.::::::: Doctorhollic :::::::.

The results of a study confirm that girls who undergo radiation for cancer in childhood have an increased long-term risk of developing breast cancer, regardless of their age at the time of treatment.

When such treatment included a high dose to the ovaries, however, women seemed to be protected against future breast cancer risk.

Radiation is a common, and highly effective, treatment for cancers such as Hodgkin's lymphoma, and adolescents and adults who receive such treatments are known to be at higher risk of developing breast cancer late in life, Dr. Peter D. Inskip of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues note in their report.

Inskip's team studied 120 women diagnosed with cancer when they were younger than 21 years old, were treated between 1970 and 1986, and survived for at least 5 years.

Those cases were each compared with four women who developed cancer at the same age but did not receive radiation.

Overall, chemotherapy for the initial cancer did not increase the risk of a second cancer. However, the more radiation a woman received as a child, the higher her risk of a later tumor, Inskip and colleagues report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

However, according to the researchers, the risk associated with radiation treatment of the breasts was "sharply reduced" in women whose treatment of the initial cancer included a high dose of radiation to the ovaries.

Because the women in the study were relatively young, there may still be effects later in life that were not yet seen, the authors point out.

Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy, with or without surgery, works well for people with stage 3A non-small-cell lung cancer, a new study has found.

Stage 3A is declared when surgery cannot cure the disease because it has spread to the lymph nodes in the center of the chest.

Non-small-cell lung cancer accounts for about 80 percent of lung cancers, and smoking tobacco is the most common cause of lung cancer. According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the risk of lung cancer is linked to the earlier in life a person starts smoking, the more often a person smokes and the more years a person smokes.

For the study, a research team led by Dr. Kathy Albain of Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine in Maywood, Ill., compared 202 patients who underwent chemotherapy plus radiotherapy followed by surgery with 194 patients who underwent chemotherapy plus radiotherapy alone, which is the current standard for these patients.

The researchers looked at the overall survival rates of the 396 patients after five years to draw their conclusions. They found no statistically significant difference in overall survival.

In an exploratory analysis, the researchers found that overall survival did improve for patients who only had part of a lung removed (lobectomy) rather than an entire lung. They speculated that removing an entire lung left patients more likely to die from acute respiratory distress syndrome or other respiratory diseases.

"On the basis of the findings of our study, patients should be counseled about the risks and potential benefits of definitive chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with, and without, a surgical resection (preferably by lobectomy)," the authors concluded.

Infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV) may improve survival in patients with head and neck cancer, U.S. researchers report.

They said the finding may explain why black Americans, who have far less HPV infection than whites, have poorer head and neck cancer survival rates.

"There is currently no consensus on why blacks fare worse with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck than whites, but this is the first clue that it may be biologic rather than related to issues of access, insurance or provider attitudes," senior study author Dr. Kevin Cullen, director of the University of Maryland's cancer center and a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, said in a news release from the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cullen and his colleagues found that median overall survival was 70.6 months for white patients and 20.9 months for black patients treated with chemotherapy and radiation. Median survival was 26.6 months for HPV-negative patients, while the survival rate for HPV-positive patients couldn't be calculated because most were still alive.

Four percent of black patients and 34 percent of white patients were HPV-positive, the researchers found.

The study appears in the July 29 online edition of Cancer Prevention Research.

The findings may prove "practice-changing," according to Dr. Scott Lippman, editor-in-chief of Cancer Prevention Research and chairman of the Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

"Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck is one of the fastest- growing cancers, and this study gives us a new way to assess prognosis for our patients," Lippman said in the news release

Breast computed tomography (CT) scans, already used experimentally to diagnose breast cancer, may also be able to treat it, a California researcher reports.

"Breast CT is superior to mammography for [detecting] masses," said John Boone, vice chair of research radiology at the University of California Davis. He presented information about the potential of breast CT for treatment this week at the American Association of Physicists in Medicine meeting, in Anaheim, Calif.

Since 2004, Boone has led a group of UC Davis researchers in developing the breast CT scan for diagnosing breast cancer in women. The technology's pluses, said Boone, include being more comfortable than conventional mammograms but just as safe.

More than 200 women have been scanned with the custom-designed breast CT prototype scanner, he said. The technology has not yet made its way into clinical practice, he said, but preliminary results look good. "Breast CT is still experimental for diagnosis," he said. But it is already looking to be more effective than traditional mammography at detecting breast masses.

More work needs to be done to find microcalcifications, tiny specks of calcium which don't always mean cancer is present but bear checking, he added.

Next, Boone hopes to use the breast CT scanner to guide interventional procedures such as a robotic biopsy, radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation to treat breast cancer.

With the breast CT scanner, a woman lies on her stomach, face down on the table while the breast drops through a hole in the table; the CT scanner then rotates around the breast. The position is considered more comfortable, especially for big-breasted women.

Boone hopes that the new scanner could be used to perform image-guided therapies such as the technique known as radiofrequency ablation. "It literally heats up the tissue, cooks the tumor and kills the tumor," he said. It may help some women avoid lumpectomy and follow-up radiation therapy.

"The concept is good," said Dr. Chika Madu, an assistant professor of radiation oncology at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

But she added a caveat that the energy level talked about by Boone may have to be adjusted. "It may come at a price of increased toxicity to the skin," she noted.

The technique may not work for all cancers or all women, she added. "In small-breasted women, not enough breast may come through the hole sufficiently [to treat]," she said. Cancer that is close to the chest wall rather than the nipple may not be treatable by this technique either, she said.

Even so, Madu said, "I think it's worth exploring."

Boone's study was funded partially by the industry, including Varian Medical Systems, Fuji Medical Systems and Hologic Corp.

In another presentation at the same meeting, Michael O'Connor, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., reported on molecular breast imaging (MBI), a new technique that uses gamma cameras designed for breast imaging.

"The devices look somewhat like a mammography unit," he said. A small amount of radioisotopes is given intravenously and is taken up by any tumors in the breasts, he said.

In a study of 1,000 patients, mammography picked up three cancers but MBI picked up 10, he said.

Next, O'Connor hopes to reduce the dose of radioisotopes and begin a clinical trial. The technique is expected to especially benefit women with dense breasts, for whom mammography is not as accurate at cancer detection.

Efforts to find ways to detect small cancers that can't be felt on exams should be stepped up, said Dr. Gary Whitman, a professor of radiology at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Other studies suggest MBI has promise, he said, but O'Connor's finding "would need to be confirmed."

Breast cancer screenings increased more than 17 percent through the use of a reminder program for women who were due for a mammogram, a new U.S. study shows.

Kaiser Permanente staff checked electronic health records of its 35,000 members to identify women aged 50 to 69 who hadn't had a mammogram for 20 months. They were sent a postcard reminder. If they didn't make an appointment within a month, they received an automated reminder call. If they didn't respond to that in a month, they received another automated reminder call. If they still didn't make an appointment, they received a phone call from a clerk in the radiology department.

Within 10 months of the first reminder notices being sent, more than 75 percent of the women had come in for mammograms, compared to 63.4 percent before the start of the reminder program. After the second year of the program, 80.6 percent of the women had come in for mammograms.

The study appears in the August issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"We know mammograms are effective, but too many women put them off, even when they have health insurance," study author Dr. Adrianne Feldstein, an investigator at Kaiser Permanente's Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., said in a news release.

"This study is the first to show that these reminder programs can be effective in such a large group of women. If we could improve the country's mammography rate by the same amount, we could detect as many as 25,000 additional cases of breast cancer a year," she said.

Regular mammograms can reduce breast cancer deaths by more than 30 percent. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends breast cancer screenings every one to two years for women over age 40. However, current screening rates are well below the guidelines.

Obese, but worried that surgery for it might kill you? The risk of that has dropped dramatically, and now is no greater than for having a gall bladder out, a hip replaced or most other major operations, new research shows.

The study looked at safety results for gastric bands and stomach stapling at 10 U.S. hospitals specializing in these procedures from 2005 through 2007. For every 1,000 patients, three died during or within a month of their surgery, and 43 had a major complication.

That is much better than the 20 or so deaths per 1,000 patients that studies found just a few years earlier. And it's surely lower than the longer term risk of dying of heart disease, diabetes and other consequences of lugging around more pounds than an obese person's organs can handle, experts say.

Many studies have compared those odds, and "all show a higher risk of dying if you do not have surgical treatment than if you do," said Dr. Eric DeMaria, weight loss surgery chief at Duke University Medical Center.

He had no role in the new study, which was led by Dr. David Flum at the University of Washington in Seattle. Results appear in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.

About one-third of American adults are obese, with a body mass index of 30 or more. The index is based on height and weight. Someone who is 5-feet-4 is obese at 175 pounds; a 6-foot person is obese at 222 pounds.

Federal guidelines say obesity surgery shouldn't be considered unless someone has tried conventional ways to shed pounds and has a BMI over 40, or a BMI over 35 plus a weight-related medical problem like diabetes or high blood pressure.

Last year, at least 220,000 obesity surgeries were done in the United States, says the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. The most popular method is a gastric bypass in which a small pouch is stapled off from the rest of the stomach and connected to the small intestine. People eat less because the pouch holds little food, and they absorb fewer calories because much of the intestine is bypassed. This can be done with traditional surgery or laparoscopically, through small keyhole incisions.

Another solution is a gastric band. A ring is placed over the top of the stomach and inflated with saline to tighten it and restrict how much food can enter and pass through the stomach.

The new study looked at the safety of these methods in 3,412 gastric bypass patients and 1,198 given stomach bands.

Death, serious complications or the need for another procedure occurred in 1 percent of people receiving bands, nearly 5 percent having laparoscopic gastric bypass, and nearly 8 percent of those given a traditional surgical bypass. Maybe

DeMaria cautioned against comparing the numbers, because healthier people may have been steered toward laparoscopic procedures that may not have been an option for others with more health risks.

Complication rates were greater in people with a history of clot problems, sleep apnea and certain other medical issues, the study found.

The federal government paid for the study. Many of the researchers have ties to companies that make obesity treatments, and several have testified in surgery lawsuits.

The results put the spotlight on cost issues, Dr. Malcolm K. Robinson, a surgeon at Harvard Medical School, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

"In the past, now outdated bariatric procedures carried unacceptably high risks. The weight loss associated with the procedures was questionable, and the long-term health benefits were unproven," he wrote.

Now, the evidence shows that "surgery is safe, effective, and affordable," because it can lower doctor visits, medication use and other medical expenses, Robinson wrote. However, "the expense of operating on the millions of potentially eligible obese adults could overwhelm an already financially stressed health care system."

Managing your child's diabetes is challenging enough, but it's compounded when the youngster becomes sick from something else.

The American Diabetes Association offers these suggestions:

• Don't stop giving your child insulin, even if the youngster doesn't have much of an appetite. Call the child's doctor if you're not sure about how to administer insulin during a sick day
• Try not to make major changes to your child's diet. For a child with an upset tummy, offer liquids with carbohydrates, including broth, gelatin, sports drinks, fruit juice and frozen fruit bars.
• Make sure your child drinks plenty of water. Avoid any beverage with caffeine.
• Check with the doctor before giving any over-the-counter medication. Many drugs have sugar and/or alcohol that can affect your child's blood glucose levels.
• It's critical to carefully monitor your child's blood glucose and ketone levels during an illness, so make sure you check the blood every few hours and urine several times daily.

Let’s pretend for a moment that you have two options for improving your health: Eat more nuts or eat more olive oil. Which should you choose?

Believe it or not, nuts could have a slight edge, especially if you’re concerned about metabolic syndrome, a combo of health conditions that raises heart disease risk.

Nuts for Your Health
In a 1-year study, people who ate a Mediterranean-style diet and added an extra ounce of nuts (roughly a small handful) had a lower incidence of metabolic syndrome compared with the people who ate the same diet but instead added 4 to 5 ounces more of olive oil every day. Find out about the cluster of risk factors that makes up metabolic syndrome -- and if you might have them.

The Whole Truth
Why the difference? Here’s one simple theory: Olive oil is a fat extracted from olives, but nuts are a whole food with more good-for-you stuff in them, including fiber, protein, and minerals. Both olive oil and nuts can -- and should -- have a place in a healthy diet. In the study, both seemed to help tamp down high triglycerides and abdominal fat better than a low-fat diet did. But the nut eaters also experienced better blood pressure, which is one reason their metabolic syndrome numbers were better. Go nuts!

To get the heart-healthy benefits of drinking wine without getting tipsy, tipple some grape juice instead.

Research shows that your blood will get two important benefits: More antioxidants will be circulating in it, and bad LDL cholesterol may cause less trouble because it’s more stable.

Two for You
Having extra antioxidants in your blood is always a good thing: They help guard your cells against the kind of free-radical damage that provides a toehold for disease. And more stable LDL is incredibly desirable, too, because stable LDL is less likely to oxidize and stick to artery walls.

Juice It Up
Grape juice has fewer antioxidants than wine, so you may need to drink more to get the same benefit. Sip real juice, not fruit-flavored drinks -- you’ll get more nutrients and less sugar. And keep tabs on your intake, since juice is not a calorie freebie. Get your grape on with this luscious dish: Chicken Cutlets with Grape-Shallot Sauce.

Starting a regular running habit could mean a
longer -- and more comfortable -- life.

After a 20-year study involving close to 1,000 middle-aged adults, researchers found that the fleet-footed participants were half as likely to have died during the study period, compared with the nonrunners. The runners experienced less disability, too.

Exercise-Induced Longevity
In fact, the difference in mortality rates was staggering! During the study, about 34 percent of the nonrunners had passed away by age 70 or so, compared with just 15 percent of the runners -- even though the groups were of similar age, weight, and health status. If you’re new to running,

Running Alternatives
Not keen on running? New to exercise? No problem. You can make yourself up to 10 years younger simply by walking. Or just pick any activity you enjoy, make a date with
yourself -- or even better, with a buddy (you’ll keep each other on track) -- to do it a few times a week. Then, go at it hard enough to get your heart rate up.