THURSDAY, May 23 (HealthDay News) -- A modified version of the polio virus might one day help fight brain tumors, preliminary research suggests.

Scientists at Duke Cancer Institute said the investigational therapy, known as PVSRIPO, uses an engineered form of the virus that is harmless to normal cells, but attacks cancer cells. The therapy shows promise in the treatment of glioblastoma, the most common and aggressive brain tumor, they said.

"These early results are intriguing," principal investigator Dr. Annick Desjardins, an associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, said in a news release. "Current therapies for glioblastoma are limited because they cannot cross the blood-brain barrier and often do not specifically attack the tumor. This treatment appears to overcome those problems."

The findings are scheduled for presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting in Chicago, from May 31 to June 4.

Researchers at Duke said they developed the therapy to take advantage of the fact that cancer cells have receptors that attract the polio virus. The virus infects and kills the tumor cells. When infused into a tumor, the therapy also triggers the immune system to attack the infected tumor cells, the researchers said.

Of seven patients involved in the preliminary study, three have responded well to the therapy. One year after treatment, one of the three patients remains cancer-free. Another is disease-free after 11 months; a third has been cancer-free for five months. Two others are also disease-free. Only two patients in the study did not respond well to the therapy, the study authors said.

In contrast, the researchers noted that about 50 percent of glioblastoma patients have a recurrence of their disease within eight weeks of traditional treatments.

Studies presented at meetings should be considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

More information

The American Brain Tumor Association provides more information on glioblastomas.

Permalink| Comments

THURSDAY, May 23 (HealthDay News) -- Although a study in 2012 suggested a cancer drug could reverse the thinking and memory problems associated with Alzheimer's disease, three groups of researchers now say they have been unable to duplicate those findings.

The teams said their research could have serious implications for patient safety since the drug involved in the study, bexarotene (Targretin), has serious side effects, such as major blood-lipid abnormalities, pancreatitis, headaches, fatigue, weight gain, depression, nausea, vomiting, constipation and rash.

"Anecdotally, we have all heard that physicians are treating their Alzheimer's patients with bexarotene, a cancer drug with severe side effects," said study co-author Robert Vassar, a professor of cell and molecular biology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, in Chicago. "This practice should be ended immediately, given the failure of three independent research groups to replicate the plaque-lowering effects of bexarotene."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved bexarotene in 1999 to treat refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Once approved, however, the drug also was available by prescription for "off-label" uses.

The 2012 study suggested that bexarotene was able to rapidly reverse the build-up of beta amyloid plaques in the brains of mice. The authors of the initial study concluded that treatment with the drug might reverse the cognitive and memory problems associated with the development of Alzheimer's.

Sangram Sisodia, a professor of neurosciences at the University of Chicago and a study co-author of the latest research, admitted being skeptical about the initial findings.

"We were surprised and excited -- even stunned -- when we first saw these results presented at a small conference," Sisodia said in a University of Chicago Medical Center news release. "The mechanism of action made some sense, but the assertion that they could reduce the areas of plaque by 50 percent within three days and by 75 percent in two weeks seemed too good to be true."

In attempting to duplicate the findings, the research teams found that they were indeed too good to be true.

"We all went back to our labs and tried to confirm these promising findings," Sisodia said. "We repeated the initial experiments -- a standard process in science. Combined results are really important in this field. None of us found anything like what they described in the 2012 paper."

Researchers at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Massachusetts General Hospital, Washington University in St Louis and the University of Tubingen in Germany reported in the May 24 issue of the journal Science that they did not find any reduction in beta amyloid plaques during or after treatment with bexarotene in three different strains of mice.

Bexarotene has never been tested on people as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease. Currently, there is no cure or effective treatment for the progressive condition, which affects an estimated 5.3 million Americans.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health provides more information on Alzheimer's disease.

Permalink| Comments

THURSDAY, May 23 (HealthDay News) -- People who suffer from frequent heartburn may be at increased risk for cancers of the throat and vocal cords even if they don't smoke or drink alcohol, a new study says.

Interestingly, common over-the-counter antacids seemed to protect against these cancers while prescription medications such as Prilosec, Nexium and Prevacid didn't, the researchers said.

"There has been a controversy about whether heartburn contributes to cancers of the larynx or pharynx," said lead researcher Scott Langevin, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brown University in Providence, R.I.

"And we found out that it does elevate the risk of these cancers. There is about a 78 percent increase in the risk for cancer in people who experience heavy heartburn," he said. "This is important in figuring out who to monitor more closely."

The other finding, which Langevin called "surprising," was the protective effect of common antacids in reducing the risk of cancer.

"We didn't see that protective effect with prescription medications. But it should be noted that people who take them are those who get the worst heartburn, so we shouldn't read too much into that," he said.

Langevin added that it's hard to explain that medication finding, and other studies will be needed to see if it's really the case. "It's possible that these drugs didn't have that protective effect because these were the worst cases of heartburn," he said.

The report was published May 23 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. And while it uncovered an association between heartburn and cancer of the throat and vocal cords, it didn't prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, said "the study shows that reflux is associated with an increased incidence of cancers of the larynx and pharynx."

Lichtenfeld said the role of antacids in reducing the risk of cancer needs more study. "Researchers need to determine why antacids work and, more importantly, whether antacids make a difference in also reducing cancer of the esophagus," he said.

Why other medications didn't lower the risk isn't clear, Lichtenfeld said. And it points to one limitation of this type of study: It can't take into account all the variables.

To come to their conclusions, Langevin's group compared more than 600 patients with throat or vocal cord cancer with more than 1,300 people without a history of cancer. All the patients answered questions about their history of heartburn, smoking and drinking habits, and family history of cancer.

In addition, since some head and neck cancers are caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV), the researchers tested all the participants for antigens to the virus.

The researchers found that among those who weren't heavy smokers or drinkers, frequent heartburn increased the risk for cancers of the throat and vocal cords by 78 percent.

The researchers also found that taking antacids -- but not prescription medications or home remedies -- reduced the risk for these cancers by 41 percent. The protective effect of antacids was independent of smoking, drinking or infection with HPV, they said.

More information

For more information on throat cancer, visit the American Cancer Society.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, May 22 (HealthDay News) -- Physicians weighing the benefits and risks of CT scans for detecting lung cancer now have more information to help with the decision. A new analysis of a 2010 U.S. study finds that low-dose CT scans pick up significantly more lung tumors than chest X-rays do.

People with a long history of smoking are at high risk for lung cancer, the deadliest form of cancer in the United States. But doctors have to consider the potential harm of radiation exposure when ordering screening. The initial 2010 trial suggested that the low-dose CT scans can save lives, but they're not yet routine and insurers typically don't pay for them.

"There's a whole bunch of stuff that has to be worked out," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. This includes the prospect of expanding screening to a wider group and relying on radiologists less experienced than those who reviewed the lung scans in the initial study.

Already, some medical centers are offering CT lung scans below cost, at $200 or $300, apparently in the hope that they'll recoup their loss by detecting suspicious nodules in the lungs of patients, he said.

About 158,000 people die from lung cancer in the United States each year, often because it's detected too late for effective treatment. The new analysis of the 2010 study indicated that by identifying malignancies sooner, low-dose CT scans will reduce the death tally.

Who should get screened is a question that must be addressed, said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer and executive vice president of the American Cancer Society. "Everyone wants to jump toward screening as an answer," Brawley said.

The initial study involved 53,000 current and former heavy smokers, aged 55 to 74, who underwent a CT scan or chest X-ray every year for three years, starting in 2002.

By 2010, the death rate among those who got the CT scans was 20 percent lower than for those who got X-rays.

CT scans revealed potential signs of cancer in 27 percent of those scanned, compared to 9 percent of people who got X-rays, the researchers found. In both groups, about 91 percent had at least one more test.

Most of those suspicious spots and nodules weren't actually cancerous.

After follow-up, lung cancer was diagnosed in 1.1 percent of the patients in the CT group and 0.7 percent of the X-ray group, the researchers reported in the May 23 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The CT scans were much more likely to pick up lung cancer in its early, more treatable stages: stage 1 cancer was found in 158 CT scan patients versus 70 X-ray patients, according to the study.

Brawley said, however, that screening comes with a price, and not just the cost of the scans, which can be expensive. About 1 percent of cancers are thought to be caused by radiation used in medicine, he said. That raises the prospect that some people will develop cancer because they've been scanned for it.

Patients may still decide that cancer screening is appropriate, Brawley said. "We support those who understand the benefits and risks and want to get screened," he said.

"[However], stopping smoking still provides a lot more bang for the buck," he said. "Don't look to lung cancer screening as a great Shangri-La."

Preliminary research presented Tuesday at the American Thoracic Society meeting in Philadelphia found that in a smaller group of smokers and former smokers, 6 percent who underwent low-dose CT scans had lung cancer detected.

More information

For more about lung cancer, see the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, May 22 (HealthDay News) -- The American Cancer Society, which is celebrating on Wednesday a century of fighting a disease once viewed as a death sentence, is making a pledge to put itself out of business.

Since 1913, the cancer society has played a role in nearly every major cancer research breakthrough. This year alone, the group reported a 20 percent drop in cancer death rates since the 1990s, which amounts to more than one million cancer deaths avoided in that time period.

And two out of three people diagnosed with cancer today survive the disease for at least five years, cancer society officials noted.

"We began our fight against cancer at a time when the word 'cancer' was rarely mentioned in public," John Seffrin, CEO of the cancer society, said in a society news release. "In our 100 years of existence, we have contributed to many groundbreaking discoveries that have brought us closer to understanding, preventing and treating the disease, and this century, we are looking to put ourselves out of business by making it cancer's last century."

Established by 15 New York City doctors and business leaders, the group was first known as the American Society for the Control of Cancer.

Dr. Vincent DeVita Jr., national volunteer president of the cancer society, recalled that in 1970 it was projected that cancer incidence and mortality would continue to rise beyond the year 2000. "Today, not only have mortality rates declined since the early 1990s, but we're averting more than 400 cancer deaths every day," he said in the news release. "Due in part to the work of the American Cancer Society, what seemed nearly impossible is now reality."

The group is the largest voluntary health organization in the United States. Over the years, the cancer society has also helped cut smoking rates by 50 percent after helping establish the link between cancer and tobacco use.

Aside from supporting cancer research, the cancer society provides free lodging and transportation for cancer patients who need to travel for treatment, as well as their families. The group also has a free 1-800-227-2345 help line, which helps people with cancer access the resources they need, from support groups to wig makers.

"It's exciting to see the progress we have made against cancer, but we can't relax our efforts in the fight against this disease," Gary Reedy, volunteer chair of the cancer society board of directors, said in the news release. "Now more than ever, we need everyone's help to make this cancer's last century. There cannot be too many hands on deck."

More information

To learn more visit the American Cancer Society.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, May 22 (HealthDay News) -- Children and teens exposed to radiation during CT scans are 24 percent more likely to develop cancer, according to a large, long-term study.

The risks, however, are still low: Among a group of 10,000 young people who each had one CT scan, only about six extra cancers would be expected to occur within 10 years, according to researchers from Australia and Europe.

The researchers said doctors should carefully weight the risks to patients when making decisions about CT (computed tomography) testing. The study was published online May 21 in the journal BMJ.

The researchers used data from Australian Medicare records and national cancer records to compare cancer rates among patients who had a CT scan by age 19 to those who had never undergone the test.

The study involved nearly 11 million young people born between 1985 and 2005. The average length of follow-up for those who underwent a CT scan was 9.5 years, and about 17 years for those who did not have a CT scan.

Of the participants, about 680,000 had a CT scan at least one year before they were diagnosed with cancer. Among those diagnosed with cancer, 18 percent had more than one scan.

By the last follow-up in 2007, the researchers found that 3,150 of those who had a CT scan and about 57,500 of those who didn't had been diagnosed with cancer.

After taking the participants' age, gender and year of birth into account, the rate of cancer was 24 percent higher among those who had a CT scan. That risk increased by 16 percent for each additional scan.

Nearly 60 percent of CT scans involved the brain, according to a BMJ news release. Although the prevalence of brain cancer among those who had a CT scan decreased over time, the study authors found that the incidence was still higher more than 15 years after they had their first scan.

Children exposed before age 5 had the greatest risk. The older a patient is at first exposure to a CT scan, the lower their risk, the researchers said. But even among the oldest participants -- between 15 and 19 -- the study revealed that risk for all cancers combined was still higher.

For cancers involving tumors other than brain cancer, the researchers found the proportional increase in risk was 23 percent among females and 14 percent among males.

The researchers, led by John Mathews, a professor at the University of Melbourne's School of Population and Global Health, said that in some cases brain cancer may have resulted in a CT scan and not the other way around. They added that participants may have developed cancer beyond the final follow-up period in 2007. As a result, they concluded that the "eventual lifetime risk from CT scans cannot yet be determined."

Although the study found an association between having a CT scan in childhood and a higher risk of developing cancer, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

It's important to realize the incidence of cancer among children is extremely small, said Dr. Aaron Sodickson, who wrote an accompanying journal editorial. Sodickson is the section chief of emergency radiology and medical director of computed tomography at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

"A 24 percent increase makes this risk just slightly less small," Sodickson wrote. He added that there are many ways to adjust radiation doses and that more accurate assessments of patients' risk can help doctors make more informed decisions about CT scans and other imaging tests.

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has more about CT scans and the risks involved.

Permalink| Comments

WEDNESDAY, May 22 (HealthDay News) -- Roughly four in 10 uninsured patients who have been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) actually do not have the lung disease, a small new study suggests.

At issue: Faulty diagnoses were made based on an evaluation of symptoms, rather than by means of the so-called "gold standard" disease test known as spirometry, which shows how well a patient's lungs are working by measuring the amount of air they can exhale and how long that takes.

The study is scheduled for presentation Wednesday at the American Thoracic Society annual meeting in Philadelphia. The data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

COPD is a progressive disease that makes it hard to breathe. Symptoms include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, according to the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Cigarette smoking is the top cause of COPD.

"While there have been many studies of the under-diagnosis of COPD, there has not been a U.S.-based study that has quantified the problem of over-diagnosis," Dr. Christian Ghattas, a second-year medical resident at Saint Elizabeth Health Center in Youngstown, Ohio, said in a society news release. "And yet, the cost of treating someone for COPD is high."

How high? The study team cited statistics suggesting the cost exceeds $4,100 per year.

The researchers re-evaluated 80 patients, average age 53, being treated at a federally funded health center based in Akron, Ohio, that is designed to offer medical care to the uninsured and Medicaid patients. All the patients had been diagnosed in 2011 or 2012 as having COPD or as needing an inhaler device often given to treat COPD.

Investigators found that less than 18 percent of the patients had undergone spirometry testing, despite a Global Obstructive Lung Disease recommendation that COPD not be diagnosed without such a test.

Once conducted, spirometry testing revealed that nearly 43 percent of the patients did not have any obstruction that could be construed as COPD.

What's more, another quarter of the patients had a reversible condition that is more typical of asthma than COPD.

"We were shocked at the percentage," Ghattas said. He noted that, overall, probably half the patients were misdiagnosed.

"Although the number of patients in our study was small, I believe this study is representative of an uninsured and underserved patient population," he added. "However, the findings might be different among patients who are insured. They might be higher or lower. We simply don't know," Ghattas said.

But, "it is obviously detrimental to be on medications that won't work for you," Ghattas cautioned. "You won't feel better -- and that by itself can take a psychological toll -- and you may experience side effects that can compromise other aspects of your health."

More information

For more on COPD, visit the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, May 21 (HealthDay News) -- Aggressive treatment for prostate cancer may not be warranted for many older patients with underlying medical conditions, a new study finds.

Treatments for prostate cancer, such as surgery, radiation and radioactive seed implants, can cause serious side effects, such as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence and bowel problems, explained researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

They found that older patients with slower growing forms of prostate cancer who have at least three other health problems are more likely to die of something other than cancer. The findings might help educate patients on the risks and benefits of treatment, the team said.

"For men with low- to intermediate-risk disease, prostate cancer is an indolent [slow-growing] disease that doesn't pose a major risk to survival," study author Timothy Daskivich said in a university news release. "The take home point from this study is that older men with multiple underlying health problems should carefully consider whether they should treat these tumors aggressively, because that treatment comes with a price," said Daskivich, who is Robert Wood Johnson fellow at UCLA.

In the study, the researchers analyzed the 14-year survival outcomes of 3,000 men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1994 and 1995. Within six months of their diagnosis, the men completed surveys to document any other medical conditions they had.

Daskivich's team focused on older patients with three or more underlying health problems, such as diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure and/or arthritis.

They found the 10-year risk of dying from something other than prostate cancer for men aged 61 to 74 was 40 percent, and the 14-year risk of dying from low or intermediate risk prostate cancer was only 3 percent.

For men older than 75, the 10-year risk of dying from something other than cancer was 71 percent and their 14-year risk of dying from prostate cancer was only 7 percent.

"This was a great opportunity to get a glimpse at the long-term outcomes of these men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the mid-1990s," Daskivich said, and "the risk of dying from their cancer paled in comparison to the risk that they'd die from something else."

His advice: "If you're very unlikely to benefit from treatment, then don't run the risk and end up dealing with side effects that can significantly impact quality of life. It's important for these men to talk to their doctors about the possibility of forgoing aggressive treatment. We're not talking about restricting care, but the patient should be fully informed about their likelihood of surviving long enough to benefit from treatment."

The study authors pointed out it may take eight to 10 years for the survival benefits of treatment to emerge. In many cases, they said, closely monitoring prostate cancer is better than treating the disease as aggressively as possible.

The researchers noted however that men with high-risk forms of prostate cancer may still benefit from aggressive treatment. The study found that older men's 14-year risk of death from high-risk prostate cancer was 18 percent.

According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, in 2013 nearly 240,000 American men are expected to develop prostate cancer.

The study was published online on May 21 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute provides more information on prostate cancer.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, May 21 (HealthDay News) -- Finding early signs of lung cancer was once next to impossible, but a new study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that screening with low-dose CT scans may help spot the beginnings of disease in high-risk patients.

Among patients considered at the greatest risk for lung cancer, 6 percent were found to have lung cancer after getting CT scans and follow-up biopsies to confirm the diagnosis. CT scans detect abnormalities at an earlier stage than standard X-rays, potentially giving patients a head start on lifesaving treatment.

As more advanced technology reduces the radiation risk of computerized tomography (CT) scans, the benefits of such screening could become greater than the downsides, which also include potentially unnecessary biopsies.

"It may someday be like using mammograms," said Dr. Stephen Machnicki, associate chair of radiology at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City.

The study affirmed what a lot of radiologists believe: There is a role for low-dose CT in screening for lung cancer, said Machnicki, who was not involved with the research.

The study, scheduled for presentation Tuesday at the American Thoracic Society annual meeting in Philadelphia, was based in part on results from the National Lung Screening Trial. That study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2011, included more than 53,000 heavy smokers and found that those who received low-dose CT scans had a 20 percent lower risk of death from lung cancer than people who had standard chest X-rays.

Lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, usually forms in the cells lining air passages of the lungs. According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than 228,000 new cases of lung cancer and almost 160,000 associated deaths are anticipated this year.

The researchers enrolled 84 patients between 61 and 65 years old. Participants had either a smoking history of more than 30 pack-years, or 20 pack-years and one additional risk factor, such as occupational exposure to cancer-causing substances or a personal or family history of cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A pack-year represents the number of cigarettes smoked over time; 30 pack years is the equivalent of a pack a day over 30 years or two packs a day over 15 years.

Each study participant got a low-dose CT scan, which was reviewed for the presence of nodules or other abnormalities that could suggest cancer. Those with nodules of 4 millimeters or larger or opacities (cloudy areas of tissue) were advised to get a biopsy.

Four people had lung cancer confirmed by biopsy, and one had a large mass but refused biopsy, reported study author Sue Yoon, a nurse practitioner in the pulmonary division at the Veterans Administration Boston Healthcare System.

While the new study found that 6 percent of the study participants had lung cancer, the earlier trial found only about 4 percent did, Yoon added.

Yoon noted there were significant differences between the two studies: Hers included many fewer people; scanning technology used in her study was more advanced than that used in the earlier research; and Yoon's patients were predominantly male and most had COPD.

Also, her study focused on finding evidence of cancer, rather than tracking cancer deaths, as the national screening trial did.

One of the issues concerning screening tests, including those for lung cancer, is that sometimes the test is inconclusive, noted Yoon. Many of the nodules detected are harmless, often the result of inflammation or scarring. "Our experience says it's good to have [a CT scan] but we don't know what the impact really is," she explained. After a lung nodule is found, some people don't like the idea of waiting a year and then having another scan.

"Some people worry so much they can't wait, and others, when we tell them they can wait a year to see what happens, they think they can still smoke since they don't have a big mass," she said.

But how often should people be scanned? "The current thought is that if you have a normal first exam, doing an annual exam would be satisfactory," Machnicki noted. "Whether or not longer intervals would be effective has not been tested."

Aggressive cancers may start and grow so quickly that they may be impossible to detect at a curable stage with any current technology, experts say.

Because this study was presented at a medical meeting, the data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

More information

Learn more about screening for lung cancer from the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, May 21 (HealthDay News) -- The overall health of Americans isn't improving much, with about six in 10 people either overweight or obese and large numbers engaging in unhealthy behaviors like smoking, heavy drinking or not exercising, a new government report shows.

Released Tuesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the report found Americans continuing to make many of the lifestyle choices that have led to soaring rates of heart disease, diabetes and other chronic illnesses, including the following:

• About six of 10 adults drink, including an increase in those who reported episodic heavy drinking of five or more drinks in one day during the previous year.
• Twenty percent of adults smoke, and less than one-half of smokers attempted to quit in the past year.
• Only one in five adults met federal guidelines for both aerobic activity and muscle-strengthening exercise. One in three was completely inactive when it came to any leisure-time aerobic activity.

The one bright spot in the report came in the area of sleep behavior. About seven in 10 adults meet the federal objective for sufficient sleep.

The findings have been gleaned from nearly 77,000 random interviews conducted between 2008 and 2010.

The numbers reflect persistent trends, said report author Charlotte Schoenborn, a health statistician at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

"Changes have not been enormous," Schoenborn said. "It's been a very, very slow process of changing awareness of personal choices for healthier ways of life. All of the health-related federal agencies, and a lot of nonfederal groups, are putting a lot of resources to make people aware of the effect they can have on their own health. This report is just designed to say where we are."

The findings did not surprise Rich Hamburg, deputy director of Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit public health organization.

"I think we're in a situation now where we're at a crossroads," Hamburg said. "We have two paths to go. We're hopeful that if we continue to invest in community-based prevention, if we promote healthy eating and active living, these rates will begin to decrease."

Public health organizations use this report to determine which groups of Americans are susceptible to unhealthy behaviors, study author Schoenborn said.

For example, while overall people are getting enough sleep, it turns out that doesn't hold true for people with marital problems, she said. About 38 percent of divorced, separated, or widowed adults have trouble getting enough sleep, compared with 27 percent of married folks.

While this is not the federal government's official report on obesity, its findings jibe with both public and private research into the epidemic, said Hamburg at Trust for America's Health.

At this point, only seven states have overweight and obesity rates that are under 60 percent, he said.

"We've seen for nearly three decades a rise in adult rates of overweight and obesity," Hamburg said. "We're hoping we are reaching a plateau, but we've hoped for that in the past."

Young adults provide the most hope for the future, it appears. For example, those aged 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a decline in smoking, from 23.5 percent to about 21 percent.

"Smoking has remained very stubborn at one in five adults. It's just a terrible addiction," Schoenborn said. "The one small little glimmer of hope I saw was in the 18- to 24-year-olds, where we saw some improvement. You hear so much about overweight and obesity and chronic diseases, and how much of our health lies in our hands, but nothing seems to be changing much."

For his part, Hamburg said that despite the lack of progress, it is vital to continue pressing the case that Americans have the power to improve their health through their personal choices. Without lifestyle changes, chronic disease will flourish and health care spending will skyrocket.

"If we can lower obesity trends by a small amount, say 5 percent in each state, we could save millions of American from health problem and save billions of dollars in health spending," he said.

More information

To check out U.S. health goals for 2020, visit HealthyPeople.gov.

Permalink| Comments

TUESDAY, May 21 (HealthDay News) -- Racial disparities exist in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer among hospitals in the United States, according to a large new study.

Although most patients with this condition undergo surgery as part of their initial treatment, researchers found that blacks were less likely than Hispanics or whites to have surgery in the early stages of the disease. Hispanics were more likely to undergo surgery for stage 1 and stage 2 disease than white patients.

"In our study of more than 1.2 million patients diagnosed with [non-small cell lung cancer] in U.S. hospitals between the years 2000 and 2010, we found statistically significant racial disparities in the surgical management of these patients," researcher Jayanth Adusumalli said in an American Thoracic Society news release.

Up to 90 percent of lung cancers are non-small cell, according to the American Cancer Society.

The new study involved 1.2 million patients from a national cancer database, about 975,000 of whom received their initial treatment following a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer. Eighty-two percent of white patients received treatment, as well as 79 percent of black patients and 76 percent of Hispanics.

However, 82 percent of Hispanics and 78 percent of whites with stage 1 disease underwent surgery, compared to 73 percent of blacks who had surgery as their initial form of treatment. For patients with stage 2 disease, 67 percent of Hispanics, 64 percent of whites and 56 percent of blacks had surgery.

The study was scheduled for Tuesday presentation at the annual meeting of the American Thoracic Society in Philadelphia. The data and conclusions should be viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

"The significant racial differences in the initial treatment of [non-small cell lung cancer] that we found in our study may contribute to the recognized racial disparities in cancer patient outcomes," said Adusumalli, of the Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha, Neb. "Further research into the underlying causes of these treatment disparities may help improve the treatment and prognosis of all lung cancer patients."

More information

The U.S. National Institutes of Health has more about racial disparities in health care.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, May 20 (HealthDay News) -- The costly form of radiation therapy that has become the norm for prostate cancer in the United States may be no better than the older, cheaper variety -- at least for some men, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that among more than 1,000 U.S. men who had radiation therapy after prostate cancer surgery, the newer form -- known as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) -- had no advantage over the conventional version.

Men who received IMRT were no less likely to be treated for a prostate cancer recurrence over the next few years. And their rates of long-term side effects -- such as urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction -- were no lower.

But the findings, reported online May 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine, will not spell the doom of IMRT. One reason is, the vast majority of U.S. men who receive radiation for prostate cancer are already given IMRT.

"I don't think this is going to change practice," said Dr. Matthew Cooperberg, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who wrote an editorial published with the study.

But he said the findings do beg the question of why IMRT is reimbursed at such a high rate. A 2011 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Medicare paid out an average of nearly $11,000 more for IMRT, versus the older radiation therapy (called conformal radiotherapy).

"We need a reimbursement system that rewards outcomes instead of technology," Cooperberg said.

Still, Dr. Ronald Chen, one of the researchers on the new study, said the findings apply to a specific group of patients who receive IMRT: men who have it after prostate cancer surgery -- either to help prevent a recurrence or to treat one.

There are other patients who receive radiation as their initial therapy, explained Chen, an assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

And in a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Chen and his colleagues found that for those men, IMRT does carry a lower risk of certain side effects than conformal radiotherapy. It also showed a somewhat lower risk of cancer recurrence.

"I think the question is, when is the new technology helpful, and when is it not?" Chen said. "We need to be smart about how we use technology."

The new findings suggest that when it comes to radiation given after surgery, "newer" does not mean "better."

The IMRT technique was designed to minimize damage to healthy tissue around the tumor. Doctors use 3-D computer images to visualize the area, then target it with thin radiation beams from different angles -- with the individual beams varied in intensity.

IMRT has exploded in the United States in the last decade or so. In 2000, it was barely a blip on the radar, but by 2008 it accounted for 96 percent of all external radiation treatments for prostate cancer, according to the editorial. (Men can also have an internal form of radiation, where radioactive "seeds" are implanted in the prostate gland.)

Why did the technology take off? Cooperberg said IMRT was heavily marketed, and the procedures were also reimbursed at a much higher rate -- a potential incentive to some.

Plus, Cooperberg said, "Hospitals generally want to be seen as cutting-edge, and patients often want the latest and greatest thing."

Chen agreed. "Oftentimes in this country, doctors and patients chase after the newest technology, believing that it must be better -- even before the evidence is in."

But although IMRT is now dominant, Chen said he thinks "there's a chance for a reversal." If the older conformal radiotherapy is just as good for men who've had prostate cancer surgery, then using it would bring down the costs of radiation for those patients.

And that might allow more men to get it, according to Chen. He said that right now, radiation is "underused" in men who might benefit from it after prostate surgery, and costs may be one reason.

The new findings are based on Medicare claims for 457 men who underwent IMRT between 2002 and 2007, and 557 men who had conformal radiation therapy. Chen's team followed their outcomes through 2009.

Overall, there were no major differences in the men's risk of side effects: About 15 percent of those who'd received IMRT were diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, compared with 12 percent of men who'd received the older radiation therapy, for example.

When it came to the cancer itself, just over 8 percent of IMRT patients needed additional therapy during the study, versus 7 percent of conformal radiotherapy patients.

Dr. James Yu, an assistant professor of therapeutic radiology at Yale School of Medicine, said the study was well done.

It "provides an important piece of the puzzle for evaluating this important but costly technology," Yu said.

There are still questions, though, he added. It's possible, for example, that IMRT could have an advantage when it comes to men's ultimate cure rates, or their overall quality of life over time.

Cooperberg said Medicare claims are an imperfect way to gauge quality of life. Yu agreed that claims data may not capture all the ways treatment can affect men's lives, such as their sexual function other than an official diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.

IMRT is not, however, the latest radiation technique out there. That would be proton beam therapy, which is supposed to be even more targeted than IMRT -- and is twice as expensive. But so far, research has suggested the newer technology is no better.

"There's not a shred of evidence that it's better than IMRT," Cooperberg said.

More information

Learn more about prostate cancer from the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Permalink| Comments

MONDAY, May 20 (HealthDay News) -- Dermatologists are saying that new federally mandated labeling laws for sunscreens should help Americans make smarter choices when it comes to products that provide the best sun protection.

The new labels required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must provide information about whether a sunscreen will protect against skin cancer in addition to sunburn, and will also have to indicate whether a sunscreen is water-resistant, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.

All sunscreens that don't meet the new FDA testing requirements have to have warning labels that outline their sun-protective limitations.

A new survey of 1,400 sunscreen products by the Environmental Working Group found that most products meet the new FDA requirements. Still, one in seven products reviewed by the watchdog group claimed a sun protection factor, or SPF, rating higher than 50 -- a claim viewed with skepticism by many dermatologists. SPF numbers like 100 or 150 can give people a false sense of security, prompting them to stay in the sun long after a product's sun-protecting properties have worn off, the Associated Press reported.

"The high SPF numbers are just a gimmick," Marianne Berwick, professor of epidemiology at the University of New Mexico, told the AP. "Most people really don't need more than an SPF 30 and they should reapply it every couple of hours."

Discussing the new FDA labeling requirements, dermatologist Dr. Zoe Draelos, a consulting professor at the Duke University School of Medicine, said, "Sunscreen has always been an important tool in the fight against skin cancer, and these new regulations will greatly improve the consumer's ability to make smart decisions -- at a glance -- about a product's effectiveness simply by reading the label.

"Everyone, regardless of skin color, can get skin cancer, which is why it is important for people to properly protect themselves from the sun's harmful rays," Draelos said in an American Academy of Dermatology news release.

To reduce your risk of skin cancer and early aging, the academy recommends using a sunscreen with the following features listed on the label:

• Broad spectrum, which means the sunscreen protects against UVB and UVA rays.
• A sun protection factor (SPF) of 30 or higher. SPF 15 is the FDA's minimum recommendation for protection, but the academy recommends an SPF of at least 30.
• Water-resistant for up to either 40 or 80 minutes. This means the sunscreen provides protection while swimming or sweating for the length of time listed on the label.

Sunscreen makers are no longer allowed to claim that a sunscreen is "waterproof" or "sweatproof" because the FDA has determined that those terms are misleading.

In addition to sunscreen, the academy recommends wearing sun-protective clothing, seeking shade and avoiding tanning beds.

At current rates, one in five Americans will be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime.

More information

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has more about sunscreen.

Permalink| Comments

SATURDAY, May 18 (HealthDay News) -- A new device that gives doctors a better view during colonoscopies may help them miss fewer suspicious growths during those exams, a new study shows.

Colonoscopies are the recommended screening tests for colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cancer killer of men and women in the United States.

To perform a colonoscopy, doctors use a long, flexible tube with a camera mounted on the end called a colonoscope to view the lining of the large intestine.

The basic design of those devices hasn't changed in about 30 years, said study author Dr. Ian Gralnek, a senior physician at the department of gastroenterology at Rambam Health Care Campus and Elisha Hospital in Haifa, Israel.

And the design isn't perfect. A February 2006 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology found that traditional colonoscopies missed 22 percent of polyps. Polyps are fleshy growths on the walls of the colon that can turn into cancers if they aren't removed.

Part of the problem, Gralnek explained, is that scopes only have one forward-facing camera, which gives doctors a 170-degree view. That makes it easy to miss polyps, which often grow behind fleshy folds on the colon walls.

To improve detection, an Israeli company has designed a new colonoscope, called the Full Spectrum Endoscopy, or FUSE. The FUSE colonoscope uses three cameras mounted on the front and sides of a flexible arm to give doctors a 330-degree view as they work. EndoChoice of Alpharetta, Ga., the company that's acquired the rights to the device, funded the study.

Gralnek tested the new technology by asking 183 stalwart patients to undergo back-to-back colonoscopies.

About half of the patients were randomly assigned to have a colonoscopy with a traditional colonoscope, followed by the same test using the new FUSE scope. In the other half, the order of the tests was reversed.

During the first test, doctors found and removed as many polyps as they could see. They used the second test to count the number of polyps that were missed on the first go-round.

The FUSE scope missed about 8 percent of adenomas -- small, flat polyps that are especially concerning to doctors because they can turn into full-blow cancers. The standard colonoscopes missed about 43 percent of those growths.

"You really see a lot better [with the FUSE scope]," Gralnek said. "The natural anatomy of the colon has these folds. You can miss polyps on the back sides of these folds and at some of the twists and turns within the colon itself. Because of the extra cameras we're seeing a lot more of the colon itself."

An expert who was not involved in the research says the technology is worth further study.

"These are important data," said Dr. Frank Sinicrope, a professor of medicine and oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

But Sinicrope said it's still not clear whether the new technology will actually prevent more colon cancers than traditional colonoscopies do.

"Detecting more polyps and adenomas does not necessarily indicate that a reduction in cancer risk or mortality will result, since many small adenomas may never develop into cancers," he pointed out.

It's logical that finding more adenomas would make the test more effective, but he points out that hasn't been proven yet.

The study was to be presented Saturday at the Digestive Diseases Week annual meeting in Orlando.

Research findings presented at medical conferences are considered preliminary because they haven't yet had the scrutiny that's required for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Until the new technology is ready for widespread use, the most important thing to do is to go for a colonoscopy.

The American Cancer Society recommends that men and women of average risk get colonoscopies every 10 years, starting at age 50.

More information

For more on colonoscopies, head to the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Permalink| Comments

FRIDAY, May 17 (HealthDay News) -- Alcoholics who smoke have more problems with memory, problem solving and quick thinking than those who are nonsmokers, researchers have found.

This "early aging" of the brain gets worse over time, according to the study published online May 17 and in the October print issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.

The study measured mental or "cognitive" functioning.

"The independent and interactive effects of smoking and other drug use on cognitive functioning among individuals with [alcohol dependence] are largely unknown," Alecia Dager, an associate research scientist in the department of psychiatry at Yale University, said in a journal news release. "This is problematic because many heavy drinkers also smoke. Furthermore, in treatment programs for alcoholism, the issue of smoking may be largely ignored," she noted.

For the study, adult participants were divided into four groups. The first included 39 healthy people who never smoked. The other groups included people seeking treatment for alcoholism after not drinking for one month. Of these, 30 people had never smoked, 21 were former smokers and 68 were current smokers.

According to study corresponding author Timothy Durazzo, the investigators "focused on the effects of chronic cigarette smoking and increasing age on cognition because previous research suggested that each has independent, adverse effects on multiple aspects of cognition and brain biology in people with and without alcohol use disorders."

The researchers analyzed participants' mental ability in a number of areas.

Durazzo, who is an assistant professor in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, said in the news release that "at one month of abstinence, actively smoking [alcohol-dependent participants] had greater-than-normal age effects on measures of learning, memory, processing speed, reasoning and problem-solving, and fine motor skills."

In contrast, among participants with alcohol problems, "never-smokers and former-smokers showed equivalent changes on all measures with increasing age as the never-smoking controls," he explained.

"These results indicate the combination of alcohol dependence and active chronic smoking was related to an abnormal decline in multiple cognitive functions with increasing age," Durazzo said, and that "the combined effects of these drugs are especially harmful and become even more apparent in older age."

He pointed out that other factors, including nutrition and exercise, may also influence brain function during early abstinence. He added that underlying medical issues including high blood pressure and diabetes as well as psychiatric conditions such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder could also play a role.

Based on their findings, the authors suggested that as people get older, chronic smoking and heavy drinking are associated with increased oxidative damage to the brain.

"Oxidative damage results from increased levels of free radicals and other compounds that directly injure neurons and other cells that make up the brain. Cigarette smoking and excessive alcohol consumption expose the brain to a tremendous amount of free radicals," Durazzo explained.

While the study tied alcohol dependence combined with smoking to early brain aging, it didn't establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

The researchers advised that people seeking treatment for alcohol abuse should also be routinely offered help to quit smoking.

More information

The U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has more about effects of alcohol on the brain.

Permalink| Comments

The mouthhealthy.org website mentions these potential harms:

• Staining of the teeth and tongue.
• Decreasing sensitivity to taste and smell.
• Declining ability to heal after any oral surgery or procedure.
• Increasing risk of tooth loss and gum disease.
• Increasing risk of oral cancer.

Permalink| Comments

The drug, Xofigo, is targeted to patients with late-stage, metastatic disease that has spread to the bones but not to other organs, the FDA said in a news release. It is meant for patients who have already undergone surgery and/or drug therapies such as hormone-based treatments.

In a clinical trial involving more than 800 men with symptomatic prostate cancer that was resistant to hormonal therapy and had spread to the bones, men on Xofigo survived a median of 14 months compared to a little over 11 months for men taking a placebo. Side effects from Xofigo included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and swelling of the legs and feet. Low levels of red and white blood cells, as well as platelets, were also reported among some patients taking Xofigo, the FDA said.

According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer remains the leading cancer type among men outside of skin cancer, and about one man in every six will develop the illness during his lifetime. Caught early, it is often curable. About 239,000 new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed among American men each year, and nearly 30,000 men die from the disease annually.

Xofigo is co-marketed in the United States by Wayne, N.J.-based Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Algeta US, of Cambridge, Mass.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about prostate cancer

Permalink| Comments

THURSDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- Drop by for a visit or share the drive -- but please, no smoking.

That's the message the vast majority of Americans send to the smokers within their social circle, a new study finds.

Four out of five adults now have smoke-free rules in their homes, while about three out of four have enacted the same ban in their cars, according to the national survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Getting tough on smoking is always a good idea, experts say.

"We have made tremendous progress in the last 15 years protecting people in public spaces from secondhand smoke," Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, said in an agency news release. "The good news is that people are applying the same protection in their homes and vehicles."

Whether or not you've banned smoking inside the home seems to depend on your smoking status, the CDC study found. While 89 percent of non-smokers say they have a smoke-free policy at home, only 48 percent of smokers have a similar rule. When it comes to cars or other vehicles, 85 percent of non-smokers do not allow smoking, compared to just 27 percent of smokers, the research showed.

Many people may be taking their cue from local legislation, the CDC said. The agency noted that most of the people who've established their own smoke-free rules live in states with longstanding tobacco-control programs and comprehensive smoking bans.

Nevertheless, there's more work to be done, McAfee said. "Millions of non-smokers, many of whom are children, remain exposed to secondhand smoke in these environments," he said.

According to the CDC, nearly 11 million non-smokers remain exposed to secondhand smoke at home and almost 17 million non-smokers are exposed in cars.

The non-smokers most affected by secondhand smoke are men, younger adults, blacks and those with less education. States with the fewest smoking bans or tobacco-control programs had the most adult smokers, the study found.

The danger to nonsmokers' health from stray cigarette smoke is real. Adults exposed to secondhand smoke can develop heart disease and lung cancer, the CDC said. For children, secondhand smoke increases the risk for more severe and frequent asthma attacks, acute respiratory infections, ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), the agency said.

Exposure to secondhand smoke claims the lives of an estimated 50,000 people in the United States each year. Because of that, the U.S. Surgeon General advises 100 percent smoke-free policies that protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke.

"While almost half of all U.S. residents are protected by 100 percent smoke-free policies in worksites, restaurants and bars, overall there are still an estimated 88 million non-smoking Americans over the age of 3 who are exposed to secondhand smoke," study lead author Brian King, an epidemiologist in the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, said in the news release. "It's important to educate people on the dangers of secondhand smoke exposure and how smoke-free homes and vehicles can reduce that exposure."

The study appears in the May issue of the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease.

More information

The American Cancer Society provides more information on secondhand smoke.

Permalink| Comments

The cobas EGFR Mutation Test, a companion diagnostic to the approved cancer drug Tarceva (erlotinib), detects a mutation in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene, the FDA said in a news release.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death for both men and women, accounting for about 228,000 annual cases in the United States. Some 85 percent of lung cancers are NSCLC, the FDA said.

In approving the new diagnostic, the FDA also sanctioned expanded use for Tarceva as a first-line treatment for people with NSCLC that has spread to other parts of the body and who have the mutated gene, the agency said.

The new diagnostic is produced by California-based Roche Molecular Systems. Tarceva, first approved in 2004, now has three approvals for lung cancer. It's produced by California-based Genentech and New York-based OSI Pharmaceuticals.

More information

The U.S. National Cancer Institute has more about non-small cell lung cancer.

Permalink| Comments

THURSDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- An experimental drug that taps the power of the body's immune system to fight cancer is shrinking tumors in patients for whom other treatments have failed, an early study shows.

The drug binds to a protein called PD-L1 that sits on the surface of cancer cells and makes them invisible to the immune system, almost like a cloaking device.

"That [the protein] allows the tumor cell to grow unchecked and cause harm to the patient," said study author Dr. Roy Herbst, chief of medical oncology at Yale University.

But with the protein blocked, the immune system can see and destroy cancer cells.

Of 140 patients in the pilot safety study, 29 (or 21 percent) initially saw significant tumor shrinkage after at least three months on the medication. Researchers say 26 patients have continued to respond over time, including some who have been on the drug for more than a year. One patient saw tumors disappear completely.

The drug also seems to work on a wide range of cancers, including some of the toughest to treat, including non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma skin cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer and stomach cancer.

"This has all the characteristics of a really amazing drug," said Herbst, who has been testing new cancer medications for two decades. "I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen response rates like this."

The study was funded by Genentech/Roche, the company that is developing the drug. The results were presented at a Wednesday news conference organized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in advance of its annual meeting, which starts May 31 in Chicago.

Study results presented at medical meetings are considered preliminary because they have not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny required for publication in a medical journal.

At least four other companies -- Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, MedImmune and Amplimmune -- also are racing to develop drugs that target PD-L1 or the molecule that binds to it (PD-1).

"I don't think in the history of cancer therapy have you had five or more companies virtually simultaneously developing antibodies targeted at the same pathway," said Dr. Drew Pardoll, co-director of cancer immunology at the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, in Baltimore.

Pardoll is testing a drug that targets PD-1 for Bristol-Myers Squibb. He was not involved in the current study.

The drugs are part of a wave of new treatments that work by spurring the immune system to take on tumors. These drugs are building on the successes of medications like Provenge, the first cancer immunotherapy, which was approved in 2010 to treat prostate tumors, and Yervoy, which was approved in 2011 to treat metastatic melanoma.

Yervoy works early in the immune reaction to wake up T-cells that are essentially napping on the job, Pardoll said. The PD-1 and PD-L1 drugs work later, at the cellular level.

"This is a whole new kind of treatment, and the early data has looked so impressive," Pardoll said. "I think this just reflects the excitement among biotechnology companies and big pharma in this field."

To understand why researchers are excited, it helps to understand how poorly most cancer drugs perform in early trials. A study published in the journal Clinical Cancer Research in August 2005 found that middle-of-the-road response rates for cancer drugs in early trials was just 3 percent, with the best response rate topping out at 18 percent.

Response rates are so dismal in part because doctors usually don't try unproven drugs in cancer patients until they have run out of other options. All the patients in this study had seen their cancer progress despite several prior treatments. Most had seen their cancer spread beyond its original site.

Pardoll said he also has been impressed with the length of time that patients continue to see benefits from the medications in the new study.

"Among the patients that did respond to anti-PD-1, who had been followed for more than a year, roughly two-thirds were still in a response a year out," he said. "That's something you don't see with chemotherapy; you don't see it with current targeted therapies.

"We think this is because the immune system is being re-educated," Pardoll said. "If that's the case, will we be able to discontinue the antibody and have the patient's immune system take over and keep the cancer at bay?"

Although the drugs have great promise, the researchers said they also were keeping an eye on the adverse events they can cause, some of which have been very serious.

PD stands for programmed death, and together the two molecules work to switch off the body's immune response. Blocking one or the other keeps the immune system active, which is good for fighting cancer, but there are also early signs that manipulating this response may have a downside.

Some patients had side effects that researchers believe are caused by autoimmunity -- the body mistakenly attacking its own organs and tissues. Those side effects include lung and liver inflammation, rashes and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), perhaps because of a problem with the thyroid gland.

In a study published in a June 2012 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, three patients who were taking an anti-PD-1 drug died from pneumonitis, or inflammation of the lungs.

The researchers said they're working to understand why the drugs seem to be particularly toxic to the lungs and to mitigate their adverse effects.

"We need to be cautious about the toxicities," Herbst said. "It's great that we're making progress, and now we need to go to randomized trials."

More information

To find clinical trials that are testing immunotherapy drugs, head to the Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network.

Permalink| Comments