The Facts About Pleural Mesothelioma
- ... exposed to the deadly dust and asbestos fibers without protection can cause pleural mesothelioma thirty to fifty years later. The men aged sixty to s...
Overview Of Mesothelioma Cancers
- ... two functions. They protect the internal organs by producing a liquid lubrication and to allow the smooth movement of internal organs. Thyroid cancer...
Information about Mesothelioma
- ... asbestosis, a chronic non-cancerous lung disease and other forms of lung cancer, cancer of the larynx and kidney. There are treatments used to keep t...
What are the 4 stages of mesothelioma
- ...not yet heard of Mesothelioma and therefore did not understand the nature, causes, signs and treatment. Even some doctors Mesothelioma difficult to de...
Mesothelioma Types and Treatments
- ...bestos should be totally turned off. The law and order must be placed to put a strict ban on the use of asbestos. Again an alternative to asbestos mus...
Asbestos: Related Diseases
- ...eoplasms, including carcinoma of the colon.
An increased incidence of cancer of asbestosis-related family members of asbestos workers alerted th...
What Causes Mesothelioma Cancer
- ...ars because of its ability to withstand the heat and injuries. The fact that asbestos causes mesothelioma and other chronic lung conditions was unknow...
How To Reduce Mesothelioma Cancer Risk
- ...ounds and protects the heart, the tunica vaginalis testic surrounding the male reproductive organs internally, and the tunica serosa uterus, which is ...
Irradiated Food and Human Health
- ...cipal objective of food irradiation is to increase the preservation time of the foods by inactivating and/or killing the food-borne parasites. It is...
BACK PAIN AND UROLOGICAL SYMPTOMS
- ...ns, and malignant conditions of urological or nonurological
Patients with neurological disease...
- ...gnized: about 90% of asbestos is chrysotile, 6% crocidolite and 4% amosite. Chrysotile or white asbestos is the softest asbestos fibre. Each fibre is ...
BENIGN LUNG TUMOURS
This rare tumour resembles intestinal carcinoid tumour and is locally invasive, eventually spreading to mediastinal lymph nodes and finally to...
Breast Cancer: How to succeed
- ...orsening disease, properties of cancers differentiate them from benign tumors, which are self-limited and do not invade or metastasise.
- ...ecide how he was going to handle my treatment plan. At the time, I did not even know what staging meant. The doctors would then decide what to do wit...
Cigarette Smoking Problems
- ... and stroke.Cigarette Smoking Problems * The toxic ingredients will travel throughout the body when we smoke cigarette. This dama...
Tobacco and childhood exposures
- ...HD risk increase that is greater than the product of the risk factors for lead and tobacco individually. Previous studies found that abo...
Prostate Cancer detection
- ...l groups advise routine screening for prostate cancer. There's been much discussion and research regarding the value of screening for prostate cancer...
Clinical Care for Hysterectomy
- ...ump. Finally, radical hysterectomies are used to treat various gynecological cancers, among other conditions. In radical hysterectomy procedures, a su...
New Findings: Fewer Israelis Smoke
- ...y report found that 27.9 percent of Jewish men smoke, a figure that has held steady in recent years, and 16.6 percent of Jewish women smoke ...
Latest "Cancer" Articles
Page# 1 2 3 4 (last added articles shown first)
Most common cancer types and their causes
(...) Smoking is proven to be one of the risks for developing cancer of the lung. This kind is one of the most typical all around the world. It's probably the most increased mortality rate worldwide, and approximately three million individuals are being identified as having this ailment. (...)
Risk factors and main signs and symptoms of oral cancer
(...) The 2 main risks are smoking and also the considerable amounts of alcohol intake, which should not surprise anybody at all. Even though it is totally in our power to get rid of these serious risks, not many people really do it, unfortunately.
The high alcohol intake is really a high factor risk, and more than half of the people identified as having oral cancer consume alcohol. (...)
Skin cancer types and the ABCDE
(...) In the monthly mole evaluation, you have to guide yourself following the rule introduced by dermatologists, the mole ABCDE.
Explaining the ABCDE, A means the mole asymmetry, if this that doesn't look exactly the same way in the left side like it does in the right, or on the top or bottom from it. B means the border of the mole: A mole that has irregular edges should raise suspicion of cancer of the skin. (...)
Antioxidants and foods that protect you against cancer
(...) Because omega-3 would be the main brain cell membrane components, the omega-3 oils that are available in fish can help reducing the maturing of the brain, by enhancing the nerve impulses to go a little faster.
Omega 3 may also lessen the perils of coronary disease. Consuming fish and eating more omega 3 likewise helps indirectly reduce cardiovascular disease. (...)
Smoking Associated Health Issues
(...) Cigarette smoking has several dangerous affects around the health of a human being. It damages the cardiovascular system, causes high blood stress, increases heart rate, boosts the risk of ischemic stroke, boosts the chance of development of blood clot formation, and decreases the oxygen quantity which reaches the tissues within the physique, reduces coronary blood flow & cardiac output, and damages the blood vessels. Cigarette smoking not just affects physical well being, but mental health too. (...)
Colorectal tumors develop inside the colon or rectum
(...) After the tumor has been there for a certain amount of time, some of its cells may break away and enter the bloodstream or lymph system.
These cells may then form new tumors in other parts of the body. There are some growths in the colon or rectum that are considered benign (not cancerous) tumors or polyps. (...)
The connection between Diet and Colon Cancer
(...) It depends on the dietary component and the type of cancer.
Different food components appear to be more related to cancer prevention or promotion in certain organs. We’ll look at colon cancer specifically in a bit, but for overall cancer prevention these are generally the foods to choose:
Cruciferous (cabbage family) vegetables. (...)
Diagnosis Staging Curability of T4 cancer
(...) Soon after, he underwent a liver biopsy, and it showed poorly differentiated carcinoma." He met with an oncologist who told him he had, not liver cancer, but a type of cancer called unknown primary." This diagnosis means that a cancer starts in an organ (such as the breast, pancreas, lung, or prostate) and spreads to other regions in the body but the original cancer can no longer be found. (...)
Breast cancer survivors talk about it
(...) Was he afraid of hurting me? Did the idea of the scar bother him? His response: "There''s nothing wrong with you! I just can''t get it up!" You cannot imagine the laughter we had together when we both realized that each one was worried about the other''s reaction. That conversation relieved a tremendous amount of stress for us both.
The key is communicating with your partners about why we have the low libidos, i. (...)
Is selenium related to cancer
(...) However, the SU.VI. MAX study concluded that low-dose supplementation with 120 mg of ascorbic acid, 30 mg of vitamin E, 6 mg of beta carotene, 100 ug of selenium, and 20 mg of zinc resulted in a 31% reduction in the incidence of cancer and a 37% reduction in all cause mortality in males, but it did not get a significant result for females. (...)
UV is responsable for skin cancers
(...) UVA exposure also leads to the generation of singlet oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl free radicals, causing damage to cellular proteins, lipids, and DNA. UVB, in contrast, constitutes only about 4-5% of UV radiation but is thought to be the most active constituent of solar radiation reaching the earth.
However, even though UVB is more genotoxic and capable of causing much more cell damage than UVA, it has less penetrating power than UVA and acts mainly on the epidermal basal layer of the skin. (...)
Cancer Chemopreventive Efficacy of Silibinin
(...) In contrast, another study reported that silibinin treatment has no effect on breast cancer development in the C3 SV40 T, t antigen transgenic multiple mammary adenocarcinoma mouse.
These differences could be related to differences in the models used in these studies as well as to the fact that silymarin has other flavonolignans in addition to silibinin, which might possess weak estrogenic activity. In the case of gliomas, silibinin has been reported to sensitize tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosisinducing ligand -resistant glioma cells to TRAIL-mediated apoptosis. (...)
Skin Cancer Incidence and Etiological Factors
As mentioned above, skin cancer is broadly classified into two types: nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancers. Most of the skin cancers fall into the former category, whereas in the latter case, there is an involvement of melanocytes only, a type of skin cell that is responsible for giving pigmentation/ color to the skin. Depending upon the type of cells involved, nonmelanoma skin cancers are further classified into two types: basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. (...)
Nontoxic Nature of Silibinin and cancer
In our in vivo studies we have reported that silymarin and silibinin are well tolerated and have no toxicity in terms of body weight gain, diet consumption, and animal behavior. In our phase I clinical trials we have reported that 13 g/day of silibinin in the form of phytosome, in three divided doses was well tolerated in patients with advanced prostate cancer.
The asymptomatic liver toxicity at higher doses was the most commonly seen adverse effect in this study. (...)
What is cancer in fact: close review
(...) Breast and colon cancer, which are relatively common, frequently cause death, and often occur in the middle of life, appear in all three columns.
But just knowing where and how often cancer occurs does not answer the question "What is cancer?" Although it's a simple question, there is no simple answer. Indeed, the word cancer encompasses a broad spectrum of disorders, making the cancer/not cancer distinction fuzzy. (...)
Peoples experience with cancer screening
(...) In the following paragraphs, I summarize what we know of the benefits of screening for cancer and review a few of the major studies of screening. But what I most want to do is give you some perspective on the size of the benefit you might expect from cancer screening under the best conditions.
The fact is that every screening test will have only a limited effect. (...)
The link between cancer dynamics and screening
So how could a mammogram miss a breast cancer that a few months later was already widely metastatic that is, had spread throughout this man's daughter's lungs? Perhaps it was bad technology, a technically poor mammogram. Or perhaps it was a bad radiologist, who missed an obvious cancer. But I bet it was bad cancer, a cancer that was growing very fast. (...)
Common cancer related terms explained
(...) Although the technology is comparable to sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, the exam is technically more challenging because the natural response to having a tube introduced in your throat is either to gag or to swallow it (in which case the stomach would be examined).
In common usage, "a cellular tumor the natural course of which is fatal"; in practice, a diagnosis made on the decoration of individual cells and the architecture of collections of cells.
carcinoma in situ
Cancer that involves only the cells in which it began and that has not spread to neighboring tissues. (...)
Testing against cancer: the best choice
(...) Make a proactive choice. If you choose not to go looking for cancer, feel good about staying healthy and staying out of doctors' offices. If you decide to go looking for cancer, feel better about looking for disease early and managing it prudently. (...)
It is wise to screen against cancer
On the other side are the potential harms the subject of most of this book. They are more common than the benefits, but for the most part of less consequence. Or let me be more specific: the harms with arguably the least consequence cancer scares and additional testing are quite common, while those with the greatest consequence complications and/or death from unnecessary treatment are very uncommon. (...)
Getting tested for cancer may be crucial
(...) It may lead to a more considered style of practice not just with regard to testing, but with regard to medical care in general.
Don't overreact to abnormal test results. If you're tested, you have to be ready for a result that is abnormal, but not markedly so. (...)
The decision to be tested for cancer can be looked on as a gamble
(...) Abnormal test results in this type of person more likely to be significant and much less probably be false positives.
This type of person more likely than most to have real disease not pseudodisease. In short, the greater your chances are to get the cancer, the much more likely the potential benefit from testing exceeds the potential harm, and the more reason there is to try to find cancer early. (...)
3 questions to ask your oncologist before cancer screening
(...) If our patient then develops and dies from an advanced cancer, we will be the one who missed it. Few will consider that the cancer might not have been present earlier or, if present, that it might not have been any more treatable.
Asking questions will help move your doctor beyond this kind of calculus. (...)
Why are people scared to death when in comes to cancer
(...) I think she understood that there were no simple answers and found that frightening. She said, "At some point don't we must decide how much faith we have in our general internist, our radiologist, and our pathologist? We can't go through life wondering what else is lingering beneath the surface. I fear as you tell people to be advocates for their own health care, you run the chance of scaring them to death. (...)
Testing cancers for prognosis
(...) I don't want to downplay the significance of findings such as these. Genetic testing of early cancer will help us predict which cancers need aggressive treatment, which ones need standard treatment, and which ones can be watched.
But it will never be perfect. (...)
Testing people for cancer risk
(...) But a positive test doesn't mean you definitely will get cancer, and, more important, a negative test doesn't mean you won't.
Take the most familiar genetic test, for BRCA1, the abnormal gene associated with breast cancer. Consider a 30-year-old female. (...)
Sad facts: why do people die from cancer
(...) The thing is real: researchers reported that the number of deaths in cancer patients due to something other than cancer was 37% higher than in men and women of similar age. Because these excess noncancer deaths occurred shortly after diagnosis, they concluded that a large proportion of them were due to cancer treatments.
And there are all the people who don't put on cancer but are nonetheless affected by the screening process. (...)
The real life of cancer detection research
(...) One of my closest colleagues makes the analogy that an early detection strategy is like a machine with a lot of dials. Each dial has multiple possible settings: there's a dial to set the age to start screening, there's another for when to stop. There's a dial for how often to screen. (...)
How do women see mammography screening
(...) These women may have just the right amount of early detection.
Second, whether mammography helps depends on how one defines "helps." The truth is that mammography, like any screening test, has a combination of outcomes. (...)
Breast cancer deaths are questionable
(...) If the swing of 22 deaths in the death review process represented bias, then almost half of the observed effect of breast exam/ mammography may not really exist.
Problem 2: Women with a prior history of breast cancer were less likely to be excluded from the control group.
Ideally, women who have already had breast cancer would never be enrolled in a study of breast cancer screening (since screening is for those who have never had the cancer being tested for). (...)
Breast cancer screening in Canada
(...) There's nothing inconsistent in these findings. All are perfectly plausible.
Now how about Canada 1 and women in their 40s? There it was mammography versus no screening and the finding was that mammography was no better than doing nothing. (...)
The Canadian National Breast Screening Study
(...) Canada 2 randomized 40,000 women ages 50–59, with one group receiving annual mammography and clinical breast exam, and the second receiving just the annual clinical breast exam.
So Canada 1 was testing the effect of clinical breast exam and mammography in women in their 40s, while Canada 2 was testing the effect of adding mammography to clinical breast exam in women in their 50s. After seven years, both studies showed that women who received mammography had no reduction in breast cancer mortality. (...)
The HIP study and breast cancer screening
(...) )1 One group undergoes the "intervention" the therapy or test being studied, in this case mammography. The other group, called the control group, does not no mammography.
Randomization is the easiest method to construct two groups of subjects that are similar in every way except one whether they experience the intervention. (...)
How age adjustment works in cancer
(...) The result is 10 to 15 so-called age-specific rates (the exact number depends on how the very young and very old are grouped). To arrive at a single number, a summary rate is calculated: that is, a weighted average of the agespecific rates. The "weight" each age-specific rate gets depends on how many people were in the age group in 2000 (the so-called standard population). (...)
Dows cancer testing reduce mortality
(...) The first may have nothing related to medical care at all: reduced exposure to cancer-causing agents. Declining use of certain food preservatives, for example, is the explanation given by most experts for the fall in stomach cancer mortality.
The second has everything related to medical care but nothing related to earlier detection: we have gotten better at treating cancer when it first causes symptoms. (...)
Why is melanoma so aggressive
(...) Investigators tried to nail down what was happening.
They compared the 19 employees who had been diagnosed with melanoma with those who had not. Employees with melanoma were no more likely to be scientists; they were no more likely to have heard of any kind of radiation; they were no more likely to have worked in the lab a long time in fact, their average tenure at Livermore was slightly less compared to workers who did not have melanoma. (...)
Cancer testing inflates incidence
In a perfect world, testing for cancer wouldn't influence how many patients are diagnosed, it would only influence when they're diagnosed. In reality, however, testing can dramatically influence the cancer incidence rate (see appendix at the end of this article).
This phenomenon undoubtedly explains the increased incidence observed in cancers of organs deep inside the body. (...)
Rising five year survival rates are never good news
(...) 2. I'm not saying that five-year survival is always an ambiguous statistic. In a randomized trial of two cancer treatments, the treatment producing the longer five-year survival is without doubt more effective. (...)
Enter page# 1 2 3 4 (last added articles shown first)