Healthspan Blog

By Anthony J. Brown, MD

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Women who survive cervical cancer are at increased risk for developing other cancers decades later, according to a report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The increased cancer risk is primarily seen in women who were treated with radiation therapy and involves organs that lie near the cervix.

"Previous studies have indicated that the risk of second cancers is increased among cervical cancer survivors, but overall and (body) site-specific risks among very long-term survivors were unclear," Dr. Anil K. Chaturvedi, from the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues note.

The findings are based on an analysis of data for 104,760 cervical cancer survivors drawn from several Scandinavian countries and the U.S. The researchers calculated the rate of second cancers over more than 40 years of follow-up.

On the overall analysis, the survivor group was 30 percent more likely to develop a cancer than were women in the general population. Further analysis showed that the rates of human papillomavirus (HPV)- and smoking-related cancers were elevated in survivors who had radiotherapy and those who did not.

Survivors treated with radiotherapy had an elevated risk for cancers in close proximity to the cervix, including cancers of the colon, rectum, anus, bladder, ovaries and genitals. By contrast, no increased risk for these cancers was seen in survivors who did not receive radiotherapy.

The 40-year cumulative rate of a second cancer was higher for survivors diagnosed with cervical cancer before rather than after they were 50 years old: 22.2 vs. 16.4 percent, respectively.

"The most important finding is that even 40 years after a diagnosis of cervical cancer, survivors remain at increased risk of second cancers. These results are consistent with previous studies that showed increased second cancer risks beyond 30 years of follow-up, but that did not have sufficient data on time periods beyond 30 years," Chaturvedi told Reuters Health.

"The increased second cancer risk among cervical cancer survivors underscores the need for screening or regular medical surveillance," he emphasized.

SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, November 7, 2007.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The nonprofit Consumers Union recently put five home lead-testing kits to the test and deemed three useful, though limited, as a screening tool for consumers worried about lead contamination in products in and around their home.

According to the group's Consumer Reports magazine, the three tests garnering a passing grade are Homax Lead Check, Lead Check Household Lead Test Kit, and Lead Inspector.

These test kits detect surface or "accessible" lead but not lead embedded below the surface, according to a statement from Consumer Reports.

The Homax Lead Check, which retails for $8 and the Lead Check Household Lead Test Kit, which sells for $18.45, were the easiest to use, according to Consumer Reports, and the kits identified surface lead in toys, ceramic, dishware, and vinyl or plastic.

These two kits consist of cigarette-shaped swabs that turn pink when they detect lead. If lead concentrations are low, these swabs may take up to 2 hours to turn pink; high lead levels yield immediate results.

According to Consumer Reports, the Lead Check Household Lead Test Kit, which contains eight swabs is a better bargain than the Homax Lead Check, which contains only two swabs.

The Lead Inspector test kit, which also got a passing grade, retails for $13. It contains 8 swabs that turn yellow, brown, gray or black if lead is present.

The two test kits that did not make the grade are the First Alert kit, which indicated some false positive results, and the Pro-Lab Lead Surface kit, which was less sensitive and more difficult to use than the others.

"Manufacturers and the government need to strengthen their efforts to eliminate lead in the marketplace," said Donald Mays, Consumer Reports senior director for product safety. "In the meantime, consumers need a way to assess the safety of products in their homes, and lead test kits are a useful though limited screening tool."

The Consumers Union advises wearing gloves and having good ventilation when using lead test kits and removing from the home any item that tests positive.

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - What people eat and how fast they grow are both significant causes of cancer, but many Americans still incorrectly believe that factors such as pesticides on food are bigger causes, experts reported on Wednesday.

Breastfeeding reduces the risk of cancer for mother and child, and tall people have a higher risk of cancer than shorter people, the report found.

"We need to think about cancer as the product of many long-term influences, not as something that 'just happens,'" Dr. Walter Willett, a nutrition expert at the Harvard School of Public Health in Massachusetts, told a news conference.

The report, released jointly by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, is the result of five years of study by nine teams of scientists.

They reviewed 7,000 studies on diet, exercise, weight and cancer.

Most of what they recommended is in line with what health experts, including governments and the World Health Organization, have long been advising -- that diets based on fruits, vegetables and whole grains and that go easy on red meats, dairy products and fats protect against heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

They found evidence that factors such as hormones that cause the body to grow quickly may be involved in some cancers.

"We found that tallness is also probably linked to increased risk for ovarian, pancreatic and pre-menopausal cancer as well," said Willett. He stressed that tall people are not destined to get cancer but should take care to maintain healthy habits.

The groups make keeping a healthy weight their No. 1 recommendation to reduce the risk of cancer.

AS LEAN AS POSSIBLE

"Be as lean as possible within the normal range of body weight," the 400-page report reads. That means keeping a body mass index, they said, of between 21 and 23. BMI is a calculation of height to weight, and the normal range is usually considered to be 18 to 25, with anything over 25 being overweight.

Exercise is also key. "Be physically active as part of everyday life," is the second of 10 recommendations made by the expert panel. The recommendations also include eating mostly plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables and grains, avoiding calorie-dense foods such as sugary drinks, and limiting red meat, alcohol and salt.

The American Institute for Cancer Research also released a survey of 1,000 U.S. adults that show most do not understand these risks. Only 38 percent knew of the link between cured and processed meats and cancer, 49 percent knew that diets low in fruits and vegetables raised the risk of cancer and 46 percent knew that obesity was a well-documented risk.

But 71 percent thought that pesticide residue on produce was a cause -- something that has never been shown; 56 percent thought stress causes cancer, again not proven; and 49 percent believed hormones in beef cause cancer.

"Americans are increasingly likely to attribute cancer to factors over which they have no control, and for which no proven links to the disease exist," the report reads.

"This reflects an 'everything causes cancer' mindset," it adds.

The meat industry quickly denounced the report.

"WCRF's conclusions are extreme, unfounded and out of step with dietary guidelines," said American Meat Institute Foundation Vice President of Scientific Affairs Randy Huffman.

Do you have a picture in your mind of your "dream" body? Perhaps all you want is a few inches of new muscle on your chest, shoulders and arms... maybe you'd like to give your physique a complete overhaul and gain 20 or 30 pounds of mass in a hurry. Whatever it is, if you want to turn that dream into reality, you'll need to apply one simple principle to your training program. Anyone who's ever made the transition from weak and puny to big and strong has used it. And if you want to "get big," you'll need to use it to.

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - All U.S. children should be formally screened for autism twice by the age of 2, the nation's top pediatrician group recommended on Monday.

The new guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics focus on early intervention, which can improve a child's chances for effective treatment.

"If you recognize it earlier, you get them into treatment earlier," said Dr. Scott Myers, a pediatrician who specializes in neurodevelopment and who helped write two clinical reports designed to help pediatricians identify and manage autism.

"Kids who start (treatment) earlier do better in the long run," Myers said in a telephone interview.

The guidelines for the first time call for universal screening of babies at the regular 18- and 24-month check-ups, regardless of whether there are warning signs. They will be published in the journal Pediatrics and on the group's Web site at http://www.aap.org.

No one knows what causes autism, a complex developmental disorder that includes problems with social interaction and communication.

Symptoms range from mild awkwardness to severe disability and mental retardation. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about one in every 150 U.S. children has autism or an autism spectrum disorder, such as Asperger's syndrome.

Delays in communication often are an early warning sign.

The guidelines urge pediatricians to watch for subtle signs, such as a lack of babbling, late smiling and failure to make eye contact. Picking up on these cues could lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment.

"Young children and infants between 9 and 12 months should turn and respond when their name is called," said Myers, of Janet Weis Children's Hospital/Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pennsylvania.

"If you say look at something across the room and you point, they ought to follow that with their eyes," he said.

Warnings signs needing immediate evaluation include: no babbling or pointing or other gestures by 12 months, no single words by 16 months, no two-word phrases by 24 months and regression or loss of language or social skills at any age.

If autism is suspected, the guidelines urge parents not to wait for a specialist to confirm the diagnosis before seeking treatment for the specific symptoms.

"You can begin with therapy geared toward the impairments that are there," Myers said.

The reports also review educational therapies and advises that children be engaged in intensive intervention of at least 25 hours per week, 12 months a year, with a low student-to-teacher ratio. Parents should be included in this treatment.

Pediatricians treating patients with autism should make themselves aware of various alternative therapies and to help parents make treatment decisions based on scientific evidence.

But the report suggests doctors should maintain open communication, even when families are pursuing unproven alternative treatments.

While the guidelines stress early intervention, Myers said many children benefit from therapy even if their autism was not detected until later.

"In the milder forms, it may not be possible to diagnose early," Myers said. "It is not hopeless by any means if it is diagnosed later but there does seem to be an advantage to getting intervention going as early as we can."