Weekly Health Update

Vitamin D Improves Cancer Survival

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 05:11:31 +0000

New research shows that higher levels of Vitamin D in the blood increase survival among colorectal cancer patients.

VITAMIN D IMPROVES CANCER SURVIVAL

As I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, there is a large body of research evidence available to suggest that low Vitamin D levels may be associated with a higher risk of developing cancer. However, the vast majority of published Vitamin D research has been focused on the use of Vitamin D to prevent cancer, while there is almost no data available linking Vitamin D levels in the blood with survival rates after a person has been diagnosed with cancer. Now, a newly published prospective clinical research study, which appears in the current issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, suggests that low Vitamin D levels in the blood of patients undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer may, in fact, be associated with poorer survival when compared to patients with higher blood levels of this hormone-like vitamin.

This new study was part of the large and ongoing European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Altogether, 1,202 EPIC study volunteers were diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 1992 and 2003. As with all EPIC study volunteers, Vitamin D levels in the blood were checked when each participant joined the study. Additionally, extensive dietary, lifestyle and medical history information was obtained from each study volunteer.

Among these 1,202 EPIC study volunteers who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, 541 died during an average study observation period of 73 months, and 444 of these deaths were directly caused by colorectal cancer. The findings of this study were highly significant, and strongly suggest that higher levels of Vitamin D in the blood, prior to the onset of cancer, are associated with better survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer. When comparing patients who had the highest Vitamin D levels with the patients who had the lowest levels, the patients with the highest Vitamin D levels were 31 percent lesslikely to die specifically from colorectal cancer, and 33 percent less likely to die from any cause. Similarly, increased calcium intake prior to being diagnosed with colorectal cancer also appeared to reduce the risk of death due to colon or rectal cancer. (Like Vitamin D, increased calcium intake has also been shown to reduce the risk of developing colorectal cancer.)

These new findings from the landmark prospective EPIC public health study are highly significant, in my view, as they are among the first data available to show that, in addition to its known cancer prevention activity (as I discuss in detail in A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race), higher levels of Vitamin D in the blood may also reduce the risk of dying in patients who develop colorectal cancer. (I should note that I have also been studying potential links between Vitamin D levels in the blood and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and I expect to report our institution’s findings within the next 12 months.)

As always, I strongly recommend that you check with your physician before initiating any new dietary supplements, including Vitamin D, as excessive intake of this hormone-vitamin can lead to kidney injury, GI tract ulcers, calcifications throughout the body, and other serious health complications.

For a groundbreaking overview of cancer risks, and evidence-based strategies to reduce your risk of developing cancer, order your copy of my bestselling book, “A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race,” from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Vroman’s Bookstore, and other fine bookstores!

Within one week of publication, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race was ranked #6 among all cancer-related books on the Amazon.com “Top 100 Bestseller’s List” for Kindle e-books. Within three months of publication, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race was the #1 book on the Amazon.com “Top 100 New Book Releases in Cancer” list.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

I and the staff of Weekly Health Update would again like to take this opportunity to thank the more than 100,000 health-conscious people from around the world who visit this premier global health information website every month. (More than 1.3 million pages of high-quality medical research findings were served to the worldwide audience of health-conscious people who visited Weekly Health Update in 2011!) As always, we enjoy receiving your stimulating feedback and questions, and I will continue to try and personally answer as many of your inquiries as I possibly can.

Bookmark It

Green Tea Reduces Cholesterol, Blood Sugar and Insulin Levels

admin — Mon, 07 May 2012 02:41:40 +0000

New research finds that green tea may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

GREEN TEA REDUCES CHOLESTEROL, BLOOD SUGAR AND INSULIN LEVELS

As I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, the evidence for green tea as a cancer prevention agent is quite mixed, with most (but not all) studies showing little impact on cancer risk or cancer-associated death rates. Some research studies, however, have suggested that green tea may affect levels of the female sex hormone estrogen in ways that could potentially reduce the risk of developing breast cancer. However, most of the research in this area has not been in the form of prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical research, which is considered the “gold standard” method of conducting clinical research.

A newly published prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated 103 postmenopausal women, and their response to green tea supplements. This study appears in the current issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

In this study, the women volunteers were randomly divided into three groups. One group received 400 milligrams (mg) of epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) per day, for two months. (EGCG is considered the most active ingredient in green tea.) The second group of women received 800 mg of EGCG per day, also for two months. The third group, which served as this study’s control group, received placebo (sugar) capsules that appeared identical to the EGCG capsules. Neither the female volunteers nor the study nurses who dispensed the capsules to these study volunteers knew which group each woman had been randomized into.

Repeated measurements of urine levels of EGCG were performed, and blood levels of estrogen, testosterone (the primary male sex hormone), cholesterol, glucose (blood sugar), insulin, and growth factors were tested on all of the 103 study volunteers throughout the course of this study.

The results of this innovative study revealed that green tea supplements had no apparent effect on the levels of estrogen and testosterone in the blood of these postmenopausal research volunteers, which suggests that any potential breast cancer prevention effects associated with EGCG are probably unrelated to sex hormone levels. However, while EGCG had no apparent impact on sex hormone levels, LDL-cholesterol (the “bad cholesterol”) levels significantly decreased among the women who were secretly randomized to receive EGCG supplements. Additionally, blood levels of glucose and insulin, which are linked to diabetes risk, also significantly declined in the two groups of women who received EGCG supplements. (Diabetes, itself, is a powerful risk factor for developing cancer.)

While green tea supplementation had no discernible effect on the levels of male and female sex hormones in the blood of the postmenopausal women participating in this study, EGCG supplementation was observed to significantly reduce LDL-cholesterol, glucose, and insulin levels in these women. Therefore, while the impact of green tea on breast cancer risk remains unclear at this time, the results of this clinical research study suggest a potential clinical role for green tea in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which are, like cancer, two of the great killers of modern humans.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

Bookmark It

Vigorous Exercise Activates Cancer Prevention Genes

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:53:35 +0000

New research shows that at least 3 hours per week of vigorous exercise improves the function of multiple cancer-preventing genes.

VIGOROUS EXERCISE ACTIVATES CANCER PREVENTION GENES

As I extensively discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, moderate-to-vigorous physical exercise has been repeatedly shown to reduce our risk of developing cancer, as well as reducing the risk of recurrence of breast cancer and other types of cancer. Moreover, there is research to suggest that this cancer-prevention benefit of exercise is independent of whether or not a person is overweight or obese. However, the exact mechanism, or mechanisms, whereby exercise reduces cancer risk has not been clear, thus far. Now, a newly presented research study offers some fascinating insights into potential biological links between exercise and cancer risk reduction. This new study was just presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2012 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, and has been published in a supplement to the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In this study, 70 men underwent biopsy of their prostate glands, which revealed normal prostate tissue. These normal prostate tissue samples were then subjected to extensive genetic analysis. These 70 men also completed detailed questionnaires regarding their exercise habits, which included questions that asked if they engaged in any vigorous physical activity at all, and whether or not they engaged in at least 3 hours of vigorous activity per week.

Genetic testing of these prostate gland biopsy specimens revealed that the function of 184 different cancer-related genes was significantly affected by vigorous exercise for at least 3 hours per week. Among these observed changes in gene function was an increase in the function of the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are known to reduce the risk of developing cancer (i.e., tumor suppressor genes). In fact, inherited mutations of these BRCA genes are known to dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer (in both men and women), ovarian cancer, and prostate cancer in patients affected with these “deactivating” BRCA gene mutations. Moreover, the function of genes which are involved in the normal growth and division of cells, and in the repair of damaged DNA, also improved in the men who reported at least 3 hours of vigorous physical activity per week. Another important finding of this very impressive research study is that the men who reported engaging in vigorous physical activity forless than 3 hours per week did not show any improvement in cancer-suppressing gene function when compared to men who indicated that they did not engage in any vigorous physical activity.

The findings of this innovative research study are hugely important, in my view, as it is one of the first studies to identify specific genetic mechanisms that may potentially explain why vigorous exercise reduces cancer risk. While many other clinical studies have indirectly linked increased levels of physical activity to a reduced risk of developing cancer, this intriguing research study has identified multiple actual cancer-suppressing genes whose function appears to be significantly improved, or “upregulated,” in response to vigorous, frequent exercise. The finding that at least 3 hours of vigorous activity per week is necessary to improve the function of these critical anti-cancer genes is particularly important, and may serve as a guide as to how much exercise we need to engage in to significantly lower our risk of developing cancer. Additionally, knowing which cancer-suppressing genes respond favorably to frequent and vigorous exercise may also help scientists to develop new strategies to manipulate these anti-cancer genes, in an effort to further reduce our risk of developing cancer.

This study is a crucial advance in our understanding of the biological mechanisms whereby higher levels of physical activity appear to reduce the risk of developing cancer. Although this is a rather small study, its implications with respect to cancer prevention are likely to be huge!

For a groundbreaking overview of cancer risks, and evidence-based strategies to reduce your risk of developing cancer, order your copy of my bestselling book, “A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race,” from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Vroman’s Bookstore, and other fine bookstores!

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

Bookmark It

Red Meat Increases Risk of Death Due to Cancer and Heart Disease

admin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:18:29 +0000

New research finds that even one serving of red meat or processed meat per day significantly increases the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease and cancer.

RED MEAT INCREASES RISK OF DEATH DUE TO CANCER AND HEART DISEASE

As I discuss in the “Diet & Cancer Risk” chapter of my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, diets rich in red meat and processed meats are known to increase the risk of several forms of potentially deadly cancer, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon and rectum, as well as other types of cancer. Now, a new update from two very large prospective public health studies indicates that even a single daily serving of red meat or processed meat significantly increases the risk of death due to both cancer and cardiovascular disease. This new research update appears in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

This new update combines the findings from two large and ongoing prospective public health studies. The first of these two public health studies is the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and includes data collected on 37,698 male health professionals. The second prospective public health study is the Nurses’ Health Study, which includes data collected on 83,644 female nursing professionals. Importantly, all of these 121,342 health care professionals were clinically healthy at the time they entered into these two landmark public health studies. However, over a cumulative follow-up period that encompassed nearly 3 million “person-years” of observation, there were 5,910 deaths due to cardiovascular disease and 9,464 deaths due to cancer among these study participants.

Analysis of the huge amount of clinical data collected from these two public health studies revealed that only one serving of unprocessed red meat per day was associated with a 13 percent increase in the risk of death due to any cause, while a single daily serving of processed meat (e.g., sausages, luncheon meats, bacon, and hot dogs) was associated with a 20 percent overall increase in the risk of death. More specifically, one serving of unprocessed red meat per day was associated with an 18 percent increase in the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, while a single serving of processed meat per day was linked to a 21 percent increased risk of death due to cardiovascular disease. Similarly, one serving of unprocessed red meat per day resulted in a 10 percent increase in the risk of dying due to cancer, while a single daily serving of processed meat increased the risk of dying from cancer by 16 percent.

Based upon the findings of these two very large public health studies, the studies’ authors predicted that substituting just one daily serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, whole grains, or low-fat dairy products for one daily serving of red meat or processed meat would have resulted in a 7 to 19 percent decrease in the overall death rate among these male and female health care professionals! Moreover, it was also estimated that by cutting daily red meat intake to only one-half serving per day (42 grams per day), 9 percent of the observed deaths among the male health care professionals could have been prevented, while 8 percent of the deaths among the female nurses could have been prevented!

The findings of these two pivotal prospective public health studies reinforce the additional research data that I discuss in A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, in terms of the significant impact of diet on our risk of developing cancer. To reach a deeper understanding of how to live an evidence-based cancer prevention lifestyle, order a copy of A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race today.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

Bookmark It

Addition of MRI to Mammogram and Ultrasound Increases Breast Cancer Detection

admin — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:28:09 +0000

New research shows that adding MRI to mammogram and ultrasound increases breast cancer detection rate, but with a high rate of false positive results.

ADDITION OF MRI TO MAMMOGRAM AND ULTRASOUND INCREASES BREAST CANCER DETECTION

Currently, women who are at an average risk of developing breast cancer are advised to undergo annual screening mammograms beginning at 40 to 45 years of age. Mammography, like any medical test, is not perfect (at least 10 to 20 percent of breast cancers will not show up on a mammogram among women who are at average risk for this type of cancer). Moreover, mammography, which relies upon low-powered x-rays to form images of the breasts, is especially challenged by women with dense breast tissue, which is, by itself, a known risk factor for breast cancer.

In many cases, the addition of ultrasound to mammography can help to form more accurate images of dense breast tissue, and is also useful for further evaluation of indeterminate breast abnormalities identified by mammography. (Also, both the lobular sub-type of breast cancer and small “low-grade” breast cancers tend to show up better on ultrasound than they do on mammograms.) Together, the combination of mammography and ultrasound can accurately detect approximately 85 to 90 percent of breast cancers in women with normal-density breast tissue; but, once again, in women with dense breast tissue (including most women under the age of 40), the sensitivity and overall accuracy of mammography plus ultrasound is often considerably decreased.

Magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, has become a popular tool for breast imaging, although, like mammography and ultrasound, MRI of the breast has its downsides as well. MRI is known to be much more sensitive than either mammography or ultrasound in identifying breast cancers, with most studies showing a 95 percent or greater sensitivity associated with MRI. However, this exquisite sensitivity of breast MRI, as I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, is also associated with poor specificity (i.e., a high false-positive rate). Because of its poor specificity, MRI scans of the breast will be wrong, or falsely-positive, in 15 to 35 percent of cases where an abnormality is detected. Although there are other reasons as well, this high false-positive rate is the primary reason that MRI scans are not routinely used to screen for breast cancer.

As I have noted, none of these three common breast cancer screening tests are perfect, and each of them will miss some cancers that the other types of scans might pick up. With this information in mind, a newly published study, which appears in the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, examines the potential role of ultrasound and MRI scans as supplements to screening mammograms in women who are at an increased risk for developing breast cancer.

In this prospective clinical research study, 612 women deemed to be at increased risk for breast cancer underwent three years of annual breast cancer screening exams with mammography and ultrasound. After completing these three years of annual screening with mammography and ultrasound, these women additionally underwent MRI scans of their breasts. Abnormalities suspicious for cancer, based upon any of these three diagnostic tests, were further evaluated by biopsy. This cohort of women volunteers was then followed for an additional 12 months, to monitor them for any signs of interval development of breast cancer.

The 612 women who underwent mammography, ultrasound and MRI screening were also part of a larger group of 2,662 high-risk women (54 percent of whom had a personal history of a prior breast cancer) who enrolled in this study, and who underwent annual breast cancer screening with both mammography and ultrasound. Altogether, 110 of these 2,662 women were diagnosed with a new breast cancer during the course of this prospective clinical research study.

The results of this study clearly illustrate the limitations of currently available breast cancer screening tests, particularly among high-risk women. Following three years of annual screening, only 52 percent of the breast cancers that arose were detected by mammography alone in these high-risk women, although the false-positive rate of mammography was very low, at 9 percent. The addition of ultrasound to mammography improved the sensitivity, or detection rate, to 76 percent, with a false-positive rate of 16 percent. When MRI was added to mammography and ultrasound, the detection rate (sensitivity) for breast cancer improved, significantly, to 100 percent, although the false-positive rate increased greatly due to the poor specificity of MRI and, to a lesser extent, ultrasound. When these three breast imaging modalities were combined, 35 percent of the abnormalities identified turned out to be benign lesions, and not cancer, following biopsy or other confirmatory diagnostic procedures.

This study confirms that essentially 100 percent of detectable breast cancers can be identified using a combination of mammography, ultrasound and MRI. However, this high level of sensitivity comes at a significant cost in that more than one-third of the abnormalities identified by the combined use of these three breast imaging modalities will, upon further testing, including biopsy, turn out to be completely benign. Therefore, this high false-positive rate, particularly associated with breast MRI, is the Achilles heel of this combined imaging approach to breast cancer screening.

Fortunately, there are emerging new breast imaging technologies that appear to have the same very high sensitivity rate as MRI, while maintaining the high specificity (i.e., low false-positive) rate of mammography. Among these promising technologies are Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging and Positron Emission (PET) Mammography (also known as “PEM”). Ultimately, these newer technologies, as well as even newer technologies, will most likely someday replace the use MRI to screen for breast cancer.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

Bookmark It

New Vaccine and Antibodies May Prevent Heart Disease

admin — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:40:46 +0000

New studies suggest that heart disease may someday become preventable with vaccine and antibody therapy.

NEW VACCINE AND ANTIBODIES MAY PREVENT HEART DISEASE

As I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, cancer has recently surpassed cardiovascular disease to become the #1 cause of death in many areas of the world. However, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and stroke continue to kill millions of people around the world every year.

In general, atherosclerotic artery disease arises when thick “plaques” develop on the inner walls of arteries. These plaques can rupture, thus exposing their inner surfaces, which can then activate the components of the blood responsible for forming blood clots. The progression of blood clots on the surface “atheromatous” plaques within the arteries of the heart and brain can directly cause blockage of affected arteries, leading to a heart attack or stroke, respectively. Even more commonly, however, clumps of clot and atheromatous plaque can break off and travel downstream, where they block coronary artery and brain artery branches, causing heart attacks (myocardial infarction) and strokes, respectively. As inflammation, caused by our bodies’ white blood cells and antibodies, plays an important role in the development of atherosclerosis, scientists have been testing both vaccines and blocking antibodies in laboratory animals in an effort to prevent (or even reverse) the development of atherosclerosis, in the hope that heart attacks and strokes (and limb loss, in the case of peripheral vascular disease) can be prevented.

Two experimental new approaches to preventing and treating cardiovascular disease were unveiled at the Frontiers in Cardiovascular Biology conference this past week in London, and they have generated a great deal of interest among cardiovascular disease experts around the world.

In one recent study, which was performed using laboratory mice, an experimental vaccine (“CVX-210”) that reprograms inflammatory white bloods cells into inflammation-fighting white blood cells was evaluated. In this mouse study, the CVX-210 vaccine was able to reduce the extent of arterial atherosclerosis by 60 to 70 percent! While treatments that are effective in laboratory mice do not always work in humans, the manufacturer of the CVX-210 vaccine, CardioVax, is currently awaiting FDA approval to begin preliminary human clinical trials.

A second immunological approach to the prevention and treatment of arterial atherosclerosis involves the use of blocking antibodies that are designed to target oxidized LDL cholesterol (the “bad cholesterol,” which is a major component of atherosclerotic plaques, and which also participates in the inflammatory cascade that leads directly to plaque formation.) When injected into a patient, these antibodies attack oxidized LDL particles and, theoretically, block the formation of atherosclerotic plaques. At this time, there is an ongoing human clinical trial that is evaluating this “BI-204” human monoclonal antibody. (In preclinical studies, BI-204 has already been shown to decrease the extent of existing arterial atherosclerotic plaques in laboratory animals by as much as 50 percent!)

In addition to the potential of the CVX-210 vaccine and the BI-204 human monoclonal antibody to significantly reduce, and possibly prevent, arterial atherosclerosis, these two still experimental therapies, if proven to be safe and effective in humans, would also be available for use in combination with current cardiovascular disease prevention therapies, including the cholesterol blocking statin drugs, high blood pressure medications, and diabetes medications. (When considered together, these three current, conventional treatments for the most common risk factors for cardiovascular disease are estimated to reduce the risk of heart attack by about 40 percent.) Because all of these therapies target different risk factors for cardiovascular disease, combining CVX-210 and/or BI-204 with current conventional cardiovascular disease prevention therapies could dramatically further reduce our risk of cardiovascular disease and significantly prolong our lives in the future.

As a disease prevention expert, I consider these two new developments to be of potentially enormous importance in the area of cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment. Given that inflammation is known to play an important role in the development of both cardiovascular disease and cancer, I will be very interested to see if these two new experimental approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment also have a beneficial risk on cancer risk as well!

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

For a lighthearted perspective on Dr. Wascher, please click on the following YouTube link:

Texas Blues Jam

Bookmark It

Aspirin Cuts Cancer Risk and Cancer Death Rates

admin — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:10:53 +0000

A new study shows that aspirin not only reduces the risk of getting cancer, but may also reduce death rates in patients with cancer.

ASPIRIN CUTS CANCER RISK AND CANCER DEATH RATES

As I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, aspirin may be able to do much more than just relieve a headache, or reduce the risk of heart disease. Indeed, a growing body of scientific evidence strongly suggests that aspirin may also significantly reduce the risk of developing cancer. Now, a newly published research study, which appears in the current issue of the Lancet Oncology journal, suggests that aspirin may not only reduce the risk of developing certain cancers, but may also reduce the risk of cancer spread in patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer, as well.

An important and unique aspect of this particular study is that it reviewed the results from numerous previous aspirin studies, including both highly powered prospective randomized clinical research studies and lower powered public health studies.

Based upon this massive review study, the regular use of aspirin was associated with a 38 percent reduction in the risk of developing colorectal cancer, and a 42 percent reduction in the risk of death due to colorectal cancer. Similar reductions in the risk of other major cancer killers were also observed with regular aspirin use, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, bile ducts, liver and breast.

Among patients already diagnosed with cancer, regular aspirin use was associated with a 31 percent decrease in the incidence of distant spread of cancer. (This is an important finding, as most patients who die from cancer do so due to the distant spread, or metastasis, of their cancer rather than due to the presence of their original, or primary, tumor alone.)

The findings of this important study are highly significant, as they lend further important evidence that the humble aspirin tablet can significantly reduce our risk of developing many of the most prolific cancer killers of mankind. Moreover, regular aspirin use may also reduce the risk of distant spread (metastasis) for many types of cancer, which may, in turn, reduce the risk of death associated with these cancers.

As aspirin use can be associated with serious side effects, including GI tract ulcers, bleeding, kidney injury, and other potentially serious health complications, I recommend that patients first talk with their doctor before starting daily aspirin therapy.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

For a lighthearted perspective on Dr. Wascher, please click on the following YouTube link:

Texas Blues Jam

Bookmark It

Red Meat Raises Death Risk from Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:37:36 +0000

A new study confirms that red meat significantly increases the risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease.

RED MEAT RAISES DEATH RISK FROM CANCER AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

As I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, red meat consumption has repeatedly been linked, by multiple research studies, to an increased risk of several different types of cancer, and an increased risk of dying from cancer.

Now, a newly published research study, which combines data from two very large prospective public health studies, provides yet more insight into the magnitude of health risk associated with the consumption of processed and unprocessed red meats. By combining the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and the Nurses’ Health Study, dietary and health data from more than 121,000 physicians and nurses, encompassing an amazing 3 million “person-years” of clinical data, was collected and analyzed.

All of the more than 121,000 participating research volunteers were clinically free of cardiovascular disease and cancer when they entered into these two very large prospective public health studies. This important clinical study appears in the current issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

During the course of this public health study, 5,910 study volunteers died from cardiovascular disease complications, while 9,464 volunteers died from cancer. Following analysis of the huge amount of data collected within these two large studies, it was determined that the consumption of 1 serving per day of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 13 percent overall increase in the risk of death (when compared to no daily consumption of red meat), while 1 daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 20 percent increase in the risk of death.

Breaking down the data further, the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease was increased by 18 percent with 1 serving of unprocessed red meat per day, and by 21 percent with 1 daily serving of processed red meat. Similarly, the risk of dying from cancer was increased by 10 percent with 1 daily serving of unprocessed red meat, and by 15 percent with 1 serving per day of processed red meat.

Importantly, the substitution of 1 daily serving of healthier sources of dietary protein (including fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy foods, and whole grains) in place of 1 daily serving of red meat reduced death rates, due to all causes, by a predicted 7 to 19 percent. Furthermore, the authors of this crucial public health study calculated that reducing daily red meat intake from 1 serving per day (approximately 90 grams, or 3.2 ounces, per day) to one-half serving per day (approximately 45 grams, or 1.6 ounces, per day) would have prevented 9 percent of the observed deaths among the adult male volunteers in this study and 8 percent of the deaths observed among the adult female volunteers.

The size of these two public health studies and their prospective design are important factors that help to overcome the limitations inherent in smaller survey-based public health studies. Moreover, the findings of these two landmark public health studies confirm, once again, the research data and conclusions that I discuss in A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, in the chapter on diet and cancer risk: A diet low in meat products and rich in fish, poultry, fresh fruits and vegetables, and whole grains and tree nuts will significantly reduce your risk of dying from cancer, while simultaneously reducing your risk of dying from cardiovascular disease as well!

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

For a lighthearted perspective on Dr. Wascher, please click on the following YouTube link:

Texas Blues Jam

Bookmark It

Obese Fathers (Not Obese Mothers) Increase Their Children’s Risk of Obesity

admin — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:11:49 +0000

A new study finds that paternal obesity significantly increases the risk of obesity in children, but not maternal obesity.

OBESE FATHERS (NOT OBESE MOTHERS) INCREASE THEIR CHILDREN’S RISK OF OBESITY

The incidence of obesity has skyrocketed over the past 10 years, and at this time, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese. Moreover, fat- and sugar-packed foods, combined with sedentary lifestyles, have resulted not only in an epidemic of obesity among adults, but even our children and teens are heavier than ever before.

A newly published prospective public health study, the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, has reported a rather interesting finding regarding obesity patterns in Australian families. This study, which appears in the current issue of theInternational Journal of Obesity, followed more than 3,000 men, women and children in two-parent families between 2004 and 2008. Height and weight data was collected on all family members during this 4-year study.

Not surprisingly, obesity was more common, in general, among the children of obese parents. However, a very interesting phenomenon was observed in that childhood obesity was significantly associated with having an overweight or obese father and a mother of normal weight, but not with having a normal weight father and an overweight or obese mother. In this study, children with an overweight or obese father (but a normal weight mother) were nearly 15 times more likely to be obese than children without obese parents. (Once again, however, having an overweight or obese mother, and a normal weight father, was not associated with an increased risk of childhood obesity when compared to children with normal weight parents.)

While this study was not designed to explain why paternal obesity appeared to increase the risk of childhood obesity, while maternal obesity apparently did not, this unexpected finding suggests that either behavioral or genetic factors (or both) linked to obesity in fathers have a particularly strong impact on their children’s risk of also becoming overweight or obese. The results of this study also suggest that interventions to prevent childhood obesity may be especially important in families with overweight or obese fathers.

As I discuss in my bestselling book, A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race, the incidence of obesity has skyrocketed over the past 10 years, and obesity is known to significantly increase the risk of multiple types of cancer, including cancers of the breast, esophagus, pancreas, kidney, uterus, colon, rectum, and other organs. In fact, even conservative estimates suggest that at least 10 percent of all cancer cases are directly linked to obesity. If you are overweight or obese, please consult with your doctor about safe, evidence-based approaches to weight loss.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

For a lighthearted perspective on Dr. Wascher, please click on the following YouTube link:

Texas Blues Jam

Bookmark It

Epidemic of Alcohol Abuse Among Surgeons

admin — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 04:37:46 +0000

A new study indicates that chronic alcohol abuse among surgeons is far more common than among the general population.

EPIDEMIC OF ALCOHOL ABUSE AMONG SURGEONS

In a previous column (Surgeon Performance and Alcohol), I reviewed a clinical research study that revealed just how significantly alcohol intake degrades surgical skills among surgeons, even well into the day following alcohol intake. In another recent column, I examined a study that revealed a disturbingly high rate of burnout and depression among American surgeons (Surgeon Burnout and Depression). This week, I will present a newly published clinical study that, once again, raises serious concerns about the health and wellbeing of many surgeons in the United States.

In a study that appears in the current issue of the Archives of Surgery, more than 7,000 surgeons in the United States agreed to participate in a confidential assessment of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence among members of the American College of Surgeons. Validated surveys and tests were administered to these surgeon-volunteers, and the resulting data was analyzed.

Based upon the results of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, 15 percent of the responding surgeons, overall, were identified as meeting the criteria for either chronic alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence. Further evaluation of the data collected in this study revealed that 14 percent of the participating male surgeons met the criteria for chronic abuse of alcohol or alcohol dependency, while 26 percent of the corresponding female surgeons met these same worrisome criteria. Moreover, surgeons who reported having committed a major medical or surgical error within the previous 3 months were 45 percent more likely to abuse alcohol, or to be dependent upon alcohol, when compared to surgeons who did not report any recent errors. Similarly, surgeons who reported feeling burned out in their professional lives were 25 percent more likely to be problem drinkers when compared to surgeons who did not report professional burnout. Finally, surgeons who reported symptoms consistent with depression were nearly 50 percent more likely to abuse alcohol than surgeons who did not report feeling depressed.

Interestingly, surgeons were less likely to have alcohol abuse and dependency problems if they were older, male, or had children. (Approximately 11 percent of adult males in the general population are thought to have chronic alcohol abuse problems, while only about 5 percent of adult females in the general population appear to abuse alcohol on a regular basis.)

The findings of this study, once again, indicate a disturbingly high rate of substance abuse among American surgeons; and this is the first study to show that female surgeons, unlike women in the general population, are twice as likely as their male counterparts to regularly abuse alcohol. Taken together with previous studies showing very high rates of depression and career burnout among surgeons in the United States, the findings of this latest study are rather worrisome. (Previous studies have also linked an increased likelihood of medical and surgical errors to surgeons who are depressed, and who abuse alcohol and other drugs.)

I should also note that only 29 percent of the surgeons who were contacted agreed to participate in this confidential study. Because this participation rate is much lower than what is typically seen in most survey-based research studies, it raises the important question as to whether or not the rate of alcohol abuse and alcohol dependency might actually be considerably higher among surgeons, in general, than what is reflected in this study. Indeed, most statistics experts believe that a very common reason for nonparticipation in survey-based studies is a reluctance to divulge negative information about oneself. Moreover, even people who elect to participate in survey-based studies often “fudge” their responses in ways that tend to underestimate their bad habits and other self-perceived shortcomings. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the incidence of chronic alcohol abuse and alcohol dependency among surgeons may be even higher than what was reported in this study….

As I have observed in previous columns, surgeons who abuse alcohol, or other drugs, are more likely to be associated with medical errors and worse patient outcomes. However, the stigma of reporting oneself as having an alcohol, or other drug, problem is so great in the medical profession that impaired surgeons (as with other physicians) are generally extremely reluctant to admit that they have an alcohol or drug problem. Most medical boards still require physicians to indicate whether or not they have a history of drug or alcohol abuse on licensure applications, and the medical profession, in general, still seems to be in a state of denial regarding the unusually high incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among physicians when compared to the general public. It also goes without saying that the potential consequences of being operated upon by an impaired surgeon can be catastrophic to both patients and their loved ones, and, therefore, the still prevailing “head in the sand” approach to identifying, and rehabilitating, impaired physicians would not appear to serve the public interest very well, in my view.

While the vast majority of surgeons are passionately devoted to providing the best possible care to their patients, and would therefore not engage in personal behaviors that might potentially endanger their patients, it is becoming increasingly clear that a sizable percentage of surgeons in the United States are seriously impaired by burnout, depression and other mental health illnesses, and by alcohol and drug abuse. Therefore, a better system of screening out surgical trainees who are predisposed to these serious health problems should be considered, while, at the same time, medical authorities at the state and federal levels should make it easier, and less threatening, for currently impaired physicians and surgeons to reach out for help without fearing that they will be punished or professionally sanctioned as a result. I, therefore, applaud the American College of Surgeons for sponsoring and publishing this important study as a preliminary step forward in this direction.

Disclaimer: As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, professor of surgery, cancer researcher, oncology consultant, and a widely published author

For a lighthearted perspective on Dr. Wascher, please click on the following YouTube link:

Texas Blues Jam

Bookmark It