Category: GENERAL

Stem Cell Therapy: A New Horizon in Breast Cancer Treatment

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers affecting women worldwide, with millions of new cases diagnosed each year. Despite advances in treatment, it remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Traditional treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation have improved survival rates, but they often come with significant side effects and may not be effective in all cases, particularly in advanced or metastatic stages of the disease. As the medical community continues to seek more effective and less invasive treatments, stem cell therapy is emerging as a promising frontier in the fight against breast cancer.

Understanding Breast Cancer: A Global Challenge

Breast cancer occurs when cells in the breast tissue grow uncontrollably, forming a tumor that can invade surrounding tissues and spread to other parts of the body. The causes of breast cancer are multifactorial, involving genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Early detection through screening programs like mammography has significantly improved outcomes, but the need for more effective treatments remains critical, especially for patients with aggressive or resistant forms of the disease.

Traditional treatments, while often life-saving, can have significant drawbacks. Surgery can be disfiguring and may not completely eliminate the risk of recurrence. Chemotherapy and radiation, although effective at killing cancer cells, also damage healthy cells, leading to side effects like fatigue, hair loss, and compromised immune function. Moreover, some breast cancers do not respond well to these treatments, particularly triple-negative breast cancer, which lacks the hormone receptors targeted by many therapies.

This is where stem cell therapy comes into play—a novel approach that has the potential to revolutionize breast cancer treatment.

Stem Cell Therapy: A New Horizon in Breast Cancer Treatment

Stem cell therapy has garnered significant attention in recent years as a potential game-changer in cancer treatment. Unlike traditional therapies that target the symptoms or manifestations of the disease, stem cell therapy aims to address the underlying causes by regenerating damaged tissues, boosting the immune system, and even targeting cancer stem cells that are believed to drive tumor growth and recurrence.

1. Understanding Stem Cells:

  • Stem cells are unique in their ability to develop into different types of cells in the body. They have the potential to repair or replace damaged tissues and can be used to regenerate healthy tissue in areas affected by cancer.
  • There are two primary types of stem cells relevant to cancer therapy: embryonic stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell type, and adult stem cells, which are more limited but still hold significant therapeutic potential. In breast cancer, researchers are particularly interested in the role of cancer stem cells— a small subset of cells within tumors that are resistant to conventional treatments and are thought to be responsible for relapse and metastasis.

2. The Role of Stem Cells in Breast Cancer:

  • One of the most promising aspects of stem cell therapy in breast cancer is its potential to target cancer stem cells. These cells are thought to be the root cause of tumor growth and metastasis, and they often evade traditional therapies, leading to recurrence. By specifically targeting and eliminating these cells, stem cell therapy could significantly reduce the risk of relapse and improve long-term outcomes.
  • Additionally, stem cell therapy can be used to regenerate healthy tissue damaged by surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. For example, adipose-derived stem cells (from fat tissue) are being explored for their ability to repair tissue damage after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, improving cosmetic outcomes and reducing the need for additional surgeries.

3. Current Research and Clinical Trials:

  • While stem cell therapy for breast cancer is still in its early stages, there have been promising developments in both preclinical and clinical research. Clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various stem cell-based therapies for breast cancer.
  • One area of focus is the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which have shown potential in targeting breast cancer cells and enhancing the effects of chemotherapy. These stem cells can be engineered to deliver anti-cancer drugs directly to tumors, increasing the precision and effectiveness of treatment while minimizing side effects.
  • Another exciting avenue is the use of stem cells in combination with immunotherapy. By enhancing the body’s immune response to cancer, stem cells could help to overcome the immune evasion tactics used by tumors, making immunotherapy more effective.

4. Challenges and Future Directions:

  • Despite the promise of stem cell therapy, there are still significant challenges to overcome. Ensuring the safety of these therapies is paramount, as there is a risk that stem cells could promote tumor growth if not properly controlled. Moreover, the complex nature of cancer stem cells means that therapies must be precisely targeted to avoid unintended consequences.
  • The future of stem cell therapy in breast cancer will likely involve a combination of approaches, integrating stem cells with existing treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy. As our understanding of cancer biology continues to grow, so too will the potential of stem cell therapy to provide more effective and less toxic treatment options for breast cancer patients.

    Conclusion: A Promising Future Ahead

    The fight against breast cancer is far from over, but the advent of stem cell therapy offers a new ray of hope. As research continues to advance, this innovative approach could become a cornerstone of breast cancer treatment, offering patients more effective, personalized, and less invasive options. While challenges remain, the potential of stem cell therapy to transform breast cancer care is undeniable, and the ongoing research in this field is something that the medical community and patients alike should watch closely.

    As we move forward, it is essential to continue supporting research and clinical trials that explore the full potential of stem cell therapy in breast cancer. With continued innovation and collaboration, we may one day see a world where breast cancer is not only treatable but curable—thanks in part to the incredible power of stem cells.

    Find more : https://www.linkedin.com/company/medipocketusa/posts/?feedView=all

How to Find the Right Oncologist for You

After a cancer diagnosis, it’s one of the most important decisions you’ll make.

After a career as a golf professional in southeastern New Mexico, Doug Lyle, 76, decided he had somewhere better to be than on the course: spending time with his new grandchild. Then this summer, just as he was settling into retirement, he learned he had prostate cancer.

“When you’re first diagnosed, you immediately go to the internet, and you can be overwhelmed in short order,” he said. “The more you read about it, the more complicated it gets.”

One of the first and most important choices he had to make was who his oncologist would be. Many of the two million patients diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year get the news from a primary care doctor. Those patients might accept a referral to an oncologist without question. But research suggests that it’s worth considering the choice closely: It can shape the care you receive, your satisfaction with the treatment and your chances of survival.

Not everyone has a choice of oncologists. There are fewer providers in rural areas, and patients must travel farther to reach them. Insurers may only cover certain clinicians and hospitals. And patients from certain populations have less access to oncologists for a range of reasons, which may affect the care they receive. For example, research suggests that Black and Hispanic women with breast cancer are more likely than white women to experience delays in starting radiotherapy. And Black men with prostate cancer are less likely than white men to receive treatment that’s intended to cure their condition, even when they’re at similar stages of disease.

No matter your circumstances, you should feel empowered to have a say in who treats your cancer.

Ideally, experts said, you’d be able to easily compare doctors’ levels of experience and the outcomes of patients they’ve treated with your same diagnosis. But such apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make. But “right now, there are no publicly available data to help a patient with cancer say, ‘Oh, this is where I want to go,’” said Dr. Nancy Keating, a physician and professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. (And even if there were, apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make, since patient populations vary from one doctor to the next).

Still, there are some accreditations to look for. The National Cancer Institute has given a special designation to 72 cancer centers, which must show they treat patients in accordance with the latest evidence and also conduct research into new therapies. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has accredited over 1,500 programs that meet certain standards. And the American Society of Clinical Oncology has several certification programs, including a list of 300 practices recognized for their quality and safety.

There are resources to help you search for oncologists, too, including a U.S. News & World Report directory that lets you sort by location, patient reviews and accepted forms of insurance. The consumer research firm Castle Connolly also has a database of doctors who are nominated by their peers and then evaluated for their qualifications, interpersonal skills and more.

Look for an oncologist who frequently treats patients with diagnoses similar to yours. Research has long shown that when doctors perform certain procedures more often, their patients have better outcomes. One study found that patients of surgeons who removed more than 25 lung cancers a year spent less time in the hospital, had a lower risk of infection and were more likely to survive three years without recurrence of disease.

Dr. Timothy Pawlik, the chair of the surgery department at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said he only treats a handful of cancers. “You want someone with depth, not breadth,” Dr. Pawlik said. That way, he explained, “the patient may have a rare cancer, but it’s not rare to that doctor.”

Additionally, everyone else on the care team including the anesthesiologists and nurses, will also be familiar with your particular cancer and treatment.

Your primary care provider may be able to find someone specializing in your diagnosis. Some physicians’ websites will identify sub-specialties, and you can also ask for guidance from patient advocacy groups focused on your type of cancer. When you reach out to a doctor, don’t be shy about asking how many patients with similar cancers they treat per year.

Mr. Lyle hesitated to get a second opinion for fear of offending the first doctor he’d seen. But he ultimately chose to do so, a step many experts recommend. “Medicine is an art, and there are sometimes differences of opinion,” said Karen Knudsen, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society. Weighing those differences can help you make a more informed choice.

If a second physician agrees with your original treatment plan, it can give you more confidence in the approach. Research suggests a second opinion can also lead to clinically meaningful changes in treatment. One 2023 study of 120 cancer patients found that a for a third of patients, a second opinion led to treatment changes that yielded better outcomes. Many had received evidence-based care from their first doctor but decided after a second opinion to scale back treatments that might have been unnecessary and had harmful side effects.

Mr. Lyle said that during his first conversation with a physician, he didn’t know enough to ask the right questions about his diagnosis and newer treatment options. “The fine points, you’re not aware of yet. So you almost need a rehearsal,” he said. (For help with what to ask during an appointment, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network has detailed information about care for many cancers.)

When it is clinically appropriate, some cancer centers now offer second opinions through telehealth. You can call to see if it’s possible to submit your medical records and get a remote consultation.

Find more:

What to Know About the HPV Vaccine and Cancer Prevention

New research shows many eligible people are not getting the shots.

Nearly 20 years after the first vaccine against human papillomavirus became available, many eligible Americans still are not getting the shot — even though it provides powerful protection against the leading cause of cervical cancer and a strong risk factor for anal cancer.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, and while most infections are asymptomatic and clear up on their own within two years, a small number persist and can cause cancer. HPV causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, and can also lead to penile, anal, oral, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

The HPV vaccine, delivered as two or three doses, can significantly cut the risk of infection. It “is really one of the most effective vaccines we have,” said Dr. Lauri Markowitz, the HPV team lead in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of viral diseases. But uptake remains stubbornly low: A report released by the C.D.C. this month showed that in 2022, only 38.6 percent of children ages 9 to 17 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Other new research suggests that HPV vaccination rates stalled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

A study published this week laid out some of the primary reasons cited by parents in the United States who don’t plan to vaccinate their children against HPV, including safety concerns, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and a belief that it isn’t necessary.
“We are still facing an uphill battle from what I would call inappropriate messaging or incomplete messaging when the vaccine rolled out about why this is so important,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive of the American Cancer Society.

The HPV vaccine fools the body into thinking it has come into contact with the virus, marshaling antibodies in defense. Those antibodies can help clear the virus and prevent infection if someone is later exposed, which can happen through oral, anal and vaginal sex.

The vaccine offers protection from the types most likely to cause cervical and anal cancers and genital warts. Since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, infections with the types of HPV that cause most HPV-related cancers and genital warts have fallen by 88 percent among teen girls and by 81 percent among young adult women, according to the C.D.C.
One reason doctors are so enthusiastic about the vaccine is that it is one of very few tools to combat HPV: Condoms do not entirely prevent transmission, and there is no treatment for the virus itself. Researchers believe HPV is responsible for more than 90 percent of cervical and anal cancers and a majority of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers.

Children can be vaccinated starting at age nine. The C.D.C. recommends the vaccine for all preteens from the age of 11 or 12 and anyone up to age 26. It’s most effective before people are exposed to the virus, and “the assumption is that most people have started having sexual intercourse by age 26,” said Dr. Ban Mishu Allos, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

The vaccine may still provide some benefit for people over age 26, and is approved up until age 45. The C.D.C. says that people between the ages of 27 and 45 might get the vaccine after talking to their doctors about their risk for new HPV infections.

You can ask your primary care doctor or local health centers for the vaccine. Most insurance plans fully cover it through age 26. Children and adolescents who are uninsured or underinsured can get the shots for free through the Vaccines for Children program. After age 26, insurance may not fully cover the shot, which can cost hundreds of dollars per dose. Merck, which makes the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9, has a patient assistance program for eligible people.

Researchers believe much of the hesitation stems from a key misunderstanding: “More people perceive it as a sexually transmitted infection prevention vaccine, as opposed to a cancer prevention vaccine,” said Kalyani Sonawane, an associate professor of public health sciences at the M.U.S.C. Hollings Cancer Center and an author of the new paper on parental attitudes toward HPV vaccination.

Dr. Sonawane’s research has also found that many parents are concerned about side effects. But doctors say many people do not experience side effects, and for those that do, the issues are generally mild and can include arm soreness, nausea, dizziness or, in some cases, fainting.

Doctors urge parents to vaccinate their children before they’re likely to become sexually active, which gives some parents pause, said Dr. Monica Woll Rosen, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Michigan Medical School.

“You’re doing something to prevent them from getting cancer in 30 years,” she said, “and the disconnect might be too large for some people to really wrap their heads around.”

 

Find more : https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/well/live/hpv-vaccine-cancer.html

Transforming Healthcare: The Power of Timely Information and Exercise in Underserved Communities

In today’s rapidly evolving world, having the right information at the right moment can determine success or failure, health or illness. As professionals, we recognize the critical impact of timely information, especially in health and wellness. It’s imperative to leverage this knowledge and take decisive action, particularly to support underserved communities.

Access to Healthcare: An Ongoing Challenge

Despite technological advancements, timely access to healthcare information remains a significant challenge in America. Disparities in healthcare access lead to varying health outcomes across different populations. Underserved communities often face systemic barriers that hinder their ability to receive prompt and adequate healthcare.

The consequences are evident: delays in health screenings, diagnostics, and treatments exacerbate conditions that could be manageable or preventable. This results in higher rates of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension among marginalized groups. The American Heart Association reports that African Americans are nearly twice as likely to have diabetes compared to non-Hispanic whites. These delays perpetuate cycles of poor health and reduced quality of life.

Exercise is Medicine: A Call to Action

The CDC’s extensive research underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. Our task is to ensure that underserved communities can access and utilize this powerful tool. The focus is on making fitness accessible to everyone, regardless of their circumstances.

Healthcare providers, fitness professionals, and community leaders must disseminate accurate and actionable information about exercise, empowering individuals to make healthier choices. It’s about promoting physical activity and breaking down barriers to make fitness accessible to all.

A Successful Example: HEALTHEFIT DWF in Covington, GA

HEALTHEFIT DWF in Covington, GA, exemplifies how integrating Exercise is Medicine (EIM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM) can revolutionize healthcare delivery in underserved communities. As a trusted advisor from its inception, I have seen firsthand how their innovative Medical Fitness Therapy program significantly enhances patient care.

Patients at HEALTHEFIT DWF benefit from real-time updates and personalized recommendations delivered via advanced digital platforms. This seamless integration of technology into healthcare management allows for easier chronic condition management and better adherence to treatment plans.

The success of HEALTHEFIT DWF is built on several key elements, including:

  • Integration of Cutting-Edge Technologies – HEALTHEFIT DWF uses advanced digital health solutions for continuous patient monitoring. These platforms collect and analyze data on vital signs, physical activity, and other health indicators, enabling prompt responses to emerging health issues.
  • Personalized Health Plans – Patients receive tailored health plans with specific exercise regimens, dietary recommendations, and lifestyle modifications, continuously updated based on real-time data and progress to meet their unique health needs and goals.
  • Enhanced Patient Engagement – Digital platforms have improved patient engagement by providing access to health data and facilitating easy communication with healthcare providers. This transparency fosters ownership and active participation in treatment plans.
  • Community Outreach and Education – HEALTHEFIT DWF emphasizes community outreach and education through regular workshops and seminars on exercise and healthy living, empowering individuals to take proactive steps towards better health.
  • Collaboration with Healthcare Professionals – The success of HEALTHEFIT DWF stems from collaboration between fitness professionals and healthcare providers, ensuring comprehensive care that addresses both medical and fitness needs, enhancing overall treatment effectiveness.
  • Measurable Health Outcomes – HEALTHEFIT DWF’s approach has led to measurable improvements in managing chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Timely health information and personalized care plans have resulted in better health outcomes and quality of life.

Conclusion: Information and Exercise as Catalysts for Change

The challenges in healthcare access underscore the transformative power of timely information and the promotion of exercise as medicine. Whether delivering health advice or emphasizing the benefits of physical activity, receiving the right information at the right time is crucial for individual and collective well-being.

The example of HEALTHEFIT DWF in Covington, GA, illustrates how integrating EIM and RTM can revolutionize healthcare delivery, particularly in underserved communities. Their proactive approach, leveraging cutting-edge technology and personalized care, has led to significant health improvements for their patients. This model provides valuable insights and a blueprint for future healthcare initiatives aiming to bridge the gap in healthcare access and outcomes.

As we reflect on our progress and future goals, let us commit to ensuring that everyone has access to the information they need for a healthy and fulfilling life. By prioritizing timely and equitable access to healthcare information—especially regarding exercise as medicine and RTM—we can advance toward a healthier and more just society.

This is our call to duty. Let’s remain vigilant in our pursuit of timely information and accessible exercise opportunities, understanding that these are not just conveniences but fundamental rights that can unlock freedom, health, and opportunity for all.

References:

  • American Heart Association. “African Americans & Cardiovascular Diseases.” Retrieved from heart.org.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Physical Activity and Health.” Retrieved from cdc.gov.

David Rachal III, MBA, EIM-C, MFP-C, is a Medical Fitness Practitioner with decades of experience in chronic disease management and preventive solutions. David is dedicated to integrating digital health solutions into traditional healthcare practices to enhance patient outcomes and promote a healthier lifestyle. He has been instrumental in the start-up phases of DWF Wellness in Covington, GA, and continues to serve as a trusted advisor.

read more :

Transforming Healthcare: The Power of Timely Information and Exercise in Underserved Communities

Ending financial discrimination for cancer survivors: embedding the Right to be Forgotten in legislation across Europe

A new study published today in The Lancet Oncology highlights that many of the current 20 million cancer survivors across Europe are being discriminated against in accessing financial services, including loans, mortgages, health and travel insurance.

The work indicated that on average, up to 25% of those living beyond their cancer may be having more difficulty accessing appropriate financial services.

A European-wide effort is currently attempting to fight this discrimination, by supporting the introduction of legislation that will permit successfully treated cancer patients to not declare a previously diagnosed cancer, so that their diagnosis is essentially “forgotten”.
In January 2016, France became the first country in the world to introduce the “Right To Be Forgotten”, specifying that long-term cancer survivors do not have to share medical information with a financial institution about their cancer diagnosis after a delay of five years without recurrence. Seven other European countries have since taken similar legal measures to counter financial discrimination against cancer survivors. Other European Member States have chosen to implement self-regulatory codes of conduct (Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg), but these are not legally binding.

With over eight years of experience, evidence from France indicates no significant negative impact on insurance companies operating in the French jurisdiction.

Those who are living beyond their disease should not be penalised for a previous cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients across Europe who have been successfully treated should, by law, be able to avoid disclosing a previous diagnosis of cancer, so that they can access the financial services that they need.

Professor Lawler added: “This is not about compassion; this is about evidence and acting on that evidence. When a cancer professional says that you are cured and international benchmarking agrees, then why do the financial institutions say that you are not? Don’t make cancer patients pay twice. Ensure the Right To Be Forgotten is enshrined in law throughout Europe.”

Read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/e_PZHn_j

Commercial determinants of health: how they are driving up rates of cancer and other NCDs

A new report from the WHO Regional Office for Europe looks at the impacts of the commercial determinants of health

Tobacco, alcohol, highly processed foods and fossil fuel industries cause 19 million deaths per year globally. These shocking statistics, reported in Commercial Determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region, show how commercial activities are harming our health and increasing the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer (WCRF International contributed to two case studies to this report, one on civil society engagement and one on alcohol warning labels).

The commercial determinants of health (CDOH) assess how commercial industries and their products can influence and impact the overall health and health equity of people, and whole societies.

Impacts of CDOH are felt across society, from the individual consumer, their health behaviours and choices, extending to global levels of consumption, and the politics and economics of increasing globalisation.

Health-harming industries

Commercial determinants that negatively impact health involve products from unhealthy commodity industries, which produce and sell health-harming products such as:

  • tobacco
  • alcohol
  • highly processed foods
  • and fossil fuels

The recent WHO/Europe report shows how exposure to these health-harming products is driving up already exceptionally high rates of cancer and other NCDs globally.

In the European Region alone, almost two thirds (61.3%) of deaths caused by NCDs can be attributed directly to risk factors linked to unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco consumption.

This equates to an estimated 2.7m deaths annually, or more than 7,400 deaths every day. Many of these deaths could be prevented with reduced exposure to these commercial products.

Corporate channels of influence

You will certainly have experienced commercial forces at play in the world in both visible and invisible ways. Industries influence and impact health, and undermine policymaking through the following corporate channels:

  • marketing and advertising
  • engaging in corporate social responsibility strategies and activities
  • lobbying governments and policymakers; and
  • deflecting attention away from their role and responsibilities in causing health harms

Marketing and advertising enhance the acceptability and desirability of health-harming products. Often selling a certain lifestyle, aesthetic or experience, it normalises these products as part of everyday life, as well as more aspirational ways of living.

Marketing and promotions have been found to disproportionately target low socioeconomic status or minority populations, with industry tactics ranging from timing marketing campaigns to coincide with the distribution of benefits from food assistance programmes, to aiming advertisements directly at children.

Corporate social responsibility activities serve to improve corporate brands and reputations. Coca-Cola or PepsiCo’s frequent sponsorship of sports teams, events, and funding children’s physical activity programmes seeks to shift focus away from how their own products contribute to the obesity epidemic, and instead reflect favourably on their support for physical activity promotion.

DrinkAware, an alcohol-industry funded health information organisation, promotes “responsible drinking” campaigns (despite alcohol being classified as a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to 7 types of cancer), and engages in partnerships with government and public health agencies.

Lobbying governments and policymakers works to avoid or circumvent regulation. Examples include the food and beverage industry’s opposition to sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, or the alcohol industry’s use of legal threats to stop the implementation of health warning labels.

Public health experts are also targeted through less obvious channels, such as Coca-Cola’s emails to the US Centre for Disease Control (obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests) to advance corporate objectives over health, including trying to influence the WHO.

Other tactics include funding research and political parties to sway the evidence base and policymakers in their favour—influencing all levels of policy, from scientific evidence through to policy development and implementation.

Where does the buck stop?

Perhaps the most significant and insidious tactic used by health-harming industries is their deflection of responsibility. Industry uses the rhetoric of ‘personal responsibility’, ‘individual’ or ‘freedom of choice’ around the consumption of their products.

These messages shift the blame away from health-harming industries, and onto their customers. This argument is used not only to shape societal views around consuming tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods, but also in legal arguments to deny or downplay their responsibility and liability for the costs they impose on society.

Do not be mistaken: these efforts are intentionally well-crafted and funded. Health-harming industries seek to protect their own interests and offload their responsibility at the expense of public health. These narratives serve to manufacture doubt and increase uncertainty in the public, while simultaneously undermining trust in government agencies and scientific evidence to normalise the prevalence and use of their products.

Is addressing commercial determinants of health anti-business?

It’s also important to recognise what addressing CDOH is not. Addressing CDOH is not anti-business; but rather, it challenges the existing status quo and power imbalances. It also does not assume a solely negative impact: it accounts for industry actors to drive health and equity in either direction.

Profitable business and health promotion do not need to be mutually exclusive. For example, a coalition of Nestlé shareholders (co-ordinated by Share Action) has filed a resolution to challenge the company to increase their proportion of sales from healthier products.

Work to address CDOH is also not an attack on the free market, or personal liberties. It is about a consumer’s right to know about the risks involved with consuming a harmful product.

Say for instance you had a higher risk of developing breast cancer. Would knowing that drinking alcohol increases your risk of developing it, or 6 other types of cancer, impact whether you decide to consume alcohol? When buying products, would you want to be thoroughly informed about the risks you take?

Interestingly, critics of responses aimed to address CDOH often (knowingly or unknowingly) follow the same script taken straight from health-harming industries’ playbook.

This upholds the narrative that responsibility solely rests with the individual and does not hold corporations accountable for the health impacts of their products, or their influence through the four corporate channels.

Getting rid of the industry playbook; reframing the issues

But this criticism is misplaced: rather than effecting a ‘nanny-state’ or ‘prohibition’, addressing CDOH is an act to abolish and break free from the false-narratives and manipulation that industries employ for their own profit and gains.

Given the scale and size of transnational corporations, some with incomes higher than GDPs of whole countries, putting a focus on the CDOH and their impacts will have a global effect.

This is a movement to shift the focus and alignment of political will in a direction that better serves public health and health outcomes, including the reduction of health inequities, and incidence of cancer and other NCDs.

For more information on CDOH
> WHO Europe Report Commercial Determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region – the report also contains a number of case studies, which WCRF International has contributed to.

Nearly half of adult cancer deaths in the US could be prevented by making lifestyle changes, study finds

About 40% of new cancer cases among adults ages 30 and older in the United States — and nearly half of deaths — could be attributed to preventable risk factors, according to a new study from the American Cancer Society.

“These are things that people can practically change how they live every single day to reduce their risk of cancer,” said Dr. Arif Kamal, chief patient officer with the American Cancer Society.

Smoking was the leading risk factor by far, the study found, contributing to nearly 1 in 5 cancer cases and nearly a third of cancer deaths. Other key risk factors included excess body weight, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, diet and infections such as HPV.

Overall, researchers analyzed 18 modifiable risk factors across 30 types of cancer. In 2019, these lifestyle factors were linked to more than 700,000 new cancer cases and more than 262,000 deaths, the study found.

Cancer grows because of DNA damage or because it has a fuel source, Kamal said. Other things — such as genetics or environmental factors — can also create these biological conditions, but modifiable risks explain a significantly larger share of cancer cases and deaths than any other known factors. Exposure to sunlight can damage DNA and lead to skin cancer, for example, while fat cells produce hormones that can feed certain cancers.

“With cancer, it oftentimes feels like you have no control,” Kamal said. “People think about bad luck or bad genetics, but people need to feel a sense of control and agency.”

Certain cancers are more preventable than others, the new study suggests. But modifiable risk factors contributed to more than half of new cases for 19 of the 30 types of cancer evaluated.

There were 10 types of cancer where modifiable risk factors could be attributed to at least 80% of new cases, including more than 90% of melanoma cases linked to ultraviolet radiation and nearly all cases of cervical cancer linked to HPV infection, which can be prevented with a vaccine.

Lung cancer had the largest number of cases attributable to modifiable risk factors — more than 104,000 cases among men and 97,000 among women — and the vast majority were linked to smoking.

After smoking, excess body weight was the second largest contributor to cancer cases, linked to about 5% of new cases in men and nearly 11% of cases in women. It was associated with more than a third of deaths from cancer of the endometrium, gallbladder, esophagus, liver and kidney, the new study found.

Another recent study found that the risk for certain cancers was significantly reduced for people taking popular weight-loss and diabetes medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

“Obesity is emerging, in some ways, as just as potent of a risk for people as smoking is,” said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. He was not involved in the new study, but has prior experience working on cancer prevention initiatives.

Intervening on a set of “core behavioral risk factors” — quitting smoking, eating well and exercising, for example — can make a “dramatic difference in the rates and outcomes of chronic diseases,” Plescia said. And cancer is one of those chronic diseases, just like heart disease or diabetes.

Policymakers and health officials should work to “create environments where it’s easier for people, where the healthy choice is the easy choice,” he said. And it’s particularly important for people who are living in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods, where it might not be safe to exercise or easy to get to a store with healthy food.

As rates of early-onset cancer rise in the US, it’s especially important to create healthy habits early, experts say. It’s harder to quit smoking once you’ve started or lose weight that you’ve gained.

But “it’s never too late to make these changes,” Plescia said. “Turning (health behaviors) around later in life can make a profound difference.”

And making lifestyle changes to minimize exposure to certain factors can reduce cancer risk relatively quickly, experts say.

“Cancer is something your body fights every single day as your cells divide,” Kamal said. “It’s a risk that you face every day, and that also means that the reduction of the risks can benefit you every day as well.”

READ MORE :

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/health/cancer-cases-deaths-preventable-factors-wellness/index.html?utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=July+23%2c+2024+Cancer+Today+eNewsletter&utm_term=Read+More+in+Cancer+Today

What Is a Cancer Vaccine?

When you hear the word “vaccine,” you might think of your annual flu shot or COVID booster, but did you know that some vaccines can treat—or even prevent—cancer?

But before we get there, let’s start with the basics—what is a vaccine? How does it protect you from disease?

A vaccine at its core delivers something associated with disease, such as a protein, into your body, which trains your immune system to recognize and react to the disease later on.

Think of it as training a dog on a specific scent.

Flu vaccines, for example, deliver pieces of a protein from the flu virus. Your immune system sees the protein, recognizes that it doesn’t belong in your body, mounts an immune response against it, and stores this information in its “memory.”

Now that your immune system has been trained to respond to this flu protein, it will be ready to attack if you later are infected with the flu, allowing it to rapidly get rid of the virus before it has a chance to make you sick.

CAN VACCINES PREVENT CANCER?

Yes! Several vaccines protect against human papillomavirus (HPV), the most common cause of cervical cancer and a major cause of anal, oral, throat, and genital cancers. By preventing HPV infection, these vaccines also prevent the cancer-causing changes induced by HPV.

The first HPV vaccine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006, and since that time, the rate of cervical cancers has dropped significantly among people who were vaccinated as adolescents.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends HPV vaccines for all adolescents (boys and girls) beginning at age 11 or 12 and up to age 26 for those who didn’t receive them earlier. Some people might be eligible for the vaccine after age 26 as well.

HOW DO VACCINES TREAT CANCER?

The vaccines we’ve discussed so far are preventive vaccines—they help people avoid a particular disease. Other vaccines, known as therapeutic vaccines, are instead used to treat patients already diagnosed.

Therapeutic vaccines for cancer work in the same way as preventive vaccines: biological material is injected into the patient, where it trains the immune system to find and attack disease, cancer in this case.

To date, only one targeted therapeutic cancer vaccine has been approved by the FDA, but researchers have continued to develop and test different types of cancer vaccines, with many of these showing recent promise against hard-to-treat cancers.

Unlike vaccines that target viruses, therapeutic vaccines for cancer train the immune system to attack the patient’s own cells, rather than an invading virus. Researchers, therefore, have to find ways to direct the immune response to cancer cells to avoid damaging healthy tissue.

To minimize effects on normal, noncancerous cells, therapeutic cancer vaccines train the immune system to recognize proteins that are either absent from normal cells or found at significantly lower levels on normal cells. Vaccines expose immune cells to these proteins in various ways, based on the type of vaccine.

PROTEIN-BASED VACCINES

Sipuleucel-T (Provenge), the sole FDA-approved therapeutic vaccine for cancer, was greenlit in 2010 for prostate cancer. It works by delivering small pieces of a protein found at high levels in prostate cancers. When the patient’s immune cells encounter the delivered protein, they become more likely to attack prostate cancer cells.

Multiple protein-based vaccines delivering other target proteins are under investigation for a variety of cancer types, including head and neck, lung, pancreatic, brain, and colorectal cancers, among others.

While protein-based cancer vaccines can be highly effective and well tolerated, they are expensive, time-consuming, and oftentimes difficult to develop.

RNA-BASED VACCINES

Another category of cancer vaccines uses messenger RNA (mRNA)—the same design used to develop the first COVID-19 vaccines. Instead of delivering the target protein, these vaccines provide cells with the genetic instructions (in the form of mRNA) to make the protein, which, in turn, stimulates the immune system to seek out and attack cancer.

mRNA-based vaccines can be produced much more rapidly than protein-based vaccines, but delivering the mRNA and preventing bothersome side effects can be a challenge.

mRNA-based vaccines are being tested to treat a myriad of cancer types, with recent success against advanced skin and pancreatic cancers. Many of these vaccines are custom-made for each patient—a level of personalization made possible by the mRNA platform, which allows custom vaccines to be produced quickly and without major delays in treatment.

DNA-BASED VACCINES

Like RNA-based vaccines, DNA-based vaccines deliver instructions to make the target protein, but they provide the instructions as DNA rather than mRNA.

DNA-based vaccines have many of the same benefits as RNA-based vaccines, including the inexpensive and rapid production. DNA-based vaccines, however, may cause autoimmune reactions or impact the patient’s own DNA. Further, administering DNA-based vaccines requires unconventional methods, and once administered, DNA still has to make its way into a specific compartment of the cell to function.

Despite these challenges, DNA-based vaccines have shown clinical promise against various solid tumors, such as cervical cancer, breast cancer, glioblastoma, and others.

VIRAL- AND BACTERIAL-BASED IMMUNE STIMULANTS

While not quite cancer vaccines, a related category of cancer therapy exploits the innate ability of viruses and bacteria to stimulate the immune response. The bacterial strain Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for example, was originally developed as a preventive vaccine for tuberculosis but is now also used to treat bladder cancer. When BCG is administered into a patient’s bladder, it triggers an immune response within the organ that helps kill cancer cells.

Researchers are also using modified viruses that preferentially infect and kill cancer cells to release immune-stimulating molecules from cancer cells, with one such therapy approved to treat certain melanomas.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN VACCINE RESEARCH

Researchers continue to explore innovative strategies to improve therapeutic cancer vaccines, combining them with other immunotherapy drugs, using new technologies to identify and test novel designs, and developing faster ways to produce vaccines.

To learn about anticipated progress in the field of cancer vaccines, check out our interview with cancer vaccine expert Catherine J. Wu, MD, FAACR.

Read more

What Is a Cancer Vaccine? 

Consumer wearables could make ‘positive contribution to routine care’

Consumer wearables that measure heart rate and physical activity provide similar clinical value to standard hospital tests for atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure, new research has found.

The study, published in Nature Medicine, examined whether a commercially-available fitness tracker and smartphone could continuously monitor the response to medications, and provide clinical information similar to in-person hospital assessment.

The wearable devices, consisting of a wrist band and connected smartphone, collected a vast amount of data on the response to two different medications prescribed as part of a clinical trial called RATE-AF, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to help analyse over 140 million datapoints for heart rate in 53 individuals over 20 weeks.

They found that digoxin and beta-blockers had a similar effect on heart rate, even after accounting for differences in physical activity.

This was in contrast to previous studies that had only assessed the short-term impact of digoxin.

A neural network that took account of missing information was developed to avoid an over-optimistic view of the wearable data stream.

Using this approach, the team found that the wearables were equivalent to standard tests often used in hospitals and clinical trials that require staff time and resources.

The average age of participants in the study was 76 years, highlighting possible future value regardless of age or experience with technology.

Professor Dipak Kotecha from the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences at the University of Birmingham and the lead author of the study said: “People across the world are increasingly using wearable devices in their daily lives to help monitor their activity and health status.

“This study shows the potential to use this new technology to assess the response to treatment and make a positive contribution to the routine care of patients.”

“Heart conditions such as atrial fibrillation and heart failure are expected to double in prevalence over the next few decades, leading to a large burden on patients as well as substantial healthcare cost.

“This study is an exciting showcase for how artificial intelligence can support new ways to help treat patients better.”

https://www.htworld.co.uk/news/wearables/consumer-wearables-could-make-positive-contribution-to-routine-care/

 

Cancer is on the rise in under-50s – a key task is to work out why

Nine in 10 of all cancers affect people over 50 but research shows a worrying rise in early onset cases

There are many upsides to growing old, but one of the downsides, unfortunately, is a higher risk of developing cancer. Increasing age is a key risk factor. And with more of us living longer worldwide, millions of older people will have to contend with the disease

Now a new study adds weight to previous work warning of a grim trend in global health: cancer in people under the age of 50 is becoming more common.

In the study, researchers led by the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and Zhejiang University School of Medicine in Hangzhou, China, found that the number of under-50s being diagnosed with cancer worldwide rose by 79% between 1990 and 2019, from 1.82 million to 3.26 million. Cancer deaths in the same age group grew by 27%, and more than 1 million under-50s a year are now dying of cancer, the research published in BMJ Oncology reveals

The study is not the first to show the trend. A review in 2022 of cancer registry records from 44 countries found that the incidence of early onset cancer was rising rapidly for 14 types of cancers, and this increase was happening across many middle- and high-income nations.

The new research adds meat to the bone. Examining data from 204 countries, it found a striking increase in the global incidence of early onset cancers. It also showed the highest incidence rates of cancer in the under-50s was in North America, Oceania and western Europe.

Researchers worldwide are only just starting their next task: working out why.

The authors of the 2022 review, led by Harvard University, said any uptick in testing or checks could not account for the rise in diagnoses. They suggested the rise was most likely due to an unhealthy mix of risk factors that could be working together, some which are known and others of which need to be investigated.

Many of these risks had established links to cancer such as obesity, inactivity, diabetes, alcohol, smoking, environmental pollution and western diets high in red meat and added sugars, not to mention shift work and lack of sleep. Experts have speculated that ultra-processed food may also be partly to blame

The researchers behind the new study echoed those observations. Genetic factors are likely to have a role, they say. But diets high in red meat and salt and low in fruit and milk, as well as alcohol consumption and tobacco use, are the main risk factors underlying the most common cancers among under-50s, with physical inactivity, excess weight and high blood sugar other contributory factors.

As worrying as the increase in early onset cancers is, caution is required. Cancer in people under 50 is still uncommon. With breast cancer, the most common type in under-50s, there were 13.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2019. Nine in 10 of all cancers affect people over 50.

Until experts unlock definitive answers, there remains plenty that people young and old can do to reduce their risk of cancer. Not smoking, maintaining a balanced diet and a healthy weight, getting plenty of exercise and staying safe in the sun are among them.

 

Andrew GregoryHealth editor

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/05/cancer-is-on-the-rise-in-under-50s-a-key-task-is-to-work-out-why?utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=September+12+2023+Cancer+Today+E-newsletter&utm_term=Read+More+in+the+Guardian