Blood Test Might Spot Pancreatic Cancer Early, Study Finds

But not early enough to make a big difference in survival rates, an expert says

By Steven Reinberg

HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, March 29 (HealthDay News) -- A new blood test that detects deadly pancreatic cancer earlier than usual might slightly improve patients' odds for survival, a small Japanese study suggests.

"This new diagnostic test may be a safe and easy screening method that could improve the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer through earlier detection," said lead researcher Dr. Masaru Yoshida, an associate professor in the division of metabolomics research at Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine. "A drop of blood contains a lot of information."

Currently, the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is less than 5 percent, largely because the cancer usually has spread by the time it is detected.

The new approach relies on metabolomics technology, an emerging science that focuses on small molecules. The blood test measures byproducts of metabolism, called metabolites, found in the blood.

By looking for differences between the levels of metabolites in patients with and without pancreatic cancer, the researchers are able to identify those with cancer.

Finding pancreatic cancer earlier means more patients can have the tumor removed and live longer than most patients do now, Yoshida noted.

"Conventional tests using blood or imaging are not appropriate for pancreatic cancer screening and early detection, so new screening and diagnostic methods for pancreatic cancer are urgently required," Yoshida said.

Currently, in more than 80 percent of cases of pancreatic cancer, the cancer has metastasized, or spread, making it inoperable, he explained.

One expert doesn't think this test is a breakthrough.

"It's an improvement, but not a breakthrough," said Dr. James D'Olimpio, director of supportive oncology at North Shore-LIJ Cancer Institute in Lake Success, N.Y.

"The problem is it's not early enough," he said.

Even if the cancerous tumor can be removed, it's usually too late, he said. By the time the cancer is detected, even in the early stage suggested by their test, the cancer has most likely spread beyond the pancreas, D'Olimpio pointed out.

"The test is able to detect cancer when it is at stage 1, but it's a fatal disease once it gets past stage 0," D'Olimpio said. (Staging, which refers to the severity of a person's cancer, usually runs from 0 to 4.)

"The cure rates of these patients is still going to be less than 20 percent," he said.

For the study, published online March 29 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the researchers used a technology called gas chromatography mass spectrometry to analyze the blood from study participants.

The researchers randomly assigned 43 pancreatic cancer patients and 42 healthy participants to what they called a training set, where they made their initial findings. To validate their findings, they also tried the test on 42 patients with pancreatic cancer, 41 healthy people and 23 people with chronic pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas).

The researchers found 18 metabolites that were significantly different in patients with pancreatic cancer, compared with the healthy patients.

They refined their test using four metabolites to identify patients with pancreatic cancer.

The test had a sensitivity of 71.4 percent and a specificity of 78.1 percent when it was used with patients with pancreatic cancer and patients with chronic pancreatitis, the researchers reported. Sensitivity measures the accuracy of the test in identifying people with pancreatic cancer and specificity measures the accuracy of the test in weeding out those who didn't have the disease. Chronic pancreatitis is sometimes mistaken for cancer, so cutting down false positives is important.

View the original article here

Daily Sunscreen Helps Middle-Aged Skin Stay Young: Study

By Alan Mozes

HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, June 3 (HealthDay News) -- In the never-ending search for the fountain of youth, scientists have looked everywhere under the sun. But a group of Australian researchers now report that the answer lies out of the sun.

Regular daily use of sunscreen appears to significantly slow the process of skin aging among middle-aged men and women, they say.

The finding stems from 4.5 years spent tracking sunscreen use and its ultimate impact on skin quality among more than 900 men and women under the age of 55.

"This has been one of those beauty tips you often hear quoted, but for the first time we can back it with science," said study co-author Adele Green, lab head and senior research fellow with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research at Royal Brisbane Hospital. "Protecting yourself from skin cancer by using sunscreen regularly has the added bonus of keeping you looking younger."

"And the study has shown that up to middle age, it's not too late to make a difference," added Green, who also suggested that sunscreen use is likely to similarly benefit those over 55, though her team did not specifically assess a potential benefit among older users.

The findings appear in the June 4 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Perhaps surprisingly, the authors point out that, to their knowledge, their current effort is the first rigorous scientific exploration of the potential protective effect of sunscreen on skin aging in people.

Green and her team looked at data collected in a study on skin cancer prevention conducted between 1992 and 1996 in Nambour, Australia.

The authors focused on 903 mostly fair-skinned men and women who were under the age of 55, under the assumption that skin aging in that age category would be brought on primarily by so-called "photoaging," as opposed to simply growing older.

Roughly half the participants worked primarily outdoors, while about four in 10 were regular smokers.

All the participants had been randomly assigned to two sunscreen groups. The first was specifically directed to use SPF 15 sunscreen on a daily basis, applying it to their head, neck, arms and hands every morning, and reapplying after bathing, heavy sweating or spending a few hours outside.

The second group was not told to avoid sunscreen, but rather to use it as they wished.

The study also assessed the potential impact of dietary antioxidants on skin quality. Each group of participants was further divided into half, in which one sub-group was given 30 milligrams of beta-carotene to take on a daily basis, while the other was given a sugar pill (placebo).

Using a process called "microtopography," the team then analyzed skin changes such as shifts in texture and roughness, by looking at the status of each participant's left hand.

View the original article here

Drug-Resistant 'Superbug' May Spread Among Patients, Study Finds

Title: Drug-Resistant 'Superbug' May Spread Among Patients, Study Finds
Category: Health News
Created: 3/29/2013 10:35:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 3/29/2013 12:00:00 AM

View the original article here

Gaining a muscle weight for cylist

Hi everyone,

I've been cycling for all my life and it's been a big part in losing 50 pounds 3 years ago. I've been racing mountain bike when I was a little younger and I'm now considering racing again in the coming year. 

Since I lost all this weight I've been consistently noticing how my legs do not have the power they use to have. And the thing is I easily lose weight now because I'm pretty active and I seem to not be able to eat enough to compensate and every bike season for the past 3 years I've lost about 10 pounds compare to my winter weight.

I do understand I need to eat more but I am also well aware that i need to eat more protein and specific food to help rebuild muscle and keep my weight up.

So my question is how to keep biking (4-6 times a week, 10-12hr/week) and slowly rebuild my leg muscle and keep my weight up? I'm also considering doing some kettlebell workout 2-3 times a week to help building muscle. Although it's good as a cyclist to be on the light side, I definitely need to add power. 

What kind of food and how much calorie I should need daily to achieve this goal?

Are kettlebell workout be good for me ?

I currently weigh 140lb and is 5feet9inches tall. I eat about 2000-2500 cals a day currently.

Thanks for all your advice!

View the original article here

Saoirse Ronan at The Host screening

Saoirse Ronan wears a printed Proenza Schouler dress and black Christian Louboutins at The Host screening in NY - vote on celebrity fashion, style and red carpet looks in GLAMOUR.COM’s Dos and Don’ts

Continue reading...

View the original article here

Stella McCartney at the James McCartney concert in London

Stella McCartney wears a grey pinstripe coat, grey trousers and black ankle boots to the James McCartney concert in London - vote on celebrity fashion, style and red carpet looks in GLAMOUR.COM’s Dos and Don’ts

Continue reading...

View the original article here

Smokers Cost Employers Thousands More Than Nonsmokers

About $6000 in extra annual costs stem from more time off, smoking breaks, health care, study shows

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, June 4 (HealthDay News) -- Compared to nonsmoking employees, every staff member who lights up costs their employer nearly $6,000 more each year, according to a new report.

The researchers found that more time off, smoking breaks and added health care costs were to blame for this discrepancy. The findings could have implications for smoking policies in the workplace, they suggested.

"Employees who smoke impose significant excess costs on private employers," Micah Berman, of the College of Public Health & Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, and colleagues wrote. "The results of this study may help inform employer decisions about tobacco-related policies."

For the study, the investigators analyzed previous studies in order to estimate the costs associated with employing a smoker. In making their calculation, they also analyzed absenteeism, presenteeism (lower productivity while working due to smoking-related health problems), smoking breaks, health care costs and pension benefits for smokers.

The study, published in the June 3 online edition of Tobacco Control, revealed that low productivity due to more missed days at work costs employers, on average, $517 annually for each employee that smokes. Meanwhile, presenteeism costs $462 annually for each smoker, smoking breaks cost $3,077 a year per smoker and excess health care expenses cost $2,056 annually for every employee that smokes.

Because smokers are more likely to die at a younger age than nonsmokers, annual pension costs were an average of $296 less for each employee who smoked, the researchers noted. Overall, the total estimated cost to employers was $5,816 per year.

In the United States alone, 19 percent of adults smoke, putting themselves at greater risk for cancer, heart and lung disease. Some U.S. companies avoid hiring smokers or have started charging employees who smoke higher premiums for health insurance, the researchers pointed out in a journal news release.

"It is important to remember that the costs imposed by tobacco use are not simply financial costs. It is not possible to put a price on the lost lives and the human suffering caused by smoking," Berman's team wrote. "The desire to help one's employees lead healthier and longer lives should provide an additional impetus for employers to work towards eliminating tobacco from the workplace."

View the original article here