Popular Articles

SOMOò€¢INSIGHT Clinical Study Detects First Cancer In Mammographically Negative Breast Screening Patient At OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
U-Systems, the leader in dedicated breast ultrasound systems, together with Medical Director Jessica A. Guingrich, MD of OSF Saint Francis Medical Center, Susan G. Komen Breast Center and Centers for Breast Health announced that they have initiated the SOMOò€¢INSIGHT Clinical Study. The first participants have been enrolled and the first pathologically confirmed cancer has been detected in a mammographically-negative screening patient. The clinical study is examining whether Digital Mammography along with the somoò€¢v™ Automated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) is more sensitive to detecting breast lesions when compared to Mammography alone in women with dense breasts.

Blogs Comment On Appeals Court Ruling On Virginia Abortion Ban, German Abortion Law, Other Topics
The following summarizes selected women"s health-related blog entries.~ "Another Abortion Case Developing," Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog: The decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit to uphold Virginia"s 2003 law banning what abortion-rights opponents call "partial-birth" abortion -- known medically as intact dilation and extraction -- could send a new abortion-rights case to the U.S. Supreme Court, Denniston writes. He continues that if the case, Richmond Medical Center v. Herring, is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could be a "sequel" to the court"s 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a federal ban on the procedure. Denniston notes that the 4th Circuit Court panel twice struck down the Virginia law. A "key factor" in those rulings was that the state law "differs in some significant respects from the federal ban," he writes. Denniston continues that the full appeals court in its opinion said that the Virginia law "is "somewhat different" from the federal ban, but still "provides sufficient clarity as to what conduct is prohibited to enable a doctor of reasonable intelligence to avoid criminal liability under it."" According to Denniston, "The most significant difference between the Virginia ban and the federal ban is that, under the Virginia law, a doctor who intends to perform an abortion that does not violate the law, but the fetus accidentally is delivered intact to a significant degree, and if the mother"s life is not at stake, the doctor has committed a crime" (Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 6/24).~ "More Restrictive Law on Late-Term Abortions Comes to Germany," Anna Wilkowska-Landowska, RH Reality Check: Pregnant German women seeking abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy "will face stringent consultations and will be required to undergo a waiting period of at least three days before a physician can make a final decision allowing the abortion" under a new German law, Wilkowska-Landowska writes. According to a 1995 German law, an abortion performed during the first three months of pregnancy is considered an unlawful act but not a punishable offense if a pregnant woman first visits a counseling center, though the woman is not required to give a reason for seeking the procedure. German law allows abortion after 20 weeks" gestation if there is a risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. In May, the lower house of the German parliament enacted a law requiring women seeking the procedure after the first trimester to wait at least three days before a physician can make the decision to perform an abortion. Women also must undergo a psychological evaluation. In addition, parliamentarians voted to increase "consultations and support for families with handicapped children considering termination," Wilkowska-Landowska writes. She continues that the medical and psychological consultation requirements are aimed at reducing the number of abortions performed after the first trimester. According to Wilkowska-Landowska, church representatives and lawmakers began discussions on the issue in 2005,when it was reported that the number of abortions performed later in pregnancy were increasing (Wilkowska-Landowska, RH Reality Check, 6/25).~ "Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee on Abortion," Jim Wallis, Sojourners" "God"s Politics": Wallis writes that he was surprised to see that The Daily Show handled a discussion on abortion between host Jon Stewart and former Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with such "nuance and respect" for the topic. According to Wallis, although Stewart and Huckabee "didn"t solve the issue, ... the depth of their dialogue and their respect for the other"s core values and opinions was clear." Wallis writes they "never quite reached common ground, but their dialogue was a great example of the type of civil discourse our country needs to be engaged in." Wallis also includes video clips of the interview (Wallis, "God"s Politics," Sojourners, 6/24).~ "George Tiller: Health Care P
News of the day
FDA Confirms E. Coli O157:H7 In Prepackaged Nestlç© Toll House Refrigerated Cookie Dough
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it has found E. coli O157:H7 (a bacterium that can cause serious food borne illness) in a sample of prepackaged Nestlç© Toll House refrigerated cookie dough currently under recall by the manufacturer and marketer, Nestlç© USA. The contaminated sample was collected at Nestlç©"s facility in Danville, Va. on June 25, 2009.
Medical Devices

Vegetarians Have Lower Cancer Risk, UK Study

A 12-year study that followed over 60,000 Britons, half of whom were vegetarian, suggests that vegetarians had a lower risk of developing cancer than meat-eaters. However, more studies are needed before we can use this evidence as sufficient reason to ask people to change their diets, say the researchers and other experts. The study was the work of Dr Naomi Allen, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, and colleagues from the UK and New Zealand, and is published in the 16 June advance access issue of the British Journal of Cancer. Allen told the press: "This is strong evidence that vegetarians have lower rates of cancer than meat eaters." For the study, Allen and colleagues used data from the British arm of the European Perspective Investment into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) which is following half a million people throughout Europe. For an average follow up of 12.2 years, they studied 61,566 British men and women, which included 32,403 meat eaters, 8,562 non-meat eaters who ate fish but not meat (the "fish eaters") and 20,601 vegetarians (ate neither fish nor meat). Over the follow up period there were 3,350 incident cancers of 20 different types, including 2,204 among the meat eaters, 317 among the fish eaters and 829 among the vegetarians. Using statistical tools they calculated the relative risk of developing cancer among the three groups, and adjusted for age and a range of other potential confounders such as smoking, alcohol, body mass index (BMI), exercise/physical activity, and in the case of the women only, whether they took oral contraceptives. The results showed that overall, vegetarians were 12 per cent less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters, while fish eaters were 18 per cent less likely (however fish eaters was also a smaller sample and potentially a less reliable statistic). Thus, while in the general population about 33 people in 100 will get cancer at some point in their lifetime, for people who don"t eat meat this risk is about 29 in 100. Such figures suggest a change of diet could prevent 2 million Britons from developing cancer. But lead author Professor Tim Key, also from Oxford University, told the media we should not rely too strongly on these findings: "At the moment these findings are not strong enough to ask for particularly large changes in the diets of people following an average balanced diet," he said, according to a BBC report. For some cancers like leukaemia, stomach and bladder cancers, the risk was considerably lower, with vegetarians 45 per cent less likely to contract one of these cancers than meat eaters, but for other cancers such as prostate, breast and bowel cancer, the risk was much the same for vegetarians and meat eaters. One of the things that stood out, was the fact that vegetarians appeared to have much lower risk of getting cancers of the lymph and blood. When these were grouped, vegetarians had about 50 per cent lower risk than meat eaters. And in one rare cancer in particular, multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow, vegetarians were 75 per cent less likely to develop the disease compared to meat eaters. And for these cancers the fish eaters had much the same risk as the meat eaters. Speculating as to why this might be so, the researchers said it could be either because of something in meat, perhaps viruses or compounds that cause mutation, or it could be a protective effect in vegetables. One area where vegetarians and fish eaters had a much higher risk of cancer was in the case of cervical cancer, where the risk was nearly double for these groups compared to meat eaters. The researchers suggest this could be down to chance because of the small numbers involved, or it could be something about diet that affects the ability of the cancer-causing virus to take hold. The researchers said they also found marked differences between meat-eaters and vegetarians in the propensity to cancers of the lymph and the blood, with vegetarians just over half as likely to develop these forms of the disease. Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK, a charity that funded the research, told the press: "These interesting results add to the evidence that what we eat affects our chances of developing cancer." She said we already knew that eating a lot of red and processed meat increased people"s risk of stomach cancer but she said we should be careful about interpreting the results of this study. "The links between diet and cancer risk are complex and more research is needed to see how big a part diet plays and which specific dietary factors are most important," said Hiom, according to a report in the Telegraph. However, she did say that the low number of vegetarians who developed cancer in this study would suggest that it might be wise to follow the advice of Cancer Research UK, and other groups, that people should eat: "A healthy, balanced diet high in fibre, fruit and vegetables and low in saturated fat, salt and red and processed meat." Dr Panagiota Mitrou, the World Cancer Research Fund"s Science and Research Programme Manager told the BBC: "The suggestion that vegetarians might be at reduced risk of blood cancers is particularly interesting." But he also said the findings should be treated with caution, because we don"t know enough about the underlying mechanisms that link diet and these types of cancer. "Further studies of vegetarians are needed before we can be confident this is actually the case," said Mitrou. "Cancer incidence in British vegetarians." T J Key, P N Appleby, E A Spencer, R C Travis, N E Allen, M Thorogood and J I Mann. Br J Cancer 101: 192-197; advance online publication, June 16, 2009; doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605098 s: BBC, Telegraph, Cancer Research UK. Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD Copyright: Medical News Today Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):