I'm always skeptical about the connection between certain foods and cancer. There's just so much back and forth -- the lycopene found in tomatoes prevents cancer and then it doesn't, for example -- that I don't base any life decisions solely on so-called cancer prevention foods. I simply do what is best for my health. If it happens to keep cancer at bay, then I consider it a bonus.

I eat fruits and vegetables because I know they're good for me. It was nice, while it lasted, to think I was also cutting my risk of cancer recurrence but when it comes down to it, fruits and veggies are better than sweets and candies and junky carbohydrates. So they'll remain a staple in my life -- even though a large, seven-year study published in today's Journal of American Medical Association dashes all hopes that a diet low in fat and jam-packed with fruits and vegetables prevents the return of breast cancer.

Five daily servings of fruits and veggies are recommended in the United States. This is more than most Americans get yet still doesn't make a difference for those trying to minimize their chances of breast cancer recurrence.

More than 90 Penn State football players will compete on July 13 in an event where they plan to tackle kidney cancer. Well, maybe they won't literally tackle kidney cancer -- wouldn't that be nice -- but by raising awareness and funding, they'll surely make a difference.

The strength and conditioning event, called Lift For Life, will benefit the Kidney Cancer Association for the fifth year in a row. In past years, it's generated more than $148,000. In the 2005-06 year alone, $60,000 was raised for this rare disease.

Lift For Life challenges the mental and physical endurance of student-athletes and consists of 11 exercises. Think traditional bench and leg presses and the less conventional giant tire flip and iron cross and you've got an idea of what will take place in just one week.

New research may one one day help in the diagnosis and prognosis of the nation's number four cancer killer of men and number five cancer killer of women. The killer: pancreatic cancer.

Findings from an Ohio State University study show pancreatic cancer cells may leave signs in gene-related molecules called microRNAs.

Published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, this study examined pancreatic tissue from 65 people with the disease and 42 people with chronic inflammation of the pancreas, called chronic pancreatitis.

I never thought I'd hear this one -- that women whose tonsils were removed during childhood may be at increased risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer. But sure enough, that's what researchers at the University of Buffalo are reporting.

Think about this:

Researchers say the association between tonsillectomies and breast cancer may be related to the loss of protective function when tonsils are removed. Also, tonsils can be markers for infection in childhood. Some infections cause inflammation which can contribute to cancer. When the tonsils are gone, markers are gone.

Other studies have linked tonsillectomies with an increased risk of Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, and breast and prostate cancers. This study, reported at the 100th annual meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, confirms the breast cancer connection -- but further study is still necessary.

There's a new vaccine out there that stimulates the immune system to find and destroy breast cancer cells. In early experiments, the vaccine held off or stopped the growth of tumors in all of the mice studied. Some mice were even cured.

Think about this:

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research reveals this vaccine is different from most under development that help kick-start the immune systems of sick patients. In this case, the vaccine tells the immune system to recognize breast cancer cells and to attack and kill them on the spot.

One researcher says breast cancer cells usually fly under the radar of the immune system. To combat this problem, the injectable vaccine uses a bacteria-type substance that is altered to contain the gene HER2/neu and also antibodies that rev up the immune system. This makes the body react and wipe out cells containing HER2/neu.

If continued studies prove promising, the vaccine would work for the 15 to 25 percent of women whose breast cancers overexpress HER2/neu.

When my babies were born, those who promote breastfeeding as the only effective method for nourishing a child and preventing illness urged and pushed and prodded me to embrace their beliefs. I did believe them, never doubted them, and sometimes felt guilty I wasn't able to nurse my children -- a previous breast reduction surgery disabled my milk flow.

I got over it. Bottles and formula worked well for my family, allowed my husband to share middle-of-the-night feeding duties, and grew my two little boys into sturdy, healthy beings.

What I haven't completely gotten over is that breastfeeding could have done a whole lot of good for me too. It could have prevented the breast cancer I developed just after my second child stopped drinking formula from his bottle.

Research indicates breastfeeding can decrease the risk of breast cancer for women who have their first baby after age 25. I was 31 when my first child was born.

Previous studies showed that having a first baby before the age of 25 or having no children protected against breast cancers fueled by hormones. It did not, however, stop the less common, harder-to-treat tumors not fueled by hormones, like mine. It seems even breastfeeding would not have prevented my cancer.

That was then. This is now.

New studies show women who give birth after age 25 are twice as likely to develop either type of breast cancer. Therefore, breastfeeding really protects all women bearing children after 25 from both forms of the disease. It turns out breastfeeding could have helped me. But I couldn't do it. So it didn't.

What's done is done. I'll get over it. And I may just become one of those women who urge and push and prod others to embrace the benefits of breastfeeding.

I'm never quite sure what to do about vitamin supplements. Should I take them? Or should I leave them?

Sometimes I think supplements could surely help me with whatever I'm lacking in my diet. Other times I don't want to mess with what might be working just fine in my body. Now if a doctor tells me my iron is low, I'll take a supplement to boost my levels. But if there is nothing apparently off kilter in my system, I tend to just leave things alone.

I'm glad at the moment for my current plan. Because nutritionists now suspect that high doses of vitamins and minerals -- believed by some to prevent cancer -- might actually be harmful.

Think about this:

The American Medical Association journal JAMA recently reported that high doses of antioxidant supplements can be harmful. Vitamin advocates challenged the analysis, saying it excluded large studies from China and Italy showing antioxidant supplements lowered mortality risk.

Consumers still should read labels carefully.

"Some of the things called daily vitamins can be higher than what we think is desirable," says one researcher who urges consumers to look for something about 100 percent of the daily value. That's really all people need, she declares. But a healthy diet is still most important and can prevent the need for supplements altogether. Yet for those who are sick, don't have access to nutritious food or for some other reason cannot eat well, the 100-percent rule is a good guide.

More than 47 percent of people view their pets as family members, according to a 2002 American Veterinary Medical Association survey. It makes sense then that people are routinely treating their pets for ailments that might strike a family member -- like arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, obesity, and yes, cancer.

New studies show that Americans are stuffing their pets with more drugs than ever before. They are medicating their dogs, cats, and sometimes other pets as much as they medicate themselves -- and they are doing it with many of the same human drugs they use for themselves, like steroids for inflammation, antibiotics for infection, anti-depressants for anxiety, and even new slendering drugs for obesity.

It's a big market -- pharmaceuticals for pets -- and for those who love their pets so much they can't let go, going to extremes is worth every penny.

Think about this:

• For dogs and cats alone, Americans spent $2.9 billion on pet drugs in 2005. While this is equal to only one percent of human drug sales, the market has grown by half since 2000.

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved more than 40 new pet drugs in the past five years.

• A single three-month course of pet chemotherapy can cost $3,000 -- and chemotherapy doesn't typically extend the life of an animal as much as it soothes symptoms of the disease.

• Health insurance for pets was nearly invisible in 2002 but has gained popularity over the past few years. Premiums can cost $30 per month, and the total market is expected to climb to $500 million in the next five years.

• Some human drugs leave pets with unexpected, sometimes deadly, side effects. The drug Rimadyl, made by Pfizer and used as a treatment for dogs with arthritis, has been shown to cause kidney and liver damage in some animals. More than 3,000 pet deaths have been attributed to this drug.

• Some question the priorities of a society that allows for medically treating pets like they are humans. Dianne Dunning, an ethicist at N.C. State's vet school is concerned that millions of animals are lost, unwanted, and euthanized while millions are spent on pet medicines. David Rothman, an expert in medicine's role in society from Columbia University, says, "If you can't get malaria drugs in some Third World countries, what are we doing with chemotherapy for cats?"

• Others don't flinch at the expense it requires to keep their pets alive. One man, whose dog was expected to die of lymphoma within weeks, still enjoys the company of his pet some two years later. Chemotherapy saved the dog's life and when asked if he thinks the drugs are too expensive, this man says NO -- because his dog is still here.
  

It seems screening for lung cancer doesn't save lives and it doesn't prevent advanced disease. But it does lead to potentially unnecessary and harmful treatment.

This isn't the final word on the use of CT scans to screen smokers and former smokers for the disease. But right now, the hope some experts had for the special X-rays to detect tiny lung abnormalities has been diminished by a large study that is still in the works. And until conclusive evidence says the screening is useful, the American Cancer Society will not endorse the test.

While CT screening did increase diagnosis and treatment -- those screened were three times more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer and 10 times more likely to have lung surgery than predicted -- study co-author Dr. Peter Bach of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York says, "We don't see a trace of evidence that a single life was saved, that a single case of advanced cancer was avoided."

And because CT scanning led to more biopsies and surgeries, patients were put at risk for complications such as lung puncture, bleeding, and infection, according to Bach, whose work is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"Getting screened for lung cancer with CT scanning is not only unproven, it's potentially a risky endeavor," he said.

Until an effective screening tool emerges -- possibly still years away -- experts say there is one surefire way to protect yourself from lung cancer. Stop smoking.

Researchers have found that when cells become cancerous, they become 100 times more likely to genetically mutate than non-cancerous cells. This explains why tumor cells have so many mutations. Good news on the research front. But bad news on the treatment front -- because therapies that target a certain gene may be largely ineffective in controlling cancer.

"This is very bad news, because it means that cancer cells in a tumor will have mutations that protect them from therapeutics," says lead researcher Dr. Lawrence Loeb, professor of pathology and biochemistry at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, who presented his findings February 18 at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

Loeb says chemotherapy drugs target specific oncogenes -- genes that affect the malignancy of a cell -- but if cancer cells are mutator cells, then a single tumor may have cells with all sorts of oncogenes. And while chemotherapy may kill some cancerous cells, millions of others will live on.

It's not all bad news, though, says Loeb who believes this research may help doctors determine the stage and malignancy of tumors by testing the number of mutations. It may also help researchers understand what makes a cancer cell a mutator and how to slow the rate of mutation.

"The idea is that if you might normally get exposed to something in the environment at 20 years old that would give you cancer by age 55, then if we cut the mutation rate in half, you might not get cancer until age 90, and you may even die of something else before that," Loeb explained.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer. So any bit of progress on the pancreatic cancer front is a big deal. And researchers are happy to report they've found a chemotherapy drug that can help patients who have received surgery prevent a return of the disease for a longer period of time.

In a German study, participants who received Gemzar, or gemcitabine, lived an average of 13.4 months without their cancers coming back. Participants who did not receive the drug lived without the disease for 6.9 months. While the findings of this study may seem modest, they really are quite encouraging because pancreatic cancer is such a rapid killer, and patients with this disease have the worst chances of recovery.

This study, published in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, brings hope for the mere 20 percent of pancreatic cancer patients who are candidates for surgery. While surgery is the best hope for a cure, the disease still returns in the majority of cases -- so Gemzar is surely worth a shot.

It should be noted that some study authors report financial ties to Gemzar drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. Researchers, however, report the firm had no influence in design or data interpretation.

It's been reported that procrastination is on the rise. Not only that, but it makes people poorer, fatter, and unhappier too.

It took 10 years of research when it was projected to take only five years -- procrastination at its best -- to come to this conclusion. And now Canadian industrial psychologist and University of Calgary professor Piers Steel is talking about his giant 30-page study that appears in this month's Psychological Bulletin.

Something must be done about this problem, says Steel, who reveals 26 percent of the American public consider themselves chronic procrastinators. This is up from five percent in 1978 and is likely due to the tempting diversions facing us in this day and age -- TVs, cell phones, video games, iPods, the Internet, and Blackberries.

It's no surprise with such temptations that a quarter of Americans say they procrastinate. When it comes to the sexes, men are worse than women -- about 54 out of 100 chronic procrastinators are men -- and the young are more like to procrastinate than the old. Three out of four college students consider themselves procrastinators. And it seems perfectionists procrastinate less because they don't like to delay.

Steel says procrastination wastes time. And it's costly too.

"The U.S. gross national product would probably rise by $50 billion if the icon and sound that notifies people of new e-mail suddenly disappear," he said.

Steel found a delay in filing taxes on average costs a person $400 a year. Last-minute Christmas shopping with credit cards was five times higher in 1999 than in 1991. Clearly, procrastination is expensive.

Procrastination also has physical and emotional costs. Procrastinators tend to be less healthy, less wealthy, and less happy. They are also harder to heal of their problems than alcoholics.

Steel, who plans to one day compare the procrastination practices in various countries and cultures, says his field has benefits. The more he knows about the problem, the less he indulges in delay tactics. He did, however, acknowledge that his study was completed five years late. But what he likes about this study is this -- "If you take a day off from it, you can always say it's field research."

Those who just can't quit smoking may have a teeny, tiny bit of added protection from a possible onset of lung cancer -- if they are willing to get out there and sweat.

In a study of older women, researchers found that physically active smokers have a 35 percent lower risk of developing lung cancer than their sedentary counterparts.

This doesn't mean that women who exercise have a free pass to smoke, but the study does reveal the lowest risk of lung cancer among study participants was found in those who had moderate workouts more than four times per week, or vigorous workouts two or more times per week.

It is unclear why physical activity might have a preventive effect on lung cancer. Perhaps the improved pulmonary function resulting from exercise reduces the concentration of carcinogenic particles that deposit in the lungs. Or maybe becoming more physically active increases smokers' awareness of the damage they have caused their lungs, motivating them to smoke less or quit.

One thing is clear, however. The single most important step a smoker can take to prevent lung cancer is quitting the nasty habit -- because those who stop smoking are 10 times less likely to develop lung cancer than those who smoke.

Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association does not want smokers to gain a false sense of security from this study.

"We don't want people to get the wrong message," Edelman said. "A regular smoker has a risk of lung cancer 10 times that of a nonsmoker, and 35 percent reduction in that risk is trivial."

Edelman also states that the study does not address the effect of exercise on other smoking-related health problems, such as emphysema and heart disease. And because the active women in the study were less likely to be overweight, it is unclear if the lower lung cancer rate is a result of their exercising or their weight.

Miss Rodeo North Dakota Ashley Andrews is proud to have won the 52nd annual Miss Rodeo America Pagent in Las Vegas on Saturday. Her victory is even sweeter because she is also winning her battle against cancer.

Andrews, 21, has beaten competitors from 28 states in categories such as horsemanship, personality, and appearance.

And she has beaten cancer after months of chemotherapy. Remission began on August 9 when she received a clean bill of health.

Feeling stronger than ever -- both mentally and physically -- Andrews believes everything in life happens for a reason. "Something good always comes from every bad situation," she said. And something good has happened.

As winner of the pageant, Andrews will receive a $10,000 scholarship, western apparel, and other prizes. She also becomes the new ambassador of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association and will attend more than 100 rodeos during this year. A junior majoring in public relations and communications at the University of Mary in Bismarck, she will put college on hold during her reign as Miss Rodeo America.

Sean Swarner was once given two weeks to live. He is the only person in the world to have ever had two specific types of cancer and he is the longest living survivor of one of them. When he was fourteen he was diagnosed with stage four Hodgkin's Disease. He was expected to live for about three months. A year and a half after chemotherapy he was put in remission only to be stricken the second time with a very aggressive and deadly tumor attacking only three out of a million people. An Askin's disease tumor was attached to his lung and had grown to the size of a golf ball in less than four months. At this point Sean was told that he was only expected to survive for a few weeks.

Sean dreamed of helping others who were in his situation and becoming an incredible inspiration. His goal was to be the first cancer survivor to climb to the top of the earth. Sean achieved his goal in May of 2002 and still strives to climb more mountains. On the summit of Everest Sean brought a flag with names of those affected by cancer and left it at the top of the world forever commemorating the struggle of cancer patients worldwide.

Sean is one of the founding members of The Cancer Climbers Association, a non profit organization dedicated to motivating those afflicted with cancer by encouraging patients to inspire each other. Cancer Climber challenges and facilitates cancer survivors to climb their own Everest, thus overcoming their own limitations and mental boundaries.

Sean has raised cancer awareness and has instilled hope and inspiration in other cancer patients scanning the globe. Along with climbing, Sean now delivers inspirational speeches around the world.