The NIH Director’s Pioneer Award is a high-risk research initiative desiged to [2]:

… support individual scientists of exceptional creativity who propose pioneering — and possibly transforming approaches — to major challenges in biomedical and behavioral research.

First announced in 2004, 9 awards were presented in September 2004, 13 awards each were made in 2005 and 2006, and 12 awards were presented last year.

Several award investigators are focusing on nanotechnology, developing tools and materials to study design principles of the brain and improve the ability to study subcellular structure in three dimensions. Many of this years awardees are also interested in developing new imaging techniques or technologies to:

• image and study proteins in living cells
• link behavioral responses with neuronal activity
• image electrical activity of the heart and identify those at risk of sudden cardiac death

Two Pioneer Award recipients will focus their research on gene regulatory networks, examining how gene networks that control cell function change over time in development, disease and evolution, and how intracellular gene networks allow microbes to carry out cognitive behavior.

Other awarded research proposals include:

• exploring the role of random variables in gene expression during cellular development and specialization
• integrating behavioral factors into models of the development and progression of infectious and chronic diseases
• using groups of RNA molecules to modify cellular properties
• using stem cells to examine the mechanisms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a neurodegenerative disease of motor neurons

Also announced were 31 New Innovator Awards, which are restricted to early career investigators that have not held an NIH grant. The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award is designed to address two goals: stimulate highly innovative research that has the potential for significant impact and support promising new investigators.

With the flat funding of biomedical research over the last five years, young investigators are competing with well-established researchers for limited resources and are disproportionately affected. Indeed, over the past 17 years, there has been a decrease in NIH regular research grants (R01), the original and oldest grant mechanism used by NIH, awarded to junior investigators [3].

The NIH Director’s New Innovator Awards will provide 1.5 million for each investigator over five years. This is the second year that the NIH has made grants through the New Innovator Award program.

NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., who launched both programs during his tenure, said [4]:

Nothing is more important to me than stimulating and sustaining deep innovation, especially for early career investigators and despite challenging budgetary times. These highly creative researchers are tackling important scientific challenges with bold ideas and inventive technologies that promise to break through barriers and radically shift our understanding.

NIH funding

In July, a federal stimulus bill, principally for the war effort, provided the NIH with an additional $150 million for the end of fiscal year 2008 that ran through September. Nevertheless, NIH funding in 2008 failed to keep up with biomedical inflation for a fifth year in a row [5]. Although fiscal year 2009 started yesterday (October 1st), Research!America reports that new legislation extends NIH funding at its current 2008 levels through March 6th, 2009.

Progress in the life sciences is a major determinant of America’s health, it’s competitiveness and its standing in the world. NIH funding is imperative to help generate and maintain the biomedical workforce necessary to address the converging and daunting research questions of the 21st century. With the election just 5 weeks away, it is vitally important that you know where the presidential candidates stand on health care issues. The Kaiser Family Foundation has created an interactive web site where you can compare the candidates side-by-side. In addition, Research!America and partners present 2008 Your Candidates. Your Health., a website to educate voters on both presidential and congressional candidates.

Be informed so that you can make an educated decision.

Reference

1. NIH Extends Its Commitment to Transformative Research with $138 Million for Director’s Pioneer and New Innovator Awards in 2008. National Institutes of Health News. 2008 Sep 22.
2. NIH Director’s Pioneer Award. National Institutes of Health Roadmap for Medical Research. Acessed 2008 Sep 24.
3. 
A Broken Pipeline? Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk. Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, The Ohio State University, Partners Healthcare, the University of California Los Angeles, and Vanderbilt University. 2008 Mar 11.
4. NIH Extends Its Commitment to Transformative Research with $138 Million for Director’s Pioneer and New Innovator Awards in 2008. National Institutes of Health press release. 2008 Sept 22.
5. Summary of the FY 2008 President’s Budget. National Institutes of Health. 2007 Feb 5.

Other Articles You May Like

• Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy
• Flat Funding of Biomedical Research: The Threat to America’s Health
• Bill in Senate to Expand Public Access to Taxpayer-funded Research

Moving knowledge from the world of scientists into the public arena, where there are limitations on both space and reader interest, can be a challenging task. Reporting on medical genomics and personal genetics requires a translation in both language and phrasing. A 2004 study addressed popular media’s coverage of genomics, tracing reports from their original source in a scientific journal through to media publication [2]. The researchers found a significant difference in content between the original research paper and the news report, demonstrating the failure of mainstream media to accurately translate and report genomics for the public. However, until today, no standards existed to hold journalists accountable for accurate reporting of genomic medicine.

The HelixGene Foundation for Genomics was created to address the issue of reporting accuracy in medical genomics. Developed in response to significant misinformation published in a recent New York Times article discussing Google co-founder Sergey Brin and risk of Parkinson Disease, the Foundation organizes the distributed efforts of academics. The HelixGene Foundation grades publications to hold the media accountable for honest and accurate reporting of medical genomics, acting as a liaison between researchers, doctors and journalists. Additionally, the HelixGene Foundation will publish press releases about mutations to help journalists better report medical genomics and produce media about medical genomics to educate others.

Genomic medicine is believed to be the future of healthcare. Indeed, it is poised to improve disease diagnosis, therapy and prevention. All physicians will soon need to have a fundamental grasp of genomic medicine; to understand the concept of genetic variability, its interactions with the environment and its implications for patient care [3]. For both public and physician education, medical genomics and personal genetics must be accurately reported by media. The HelixGene Foundation for Better Genomic Medicine will review media reports on genomic medicine, in essence providing a peer review for accuracy and honesty.

Additional information on Genetics and Genomics for patients and the public, as well as health professionals, can be found at the National Human Genome Research Institute website. A publicly accessible New England Journal of Medicine article from 2002, Genomic Medicine — A Primer, is also recommended [3].

Additional resources on genome-based medicine or personalized medicine can be found in the Personalized Medicine category of the Highlight HEALTH Web Directory.

The media isn’t doing its job educating the public about genomic medicine and personalized genetics. The HelixGene Foundation will thus provide a valuable resource to verify media reports and hold journalists accountable for the accurate reporting of genomic medicine.

References

1. The Internet as a Resource for News and Information about Science. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2006 Nov 20.
2. Kua et al. Science in the news: a study of reporting genomics. Public Understand. Sci. 13: 309-322. 2004.
3. Guttmacher and Collins. Genomic medicine–a primer. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1512-20.
   View abstract

Other Articles You May Like

• The Cancer Genome Atlas Reports Molecular Characterization of Brain Tumors
• Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy
• Individual Genetics, Coffee Consumption, BRCA1 and Breast Cancer
• The Trust and Credibility of Healthcare Blogs

Attorney Alan Shore represents a client who is suing a large tobacco company; her father smoked cigarettes for over 50 years and died of lung cancer. Testifying before the jury, the tobacco company CEO maintained that “we also some good along the way”, asking, “how many industries actually spend money to discourage people from buying their products?” He claimed that “spending billions of dollars on anti-smoking campaigns and youth prevention efforts” is an “unprecedented display of corporate conscience.” In their closing arguments, the defense maintained that there wasn’t conclusive evidence that the tobacco company caused the death of the plaintiff.

Shore delivered powerful closing arguments in the case as only the incomparable James Spader could present. Throughout his closing, he cited research findings and statistics that seemed “made for TV” but are, in fact, very real. In quintessential Highlight HEALTH fashion, I have referenced the studies throughout his closing arguments below. There will only be 12 episodes in this, the fifth and final season of Boston Legal. Enjoy it while you can.

Closing arguments

Michael Rhodes smoked cigarettes for 50 years, got lung cancer and died; we all know what happened here. We also all know this death. Everybody in this room knows somebody who has fought this same battle and dies … agonizing, brutal, excruciating …

But … emotion has no play here. Michael Rhodes was eleven years old when he started smoking, it was 1948. At that time, there was no known risk, and even if there were, at eleven he certainly lacked the capacity to assume it. And after that, he was addicted. They manufacture them to be addictive.

In just the last few years, they’ve increased the amount of nicotine in the average cigarette by 11.6% to make them even more addictive [1]. Recently, we learned that tobacco companies have been adding an ammonia-based compound to cigarettes for years to increase absorption of nicotine [2]. It’s basically the same principle used in crack cocaine.

And let’s look at the obscene strategy they’ve employed here. Smoking may cause cancer, but it didn’t cause this particular cancer. It wasn’t our cigarettes, or it was genetic, or asbestos or a paper mill. Never do they take responsibility ever. And God forbid, if you sue them, they’ll bury you and your lawyer. They might even depose your doctor to death, for good measure. All their insidious methods and cunning corporate tactics aren’t just history, it’s what they continue to do now, today. Because the tobacco industry is like a nest of cockroaches, they will always find a way to survive.

They still go after kids with one strategy after another. They put up brightly colored ads at kid’s eye level in convenience stores. They hire gorgeous twenty-somethings to frequent popular venues and seduce young adults into attending lavish corporate-sponsored parties. Cockroaches will always find a way.

They can’t advertise on TV but they’ve hired PR agencies to hook them up with the film industry. And it’s worked. Researchers estimate that smoking in movies delivers nearly 400,000 adolescent smokers every year [3]. Every time you try to kill the cockroach, it finds another way. It has to, because when you make a product that kills off your consumers, you have to find a way to recruit new customers.

They’ve now got a new feminized version of the macho Camel brand using slogans like “lite” and “luscious” with hot pink packaging. Virginia Slims advertised their “thin cigarette”. Allure Magazine did a whole spread on the cigarette diet [4]. They use social and psychological profiling [5], targeting potential smokers by gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, socioeconomic groups … cockroaches don’t discriminate.

Their CEO comes into this courtroom gloating over their anti-smoking campaign, which is designed to get kids to smoke. In 2003, they spent more than 15 billion on advertising and promotion [6]. That’s a 225% increase from 1998, and they have the audacity to declare they’re trying to discourage smoking. This is not how corporations with a conscience behave.

How in God’s name are cigarettes even legal, can anybody tell me that? They are a deadly concoction of carcinogens that damage every single organ in your body. Why do we not ban them? Because it’s a free country, because freedom of choice is an American ideal worth somebody dying every six seconds? How can any company, especially one with such a conscience no less, knowingly manufacture a product that poisons its users? … and make that product look cool and hip and sexy and fun, so they can get children. How can any attorney defend a company that would do such a thing and how could any society tolerate it, but we do.

There is no conscience at big tobacco. There is no conscience in Washington, which has been bought and paid for by this industry. Conscience has to come from you, the jury. If real regulation is to happen, it has to come from you. People are smoking day after day after day and dying and dying and dying and the tobacco companies keep getting richer and richer. Last year alone, they made 12 billion dollars in profits [7]. How can that be?

How can that be?

References

1. Connolly et al. Trends in nicotine yield in smoke and its relationship with design characteristics among popular US cigarette brands, 1997-2005. Tob Control. 2007 Oct;16(5):e5.
   View abstract
2. How an Unregulated Industry Experiments on America’s Kids and Consumers. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. 2008 Feb 20.
3. Sargent, J. AAP Handout, October 2006. News release, American Academy of Pediatrics.
4. Morris, L. “The Cigarette Diet.” Allure Magazine. 2000 Mar.
5. Ling and Glantz. Using tobacco-industry marketing research to design more effective tobacco-control campaigns. JAMA. 2002 Jun 12;287(22):2983-9.
   View abstract
6. Federal Trade Commission Cigarette Report For 2004 and 2005. United States Federal Trade Commission. 2007
7. Fortune Global 500 2007: Altria Group.

Other Articles You May Like

• QuitWinLive - The Great American Smokeout
• Smoking Duration vs. Intensity and the Impact on Lung Cancer Risk
• Irreversible Gene Expression Changes From Smoking
• Smoking Cessation Timeline: What Happens When You Quit
• More Education Decreases the Risk of Death

Glioblastoma is the most common and aggressive type of brain cancer. Patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma have a median survival of approximately one year with generally poor response to therapy [2]. Gene expression profiling studies suggest multiple subtypes of glioblastoma that, when fully defined, may allow for more personalized therapeutic approaches [3-4].

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) is an integrated network of clinical sites, core resources and specialized genome characterization and genome sequencing centers that work together to accelerate our understanding of the molecular basis of cancer. The TCGA was launched in December 2005 as a pilot program to determine the feasibility of a large-scale effort to systematically explore genomic changes in all types of human cancer [5]. TCGA utilizes genome analysis technologies to catalog and discover major cancer causing genome alterations in large groups of human tumors through integrated multi-dimensional analyses. Glioblastoma is the first type of cancer to be studied in the TCGA pilot.

Investigators from seven cancer centers and research institutions across the U.S. integrated multiple types of data, including genetic mutations, gene expression, large-scale changes in chromosome number (amplification or deletion), epigenomics and clinical treatment. The scientists evaluated 206 biospecimens for DNA copy number, gene expression and DNA methylation (a chemical modification of DNA that reduces gene expression). Of these, 143 samples had matched normal peripheral blood DNA; 91 were selected for detection of somatic (meaning cells that differentiate into various tissues and organs, as opposed to germline cells (e.g. sperm and ova)) mutation in 601 selected genes. Eight genes were identified as significantly mutated, three of which were not previously reported for glioblastoma:

• Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), the tumor suppressor responsible for the peripheral nerve disorder neurofibromatosis type 1.
• Avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 (ERBB2), a gene that functions as a co-receptor for connective tissue-derived growth factors and is frequently amplified in breast cancer.
• Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, regulatory subunit 1 (PIK3R1), a gene that influences the activity of an enzyme called PI3 kinase, which regulates cell proliferation and survival.

Researchers then mapped the sequencing data with additional genome characterization information onto major biological pathways and identified a highly interconnected network of alterations. By copy number data alone, three critical biological signaling pathways were identified: the Receptor Tyrosine Kinase/Ras/Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase pathway (a.k.a. RTK/Ras/PI3K pathway), which controls cell proliferation, cell survival and RNA translation; the p53 signaling pathway, which controls senescence (aging) and apoptosis (cell death); and the Retinoblastoma (RB) signaling pathway, which controls cell cycle progression and cell division. In a given tumor sample, it was likely that there was at least one aberrant gene from each of the three pathways. In fact, 74% of the samples had mutations in all three pathways, suggesting that deregulation of the three pathways is a requirement for glioblastoma pathogenesis.

Oncologists already know glioblastomas that have a methylated MGMT gene (DNA methylation reduces gene expression) respond better to temozolomide, an alkylating chemotherapy drug that is the current standard of care for glioblastoma patients. By integrating methylation data, somatic mutation data and clinical treatment data, scientists identified a relationship between MGMT methylation and a hypermutator phenotype described previously [6]. In patients with MGMT methylation, temozolomide treatment introduces a strong selective pressure to mutate genes that are essential for DNA repair. Thus, patients who initially respond to temozolomide may evolve not only treatment resistance but also a hypermutator phenotype (since DNA repair genes have been mutated). Future selective therapies may therefore require targeting both DNA-repair-deficient cells and an alkylating agent.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. said [7]:

These impressive results from TCGA provide the most comprehensive view to date of the complicated genomic landscape of this deadly cancer. The more we learn about the molecular basis of glioblastoma, the more swiftly we can develop better ways of helping patients with this terrible disease. Clearly, it is time to move ahead and apply the power of large-scale, genomic research to many other types of cancer.

The power of this study lies in the statistically robust number of samples evaluated, allowing for the identification of molecular subtypes that may otherwise be undetectable. Additionally, multiple technologies were employed to identify genomic copy number alterations, which were used to validate the results from any one platform. These approaches highlight the power of comprehensive integrative analyses.

This is an excellent example of how current genome characterization technologies can systematically explore the universe of genomic changes involved in cancer. The TCGA is also studying lung and ovarian cancer.

References

1. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature. 2008 Sep 4. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1038/nature07385
   View abstract
2. Mischel and Cloughesy. Targeted molecular therapy of GBM. Brain Pathol. 2003 Jan;13(1):52-61.
   View abstract
3. Mischel et al. Molecular analysis of glioblastoma: pathway profiling and its implications for patient therapy. Cancer Biol Ther. 2003 May-Jun;2(3):242-7.
   View abstract
4. Liang et al. Gene expression profiling reveals molecularly and clinically distinct subtypes of glioblastoma multiforme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Apr 19;102(16):5814-9. Epub 2005 Apr 12.
   View abstract
5. NIH Launches Comprehensive Effort to Explore Cancer Genomics. National Cancer Institute Office of Media Relations press release. 2005 Dec 13.
6. Cahill et al. Loss of the mismatch repair protein MSH6 in human glioblastomas is associated with tumor progression during temozolomide treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 1;13(7):2038-45.
   View abstract
7. The Cancer Genome Atlas Reports First Results of Comprehensive Study of Brain Tumors: Large-Scale Effort Identifies New Genetic Mutations, Core Pathways. National Cancer Institute Office of Media Relations press release. 2008 Sept 4.

Other Articles You May Like

• Mapping Connections in the Human Brain
• Novel Gene Suppresses Tumor Growth in Multiple Cancers
• Tumor Suppressors and Oncogenes
• The Promise of Stem Cells to Repair the Heart
• Increased Coffee Consumption Associated with Lower Risk of Liver Cancer

Participatory medicine requires voluntary, intelligent participation, not passive acceptance. It is based on the understanding that treating an individual patient with optimal care is often beyond any single individual’s ability.

One of the goals of Highlight HEALTH is to promote health literacy for improving self-management in health. For e-patients and healthcare professionals to take active roles in evidence-based healthcare, there must be online resources that offer credible health information and provide references for further study. My hope is that Highlight HEALTH is one of those resources.

I spend a great deal of time researching biomedical literature and reviewing health resources for articles here on Highlight HEALTH. It’s quite gratifying when my efforts are recognized. With that said, I’m pleased to announce that Highlight HEALTH is now a member of the 9rules community of bloggers.

What is 9rules?

9rules is a prominent, online social content network that aggregates hand-picked blogs, representing some of the best content from the independent web. 9rules is a place where members and readers can find quality content, learn new things and connect with other like-minded people from around the world.

Each blog that applies for membership is reviewed for quality, value and contribution to the blogosphere. Although the exact number of websites submitted isn’t being reported, at least 2,200 blogs applied for membership (greater than 1,100 submissions for Round 6, twice as many for Round 7). Highlight HEALTH is one of the 73 currently accepted sites listed on the 9rules blog. That puts it in the top 5% of websites reviewed.

Many websites I read and/or subscribe to, such as Zen Habits, business|bytes|genes|molecules, Think Artificial, The Genetic Genealogist and Wise Bread, are 9rules members and I’m honored to be ranked alongside of them. As Highlight HEALTH explores biomedical science, you can find it in the Science Community of 9rules.

My thanks to the 9rules triad — Paul Scrivens, Mike Rundle and Tyme White — for accepting Highlight HEALTH.

References

1. Strategic Vision for the Future. From Curative to Preemptive Medicine. Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. Director, National Institutes of Health. 2008 Mar 5.

Other Articles You May Like

• No Related Post

We dreamed we’d split the atom, walk on the moon, unlock our very genetic code.

To those who said ‘impossible’, ‘can’t happen’, ‘won’t happen’, we didn’t hear a word. We stood up and we changed the world.

Stand up, Stand up for everyone who can’t rise anymore. One person every minute, one life in a moment is taken by a disease that we can actually cure. And in the time it’s taken to say these words, one more American has died.

Unforgivable.

This is where the end of cancer begins. When together we rise as one. When we Stand Up To Cancer.”

References

1. Stand Up To Cancer, television special, CBS Television, U.S.A., Executive producer Laura Ziskin. 2008 Sept 5.

Other Articles You May Like

• No Related Post

Everyone knows that cancer is a devastating disease. What many people don’t know is that cancer kills more than 1,500 people a day; that’s one person every minute. Tonight, Stand Up To Cancer, a one-hour fundraising event, will be simulcast on all three major U.S. networks. The goal of Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) is to enable cutting-edge research aimed at finding a cure to all types of cancer and making cancer part of the national debate.

Since 2001, federal deficits resulting from a number of fiscal pressures, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, increased national defense spending and hurricane Katrina, have together placed significant stress on the resources available for U.S. biomedical research. Between the fiscal years 2004 and 2007, the National Cancer Institute’s budget remained relatively flat. However, factoring in inflation (i.e. a Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI) of ~3.8% per year) reveals a 12% loss of purchasing power [1].

This decrease in resources comes as patient demand is growing. There was an estimated 1.5 million new cancer cases in 2007, an increase of 14% since 2001 [2]. The U.S. spends roughly $12 billion dollars every month fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s 33 times more than what is spent on cancer research annually. Imagine what we could do if just a fraction of those resources was dedicated to cancer research.

Join the fight against cancer!

We’re all connected through cancer. Indeed, everyone knows someone affected by the disease. Tonight and in the coming months, join the fight! I encourage you to tune in to Stand Up To Cancer and support the next generation of groundbreaking cancer research.

As we join together to fight cancer, let’s get the the research, discoveries and advances highlighted in this months edition of the Cancer Research Blog Carnival.

Cancer Research Blog Carnival #13

Science-based Medicine

With all the credible health information online, an equal or greater amount of misinformation also exists. Frequently, false or misleading propaganda or marketing claims result in misconceptions about common health matters. Dr. Steven Novella writes about Attitudes and Public Health, reviewing the results of a new global survey showing that the public is misinformed about the risk factors for cancer [3].

The Things I Wish My Mother Would Have Told Me

Mia Perovetz’s mother died of breast cancer. She created a short video for a Breast Cancer Film Festival and as the trailer for her upcoming New York play, contemplating The Things I Wish My Mother Would Have Told Me.

I wanted to follow in my mother’s footsteps. I knew how great she was. Everyone wanted to be her or even just be liked by her. But how far do I have to follow until I fear that her destiny will become mine?

The Medical Quack

There is a variety of anti-cancer drugs available to oncologists. However, before highly toxic drugs are given to a patient, it would be advantageous to know which drugs are effective against a their cancer cells. Barbara Duck describes a new test called the Microvessel Vascular assay, writing that a Cancer Physician Invents Test For New Drugs That Cut Off Tumor’s Blood Supply [4].

Medication Non-adherence

One in two patients do not take their medications as prescribed. Alex Sicre writes about patient medication adherence, republishing a recent study abstract showing that A Video Game Improves Behavioral Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer [5].

Musings of a Distractible Mind

Zippy is a lobster friend of Dr. Rob (yes, I said lobster friend). Zippy’s goal is to raise money for brain cancer research and to have many adventures doing so. Dr. Rob asks readers to support Zippy the lobster and his Cancer Quest to raise funds for scientific and clinical research through the Childhood Brain Tumor Foundation.

BayBlab

Cancer biomarkers have been the focus of a great deal of research over the past few years. Dogs tell us there’s something detectable, as they can identify cancer patients by scent with startling accuracy. Kamel explores Early Cancer Detection: Dogs with Frickin’ Laser Beams [6].

Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

GrrlScientist asks The Handmaid’s Tale: Fact or Fiction? as she discusses a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) draft document proposing to redefine nearly all forms of birth control as a form of abortion. It would allow any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman’s access to contraception and prevent women from accessing treatments for diseases such as cancer if those treatments could harm a fetus.

Think Gene

One type of gene therapy involves the introdution of a “good” gene into targeted cells to fight or prevent disease. However, done incorrectly, gene therapy can also cause cancer. Given the extremely low survival rates in pancreatic cancer patients, Josh suggests a gene therapy that may be worth trying, republishing a press release announcing that VCU Massey Cancer Researchers Find Gene Therapy that Kills Pancreatic Cancer Cells [7].

Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You

Like colorectal cancer, the survival rate of ovarian cancer improves greatly with early diagnosis. Dr. Steve Murphy reflects on some facts on ovarian cancer, announcing that September is Now Ovarian Cancer Month.

e-patients.net

E-patients are health consumers who use the Internet to gather information about a medical condition of particular interest to them. Guest posting at e-patients.net, cancer patient Monique tells why she doesn’t see herself as “e”.

Remember the Mayo Clinic study proving that optimists live longer then pessimists, which didn’t surprise the pessimists, not one bit? Well, somebody is going to prove what we already suspect: e- patients get better medical care, without being rich. C-patients get sub-standard care. E-patients live longer. And, e-vidently, e-ssentially, better.

Britannica Blog

Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building devices from single atoms and molecules. Tasha Moideen offers a video from the National Cancer Institue describing the applications of Nanotechnology & Cancer in cancer research, prevention and treatment.

Terra Sigillata

Methadone is a synthetic opioid, which is used medically as a pain reliever, cough suppressant and maintenance anti-addictive for use in patients on opioids. It was reported last month that methadone can kill leukemia cells and overcomes chemoresistance [8]. Abel Pharmboy comments on the development of Methadone For Cancer (No) and Cancer Pain (Yes).

OncoChat

Vytorin is a drug used to treat elivated lipids in the blood by inhibiting the absortipon of cholesterol by the small intestine. However, there’s insufficient data to prove that it reduces cardiovascular disease. Now, scientists are discussing a link between the cholesterol-fighting medicine and cancer [9]. Sally Church asks, Vytorin and Cancer - is there a link?

Conclusion

My thanks to everyone that contributed articles — it’s been great hosting the Cancer Research Blog Carnival for a second time this year. Be sure to take a moment and let your fellow bloggers know this issue is available so that everyone’s hard work can be appreciated and enjoyed by all.

The Cancer Research Blog Carnival is looking for future hosts. You can find both the hosting schedule and past editions at the Cancer Research Blog Carnival website.

For more information on the U.S. investment in cancer research, you can read the NCI’s plan and budget proposal for fiscal year 2009.

References

1. Niederhuber JE. A look inside the National Cancer Institute budget process: implications for 2007 and beyond. Cancer Res. 2007 Feb 1;67(3):856-62.
   View abstract
2. The Nation’s Investment in Cancer Research. Connecting the Cancer Community. An Annual Plan and Budget Proposal for FY2009. National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Jan.
3. Global Survey Highlights Need for Cancer Prevention Campaigns to Correct Misbeliefs. International Union Against Cancer. 2008 Aug.
4. Weisenthal et al. Cell culture detection of microvascular cell death in clinical specimens of human neoplasms and peripheral blood.
   J Intern Med. 2008 Sep;264(3):275-287(13).
5. Kato et al. A video game improves behavioral outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2008 Aug;122(2):e305-17.
   View abstract
6. McCulloch et al. Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and breast cancers. Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):30-9.
   View abstract
7. Lebedeva et al. Chemoprevention by perillyl alcohol coupled with viral gene therapy reduces pancreatic cancer pathogenesis. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008 Jul;7(7):2042-50.
   View abstract
8. Friesen et al. Methadone, commonly used as maintenance medication for outpatient treatment of opioid dependence, kills leukemia cells and overcomes chemoresistance. Cancer Res. 2008 Aug 1;68(15):6059-64.
   View abstract
9. Rossebø et al. Intensive Lipid Lowering with Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 2. [Epub ahead of print]
   View abstract

Other Articles You May Like

• Lack of Health Insurance Increases Risk of Cancer Death
• Detection of Colorectal Cancer Using a Blood-based, Six-Gene Biomarker Set
• The Kanzius Machine: A Future Alternative to Chemotherapy?
• Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy
• Individual Genetics, Coffee Consumption, BRCA1 and Breast Cancer

The Wall Street Journal took note of this trend last weekend, reporting that Food Makers Scrimp on Ingredients In An Effort to Fatten Their Profits [1]. However, that may be overstating their intentions. With high fuel prices driving up the cost of basic ingredients such as sugar and wheat, food companies are are forced to make a choice: raise prices or cut corners. Because competition in the industry is so strong, raising prices is the last thing food companies want to do. Instead, they look to the quality and quantity of the ingredients they use [2]. For example:

• Kraft Miracle Whip now contains more water
• Nestle snack products now contain less milk
• Sara Lee has switched to cheaper wheat for some breads
• Mars Inc. is reducing the size of its Funsize candy packs
• Hamburger Helper products have reduced the number of spice and ingredient pouches
• Some of Hershey’s chocolates are now being made with vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter

While some companies are adding fillers or cheaper ingredients, others are simply trimming manufacturing costs to save money. Food makers that are changing ingredients insist that they aren’t sacrificing quality or nutritional value. That may be hard to swallow, given that they’re reducing ingredient quality and quantity. Although it’s not hard to imagine smaller quantities (and thus lower calories) making a positive impact on health, the WSJ article cited at least one change that doesn’t result in a healthier product: making chocolate with vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter. Indeed, by replacing cocoa butter with vegetable oil, Hershey’s is lowering the overall health benefit of chocolate. Why? Because a number of epidemiologic studies have shown that cocoa, rich in flavonoids, has a number of cardiovascular health benefits [4-5].

The question is, will consumers be sensitive to the nutritional affects of these kinds of changes?

Not really, according to Harry Balzer of the NPD group, a market research and industry tracking firm [3]:

Consumers read labels. About half of all Americans say they routinely read labels on food products. So, I’d say yes, but the question really is ‘are they going to alter their behavior because of the reading the label’. Our experience has been no. Health in this country is really a secondary issue, a secondary concern. The primary concerns are taste, cost and ease.

What can health-concious consumers do? Keep in mind that these changes are occurring in processed foods. Food processing tends to lower the nutritional value of food, and processed foods often have a higher ratio of calories to other essential nutrients than unprocessed foods. Simply by reading this article you’re aware that cheaper ingredients are being used in processed foods — review your labels carefully.

Your best bet? Stick with fresh fruits and vegetables. A diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables is important for maintaining good health. When fresh produce isn’t available, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables are a good option. Canned vegetables don’t taste as good as fresh and typically aren’t as nutritious, but it’s better than not eating vegetables at all. Fruits and vegetables contain essential vitamins, minerals and fiber, and increased consumption lowers your risk of developing several cancers.

Additional resources can be found in the Nutrition category of the Highlight HEALTH Web Directory.

References

1. Food Makers Scrimp on Ingredients In an Effort to Fatten Their Profits . The Wall Street Journal. 2008 Aug 23.
2. Secret ingredient? A cheaper substitute. Marketplace Morning Report, Marketplace, American Public Media. 2008 May 9.
3. ‘Marketplace’ Report: Check Your Spices. Day to Day, Marketplace, American Public Media. 2008 Aug 25.
4. Engler and Engler. The emerging role of flavonoid-rich cocoa and chocolate in cardiovascular health and disease. Nutr Rev. 2006 Mar;64(3):109-18.
   View abstract
5. Erdman et al. Effects of cocoa flavanols on risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2008;17 Suppl 1:284-7.
   View abstract

Other Articles You May Like

• Did You Eat Your Fruits and Vegetables Today?
• The Upside of High Food Prices
• Overweight Kids and TV: An Advertising Epidemic
• Alternative to Dichloroacetate
• Polyphenols

In 2008, over half a million Americans are expected to die of cancer, more than 1,500 people a day [2]. Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 1 in every 4 deaths. Nevertheless, since 2003 the U.S. government’s cancer research budget has been cut every single year. This lack of funding stifles innovation and delays or halts treatments from getting to patients. This has become a critical issue: I’ve written previously about Flat Funding of Biomedical Research and The Threat to America’s Health and the Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy.

The purpose of Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) is to reverse the downward trend in funding of cancer research, to make cancer part of the national debate and to enable cutting-edge research aimed at finding a cure to all types of cancer, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, liver cancer, neurofibromatosis and more.

The group leading SU2C includes CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Katie Couric, Sherry Lansing, Laura Ziskin, Ellen Ziffren, the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF), the Noreen Fraser Foundation and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The landmark television event, Stand Up To Cancer, is designed to rally the public and raise millions of dollars for cancer research. 100% of the money raised goes towards accelerating the course of cancer research. Funds will be streamlined through an innovative funding and distribution model directly to scientists. The following video, “Where the Money Goes”, provides an explanation of SU2C’s research funding model.

You can read more at the Stand Up To Cancer web site. For microbloggers, you can also follow SU2C on Twitter.

This historic television event to enable cancer research cures will simultaneously air, commercial free, on all three major networks Friday, September 5th at 8:00 pm EST and PST. I’m actively involved in cancer research and can attest to the difficulty in getting funding. I encourage you to tune in and support the next generation of groundbreaking cancer research.

References

1. ABC, CBS, NBC announce historic collaboration to “stand up to cancer”. Stand Up To Cancer press release. 2008 May 28.
2. Cancer Facts & Figures 2008. American Cancer Society. Atlanta, Ga. 2008.

Other Articles You May Like

• The Kanzius Machine: A Future Alternative to Chemotherapy?
• Funding of Childhood Cancer, NF Research in Jeopardy
• NIH Increases Support for High-risk Large-impact Biomedical Research
• Increased Coffee Consumption Associated with Lower Risk of Liver Cancer
• Exactly What are Stem Cells?

What is the Cancer Research Blog Carnival?

The Cancer Research Blog Carnival is a monthly blog carnival of what’s new in cancer research. Highlight HEALTH hosted the 7th edition of the Cancer Research Blog Carnival back in March 2008. Previous editions are listed at the Cancer Research Blog Carnival website.

Please note that your blog doesn’t have to be about cancer or cancer research as long at the article you submit is relevant.

I’m looking for articles