NO, Not the fries!

Fries are my weakness, just by reading this article and no matter what scientists say, I just want to go out and get fries. Well the FDA is warning people to cut down on acrylamide.   This chemical is linked to cancer, acrylamide can form in plant-based, starchy foods when cooked at high-temperatures like baking or frying. Foods that contain acrylamide include french fries, coffee, crackers, toasted breads and dried fruits. I know almost everything causes cancer but why does it have to be french fries and coffee. The acrylamide chemical is created from sugars and an amino acid that is found in food,  but does not form in dairy, meat or fish products. Research on this chemical is relatively new, but it has been linked to higher rates of cancer in animals so it is thought to be a carcinogen for humans as well.

Steps to reduce acrylamide:

Stop consumption of one or two foods high in acrylamide

Boil or steams foods, this does not form acrylamide

Do not overcook or over crisp when frying

Cook potatoes till golden yellow not brown

Do not store potatoes in the refrigerator (the refrigerator increases the amount of acrylamide)

Bread should be toasted to light brown, very brown areas should not be eaten

Eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean meats

Ok, so these steps are not so bad, but would you put down the fries? Would you go on this craze and do what they say or just continue to eat the same?

Here is the article if you would like to read it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57612793/fda-avoid-acrylamide-in-fried-foods-due-to-cancer-risk/

Milk that can kill human stomach cancer cells?

A research team in Taiwan indicates that peptide fragment derived from cow’s milk can kill human stomach cancer cells. Three peptide fragments derived from lactoferricin B which is a peptide in milk were evaluated, only one of these fragments, LFcinB25 reduced the survival of human Gastric Adenocarcinoma cells. After an hour, LFcinB25 migrated to the cell membrane of the Gastric Adenocarcinoma cells, within 24 hours the cancer cells had shrunk in size and lost the ability to adhere to surfaces. This study also suggested Beclin-1 may enhance LFcinB25 cytotoxic action. Beclin-1 plays a central role in tumor growth. This study found that cleaved beclin-1 increase over time after LFcinB25 exposure. This will be used to potentially treat gastric cancer.

Should this study be further explored? Or should this be shut down? There are many studies out there to find a treatment, but what do you think is important in a good study?

Here is the article if you like to read it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131107171001.htm

New Theory for Cancer Development

A team at Harvard Medical School has come up with a way to understand the aneuplodiy patterns in tumors and how to predict which genes affect chromosomes that are most likely to be cancer suppressors or promoters. This study proposed that aneuplodiy is a driver of cancer not a result of cancer.

Over the years, cancer research has focused on mutations that change the DNA and promotes cancer. The role of aneuplodiy has not been unstudied. This study predicts that the aneuploidy has a significant role in cancer. This prediction is because the missing or extra chromosomes likely affect genes that are involved in tumor related process.

This study was tested by a developed computer program called TUSON (Tumor Suppressor and Oncogene). This program analyzes the genome sequence from more than 8,200 pairs of cancerous and normal tissue samples. This generates a list of suspected oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes based on the mutation pattern. These also created a list of many more potential cancer drivers. From these lists, they discovered that the number of tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes in a chromosome correlated with how often the whole chromosome or part of the chromosome was deleted or duplicated in the cancer.

These concluded that aneuplody is a driver of cancer not a consequence of cancer. Since this has been discovered, studies can now be done to figure out how mutations, rearrangements and changes in expression weigh into cancer. They plan to gather experimental evidence to support this mathematical finding. Should they continue and explore this conclusion? Would this help researchers find a cure?

Here is the article if you would like to read it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031124918.htm

Unique Screening for Breast Cancer

I have often thought about how painful the test for detecting breast cancer is going to be. I know the pain will be worth it. But sometimes the pain is what keeps women from being tested, however, what if there was a painless way to detect breast cancer?  Looking at cancer news, a story from Louisville Kentucky writes about BRAS Thermography it is a screening with a highly sensitive camera. This camera uses thermography to detect what is coming off of the body. There is no radiation, no pain or compression. This screening takes 10 to 15 minutes and the results can be seen right away for the doctors to interpret the picture. The doctor looks for amount and type of inflammation and the asymmetry in the breast to detect if there is any growth. Of course pairing this with annual mammogram will help patients to have early detection.

 

This advancement is not recognized by the American Medical Association, but do you think it should be? Would you want to pair this will mammogram or just trust the thermograph itself?

 

Here is the story if you would like to read it:

http://www.wdrb.com/story/23799469/unique-screening-to-help-detect-breast-cancer

Vitamin Supplements Linked to Breast Cancer

My mom is very interested in what type of supplements can be used to help with the chances of surviving cancer. She asked me to look up herbal supplements that are under study for helping cancer patients survive; well I have finally found where there is a study linking breast cancer survival and vitamin supplements.

 

This study is not saying if you are developing breast cancer and you take multivitamin you are cured, but a link is seen that women who took multivitamin before they developed breast cancer have a 30% lower mortality rate. This study is involves vitamin D, which is related to a similar report that vitamin D has been found to lower the risk of breast cancer. The effect the vitamin D has to guard against the breast cancer is still unknown. Most studies that are done on this subject have not been to clinical trial but in an epidemiologic investigation. To have proof, clinical results are needed.

 

Another study done on older men who received vitamins experienced an 8% lower rate of most forms of cancer. This did not have any reduction in prostate cancer.

 

This study is different from another study stating that older women who took daily vitamin supplements had an increase risk of dying of cardiovascular disease and cancer. They say that the study is different simply by the fact that this study is based on women who already have cancer.

 

Based on the information from both studies, does this encourage you to take vitamin supplements? Do you think taking vitamin supplements will increase your longevity or decrease your risk of dying of cancer?

 

Here is the story if you would like to read it:

http://www.turnto23.com/news/breast-cancer-survival-vitamin-supplements-link-found-study-says-102013

Way to tell kids that sunscreen is a superhero against cancer

We all have heard either from our parents and/or grandparents don’t forget to put on sunscreen. What if they told us that sunscreen shields superhero genes that protect us from getting cancer, would that change your mind and apply sunscreen?

Queensland University of Technology did the world’s-first human study on the impact of sunscreen at the molecular level. It was found that sunscreen provides 100 % protection against all three forms of skin cancer and shields the p53 gene that prevents cancer.  If our skin is sun burned regularly, the p53 mutates and can no longer do its job. This study was done with proper supplication of SPF 30+ sunscreen.

Fifty-seven people underwent a series of skin biopsies to determine the molecular changes of the skin before and after UV exposure, some had sunscreen and others did not. After 24 hours where the sunscreen had been applied there was no DNA change to the skin. The skin could have been red but there has to be a change to the molecular structure to enhance cancer development. The molecular responses to UV expose can now be used to investigate post-sun treatments to assist in repair of sun damaged.

Most people think that they don’t burn and don’t need sunscreen but by reading this would they now use sunscreen? Does this change your mind on how you apply sunscreen? If you don’t use sunscreen will you start?

Here is the article if you would like to read it:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008102551.htm

Just a Hint for New Treatments

In honor of breast cancer awareness month, here is another article on breast cancer. This article focuses on new models of drug-resistance breast cancer to hint at better treatments.

Researchers at Washington University School of Medicine are transplanting breast tumors into mice; this proved that mice are excellent models of metastatic cancer. Since mice are excellent models, they can be used to search for better treatments in cancer. The tumors that are transplanted maintain the genetic errors that cause the cancer and be help identify the drivers of the tumor growth.

The cells are taken from the patients and are grown in a mouse that has no immune system. The tumors that are growing in the mouse are similar to the cancer that is in the patient. The study differs from others by first sequencing the whole genomes of the patient’s and the mouse’s tumor to identify how closely the tumor resemble each other. This helps to identify new mutations that might appear to drive a strong drug resistance exhibited of the tumors. Most of the mutations are found in the estrogen receptor.

Over the years patients who have stopped responding to anti-hormonal agents have changes in the estrogen receptor. Estrogen receptor positive breast cancer is resistant to standard treatment and is driven by presence of estrogen. Researchers are hoping to have a clinical test that will tell patients if the estrogen receptor is mutated. This study is a good start for designing cures for metastatic breast cancer.

I know there are a lot of debates on using animals as test subjects, but is this study so bad? Would you agree with it, if it showed a possible cure for breast cancer?

Here is the article for information on this study: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-drug-resistant-breast-cancer-hint-treatments.html

Treatment Before You Go Under

Since it is Breast Cancer awareness month, I wanted to look up breast cancer research news. Most of what popped up was how to be aware if you had breast cancer, however this one article stood out to me “FDA Approves Using Perjeta Before Surgery to Treat High-Risk HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.” I work in a lab that does drug trial testing and I know it take a lot of studies to get the FDA to approve medications and treatments, so I had to look into this.

 

September 30, 2013 the FDA approved Perjeta with combination of Herceptin and Taxotere to be used to treat HER2-postitive, early-stage, inflammatory or locally advanced-stage breast cancer. This combination is given before surgery neoadjuvant (treatment given before a big treatment) treatments. This is the first and only neoadjuvant regimen that has been approved by the FDA to treat breast cancer. The effectiveness of the treatment given before surgery is based on how many active cancer cells. If there are no cancer cells present, then it is less likely that the cancer will come back.

 

Some of you might be wondering what HER2-postitive means, I had the same question. Her2-positive breast cancer is where there are too many copies of the HER2/neu gene. If there are too many copies of this gene, there is too much HER2 protein and therefore it causes breast cancer. The HER2-positive breast cancer is more aggressive than the  HER2-negative. Treatments such as  Herceptin and Perjeta block the cancer cell’s ability to receive growth signals.

 

With any drug there are always side effects, this drug combination has some severe side effects such as effecting heart function or developing heart failure. When receiving these medicines your heart function is evaluated. There are also common side effects i.e. hair loss, diarrhea, nausea and low white blood cell count.

 

If you were diagnosed with HER2-positive, early-stage, locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer would you risk the side effects and take this drug? Does it help that the FDA has approve of this combination? Or does it worry you that sometimes the FDA retracts their approvals? There has been studies done with this drug but is that enough for you believe these treatments work?

 

Here is the link to the article if you would like to read more in depth of this drug:

http://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/20131004-2

 

Wine That Helps Kill Cancer

This topic, which one of my best friends thought I would enjoy, discusses using modified forms of red wine to help kill cancer cells. I enjoy a glass of wine here and there, but modifying to help kill cancer cells, I had to read into this one.

 

Sixty volunteers ingested a half gram of resveratrol (a modified form of red wine compound) a day, their bodies quickly created metabolized forms.The resveratrol sulfates were the most common metabolites found in the blood and intestinal tissue samples from these volunteers. It is thought that the proteins in the cell membranes help the resveratrol sulfates into the cells.  In an experiment with mice, researchers found that the sulfate metabolites in the cell will transform back into the resveratrol, which unleashes the chemical’s anticancer activity. The sulfate form was then tested in human cells. The reformed resveratrol killed cancerous cells but left other cells alone. This could be useful for treating cancer.

 

The use of resveratrol to fight cancer has only been suggested and has not gone into a big study. Would you think this would be a good study to look into for cancer research? Researchers never suggested what type of cancer cells it help kill, so would it be worth checking out? Or do you think this would be a lost cause using natural treatments or should we spend more time on synthetic treatments that may work faster?

 

Here is the article if you would like to look into this: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/altered-wine-chemical-helps-kill-cancer

Glowing Dye Technique

This may not come as a surprise, but this is yet another blog on cancer. This article peaked my interest, because my Dad had surgery to remove his kidney due to his stage 4 kidney cancer. If you have been keeping up with my blogs, you know that both of my parents are cancer survivors so, there is no sad blogs here.

In the UK, kidney or renal cancer is the 8^th most common cancer, so a new method has been hailed a surgery success. This method is using a glowing dye technique to highlight the healthy part of the kidney as well as the blood vessels. This allows surgeons to see the entire tumor and enable complete removal of the tumor through a keyhole surgery. This type of surgery saves as much healthy kidney tissues as possible. This procedure is only three hours and is cost effective.  The hospital plans on undertaking more operations using this dying technique.

My Dad had to have his kidney removed during his procedure, however if doctors in the US were able to utilize this technique, he may have not lost his kidney. Also, this procedure allows patients to have a less recovery time. My Dad was in the hospital for days and was on bed rest for most of his stay. Knowing my Dad, he would have loved this surgery, so he would be able to  quickly, return to his very active life.

Hopefully this technique will become more of a success in the UK and possibly come to the United States.  If this technique was to come over to the United States, the questions that come up are, would this be a surgery someone would consider? Would this risk be lower than a full kidney removal? Would you take the risk and try this surgery if it meant you could keep a kidney?   In this article, they did not mention any down falls of this surgery but, there are always risks involved.   

Here is the article if you would like to look into this study:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/15/kidney-cancer-new-method-glowing-dye-success_n_3931153.html

Marriage Benefits May Extend to Cancer Survival

While searching the internet for cancer news, one article kept popping up that I just had to read. It was titled “Marriage Benefits May Extend to Cancer Survival.” Wait one minute, not drugs but Marriage!

 

In this article, it is stated that married people with cancer are about 20% less likely to die over a three year period compared to unmarried people with cancer. Also, married people with cancer were 17% less likely have metastatic cancer, this is suggests that their cancer is being caught at an earlier stage and receiving the appropriate treatment. This may seem crazy, but my mom did decide to get checked out after my dad was diagnosed with cancer and she was diagnosed with 0 stage breast cancer. The support from my dad did cause her to get the appropriate treatment early, so this study can have some truth. The reason why being married is a benefit, is because they have more social support, someone to share the burden of their diagnosis which may reduce depression and anxiety.  

 

This can study suggest that is not just marriage but increased of social support to people will cancer could benefit their health. Friends or loved ones or someone who cares can potentially make a difference in the outcome by going with the patient to the doctor and treatments.

 

The researcher analyzed information from 734,800 people who were diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2008. After taking into account factors that could affect patient survival, such as age, income and cancer stage, married people between 12% and 33%  are less likely to die from cancer than those who were not married.

 

Survival benefits linked with marriage were greater than that linked with chemotherapy. This of course does not insinuate that you should not get chemotherapy, but suggest the strength of the potential benefits of social support. Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital said there are other differences between married and unmarried people, but unmarried people may be more likely to engage in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors that could contribute to their increased risk of mortality.

 

This is not a study telling patients not to take treatment but an encouragement to get support from people who care. If you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, would you have a support system to help you with the burden and make sure you get what you need?  Should hospitals supply more than just a support group or support systems for those who are going through treatment? If a loved one or a friend was to call you up and needed you help with their treatment, would you help if you knew some way it could help them survive?

 

Here is the article if you would like to read about this study:

http://www.livescience.com/39866-marriage-cancer-survival.html

Mircales Can Happen

Most of my blogs will be written from my own point of view regarding my personal experience with cancer in my family.  As I have stated in my first blogs, my father has stage 4 kidney cancer. Since being diagnosed and dealing with the surgeries and treatment, he has not only “beaten the odds” but has surprised and impressed his doctors by how well he has responded to the treatments.  So, this week my blog will review an article regarding how some cancer patients respond to treatments. 

 

            Dr. David Solit, an oncologist in New York, decided to create a study on why some cancer patients beat the odds and respond to treatment and while other worsened and died. This study started with a woman who was diagnosed with advanced bladder cancer and volunteered for a 45-patient study of the Novartis drug Afinitor.  During this study, every patient died but her, they discovered she had two gene mutations that made her receptive to the treatment. Many doctors have seen this happen where some patients are “super responders” and had remarkable recoveries from cancer drugs while other patients have little or no help from those cancer drugs.  When cancer drugs only help a small group of patients, the drugs are abandoned from the trial. However, Dr. David Solit has began a new research where a sample of the tumor from the “super responders”  patients will undergo whole genome sequencing. The mutations that are different from normal cells are analyzed for one that would be considered suspects. The women with the advanced bladder cancer had two genes that stood out, TSC1 and NF2. The combination of these two genes led her to survival of her bladder cancer. TSC1 mutation being linked to the bladder cancer, Dr. David Solit discovered a “biomarker” that will help identify a possible appropriate drug for patients that have a type of cancer with this mutation. The next part is to design a test for the TSC1 mutation and use the test to screen patients.

            Since many drugs have been abandoned because of how few patients respond, there may be a way to resurrect these drugs, if the genetic links are established. Avastin was approved to treat cancer, but in 2011 the FDA withdrew its approval because it was not effective enough to justify its risks. Many cancer research facilities are testing tumor samples from exceptional responders from past drug trials for genetic analysis. This study will help doctors know if the tumor outsmarted the drug.

            This seems like a great study in finding out why some cancer drugs helps some and others it helps very little or not at all. There are a few questions that arise out of this study. Should some of these drugs that have been abandoned, be used again in new trials? Is the risk of these abandoned drugs too high? Will this study cause false hope and cause too much patient lose?

            As seen in my first blog, I am all for testing new drugs in order for the patient to gain some success. However, no matter the case, someone may die from this study and that is not something to take lightly.  I lost my Grandma to cancer and I just hope that her case, they were able to find something that helped the doctors save another life.   

 

Here is the article if you would like to look into this new drug study:

http://news.yahoo.com/looking-lessons-cancers-miracle-responders-120343443--finance.html

Digital PCR of Cancer Tumors

As seen in my last blog, cancer is the topic of choice. This will most likely be the topic for most of my blogs.

 

 Instead of talking about a new anti-cancer treatment, I found an interesting article on how a digital biology company demonstrated digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in tumors from blood samples and not to from a biopsy. 

 

            RainDance Technologies, Inc. demonstrated its “RainDrop Digital PCR System” by taking plasma samples from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. These samples were screened for seven of the most common mutations in codons 12 and 13 of the KRAS oncogene. The results from the digital PCR were compared to quantitave PCR (qPCR) results that were taken from a biopsy of the tumor. This presentation showed that detecting cancer mutation in a blood sample can be done.  The RainDrop Digital PCR system can also be used to detect glioma-associated mRNA mutations from cerebrospinal fluid and BRAF mutations present in trans-renal DNA from urine could also be measured.  This technology will help clinicians detect mutations without putting patients through many lengthy, painful and dangerous procedures.

 

            I know, in order to get a biopsy sample, the patient has to undergo an invasive or non-invasive surgical procedure, either way it is a painful procedure for the patient and costly.  According to my father, the procedure was lengthy and painful when he had to have a biopsy of the tumor on his bone, he could feel the needle going into the bone. With digital PCR, this would have not been an issue and there would be much less pain. I am not a fan of needles, but I would rather have blood drawn from a vein, then a needle going into my bone. Hopefully this technology will start to show up in most clinical laboratories, so that cancer detection can be made easier for the patient. 

 

What are your thoughts on this new technology?  We do know the current biopsy sampling works, will this system be as accurate or is it too new?  Should cost be a factor when considering newer technologies for detecting cancer?  If it is too expensive or too new some insurance companies will not cover the cost of the procedure? Should this hinder research?

 

Here is the article on this presentation.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/09/11/5197343/raindance-publication-demonstrates.html

 

 

Tumor Cells Commiting Suicide

Cancer has affected many families around the world. My family is no expectation to this disease; both my mother and father have been diagnosed with cancer. Since their diagnosis, I have made a decision to go into cancer research. Since cancer is a topic of interest to me, I decided to look for new developments in cancer research. One article stood out to me, “New Cancer Treatment Makes Tumor Cells Commit Suicide.”

In this article, researchers at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, have developed a drug that attacks the proteins that help form the structure of cancer cells, while the healthy cells are left alone. This drug is called TR100.  The article was published in Cancer Research in August 2013. 

The two proteins that give the cancer cell their structure is actin and myosin. These proteins are also found in human muscle cells. Actin and myosin have been the targets for chemotherapy for many years, which is why chemotherapy can take a toll on the human body. The TR100 targets a specific type of myosin called tropomyosins. This protein is found in cancer cells but not muscle cells. The TR100 will damage the structure of the protein and the cell will break itself down and other cells will absorb, recycle and reuse the material that was broken down. This does seem too good to be true, because, there is one down fall associated with  the use of TR100. The tropomyosin that is found in cancers is also found in stem cells. Once the stem cell evolves  and becomes  a heart, lung or brain cell, then the tropomyosin is changed and the TR100 is no longer toxic to that cell. The TR100 can affect parts of the body that have stem cells that are still active, such as bone marrow and the brain.

Dr. Stehn, who is one of the scientist on this project, tested the TR100 drug on heart, liver and brain cells in  his lab.  The results of his tests showed no harm to the cells that were tested.  The TR100 drug has been tested on neuroblastoma and melanoma cells. The results of the test  concluded that the cancerous cells had been killed and the healthy cells were not affected. The main use of the TR100 drug  is focused on children’s cancer that seems to be hard-to-treat. TR100 may go into clinical trials in 2015.

Doctors know this is not a “silver bullet”; a combination of treatments to help the cancer patient will be necessary. Doctors also know that there will  be down falls to new clinical drugs that are in the trial phase. Do the negative effects out weight the good? Will this hurt the children later in life?  Only clinical studies can answer those questions. I am  hopeful that this drug is used in  clinical trials in 2015.   The studies may show that TR100 affects  other types of cancers that some doctors may write off as a lost cause. Two questions have surfaced, (1) “Do you think TR100  should be used in clinical trials with children?” or (2)Should more research and study be conducted  using rats?

Refer to the below link if you would like to look into this study for this miracle drug.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-new-drug-causes-cancer-cells-to-self-destruct-082013

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/73/16/5169.full.pdf+html