn't it be great if we could receive full-body scans every year to check for early signs of cancer and other disease? Even if possible and affordable -- right now, scans cost about $900 -- it still wouldn't be such a great idea.

Full-body scans often result in false alarms. People with harmless abnormalities may end up facing more tests, more risks, and more worry in order to rule out illness. The scan itself can present health hazards too. It exposes patients to more radiation than a chest X-ray and could slightly increase the risk of cancer, especially for those scanned every year.

How do we know, then, if something has gone awry in our bodies? Well, we can do our self-exams -- breast exams, testicular exams, skin exams -- and we can report for annual check-ups. We can respond to symptoms we experience -- if headaches are bothersome and persistent, your doctor may prescribe a head scan -- and we can pursue tests and screening that we really need for cancer prevention and early detection. Here are just a few:

Just recently, European researchers announced that MRI scans offer a new way to detect breast cancer in its earliest form. They can even prevent cancer among high-risk women.

Better than standard mammograms, MRI can detect a nonmalignant tumor called ductal carcinoma in-situ, or DCIS. Once found, the lesion can be surgically removed before it becomes cancerous.

Think about this: It is believed that almost all breast cancer starts out as DCIS. And this: if MRI were the gold standard breast cancer screening tool, we might be able to prevent a lot more breast cancer cases than we do now. It seems researchers agree.

This article can be found at Quackwatch.com. It is important to me to get out information on what constitutes as alternative medicine and why it can be fraudulent. Consumers need to be aware. You will inevitably come across those that promote cures for cancer and other ailments.

In the article Steven Barrett, MD classifies Alternative medicine in three different ways:

1. Genuine -- these alternatives have met science based criteria for safety and effectiveness
2. Experimental -- these alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation.
3. Questionable -- these alternatives are groundless and lack a scientifically plausible rationale.

Another way Dr. Barrett describes the different alternatives methods are:

1. Those that work
2. Those that don't work
3. Those we are not sure about

Most of the alternatives fall into the --Those we are not sure about category.

.

Getting screened for cancer is smart. Yearly mammograms for women older than 40, prostate exams for men older than 50, and skin cancer screenings for just about everyone are just a few of the recommended measures individuals can take to ensure cancer stays away -- or at least is caught in its earliest forms.

But aside from merely submitting to these screenings, there's something we can do to increase our screening smarts. We can stick with the same screening centers and not flip-flop from one location to another.

It's a bad idea to report to a different screening center every year. Being able to compare a current mammogram, for example, with prior images can decrease false alarms by as much as 44 percent. As with much of life, consistency is key. Think about it. When we find that perfect hairstylist, we're sold -- and heartbroken when he or she moves on and we have to start from scratch. A trustworthy car mechanic who knows our car inside and out? Don't dare let him leave town. The most loving child care facility? The search is over, and we pray our kids don't get kicked out. Screening is no different really. So make this your mission: find a good thing and don't stray. Of course, don't linger at locations that make you uncomfortable for any reason. Search until you find happiness. Then stay put.

Source: Woman's Day, May 8, 2007

1. Today more than half the people diagnosed with cancer are cured? True or False
2. There are no warning signs for cancer, illness tends to come on suddenly? True or False
3. Most cancers are hereditary? True or False
4. Standard treatments for cancer include surgery, radiation and chemotherapy? True or False
5. People going through cancer treatment have fewer side effects when they eat a well balanced diet? True or False

Find out if you answered correctly!

A mother who lost her daughter to cancer had something to say on her blog about the depiction of childhood cancer and other cancers for that matter on television. I wanted to share her words.

Think about this:

I have just finished watching the new episode of "House." It was about a teenager who was facing a bone marrow transplant (his younger brother was to be the donor). So many things were unrealistic -- don't they consult with real doctors to get the facts? I think it was a couple of weeks ago that the episode of "Grey's Anatomy" also dealt with the topic of childhood cancer and a bone marrow transplant. It was even more unrealistic. One of the doctor's, "Izzy", ended up being the little girl's biological mother. The same day that she discovered that she was, they did a quick blood test and then harvested her bone marrow without any anesthesia and moments later they were infusing it into her daughter. Not quite the way it really works! It is quite frustrating to think that people are watching these shows and will get a false sense of reality -- and so many of us a working hard to get the word out about childhood cancer! Oh well, I am going to try to do my part to get the truth out. I am going to start working on a documentary that will share the reality of what so many families are living with.

I never would have predicted it -- that a tooth could become a tool for dispensing medication. But the refinement of such a creation is actually in the works and before long, you may be asking not for a gold or decorative tooth but for one capable of doling out your drugs in the exact doses and at the right times.

Think about this:

Researchers from Europe and Israel are working right now on a tiny dispensing system called IntelliDrug. Their goal is to create parts small enough they can fit into a false tooth placed in the back of the mouth. The device will release a specific amount of medication at certain intervals so patients receive the proper dosage right on schedule.

This invention, crafted by an Israeli dentist, could pick up the slack for people who forget to take medicine and could save lives for those whose lives depend on scheduled drug therapy. It could also allow for better absorption of medication into the body.

The IntelliDrug device will deliver medicine directly into the bloodstream through the lining of the cheek around the mouth. Saliva, meanwhile, mixes with the drug and carries it throughout they body in a manner more efficient than just swallowing a pill every few hours.

While researchers hope to one day turn their device into a replacement tooth, the apparatus -- consisting of a stainless steel housing, a pump, custom valves, a microprocessor, batteries, and a reservoir for the drug pill -- currently comes in the form of a block the size of two teeth. It is strapped to the the side of teeth and hugs the inside of the cheek. The unit can be removed, and a technician can refill the drug reservoir, clean the unit, and change batteries when necessary.

Clinical trials on pigs are ongoing. Human testing is expected to begin by the end of the year.

Four weight loss pill marketers were fined millions of dollars by The Federal Trade Commission for making false advertising claims. The claims ranged from rapid weight loss to reducing the risk of cancer.

The weight loss pills can still be sold on the market but the companies will have to stop making the false claims that they have no scientific evidence to back up. The fines were against four products, Xenadrine EFX, One A Day Weight Smart, Cortaslim and Trimspa.

FTC Commissioner Deborah Platt Majoras said on the Today Show that the FTC investigation found that the marketers of Xenadrine did have a study that said those who took a placebo actually lost more weight than those taking Xenadrine. They not only did not have a study to support their claims but had a study that went the other way!

"Testimonials from individuals are not a substitute for science," Majoras said. "And that's what Americans need to understand."

Cancer cells sometimes secrete specialized proteins into the bloodstream that serve as indicators of tumor growth. These tumor markers are often distinctly associated with a particular type of cancer. Like prostate cancer.

The most well-known tumor marker today is the PSA -- the prostate-specific antigen. PSA is a highly specific protein that is secreted only by cells of the prostate gland. It is one of the most widely used -- and the only widely accepted -- screening test for cancer.

There's also the tumor marker CA-125, used in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and in the monitoring of response to treatment for the same disease. There's CEA for colon cancer, CA-19-9 for pancreatic cancer, AFP for liver and testicular cancer, beta-HCG for testicular cancer, and CA 15-3 for breast cancer. And research is under way on newer, more useful tumor markers. This is a good thing -- because some tumor markers are not specific enough or sensitive enough to accurately predict tumor growth.

This is why my oncologist does not recommend I enter the world of tumor markers, despite my status as a breast cancer survivor. He suggests I rely simply on how I feel for monitoring my chances for cancer recurrence. If I experience any worrisome symptoms, he will be the first to wage an all-out assessment of my health. But without symptoms, tumor markers are not likely to help me at all.

A peek at my breast cancer tumor markers would likely be hazy, inconclusive, and not all that helpful. Examination of tumor markers can lead to false positives. It can lead to expensive and often unnecessary follow-up testing. It can lead to worry and panic and even alarm if the numbers are not in the hoped-for range.

Although an abnormal tumor marker level may suggest cancer, this alone is typically not enough to diagnose the disease. Measurements of tumor markers are usually combined with other tests, such as a biopsy, to confirm cancer. So what would I do with an abnormal number and nothing suspicious to biopsy? I would worry. I would panic. Perhaps unnecessarily.

My doctor suggests I refrain from a wild cancer chase. And I am happy with his suggestion. Between my own awareness, follow-up oncology appointments, mammograms, annual OB/GYN check-ups, and more, I am confident any health issues that come my way will be detected early -- and can be resolved in good time. I have no need for confusing tumor marker details. Unless they are conclusively recommended, I will survive without them. More important, I will survive without worry.

On Sunday, for the very first time, I read a magazine article about the hospital where I received treatment for breast cancer. I had never before seen mention of my hospital, my doctors, my city in anything other than local and regional newspapers and on area television stations. I figured news about Shands Hospital at The University of Florida was out there -- in more areas than my own -- because it's a well-known facility. People travel from all over to receive treatment here. So I know it's a good place. But to see in the October 2006 issue of Good Housekeeping an actual blurb about a new kind of lumpectomy -- pioneered right here in Gainesville, Florida -- is exciting.

I am the happy recipient of this new kind of lumpectomy -- which really is not new at all. It was developed 20 years ago by the surgeon who performed my own lumpectomy, and it allows women who undergo lumpectomy the chance to avoid return trips to the operating room.

The method is called frozen section analysis, and it was first used by Dr. Edward Copland III, first director of the UF Shands Cancer Center, who was tired of waiting for pathology reports and tired of operating on patients two and three times to ensure clear tumor margins.

It all happens like this -- a surgeon removes the breast cancer tumor, takes tissue samples, freezes them in an embedding compound, and sends them to a pathologist for immediate analysis. In a typical case, this frozen section process adds just 15 minutes to the operating time. If pathology reveals more tissue must be removed, the surgeon returns to the patient, still under anesthesia, and continues surgery. The patient does not need to return for more surgery.

Surgeons at most institutions rely on a method called permanent section analysis to determine whether or not cancerous cells remain along the margins of a tumor. The technique is labor-intensive, takes days to complete, and requires patients to return for additional surgery if margins are not clear. Surgeons using the frozen section method still consult permanent sections to confirm margins are clear -- but they are mostly certain of their findings during frozen section.

Studies show frozen section analysis to be safe and effective -- and it adds just $851 to the cost of surgery, a savings considering the cost of returning for surgery as a result of permanent analysis.

There are many advantages -- but the procedure is tricky and on occasion can fail to detect some cancerous margins, indicating frozen section should continue to be used in conjunction with permanent section. Opponents of the practice say false positives could result in unnecessary mastectomy. But Copeland says this has never happened at UF -- and he would never remove a woman's breasts until permanent section confirmed it was necessary.

Despite the promise of this method, only a handful of institutions make practice of this surgery-sparing technique. Shands at UF is the only hospital in North Florida where breast surgeons perform frozen section analysis on a regular basis.

The procedure -- which is not risky, is not harmful, and clearly saves patients from returning for surgery -- is the exact procedure I received almost two years ago. Dr. Copeland removed my tumor, froze tissue samples, sent them to pathology, and 15 minutes later knew my tumor had clear margins and had not spread to my lymph nodes. He visited my family in the hospital waiting room just after surgery and told them the good news -- clear margins, no spread, a 1.1 cm. tumor, stage I. And while other tumor criteria, such as ER/PR status and HER2 status, did not come my way immediately, I at least knew the basics when I woke from surgery. No waiting. No worrying. No complaints.

I have been a cheerleader for the breast cancer drug Herceptin ever since I began receiving it. I had my initial worries -- about an allergic reaction that I knew caused death within 24 hours for a handful of women and about possible toxicity to the heart -- but after faring well through my first dose and having now successfully completed my one year obligation to the drug, with no allergic reaction or heart damage, I have come to believe the Herceptin might just be the gem of a drug that the media says it is. Yet now I've read an article that makes me question what I really know about Herceptin -- and the studies that surround it and the statistics that back it and the messages sent out over the lines of mass communication to every day, non-medical people like me.

Whoever stumbled across this discovery is a genius! First let me say there is nothing that will knock the breath right out of you than being told a test for cancer has come back positive. False-positive results are determined when the second follow-up test reveals the first test is an error in diagnosis. I am certain the first reaction is relief -- and then a sort of aggravation that you had to be put through the harrowing emotions of a cancer diagnosis in the first place.

False-positives can happen for a number of reasons, but one of them involves body heat generated by brown adipose tissue, or brown fat, which can mimic cancer during a PET/CT scan. The current solution is the use of valium and beta blockers during the scan, and studies have shown it reduces reading error by 30 percent. However -- and here is where the whoever thought to do this is a genius comes into play -- the simple use of a warm blanket is more than twice as effective as the administration of drugs in preventing the uptake of tracer by brown fat in the body. According to the researchers, everyone has brown fat, but it is more common in slender women.

At the same Atlanta meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology where the breast cancer drug Tykerb was touted as perhaps the next wonder drug, findings were also released concerning chemotherapy and end-stage cancer. It seems that many patients in the last weeks and days of their lives are receiving chemotherapy -- when it is clear that there is no hope for survival. Perhaps patients don't want to give up and so they choose to fight to the very end. I think I would be hard-pressed to throw in the towel if a doctor thought I might benefit from continued treatment. Miracles do happen.

Doctors may be part of the problem, though, according to researchers. Patients don't want to give up -- and neither do doctors. But cancer specialists report that overly aggressive treatment gives false hope and puts people though unnecessary suffering and costly ordeals when hospice would be a more effective route. The purpose of hospice -- to help people die with dignity and in comfort -- is ineffective, however, when it's not used to its full potential. A large review of Medicare records showed in 1999 that nearly 12 percent of cancer patients died after receiving chemotherapy in the last two weeks of life. This was up from 1993 -- 10 percent -- and is probably higher today. These individuals could have been peacefully preparing for death and instead were suffering through the trials of harsh treatment.

The solution -- that must be implemented by doctors -- is a willingness to accept that there is a time to stop followed by an honest conversation with the patient whose cancer has spread widely and is incurable.

Another study presented at this Atlanta meeting revealed that some patients are not being offered newer treatments that might truly save their lives. New lung cancer treatments have extended survival from 20 percent at one year to 50 percent, for example. Yet only 11 percent of doctors in one Wisconsin study would refer such patients for treatment.

It would be nice to know for sure that one life is about to end, regardless of treatment, and to know that another might be saved because of treatment. And maybe one day -- when treating cancer is an exact science -- this will be a reality.

New Zealand health authorities are investigating what they feel to be extravagant health claims by companies trying to sell goji juice as a cure for cancer. In New Zealand, that kind of health claim is illegal. That kind of health claim is illegal in the United States as well.

There might be a single magical berry that can cure cancer, but without rigorous scientific study, who can say for sure? Certainly not the manufacturers of goji juice, or those who seek to profit from the sale of goji juice. Not without scientific proof.

I am inclined to believe it is healthy for you, and does provide antioxidants that do have cancer prevention value, because it is a berry. Most berries have been shown to offer cancer prevention in supplying the body with vital nutrients essential to good health. But that is far cry from believing goji juice is a cure for cancer.

Common sense would keep us from buying into flamboyant claims that can give someone diagnosed with cancer false hope. A cancer diagnosis can create intense levels of fear and sometimes, a willingness to set aside normal and sensible judgment. Most of the nutritional experts are suggesting that given the current price of a goji juice drink, similar berries, fruits and vegetables might be more cost effective in getting the same antioxidant and nutrition value.