Small Study Supports New Stool-Based Colon Cancer Test
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — A new, but small, study finds more evidence that a recently approved, stool-based colon cancer test may be effective for certain patients.
Still, experts who looked at the findings stressed that the test, called Cologuard, should never be used as a substitute for the “gold standard” colon cancer test, colonoscopy.
Cologuard is a noninvasive stool DNA test that detects red blood cells and certain DNA mutations that are associated with colon cancer. The test was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2014.
The new study included nearly 400 people at average risk for colon cancer, meaning they had no symptoms and no personal or family history of the disease or precancerous polyps. The patients had also not yet undergone more invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy.
At one year of follow-up, 51 of the patients (about 15 percent) had a positive result on the Cologuard test and were referred for colonoscopy, said a team led by Dr. Mark Prince of USMD Physician Services, a health system based in Dallas.
Of the 46 patients who received a follow-up colonoscopy, four were diagnosed with a colon cancer, 21 with advanced polyps (indicating a heightened risk for the cancer), and nine with non-advanced polyps.
The findings were to be presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Academy for Cancer Research (AACR), in New Orleans. Research presented at meetings should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.
“Colon cancer screening saves lives,” Prince said in an AACR news release. “Colonoscopy is the best form of colon cancer screening, but for patients who will not have a colonoscopy, a noninvasive screening test like Cologuard is needed.”
However, “despite the availability of various colon cancer screening options, more than 40 percent of Americans are not getting screened,” he added. “This study highlights the opportunity to expand the screening population by offering new, patient-friendly methods.”
Prince is also a speaker for Exact Sciences Corp., the Wisconsin-based maker of Cologuard.
Two experts in colon cancer care agreed with Prince that colonoscopy remains the tried-and-true method of spotting colon cancer. And they believe the new research has its flaws.
“The study lacks a true evaluation of the benefit of this test as their patient selection is quite limited [46 patients],” said Dr. Jules Garbus, a colorectal surgeon at Winthrop-University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y.
He believes that while the Cologuard test may be a welcome addition to screening, colonoscopy “remains the gold standard in the prevention of colorectal cancer.”
Dr. David Bernstein is chief of hepatology at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y. He pointed to the results of a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine that found that the Cologuard test had only a 42 percent sensitivity — meaning that it could only accurately spot a precancerous growth less than half of the time.
“The sensitivity of the test, in particular for precancerous polpys, is unacceptably low,” Bernstein said, and “Cologuard should not be used as a substitute for colonoscopy when the better test, colonoscopy, is available.”
Bernstein also reiterated that the study size of just 46 patients is too low to come to firm conclusions about Cologuard.
“In addition, not all colon cancers have the predetermined DNA mutations measured by Cologuard,” Bernstein said, “meaning that other cancers may be missed by this test and we do not know the false-negative rate of Cologuard.”
More information
The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more on colon cancer screening.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/23XpDBu
FDA Launches Ad Campaign Against Chewing Tobacco
By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — U.S. health officials said Tuesday that they are targeting rural teenagers with a new $36 million ad campaign that highlights the health risks associated with chewing tobacco.
The campaign’s message — “smokeless doesn’t mean harmless” — will challenge a habit that has become a tradition in the rural United States, said Mitch Zeller, director of the Center for Tobacco Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“It is culturally ingrained in many rural communities, and can be seen as a rite of passage and an acceptable societal norm,” Zeller said during a Tuesday morning news conference. He noted that smokeless tobacco use is more than twice as common in rural areas as it is in urban settings.
Chewing tobacco, snuff and other smokeless tobacco products have been linked to multiple kinds of cancer, gum disease, tooth loss and nicotine addiction, Zeller said.
Nevertheless, smokeless tobacco use has become increasingly popular among rural male teenagers, according to FDA research.
Every day in the United States, nearly 1,000 males younger than 18 try smokeless tobacco for the first time, outpacing those who take their first puff on a cigarette, Zeller said. About one-third of rural white males aged 12 to 17 have tried or are at risk of trying smokeless tobacco, totaling approximately 629,000 male youth nationwide.
Rural teens are used to seeing role models use smokeless tobacco, including fathers, grandfathers, older brothers and community leaders, Zeller explained.
“When people who these teens most trust and admire openly use and share smokeless tobacco, the product is seen as acceptable, and even as an expected part of growing up and belonging,” Zeller said.
This is the first time the FDA has focused on smokeless tobacco in an ad campaign, said Kathy Crosby, director of the FDA’s Office of Health Communication and Education.
Crosby said the campaign will focus on 35 rural markets across the United States, including: Albany, Ga.; Billings, Mont.; Flint, Mich.; Medford, Ore.; Monroe, La.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; Little Rock, Ark.; and Tri-Cities, Tenn.
Ads linked to the campaign show young men with ugly lip sores and horrific facial scars caused by mouth cancer, and a football player being tossed around by a nicotine addiction “monster.” The ads will run on local television and in print, while others appear on local radio and through social media.
The new campaign will also collaborate with select Minor League Baseball teams to help combat the link between baseball and smokeless tobacco use among the campaign’s target audience, Crosby said.
This summer, stadiums across the country will display campaign advertising and provide opportunities for fans to meet players who support the campaign’s public health message, she said.
The FDA also is in ongoing talks with Major League Baseball about joining the campaign, and Zeller said he is “optimistic” that a partnership will be announced sometime this season.
Major cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco have banned smokeless tobacco products at ballparks and other sports venues. Major League Baseball has warned that players caught violating the ban in these cities will be subject to discipline from the commissioner.
The smokeless tobacco campaign is an offshoot of the FDA’s award-winning “The Real Cost” campaign, which since 2014 has been warning teenagers about the health effects of smoking.
More information
For more on smokeless tobacco, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/23Ixoi0
FDA Launches Ad Campaign Against Chewing Tobacco
By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — U.S. health officials said Tuesday that they are targeting rural teenagers with a new $36 million ad campaign that highlights the health risks associated with chewing tobacco.
The campaign’s message — “smokeless doesn’t mean harmless” — will challenge a habit that has become a tradition in the rural United States, said Mitch Zeller, director of the Center for Tobacco Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“It is culturally ingrained in many rural communities, and can be seen as a rite of passage and an acceptable societal norm,” Zeller said during a Tuesday morning news conference. He noted that smokeless tobacco use is more than twice as common in rural areas as it is in urban settings.
Chewing tobacco, snuff and other smokeless tobacco products have been linked to multiple kinds of cancer, gum disease, tooth loss and nicotine addiction, Zeller said.
Nevertheless, smokeless tobacco use has become increasingly popular among rural male teenagers, according to FDA research.
Every day in the United States, nearly 1,000 males younger than 18 try smokeless tobacco for the first time, outpacing those who take their first puff on a cigarette, Zeller said. About one-third of rural white males aged 12 to 17 have tried or are at risk of trying smokeless tobacco, totaling approximately 629,000 male youth nationwide.
Rural teens are used to seeing role models use smokeless tobacco, including fathers, grandfathers, older brothers and community leaders, Zeller explained.
“When people who these teens most trust and admire openly use and share smokeless tobacco, the product is seen as acceptable, and even as an expected part of growing up and belonging,” Zeller said.
This is the first time the FDA has focused on smokeless tobacco in an ad campaign, said Kathy Crosby, director of the FDA’s Office of Health Communication and Education.
Crosby said the campaign will focus on 35 rural markets across the United States, including: Albany, Ga.; Billings, Mont.; Flint, Mich.; Medford, Ore.; Monroe, La.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; Little Rock, Ark.; and Tri-Cities, Tenn.
Ads linked to the campaign show young men with ugly lip sores and horrific facial scars caused by mouth cancer, and a football player being tossed around by a nicotine addiction “monster.” The ads will run on local television and in print, while others appear on local radio and through social media.
The new campaign will also collaborate with select Minor League Baseball teams to help combat the link between baseball and smokeless tobacco use among the campaign’s target audience, Crosby said.
This summer, stadiums across the country will display campaign advertising and provide opportunities for fans to meet players who support the campaign’s public health message, she said.
The FDA also is in ongoing talks with Major League Baseball about joining the campaign, and Zeller said he is “optimistic” that a partnership will be announced sometime this season.
Major cities such as Boston, Los Angeles, New York City and San Francisco have banned smokeless tobacco products at ballparks and other sports venues. Major League Baseball has warned that players caught violating the ban in these cities will be subject to discipline from the commissioner.
The smokeless tobacco campaign is an offshoot of the FDA’s award-winning “The Real Cost” campaign, which since 2014 has been warning teenagers about the health effects of smoking.
More information
For more on smokeless tobacco, visit the U.S. National Cancer Institute.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/23Ixoi0
Athletas #PowerofShe Campaign Is the Girl Squad Message We Need
Taylor Swift may be the poster child for the girl squad phenomenon, but lifting up the other women in your life isn’t reserved for A-list celebrities. Athleta provides empowering inspo with their new #PowerofShe campaign which features female athletes kicking ass as a united front instead of trying to tear one another down.
RELATED: Could a Confidence Boost Lower Your Chance of Skin Cancer?
The message is an important one. After all, one woman is a force to be reckoned with but an entire legion of us can truly achieve and conquer anything.
Dancers from the D(n)A Arts dance community in New York are featured in the video ranging in age from 13 to 31, proving it’s always the right time to support a fellow female. Other athletes are shown boxing, running surfing and swimming, all while providing camaraderie for one another.
RELATED: This #LikeaGirl Video Shows Young Girls Smashing Stereotypes
The goal of the campaign is so beautiful that it has already spawned a ton of social media activity in support of the hashtag, with women proudly showing off what sisterhood means to them. If we can raise the next generation of girls to be this caring and encouraging towards one another, then we all win. The #PowerofShe indeed.
This article originally appeared on InStyle.com/MIMI.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S8I9mx
Move of the Week: Pike Push-Ups
Want to sculpt sexy arms in time for sleeveless season? This pike push-up tones your biceps, triceps, and shoulders all at once. Watch Anna Kaiser, the founder and CEO of AKT InMotion, demonstrate how to use your own body weight to get killer arms by summer.
//RELATED: A 6-Move Arm Workout for Weaklings
Here’s how to do it: Place your hands on the floor so you body forms an upside-down “V.” Come onto your toes and walk them in as far as possible. Bend your elbows to lower your head toward your hands. When your elbows touch the floor, press back up. Do 15 reps.
Trainer tip: Follow the set with a child’s pose to stretch.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S8yrk8
Drug Shows Promise Against Rare Aggressive Skin Cancer
By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — A newer drug that boosts the immune system’s ability to kill tumor cells may help people with a rare, aggressive form of skin cancer, a preliminary study suggests.
The intravenous drug, marketed as Keytruda, is already used to treat some advanced cases of melanoma, another dangerous form of skin cancer. The new study tested it against a skin tumor called Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).
Most people have probably never heard of the cancer, but MCC is deadlier than melanoma, said Dr. Paul Nghiem, a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, who led the new study.
When the disease reaches an advanced stage, chemotherapy is an option — but not a good one, Nghiem said.
“Chemotherapy will often shrink the cancer,” he said. “But it comes back quickly, and even angrier.”
Plus, chemo can take a toll on the immune system. “And that’s a very bad idea in these patients,” Nghiem said.
Keytruda (pembrolizumab) is one of a new class of drugs that block a “pathway” called PD-1. That frees up the immune system to attack cancer cells. In the United States, the drug is approved for treating certain cases of lung cancer and advanced melanoma that no longer respond to other drugs.
In the new study, Nghiem’s team gave the drug to 26 patients with advanced MCC. Most had metastatic cancer, meaning it had spread beyond lymph nodes near the original skin tumor.
Overall, out of 25 people who were evaluated, 14 patients — or 56 percent — saw their cancer shrink at least partially. In four patients, all signs of the cancer disappeared.
And after more than six months of follow-up, the cancer remained under good control in 12 of the 14, Nghiem said.
The findings were scheduled for release Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in New Orleans, and published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
An oncologist who was not involved in the study called the results “impressive.”
“For these patients, the response to chemotherapy typically lasts two to four months at best,” said Dr. Nikhil Khushalani, of the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla. “And metastatic MCC is invariably fatal.”
Given the results so far, Khushalani said, it’s “likely” the treatment could extend patients’ lives.
Each year, about 1,500 Americans are diagnosed with MCC, according to the American Cancer Society. It mainly strikes older adults, and sometimes people with a compromised immune system — such as organ transplant patients and people with HIV.
But most people who develop MCC do not have a suppressed immune system, Nghiem said.
In recent years, researchers have discovered a virus, dubbed Merkel cell polyomavirus, which seems to contribute to many cases of MCC.
Researchers believe that most people are infected with the virus, but the immune system keeps it in check. It’s not clear why or how it feeds MCC development.
Other cases of MCC are tied to excessive ultraviolet exposure from the sun, Nghiem said.
Of the 26 patients in this study, 17 had tumors that carried the Merkel polyomavirus. All patients received Keytruda every three weeks — for between four and 49 weeks.
A higher percentage of patients with virus-positive tumors responded to the drug. But Nghiem said the difference was not significant in statistical terms, so the treatment seems to work whether the virus is present or not.
There were side effects, with fatigue a common one, Nghiem said.
In general, a danger with Keytruda is that it can damage healthy body tissue. In this study, two patients developed signs of inflammation in the liver or heart muscle and had to discontinue the drug after only one or two doses.
Yet, both patients still showed a response to the drug months after stopping it, Nghiem said.
That touches on a key question: How long do patients need to stay on the drug? One reason that’s important, Nghiem noted, is cost. The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, priced it at about $12,500 per month.
Nghiem said he suspects patients will vary in how long they need to take the drug.
Keytruda is not yet approved for treating MCC. One way for patients to get the drug would be to enroll in a clinical trial like the current one, Nghiem said.
Merck and the U.S. National Cancer Institute are funding Nghiem’s trial.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more on Merkel cell carcinoma.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S8ysUZ
Some Like It Hot! Lab Mice in Particular
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Too-cool living conditions for lab mice could affect study results, researchers suggest.
They said the temperature in a typical mouse laboratory is between 68 degrees and nearly 79 degrees Fahrenheit (between 20 degrees and 26 degrees Celsius), but the ideal temperature for mice is about 86 degrees F (30 degrees C).
While a cooler temperature doesn’t harm the mice, it does make them use more energy to maintain their core temperature. And, there is increasing evidence that this affects the results of studies on new drugs, cancer, inflammation and other conditions, the researchers said.
Their report is outlined in a paper published April 19 in the journal Trends in Cancer.
“Most people only look at results from experiments at standard lab temperatures,” said study co-author Bonnie Hylander, an immunologist at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, in Buffalo, N.Y.
“They’re not necessarily aware that if you repeat the experiments with mice at a different temperature, you might get a different outcome,” she said in a journal news release.
However, it isn’t as simple as a higher thermostat setting. The researchers explained that lab personnel get overheated wearing gowns, gloves and masks when working with animals, and a lower room temperature also keeps the smell down.
“Working at a thermoneutral temperature for mice isn’t very pleasant for people. It’s hot, and it’s hard for people to work very long when they’re overheated,” Hylander said.
Instead, researchers should report the room temperature in their mouse laboratories and be aware that a number of factors — such as cage positions, number of mice per cage, and type of disease in the mice — can affect their degree of cold stress.
Also, researchers can conduct test experiments at various temperatures to find how they affect outcomes. For example, mice could be kept warmer by placing them in incubators or providing them with more nesting material.
“We’re not saying one housing temperature is better than another,” study co-author Elizabeth Repasky, also an immunologist at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, said in the news release.
“The different temperatures are simply resulting in differences in experimental outcomes, which could be important. I think a lot more research is needed to optimize the use of mice for testing therapies that will be useful in people,” she said.
More information
Canadians for Health Research has more about mice and research.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S8ysED
Two-Step Ebola Vaccine Strategy Works in Early Trial
By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — A new two-step Ebola vaccine strategy has shown some promise in early clinical trials.
The trials involved two candidate Ebola vaccines that were given to volunteers in separate shots, the researchers said. One vaccine was provided first as a “primer” shot, and the second was given as a “booster.”
The winning combo was a “primer” shot of a genetically engineered cold virus (AD-26), followed by a “booster” shot of a similarly altered smallpox virus (MVA), according to the report.
In both cases, the viruses had been altered to include genetic material from Ebola, so any immune response to the vaccine could theoretically promote immunity to Ebola, the study authors explained.
An immune response was observed after primary immunization with the AD-26 vaccine, and boosting with the MVA resulted in sustained elevation of specific immunity to Ebola, the researchers found.
Further, neither vaccine caused any serious adverse events in the 87 people, aged 18 to 50, who volunteered for the phase 1 clinical trial.
The findings were published April 19 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The recent West African outbreak of Ebola, the largest in history, killed more than 11,000 people and infected more than 28,000, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ebola expert Dr. Lee Norman, chief medical officer for the University of Kansas Hospital, said it’s good that researchers are investigating different ways of delivering vaccines for the deadly virus.
“The delivery method, if it is successful, is really an important building block for a successful vaccine,” Norman said. “We have to remind ourselves that phase 1 trials are typically more about safety than about effectiveness. It isn’t typically the goal of a phase 1 trial to emphasize effectiveness.”
Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior associate at the UPMC Center for Health Security in Baltimore, agreed.
“Since the West African Ebola outbreak, many different vaccine approaches have flourished, and with several promising candidate vaccines the manner in which future Ebola outbreaks will be managed will be dramatically improved,” Adalja said.
“Future studies will be needed to compare approaches and determine which are the most effective, but each new vaccine approach is a welcome tool the world did not have when the West African outbreak began,” he added.
However, another Ebola expert questioned how useful a two-step vaccine would prove during a rapidly spreading outbreak.
“In a real-world scenario, you don’t really have time for a prime/boost,” explained Thomas Geisbert, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch. “You really need a single injection that’s fast-acting and works quickly.”
Geisbert also said that in this clinical trial, people were provided the needed “booster” shot either 28 or 56 days after receiving the “primer” vaccine.
“You don’t have that kind of time in an outbreak,” he said. “You need something that’s works in a week or two.”
Worse, 40 percent to 60 percent of people in sub-Saharan Africa have low to moderate immunity against AD-26, according to the researchers. “That could definitely interfere with the effectiveness of the vaccine,” Geisbert said.
Other vaccines are further along in the clinical trial process and have shown much more promise, particularly rival American and Canadian vaccines that were tested in Africa at the height of the Ebola outbreak, Geisbert said.
Despite these drawbacks, Norman said the results from this early trial will give Ebola vaccine hunters some valuable data.
“We have to remind ourselves that scientific discovery is not usually one study and an ‘aha’ moment where all questions are answered. Everything builds on everything else,” Norman said. “We don’t have anything now that’s commercially available. The way I see it, let’s keep working at it.”
More information
For more on Ebola, visit the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S8ysEv
More Evidence Gay Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids
By Maureen Salamon
HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, April 19, 2016 (HealthDay News) — Straight parents or same-sex parents — what’s the difference to kids’ well-being?
Nothing, as long as the parents have a stable relationship, new research finds.
Matching 95 same-sex and 95 different-sex parent households, researchers found that children raised by homosexual parents showed no differences in general health, emotional difficulties, coping or learning behavior compared to children of heterosexual parents.
While the results are consistent with prior research, study co-author Dr. Nanette Gartrell said the new findings also stand out.
“No prior study using a population-based survey has compared family relationships and child outcomes in stable, continuously coupled same-sex and different-sex parent households in which the studied [parents] were with their own biological offspring,” said Gartrell. She is a visiting scholar at the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law in Los Angeles and the University of Amsterdam.
An estimated 690,000 same-sex couples live in the United States, with about 19 percent of them raising children under age 18, according to 2013 national figures cited by the study authors.
Much research has been done on same-sex parent families, beginning with the so-called “lesbian baby boom” in the 1980s when sperm banks first opened their doors to lesbians, the study authors noted.
Increasing numbers of gay men became fathers after same-sex parent adoption became legal. And modern assisted reproduction techniques and surrogacy arrangements have added to the number of households headed by gay parents, the researchers said.
Gartrell and her colleagues focused on female same-sex couples because of a smaller number of male same-sex couples meeting study criteria. The study focused on households with no history of family instability or transitions such as divorce, separation or adoption, and all the parents had been raising their own biological children, aged 6 to 17, since birth.
Parents from both types of households were matched for characteristics such as age; education level; urban or rural residence; their children’s age, race and gender; and whether parents or children were born in the United States or elsewhere.
The study was published in the April issue of the Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics.
Results showed no differences in spouse-partner and parent-child relationships regardless of family structure. The only difference between the two types of households was higher “parenting stress” reported among same-sex couples.
Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst in New York City, said the higher parenting stress among lesbian parents is probably due to closer societal scrutiny of them, comparing it to other “minority stress.”
“This study is consistent with the literature over the last 30 years, with the overwhelming consensus that kids do better with two parents than one parent, and that there’s very little difference in long-term mental health for the kids when they’re raised” by either same-sex or different-sex parents, said Drescher. He’s also emeritus editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health.
Drescher and Gartrell agreed that more research is still warranted, including long-term population-based studies exploring children’s outcomes when being raised by same- and different-sex parents in less-stable relationships.
“We’re still in a place where more research is needed,” Drescher said. “But, research is all about how to make people’s lives better, not meddle or be busybodies.”
More information
The American Psychological Association offers more on same-sex parenting.
from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1S8ypIZ