In the January issue of Blood, a study shows that in rare cases of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), treatment with Gleevec can be discontinued.

The researchers think that some patients treated with Gleevec (imatinib mesylate) that go into extended remissions can stop the drug. They add that patients continue strict monitoring for relapse.

Twelve patients were put into remission with Gleevec for over two years. Six of these patients experienced a relapse within five months after being taken off the drug. When Gleevec was restarted, residual disease again declined.

The other six patients remain in remission after nine to twenty four months follow up.

Despite these results the researchers say 'we do not widely recommend imatinib discontinuation at the present time".

I do have a few questions myself that the article did not address:

Does Gleevec have severe side effects that warrants stopping it at all?

Do they think that Gleevec can potentially cure the patient and some might be able to stop treatment all together?

Women with early stage breast cancer now have a new tool at their disposal. The tool -- called MammaPrint -- is newly approved by the FDA and while it is not yet a perfect measure, it can be used along with other information to estimate whether breast cancer is likely to return in five or 10 years.

The value of this test, that measures through computer analysis the activity of 70 genes using a sample of tissue removed from a breast tumor, is that doctors and patients can better determine course of treatments.

MammoPrint offers two results -- high risk and low risk -- and accurately picked in studies which women were at low risk at least 90 percent of the time. However, for women who were told they were at high risk for recurrence as a result of the test, just 23 percent experienced a relapse.

"You can't go all the way to the bank with this test," says FDA official Dr. Steven Gutman who argues the test is still better than having no information at all.

Agendia, the Dutch maker of MammoPrint, is exploring ways to make this one-of-a-kind product available in the United States. It has been used in the Netherlands since 2005.

"This test has enormous implications for the short-term future of cancer research in general, and is one of the truly great breakthroughs of our time," says Cancer Blog reader Gregory Pawelski with whom I am grateful for sharing this story tip with me.

We all know breast cancer strikes women -- a lot of women -- but about 1,700 men also develop the disease each year in the United States. And while their risk of diagnosis is much more hopeful than the reality facing women, men with breast cancer face their own version of a not-so-rosy reality.

According to researchers at the University of California, Irvine, men treated for breast cancer face a very real chance of getting cancer again. Their study found that 11.5 percent of men with breast cancer develop second primary cancers -- mostly in the breast, stomach, and skin -- within two months following initial treatment.

"Even more disturbing, we found that men with breast cancer are diagnosed with later-stage disease and that patients with onset of the disease at a young age are even more likely to develop a second cancer," said Hoda Anton-Culver, chief of epidemiology in the UCI School of Medicine.

In light of these findings, researchers recommend men with breast cancer be closely monitored for a second onset of cancer.

Researchers from Dartmouth Medical School say they have a new way of identifying a deadly form of breast cancer that plagues 17 to 37 percent of all breast cancer patients and mostly premenopausal black women.

Identification comes in the form of locating the marker nestin -- a long filamentous protein indicating the presence of basal epithelial tumors -- which makes this type of cancer hard to diagnose and hard to treat. It also puts patients at high risk for recurrence, marked by a very short time between treatment and relapse.

"Ideally, a marker like nestin would enable clinicians to monitor these patients through frequent tests of a biomarker and, in doing so, detect the cancer before it has a chance to come back," says one professor.

Researchers must now find an effective means of detecting nestin in a clinical screening setting. It won't be as simple as a blood test -- but a non-invasive collection of mammary duct samples may enable the development of a screening tool for at-risk patients.

Some women opt to remove their ovaries to prevent breast cancer recurrence. I considered it -- and then decided I would not take such an extreme measure when I wasn't all that sure I was done having children.

Now, ovary removal may not be necessary -- because a new chemical equivalent of surgery allows women to temporarily shut down their ovaries while preserving their fertility.

The shutdown of the ovaries is called chemopause, and women who choose to go this route receive monthly injections -- considered a super-hormone treatment -- of a drug that blocks the male hormone testosterone and is often used to treat prostate cancer.

Chemopause has big advantages. It doesn't require surgery. And it's not permanent. Women who want to have children can stop the treatment in order to conceive. And women who have trouble with side effects can discontinue use of the surgery-sparing drugs.

The ovary-suppressing drugs -- triptorelin, goserelin, leuprolide, and buserelin -- can be used in place of or on top of standard chemotherapy and hormone therapy and are showing promise in their ability to decrease incidences of breast cancer recurrence.

Medical professionals agree there is value in ovarian suppression. Studies show women whose periods do not return after chemotherapy -- which often causes early menopause -- have lower relapse rates than women whose periods resume. So shutting down the ovaries and stopping menstruation may not be such a bad idea -- and not such an extreme measure either.

Among all sorts of news circulating as a result of the recent breast cancer conference in San Antonio, Texas is a report about an international study that has many touting Canadian chemotherapy treatments as the best therapies around -- even better than the commonly-used AC/T cocktail (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel) .

The winning Canadian drug combinations -- EC/T (epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel) and CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil) -- are reportedly more effective at preventing breast cancer recurrence than AC/T.

About 2,104 women in Canada and the United States participated in this international study. All had undergone surgery to remove a tumor and were receiving chemotherapy. The women, aged 60 and under, all had cancer that had spread to their lymph nodes, indicating the disease was likely to spread.

The women received one of three treatments -- AC/T, EC/T, or CEF -- and results revealed that for every 100 women who received EC/T or CEF, 10 women would suffer a recurrence. For every 100 women who received AC/T, 15 women would relapse.

The lead researcher of the study says it's too soon to say whether EC/T and CEF are more effective in the long-term. So participants will be followed for some time while researchers will try to make sense of their initial findings. In the meantime, they suspect AC/T will continue to be widely used because of its lesser side effects.

Chemotherapy is a good remedy for killing cancer cells -- and I hope every day that it did its job and killed all cancer cells that may have floated away from my original breast cancer tumor. But one not-so-good side effect of this good remedy is the beating that healthy cells take in the process of this life-saving treatment. It will be a red-letter day when chemotherapy can target only cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells unaffected. And this day may be a bit closer for patients in Taiwan who find they are in the early stages of relapse with nasopharynx cancer.

On Wednesday, National Taiwan University Hospital introduced a new high-tech laser procedure -- potassium-titanyl-phosphate or KPT -- to vaporize cancer cells. Doctors use a small endoscopic camera and easily manipulate the laser to precisely eliminate the cancer cells in the back of the nose and the soft roof of the mouth -- without harming healthy cells. The procedure takes roughly 90 minutes and requires a two-day stay in the hospital. This procedure should only be used in the early stages of relapse, though, and first-time cancer patients should still seek chemotherapy. And while those in later stages of relapse can still receive the treatment, it will only relieve discomfort without solving the problem.

To date, there have been 16 successful KPT treatments for this disease that about 1,000 people in Taiwan contract each year.

As they reach adulthood, the majority of childhood cancer survivors are unaware of the details of their treatment and the potential long-term health risks. As a result, many childhood cancer survivors do not seek the recommended aftercare from cancer specialists to monitor their health.

The researchers did report that childhood cancer survivors do see the family physician on a regular basis, but the experts feel these survivors should be seeing a specialist for the best in aftercare. I am not a childhood cancer survivor -- but I am a cancer survivor -- and I will tell you after active treatment for cancer I switched back to seeing my family physician as soon as I could for my aftercare. For me, it was psychologically beneficial. As long as I was seeing the oncologist, who happened to have her office in the same place where I received my chemotherapy, I was constantly reminded of the worst phase of my cancer. I felt stuck in time. I know if I develop any symptoms of cancer recurrence, my family physician will send me back to see a cancer specialist. In the meantime, when I go to see the doctor now, I feel like a normal person with a normal future. I am speculating, but this might be one of the reasons childhood cancer survivors seek their medical care from a family physician over an oncologist. I am not sure I feel the same concern as the experts do when it comes to where childhood cancer survivors go to receive aftercare -- as long as they are seeing a physician on a regular basis.

After reviewing mammography use in women over the age of 55 who have been treated for breast cancer, University of Massachusetts Medical School researchers report that only one in three breast cancer survivors have annual mammography screenings. In the first year after treatment, 80 percent of women went in for a mammogram. At the fifth year of follow-up, only 63 percent had received an annual mammogram, and after the fifth year, only one in three had an annual mammogram. An interesting fact from the report was that older women, with other medical conditions, and those who had been diagnosed with late-stage tumors, were significantly less likely to have a mammogram.

Mayo Clinic researchers have discovered that the expression of two genes within the tumors of women with early stage breast cancer might predict who is at risk for breast cancer relapse. "The HOXB13 and IL17BR gene profile was previously discovered as a potential marker of relapse in hormone-receptor positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen," says Matthew Goetz, M.D., who co-led the project with James Ingle, M.D. and Fergus Couch, Ph.D. "Our new study shows that the marker is only useful for identifying women with a higher risk in the setting of lymph node-negative breast cancer." Researchers believe the results of this study support existing data suggesting the HOXB13 gene is critically involved in breast cancer metastases.