Hebbie

My son's school did something for Smoke Out Day (he came home w/ a sticker on that said "Kiss Me, I don't smoke". I also did an interview that ran today on a local NJ channel, where they talked about Smoke Out day. I also saw a sign in a food store this morning that they were doing a Quit Smoking session tonight. But you are right -- It didn't seem as previlent as it has in years past.

Thank you all for your very kind words! I must admit though, that I was dissapointed with the final outcome of the piece. The interview lasted over an hour and the camera man was actually at my house for 3 hours, filming all sorts of things. I very specifically spoke of the fact that November is little known "Lung Cancer Awareness Month"; and that the smoking stigma continues to hinder federal funding; and that while several other cancer advances have grown in leaps and bounds, lung cancer statistics have stayed the same for decades. I hyped up our walk (raised $45,000 this year); talked about being an "advocate" and all that needs to be done to increase awareness and funding.....etc. Unfortunately, they cut all of that out and focused on the "emotional" aspect of things. And while I will admit that ANY press is good press -- the story seemed to lack focus/direction. Why were they telling the story? What can people do? What needs to be done? Ultimately, it ended up just being a sad story. And I am thanking God this morning that my parents did not see it!

I did another TV interview today with a local New Jersey TV station -- Sarah Lee Kessler from "NJN" interviewed my doctor and I at his offices this morning. The piece will air Thursday night at 6:00, 7:30 AND 11:00! This piece focuses less on the "emotional" aspects of the disease, and more on the stigma issue! At first, I was worried, because she was all gung-ho to air it on "National Smoke Out Day" (Thursday) and I didn't want to focus on smoking -- but it was the PERFECT opportunity to bring up the stigma factor and how it continues to hinder federal funding. I have a good feeling about it, I just hope it pieces together well in editing!

Well, at the risk of being the oddball here, my experience seems to be that the tide is slowly starting to change -- last year, when we had our first LC walk in NJ, it was like pulling teeth to get press -- I ended up having two local newspapers run a story about the walk, and share my non-smoking story. THIS year....in light of Peter Jennings and Dana Reeve elevating awareness, a major TV network in Philadelphia was specifically seeking out a non-smoker to do a story on -- which led them to interview me (Channel 3, at 11:00 tomorrow night); ABC was specifically looking for non-smokers to speak with; I did a radio interview for a Philadelphia News Radio station (KYW 1060) and I just did an interview with a local paper (Gloucester County Times) and the focus of the story was how non-smokers w/ lung cancer are on the rise; and tomorrow morning I am meeting up with my doctor and speaking with a journalist from "NJN", which is a public service TV station in NJ -- her focus is on non-smokers as well. I ALMOST turned down that last interview. I'm starting to feel weird constantly sharing my story. I KNOW I am not the only person in NJ with lung cancer...but I am starting to think I may be the only one making some noise... Until our whisper becomes a ROAR...we will continue to be brushed under the carpet. ps -- My hospital had a huge sign hanging up at their front office saying "October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month". On my way to Church this morning, I saw that there is no LCAM sign....and they were the biggest sponsors of our LC Walk! They will be getting a phone call in the morning. R-O-A-R!

Just found out that my TV interview will be airing on Channel 3 (Philadelphia) on Monday, Nov. 14th at 11:00 p.m. They told me it is going to focus on the "senstive issues" (i.e. my nodules and unknown cancer status) so I might not want to have my son present. No kidding... Those in the area -- don't forget to tune in!

Patients push for cancer research Gloucester County Times Thursday, November 10, 2005 By Anne B. Jolis WOODBURY -- Lung cancer kills more Americans per year than breast, colorectal and prostate cancer combined, but receives dramatically less research funding than any of these according to the LUNGevity Foundation. Nancy Catando of Woodbury is one of the approximately 20 percent of lung cancer patients who has never smoked a cigarette in her life. By the time the 66-year-old woman was diagnosed with the disease, it had already spread too much to operate on. "I have the impression, in my case, that a cure isn't possible," said Catando. "But a good life is possible -- if there's enough money to fund the research. There's this stigma that it's just a smoker's disease, but so often that's not the case." Dr. James Stevenson is the co-director of the Comprehensive Lung Cancer Program at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey at Cooper University Hospital. Stevenson is also Catando's doctor. "Lung cancer research is definitely underfunded," said Catando. "One reason is that it's seen as a disease that people give to themselves -- that people get what they asked for. That's an injustice. We're slowly starting to get past that stigma, but we need to keep going." Heather Saler, 36, of Mount Laurel lives with lung cancer and has also never smoked. Saler was diagnosed in January 2003, and was pronounced in remission by June of that year. But according to Saler, a scan last December showed about 20 nodules beginning to form again on her lungs. The nodules are too small to biopsy, though, so Saler's status is still uncertain. "That's one of the hardest things to deal with," said Saler. "You're afraid to make plans, you don't even know what to wish for." Stevenson said that finding earlier and better means of diagnosing lung cancer would go a long way in improving the survival rate for the disease. "Unlike other cancers, we don't have a great screening test to detect it early on," said Stevenson. "Many times when we find it, it's too advanced to operate on, and that's really the only cure. That's a big reason why the number of people diagnosed is almost equal to the number of people dying." According to the LUNGevity Foundation, only 16 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed early on when the cancer is still localized to the lung. Lung cancer patients diagnosed at this early stage have a 49 percent survival rate. Saler has made it her mission to see research for lung cancer treatment and diagnosis better funded. Last week was the second annual South Jersey Lung Cancer Walk, Run and Rally, which Saler spearheaded. Saler said she estimates that about $45,000 was raised at the event. "But I don't get the feeling that the politicians or anyone's really making this a big priority," said Saler. Finally, Saler was one of many who worked to make November Lung Cancer Awareness Month -- this is the first year that the month is recognized as such.

The walk is happening in the morning! I should go to bed, but I am too excited to sleep! We are going to have BEAUTIFUL weather here in NJ and I have a feeling it is going to turn out to be a magnificant day all around! I hope some of you locals can make it out!

Compound in beans, nuts may help fight cancer Substance could be used to develop new treatments, scientists say Reuters / Updated: 7:17 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2005 LONDON - Eating a diet rich in beans, nuts and cereals could help to prevent cancer because the foods contain a natural compound that inhibits the growth of tumors. Scientists at University College London (UCL) said on Thursday that the substance called inositol pentakisphosphate, which is also found in lentils and peas, could also help researchers develop new therapies against the disease. “Our study suggests the importance of a diet enriched in foods such as beans, nuts and cereals which could help prevent cancer,” said Dr Marco Falasca, of UCL’s Sackler Institute, who reported the finding in the journal Cancer Research. He and his team discovered that the compound inhibits an enzyme called phosphoinositde 3-kinase which promotes tumor growth. Scientists have been trying to develop drugs to inhibit the cancer-promoting enzyme but have had difficulty so far. When the researchers tested inositol pentakisphosphate in mice and cancer cells in the laboratory, it killed the animal tumors and enhanced the effect of drugs used against ovarian and lung cancer cells. “Our work will now focus on establishing whether the phosphate inhibitor can be developed into an anti-cancer agent for human therapy,” Falasca said in a statement. The researchers believe the compound, which was non-toxic even at high concentrations, could also be used to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy drugs. Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. © 2005 MSNBC.com

Thank you so much everyone, for your kind words and thoughts. I just want to mention/clarify about these "nodules" -- there appear to be MANY. Totalling about 20, scattered throughout both lungs. The largest one is in my lower left lobe, but still too small to do a CT guided needle biopsy on and still too small for a surgical biopsy. There has been SLIGHT growth between each scan, and Fay, you are right, I should pull them all and compare them each to see how much they have grown over time. Thanks for the suggestion!

Hi Everyone, thank you so much for the concern and caring thoughts...I am so sorry to not have posted. I had some reservations about making that prayer request, because I knew it was only a matter of time until I had to post results. I guess it's time for me to "fess up". I was hummin' along quite nicely for a while there....but just before hitting my two year anniversary mark, last December, I had the unthinkable happen: A "questionable scan". The "questionable" part was not discussed with me by my oncologist, who told me everything looked good and he would see me three months later, as usual; but instead, my surgeon, during a routine follow up, casually mentioned that we were tracking some nodules. I was like "uhhhh....what????". In his typical crass manner, he flipped the report in my direction and said "yup -- tracking some nodules....right here..." The appt. was quickly over and I was left alone with the report. I immediately called my onc. He told me he was as surprised as I was when he read the reportr, and was just going to let it go until we could rescan, so I wouldn't freak out (he knows me too well!). He seemed confident that it was simply scar tissue. Long story short, some nodules had popped up in both lungs, too small to biopsy, so we waited three months to scan again. February rolled around -- Same thing....then I had a PET -- showed nothing. Too small to be picked up on a PET, still too small to biopsy. So we waited.... In May, I got tired of "watch, wait and do nothing" and embarked on my Macrobiotic Journey. Figured it wouldn't hurt at this point! In July, we scanned again. Slight growth....still too small to biopsy. In October, we scanned again. Slight growth....still too small to biopsy. (Are we noticing a pattern here.... ) I'm frustrated, scared beyond belief, in denial of the implications, and just plain pissed off. I have hesistated to talk about this because talking about it makes it real. I don't want it to be real. I want to be in remission. I want to move forward with my life and have a baby with my new husband. I want to be able to cough and not be paralized by fear that cancer is growing in my lungs. I want to eat food like a normal person, not the macrobiotic freak that I have become. I WANT MY OLD LIFE BACK. I am moving forward with our S.J. Lung Cancer Walk with a vengance.....I hate this disease with a passion and will do everything in my power to help find a cure. Not just for me, but for all of us... Thanks for always being here, Heather

No need for apologizing -- we all have our "meltdown days". With that said -- I want you to remember that I consider you a CANCER WARRIER (I believe I equated you to the Christina Agulera "Fighter" song before ) You have been through it all....and each time you get knocked down you make the choice to get up and get back into the ring.... Simply put: You Rock! -- And don't let anyone ever make you feel otherwise!! Heather

I still can't believe it, but I am going to be interviewed by CBS (Channel 3 in Philadelphia) on Tuesday morning at my house. I'm not sure yet when it is going to run, but I will keep you all posted. They were apparently looking to do a story on a "young, non-smoking female w/ lung cancer".....as luck would have it , I fit the bill, and my doctor referred them to me. I am nervous beyond belief, but feel honored to have the chance to spread awareness and educate the masses about lung cancer. Wish me luck!

I saw the article about the Boston Legal episodes in the paper last week and actually discussed it in my monthly support group meeting. The episodes will begin airing Tuesday, Dec. 13, and will continue on Jan. 10th and finish up either Jan 17th or 24th. Michael J. Fox will play Daniel Post, an estremely wealthy businessman and lung cancer patient involved in a pharmaceutical study. Another patient finds out that he uses his influence to make sure he doesn't get the placebo and sues the company and Dan Post, whom the Boston Legal attys represent. As soon as I read the topic (Using his influence to make sure he doesn't get the placebo in a clinical trial), it reminded me of an article that ran in The Wall Street Journal last year. I am posting it below. It absolutely infuriated me at the time, and I am thrilled that Boston Legal will be shedding some light on this completely unethical new way of handling clinical trials.... ps....Denny Crane Doctors argue over use of placebos in cancer trials By AMY DOCKSER MARCUS The Associated Press 6/8/04 9:15 AM The Wall Street Journal In a controversial shift, some of the most promising new cancer drugs are heading into clinical trials where only some patients will get the actual drug. Other patients will be given a placebo. The use of placebos is a sharp departure from past practices and is strongly opposed by some influential cancer researchers. Placebo trials generally haven't been used in life-threatening diseases such as cancer. If there is any kind of effective therapy available, the argument goes, it is unethical to give a placebo. Now, drug makers including Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp., Pfizer Inc. and Genentech are adding placebo arms to their trials in an effort to speed promising new drugs to market. Because placebo trials make it easier to verify results, the strategy can cut down on the need for additional studies and lead to faster regulatory approval. Many in the cancer community are angry about the new approach, saying that it denies desperately ill people a last best hope. Some leading cancer centers, including the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and the University of Michigan Cancer Center in Ann Arbor, have refused to put patients in clinical trials that use placebos. Patient-advocacy groups have met with drug makers including Pfizer and Bayer in an effort to change their minds about running trials with placebo arms. Some of the most high-profile new drugs used placebo arms in recent trials, including OSI Pharmaceuticals, Genentech and Roche Group's Tarceva for lung cancer and Bayer and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s BAY 43-9006 for kidney cancer. A Pfizer drug being tested for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) also has run a recent trial with a placebo arm. At the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this weekend, researchers presented positive results from the Tarceva and BAY 43-9006 trials. The practice of using placebos in a study -- whereby some patients get the active drug, but others are given look-alike sugar pills and no treatment -- is the gold standard for drug research in many fields of medicine. The strategy makes it much easier to determine whether it is the drug, and not some other factor, that is making the difference in patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, responding to patients' concerns, has developed accelerated approval processes to speed drugs to needy patients even without placebo- based trials. Richard Pazdur, director of the FDA's oncology-drug products, says "we have not insisted that trials be placebo controlled." Drug companies say that such accelerated approval still requires certain additional trials that add to what already is an estimated $800 million price tag to bring a drug to market. And the research still takes longer to accomplish. In addition to patients' meetings with Pfizer and Bayer in the past few months, other efforts are under way by patient advocates to influence trial design. A GIST patient-advocate organization, the Life Raft Group, has set up a Clinical Trials Advisory Group of cancer patients to lobby drug companies against placebo trials. In November, three major professional organizations of cancer clinicians, oncologists and researchers will meet to come up with better ways to design trials for the new therapies that are emerging. All this comes amid growing concern that it is getting harder to get patients to participate in cancer-drug studies in the first place. Just 3 percent of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials, according to the President's Cancer Panel report issued last week. A number of national organizations, including the National Cancer Institute, the Lance Armstrong Foundation and the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, all are trying to increase the percentage of adult cancer patients who enroll in trials. What all these groups have found is that one reason patients don't enroll is fear of getting a placebo, so the outcome of this current debate is sure to affect recruitment efforts. The University of Michigan Cancer Center in Ann Arbor, along with the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, both refused to participate in Pfizer's clinical trial for GIST patients because of their concerns over the trial's placebo arm. "There is almost no good reason to ever do a placebo trial in cancer," says Laurence Baker, director of clinical research at the University of Michigan center. "The only advantage is expediency to the drug manufacturer." When OSI Pharmaceuticals ran recent Phase III clinical trials for its drug Tarceva, for advanced lung cancer, the company didn't include any U.S. sites, concluding "it would take too long to enroll patients" because of the trial's placebo arm, according to OSI Pharmaceuticals Chief Executive Colin Goddard. This meant that patients here lost early access to a potentially beneficial drug. The company reported this weekend at ASCO that the drug extended the lives of patients who took it. Mr. Goddard acknowledged that patients on placebo died more quickly than those with the drug. But that "thanks to the sacrifice of those patients, we've taken lung-cancer treatment forward," Mr. Goddard said. "Future patients will benefit." Some drug companies say they are working to come up with innovative trial designs. In the current Phase III trials for Pfizer's GIST drug, called SU-11,258, doctors are allowed to intervene if a patient's tumor grows more than 20 percent. If it turns out the patient wasn't receiving the active drug, the patient is allowed to "cross over" to the drug arm and begin receiving the medicine. "We tried to minimize the number of people getting a placebo," says Charles Baum, the global clinical leader for the drug at Pfizer. Bernie Kaplan, 64, who was diagnosed with GIST in 2000 is enrolled in the Pfizer trial. When the first assessment showed that his tumors had grown, "I was praying I was on placebo," he says. It turned out he had been given a sugar pill. When he started receiving the drug, his tumors shrank. Many pharmaceutical companies say the very nature of these new cancer drugs makes it imperative to have a placebo arm for comparison. Unlike traditional chemotherapy, which is designed to shrink or eradicate tumors, many of these drugs aim to stop or slow tumors' growth and allow someone to live with their cancer. This makes it harder to measure if it is the drug that is working, or whether someone simply has a less-aggressive tumor. In addition, some of the diseases these drugs are targeted at have no other therapy against which a new drug can be compared. Bayer, which is testing its BAY 43-9006 in kidney-cancer patients, adopted a placebo-trial design in its Phase III trial of the drug that began in October 2003. This weekend, the company reported extremely promising results with an earlier-phase trial of the drug -- 37 out of 106 kidney-cancer patients had their tumors shrink 25 percent or more, and 38 had stable disease. Early positive results such as this make patient-advocate groups even angrier that some patients in later trials won't get any drug, effectively meaning they will die. A group of patients met with Bayer in December to discuss the trial design but, says patient advocate Steve Dunn, "they wouldn't budge." Susan L. Kelley, Bayer's vice president for product development in oncology, says pharmaceutical companies are trying to do the right thing. She says there are no options for kidney-cancer patients against which to compare the new drug. And, Dr. Kelley says, the company cannot allow patients on placebo whose tumors grow to then receive the drug, because "it would confound our ability to follow survival. We need definitive evidence that the drug is active."

Well, to sort of answer your question, I searched out an article that I read last year. It primarily talks about breast cancer, but seems to encompass ALL cancers and how nutrition comes into play. (To clarify -- when they talk about a "high-carb" diet -- they are talking about REFINED carbs -- white flour/white bread -- not WHOLE GRAINS) The most pertinant paragraph in the article is below: Eating lots of carbs may raise cancer riskBy: MARILYNN MARCHIONE (Fri, Aug/06/2004) High-carb diets may increase more than just waistlines. New research suggests they might raise the risk of breast cancer. Women in Mexico who ate a lot of carbohydrates were more than twice as likely to get breast cancer than those who ate less starch and sugar, scientists found. The study is hardly the last word on the subject, but it is one of the few to examine how the popular but controversial low-carb diet craze might affect the odds of getting cancer, as opposed to its effects on cholesterol and heart disease. The new findings also don't mean that it is safe or healthful to eat lots of meat, cheese or fats, as many people who go on low-carb diets do, experts say. "There are many concerns with eating diets high in animal fat," said Dr. Walter Willett, chief of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. "If people do want to cut back on carbohydrates, it's really important to do it in a way that emphasizes healthy fats, like salads with salad dressings." Willett worked on the study with doctors at Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica in Cuernavaca, Mexico. It was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Ministry of Health of Mexico, and the American Institute for Cancer Research. Results were published Friday in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. Fats, fiber and specific foods have long been studied for their effects on various types of cancer, but few firm links have emerged. Being overweight is known to raise risk, but the new study took that into account and still found greater risk from high carbohydrate consumption. Scientists think carbs may increase cancer risk by rapidly raising sugar in the blood, which prompts a surge of insulin to be secreted. This causes cells to divide and leads to higher levels of estrogen in the blood, both of which can encourage cancer. A study earlier this year suggested that high-carb diets modestly raised the risk of colon cancer. Little research has been done on their effect on breast cancer, and results have been mixed. One study last year found greater risk among young women who ate a lot of sweets, especially sodas and desserts. For this study, researchers enrolled 475 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and a comparison group of 1,391 healthy women in Mexico City who were matched for age, weight, childbirth trends and other factors that affect the odds of getting the disease. Women filled out a lengthy food questionnaire developed by Willett and widely used in nutrition studies, and were divided into four categories based on how much of their total calories came from carbohydrates. Those in the top category - who got 62 percent or more of their calories from carbs - were 2.22 times more likely to have breast cancer than those in the lowest category, whose carb intake was 52 percent or less of their diet. "The findings do raise concern about the possible adverse effects of eating lots of carbohydrates," especially for people who have diabetes, insulin resistance or are overweight, Willett said. "It adds to the information that diet's important" with respect to cancer risk, said John Milner, the National Cancer Institute's chief of nutrition. How applicable the results are to American women is debatable. Carbohydrates make up half of the typical American diet - less than what most of the women in this study consumed. "The main carbohydrates these women ate were corn-derived, including tortillas, and soft drinks and bread," said Dr. Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce, one of the Mexican physicians who did the study. Corn isn't fortified with folate and other nutrients as are many grains, cereals and other sources of carbohydrates eaten in the United States, and those nutrients might help prevent cancer, noted Sandra Schlicker, executive director of the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. Breast cancer rates in the United States are among the highest in the world. Nearly 132 cases are diagnosed for every 100,000 women. In Mexico, incidence is rising and is currently estimated at 38 cases per 100,000 women. But Willett cautioned that those rates are not adjusted for age differences and that the U.S. population is considerably older than Mexico's and therefore more at risk of cancer. In the study, women who ate a lot of insoluble fiber - found in whole grains, fruits and vegetables - had somewhat less risk of breast cancer. Fiber can modulate the absorption of carbohydrates. "It leads me to believe that healthier carb sources, or at least diets containing fiber, would be less strongly associated with breast cancer," said Marji McCullough, a senior epidemiologist and nutrition expert at the American Cancer Society. Experts say more research is needed through a study that, instead of relying on women's memories about what they ate, asks them to keep food diaries and then follows them for years afterward to see which ones develop cancer. Finding dietary links to breast cancer is important because diet is one of the few risk factors a woman can easily modify. "This study alone isn't enough for people to make changes in their diet, but it's a cautionary sign," Willett said. The Institute of Medicine recommends that carbohydrates constitute 45 percent to 65 percent of calories, and that no more than 20 percent should come from added sugars, said Schlicker, who served on the panel that drafted the advice. New dietary guidelines are due to be released next year.

While most doctors/oncologist don't give great nutritional advice, there was one piece of advice I was given that I took to heart: "Get your nutrients from whole foods, not supplements." If soy foods are good for you, try to eat moderate amounts of soy....not a soy supplement! There is not a supplement out there that can precisely duplicate what a whole food can do. Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth!

I too had some pretty massive problems swallowing food after radiation treatments, due to the radiation damaging my esophogus. I finished up chemo/radiation in early June of 2003, and by late August, food was still getting "stuck" when I swallowed and pretty much everything burned going down. I finally had them put a scope down to see what was going and the doctor told me afterwards "It's really ugly in there". Basically, he told me it would take some time to heal, but if it continued they could stretch my esophogus. It took a good 6 months before the "stuck" feeling finally went away and I didn't have to chew every bite of food into mush before swallowing it One day, I realized that I could swallow a large vitamin without burning pain in my chest from it getting stuck. What a wonderful day that was! I hope your cousin's problem clears up quickly -- it's a scary feeling!

Yes, in Philadelphia, all of the city fountains have pink water and all of the buildings, including City Hall, are either glowing with pink light, or have neon pink lights illuminating the sky. The Philadelphia Eagles are selling pink t-shirts, pink hats, and running commercials nonstop.....and while I do believe wholeheartedly that it is a worthy cause, I can't help but admit some serious jealousy. What cruel twist of fate put "our" month following "theirs"?

My oncologist actually mentioned last week that they are starting to do some preliminary lung cancer clinical trials using the same breast cancer protocol (tamoxifine?) and also using some sort of shots that will temporarily shut off your ovaries, hence, reducing your levels of estrogen, due to the new studies, indicating that lung cancer may possibly fueled by estrogen, particularly in young, non-smoking women.

Just came across this article: Certain Foods May Protect Against Lung Cancer Contributed by Tom Harrison| 28 September, 2005 Phytoestrogens may help protect against lung cancer development because they latch on to estrogen receptors that are present in both normal and malignant lung tissue, and this binding could exert a role in the regulation or deregulation of cancer growth. Consuming a diet rich in phytoestrogens -- which produce a weak estrogen-like activity in the body -- may lower the risk of lung cancer both in smokers and nonsmokers, according to a study published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center report that study participants who ate the highest amount of foods with dietary phytoestrogens had a 46 percent reduced risk of developing lung cancer, compared to those who ate the lowest quantity. More than 3,500 people participated in the research, making it the largest case-controlled study to examine dietary phytoestrogens and lung cancer risk in a US population, say the researchers. Not a License to Keep Smoking The researchers also found gender specific benefits for different classes of phytoestrogens. Men who ate the highest amount of soy-isoflavins lowered their risk of developing lung cancer by 72 percent, and women who ate the most fruits and vegetables by 41 percent. For women who also used hormone replacement therapy, the protective effect was enhanced further. "What we have found is intriguing and supports a small but growing body of evidence that suggests estrogenic-like compounds in food may help protect against development of lung and other cancers," says the study’s lead author, Matthew Schabath, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Epidemiology. "But these kinds of studies, which rely on a person’s recall of the food they have eaten months before, have known limitations and require more investigation," he notes. As promising as they are, the study results should not be seen as a license to continue smoking while increasing consumption of vegetables, says the study’s principal investigator, Margaret Spitz, MD, chair of the Department of Epidemiology. "The best cancer prevention advice continues to be to stop smoking, and it is clear that all of us can benefit from healthy eating and exercising," Spitz says. "Still, our results generally show that higher intake of these foods resulted in lower lung cancer risk, and that is certainly a tantalizing preliminary finding." Lung Cancer in Lifetime Nonsmokers One of the most intriguing findings, says Schabath, is that people who had never smoked had a reduced chance of developing the disease if they ate large quantities of phytoestrogen-rich food. "About 15 percent of lung cancers occur in lifetime never-smokers, and besides exposures to second-hand smoke, other risk factors for these cancers are yet to be determined," he says. The study builds on the group’s 2004 finding that women who used hormone replacement therapy -- which restores estrogen to postmenopausal women -- had a lower risk of developing lung cancer than women who did not use these agents, given a similar history of cigarette use. If estrogen drugs could protect against lung cancer, the researchers wondered if the same might be true of foods that have naturally occurring low levels of estrogens. Several epidemiological studies of phytoestrogenic foods had suggested that might be the case for breast, endometrial and prostate cancers. The researchers further noted that lung cancer rates are substantially lower in Asian populations that typically eat larger amounts of phytoestrogens than is consumed in America. Soybeans, Spinach, Sprouts Between 1995 and 2003, the research team enrolled 1,674 patients treated for lung cancer at MD Anderson, and 1,735 healthy volunteers from private clinics in the Houston area to serve as controls. The participants were asked detailed questions about their diet for the year prior to their enrollment or to their cancer diagnosis, with the assumption that what they ate that year reflected their general eating pattern over a number of years, Schabath says. The two groups were matched in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and smoking status. The researchers then divided consumption into three categories of foods that contain phytoestrogens: Isoflavones -- soybeans and soy products, chickpeas and red clover; Lignans -- rye grains, linseeds, carrots, spinach, broccoli and other vegetables; and Coumesterol -- bean, peas, clover, spinach and sprouts. They also looked at phytosterols, a fourth group of plant-derived steroidal compounds that are believed to have estrogenic properties. These include vegetable oils, margarines, spreads, grains, and certain fruits and vegetables. The researchers divided consumption of these foods into quartiles, from highest use to lowest use, as measured against all participants. They then compared the two groups, and among their findings were the following: Overall, consumption of phytoestrogens was statistically significantly higher in controls than in cases. The overall reduction in lung cancer risk was 46 percent for the highest intake of all phytoestrogens from food. For men, statistically significant trends were noted for each class of phytoestrogen, when they were consumed at the highest levels. For example, isoflavones reduced lung cancer risk by 44 percent, and lingans reduced the risk by 27 percent. In women, only intake of total phytoestrogens from food sources was statistically significantly higher in controls than in cases. High consumption of these foods reduced risk by 34 percent, but no effect was seen when individual classes of phytoestrogens were evaluated. No Benefit Seen in Former Smokers Phytoestrogens may help protect against lung cancer development because they latch on to estrogen receptors that are present in both normal and malignant lung tissue, and this binding could exert a role in the regulation or deregulation of cancer growth, the researchers suggest. However, they cannot say why women, in general, seemed to benefit less than men did from eating high quantities of specific classes of food with phytoestrogens or why former smokers seemed to benefit less. Much more research is needed to prove a definitive chemoprevention effect, the investigators caution. For example, for reasons the researchers do not understand, even a high consumption of phytoestrogens did not reduce lung cancer risk in those people studied who had smoked and then quit. "These findings need to be confirmed in prospective studies. We are just at the beginning of our work to explore the connection between these nutrients and lung cancer risk. The challenges and opportunities are enormous since lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer mortality in the United States," says Spitz.

I just checked LUNGevity's website -- they have a listing of many lung cancer events taking place across the country (regardless of who the benefiting foundation is) and the only one I see in California is in "Folsom" -- not sure if that was anywhere near you, but it already took place in August. I can't believe with such a big state, that is the ONLY thing going on!!! There must be something out there! But maybe it needs to start small -- try to organize your own "Wear Jeans To Work Day" Event on the first Friday of November! Try to get some friends to do the same thing at their places of employment! Pick a lung cancer charity of your choosing and donate the proceeds -- Go for it!

I had an idea, but I'm not quite sure where to go with it!!! As I am sure you all know by now, today is "National Lee Denim Day" for Breast Cancer. But did you know that last year, Denim Day raised over 8 MILLION DOLLARS for Breast Cancer Research????? I have taken that fact and decided to organize a "Wear Jeans To Work Day" on the first Friday of November (11/4/05) at my law firm, with all proceeds from the day going to my lung cancer walk (which is taking place the next day). HOWEVER.....this whole Lee Denim Day thing has me thinking....I propose that we ALL try to organize a "Wear Jeans To Work Day" for the first Friday of November, with proceeds going to some form of lung cancer support/education/funding. What we NEED is a National Sponsor to make it official, but I'm not sure how to go from Point A to Point Z! Anyone have any thoughts on this? My hands are pretty full with my upcoming walk right now, but I'd really love to see this take off!

My husband, Brad, and I have been working around the clock planning The 2nd Annual South Jersey Lung Cancer Walk/Run & Rally. For those of you who cannot attend in person, but would like to make a donation, please use the above link to donate. (The website is secure, fast and easy to use.) At the website you will be able to choose an amount to donate and receive email confirmation of your donation. Enough is enough!! Let's work together and find a cure! Heather

Jim, praying that your PET provides the opportunity for radiation (never thought I would be praying for someone to get radiated! )

Pnemonia shots last for 5 years and are definetly worth getting!

I have my CT Scan this morning at 10:00 EST...if anyone can spare a prayer or two -- I'll take them!