According to a new Finnish study, most head-and-neck cancers that recur locally after prior full-dose conventional radiation therapy respond to Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT). This research was led by Heikki Joensuu at the Helsinki University Hospital. According to the researchers, this work opens up a new field of use for BNCT, which has been evaluated only for the treatment of brain tumors.

BNCT is a form of targeted radiation treatment and is considered experimental. A boron-containing compound is infused into a peripheral vein and accumulates in the cancer. The cancer is then irradiated with neutrons from a nuclear reactor, causing the boron to split as a result of neutron capture. This releases radiation which can then destroy cancer cells.

I hate it when I fit the mold for some not-so-great research finding. Like the recent news about how women with early-stage cancer of the left breast (that's me) who are treated with radiation following lumpectomy (me again) face an increased risk of developing radiation-related coronary damage.

OK, so the benefits of radiation therapy still outweigh the risks. Still, when radiation is applied to the breast on the same side as the heart, there are worries. I knew about these concerns. My radiation oncologist addressed them prior to my treatment. Hearing that an actual, important, convincing study confirms what I already knew may be a side effect, though, makes my heart race a little bit more.

There were 961 women with stage I and II breast cancer who were followed in this study. Well, the arteries in their hearts were studied anyway. Some had left-sided breast cancer; the others had right-sided. Some 12 years after radiation, 46 of the 485 left-sided women and 36 of the right-sided group needed cardiac stress testing. Among those tested, 59 percent in the left-sided group had abnormalities. Only 8 percent in the right-sided group showed problems.

Lung cancer patients may not need to wait until their radiation treatment is over to know if it worked according to a new study.

A PET scan several weeks after starting radiation for lung cancer can indicate whether the tumor will respond to treatment, according to researchers the University of Michigan.

PET, positron emission tomography, has been used after radiation treatment to assess response. However, researchers found that PET could be used only a few week into treatment, with a strong correlation between tumor response a few weeks in and three months after treatment completion.

This could allow doctors to change plans midway through treatment and improve outcomes.

A recently-published study has found that a significant proportion of children under the age of three with the brain tumor ependymoma can skip or delay radiotherapy by using chemotherapy without lowering their chances of survival.

This research has taken 12 years to complete and were released in Lancet Oncology in July 2007 by the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group at The University of Nottingham in the UK

Radiotherapy can be harmful to a young child's brain, affecting IQ, short term memory, growth and puberty.

According to experts, the survival rate for children with ependymoma is increasing, but still unacceptably low.

Tomorrow I report for one of my six-month radiation follow-ups. My radiation oncologist will review how I've fared for the past two years since my left breast was zapped, day after day, week after week, in an aggressive attempt to keep cancer from returning to the same local area where it first reared its ugly head. How horrified I would be if I learned the machines used to treat my cancer were faulty, that they did not in fact do anything aggressive, that they were essentially ineffective.

Hundreds of brain cancer patients may be hearing this horrific news, now that malfunctioning machines have been ordered shut down following a manufacturer's warning.

Brainlab of Munich, Germany claims a small targeting error occurred with their machines but that it is unlikely to cause problems for patients. If I were one of these patients, I would still be worried. Targeting the tumor bed area is crucial in any cancer treatment. I don't like the sound of "targeting error," regardless of how minor it may be.

Radiation exposure from those regular CT scans could cause the risk for developing cancer throughout life to be increased. This comes from a new study published in today's edition of JAMA.

The risk becomes greater for women and younger patients as well. Although coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of death in the U.S., the scans -- used for coronary angiography purposes -- may be doing small amounts of long-term damage while being used to assist in helping deal with another illness.

The new approved treatment for spine metastasis uses radiofrequency to kill cancer cells in the spine. After the radiofrequency is delivered to the area with cancer, a type of cement mixture is delivered into the cavity site to fill the empty space which was once occupied by the cancer. This step provides stability to the spine.

This new treatment called Cavity Spinewand minimizes damage to the surrounding tissue since the treatment is placed directly where the cancer cells reside. Patients treated with this method have reported significant pain relief, sometimes even complete pain relief.

Less pain means improved quality of life, mobility and enables patients to continue on with their scheduled chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

In late May, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) announced updates to two NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology(TM) -- Esophageal Cancer and Gastric Cancer.

The panel added oral fluoropyrimidine, Capecitabine (Xeloda(R), Roche) as an option for treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer due to favorable Phase III trials. The panel also states that capecitabine may replace 5-FU and oxaliplatin may replace cisplatin in triplet regimens for advanced esophageal and gastric cancer.

Additional updates and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology(TM) are available at www.nccn.org free of charge.

Seventy year old Ronald Baker says that "its hard to think about cancer on a growling bulldozer". He was diagnosed with prostate cancer and receives radiation daily, where he says is the only time during the day he thinks about having cancer.

Baker enjoys driving the two ton bulldozer and feels that staying busy is keeping his mind off of his cancer diagnosis and treatments. When he isn't working Ronald stays at Jack's Place, a temporary home for people needing long-term cancer treatments.

Ronald lives with his wife on a secluded ranch in Colorado where he rides horses and takes people on guided hunting trips in the winter. There wasn't a good treatment center available where he lives so he was referred to Jack's Place, a place he could live and find a job to keep busy during his radiation treatments.

Way to go Ronald!

Staff Sgt. Elizabeth Cowie's dream almost ended when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in May. She was told earlier in the year that she would deploy to Iraq this summer.

The forty-two year old mother is ready for duty after her aggressive treatment plan. She had two surgeries and a five day targeted radiation treatment called MammoSite. Elizabeth will leave later this month with the 1113th Transportation Company of San Jose, California, for at least a year transporting supplies in Iraq.

Elizabeth's mother Pearl said she "isn't surprised that her daughter still wants to deploy. I knew this would not deter her. She was just determined to go. That is the kind of person she is."

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is launching a three-year pilot phase of a new program that will help bring state of the art care to patients in community hospitals across the country.

The NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) is designed to encourage the collaboration of private practice medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists. Building on this expanded network, the NCCCP will explore ways of sharing information, via electronic medical records, to further enhance patient care. Evidence from a wide range of studies suggests that cancer patients diagnosed and treated in a setting of coordinated multi-specialty care and clinical research may live longer and have a better quality of life.

The pilot program will research new and enhanced ways to assist, educate, and better treat the needs of under served populations -- including elderly, rural, inner-city, and low-income patients. As well as racial and ethnic groups with unusually high cancer rates.

Shorter courses of radiation therapy may be in order for women with early-stage breast cancer. And the largest study to test this suggests the abbreviated treatment time in no way affects risk of recurrence.

Often, the greatest hassle of radiation is getting to and from appointments, every weekday, for many weeks. With less frequent visits, life could get a whole lot easier.

Dr. John Dewar of the University of Dundee in Scotland led a two-part study of nearly 4,500 women in the United Kingdom to test courses of radiation and found five years later that cancer recurrences were low -- about two to five percent -- for women who received both longer and shorter durations of therapy. There were so few recurrences -- 158 -- that doctors believe the treatments are equivalent. They just can't say this with certainty yet.

This is great news for patients traveling great distances to their treatment facilities. Other benefits of shorter radiation timelines are less swelling and shrinkage of breast tissue and less enlargement of blood vessels.

I have known my friend Claire for years (she asked that her last name not be used). So, I remember the shock I felt three years ago when I found out that she had breast cancer. Malignant breast cancer, we whispered to ourselves. Claire had been teaching English for Dole Fruit in Honduras. She came home that summer, and she never went back, even though she had another year left in her contract. Even though we have talked about her experiences over the years, we had never done so formally before she agreed to talk to me for this Survivor Spotlight. She came over and I poured her coffee (black) and we went out back to my studio/office to chat.

How did you find out you had breast cancer?

I went in for a routine mammogram. I had been having mammograms for about the past ten years or so. But I missed the previous year! So, after I found out that I had cancer, I was mortified that I had forgotten the previous year. But actually, I had a benign cyst years earlier, when I was younger and hadn't gone through as much. That was actually much scarier.

How did you find out it was malignant?

Needle biopsy. But I had warning -- the radiologist was pretty sure it was bad, so he gave me warning. The biopsy was just to make sure.

If you've battled cancer in your lifetime (or are battling it now), have you agreed with everything you've been shown and told from your physicians and oncologist? Most likely, you have not -- for various reasons. But, should you?

There is new research showing that cancer patients in an advanced state who disagree with their physicians actually have a higher chance of dying when the subjects of nutrition and physical condition come up. While certain nutrition philosophies are pretty much agreed upon in the cancer prevention field, are these disagreements happening due to denial or some other reason?

Long-term cancer outcomes were found to be affected by patient-doctor agreements, with the a researcher on this study saying that "patients disagreed with their clinicians greater than 50 percent of the time." Why is this? From those who have battled cancer, I'd be very interested to hear reasons why so many disagreements end up happening.

We all know from the bestselling book that French women don't get fat. Now it's appearing as if they, along with the rest of the general population in France, don't get cancer either, or at least are better at diagnosing and treating the disease, according to this article from the BBC. Compared to England, France doesn't have as many prominent cancer researchers on its side and yet more people are surviving? Why? It's all down to the fact that the French government spends more money on healthcare and treatment of the disease is quicker than in England. They've invested in more radiation equipment and have more doctors available, which goes to show that the key to cancer survival is treating it now, not trying to prevent it later.

When my dad was diagnosed with cancer, he was scheduled to start treatment in a month's time because the healthcare system in my area just didn't have the resources to get him treatment immediately. He never made it. I've never been the type of person who gets involved in politics but experiencing firsthand the failure of the healthcare system where I live has changed all that. Nothing is more important than our health and government should realize that, just as they have in France. What do you think?