June 18, 2006
Beer Ingredient May Fight Prostate Cancer
CORVALLIS, Ore. - A main ingredient in beer may help prevent prostate cancer and enlargement, according to a new study. But researchers say don't rush out to stock the refrigerator because the ingredient is present in such small amounts that a person would have to drink more than 17 beers to benefit.
Oregon State University researchers say the compound xanthohumol, found in hops, inhibits a specific protein in the cells along the surface of the prostate gland.
The protein acts like a signal switch that turns on a variety of animal and human cancers, including prostate cancer.
Cancer typically results from uncontrolled cell reproduction and growth. Xanthohumol belongs to a group of plant compounds called flavonoids, which can trigger the programmed cell death that controls growth, researchers say.
Xanthohumol was first discovered in hops in 1913, but its health effects were not known until about 10 years ago, when it was first studied by Fred Stevens, assistant professor of medicinal chemistry at OSU's College of Pharmacy.
Last fall, Stevens published an update on xanthohumol in the journal Phytochemistry that drew international attention.
Stevens says it possible for drug companies to develop pills containing concentrated doses of the flavonoid found in the hops used to brew beer.
He also says researchers could work to increase the xanthohumol content of hops.
There are already a number of food supplements on the market containing hops, and scientists in Germany have developed a beer that contains 10 times the amount of xanthohumol as traditional brews. The drink is being marketed as a healthy beer, but research is still under way to determine if it has any effect against cancer.
The latest Oregon State University research was published in a recent issue of Cancer Letters.
On the Net:
Oregon State University: http://www.orst.edu
06/12/06 07:50 © Copyright The Associated Press.
20060629
Eleven cousins give up stomachs after tests
Eleven cousins give up stomachs after tests
Many thanks to:
By ALICIA CHANG and MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writers
LOS ANGELES - Mike Slabaugh doesn't have a stomach. Neither do his 10 cousins. Growing up, they watched helplessly as a rare hereditary stomach cancer killed their grandmother and some of their parents, aunts and uncles.
Determined to outsmart the cancer, they turned to genetic testing. Upon learning they had inherited Grandmother Golda Bradfield's flawed gene, these were their options:
Risk the odds that they might not develop cancer, with a 70 percent chance they would; or have their stomachs removed. The latter would mean a challenging life of eating very little, very often.
All the cousins chose the life-changing operation. Doctors say they're the largest family to have preventive surgery to protect themselves from hereditary stomach cancer.
"We're not only surviving, we're thriving," said Slabaugh 16 months after his operation at Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto.
Advances in genetic testing are increasingly giving families with bad genes a chance to see the future, sometimes with the hope of pre-emptive action. People have had stomachs, breasts, ovaries, colons or thyroid glands removed when genetic tests showed they carried a defective gene that gave them a high risk of cancer.
But what about people whose families don't have these rare, but powerful genetic defects? Experts say that someday, doctors may do DNA tests as routinely as they check cholesterol levels now, spotting disease risks that can be lowered. That day isn't here yet, but progress is being made.
"We do not yet have a general DNA test that fits into that category, but we're headed for it at a pretty good clip," said Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
By 2010, there might be several such tests, along with recommendations to help high-risk people avoid certain diseases, he said. (In fact, newborns are routinely tested now for some genetic conditions, but those tests generally focus on substances in the blood rather than DNA.)
To come up with a useful DNA mass-screening test, it's not enough to identify a particular gene variant that raises the risk of a disease, experts said. There are other questions:
_Are there enough potential cases in the general population to make mass screening worthwhile?
_Is there good evidence that screening would improve health?
_Is the risk of disease high enough to make the test result useful?
_How useful is the test in various ethnic groups?
_Is there a way to lower the disease risk?
For now, "mass screening with DNA testing isn't quite ready for prime time," said Dr. Ned Calonge, head of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends steps people can take to prevent disease.
The task force recently recommended against routinely testing women for harmful mutations in BRCA genes. Those mutations raise the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. But it endorsed such testing for women whose family histories show certain suggestive patterns of cancer — a situation like stomach cancer in the Bradfield family.
Slabaugh, who lives in Dallas, reunited with his many scattered cousins recently in Las Vegas just two months after the last in the group — Bill Bradfield of Farmington, N.M. — had his operation. Several hadn't seen each other for decades while others met for the first time.
They gambled, went to shows and dined in the City of Sin.
"Rather than live in fear, they tackled their genetic destiny head-on," said Dr. David Huntsman of the University of British Columbia, who found the gene mutation in the family.
About 22,000 Americans will be diagnosed with stomach cancer this year and half will die, according to the American Cancer Society. But the form that runs in the Bradfield family called hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is extremely rare with about 100 families diagnosed worldwide.
The CDH1 gene mutation was first discovered in 1998 in a large New Zealand family with a history of stomach cancer. Those with the mutation have a 70 percent risk of stomach cancer.
It killed Golda Bradfield in 1960. She passed the faulty gene to seven of her children. Six died of the disease in their 40s and 50s.
The 18 grandchildren learned of the defective gene after one of them, David Allen, died of stomach cancer in 2003. His doctor had sent a blood sample to Huntsman's lab, which confirmed the genetic mutation.
Soon after, the remaining 17 got tested. Eleven who had the bad gene had surgery.
Slabaugh, haunted by his mother's death since his teen years, didn't hesitate to have the operation. He and five other cousins had it done at Stanford. The other family members had surgery closer to home.
"I wake up every morning and think, 'This is a free day. I get a bonus today,'" said the 52-year-old marketing executive.
During surgery, doctors removed the entire stomach and surrounding lymph nodes and attached the bottom of the esophagus to the intestine to create a pouch. Without a stomach, patients typically lose significant weight and must eat smaller meals more often. They can still digest food through the small intestine.
Insurance paid for part or all of the procedure, which cost between $65,000 to $85,000.
While the stomachs of all six Stanford patients looked normal before surgery, a study of the tissue revealed early tumor growths, said Dr. Jeff Norton, the surgeon.
The long-term effects of stomach removal surgery are still unclear. Researchers around the world are following families with hereditary stomach cancer to find out how the procedure affects quality of life.
It took about a year for Linda Bradfield, a 55-year-old merchandising coordinator from Irvine, Calif., to adjust to her missing stomach. Initially, she could only eat 800 calories a day and was on a strict bland diet. She gradually added vegetables such as cabbage and lettuce, but still avoids white bread, which she finds tough to digest.
"Life is pretty good without a stomach," she said.
Before Diane Sindt and her two older sisters had their stomachs taken out, they ate their "last supper" during Thanksgiving. True to their sisterly bond, they scheduled their operations at Stanford on consecutive days in December 2004.
The upside is that Sindt dropped from a size 12 to a 2, since the surgery. But she has trouble keeping down certain foods like ice cream and tends to shed weight easily if she over-exercises. To overcome it, Sindt sticks with meat and has replaced running with "power walking."
"It's definitely a new normal for us," said the 51-year-old real estate broker from the Sacramento area.
Unlike his other cousins, Bill Bradfield of New Mexico wrestled over what to do. He wondered how his life would change without a stomach. Would he still have enough energy for his demanding job as a mechanic for a natural gas company?
But after watching his other cousins slowly regain parts of their former lives, Bradfield went ahead with the operation at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in March, becoming the last in the family to give up his stomach.
"We're all going to die of something," he said, "but I know I won't die of stomach cancer."
___
AP Science Writer Alicia Chang reported from Los Angeles and Science Writer Malcolm Ritter reported from New York.
___
On the Net:
American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org
Stanford University: http://www.stanford.edu
Report to moderator 172.132.223.77
Many thanks to:
By ALICIA CHANG and MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writers
LOS ANGELES - Mike Slabaugh doesn't have a stomach. Neither do his 10 cousins. Growing up, they watched helplessly as a rare hereditary stomach cancer killed their grandmother and some of their parents, aunts and uncles.
Determined to outsmart the cancer, they turned to genetic testing. Upon learning they had inherited Grandmother Golda Bradfield's flawed gene, these were their options:
Risk the odds that they might not develop cancer, with a 70 percent chance they would; or have their stomachs removed. The latter would mean a challenging life of eating very little, very often.
All the cousins chose the life-changing operation. Doctors say they're the largest family to have preventive surgery to protect themselves from hereditary stomach cancer.
"We're not only surviving, we're thriving," said Slabaugh 16 months after his operation at Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto.
Advances in genetic testing are increasingly giving families with bad genes a chance to see the future, sometimes with the hope of pre-emptive action. People have had stomachs, breasts, ovaries, colons or thyroid glands removed when genetic tests showed they carried a defective gene that gave them a high risk of cancer.
But what about people whose families don't have these rare, but powerful genetic defects? Experts say that someday, doctors may do DNA tests as routinely as they check cholesterol levels now, spotting disease risks that can be lowered. That day isn't here yet, but progress is being made.
"We do not yet have a general DNA test that fits into that category, but we're headed for it at a pretty good clip," said Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
By 2010, there might be several such tests, along with recommendations to help high-risk people avoid certain diseases, he said. (In fact, newborns are routinely tested now for some genetic conditions, but those tests generally focus on substances in the blood rather than DNA.)
To come up with a useful DNA mass-screening test, it's not enough to identify a particular gene variant that raises the risk of a disease, experts said. There are other questions:
_Are there enough potential cases in the general population to make mass screening worthwhile?
_Is there good evidence that screening would improve health?
_Is the risk of disease high enough to make the test result useful?
_How useful is the test in various ethnic groups?
_Is there a way to lower the disease risk?
For now, "mass screening with DNA testing isn't quite ready for prime time," said Dr. Ned Calonge, head of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends steps people can take to prevent disease.
The task force recently recommended against routinely testing women for harmful mutations in BRCA genes. Those mutations raise the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. But it endorsed such testing for women whose family histories show certain suggestive patterns of cancer — a situation like stomach cancer in the Bradfield family.
Slabaugh, who lives in Dallas, reunited with his many scattered cousins recently in Las Vegas just two months after the last in the group — Bill Bradfield of Farmington, N.M. — had his operation. Several hadn't seen each other for decades while others met for the first time.
They gambled, went to shows and dined in the City of Sin.
"Rather than live in fear, they tackled their genetic destiny head-on," said Dr. David Huntsman of the University of British Columbia, who found the gene mutation in the family.
About 22,000 Americans will be diagnosed with stomach cancer this year and half will die, according to the American Cancer Society. But the form that runs in the Bradfield family called hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is extremely rare with about 100 families diagnosed worldwide.
The CDH1 gene mutation was first discovered in 1998 in a large New Zealand family with a history of stomach cancer. Those with the mutation have a 70 percent risk of stomach cancer.
It killed Golda Bradfield in 1960. She passed the faulty gene to seven of her children. Six died of the disease in their 40s and 50s.
The 18 grandchildren learned of the defective gene after one of them, David Allen, died of stomach cancer in 2003. His doctor had sent a blood sample to Huntsman's lab, which confirmed the genetic mutation.
Soon after, the remaining 17 got tested. Eleven who had the bad gene had surgery.
Slabaugh, haunted by his mother's death since his teen years, didn't hesitate to have the operation. He and five other cousins had it done at Stanford. The other family members had surgery closer to home.
"I wake up every morning and think, 'This is a free day. I get a bonus today,'" said the 52-year-old marketing executive.
During surgery, doctors removed the entire stomach and surrounding lymph nodes and attached the bottom of the esophagus to the intestine to create a pouch. Without a stomach, patients typically lose significant weight and must eat smaller meals more often. They can still digest food through the small intestine.
Insurance paid for part or all of the procedure, which cost between $65,000 to $85,000.
While the stomachs of all six Stanford patients looked normal before surgery, a study of the tissue revealed early tumor growths, said Dr. Jeff Norton, the surgeon.
The long-term effects of stomach removal surgery are still unclear. Researchers around the world are following families with hereditary stomach cancer to find out how the procedure affects quality of life.
It took about a year for Linda Bradfield, a 55-year-old merchandising coordinator from Irvine, Calif., to adjust to her missing stomach. Initially, she could only eat 800 calories a day and was on a strict bland diet. She gradually added vegetables such as cabbage and lettuce, but still avoids white bread, which she finds tough to digest.
"Life is pretty good without a stomach," she said.
Before Diane Sindt and her two older sisters had their stomachs taken out, they ate their "last supper" during Thanksgiving. True to their sisterly bond, they scheduled their operations at Stanford on consecutive days in December 2004.
The upside is that Sindt dropped from a size 12 to a 2, since the surgery. But she has trouble keeping down certain foods like ice cream and tends to shed weight easily if she over-exercises. To overcome it, Sindt sticks with meat and has replaced running with "power walking."
"It's definitely a new normal for us," said the 51-year-old real estate broker from the Sacramento area.
Unlike his other cousins, Bill Bradfield of New Mexico wrestled over what to do. He wondered how his life would change without a stomach. Would he still have enough energy for his demanding job as a mechanic for a natural gas company?
But after watching his other cousins slowly regain parts of their former lives, Bradfield went ahead with the operation at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in March, becoming the last in the family to give up his stomach.
"We're all going to die of something," he said, "but I know I won't die of stomach cancer."
___
AP Science Writer Alicia Chang reported from Los Angeles and Science Writer Malcolm Ritter reported from New York.
___
On the Net:
American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org
Stanford University: http://www.stanford.edu
Report to moderator 172.132.223.77
Gardasil first vaccine against cervical cancer
The first vaccine against cervical cancer will be available to girls as young as 9 later this month. Its manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc., is already taking orders for Gardasil. The three-shot series costs $360.
Clinical trials showed Gardasil prevented 100 percent of cervical cancer related to the two HPV strains in women who had not been previously infected, Merck said. It also prevented 99 percent of the cases of genital warts caused by the two other strains.
The newly approved vaccine works by preventing infection by four of the dozens of strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease. The Food and Drug Administration licensed it for use in girls and women 9 to 26. It's still being studied in males.
Gardasil protects against the two types of HPV responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The vaccine also blocks infection by two other strains responsible for 90 percent of genital wart cases.
''FDA approval of the HPV vaccine, the first vaccine targeted specifically to preventing cancer, is one of the most important advances in women's health in recent years,'' said Dr. Carolyn Runowicz, president of the American Cancer Society.
The vaccine developed for hepatitis B has been shown to protect against liver cancer.
Whether Gardasil enters routine use depends on what the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends at a June 29 meeting. The panel's endorsement is critical.
''Fortunately, we can now include the worst types of HPV and most cervical cancer in the list of diseases that no one need suffer or die from ever again,'' said Alex Azar, deputy Health and Human Services secretary.
Merck wants to sell the vaccine around the world. Each year, cervical cancer kills an estimated 240,000 women worldwide, including 3,700 in the United States. The incidence of the cancer is lower in the U.S. because Pap tests are so routine.
The vaccine does not eliminate the need for the regular exams, which can detect precancerous lesions and early cancer. Merck has said Gardasil could cut the number of abnormal Pap results due to HPV infection. By age 50, some 80 percent of women have been infected with the virus. In most cases, the body clears the virus.
Research presented earlier suggests a bonus to Gardasil: It also protects against vaginal and vulvar cancers linked to the four types of HPV.
Gardasil works best when given to girls before they begin having sex and run the risk of HPV infection. The vaccine does not protect those already infected.
The FDA said that Gardasil appeared very safe. It remains unclear if its effect is long-lasting or if women will need booster shots later in life. Merck will monitor its long-term effectiveness.
Analysts believe Gardasil sales could top $1 billion a year for Merck. It could be healthy relief as the Whitehouse Station, N.J. company faces thousands of lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.
Eventually, it could face competition from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which is also developing its own HPV vaccine.
Clinical trials showed Gardasil prevented 100 percent of cervical cancer related to the two HPV strains in women who had not been previously infected, Merck said. It also prevented 99 percent of the cases of genital warts caused by the two other strains.
The newly approved vaccine works by preventing infection by four of the dozens of strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease. The Food and Drug Administration licensed it for use in girls and women 9 to 26. It's still being studied in males.
Gardasil protects against the two types of HPV responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The vaccine also blocks infection by two other strains responsible for 90 percent of genital wart cases.
''FDA approval of the HPV vaccine, the first vaccine targeted specifically to preventing cancer, is one of the most important advances in women's health in recent years,'' said Dr. Carolyn Runowicz, president of the American Cancer Society.
The vaccine developed for hepatitis B has been shown to protect against liver cancer.
Whether Gardasil enters routine use depends on what the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends at a June 29 meeting. The panel's endorsement is critical.
''Fortunately, we can now include the worst types of HPV and most cervical cancer in the list of diseases that no one need suffer or die from ever again,'' said Alex Azar, deputy Health and Human Services secretary.
Merck wants to sell the vaccine around the world. Each year, cervical cancer kills an estimated 240,000 women worldwide, including 3,700 in the United States. The incidence of the cancer is lower in the U.S. because Pap tests are so routine.
The vaccine does not eliminate the need for the regular exams, which can detect precancerous lesions and early cancer. Merck has said Gardasil could cut the number of abnormal Pap results due to HPV infection. By age 50, some 80 percent of women have been infected with the virus. In most cases, the body clears the virus.
Research presented earlier suggests a bonus to Gardasil: It also protects against vaginal and vulvar cancers linked to the four types of HPV.
Gardasil works best when given to girls before they begin having sex and run the risk of HPV infection. The vaccine does not protect those already infected.
The FDA said that Gardasil appeared very safe. It remains unclear if its effect is long-lasting or if women will need booster shots later in life. Merck will monitor its long-term effectiveness.
Analysts believe Gardasil sales could top $1 billion a year for Merck. It could be healthy relief as the Whitehouse Station, N.J. company faces thousands of lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.
Eventually, it could face competition from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which is also developing its own HPV vaccine.
Cancer Therapy Smart Bombs
Smart Bombs Future of Cancer Therapy
NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, June 5, 2006
ATLANTA -- Using combinati0ns of "smart bomb" cancer drugs that target specific proteins and avoid the indiscriminate cell destruction of chemotherapy may be the wave of the future for cancer patients, experts say.
Early studies show that combining targeted treatments such as Genentech Inc.'s breast cancer drug Herceptin with GlaxoSmithKline Plc's experimental treatment Tykerb, may be helpful in patients who do not respond to Herceptin alone, said Dr. Jose Baselga, chief of medical oncology service at Vall d'Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain.
Targeted therapies act as smart bombs by crippling or knocking out deadly cancer cells while leaving healthy cells in tact, unlike the scorched-earth approach of chemotherapy, which kills both healthy and unhealthy cells.
Using Herceptin and Tykerb together is just one of many drug combinations that could improve on results seen with existing targeted therapies such as ImClone Systems Inc.'s colon cancer drug Erbitux and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s lung cancer drug Tarceva.
"All the chemical models suggest that combinations will be superior, though the data still has to prove it," Baselga said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
This weekend, investigators at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Atlanta released data from a mid-stage trial on lung cancer patients of Pfizer Inc.'s kidney cancer drug Sutent. Now they are planning to test it in combination with Tarceva.
"Most of us feel that except for in very rare instances, tumors are driven by multiple pathways and therefore it makes sense that a multi-targeted approach makes most sense," said Mark Socinski, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Researchers say they now also plan to test combinations of Novartis AG's drug Gleevec with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s Sprycel in chronic myelogenous leukemia. A U.S. advisory panel recently recommended that Sprycel be approved.
The first targeted therapies isolated single targets. Genentech's Avastin targets a protein known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which cuts off the oxygen and nutrients tumors need to survive. Erbitux attacks the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which curtails tumor growth.
But drugs such as Sutent hit multiple targets, as does Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals' kidney cancer drug Nexavar.
In the colorectal field, behind Avastin and Erbitux, comes Amgen Inc's. panitumumab, which also targets EGFR, but has not yet been approved.
As more is learned about drugs that are directed at single targets, evidence is emerging that they may hit more than initially thought.
NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, June 5, 2006
ATLANTA -- Using combinati0ns of "smart bomb" cancer drugs that target specific proteins and avoid the indiscriminate cell destruction of chemotherapy may be the wave of the future for cancer patients, experts say.
Early studies show that combining targeted treatments such as Genentech Inc.'s breast cancer drug Herceptin with GlaxoSmithKline Plc's experimental treatment Tykerb, may be helpful in patients who do not respond to Herceptin alone, said Dr. Jose Baselga, chief of medical oncology service at Vall d'Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain.
Targeted therapies act as smart bombs by crippling or knocking out deadly cancer cells while leaving healthy cells in tact, unlike the scorched-earth approach of chemotherapy, which kills both healthy and unhealthy cells.
Using Herceptin and Tykerb together is just one of many drug combinations that could improve on results seen with existing targeted therapies such as ImClone Systems Inc.'s colon cancer drug Erbitux and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s lung cancer drug Tarceva.
"All the chemical models suggest that combinations will be superior, though the data still has to prove it," Baselga said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
This weekend, investigators at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Atlanta released data from a mid-stage trial on lung cancer patients of Pfizer Inc.'s kidney cancer drug Sutent. Now they are planning to test it in combination with Tarceva.
"Most of us feel that except for in very rare instances, tumors are driven by multiple pathways and therefore it makes sense that a multi-targeted approach makes most sense," said Mark Socinski, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Researchers say they now also plan to test combinations of Novartis AG's drug Gleevec with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s Sprycel in chronic myelogenous leukemia. A U.S. advisory panel recently recommended that Sprycel be approved.
The first targeted therapies isolated single targets. Genentech's Avastin targets a protein known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which cuts off the oxygen and nutrients tumors need to survive. Erbitux attacks the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which curtails tumor growth.
But drugs such as Sutent hit multiple targets, as does Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals' kidney cancer drug Nexavar.
In the colorectal field, behind Avastin and Erbitux, comes Amgen Inc's. panitumumab, which also targets EGFR, but has not yet been approved.
As more is learned about drugs that are directed at single targets, evidence is emerging that they may hit more than initially thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
