National study finds frequent use of hair straighteners may pose risk for uterine cancer

Can frequent use of hair straighteners pose a small risk for uterine cancer?

According to a story by Roni Caryn Rabin in today's editions of The New York Times, the answer is yes. 

Rabin's article says the risk is higher than for women who have never used the products.

The study, which was published yesterday in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, followed nearly 34,000 U.S. women for more than a decade.

Hair straightener use has previously been tied in studies to a higher risk of ovarian and breast cancer.

"While the increased risk [for uterine cancer] was found among women from all racial and ethnic backgrounds," the story continues, "Black women might be disproportionately affected: Sixty percent of participants who reported using hair straighteners self-identified as Black women, according to the study."

A March report from an expert panel indicated that over all Black women die of uterine cancer at twice the rate that White women do.

Frequent use is defined as more than four times in the previous year, and includes "any personal use, whether women applied products themselves or had the straighteners applied by others."

Alexandra White, PhD

Alexandra White, PhD head of the environmental and cancer epidemiology group of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (HIEHS) and the study's lead author, is quoted as saying that "there is a lot of pressure on women, especially Black women, to have straight hair. It's not an easy decision to not do this."

Researchers have cautioned that the study's findings need to be confirmed by other studies.

The uterine cancer study, Rabin's piece says, shows that some chemicals found in straighteners — such as parabens, bisphenol A, metals, and formaldehyde — could week "play a role in the increased" risk.

Uterine cancer, the story maintains, "is increasing rapidly. The number of cases diagnosed each year has rises to 65,950 this year from 39,000 just 15 years ago." 

When detected early, overall survival rates are high.

More information about risk factors, including those for minority groups, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Screenings for lung cancer could pose serious risks for patients, two expert physicians declare

False-positives from cat scans for lung cancer could do more harm than good.

At least that's the conclusion of two cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco.

The two — Dr. Rita Redberg and Dr. Sanket Dhruva — published their view in a recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Their piece notes that while "more Americans are worried about cancer than Covid-19, according to a recent Gallup poll," the screenings often lead "to significant harm."

Dr. Rita Redberg

How? Redberg, who has served on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and Dhruva contend that CT scans (computed tomography) "generally lead to more 'incidental findings,' without clinical significance, than to actual cancers being detected. And at least 20% of patients will receive false-positive findings." 

They go on to say that "at a minimum, this 'overdiagnosis' causes significant anxiety and stress. But it can also lead doctors to order more invasive procedures such as lung biopsies and sometimes surgery to remove part of the lung. Moreover, CT scans use X-ray radiation, which is associated with increased cancer risk."

On the other hand, cat scans might save a patient from lung cancer, which is now the leading cause of cancer death in the United States (130,000 people die from it each year).

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended an annual CT scan for some patients with a heavy smoking history after shared decision-making — because it's been proven in clinical trials that it reduces the death rate when "performed on patients at high-risk — those age 50 to 74 who smoked about one pack per day for 30 years."

The Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee, which Redberg has chaired and which is made up of independent experts, concluded, according to the op-ed, "there was not sufficient evidence that the benefits of a robust CT scan policy exceeded the harms."  

The op-ed further maintains "research shows that shared decision-making is rarely happening prior to CT scans, despite the Medicare requirement. When any conversation does occur, doctors underemphasize, or omit altogether, the risks — while overemphasizing the benefits. Medicare has failed to enforce its own shared decision-making requirement, meaning that hundreds of thousands of patients are agreeing to lung cancer screening scans without being fully informed of the risks and shortcomings of the test."

Dr. Sanket Dhruva

Redberg and Dhruva also contend that "published studies have shown that engagement in thoughtful shared decision-making about CT scans led about 40% of patients to decline lung cancer screening."

Doctors "owe it to patients," they conclude, "to equip them with the information and tools to make fully informed decisions."

More information about tests that can be risky can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

'Forever chemicals' make rainwater anywhere around globe unsafe to drink, new study says

Rainwater apparently is no longer safe to drink anywhere on Earth because of "forever chemicals" linked to cancer.

At least that's the findings of a new study, according to a recent story by Morgan McFall-Johnsen on the Business Insider website.

The study, made by a team of environmental scientists at the University of Stockholm, used U.S. contamination guidelines as a baseline. Results were published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. 

The hazardous chemicals — per- and polyfluoroaklyl substances, or PFAS — "have spread throughout the entire atmosphere, leaving no place untouched," the article indicates.

The University of Stockholm has been a site of studies of PFAS for a decade.

According to McFall-Johnsen's piece, there are "thousands of PFAS, all human-made, used in food packaging, water-repellent clothing, furniture, carpets, nonstick coating on pots and pans, fire-extinguishing foams, electronics, and some shampoos and cosmetics."

During manufacturing and daily use, the story continues, "they can be released into the air. They also leach into open water and get aerosolized in sea spray. From there, they spread through the atmosphere and fall back to Earth in rain."

The term "forever chemicals" stems from their lingering a long time before breaking down.

PFAs, the story says, are "a hazard to human health, and peer-reviewed studies have linked them to some cancers, decreased fertility, reduced vaccine response, high cholesterol, and developmental delays in children."

Ian Cousins, PhD

The Insider article quotes Ian Cousins, lead author of the study, a PhD and a professor at the University of Stockholm's department of environmental science, to the effect that, based on the U.S. guidelines, "rainwater everywhere would be judged unsafe to drink." 

Although "in the industrial world we don't often drink rainwater [directly], many people around the world expect it to be safe to drink, and it supplies many of our drinking water sources," the story also quotes Cousins.

Because PFAS "persist for so long and cycle through the planet's oceans, atmosphere, and soil so effectively, the researchers expect levels will continue to be dangerously high," the article underscores.

It is "vitally important," the researchers wrote, "that PFAS uses and emissions are rapidly restricted."

More information about chemicals adding to people's risk of disease can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Help possible for some breast, prostate diseases

Common dietary supplement might be the remedy for a rare genetic mutation that can lead to cancer

Although a rare genetic mutation leads to cancer, a fix may already be available.

According to a recent story by Gina Kolata in The New York Times, "a common dietary supplement may help overcome mutations in the Pten gene."

The real question, the Times asks, is, "Should patients take it?"

And the paper's answer, based on medical personnel that were interviewed, is a qualified yes.

Kolata's article says that the mutation "markedly raises the risk for several cancers, including prostate and breast cancer…as well as autism and schizophrenia in some individuals."

The lifetime risk in carriers, it indicates, is an astoundingly high 85 percent.

In theory, those at risk could help themselves by eating brussels sprouts, broccoli or other cruciferous veggies. The problem is, Kolata reports, to get enough to be of real use, "they'd have to eat a lot: six pounds of brussels sprouts a day — raw."

Instead, a healing compound "is widely available as a dietary supplement" found in local drugstores.

Experts, Kolata adds, "are debating whether to embark on a clinical trial with it."

The Times specifically cites a study published in the journal Science in which "researchers found evidence that a compound called indole-3-cabinol (i3c) blocks an enzyme that inhibits the activity of Pten. With the gene more active, patients with the mutation may be better protected against cancer."

The study, Kolata notes, "was done only in mice and in human cancer cells grown  in petrie dishes."

She explains, further, that although the findings do apply to Pten gene activity, "there is little evidence for most of the other wild claims made for i3c by supplement makers."

Although inherited Pten mutations are rare, striking one in 200,000, the gene also spontaneously mutates in many tumors. "When that happens," the Times piece maintains, "the patient's prognosis is poor."

Dr. Mustafa Sahin

The article quotes Dr. Mustafa Sahin, an expert on the gene at Boston Children's Hospital (who wasn't involved in the work at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston that was the basis for the Journal report), called the research a "tour de force study" whose result was "a paradigm shift in the field [that is] very exciting in terms of its therapeutic implications."

The Times also quotes Dr. Pier Paolo Pandolfi, director of the center who's been trying to find a way to restore Pten activity for years and is the senior author of the paper, as saying about the findings: "We got lucky — or smart."

More information about mutations, especially the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer" a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

High-sugar foods can lead to obesity, then cancer

Daily glass of fruit juice or diet soda can boost disease risk, new French study of 100,000 adults shows

Even one daily glass of juice or soda can increase your risk of cancer. 

That conclusion, according to a recent story by Najja Parker in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, stems from a new study of 100,000 French adults who were followed for nine years.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, says that consuming sugary drinks each day — in amounts as small as 100 ml of 100% fruit juice or one-third of a typical can of an artificially sweetened diet beverage — is now "associated with an overall increase in cancer risk of 18% and breast cancer risk by 22%."

Earlier this year, the AJC article continues, "researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found sugary drinks were linked to higher risk of early death, especially for women."

Dr. Mathilde Touvier

But lead researcher Dr. Mathilde Touvier told The Guardian that "it's probably safe to drink soda or fruit juice on occasion," according to a story by Stephen Johnson on the Big Think website. "The recommendation from several public health agencies," she's quoted as saying, "is to consume less than one drink per day. If you consume from time to time a sugary drink it won't be a problem, but if you drink at least one glass a day it can raise the risk of several diseases — here, maybe cancer, but also with a high level of evidence, cardiometabolic diseases."  

A handful of U.S. cities — including Albany, Berkeley and San Francisco in California; Boulder, Colorado; Philadelphia; and Seattle — have levied taxes on the soda industry. "Those levies seem to decrease soda consumption," Johnson's piece says.

The Big Think article also notes that "although consuming large amounts of sugar has been linked to some forms of cancer, like esophageal cancer, there's no strong evidence showing that it causes the disease, according to the American institute for Cancer Research. But there is an indirect link: Eating high-sugar foods often leads to obesity, which, in turn, raises the risk of developing cancer."

Information on other cancer-causing agents can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Appeal expected on ruling on breakfast foods

Los Angeles court says industry doesn't need to put cancer warning labels on cereals 

There's a cereal war going on these days.

Between advocates of breakfast foods such as Grape-Nut flakes and Cheerios that contain whole grains and researchers who insist those cereals contain a chemical — acrylamide — that's a potential cause of cancer.

The latest shot in the skirmish, according to a story by Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle, came when a California court ruled recently that the breakfast cereals don't need cancer warnings.

The 3-0 ruling by the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the cereals, produced by Post, General Mills and Kellogg, needn't heed Proposition 65, a right-to-know law state voters passed in 1986 that "requires businesses to notify the public when their products, or any substances they release into the environment, contain ingredients that have been shown to cause cancer or birth defects" because such labels might discourage consumers from buying healthy food.

A huge win for the cereal industry, the decision was based on 2003 and 2006 letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to state health officials claiming that warning labels "would mislead consumers and lead to health detriments."

Requiring warnings on all foods containing the chemical at levels that pose any risk of cancer, the court indicated, might harm the value of "peanut butter, rye and whole wheat bread, sunflower seeds, and prune juice," according to the Chronicle piece.

Justice Chaney

Another story, by Eric Schroeder on the Food Business News website, reports that Associate Justice Victoria Gerrard Chaney had said no Prop. 65 warning "should be placed on foods, including breakfast cereals, unless and until the science supports such a warning."

The court decision observed "that when the state sought to require Prop 65 warnings on canned tuna because it may contain harmful levels of mercury, an appeals court said California law was preempted because federal health officials were already advising consumers of tuna's benefits and possible risks."

The state Supreme Court, Egelko's story continued, "followed officials' directions in 2004 by refusing to allow Prop. 65 warnings on anti-smoking patches containing nicotine, which can cause fetal damage."

An appeal of the court ruling — in which a dismissal of a suit by Richard Sowinski, a retired Walnut Creek physician who'd sought to require Prop. 65 warnings on 59 cereals — was expected.

The ruling, not incidentally, means the court has rejected arguments that Prop. 65 warnings would encourage the companies to make safer cereals.

Federal agencies have listed acrylamide as a carcinogen, and it was placed on the Prop. 65 list in 1990.

In 2002, researchers learned the chemical was "a byproduct of baking, roasting or frying carbohydrate-rich foods such as potato chips and French fries — both of which now carry Prop. 65 warning labels — and cereals," the Chronicle story stated.

Acrylamide has also been the recent focus of whether warning labels are necessary on coffee packaging.

Details on other cancer risks can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Half of cancer deaths may be preventable

Even small lifestyle changes can sharply cut your cancer risk, NY Times columnist claims

Dr. Aaron E. Carroll

Evidence, writes a medical columnist in The New York Times, "has increasingly accumulated that cancer may be preventable."

Especially if potential patients stop drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, alter their diets, exercise and lose weight.

In a recent Aaron E. Carroll-bylined column under the rubric of The New Health Care received recently from The New York Times' online service, it's stated that "simple changes to people's behaviors have the potential to make sure many cancers never occur."

And they have "a side benefit of preventing health problems in many other areas, too," Dr. Carroll maintains.

The website headline indicates that "quite a bit is in your control" regarding the prevention of cancer, and the column, originally printed in 2016, cites a study published in Nature to the effect that "there is a lot we can do" to reduce our risk of cancer by changing our behavior.

That study contradicts research published in Science magazine in 2015 that many apparently took to mean that "cancer is much more because of 'bad luck' than because of other factors that people could control."

Carroll's piece contends that "many studies have shown that environmental risk factors and exposures contribute greatly to many cancers. Diet is related to colorectal cancer. Alcohol and tobacco are related to esophageal cancer. HPV is related to cervical cancer, and hepatitis C is related to liver cancer. And you'd have to be living under a rock not to know that smoking causes lung cancer and that too much sun can lead to skin cancer."

But, the professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine notes, "using sophisticated modeling techniques, the researchers argued that less than 30 percent of the lifetime risk of getting many common cancers was because of intrinsic risk factors, or the 'bad luck.' The rest were things you can change."

According to the study, "about 82 percent of women and 78 percent of men who got lung cancer might have prevented it through healthy behaviors. About 29 percent of women and 20 percent of meant might have prevented colon and rectal cancer. About 30 percent of both might have prevented pancreatic cancer."

Over all, it said, "about 25 percent of cancer in women and 33 percent in men was potentially preventable. Close to half of all cancer deaths might be prevented as well."

More information about how to cut down the risk of diseases can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Vaccine can prevent most HPV cancers

Over one-fifth of U.S. adults are infected with cancer-causing virus, federal report says

More than 20 percent of U.S. grown-ups are infected with a cancer-causing virus, a federal agency has reported.

A story by Jia Naqvi in The Washington Post today says that a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed almost 23 percent of American adults between the ages of 18 and 59 had one particular type "of genital human papilloma virus (HPV) that put them at high risk of certain cancers."

The percentage almost doubled — to 42 percent — "if any type of genital HPV was included."

Prevalence, the study of 2013 and 2014 showed, "was higher in men than in women, and it was sharply higher among blacks compared to other racial and ethnic groups."

Geraldine McQuillan

Geraldine McQuillan, lead author of the report and a senior infectious disease epidemiologist at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, is quoted as saying, "People really need to realize that this is a serious concern."

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States, the story states, with nearly 80 million people currently infected and about 14 million new infections occurring "annually among teenagers as well as adults."

Each year, the Post article adds, "31,000 men and women are diagnosed with cancers caused by HPV — which, in most cases, would have been preventable with the HPV vaccine, according to the CDC."

Studies of cancer-causing agents are detailed in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Headlines wrongly equate meat risks to smoking

First news reports exaggerate causal links that processed and red meats have to cancers 

Despite "persuasive evidence that eating meat can cause cancer," the risks are "very small for most people," declares an editorial in The New York Times.

The scathing commentary came after a World Health Organization (WHO) adjunct, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, found that processed meats (especially bacon, ham, corned beef, sausages and hot dogs) may be linked to colon and stomach cancers.

The group, according to an earlier Times news article by Anahad O'Connor, the WHO arm had evaluated more than 900 environmental and lifestyle factors that may contribute to cancer — including coffee, sunlight and night-shift work. 

The agency's report, which was published in "The Lancet Oncology" and based on a review of 800 epidemiological studies from various nations with differing diets and ethnicities, also indicated that red meats (beef and pork) may be a probable cause of colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

Initial news reports that the risks from eating those meats were as high as that of smoking were grossly exaggerated, however.

Dr. John Ioannidis

The Times editorial quoted Dr. John Ioannidis, chair of disease prevention at Stanford, as saying, "I think it's very important that we don't terrorize people into thinking that they should not eat any red meat at all."

Ioannidis, who wasn't involved in the WHO report, may be best known for causing an academic uproar when he published a paper in 2005 titled "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."

To be fair, the Times news piece also quoted Susan Tapster, vice president of epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, as calling "the panel's conclusions 'an important step' in helping people make more healthful dietary choices."

Recent ACS guidelines suggest skipping both processed and red meat and substituting fish, poultry and beans.

Causes of breast and other cancers are discussed at length in the VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer."