Hereditary cancers are problem for males as well as for females, says head of genetic risk program

Breast cancer is not just a female problem. It strikes 2,500 men in the United States every year and kills about 500 of them.

Dr. Robert Sidlow

Those statistics come from Dr. Robert Sidlow, director of the Male BRCA Genetic Risk Program at New York's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in a recent Jewish Telegraphic Agency story by Larry Luxner.

Ashkenazi Jews, those of Eastern European descent, are particularly susceptible to the perils caused by a BRCA mutation that elevates the risk to men "not only of breast cancer, but also of melanoma and prostate, ovarian and pancreatic cancer," the article says.

Hundreds "of other mutations in the BRCA gene are just as dangerous, but they're not specific to Ashkenazim," Sidlow is quoted as saying.

The story notes that about "1 in 40 Ashkenazi Jews… carries the harmful mutation, compared to about 1 in 400 in the general population."

Roughly 1-2% of men "with the BRCA1 mutation and 6-7% of men with the BRCA2 mutation will develop cancer by age 80," Sidlow contends.

Luxner's piece also quotes Elana Silver, CEO of Sharsheret (Hebrew for "chain"), to the effect that "it's crucial that men with a family history of cancer undergo genetic counseling screening — via a standard blood or saliva sample — for BRCA and other hereditary cancer mutations."

Adds Silver, "This is not only a women's issue. Family history is so important. When a man shares his family history with his doctor, he may not realize that he should mention that his mother had breast cancer or his sister had ovarian cancer, as these are not general 'men's diseases.' They are not aware that these cancers could mean that they themselves are at increased risk for cancer and that they can pass on these mutations to the next generation."

Sidlow notes that "most men are pretty happy to enroll income kind of surveillance program once they get over the initial shock" of being a mutation carrier.

Luxner's story indicates that there are various precautions they can take for themselves and their children where the BRCA gene is concerned — as well as such mutations as ATM, TP53, CHEK2, and PALB2. They can "monitor their own health more closely, they can encourage their children to test to see if they are carriers and, for any future children, to take steps to prevent the mutated genes from being passed down. For example, couples can conceive via in vitro fertilization, or IVF, and then test the embryo before implantation to ensure that only those unaffected by the genetic mutation are implanted."

Much more information on BRCA1 an BRCA2 can be found in Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer, a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, its author, aimed at male caregivers.

Author/N.Y. Times essayist points to possibility of lengthy extended life for cancer patients

A revolution in cancer treatment — involving multiple drugs — may be within the grasp of modern medicine. 

That's what's posited in a guest essay in The New York Times this week by Kate Pickert, author of Radical: The Science, Culture, and History of Breast Cancer in America.  

The author starts off by citing as an example a woman who's been kept alive, despite having metastatic cancer, for nine years by taking "a series of eight drug regimens…including three as part of clinical trials." The patient in question, she reports, "switches from one medication to another when it becomes clear that a treatment doesn't work or has stopped working because her cancer has figured out how to resist its efforts."

This approach, the writer says, "is increasingly becoming a standard of care for patients facing diagnoses that were once death sentences." For those patients, she adds, "cancer is more like a chronic disease than a one-time catastrophic event."

What's happening now is in no way proclaiming that a cure for cancer is imminent, but acknowledging instead that "the landscape for many cancer patients has changed tremendously in just the past five years," her Times essay declares.

Dr. Jedd Wolchok

The article quotes Dr. Jedd Wolchok, oncologist and director of the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell Medicine: "The pace of progress is most certainly accelerating. There are so many things converging."

At the end of her piece, Pickert talks about her own situation (she's had chemotherapy, drug treatment, and radiation for breast cancer) and notes that if her cancer returns, "which is unlikely at this point, I will benefit from a wide array of drugs — many of which were approved in the past five years."

Within 24 hours of the Times column, a story by Katherine Ellison appeared in The Washington Post that totally supports the idea of cancer becoming a chronic, treatable disease. 

That concept alone can lower anxiety, and that relief is crucial for cancer patients who are all too aware that more than 600,000 Americans are expected to die of the disease this year.

Despite that statistic, the Post story proclaims, "even some of the most fearful cancers today are increasingly survivable — provided they're addressed with care and vigilance that may span months to years to a lifetime."

That notion's addressed by positive numbers, the article proffers, explaining that of the 18 million U.S. residents with a history of the disease, "for many of them, cancer has become less an imminent threat than a chronic illness, serious but not necessarily deadly."

More good news? The death rate from all cancers, according to an American Cancer Society report released in January, is down almost a third since 1991.

Ellison's story quotes Lidia Chapira, breast-cancer expert and medical professor at Stanford University: "We're not quite there yet, but we're moving closer to the situation we have with HIV patients, in that today even people with incurable cancers may be living for decades. I'm still treating patients who were diagnosed decades ago, while my colleagues are seeing people in their 50s and 60s who had cancer as children."

Information on newer drugs and treatments can be found in Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer, a VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at caregivers. 

Lumpectomy and radiation treatments fix Minnesota senator's early-detected breast cancer

Sen. Amy Klobuchar admits she underwent treatment for early-stage breast cancer in January.

According to a story by Felicia Sonmez in The Washington Post today, the former 2020 Democrat presidential candidate said in a post on Medium, a platform for professionals, that she'd had a lumpectomy and radiation.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

The 61-year-old Minnesota politician said she was told by her doctors last month that the treatments had gone well and that her "chances of developing cancer again are no greater than the average person."

Sonmez's article says Klobuchar "urged Americans not to put off routine health screenings, noting that 'doctors are seeing patients who are being treated for more serious conditions that could have been caught earlier.'" 

She also noted that it is "easy to put off health screenings, just like I did. But I hope my experience is a reminder for everyone of the value of routine health checkups, exams, and follow-through. I am so fortunate to have caught the cancer at an early enough stage and to not need chemotherapy or other extensive treatments, which unfortunately is not the case for so many others."

The senator thanked her physicians, family and friends for their support during her surgery and radiation treatment, which she observed had coincided with the illness and death of her father, a Minneapolis journalist.

"Their support allowed me to continue my work with my colleagues on major pandemic and economic legislation," the story quotes her as saying, "as well as chairing the joint Senate Jan. 6 investigation and the For the People hearings while undergoing cancer treatment."

According to a story by Quint Forgey on today's Politico website, the three-term senior senator also admitted that "this has been scary at times, since cancer is the word all of us fear." Each day, she said, "is a gift."

Further information on early detection 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.

Workload blocks woman from finding disease

Eagle-eyed viewer in Tampa tips off TV reporter to neck lump that's cancerous and requires surgery

A 28-year-old Tampa TV investigative reporter last week credited a viewer with helping her find a cancerous lump.

Victoria Price

According to a story by Johnny Diaz in The New York Times, Victoria Price was to undergo surgery today to remove a neck tumor, her thyroid "and a couple of lymph nodes."

Price reportedly has been fatigued but had attributed that to her heavy workload. "Full-throttle, never-ending shifts in a never-ending news cycle" is how the Florida reporter labeled it in a Twitter post.

Then she added, "Had I never received that email, I never would have called my doctor. The cancer would have continued to spread. It's a scary and humbling thought."

She also said she expected to "be forever grateful for the woman who went out of her way to email me, a total stranger. She had zero obligation to, but she did anyway."

Said Price, pointing out that the catchphrase of her station, WFLA-TV, is "8 On Your Side" but the woman had reversed the roles, putting "a viewer on MY side."

Diaz also wrote that it's "not the first time a keen viewer has spotted a medical issue of a TV personality." One of them came to light in April of last year "when Deborah Norville, the anchor of the syndicated news program 'Inside Edition' had surgery to remove a cancerous nodule from her neck. She said she had been monitoring the lump after a viewer noticed it on her neck and brought it to her attention."

In a video message, Norville had said: "We live in a world of 'see something, say something,' and I'm really glad we do."

Clearly, early detection of a disease can be of great medical benefit. More examples 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.

Once you hit 80, odds say you'll live past 90

Risk factors for another cancer jump up if you've already had one kind — or if one of your kin has

Is it possible to live cancer-free?

The answer is a resounding yes, at least according to a recent non-bylined article in the AARP Magazine, whose subhead reads in part, "Age is a risk factor for cancer, but the chances of developing a fatal cancer may actually begin to decline at age 70."

It also contends that "once you hit 80, our chance of living to 90 and beyond goes way up."

The article isn't totally positive, however.

It says, for instance, that "women who have had breast cancer are more at risk for another type of breast cancer, and other cancers."

And it notes that "a Stanford University study showed that people diagnosed with six or more basal cell carcinomas have more than three times the odds for developing future cancers, such as breast, colon and prostate cancer as well as leukemia and lymphoma — likely due to an underlying  problem in genes that repair DNA."

In short, having one kind of cancer makes a woman or man prone to other kinds. 

And if you smoked, it says, "you're at increased risk for not only lung cancer but also a dozen other cancers, including oral, cervical, bladder and pancreatic."

Your family medical history can also increase your risk.

Heather Hampel

The AARP piece quotes Heather Hampel, associate director of the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, as saying that if you have a family history of cancer you should coordinate with a genetic counselor who can put your results in perspective and recommend an action plan.

"Women who carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, for example, have up to a 72% chance of developing breast cancer and 44% chance of ovarian cancer by age 80," the article states.

But, even though in the general population women have only about a 12% lifetime risk of breast cancer, and "though those statistics sound scary, genetic testing can help doctors guide you on the best ways to prevent cancers, or diagnose this earlier, when they are treatable," the AARP mag further   quotes Hampel.

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

Jury verdict against agribusiness is upheld

Judge slashes punitive award against Monsanto but still blames its Roundup for cancer

A San Francisco Superior Court judge has drastically cut a monetary award against Monsanto but kept a verdict that can mean real trouble for the St. Louis-based agribusiness.

Judge Suzanne Bolanos 

Judge Suzanne Bolanos upheld a jury's verdict that its weed killer, Roundup, "caused a groundskeeper's cancer" through its active chemical ingredient, glyphosate. 

She did so at the same time, according to a recent Associated Press story by Paul Elias, that she slashed the amount of money to be paid to the man from $289 million to $78 million."

While denying Monsanto's request for a new trial, Elias' piece says, she cut the jury's punitive damage award from $250 to $39 million.

His story says that her decision in effect confirms the jury's view that Monsanto "had purposely ignored warnings and evidence that its popular Roundup product causes cancer, including DeWayne Johnson's lymphoma."

In a tentative ruling on Oct. 11, Bolanos had said it appeared to her that the jury had overreached with punitive damages.

She also had indicated, the AP story says, that she might erase the entire $250 million judgment — because she found "no compelling evidence presented at trial that Monsanto employees ignored evidence that the weed killer caused cancer."

But Bolanos clearly reversed herself in yesterday's ruling "and said the jurors appeared to agree with Johnson's expert witness, Dr. Chadi Nahban, who concluded that [Roundup] caused the groundskeeper's cancer."

Some jurors had been "so upset by the prospect of having their verdict thrown out that they wrote to Bolanos," the AP story reported.

"I urge you to respect and honor our verdict and the six weeks of our lives that we dedicated to this trial," the San Francisco Chronicle quoted juror Gary Kitahata as writing.

And Robert Howard, another juror, said he and his fellow jurors had paid "studious attention" the evidence and "any decision to overturn its verdict would shake his confidence in the judicial system," the Associated Press story again quotes the Chronicle.

The final $39 million for punitive damages was the same amount the jury had awarded Johnson for other damages.

Monsanto now faces the prospect of going to trial in hundreds of other cases already filed that allege Roundup has caused cancer — and upwards of 5,000 other instances.

Elias' story notes that "Johnson had sprayed Roundup and a similar product, Ranger Pro, at his job as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, according to his attorneys. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2014 at age 42."

He allegedly had applied the weed killer as many as 30 times a year.

Bolanos gave Johnson until Dec. 7 "to accept the reduced amount or demand a new trial," the AP article reports. The plaintiff's spokesperson, Diane McKinley, said that "although we believe a reduction in punitive damages was unwarranted and we are weighing the options, we are pleased the court did not disturb the verdict."

Punitive damages, the story adds, "are designed to punish companies that juries determine have purposely misbehaved and to deter others from operating similarly."

More information on lawsuits about products allegedly causing 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.

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.

400 lawsuits filed against Monsanto's herbicide

Is Monsanto's Roundup weed killer carcinogenic? Contentious trial underway in San Francisco  

The first court trial to determine if Roundup weed killer is likely to cause cancer is underway in San Francisco.

According to an Associated Press story by Sudhin Thanawala , the contentious trial — with a school groundskeeper dying of the disease as the plaintiff and agribusiness giant Monsanto, the hericide's manufacturer, as defendant — is expected to last about a month.

Dewayne Johnson, plaintiff

The plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, who was diagnosed in 2014 at age 42, claims Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after he sprayed it from a 50-gallon tank attached to a truck as a school district pest control manager. 

The AP quoted the opening statement of Johnson's attorney, Brent Wisner, to the effect that "when the wind was gusty, it would cover his face. When a hose broke once, it soaked his entire body."

The attorney showed jurors photographs of lesions on the body of the plaintiff, who had also sprayed with a similar product, Ranger Pro. 

Wisner alleged that between the diagnosis "and now, it's just nothing but pain."

Monsanto's lawyer, George Lombardi, countered by saying that "non-Hodgkin's lymphoma takes years to develop, so Johnson's cancer started well before he began working at the school district."

Thanawala's story notes that "many government regulators have rejected a link between the active ingredient in Roundup — glyphosate — and cancer. Monsanto has vehemently denied such a connection, saying hundreds of studies have established that glyphosate is safe."

While the plaintiff "is seeking unspecified damages against Monsanto [and] the outcome of Johnson's case will not affect the hundreds of other lawsuits in state and federal courts...it may serve as an indicator of how the others might go."

Earlier this week, a San Francisco U.S. District judge, Vince Chhabria, ruled that although evidence seems weak that Roundup causes cancer, experts still could make that claim at trial.

The main claim of the lawsuits by cancer victims and their families is that Monsanto long knew about Roundup's cancer risk but failed to warn them.

Chhabria is handling more than 400 of those suits.

The AP article indicates that Monsanto developed glyphosate in the '70s and that the weed killer is sold in more than 160 countries. "Farmers in California, the most agriculturally productive state in the U.S., use it on more than 200 types of crops. Homeowners use it on their lawns and gardens."

In 2015, the France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, classified the herbicide as a "probable human carcinogen." California later added it to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the AP, "says glyphosate is safe for humans when used in accordance with label directions."

And in February, the story continues, a federal judge in Sacramento blocked California from required that Roundup carry a warning label, saying it would be "misleading because almost all regulators have concluded that there is no evidence glyphosate is carcinogenic."

In Johnson's case, according to an online story by Helen Christopher of Courthouse News Service, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Ramos Bolanos sided with Monsanto yesterday by disallowing testimony of an cancer-risk expert. The ruling came on a technicality after the corporation's lawyers accused the plaintiff's legal team of trying to sneak into evidence information about the amount of exposure Johnson experienced.

Much more information about cancer causes 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.

Acrylamide chemical in java may be perilous

Judge rules Starbucks, 90 other companies may have to display coffee warning in California

Because of a judge's decision, Starbucks and about 90 other roasters, grocery stores and retail shops may soon have to display a cancer warning on coffee sold in California.

According to yesterday's Associated Press story by Brian Melley, the Los Angeles judge ruled in favor of a nonprofit, the Council for Education and Research on Toxics, that had sued the companies in 2010 for failing to comply with state law by not providing a "clear and reasonable warning" of a known carcinogen.

Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle's decision — to the effect that the companies hadn't shown the threat from the chemical was insignificant — was issued as a proposed ruling, which means he could change his mind (although, reportedly, that's unlikely).

Berle, the AP piece said, gave the defense several weeks "to file objections to the proposed ruling before he makes it final."

After that ruling, a decision on monetary damages could be forthcoming.

The suit has centered on a chemical, acrylamide, that was produced in the roasting process.

Berle wrote that, while the "defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving…that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health," the plaintiff had "offered evidence that consumption of coffee increases the risk of harm to the fetus, to infants, to children and to adults."

He also said that the "defendants' medical and epidemiology experts testified that they had no opinion on causation."

The AP story noted that the coffee industry has maintained that "the chemical was present at harmless levels and should be exempt from the law because it results naturally from the cooking process necessary to make the beans flavorful."

The article also indicated that attorney Raphael Metzger, who brought the lawsuit, said "he wants the industry to remove the chemical from its process [but] coffee companies have said that's not feasible and would make their product taste bad."

Metzger's group had earlier brought a similar case that resulted in potato-chip makers agreeing in 2008 "to pay $3 million and remove acrylamide from their products rather than post startling warnings that can be found throughout California and are largely ignored," the story added.

Many coffee companies, according to the AP, "have already posted warnings that specifically say acrylamide is found in coffee and is among chemicals that cause cancer. However, many of those warnings are posted in places not easily visible, such as below the counter where cream and sugar are available."

William Murray

William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Association, has claimed in an emailed statement that "coffee has been shown, over and over again, to be a healthy beverage. This lawsuit…has confused consumers, and does nothing to improve public health."

Nearly half the defendants in the coffee case have already settled — and agreed to post warnings. Among the latest was 7-Eleven.

Details on everyday products that may cause cancer 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.

Contraceptive pills, IUDs endanger women

Modern birth control methods hike breast cancer risk just like older ones, study finds

Newer birth control methods that release hormones can raise women's risk for breast cancer — just as the older ones did.

That's the conclusion of a new study recently reported by Ronnie Caryn Rabin in The New York Times.

The findings, based on following nearly 1.8 million Danish women of childbearing age for more than a decade, corroborates conventional wisdom that birth control pills and IUDs can be problematic despite the added risk being small.

The Times piece indicates the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, "upends widely held assumptions about modern contraceptives for younger generations of women," many of whom have believed that the newer contraceptives "are much safer than those taken by their mothers or grandmothers, which had higher doses of estrogen."

According to Rabin's story, "the research also suggests that the hormone progestin — widely used in today's birth control methods — may be raising breast cancer risk."

Dr. Marisa Weiss

The Times piece quotes Dr. Marisa Weiss, an oncologist who founded the breastcancer.org website but who was not involved in the study, as believing the research is important "because we had no idea how the modern day pills compared to the old-fashioned pills in terms of breast cancer risk, and we didn't know anything about IUDs. Gynecologists just assumed that a lower dose of hormone meant a lower risk of cancer. But the same elevated risk is there."

The findings show "a significant public health concern," she says — even though, according to the Times, the study failed to "take into account factors like physical activity, breast feeding and alcohol consumption, which may also influence breast cancer risk."

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists plan to evaluate the new findings but, the Times says, still emphasized that hormonal contraceptives are for many women "among the most safe, effective and accessible options available."

Weiss, however, suggested in Rabin's story that, because risk increases with age, "older women may want to consider switching to a hormone-free birth control method, like a diaphragm, an IUD that does not release hormones, or condoms. 'It's not like you don't have a choice,' she said. 'Why not pursue another option?'"

Rabin also quoted Lina Steinrud Mørch, Ph.D., the study's lead author and a senior researcher at the University of Copenhagen, to the effect that the findings — which also showed "the risk increased the longer women used contraceptives, suggesting the relationship is causal" — presented "a very clear picture…very convincing."

According to Mørch, "among those who used hormones for five years, an increased breast cancer risk persisted even after they discontinued use."

And women who stayed on hormones 10 years or more experienced a jump in risk of 38 percent.

Since researchers originally had expected to find "a smaller increase in risk because today we have lower doses of estrogen in the hormone contraceptives," says Mørch, "it was surprising that we found [the] association."

The study concluded that although "hormone users over all experienced a 20 percent increase in the relative risk of breast cancer compared to nonusers…the additional risk would result in comparatively few additional cases of breast cancer." 

More information on risk factors for the disease 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.

Disease rates plummet to lowest point since 1988

Where does Marin, once home of the worst breast cancer rate in the world, stand now?

I've been waiting a year for yet another shoe to drop.

That, I learned long ago, is what happens with almost every bit of research, but especially those concerning breast cancer. 

Flip-flopping in the cancer industry has become de rigueur.

The most recent shoe drop came at the tail of 2015 when a then-new report indicated breast cancer rates in Marin County — which previously had been believed to be a cluster of the disease — had plummeted to their lowest level since tracking began in '88.

That decreased rate, a county report had noted, matched (instead of topping) the statewide average.

That study, of course,  contradicted earlier reports dating back to the first fallen clodhopper in 1994. The Marin rate then was called the highest in the world, according to a study by the Northern California Cancer Center (since renamed the Cancer Prevention Institute of California).

Marin's rate actually peaked in 2001, when the numbers for non-Hispanic white women had climbed 60 percent. 

Since that year, it's dropped 31 percent.

Why? 

Well, risk factors for Marin's white women have been listed as outgrowths of their being affluent — including higher alcohol consumption and the delayed age of childbearing, not necessarily in that order. 

And, until 2002, a heightened use of hormone therapy (especially an estrogen/progestin combination).

When those hormones were abandoned as treatment, the cancer rates began to descend. 

Quickly.

Despite the obvious connection, few would risk verbally pinpointing why the severe dips had occurred — or why the rates had actually been so high in the first place.

Dr. Mary Mockus, a principal researcher with the Marin Women's Study, long-term, county-led breast cancer research involving nearly14,000 women, did say she thought earlier detection and increased patient awareness had helped.

At the same time, authors of the study discounted any influence changes in mammography screenings might have had. 

Rose Barlow

The decade-old Women's Study, according to its website, is currently researching established risk factors, effects of pregnancy, adolescent risk factors, environmental agents and risk prediction.

That research organization, not incidentally, won a reprieve last year after my adopted home county chose not to finance additional work.

Dr. Mark Powell of Greenbrae rescued it by leaning on crowdfunding and the Avon Foundation — and partnering with several groups, including Zero Breast Cancer, a Marin nonprofit headed by Rose Barlow that I wholeheartedly endorse. 

Still, there's been no updates from the researchers recently, so I wait.

And wait. And wait.

I have a vested interest in knowing if there's a root cause in Marin — monolithic or not — because here's where my wife was diagnosed with the disease more than two decades ago.

Meanwhile, frequent flip-flopping results stemming from cancer research are well documented in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a VitalityPress book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at caregivers.

Clinical trial on lymphoma is suspended

Cancer researcher's work put into question by his failure to file timely report on deaths

It's no secret that new research can frequently contradict old — even when the latter has only been public for a few days or weeks.

But now comes a new wrinkle: Researchers may be invalidating their work by failing to file appropriate reports.

Or, at best, bringing their tests into question.

Case in point: An early-stage clinical trial sponsored by the National Cancer Institute on an experimental drug, ibrutinib, that involved lymphoma of the central nervous system, a blood cancer that to date had no effective treatment and was often deadly.

According to a story this week by Laurie McGinley in The Washington Post, the lead researcher failed to tell authorities in a timely manner that "two patients had died of fungal infections that might have been caused by the experimental treatment."

That failure, which led to the researcher being suspended "until he undergoes additional training," meant the trial was suspended — despite what McGinley's story called its "impressive results" in which eight of the 18 patients enrolled in the study "continue to be in complete remission, including six whose disease had not responded to previous treatment — a situation that usually causes death within a matter of months."

Dr. Francis Collins

The reporting lapses were reported by Dr. Francis Collins, National Institutes of Health director; Dr. Doug Lowe, NCI director; and other officials.

The study, which was begun in 2013, centered on ibrutinib being used in conjunction "with a cocktail of chemotherapy medications. In addition, steroids were used to reduce swelling in the patients' brains."

The principal investigator, Kieron Dunleavy, had reported concerns — after the second fatality — and "ordered CT scans in other patients in the trial to try to catch fungal infections early, before they became deadly," but he allegedly delayed filing "an official 'unanticipated problem' report" for months.

That kind of report is supposed to be filed within 24 hours of suspecting a problem caused by the treatment.

When the Federal Drug Administration — which regulates trails — learned of the problem, it "conducted a review that concluded there also were several other adverse events that weren't promptly reported," McGinley's story indicated.

Collins said "that it appeared that the combination of ibrutinib and steroids 'seemed to place patients, many of whom have compromised immune systems, at an enhanced risk of infection,'" the article said.

Information on research, and how it often flip-flops, can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," a book I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

Overdiagnosis worries research project leader

New study renews the question of whether mammograms provide more benefits or harms 

A new study has led to amped up questioning of mammograms as appropriate breast cancer screenings.

The study, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, heightens discussions of recent years of whether the screening benefits outweigh the harms.

Clearly the jury's still out.

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch

According to an Associated Press story by Marilynn Marchione about the study, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Medical School, a leader of the research project, said whether to have a mammogram "is a close call, a value judgment."

The study, the AP wrote, had concluded that women were "more likely to be diagnosed with a small tumor...not destined to grow than she is to have a true problem spotted early."

Many experts believe that improved treatment has rendered early detection less important, and that screenings are worth it only when they detect life-threatening cancers whose treatment would increase survival rates beyond what would occur if the disease were treated only when it became absolutely necessary.

The new thinking, advocated by Welch, is that many early cancers will never grow or spread or become a health threat.

Screenings can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Welch, in fact, was the lead author of a recent book titled "Overdiagnosis: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health." And the new study, Marchione's story says, "parallels work he published from the same data sources four years ago."

At least one aspect of the new study — its assumption that there's been no change in cancer incidence — has been severely challenged by Dr. Robert Smith, American Cancer Society vice president of cancer screenings, who says cases have increased.

His perspective, according to the AP story, is that "when we find breast cancer early, women have a much, much better prognosis."

The study, the article continues, applies only to screening mammograms when a problem is suspected.

More details about the long-running mammogram controversy can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," the VitalityPress book that I, Woody Weingarten, aimed at male caregivers.

For 1st time, mammogram doesn't scare survivor

Breast cancer anxieties of 'Rollercoaster' author's wife vanish — after only 23 years 

Cancer-free Fox and Weingarten

My wife, Nancy Fox, wasn't at all afraid.

For the first time in 23 years.

She'd previously been nervous each time she'd gone for a mammogram, fearful the test would show her breast cancer had returned.

This go-'round, just last week, no anxiety — probably because she'd been cleared by her gynecologist two days before.

The follow-up letter from her primary physician confirmed the good news:

"No signs of breast cancer."

The letter also reprinted a statement required by California law that her dense breast tissue "can make it harder to evaluate the results of your mammogram and may also be associated with an increase risk of breast cancer."

But even that didn't scare her.

Her current emotional stability and mine clearly are far from the emotions I detailed more than two decades ago about having to let go "of my anger at doctors for not having instant answers, at pharmaceutical companies for manufacturing life-extending but not necessarily life-saving drugs, at myself for not having a magic wand."

Yes, I'd initially been petrified "breast cancer would be my wife's killer," but I also was thrilled to note more than two decades later that "she's flourishing today, as am I."

Specifics on how I, Woody Weingarten, and my wife managed the ups and downs of the diagnosis, treatments and aftermath can be found in "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," my VitalityPress book aimed at male caregivers.

Woody Weingarten gets out his upbeat message

'Rollercoaster' author to do hourlong talk-radio interview, then speak at caregiver confab

November's key phrase for me is "getting out the message."

Why?

Because I, Woody Weingarten, will be on the VoiceAmerica talk radio network in a live interview from 2 to 3 p.m. Nov. 11, and then I'll be the main speaker at the 8th annual Healings in Motion caregivers conference at 1 p.m. three days later, Nov. 14, in Stockton.

My message is that men can successfully be caregivers for their ailing partners, that they and their partners and their relationships can all survive, and that there can be light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

That combo message is also the main thrust of my VitalityPress book, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," which is aimed at male caregivers. 

Cheryl Jones

The interview — to be conducted by Cheryl Jones, host of "Good Grief" — will be archived on the VoiceAmerica Health & Wellness Channel and on iTunes afterwards.

Jones says her program aims to "share how [interviewees] have walked through their own exquisite pain and what they have gained as a result." 

Her interviews, she adds, allow listeners to "come away ready to follow our own dreams to a deeper, more meaningful time on this beautiful earth!"

Mary Nicholson

The conference, which carries the theme "Inner Safari: A Joyful Day to Relax, Retool and Renew," is — according to the organization's website — "tailored to prevent burn-out, assist caregivers in developing skills and gaining the knowledge necessary to fulfill caregiving responsibilities."

It actually will encompass the hours of 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m and will feature other speakers, workshops, body massages, improv comedy and vendor booths — at the Robert Cabral Center. 

Last  year's confab drew about 400 participants; it is hoped that this year's will be even larger.

Healings in Motion was founded by Mary Nicholson following a brain aneurysm, stroke and grand mal seizure — after she'd served as a caregiver for her husband, who'd been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Brad Pitt comforts his wife 'throughout ordeal'

Angelina Jolie fighting early menopause after prophylactic surgeries to prevent cancer

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt

Actress Angelina Jolie, who recently had surgeries to ward off breast and ovarian cancer, is fighting early menopause as a result.

According to the Daily Dish, the 40-year-old told broadcaster Tom Brokaw that her 51-year-old husband, actor Brad Pitt, has comforted her "throughout the ordeal" and had made it clear "the surgeries wouldn't take anything away from the woman he fell in love with."

Jolie said he'd also indicated "that what he loved, and what was a woman to him, was somebody who was smart, and capable, and cared about her family. It's not about the physical body."

She knew throughout the surgeries, she elaborated, "that he was on my side and this wasn't something where I was gong to feel less of a woman — because my husband wasn't gonna let that happen."  

Jolie had her ovaries and Fallopian tubes removed in March, as a preventative measure, after doctors had found what might be early signs of ovarian cancer.

In 2013, the superstar had a prophylactic double mastectomy and reconstruction surgery after learning she carried the BRCA1 gene mutation that heightened her risk of developing breast cancer to about 87 percent. 

Her mom, Marcia Lynne "Marcheline" Bertrand, wife of actor Jon Voight, had died of ovarian cancer in 2007, at age 56, after an eight-year battle.

Rose Barlow, executive director of Zero Breast Cancer, a Marin County nonprofit dedicated "to prevention and finding the causes of breast cancer," has commented that "removing Fallopian tubes and ovaries not only significantly reduces the risk of those organs becoming diseased but also substantially reduces BRCA carriers' breast cancer rates."

Dish reported that Jolie told Brokaw in the joint interview on the "Today" show that "I knew the breast would be a bigger surgery and physically changing. The ovaries is more [about] your hormones changing and your emotions changing, but it's different — you feel different."

Pitt, praising his wife's lack of vanity, noted that the surgeries and aftermath together became "another one of those things in life that makes you tighter."

He added that "she was doing it for the kids, and she was doing it for her family, so [that] trumped everything and anything."

What's involved in being a male caregiver? "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer" provides a detailed study of the role's ups and downs.

Jackie Collins blamed self for not checking lump

Why best-selling book writer Jackie Collins kept her breast cancer a secret for years

Best-selling steamy-book author Jackie Collins may have given away one of her best stories.

Or, at least, one of her longest held secrets.

Only days before she died last month, Collins was interviewed by Elizabeth Leonard of People magazine for a series of articles in which she revealed, for the first time publicly, her longstanding breast cancer diagnosis and impending death.

She said, from her Beverly Hills home, that she wanted on her gravestone the following: "She gave a great deal of people a great deal of pleasure."

That pleasure took the form of what severe critics called filthy or sexy trash, and more charitable detractors called cliché-riddled potboilers (defined in her case as melodramatic novels about Hollywood, celebrities and their glamorous lives that may have been written expressly to make money rather than for artistic purposes).

Collins' father, Joe, despite expressing pride in her accomplishments, told her he believed her books were pornographic.

Jackie (left) and Joan Collins

People noted that the 77-year-old writer had kept her secret from her older sister, Joan Collins, 82, star of television's "Dynasty," for six and a half years because she didn't want to be a burden. 

Jackie said that she'd protected her sister because "she's very positive and very social but I'm not sure how strong she is."

When Jackie died, Joan told People she was "completely devastated" by having lost her "best friend."

Jackie had informed her three adult daughters — Tracy, Tiffany and Rory — but only after Rory, too, was diagnosed with breast cancer.  

She told only them, however, because "I didn't want to be on the front of the 'Enquirer' with two weeks to live. And I didn't want people's sympathy. I think sympathy can weaken you. I don't live my life that way. I like to be in control and so I took control of the situation."

She also told People she'd had to deal with losing her mother to breast cancer, her husband to prostate cancer and a fiancé  to lung cancer, "and I did not want to put pressure on everybody in the family. So I happily, happily went day by day."

She had only one regret about the way she handled the situation, noting that she'd written five books since her initial diagnosis.

Over a period of four decades, she'd sold more than five million copies of her "naughty narratives" — 32 best-sellers in all — throughout the world.

At her death, she reportedly was still writing — and working on her autobiography.

The one regret? She admitted she'd delayed seeing a doctor for two years after being aware of a lump in her breast. 

Why the wait? Because she was "completely doctor-phobic" and believed, erroneously, that the tumor was benign. 

In truth, it had metastasized to her bones.

Her disclosure at the end, she said, was intended to prod women into getting regular checkups and to save lives. "Always get it checked," she told People, "And the sooner the better. That is the best advice I can give."

"I know we're all told to do it," she added, "but some of us are too stupid, and I was one of them."

In my book, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breastcancer," I, Woody Weingarten, detail how others deal with the diagnosis — some want everyone to know what's going on, some want no one to know.

Aging increase causes spread of medical facilities

What's behind boom in cancer centers across U.S.? Answer: 'silver tsunami' and money

A cancer center building boom is spreading across the country, according to a story this week in the Washington Post by Brady Dennis.

The piece reports the American Cancer Society as saying "more than 1.6 million people in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer this year," and goes on to suggest "the number is certain to rise with the aging of the baby boom generation."

A steady population increase among the elderly means "a push to bring the latest specialized treatments and access to more clinical trials to patients who don't live near major academic research centers," the article states.

Voila! The national building boom.

Furthermore, the piece notes that because "medical advances are allowing more people to live longer with cancer and, in some case, to treat it as a chronic disease…there is fierce competition among hospitals searching for reliable revenue in a rapidly changing health-care landscape."

There remain many skeptics in the medical community, however, those who contend the label cancer center can easily be applied by virtually any facility and, therefore, "doesn't guarantee that each place will have doctors with deep expertise, a track record of good outcomes or credentials such as a National Cancer Institute designation as a top-notch center."

Dr. Peter Bach

Daniels' article quotes, for instance, Dr. Peter Bach, an oncologist and director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at New York's famed Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Bach, whose wife, Ruth, died a few years back when her breast cancer recurred and metastasized, says his concern is that an average patient could have difficulty determining where to get "high-quality care when the market is flooded with places claiming to be cancer centers."

The Washington Post piece also says that "it remains unclear whether the proliferation of cancer centers…will lead to more tests, surgeries and mediations being billed to Medicare, private insurers and patients."

An outgrowth of the rise in the aging population, according to the story, is that well-known institutions — such as Sloan Kettering or Baltimore's Johns Hopkins — "are forming alliances with smaller hospitals in an effort to extend their brands, in some cases around the country and the globe."

The Post quotes Patrick Duke, managing director for a consulting group that advises hospitals about real estate projects, CBRE Healthcare, to the effect that the economics of cancer treatment "are good. That's a touchy subject for some people, but it's the reality…The procedures and the drugs are well reimbursed. It's a big business."

Is the boomer concept real?

Seven years ago, when I, Woody Weingarten, served on the Marin County Civil Grand Jury, I was repeatedly told our area was being inundated by a "silver tsunami." The truth of that became evident as I opened my eyes and saw who was driving on our highways, walking on our streets.

Clearly, the longer folks last, the greater chance there is for them to contract a life-threatening disease. My VitalityPress book, "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," whose aim is helping male caregivers, discusses the aging population, medical care in general and breast cancer care in particular, and high medical costs.

'Rollercoaster' author requests your presence

Save the date — for free talk at Copperfield's Books in San Rafael — and help me save face

Silver-haired Woody Weingarten.

I don't embarrass easily but I can on rare occasion get rather red-faced.

Especially, I imagine, if I'd throw a party and no one came.

Ergo, I'm asking you to save a date.

And then show up.

The time is 7 p.m. The date is Wednesday, Aug. 12. The place is Copperfield's Books, 850 4th St., San Rafael, California.

It's a free event.

So you can simply appear, or you can reserve a spot on the Copperfield's site — http://www.copperfieldsbooks.com/event/woody-weingarten.

I'll be talking about being a caregiver, especially for a patient with a life-threatening disease.

Specifically, I'll be focusing on the time 20 years ago when my wife, Nancy Fox, was diagnosed with breast cancer. And how we coped — individually and together — during treatments and their aftermath.

And how male caregivers (husbands, boyfriends, fathers, sons and brothers) are typically a forgotten part of the equation but need support, too.

But, in actuality, my presentation could apply to any of the 35 million U.S. caregivers, female or male.

I, Woody Weingarten, who has led the weekly Marin Man to Man support group for two decades, also will be signing my book afterwards.

"Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer" is unique, a comprehensive memoir-chronicle by an award-winning journalist, a love story and, perhaps more importantly, a guide to research, meds and help.

Want to check out what another author thinks of my book? Just click here.

Many of you have found that friending me on Facebook or following me on LinkedIn or Twitter is comparatively easy. Showing up takes a bit more effort. But I'd appreciate you taking that road less traveled, which in this case means being there and keeping me from being embarrassed by an empty room.

You'd miss learning whether my silver hair is matched by a newfound silver tongue. 

So, please… 

Save the date and help me save face. 

If you're done gawking, check out 'Rollercoaster'

This won't inform you about chocolate, Dr. Sheldon Cooper's brain or Miley Cyrus' butt, but…

Twerking champ Miley Cyrus

This blog item is a total tease.

So are its accompanying photos, which I, Woody Weingarten, carefully selected to snag your attention.

Mmm good but not Campbell's.

It's not, although you might prefer to focus on what's pictured below — about chocolate. 

It's not about twerking, either. 

Or about "The Big Bang Theory."

It's not even about the sexual predators on "Law & Order, Special Victims Unit" or about whether the San Francisco Giants can be World Series winners again this fall — or next — or whether the 49ers will will another game at all.

Jim Parsons plays neurotic Dr. Sheldon Cooper
\ on smash TV sitcom, "The Big Bang Theory."

Its sole purpose is to get you to click on the link to "Rollercoaster: How a man can survive his partner's breast cancer," my book about male caregiving.

And then, I hope, to buy a paperback, ebook or hardcover version.

I'm told direct pitches like that don't work. I'm hoping you'll prove the "experts" wrong.

"Rollercoaster," just to boost your information quotient, is a memoir-chronicle, a love story, and an up-to-the-inute guide to research, meds and where to get help.

It illustrates that most couples can successfully deal with breast cancer, "slash, poison and burn" treatments, fear, and the repercussions of it all — and that there truly can be light at the end of the tunnel.

Although the emphasis of "Rollercoaster" is on breast cancer, any caregiver — particular those who are there for patients with AIDs, Alzheimer's or a life-threatening disease — can benefit from the book.

It's available at most bookstores (just tell 'em Ingram distributes it) — or Amazon.

If you want to check out some recent media attention given to "Rollercoaster," try the "Ten Percent" cable TV show, a short KCBS interview or an Examiner.com piece.

I'm counting on you to help me help those guys who feel overwhelmed by what they and their partners are facing.