Cancer Decisions - Free Newsletter

HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

CHICAGO TRIBUNE CITES CANCER DECISIONS

In an extensive article last week, the Chicago Tribune examined the reasons for the continued popularity of the Mexican alternative cancer clinics, which currently attract Americans in their thousands each year. As an expert who has written several learned articles on the subject, Dr. Moss was interviewed for this article and is quoted as follows:

"Ralph Moss, president of Cancer Communications Inc., a research publication, said some U.S. drug laws do need rethinking in order to remove huge financial requirements that give large drug companies a monopoly on testing.

"The whole system by which we test drugs and reward innovation is deeply flawed. The fact that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to test drugs means that the only ones tested are those that will make hundreds of millions when they are approved," said Moss, who has spent more than a decade documenting the work at alternative cancer clinics. "We are in a cycle where you have to be enormously wealthy to even think of playing in that poker game."

To read the entire article, please click or go to:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0610300240oct30,1,7708051,print.story

[N.B. Access to this article is free, but requires registration.]

Those who are interested in reading further about this subject will enjoy our report "The Mexican Cancer Clinics in the Era of Evidence-Based Medicine." The report can be purchased for $9.95 and downloaded directly from our Web site by clicking or going to:
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/021206.html

Other available reports in our Current Topics series include:

Do Antioxidants and Chemotherapy Conflict?
Mammography, Biopsy and the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Herceptin – or Deceptin? (An evaluation of the use of Herceptin in breast cancer)
Avastin – Your Money or Your Life (A clear-eyed look at the 'targeted' drug Avastin)
The Politics of Hope: Andrew von Eschenbach and the Decline of the National Cancer Institute

For the past thirty years Dr. Moss has studied and written extensively about the evolving field of cancer research with the aim of enabling cancer patients and their families to make truly informed decisions and treatment choices.

The Moss Reports is a library of detailed individual reports on more than 200 different kinds of cancer. These reports analyze the current treatments, both conventional and alternative, for each specific cancer diagnosis, giving the cancer patient an objective assessment of the available options. Each Moss Report includes detailed nutritional advice for those who are preparing for, or undergoing, cancer treatment, as well as guidance for those who are recovering from cancer.

If you would like to order a Moss Report for yourself or someone you love, you can do so from our website, www.cancerdecisions.com, or by calling 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

Dr. Moss also offers phone consultations to those clients who have purchased a Moss Report. A phone consultation can be enormously helpful in drawing up a treatment strategy and getting one's options clearly prioritized.

To schedule an appointment please call 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US), or send an email to Jacquie@cancerdecisions.com.

We look forward to helping you.

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION

Our newsletter will shortly be undergoing a change of focus.

As we approach the 35th anniversary of the Congressionally-declared "war on cancer" it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this massive and protracted effort has proven spectacularly unsuccessful. Cancer still kills more than half a million Americans each year, and despite an annual National Cancer Institute research budget that is expected to exceed $6 billion in 2007, the death rate from cancer shows no sign of declining appreciably.

Yet, according to current estimates by the American Cancer Society, up to 60 percent of annual US cancer deaths could be prevented if we adopted healthier lifestyles, made sensible dietary changes, and took advantage of effective screening measures. And an even higher proportion of these needless deaths could be avoided if we could persuade our elected representatives to tackle the known environmental pollutants and carcinogens that are ultimately responsible for the unrelenting incidence of cancer.

We are planning to change the emphasis of our newsletter to reflect the urgent need for a more prevention-oriented anti-cancer strategy. Our newsletter will in the future focus strongly on the many ways that we, both as individuals and as a society, can plan for prevention rather than continuing to fight a largely futile war against this devastating disease once it has already developed.

Being well is both a personal and a political goal. We are pleased to announce Wellbeing, a prevention-focused newsletter that will reshape the debate on cancer and serve as a forum for new ideas and new strategies in the individual and social struggle against cancer.

VITAMIN D CUTS RISK OF PANCREATIC CANCER

A recent study has suggested that adequate vitamin D intake can cut the risk of pancreatic cancer nearly in half. This huge study was carried out at Northwestern and Harvard Universities and was among the first large-scale population-based (epidemiological) surveys to examine the relationship between this crucial nutrient and cancer of the pancreas.

In this study, scientists examined data from two large, long-term health surveys. Specifically, they looked at reports on 46,771 men aged 40 to 75 years who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, and 75,427 women aged 38 to 65 years who participated in the Nurses' Health Study. Between the two studies, they identified 365 people with pancreatic cancer.

They found that taking supplements containing the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance of Vitamin D (400 IU/day) reduced one's risk of pancreatic cancer by 43 percent.

Compared to people whose intake of vitamin D was low (i.e. lower than 150 IU per day), there were the following risk reductions:

22 percent for those who received 150 to 299 IU per day
43 percent for those receiving 300 to 449 IU per day
44 percent for those receiving 450 to 599 IU per day
41 percent for those receiving 600 or more.

The results of this study suggest that receiving at least the recommended amount of vitamin D per day offers the most risk reduction, whereas taking more than the daily recommended allowance adds no appreciable benefit. Too high a dose may even slightly decrease the protective effect against pancreatic cancer.

There was some concern that retinol (which is commonly contained in multi-vitamins) might interfere with the beneficial effects of vitamin D, but the study found that neither retinol nor calcium intake was associated with pancreatic cancer risk.

"Our results point to a potential role for vitamin D in the pathogenesis and prevention of pancreatic cancer," the authors wrote.

"Because there is no effective screening for pancreatic cancer, identifying controllable risk factors for the disease is essential for developing strategies that can prevent cancer," said lead author Halcyon Skinner, PhD, an assistant professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. He is an expert on the link between nutrition and cancer, particularly cancer of the pancreas.

In addition, he says, "Vitamin D has shown strong potential for preventing and treating prostate cancer, and areas with greater sunlight exposure have lower incidence and mortality for prostate, breast, and colon cancers, leading us to investigate a role for Vitamin D in pancreatic cancer risk....

"In concert with laboratory results suggesting anti-tumor effects of Vitamin D, our results point to a possible role for Vitamin D in the prevention and possible reduction in mortality of pancreatic cancer. Since no other environmental or dietary factor showed this risk relationship, more study of Vitamin D's role is warranted," Dr. Skinner noted.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth-leading cause of cancer death in the US, with an estimated 32,000 new cases per year. It is unclear if getting one's vitamin D through exposure to sunlight is as effective as receiving it in a multi-vitamin supplement – or, indeed, whether sunlight is more effective than using dietary supplements. A few years ago, Michael Holick, MD, PhD, of Boston University created a firestorm of controversy when he suggested in a popular book, The UV Advantage, that people in more northerly latitudes (such as New England) should try to get a total of 30 minutes per week of unblocked sun exposure during the winter months.

Given the aggressiveness of pancreatic cancer, a disease which is often rapidly fatal, it seems advisable for most people to take a supplement of 400-500 IU of vitamin D per day. This costs only around 5¢ per day and the ensuing health benefits can be huge.

IN THE MAILBAG

Following our article last week on a study that demonstrated the damaging effect of radiation on the growth of bones, we received a letter from a board-certified radiation oncologist who felt that there was nothing essentially newsworthy about the study in question. He wrote:

"Your weekly commentaries are the one part of my continuing medical education I read religiously. Most of the time I find that you provide a much needed counterpoint to the dogmas of conventional oncology, but none of us is perfect, and I think your most recent notes on the effects of radiation on bone metabolism warrant criticism.

All radiation oncologists are well aware that radiation exposure causes impaired bone growth and liability to fracture. The study you cited adds nothing to what is already well-known in the radiation oncology community except for the low whole-body radiation dose at which these effects can be seen in rodents.

You failed to mention a couple of important points. One is the so-called "volume effect". The larger percentage of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the smaller the dose at which any biological effect can be observed. For example, as you are no doubt well aware, we routinely use daily doses of 2 to 4 Gy to small areas with negligible immediate side effects, yet the same doses delivered to the whole body cause severe side effects including nausea, vomiting, fatigue, hypotension, and so on. There is no reason to expect biological effects on bone metabolism to be any different. Whenever possible, it is routine practice to avoid exposing the entire circumference of any bone in an extremity precisely in order to minimize the risk of pathologic fracture. There is no evidence at all that partial skeletal radiation exposure causes generalized osteopenia or risk of fracture distant from the exposed area. Patients are routinely warned about the risks of bone injury whenever the clinical situation makes it appropriate to do so.

Again, your newsletters are much appreciated, and I routinely recommend them to my students and colleagues." — W.M.S., MD

Dr. Moss responds:

The points made by the author of this letter are both reassuring and instructive. However, to say that the study "adds nothing to what is already well-known in the radiation oncology community," although undoubtedly true, is beside the point. This newsletter is written predominantly for a lay audience that does not know these facts. Furthermore, the study in question was taken very seriously indeed by some in the scientific community, including by scientists at NASA.

One can only hope that every radiation oncologist is as aware of the dangers involved and as up to date with the latest academic research as our correspondent. I am grateful to him for his useful input and for the opportunity to exchange ideas in a widely-read forum such as this.

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Skinner HG, Michaud DS, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS. Vitamin D intake and the risk for pancreatic cancer in two cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Sep;15(9):1688.

**NOTE** To view this page in a more printable format, please CLICK HERE.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.