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:

Overview of osteosarcoma:

There are about 900 new cases of osteosarcoma diagnosed in the US each year. About 400 occur in children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age.

Osteosarcoma forms in the bones. It is most commonly diagnosed in those who are 15 to 25 years of age. It is also the most common type of bone cancer, and the sixth most common type of cancer in children.

Other types of cancer can eventually metastasize to the bone, however this disease originates in the bone and can spread elsewhere to other parts of the body.

Many cases of osteosarcoma, around 80 percent, begin in or around the knee area.

What are the risks of osteosarcoma?

The disease is most seen in boys and can arise from unpredictable errors in the DNA of growing bone cells during times of intense bone growth. Currently, there is no effective way to prevent this type of cancer but with proper treatment most kids diagnosed with osteosarcoma do recover.

Is the cancer in your family inherited? Some families experience large amounts of cancer and whether it is environmental, every day living habits, or genetics are all factors that should be looked into. Genetic testing, usually performed with a blood sample, may provide information about you and an increased risk for cancer because of family genetics.

For instance, nearly everyone born with familial adenomatous polyposis (the genetic predisposition to colon cancer) develops the disease by age 40 if preventive surgery isn't done. Knowing this early can aid in prevention and early detection. Talk with your doctor about genetic counseling. A Genetic Counselor provides individuals and families with information on the nature, inheritance, and implications of genetic disorders to help them make informed medical and personal decisions. Genetic counselors often work in clinics with oncologists or gastroenterologists and focus on cancer risk.

A half a million volunteers are being sought out by the American Cancer Society (ACS) that are willing to let researchers watch them for twenty years to see if they develop cancer.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. The idea behind this large study is to compare it to other big studies in Europe and Asia, who are searching for environmental and lifestyle factors that cause cancer.

The group will recruit men and women between the ages of 30 and 65 who have never been diagnosed with cancer. The volunteers will give blood to be tested and answer questionnaires at various times over the next twenty years.

Eugenia Calle, managing director of analytic epidemiology at the American Cancer Society, said in a statement "This type of study involves hundreds of thousands of people, with diverse backgrounds, followed for many years, with collection of biological specimens and assessments of dietary, lifestyle and environmental exposures".

Ever wonder what fish to eat, what fish to avoid, what fish is healthy, what fish is cancer-causing? I do.

I'm looking into this whole fish thing. And while my search for information is in no way exhaustive and my findings are far from conclusive, I have found some interesting fishy facts and figures.

Think about this:

Fish definitely has health benefits. It's low in fat, high in protein, and rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Americans love this. How do I know? Because on average, each of us eats a record 16.6 pounds of fish every year. Our intake of shrimp and salmon has doubled, in fact, since 1994.

Fish definitely has its drawbacks too. Headlines repeatedly warn us of dangerous contaminants in lakes, rivers, and oceans. Don't forget about mercury, the biggest fish health hazard. It's been linked to neurological problems in developing fetuses and children, making consumption of shark, swordfish, tilefish (aka golden snapper or golden bass), king mackeral, canned albacore tuna, and tuna steaks a no-no for hoards of women and children.

For just about everyone else, the benefits of eating moderate amounts of seafood greatly outweigh the risks. Just watch out for those PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) -- possible carcinogenic chemical compounds that end up in some seafood.

To avoid PCBs, steer clear of farmed salmon which contains high levels of these compounds or limit your intake to less than one single eight-ounce meal per month. Opt for the wild variety of salmon to avoid this concern altogether. Or take the side of the FDA. Their reports say salmon is a powerhouse when it comes to protecting heart and developing cancer from this source is much lower than the risk of heart disease.

Source: Good Housekeeping, April 2007

Those who have been treated for Hodgkin's disease have a 3.6 fold increased risk of heart attack and a 4.9 fold increased risk of congestive heart failure than the general population.

A study was conducted to assess the long-term cardiovascular disease risk in a group of 1474 patients, who survived Hodgkin's lymphoma for at least five years.

Records showed that 28 percent received radiation only; 5 percent had chemotherapy only; 38 percent were treated with radiation and chemotherapy, which did not include anthracyclines, drugs known to damage the heart; and 29 percent received radiation plus chemotherapy with anthracyclines. Of these patients, a total of 84 percent were treated with radiation to the chest.

The study group detected 160 cases of valve disorders, 134 cases of angina, 102 heart attacks and 52 cases of congestive heart failure. Among subjects treated before the age of 20, the risk of angina and congestive heart failure were significantly higher than for those treated when they were older, suggesting that "immature cardiovascular tissue may be more vulnerable to radiation and chemotherapy."

The study team hopes that the outlook for survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma will brighten over time, as fewer patients are receiving radiation therapy, and when they do, dosages are reduced and patients' hearts are at least partially shielded.

The recommendation for those treated for Hodgkin's is to consider some risk reducing strategies, such as treating high blood pressure and high cholesterol and advising patients to eliminate controllable risk factors.

This post isn't meant to scare anyone diagnosed with Hodgkin's that has been treated with radiation or chemotherapy. I was given an anthracycline as therapy for my breast cancer -- it does linger in the back of my mind that this drug is harmful to the heart and could cause problems later on in my life. I think that those treated for Hodgkin's, especially at a young age when treatments might have been less safe, should think about their lifestyle choices. Talk to your doctor about ways to decrease your risk of these heart problems.

Today I offer you not so much a Thought for the Day but a Question for the Day. Before I ask my pressing question, though, I want you to consider this story.

Diagnosed with a rare malignant melanoma on her retina in 2001, Ann Guthrie, a South Carolina wife and mother of two grown sons, endured radiation and chemotherapy. The treatments shrunk Guthrie's tumor, but another mass appeared two years later, forcing the removal of her right eye.

At about the same time Guthrie lost her eye, cancer was discovered in her lungs. It was inoperable. Then cancer landed in her brain. And now, without any approved treatment avenues, Guthrie is out of options.

Like many people with terminal illnesses, this woman is willing to try just about anything -- a clinical trial, experimental drugs, risky treatments -- to extend her life. If she's going to die anyway, why not? She just might live longer. And if she doesn't, she could at least help advance science by offering herself up as a sort of guinea pig.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed changes that would make it easier for patients to access options like these, it's just not that simple right now.

There are ethical issues -- like weighing the needs of people who think anything is better than death against the need of society to prove drugs and treatments work safely. The only way to ensure a sort of balance is through clinical trials -- and letting anyone participate in clinical trials, for example, would make the results harder to interpret.

And there are medical and legal risks. What if terminally ill patients end up in worse shape after a treatment with an experimental drug, for example? What if the FDA or a physician is considered responsible for adverse drug reactions?

Denying terminal patients their last bits of hope is difficult. "It's a hard discussion to have with a patient and his family," says one doctor. "There's a lot of tears. We all would love to be able to get them access to some form of therapy."

And now for my question:

What do you think about terminally ill cancer patients and their access to anything that might extend -- or save -- their lives?

Doctors prescribing anemia drugs for patients with kidney disease and cancer were urged by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday to carefully dispense of these drugs due to an increased risk of death and other serious problems, such as blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks in patients with chronic kidney failure and rapid tumor growth in patients with head and neck cancer who receive doses higher than recommended.

The potentially harmful drugs, sold under than brand names Procrit, Epogen, and Aranesp, are genetically engineered versions of a natural protein -- called erythropoietin -- that increases the number of red blood cells. The drugs, with combined 2006 U.S. sales of $10 billion, are commonly used for patients with certain forms of kidney disease and for those receiving chemotherapy for cancer.

The FDA is adding warnings to the drugs' labels that will strongly instruct doctors to use the lowest possible dose needed to help patients avoid blood transfusions.

The FDA will also take a close look at how the drugs are marketed, including claims the drugs can improve the quality of life.

A meeting of FDA officials to further discuss this issue, believed to stem from drug overuse by dialysis centers and oncologists who make more money by using more of the drugs. is scheduled for May 10. Recommendations could lead to additional revisions of the drugs' labels.

Wyeth officials say their hormone replacement therapy Prempro is not the cause of one Ohio woman's breast cancer. But two jury decisions prove otherwise.

The first jury, in October, awarded Jennie Nelson and her husband $1.5 million in compensatory damages, validating Nelson's claim that her breast cancer -- resulting in a double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation -- was caused by the Prempro she took for six years. When this verdict was thrown out due to a mistrial, a retrial began.

The retrial concluded yesterday -- with a Philadelphia jury awarding the Nelsons this time with $3 million.

"Both times this case has been heard on terms established by Wyeth and still the juries have clearly found that Prempro causes breast cancer," says Nelson's attorney Tobias Millrood, adding that Wyeth puts sales ahead of patient safety.

Wyeth respectfully disagrees and argues that it acted responsibly in the promotion of its hormone replacement products and in disclosing with doctors and patients all therapy-associated health risks.

Millions of women have used Wyeth's hormone replacement therapies to control the effects of menopause, and the company, sanctioned in January to pay $1 million to an Arkansas breast cancer survivor, now faces more than 5,000 lawsuits of this same nature.

Despite a large-scale study revealing drugs like Prempro increase the risk of breast cancer if used for five years or more, the drug still remains on the market. And Wyeth is so sure their drug is not at fault for causing Nelson's breast cancer that they plan to appeal yesterday's verdict.

Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the most deadly of cancers. The statistics are grim, as 95 percent of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer do not survive, and 50 percent of patients die within six months after the cancer is diagnosed. There might be some hope in an allergy medication that has been around for 40 years.

According to University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers, the allergy medication cromolyn reduced pancreatic tumor growth in mouse model studies, and when the drug was combined with the chemotherapy drug gemcitabine, the standard chemotherapy treatment was three times more effective. They are reported to be in the process of starting a clinical trial.

The study's lead author, Craig Logsdon, Ph.D. is quoted as saying, "The study demonstrates in mouse models of human pancreatic cancer that the cromolyn-gemcitabine combination reduced cancer growth by 85 percent compared to control animals. Cromolyn used alone actually had a good effect on reduction of tumors compared to control animals, which surprised us. It reduced tumor growth by 70 percent, compared to growth reduction of 50 percent when gemcitabine was used as a single agent."

"Our goal is to offer longer life to these patients, and the combination of these two agents may well do that."

To learn more about pancreatic cancer, visit the pancreatic cancer category here and the National Cancer Institute's What You Need To Know About Cancer of the Pancreas.

Because no one likes a group who misrepresents the truth to promote a private agenda, The National Breast Cancer Coalition, NBCC, announced they were hosting the first annual Golden Boob Awards to expose the biggest boobs in the fight to stop breast cancer. The nominees in this year's Golden Boob Awards were the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer (ABC) for threatening the integrity of serious efforts to find ways to prevent, treat, cure, and ultimately end breast cancer; and Mark For Life for trying to make money from a product with no impact in the fight against breast cancer.

By popular vote, the winner as this year's biggest boob is, as announced on the Golden Boobs Award website: "The Abortion/Breast Cancer Coalition (ABC) for asserting that abortion leads to an increased risk of breast cancer, despite lacking one shred of relevant proof to back up this claim. ABC's stock in trade - pseudo-science, fear mongering, and flat-out lies - has threatened the integrity of serious efforts to find ways to prevent, treat, cure, and ultimately end breast cancer."

In addition, NBCC is awarding a Dishonorable Mention Golden Boob Award to recent high-level presidential appointee as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Dr. Eric Keroack, who is currently the medical director of A Women's Concern, an organization that also states a connection between abortion and breast cancer.

The NBCC is a grassroots advocacy group that works for increased federal funding for breast cancer research and with the scientific community to implement new models of research. The NBCC seeks to improve access to high-quality health care and breast cancer clinical trials for all women. To learn more about the winners, or to nominate the next biggest boob in the fight against breast cancer, visit Golden Boob Awards.

Can sex cause breast cancer and will the cervical cancer vaccine offer protection against breast cancer? The human papilloma virus (HPV) known to increase cervical cancer risk might also be responsible for increasing breast cancer risk, according to a small study conducted by University of New South Wales researchers. HPV was discovered in the DNA of breast cancer tumors in almost half of the 50 women who participated in the study.

Researchers went on to indicate that women affected by HPV were approximately eight years younger at the time of breast cancer diagnosis than women who were not affected by HPV. They went on to speculate that HPV is not only spread through sexual activity but can be spread while bathing as the virus can be transferred from the genital area to the breasts.

Professor James Lawson of the University of New South Wales explained that "We know that the virus explodes out of the cell and is spread by touch, so it's fairly obvious that it could be spread by sexual activity to the breast, you could also argue that it would be spread by washing and bathing."

Because the study was a small one, Australia's National Breast Cancer Centre director Dr. Helen Zorbas is hesitant to accept the study as conclusive in showing a link between HPV and breast cancer. "There are a lot of hypotheses into what may cause breast cancer and it's important that we do research to try to investigate them. But a study of 50 cases is very small."

Researchers at M.D. Anderson report on long-term cardiac status of patients receiving Herceptin. Trastuzumab (Herceptin), an anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, is highly effective for treating HER2 overexpressing invasive breast cancer. In patients with HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer, Herceptin plus chemotherapy improved disease progression and overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone.

The study included patients who received Herceptin for at least one year. Most patients with Herceptin associated cardiac toxicity recovered completely, and many were re-treated with Herceptin without additional cardiac toxicity. Some patients did not discontinue use of Herceptin despite cardiac dysfunction.

This report suggests that patients who experience Herceptin induced cardiac toxicity should be managed with cardiologists and decisions to continue or resume Herceptin must be made after careful discussion of potential benefits and risks associated with further therapy.

In her award-winning documentary Toxic Bust, filmmaker Megan Siler takes on the issues and realities of toxic chemicals women are exposed to at home, in the community, and during work in relation to the potential links to breast cancer. Siler focuses on three breast cancer hot spots -- San Francisco and Silicon Valley in California and Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

Siler is not alone in her investigative work of environmental links to cancer risks. Even though the current percentage of federally-funded research dollars allocated to the links between cancer and exposure to environmental toxins is in the single-digits, there are those who have spent a good deal of time, energy and resources into studying the cause and effect of the environmental risks to cancer. In the last six years, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has conducted extensive studies regarding toxic chemicals in the environment. Among the 72 people who participated in the EWG studies, a chemical body burden of 455 industrial pollutants, pesticides and other chemicals in blood, urine, and breast milk were found.

The Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition analyzed the hair, blood, and urine samples of ten study participants and found that every person tested had at least 26 and as many as 39 toxic chemicals in his or her body and the exposure to toxic chemicals came from everyday activities and products. Breast Cancer Action released State of the Evidence 2006: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer? which provided compelling scientific evidence pointing to some of the 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use today as contributing to the development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone function or gene expression. The report also identifies radiation exposure, such as that from X-rays and CT scans, as the longest-established environmental cause of breast cancer. In the United States, a woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer has tripled in the last 40 years.

Wendy Mesley, co-host of CBC's Marketplace and breast cancer survivor, produced and hosted the investigative documentary Chasing the Cancer Answer, that provided revealing interviews with an outspoken American doctor, frustrated cancer victims in southern Ontario, pharmaceutical sales representatives in Paris, France, and activists working to increase awareness of prevention measures. Greenpeace issued a report that Chernobyl cancer deaths have been grossly underestimated. Award-winning and highly-respected journalist and public commentator Bill Moyers produced a PBS documentary Trade Secrets investigating the history of the chemical revolution and the body burden of synthetic chemicals that pose dangers to human health.

We have additional links related to the topic of environmental links to cancer risk at Earth Day: environmental cancer risks and Cancer Epidemic: are we poisoned from birth? Cancer defines about 100 diseases characterized by the uncontrolled, abnormal growth of cells. No one single factor is going to be the cause for all cancers. However, environmental exposure from toxic chemicals cannot be ignored as one, and perhaps multiple, contributing factors in raising the risks of developing cancer.

When Australian pop star Kylie Minogue was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005, there was a sudden surge in the number of young women requesting breast cancer screening. Minogue's breast cancer diagnosis at the age of 37 raised concern among a younger population of women that breast cancer is a diagnosis that could potentially happen to them. Knowledge is power and education saves lives. The increase in breast cancer awareness became known as the Kylie Effect.

However, the awareness that younger women can develop breast cancer has led some women to age-related conclusions about breast cancer that are not true, and this is also being referred to as the Kylie Effect. According to a recent survey of 2,289 women conducted by Cancer Research UK, 77 percent of the survey participants said that breast cancer risk was higher for women under the age of 70, and 33 percent said that women under the age of 50 were most at risk. The fact is cancer risk increases with age, and four out of five women diagnosed with breast cancer are over the age of 50.

"Celebrities with breast cancer like Kylie Minogue and Caron Keating have attracted a lot of publicity -- especially in magazines aimed at younger women. This is very beneficial in that it raises awareness of breast cancer. But the down side is that it may also set up a chain of panic among young women, while misleading older women to think that ageing is not a relevant factor in breast cancer," stated Dr Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK.

For a retrospective of Kylie Minogue's breast cancer journey:

• Kylie Minogue: voted favorite traveling companion of men.
• Kylie Minogue: world exclusive interview with Sky One.
• Kylie Minogue loses close friend and personal chauffeur to cancer.
• Kylie Minogue: back on stage as a breast cancer survivor.
• Kylie Minogue: laughter is the best medicine for cancer cure.
• Dannii Minogue: sings under pressure about sister Kylie.
• Kylie Minogue breast cancer survivor glows in health.
• Kylie Minogue: cancer survivor writes children's book.
• Kylie Minogue joins women in fight for Herceptin.
• Kylie Minogue in breast cancer remission.

What should younger women do to be breast cancer smart? Do a monthly self exam and if they notice any abnormalities or lumps, insist that tests be done to rule out breast cancer. Realize that while any woman at any age can get breast cancer, the chances increase with age and 80 percent of breast cancer diagnosis happen for women 50 years and older.