MUNICH, Germany — A preliminary study of exhaled breath suggests that temperatures higher than 34°C may be a strong indicator of the presence of lung cancer. In a sample of 82 patients who presented with clinical suspicion of lung cancer, 96% of patients had the disease.
"Airway inflammation and angiogenesis play a key role in the pathogenesis of lung cancer," Giulia Scioscia, MD, a fellow in pulmonary medicine at Hospital Clínic i Provincial de Barcelona, said at a news conference here at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress 2014. "Exhaled breath temperature has been proven to be an indicator of airway inflammation and increased vascularity. The aim of our research is to determine possible correlations of exhaled breath with progression, metastasis or other clinical outcomes of patients with cancers."
The researchers aimed to find breath temperature values that correlate with lung cancer. They analyzed 82 consecutive participants with a radiologic suspicion of lung cancer using the X-Halo (Delmedica Investments) breath thermometer. Lung cancer was later diagnosed in 40 people. A total of 42 did not have lung cancer and served as controls. All patients underwent standard diagnostic and staging procedures.
The team compared breath temperatures in patients with lung cancer and controls in various categories, including by sex, age, smoking habit, and the presence or absence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In each category, people with cancer had statistically significantly higher breath temperatures than controls.
The researchers then used a receiver operating characteristic curve to determine an ideal temperature threshold for signaling lung cancer. That analysis showed that values above 34°C would be a good cutoff. Most — 96% — who had breath temperatures in that range were found to have lung cancer.
Pilot Study
The researchers stressed that this was a pilot study. "It's not sensitive enough," coauthor Giovanna Elisiana Carpagnano, MD, from the University of Foggia in Italy, said at the news conference. However, Dr. Carpagnano added that it could eventually become part of a screening panel. The researchers plan to explore the test in patients with other inflammatory conditions to get a better idea of its performance.
"I think the data are quite interesting," chair of the ERS lung cancer group Fernando Gamarra, MD, from Klinikum St. Elisabeth Straubing in Germany said. It's also novel. "I'm not aware that anybody has done it before," he added. Dr. Gamarra said he thinks that the researchers will have to account for other factors that could affect breath temperature, such as whether the person is currently smoking, the velocity with which a person exhales, or overall size. Large people may have higher breath temperatures, he pointed out.
It also remains to be seen if the approach could work consistently in early-stage cancers, which is the population that would most benefit from screening. The current study drew from patients already presenting at a hospital, and so they tended to have more advanced disease, although the researchers did note higher temperatures even in early cancers. "I would like to see a study in a limited group, say just in patients with stage 1 or 2," Dr. Gamarra said.
Welcome to my collection of health articles. Most of them contain little nuggets of health wisdom that we can easily apply to our daily lives. As you can gather, I've been consuming all sorts of supplements over the years, most of them from iherb. They deliver on time (DHL), and prices are good. If you're a first-time buyer, use my code 'pot089' to enjoy up to $10 off.
Showing posts with label lung cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lung cancer. Show all posts
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Friday, 19 July 2013
Air Pollution, Even at Low Levels, Tied to Lung Cancer
Prolonged exposure to air pollution is significantly associated with an increased risk for lung cancer, according to the results of a new meta-analysis.
The study adds "substantially to the weight of epidemiological evidence" that links the 2 phenomena, say the authors, led by Ole Raaschou-Nielsen, PhD, from the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, in Copenhagen.
The researchers, who synthesized data from 17 cohort studies in 9 European countries, found that the risk exists even when the levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution were below the current European limit values.
Sources of PM air pollution include traffic, industry, and domestic heating.
"We found no threshold below which there was no risk; the results showed a picture that 'the more the worse, the less the better,' " said Dr. Raaschou-Nielsen in a press statement.
"Particulate matter air pollution contributes to lung cancer incidence in Europe," the study authors conclude.
The study, which is one of the largest studies of its kind, included data on more than 300,000 individuals and 2095 lung cancer cases and had a median follow-up of 12.8 years. It was published online July 10 in the journal Lancet Oncology.
"At this stage, we might have to add air pollution, even at current concentrations, to the list of causes of lung cancer," write Takashi Yorifuji MD, PhD, from Okayama University Graduate School of Environmental and Life Science, and Saori Kashima, PhD, from Hiroshima University, in Japan, in an accompanying editorial.
Air pollution is not recognized by medical practitioners as a cause of lung cancer, the pair say. For instance, it is not listed in the iconic Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine as a cause.
It may also be time to "recognise that air pollution has large effects on public health," the Japanese editorialists state.
Evidence for an association between air pollution exposure and lung cancer is "accumulating," they say. Still, the lung cancer risk associated with air pollution is much lower than that associated with smoking. For instance, in the current study, there was a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.22 (per 10 μg/m³ increase in PM10). By contrast, other research indicates that the relative risk [RR] of developing lung cancer is 23.3 for currently smoking men and 12.7 for currently smoking women compared with nonsmokers. However, the editorials point out that 'everybody is exposed to air pollution." Thus, "the public health effect is quite large."
The editorialists also point out that the World Health Organization has estimated that smoking caused 5.1 million deaths and 71% of lung cancer worldwide in 2004, whereas air pollution caused 1.2 million deaths and 8% of lung cancer worldwide in the same year.
Greater Risk for Adenocarcinomas
In the new study, the authors assessed the impact of long-term exposure to nitrogen oxides and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and less than 10 micrometers (PM10) on the risk for lung cancer.
Air pollution concentration was estimated at individuals' home addresses using land-use regression models. Participants were tracked for new lung cancer diagnoses in cancer registries. The researchers also applied statistical modeling to control for other factors like smoking, diet, and occupation.
The analysis found that for every increase of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 pollution, the risk for lung cancer rose by 18%, and for every increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter in PM10pollution, the risk increased by 22%.
The risk/HRs were even higher for the lung cancer subtype, adenocarcinomas. The same increments of PM10 and PM2.5 were associated with HRs for adenocarcinomas of the lung of 1.51 and 1.55, respectively.
However, other studies have not found that there is a pronounced relation between air pollution and any particular lung cancer subtype, the authors and editorialists point out.
No association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides was found.
The HRs for lung cancer were similar with and without restriction to study participants below most of the predefined public safety threshold values, say the authors. This suggests that "exposure of populations to particulate matter air pollution even at concentrations below the existing European Union air quality limit values for PM10 (40 ug/m³) and PM2.5 (25 ug/m³) might increase the risk for lung cancer," they write.
The new study is "sophisticated and overcame several limitations of previous air pollution studies," the editorialists say.
They point out that earlier studies examined the effect of air pollution on lung cancer by assessing the geographical correlations between air pollution concentration data in communities and aggregate data on lung cancer. However, this method is subject to exposure misclassification and confounding, especially by tobacco smoking.
The new study takes advantage of the fact that researchers subsequently tried to reduce these systematic errors by shifting to case-control or cohort studies with area-level exposure assessment.
Dr. Raaschou-Nielsen and colleagues took the next step by conducting a meta-analysis of these newer studies.
The new study also benefited from a high follow-up rate and adjustment of potential confounders, including a set of smoking variables, the editorialists emphasize.
The study adds "substantially to the weight of epidemiological evidence" that links the 2 phenomena, say the authors, led by Ole Raaschou-Nielsen, PhD, from the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, in Copenhagen.
The researchers, who synthesized data from 17 cohort studies in 9 European countries, found that the risk exists even when the levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution were below the current European limit values.
Sources of PM air pollution include traffic, industry, and domestic heating.
"We found no threshold below which there was no risk; the results showed a picture that 'the more the worse, the less the better,' " said Dr. Raaschou-Nielsen in a press statement.
"Particulate matter air pollution contributes to lung cancer incidence in Europe," the study authors conclude.
The study, which is one of the largest studies of its kind, included data on more than 300,000 individuals and 2095 lung cancer cases and had a median follow-up of 12.8 years. It was published online July 10 in the journal Lancet Oncology.
"At this stage, we might have to add air pollution, even at current concentrations, to the list of causes of lung cancer," write Takashi Yorifuji MD, PhD, from Okayama University Graduate School of Environmental and Life Science, and Saori Kashima, PhD, from Hiroshima University, in Japan, in an accompanying editorial.
Air pollution is not recognized by medical practitioners as a cause of lung cancer, the pair say. For instance, it is not listed in the iconic Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine as a cause.
It may also be time to "recognise that air pollution has large effects on public health," the Japanese editorialists state.
Evidence for an association between air pollution exposure and lung cancer is "accumulating," they say. Still, the lung cancer risk associated with air pollution is much lower than that associated with smoking. For instance, in the current study, there was a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.22 (per 10 μg/m³ increase in PM10). By contrast, other research indicates that the relative risk [RR] of developing lung cancer is 23.3 for currently smoking men and 12.7 for currently smoking women compared with nonsmokers. However, the editorials point out that 'everybody is exposed to air pollution." Thus, "the public health effect is quite large."
The editorialists also point out that the World Health Organization has estimated that smoking caused 5.1 million deaths and 71% of lung cancer worldwide in 2004, whereas air pollution caused 1.2 million deaths and 8% of lung cancer worldwide in the same year.
Greater Risk for Adenocarcinomas
In the new study, the authors assessed the impact of long-term exposure to nitrogen oxides and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and less than 10 micrometers (PM10) on the risk for lung cancer.
Air pollution concentration was estimated at individuals' home addresses using land-use regression models. Participants were tracked for new lung cancer diagnoses in cancer registries. The researchers also applied statistical modeling to control for other factors like smoking, diet, and occupation.
The analysis found that for every increase of 5 micrograms per cubic meter of PM2.5 pollution, the risk for lung cancer rose by 18%, and for every increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter in PM10pollution, the risk increased by 22%.
The risk/HRs were even higher for the lung cancer subtype, adenocarcinomas. The same increments of PM10 and PM2.5 were associated with HRs for adenocarcinomas of the lung of 1.51 and 1.55, respectively.
However, other studies have not found that there is a pronounced relation between air pollution and any particular lung cancer subtype, the authors and editorialists point out.
No association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides was found.
The HRs for lung cancer were similar with and without restriction to study participants below most of the predefined public safety threshold values, say the authors. This suggests that "exposure of populations to particulate matter air pollution even at concentrations below the existing European Union air quality limit values for PM10 (40 ug/m³) and PM2.5 (25 ug/m³) might increase the risk for lung cancer," they write.
The new study is "sophisticated and overcame several limitations of previous air pollution studies," the editorialists say.
They point out that earlier studies examined the effect of air pollution on lung cancer by assessing the geographical correlations between air pollution concentration data in communities and aggregate data on lung cancer. However, this method is subject to exposure misclassification and confounding, especially by tobacco smoking.
The new study takes advantage of the fact that researchers subsequently tried to reduce these systematic errors by shifting to case-control or cohort studies with area-level exposure assessment.
Dr. Raaschou-Nielsen and colleagues took the next step by conducting a meta-analysis of these newer studies.
The new study also benefited from a high follow-up rate and adjustment of potential confounders, including a set of smoking variables, the editorialists emphasize.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Soy improves lung cancer survival in women
The consumption of soy food before a lung cancer diagnosis might favorably affect disease outcomes in women, according to a longitudinal follow-up study from China.
In the Shanghai Women's Health Study, women with lung cancer who ate low levels of soy daily were at greater risk of dying from lung cancer than those who ate average or higher levels of the Asian food staple over their lifetimes.
Specifically, in 301 women with lung cancer, there was an 81% increased risk for death from lung cancer in those in the 10th percentile of soy intake, compared with those in those in the 50th percentile (the median). In contrast, there was an 11% decreased risk for death in women in the 90th percentile of intake, compared with those in the 50th percentile (P for overall significance = .004).
These effect sizes were found after adjustment for a wide variety of factors, including tumor stage and treatment.
In short, soy might have a disease-modulating effect, say the authors, led by Gong Yang, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
The study results were published online today in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
"Plant-derived estrogens, such as isoflavones found mainly in soy food, appear to act as natural selective estrogen-receptor modulators," they write.
Thus, soy could compete with a woman's endogenous estrogens in binding to estrogen receptors, the authors explain. Soy might occupy the receptors so they cannot be stimulated by the body's estrogens.
Dr. Yang and his coauthors point out that emerging evidence suggests that female sex hormones negatively affect lung cancer survival. The evidence includes well-publicized data from the Women's Health Initiative, which showed that estrogen-plus-progestin therapy significantly increased the risk for death from lung cancer.
"Soy may have a mechanism of action similar to drugs like tamoxifen," Jyoti Patel, MD, from Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, told Medscape Medical News.
"This is the first scientific evidence that soy has a favorable effect on lung cancer survival," said Dr. Patel, who is a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and provided independent comment on the study.
"It's really exciting," she summarized.
This study is part of a varied body of research that is seeking "hormonal clues" to lung cancer, she explained.
In 2012, Dr. Yang and colleagues found, in the same 74,000-patient cohort of Shanghai women, an approximately 40% reduction in the risk for incident lung cancer associated with the high intake of soy food. Thus, eating soy could both prevent and alter the disease course of lung cancer.
In the current study, the amount of soy consumed by the 301 women with lung cancer that was most protective (>20 g/day) was "not astronomical," said Dr. Patel. "But you have to make a concerted effort [to eat that much]," she added, referring especially to Westerners, who are less likely to include soy in their diet.
Americans typically consume what the study deemed to be a low level of soy (≤12 g/day), said Dr. Patel, who explained that the study results are "likely more applicable" in Asian countries.
More epidemiologic studies are needed to confirm these results, the authors note.
Almost all were non-smokers
There were actually 440 cases of lung cancer in the 74,000-women Shanghai cohort, but only 301 had information about both tumor stage and treatment. The hazard ratios for the 440 women were less dramatic than those for the 301 women reported above.
For example, in the 440 women with lung cancer, there was a 42% increased risk for death from lung cancer in the women who were in the 10th percentile of soy intake, compared with those in the 50th percentile (the median). In the 301 women, that increase was much larger (81%).
Nevertheless, although the effect sizes varied, the evidence in support of a possible protective effect of soy was constant.
As expected in an Asian population, most of the women with lung cancer (about 92%) were never smokers. Mean age at cancer diagnosis was 66.3 years.
The researchers assessed soy dietary intake with a food-frequency questionnaire, which covered soy milk, tofu, fried tofu, dried or pressed tofu, fresh green soy beans, dry soy beans, soy sprouts, and other soy products.
Mean intakes, on a dry weight basis, were 18.0 g/day for soy food and 8.8 g/day for soy protein.
The authors report that soy food intake was not related to patient characteristics such as age at diagnosis, smoking, obesity, family history of lung cancer, tumor stage, treatment regimens, or time between baseline dietary assessment and disease diagnosis.
In this study, the median follow-up time after cancer diagnosis was 36 months. During the follow-up period, 318 of the 440 women died; in 301 (94.7%), the primary cause of death was lung cancer, and in 17 (5.3%), it was another cause.
In the Shanghai Women's Health Study, women with lung cancer who ate low levels of soy daily were at greater risk of dying from lung cancer than those who ate average or higher levels of the Asian food staple over their lifetimes.
Specifically, in 301 women with lung cancer, there was an 81% increased risk for death from lung cancer in those in the 10th percentile of soy intake, compared with those in those in the 50th percentile (the median). In contrast, there was an 11% decreased risk for death in women in the 90th percentile of intake, compared with those in the 50th percentile (P for overall significance = .004).
These effect sizes were found after adjustment for a wide variety of factors, including tumor stage and treatment.
In short, soy might have a disease-modulating effect, say the authors, led by Gong Yang, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
The study results were published online today in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
"Plant-derived estrogens, such as isoflavones found mainly in soy food, appear to act as natural selective estrogen-receptor modulators," they write.
Thus, soy could compete with a woman's endogenous estrogens in binding to estrogen receptors, the authors explain. Soy might occupy the receptors so they cannot be stimulated by the body's estrogens.
Dr. Yang and his coauthors point out that emerging evidence suggests that female sex hormones negatively affect lung cancer survival. The evidence includes well-publicized data from the Women's Health Initiative, which showed that estrogen-plus-progestin therapy significantly increased the risk for death from lung cancer.
"Soy may have a mechanism of action similar to drugs like tamoxifen," Jyoti Patel, MD, from Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, told Medscape Medical News.
"This is the first scientific evidence that soy has a favorable effect on lung cancer survival," said Dr. Patel, who is a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and provided independent comment on the study.
"It's really exciting," she summarized.
This study is part of a varied body of research that is seeking "hormonal clues" to lung cancer, she explained.
In 2012, Dr. Yang and colleagues found, in the same 74,000-patient cohort of Shanghai women, an approximately 40% reduction in the risk for incident lung cancer associated with the high intake of soy food. Thus, eating soy could both prevent and alter the disease course of lung cancer.
In the current study, the amount of soy consumed by the 301 women with lung cancer that was most protective (>20 g/day) was "not astronomical," said Dr. Patel. "But you have to make a concerted effort [to eat that much]," she added, referring especially to Westerners, who are less likely to include soy in their diet.
Americans typically consume what the study deemed to be a low level of soy (≤12 g/day), said Dr. Patel, who explained that the study results are "likely more applicable" in Asian countries.
More epidemiologic studies are needed to confirm these results, the authors note.
Almost all were non-smokers
There were actually 440 cases of lung cancer in the 74,000-women Shanghai cohort, but only 301 had information about both tumor stage and treatment. The hazard ratios for the 440 women were less dramatic than those for the 301 women reported above.
For example, in the 440 women with lung cancer, there was a 42% increased risk for death from lung cancer in the women who were in the 10th percentile of soy intake, compared with those in the 50th percentile (the median). In the 301 women, that increase was much larger (81%).
Nevertheless, although the effect sizes varied, the evidence in support of a possible protective effect of soy was constant.
As expected in an Asian population, most of the women with lung cancer (about 92%) were never smokers. Mean age at cancer diagnosis was 66.3 years.
The researchers assessed soy dietary intake with a food-frequency questionnaire, which covered soy milk, tofu, fried tofu, dried or pressed tofu, fresh green soy beans, dry soy beans, soy sprouts, and other soy products.
Mean intakes, on a dry weight basis, were 18.0 g/day for soy food and 8.8 g/day for soy protein.
The authors report that soy food intake was not related to patient characteristics such as age at diagnosis, smoking, obesity, family history of lung cancer, tumor stage, treatment regimens, or time between baseline dietary assessment and disease diagnosis.
In this study, the median follow-up time after cancer diagnosis was 36 months. During the follow-up period, 318 of the 440 women died; in 301 (94.7%), the primary cause of death was lung cancer, and in 17 (5.3%), it was another cause.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Milk thistle may curb lung cancer
 |
| Photo: Wiki |
General milk thistle informationMilk thistle has been used successfully for a wide range of liver ailments. Hepatitis B and C, fatty liver, and sclerosis of the liver have all been well contained with daily milk thistle use. But anyone living in our toxic environment may want to use it for optimum liver function. It is available in capsules or tinctures.
The active ingredient of milk thistle is an antioxidant bioflavonoid known as silymarin. Silymarin has three aspects: silybin, silidianin, and silicristen. Silybin has been isolated as the part that delivers most of silymarin's benefits. Those benefits include blocking and removing toxins from the liver while accelerating cell regeneration or repair.
Recent study demonstrates milk thistle's ability to curb lung cancer
A recent study has produced evidence of milk thistle reversing lung cancer. Alpna Tyagi, PhD, of the University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy, and her team found that treatment with silibinin, which is the same substance as silybin but with a different name, stopped the spread of lung cancers in mice. The study was published in the summer 2011 journal Molecular Carcinogenesis.
An inflammatory response leads to a chain of cellular events that can eventually result in tumor growth. Tyagi and her team discovered that targeting a certain pair of enzymes part of the way into that chain of events eliminates the creation of the final pair of enzymes that produce tumors.
In other words, milk thistle's silibinin (aka sylibin) eliminates those enzymes that continue the chain of events, which result in the enzymes that produce tumors.
What's surprisingly noteworthy is how Dr. Alpna Tyagi compared her study of silibinin (aka silybin) to what Big Pharma is currently testing for similar lung cancer afflictions (using millions of dollars to create a patentable pharmaceutical). She bluntly pointed out that "... naturally-derived products like silibinin may be as effective as today's best treatments."
Many alternative cancer treatment experts recommend using three natural protocols if going it alone. This study is good news for anyone looking to include another natural inexpensive, safe weapon for one's personal war on cancer, and should lead to further studies with milk thistle for other forms of cancer.
See also: Grape seed extract emerges as powerful anti-cancer powerhouse
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/034275_milk_thistle_lung_cancer.html#ixzz1fBB6d9Ce
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)