Cancer pain can be an often-overlooked side effect. People who are first diagnosed with the disease will immediately worry about side effects like nausea; however, pain can often be a major influence in one's life.

Cancer treatments, like surgery, can be painful. Tumors can press on bones, nerves or organs as they grow, causing pain. Although cancer pain can't be eliminated, it can be controlled.

The more specific you are about your pain, the more your doctor can treat it. Make sure to include information about when your pain started, what it feels like and how long it lasts. Note changes in your pain, and if it is constant or if it comes and goes. Always let your doctor know what you do to relieve the pain and how well it works. Ranking your pain on a scale makes it easier for your doctor to understand.

Always remember that there are several things you can do at home to reduce your cancer pain. Home treatments to manage pain include:

• Over-the-counter medications
• Heat or cold therapy to relieve painful areas of the body
• Stretching, yoga, and exercises to help maintain strength, flexibility, and mobility
• Behavioral treatments, such as relaxation, biofeedback, meditation, or guided imagery.
• Healing touch and massage.
• Complementary therapies, such as acupuncture, aromatherapy, prayer, and humor therapy.

Check out AOL Health for more information on cancer pain management.

A new tumor classification system may indeed give more lung cancer patients hope for treatment, as it divvies up the various stages of lung cancer tumors where some will be classified as "more treatable" that in the past.

This marks the first change in a system used to predict cancer survival related to tumors in about ten years. Those who have had lung cancer but have been told that their cases are not that treatable (read: denied treatment by insurance companies) will surely be glad at this news.

With lung cancer being rated as the deadliest cancer form globally, and with more and more smoking bans coming to cities and entire countries, perhaps lung cancer will be receiving the even more recognition it deserves. That, my friends, is not a bad thing.

Now I advise everyone to take all food-related recommendations with a grain of salt, because what first may appear healthy may not be in the long run -- and what is once deemed unhealthy may one day turn into a health food, like coffee.

Now, here's something new to think about:

It turns out the average mushroom may have healing powers. A new study out of Tufts University found that white button mushrooms help boost the body's natural immunity against tumors and viruses.

Source: Woman's Day, September 12, 2007

There's no shortage of strange and downright bizarre ideas that people come up with in the quest to cure cancer, and here's one for the books: Scientists in Australia believe that a type of bacteria found in the Grey Kangaroo might help fight lung cancer.

It's believed that when spores from the bacteria are injected into the patients blood stream, they can seek out a tumor and destroy it some the inside out. And while it might sound strange to us, others believe th theory has some serious merit -- to prove it, the researcher in charge, Dr. Ming Wei, has been awarded a $750,000 fellowship to develop the treatment.

I would imagine most people's vanity gets left behind -- or at least put aside -- when they are diagnosed with cancer. I don't know from experience, but it seems like a patient's priority would shift when they learn that they're fighting for their life.

So I was interested to read this article on a woman who underwent surgery for her breast cancer that preserved her breasts rather than removing them. This radical new form of surgery, which originated in Milan -- a place where looking good is practically their religion, can even enhance the appearance of a woman's breasts while removing tumors. The surgery is being practised in London and other parts of Europe, but there's no word on whether it's coming to North America any time soon.

So my thought for today is: Are the breasts really important when fighting off cancer, or is it removing the tumor at all costs that matters? I think preserving a woman's breasts can preserve her self-confidence, so if it can be done, go for it. What do you think?

Remember that old saying -- An apple a day keeps the doctor away? Well, it seems that an apple peel a day might keep cancer at bay, according to a new study.

A dozen compounds have been found called triterpenoids. These compounds found in the peel of an apple either inhibit or kill cancer cells in lab cultures.

"We found that several compounds have potent anti-proliferative activities against human liver, colon and breast cancer cells and may be partially responsible for the anti-cancer activities of whole apples," says Rui Hai Liu, Cornell associate professor of food science.

Previous studies have shown that apples not only fight cancer cells in the laboratory but they also have shown to reduce the number and size of mammary tumors in rats.

So, don't peel those apples. Eat the whole thing!

Does cancer have a smell? I wouldn't think so but apparently the most sensitive noses in the world -- those belonging to dogs -- can detect the presence of cancer with alarming accuracy, according to this. Dogs were 99% accurate at detecting lung cancer and 88% accurate at detecting breast cancer, regardless of attempts to mask the smell through food or cigarettes.

Apparently, tumors give out small amounts of alkanes and benzene, which have a slight odor, and once a dog is trained to pick up that smell, it has a good chance of detecting it in the future.

Is that amazing or what?

We're not even 11 days into Skin Cancer Awareness Month, and already my awareness about the disease has been raised several times.

Today, I learned that measuring the amount of melanin in a strand of hair can predict a person's risk for melanoma. It's all detailed in the May 15 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology. And the study leading to this new conclusion -- that the amount of melanin in hair indicates an individual's skin type -- is quite interesting.

Think about this:

Researchers involved in a large skin cancer trial measured 2,3,5-pyrroletricarboxylic acid (PTCA) levels of 98 subjects with melanoma and 98 subjects without melanoma. They found the subjects with a PTCA concentration below 85ng/mg had more than four times the risk of developing melanoma.

On Tuesday, researchers announced that a three-drug cocktail may help women with HER2-positive breast cancer better than any other drug used on its own. About one quarter of women with breast cancer make up this HER2 category.

Tests on mice revealed using the three drugs along with breast cancer drug tamoxifen helped wipe out tumors altogether. And the tumors did not come back. This is the first time mice were cured of a very aggressive human breast tumor. Incidentally, when a single drug was used, tumors returned within several weeks.

The three wonder drugs used in this study -- all are monoclonal antibodies that precisely target certain aspects of tumors -- are the experimental drug pertuzumab; trastuzumab, also known as Herceptin; and gefitinib, or Iressa.

Published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, this study supports the notion that HER2-positive tumors eventually become resistant to one drug and attacking them on several fronts seems to work better.

There's a new vaccine out there that stimulates the immune system to find and destroy breast cancer cells. In early experiments, the vaccine held off or stopped the growth of tumors in all of the mice studied. Some mice were even cured.

Think about this:

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research reveals this vaccine is different from most under development that help kick-start the immune systems of sick patients. In this case, the vaccine tells the immune system to recognize breast cancer cells and to attack and kill them on the spot.

One researcher says breast cancer cells usually fly under the radar of the immune system. To combat this problem, the injectable vaccine uses a bacteria-type substance that is altered to contain the gene HER2/neu and also antibodies that rev up the immune system. This makes the body react and wipe out cells containing HER2/neu.

If continued studies prove promising, the vaccine would work for the 15 to 25 percent of women whose breast cancers overexpress HER2/neu.

When my babies were born, those who promote breastfeeding as the only effective method for nourishing a child and preventing illness urged and pushed and prodded me to embrace their beliefs. I did believe them, never doubted them, and sometimes felt guilty I wasn't able to nurse my children -- a previous breast reduction surgery disabled my milk flow.

I got over it. Bottles and formula worked well for my family, allowed my husband to share middle-of-the-night feeding duties, and grew my two little boys into sturdy, healthy beings.

What I haven't completely gotten over is that breastfeeding could have done a whole lot of good for me too. It could have prevented the breast cancer I developed just after my second child stopped drinking formula from his bottle.

Research indicates breastfeeding can decrease the risk of breast cancer for women who have their first baby after age 25. I was 31 when my first child was born.

Previous studies showed that having a first baby before the age of 25 or having no children protected against breast cancers fueled by hormones. It did not, however, stop the less common, harder-to-treat tumors not fueled by hormones, like mine. It seems even breastfeeding would not have prevented my cancer.

That was then. This is now.

New studies show women who give birth after age 25 are twice as likely to develop either type of breast cancer. Therefore, breastfeeding really protects all women bearing children after 25 from both forms of the disease. It turns out breastfeeding could have helped me. But I couldn't do it. So it didn't.

What's done is done. I'll get over it. And I may just become one of those women who urge and push and prod others to embrace the benefits of breastfeeding.

Cancer drug Gleevec, used for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), has been pulled out of another round of testing so it can get to work stopping the return of a rare stomach cancer. It's that good, according to findings announced on Thursday.

The promise of Gleevec should make it standard treatment for people with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), a stomach and intestine cancer diagnosed in 5,000 to 6,000 Americans each year.

The drug has already been used for patients whose disease is too advanced for surgery. Now it will be used for those whose tumors can be removed. The drug will be administered for at least one year post-surgery.

More than 600 people participated in this Gleevec trial. Each person took either Gleevec or a sugar pill for one year after surgery. After the one-year mark, cancer returned in 17 percent of people taking the sugar pill and in 3 percent of people taking the actual drug.

Since 50 to 90 percent of GIST cases recur over time, this is great news, say researchers who call Gleevec a highly targeted cancer drug with few side effects.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow popped in for an unexpected visit on Bill O'Reilly's Radio Factor on Wednesday with the purpose of clearing up a certain cancer matter.

"Some of this has been misreported," Snow told O'Reilly in reference to his recent cancer recurrence.

"I do not have liver cancer," Snow said. "There are a number of small tumors that are in my abdominal cavity; they have not hit any other organs."

Snow, 51, said there is also no cancer traveling through his bloodstream and that he plans to return to work after recovering from the surgery he had two weeks ago to remove tumors from his abdomen.

Although his cancer is not threatening his life -- he says if the tumors didn't grow from now until the time he died, he would be absolutely fine -- Snow will still receive chemotherapy to "drive this sucker into remission," he said.

Snow began battling cancer in 2005 when he was diagnosed with colon cancer, had his colon removed, and underwent several months of chemotherapy.

Antiretroviral drugs, used to prevent HIV transmission from mother to child, are now believed to cause genetic damage in infants. This damage, leading to an increased risk of developing cancer, makes it highly plausible these children may be diagnosed with the disease in mid and late adulthood.

Two new studies indicate there are cancer-causing effects of transplacental exposure to AZT, an antiretroviral drug. These effects -- like increased incidence of tumors and tumors with genetic changes -- have been demonstrated in mice and rats and seem to be cause for concern in humans too.

"The cumulative mutagenesis data suggest that infants exposed transplacentally to AZT may be at increased risk for cancer as they age," said one researcher, whose findings are published in Environment and Molecular Mutagenesis.