Salute Press :: Archives :: March 2006 Issue


	HEADLINES ARCHIVES MEDIA CENTER

March 2006 Issue

• Projected Cancer Deaths Down in U.S.
• Italy’s Emergence in Life Sciences
• Sorting Out Women’s Health News

Projected Cancer Deaths Down in U.S.

By Pierpaolo Basso
SHPress Editor
March 1, 2006

Cancer deaths are projected to drop in 2006 from estimates made in 2005 estimates, according to The American Cancer Society.

The new projections are based on a drop in the number of cancer deaths reported by the National Cancer for Health Statistics for 2002 (557,271 deaths) and 2003 (556,902 deaths). From 2002 to 2003, the number of recorded cancer deaths decreased by 778 for men, but increased by 409 for women, resulting in a drop of 369 total cancer deaths, the first such decrease since 1930, when nationwide data first began to be compiled.

In 2006, approximately 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and 565,000 will die of the disease. Among highlights of the study:

• Breast cancer remains the most common cancer among women in the U.S., with an estimated 212, 920 new cases and 40,970 deaths anticipated in 2006.

• Lung cancer is the top cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with an estimated 174,470 new cases and 162,460 deaths expected in 2006. Kentucky has the highest rate of lung cancer in the U.S

• Deaths from lung cancer among white males have steadily decreased since the early 1990’s, although mortality rates among African American men remain more than double that of Caucasian men.

• Radon, a natural gas and asbestos, an insulation product in many buildings constructed between 1930 and 1975, remain potential cancer risks. Radon has been shown to cause lung cancer in high concentrations, and is responsible for between ten and 14 percent of lung cancer deaths in the U.S. Asbestos can cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and possibly other cancers.

Source: www.cancer.org

Print Article E-Mail Article

March 2006 Issue

Italy’s Emergence in Life Sciences

By Ilene Raymond
Editor-in-Chief
March 1, 2006

An improved public and private infrastructure, increased government investment, and impressive innovations have boosted Italy’s standing in the life sciences, according to a new report for InvestinItaly, an Italian trade group. The study, prepared for the 2006 BIO conference in Chicago from April 9 to 12, notes that Italy is undergoing a “modern day renaissance” in fields such as biomedicine, genomics and nanotechnology.

Recent reforms in the tax system, favorable intellectual property laws and streamlined procedures for clinical trials are all credited with attracting new foreign investors to the country. Companies have also been drawn to “life sciences clusters” across the country that include more than 40 world-class science and technology partners fueled by researchers from more than 70 universities.

Among specific achievements noted in the report:

• Europe’s first Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Modena, which will concentrate on stem cell therapies for treating vision disorders caused by genetic and tissue disorders.

• The Telethon Institute of Genetics and Medicine in Naples is spearheading a European team of twelve nations to develop the first comprehensive gene expression atlas, which will identify an estimated 30,000 genes that form DNA and human organs, tissues and cells.

• A joint American-Italian team from La Sapienza University in Rome and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore conducted the first study to employ stem cells to repair the same type of organ. The research results, which used cells from human hearts to treat damaged mice hearts, were presented at the American Cardiology Congress (ACC).

For more see:
Italy’s Emergence in Life Sciences Achieves Critical Mass
www.italtrade.com
www.investinitaly.com

Print Article E-Mail Article

March 2006 Issue

Sorting Out Women’s Health News

By Andy Myer
SHPress Editor
March 1, 2006

Anyone tuned into the media coverage on women’s health recently can’t help but be puzzled. Three years after the surprising news that Estrogen Replacement Therapy doesn’t protect women from breast cancer (and may actually increase cardio-vascular risk), the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) has again challenged “accepted” wisdom about what’s good health practice for women.

Findings from the first WHI study, published in the February 8 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, indicated that low fat diets started later in life do not significantly reduce cancer or heart disease. A second study in New England Journal of Medicine, seemed to contradict the widely held belief that older women can prevent osteoporosis and hip fractures by taking daily calcium and Vitamin D supplements.

However, before women pitch their calcium and Vitamin D pills on their way to down a double bacon cheeseburger, they should consider the advice of veteran researchers accustomed to pondering the details of medical data. These scientists offer an understanding of important nuances in both studies.

While acknowledging that the two well-run studies produced results that seem “counterintuitive, ” Dr. Susan Weil, an associate with the Family Risk Assessment Center at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia explains that there are “reasons why one gets unexpected answers in these particular studies.”

The Skinny on Fat and Calcium

Citing the fat study, she notes that the target goal low fat goal for participants was to eat 20% of their caloric intake as fat, while the the high fat participants were to consume 40%. But by year 1 the first group had slipped to 24%, and the second group adjusted downward to 35%. When year 6 dawned, the low fat group had fallen further off the low-fat wagon, to 30%.

In addition, the trial subjects generated their dietary information through retrospective “Asked-to-Recall” questionnaires, not on-going daily records that are considered more reliable. Dr. Weil also noted that the study did not delineate between kinds of fats (unsaturated and saturated, trans fats, or animal and vegetable fats). She also sees the duration of the study as an issue.

"Eight years is a very long time in terms of a study, but it’s not long in the history of a slow-growing cancer. So as the study continues, you may get a more statistically significant difference."

The calcium study also had problematic aspects that make sweeping lifestyle generalizations unwise. Many of the participants were also taking estrogen or progestin therapy, a regimen that may itself strengthen bones. Others had already been taking calcium at a lower dose than the experimental level of 450 International Units, or had been taking Vitamin D as part of a daily multi-vitamin.

It will take follow-on studies to answer more concise questions about calcium use. For example, would the result be different at a higher dose? Or, if calcium supplementation began earlier in a woman’s life?

"Both of these areas have been extensively studied," states Weil, “But I think more work needs to be done. The full answers aren’t really in yet.”

Evaluating Medical News

The need for a careful and considered look at media reporting of medical news is a paramount concern for Dr. Susan Mazure, PhD, Director of Women’s Health Research at Yale University. She believes these studies often operate on several levels. “They ask the general question, if you apply a broad sweeping intervention to a huge number of women, does it make a difference,” says Mazure, “The answers that we’re finding are that it’s better to think about tailoring and targeting interventions.”

Mazure advises thinking about one overarching question. “Ask yourself, what was the purpose of the study, what was it designed to do, and am I asking the same question about my health? Many times, it’s not the same, and the answer to OUR question is imbedded deep in the general finding.”

In the face of so much conflicting medical news, Dr. Weil has developed a checklist to help women make wise and conservative health choices their own lives. Her top 5 recommendations:

• When you can, go to a primary source. The National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, the New England Journal of Medicine, and web sites like WebMD have relatively user-friendly areas that don’t require a great deal of scientific expertise.

• Be aware of the popular media’s interest in generating ratings.

• Unless the new data is simply overwhelming, continue doing what you’re doing until more information comes in.

• Find a reliable health professional who can address your concerns.

• Finally, understand that medicine moves by increments.

In other words, take your medical news with a grain of salt at least until the next study from the Women’s Health Initiative suggests otherwise.

Print Article E-Mail Article

TOP	CONTACT OUR POLICY SHRO CREDITS