Breast density has something to do with breast cancer. This is not really news. It's clear there is some kind of link, some kind of relationship, some kind of risk related to breast density for both pre- and post-menopausal women. It's just not clear how exactly breast density -- how much fat tissue fills the breast compared to other tissue -- contributes to breast cancer risk. But once it is clear, medical professionals will have a whole new arsenal of power in the fight against this deadly disease.

Cancer News in Context, a regular series of podcast commentaries produced by the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, highlights two recent studies that add weight to the fact that breast density is an important tool in breast cancer prediction and identifies two areas that with futher study might help determine why breasts that are very dense are associated with higher risks for breast cancer -- and why density may be as important a factor as age in determining risk.

Currently, mammograms are the chosen method for measuring breast density. But measurement is not required, and there are no national standards for how to measure. Once federal groups issue requirements and direction on how to classify density, women will receive more accurate assessments of their personal risk.

There is also speculation that altering breast density through hormonal therapy may lower risk. Perhaps genetics are the strongest indicator of risk, making short-term solutions ineffective, but perhaps certain interventions can override genetics, helping women protect themselves from breast cancer.

There are many issues that must be ironed out before we really understand how breast density affects breast cancer. There is no doubt that density, when added to other risk factors, will surely help improve the accuracy of prediction. It's one tool, among many, that is poised to open all sorts of doors.

Stomach cancer is hard to detect. It has no symptoms in its early stages, and there is no effective screening to detect its presence. So early detection and early treatment for this disease -- that attacks 800,000 people worldwide -- are hard to come by. In Taiwan, stomach cancer is the fifth most common cancer and the focus of study for researchers working to devise a method for detecting stomach cancer in its infancy.

A team of researchers at National Taiwan University Hospital have discovered a toxic factor -- GroES -- that causes stomach cancer. And they have discovered that a simple blood test will show either a positive or negative result for this substance, leading to immediate endoscopic exams for patients who may be at risk for stomach cancer. The test to identify GroES has already achieved a 65 percent accuracy rate.

Apparently, if the human body is infected with GroES, it produces antibodies to the factor and can cause chronic inflammation of the stomach, causing cells to rupture and proliferate. Long-term inflammation can cause stomach cancer. Researchers say about 45 percent of adults in Taiwan are infected with GroES -- and one percent will go on to develop stomach cancer.

Right now, patent applications are underway in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan. Once a kit is developed, a single drop of blood will be all it takes to determine the risk for stomach cancer.

I clearly remember reading a pamphlet about a test that might determine with pretty good accuracy whether or not I would benefit from chemotherapy for breast cancer. This was more than a year ago and I hoped, prayed, wished upon a star that I would be a candidate for this test -- and that the result would reveal that I did not need the toxic chemotherapy that I feared with every fiber of my being. But I did not qualify for this test because it's only effective for tumors that are estrogen receptor positive -- and I am negative. So I received chemotherapy and while I've survived it, there still remains an important issue -- did I need it?

Stephen Daniells, a journalist and scientist, has worked both sides of the fence, and as such, has as qualified a voice as any in addressing the controversial debate that rages between science and the media. Scurrilous accusations of journalistic conspiracy are made by scientists when it comes to the sensationalism media employs when reporting scientific research and medical news -- and the journalists equally complain that scientists use the same tactics when they pull out the most attention-getting part of a study while leaving out the better but less interesting facts buried deep within the research findings.

Both sides seem to be exploiting the other by manipulative means. According to Daniells, currently a food science reporter with a PhD in Chemistry from Queen's University Belfast who has worked in research in the Netherlands and France, suggests that all the shaming and blaming needs to stop. The relationship between journalist and scientist must be mended and developed amicably if science is to get a fair deal in the press. Ultimately, where this all leads is to consumers being presented with balanced and accurate science and medical news coverage. Daniells writes an excellent commentary with great examples to support his observations and conclusions.