Women with early stage breast cancer now have a new tool at their disposal. The tool -- called MammaPrint -- is newly approved by the FDA and while it is not yet a perfect measure, it can be used along with other information to estimate whether breast cancer is likely to return in five or 10 years.

The value of this test, that measures through computer analysis the activity of 70 genes using a sample of tissue removed from a breast tumor, is that doctors and patients can better determine course of treatments.

MammoPrint offers two results -- high risk and low risk -- and accurately picked in studies which women were at low risk at least 90 percent of the time. However, for women who were told they were at high risk for recurrence as a result of the test, just 23 percent experienced a relapse.

"You can't go all the way to the bank with this test," says FDA official Dr. Steven Gutman who argues the test is still better than having no information at all.

Agendia, the Dutch maker of MammoPrint, is exploring ways to make this one-of-a-kind product available in the United States. It has been used in the Netherlands since 2005.

"This test has enormous implications for the short-term future of cancer research in general, and is one of the truly great breakthroughs of our time," says Cancer Blog reader Gregory Pawelski with whom I am grateful for sharing this story tip with me.

My new breast cancer friend recently sat through her second infusion of Adriamycin and Cytoxan -- the long-time traditional chemotherapy combination for breast cancer -- and all the while, listened to another breast cancer survivor share her thoughts on these two drugs.

This woman told my friend she opted to stray from these chemotherapy agents because of their toxic side effects, because of their combined potential for causing other cancers, like leukemia. She instead took another drug route and was happy for her decision. My friend, however, was scared.

My friend returned home from her treatment and found herself reading a Cancer Blog post reporting that Adriamycin and Cytoxan may no longer be the gold standard treatment for breast cancer, that Taxotere and Cytoxan may become the preferred, safer option.

Fear and panic set in, and my friend e-mailed me, in search of perspective from a recipient of the drugs she was starting to believe are both ineffective and cancer-causing.

I am not a doctor. I am not an expert. I am not qualified in any way to represent the facts about medical research. But I am surviving breast cancer. And I did spend eight difficult weeks under the influence of Adriamycin and Cytoxan, given every two weeks in a dose-dense fashion. So I have an opinion about these drugs -- and about most things breast cancer related.

I shared my opinion with my friend, who has since decided to proceed with her prescribed treatment plan. I told her that in rare cases, chemotherapy can cause a second cancer, like leukemia. But this is not common, and the unlikely risk does not outweigh the benefit of receiving chemotherapy to address the cancer at hand.

I also shared with my friend that we can only benefit from therapies that are available and effective at the time of our treatment. Studies prove that Adriamycin and Cytoxan work -- that's why so many women are treated with this accepted method. Drugs in the research pipeline may one day definitively replace what is available today. But we must be OK with what we receive -- because we have no control over what lies ahead. We must live in the here and now -- with the knowledge that should our cancers return, bigger and better options may await us.

Consider Herceptin. Once not even an option for women with aggressive HER2 positive breast cancer, this targeted drug may be the magic bullet in an attack against this disease. I received Herceptin. My friend will receive Herceptin. Timing was on our side for this medical breakthrough.

Timing may not have been on our side should a new gold-standard drug treatment emerge and replace Adriamycin and Cytoxan. But we can still trust these two drugs will do their jobs, will prevent a recurrence of a disease that is so much more treatable today than it was years ago. Lucky for us.

I have heard people say to me that they think there is currently a cure for cancer but the pharmaceutical companies do not want us to know about it because they make so much money treating cancer.

I think this is absolutely not true. If you think about it, everyone knows someone with cancer. I think the researchers, doctors, and those in the pharmaceutical industry would want a cure to be known to help their own families and those they know fighting the disease. It only makes sense.

The most important thing to remember is that cancer is not one single disease, but many diseases. It is possible to find a cure for one cancer but be no where near a cure for another.

Pharmaceutical companies do like to make money, so does every other business out there in the world. I like the fact that they are competing with one another. This makes it a challege for them to be the first one with the breakthroughs. Hopefully we will soon find THE breakthrough but until then I'm confident that there isn't a secret cure out there!

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital scientists have demonstrated a new locally applied treatment for the eye cancer retinoblastoma. The new treatment, tested on mice, reduced the size of the tumor and also did not cause the side effects common with chemotherapy.

This targeted therapy uses a customized drug to disable a specific molecule inside a growing cancer cell. It is delivered locally to the site of the disease, rather than using systematic treatment. Dr. Dyer, Ph. D., associate member of the St. Jude Department of Developmental Neurobiology said "The findings suggest that this treatment not only could offer children with retinoblastoma more effective and less toxic treatment, it could also increase the chance that their vision can be preserved by eliminating the tumor and preventing its spread from the eye to the rest of the body".

Retinoblastoma occurs in about 5,000 young children worldwide each year, arising from the immature retina, which is the part of the eye responsible for detecting light and color. A report on this work appears in the November 2nd issue of the journal Nature.

TIME magazine has faithfully followed the issues defining cancer. The topic has made the covers of many issues, and it receives plentiful press on the pages in between. Stories spotlight an array of different cancers, address research and new developments, and offer personal glimpses into the lives of both everyday survivors and those with celebrity status. A look into the archives of TIME magazine -- seven specific issues -- illustrates a proven commitment to the cancer cause. And it proves the mystery of cancer is much the same today as it was many years ago.

Scientists helping to develop the next generation of cancer beating drugs say they have had a major breakthrough with their latest results. The new drugs would target an enzyme that helps cells divide; in cancer, this enzyme is called Aurora B. This enzyme can go into overdrive and possibly lead to uncontrolled and abnormal cell divisions.

The idea is to inhibit the Aurora B that is overexpressed in cancer cells. This could lead to a new class of cancer drugs called Aurora inhibitors that are less toxic and have relatively mild side effects.

The University of Manchester team has been working on the Aurora B inhibitor in collaboration with pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The group published an earlier paper in 2003 that highlighted the potential success of targeting Aurora B. These latest findings further strengthen the team's belief that Aurora B inhibition is the preferred route to an effective cancer therapy.

Technology has come a long way over the years -- and now the technology behind digital mammography is allowing life-saving screenings for the toughest patients to diagnose with breast cancer.

This is no small technological breakthough. It is a critical component for lowering the breast cancer death rate the American Cancer Society reports has declined 2.3 percent each year between 1990 and 2002. Since breast cancer is a treatable disease if caught early, digital mammography will up the odds of survival for women with this disease.

Digital mammography operates according to a computer-based technique that allows for digital manipulation of a breast X-ray. It exceeds the capability of film mammography -- and is much like the comparison between digital photography versus film photography. Both work. But one works better.

Studies show digital mammograms have a lot to offer. They detect tumors better in young women with dense breast tissue, for example. They allow for ease of storage and retrieval of images. And they can easily become part of a woman's electronic medical record.

There are still benefits of traditional mammography and women are still urged to use this less expensive option. They are also urged to conduct self-breast exams and to report for clinical exams with physicians. It's the whole package that contributes to comprehensive breast health, not just one isolated test. When used in combination with all other screening methods, digital mammography makes for a more accurate overall picture.

Dr. Chandra Belani, Professor of Medicine and Oncology at the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute, is a leader in the study of lung cancer. During a podcast interview, Belani shares some thoughts on the state of lung cancer -- currently the most common cause of cancer death in the United States.

Belani reveals that progress in the areas of lung cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment can best be described as modest. There has been some progress -- and there are many on-going studies in these areas -- but there are no major breakthrough stories. Belani says there has been modest progress in diagnosis with the use of CT scans and PET scans -- and a combination of the two. There has been modest progress in chemotherapy treatment options. There has been no significant advance in detection -- and prevention is mostly in the hands of each individual since 90 percent of lung cancer cases are related to smoking.

Belani shares that true achievement would come with the discovery of a biomarker to detect lung cancer early and to lower overall mortality rates. He would also like to determine why he is seeing an increase in lung cancer cases among non-smokers.

The bar is being raised, says Belani. But it's slow going.

Metastatic brain tumors -- tumors that spread from a cancer in another area of the body -- are among the worst tumors and will plague about 200,000 people in the United States every year. But once considered a death sentence, these brain tumors -- primarily those one centimeter in size or less -- can now be treated with a breakthrough radiation technique launched at the University of Florida College of Medicine. This new state-of-the-art radiosurgery device for noninvasive, outpatient treatment is more precise and more powerful than previous methods of treatment. Approved by the FDA in June, this Trilogy Tx system makes traditional surgery unnecessary for many patients. Dr. William Friedman, chairman for the department of neurosurgery at UF and one of two professors who developed and patented seven components of this system over the past 20 years, says, "I'm a surgeon, but if you can provide an outpatient, noninvasive treatment that requires no anesthesia, has extremely high cure rates, and very low complication rates, the question is: Why do surgery?"

Patients of this treatment are fitted with a head ring that prevents the their heads from moving while the Trilogy machine rotates to deliver radiation beams from many angles. While traditional radiation is given every day, Monday through Friday, for six weeks, the Trilogy Tx requires one single treatment that lasts for 15 minutes. It's comparable in cost to standard radition, is cheaper than surgery, and is typically covered by insurance. And it works -- which is the best selling feature, I think.

There is no doubt that the new cervical cancer vaccine -- Gardasil -- is revolutionary. But writer Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, shared yesterday on the washingtonpost.com that the public should consider two cautions when digesting the news of this breakthrough medical advance. He urges us, first, to understand that the vaccine is not 100 percent effective. It is 100 percent effective for the strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) it targets -- but it leaves 30 percent of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer untouched. And it does not prevent all cases of genital warts either. So it is largely effective. But it does not completely eradicate the disease.

Sprigg also believes that parents should determine whether or not their young girls get the vaccine -- that it should not be mandatory. Mandating the vaccine might be in order if HPV was spread through blood or casual contact. But it is not -- it is spread by sexual contact. And families of young girls might best address this issue through education on behavioral issues alone, without interference from the government.

The wonder of the cervical cancer vaccine is not in question by this writer and the council he represents. But there is often a full picture that lingers behind good news and sensational headlines. And Peter Sprigg offers his take on what he believes lingers behind.

Breakthrough Breast Cancer, UK's leading charity committed to fighting breast cancer through research and education, has hands down and without argument, some of the best fundraising campaigns around. They are fun and innovative and trendy. In a recently announced fundraiser, they are inviting gardeners with a "passion for digging, sowing and cultivating their gardens" to host a garden party for friends to raise money for cancer charity -- or to sell cuttings from the garden and donate the proceeds to cancer charity.

According to Breakthrough, Linda Clegg from Keighley, West Yorkshire has been using her garden to raise money for Breakthrough since 2000, she says: "When my friend Norma called to say she had been diagnosed with breast cancer it was a huge shock. She really impressed me when she told me months later, that she had become a £1,000 Challenger. Little did I guess that I too would be diagnosed with breast cancer and subsequently have been bitten by the bug to raise funds for Breakthrough's research."

"It was difficult during my six months of chemotherapy, but my husband was a tower of strength through it all. When I look back now some very positive things to came out of that dreadful time."

Now in its 15th year, Breakthrough's £1,000 Challenge is the charity's longest-running, fundraising campaign. Once a fundraiser reaches the £1,000 target, Challengers can honor someone they love by having their name permanently displayed on the £1,000 Challengers' Wall, at the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre. Over 5,000 supporters have become Challengers so far, and to date have raised over £12 million.

The Breakthrough Breast Cancer green-fingered gardening challenge certainly isn't the only fundraiser they have launched. To find out more, go here. Not only can you sign up to participate in existing fundraisers, it's quite possible learning about what people are doing to raise money for cancer research and services will inspire you to original ideas of your own.

Right here in Gainesville, Florida -- at the University of Florida to be exact -- the vaccine for cervical cancer is now available for college students. This vaccine -- called Gardasil -- could prevent women from contracting the human papillomavirus (HPV) which can cause cervical cancer and genital warts. Almost 30 of the more than 100 different strains of HPV are sexually transmitted -- and sometime in their lives, 50 percent of sexually active men and women will contract genital HPV infection. Many will not know they have it and will spread it unknowingly to sexual partners. Protection can come in the form of Gardasil which is approved for use in women between the ages of 9 and 26.

Women who are not sexually active are the best candidates for this vaccine because it is clear that they have not yet been infected. The vaccine is not effective for women who already are infected with HPV. And those who don't know if they are infected can determine if they have HPV through a routine Pap smear. If they do not have HPV, the vaccine is indicated. Once the vaccine is indicated, it is delivered in three separate doses over a six-month period of time. Each dose costs $120 -- which may discourage students from this option.

About 9,700 women in the United States will develop cervical cancer in 2006 and this cancer will kill 3,700 of these women. This vaccine -- if received well by young women who can afford it -- should prove a breakthrough in cancer research and prevention.

The best solution to any problem is that one that satisfactorily answers everyone's concerns. Stem cell research is currently posing an ethical dilemma for the scientific community -- who realize that advances in stem cell therapy might one day bring the cure for many diseases, including cancer and diabetes. Because of the ethical challenges this type of research presents, rigorous standards have been put into place in order that stem cell research be allowed to continue. Stem cell research is simply to promising to be abandoned. In spite of this, there are opponents who remain uncomfortable with stem cell research.

Institute for Stem Cell Research at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom may have opened the door to a win-win situation for all sides of the stem cell research debate, as they have discovered Nanog, a molecule with the extraordinary ability that allows them to reprogram an adult cell and turn it into a embryonic stem cell. At this point, it is just a door opening, and the researchers caution there is more research to be done. But this is a significant breakthrough and the race to perfect this process will heat up in the scientific community. The profound potential cures for diseases using embryonic stem cells is the hope and promise of a future not yet real, but very much imagined. The imagination will lead us to the reality.

Several facts about mouth and upper digestive tract cancers have led researchers to develop a specially-designed chewing gum that might eliminate the cause of these cancers. The facts are these: 80 percent of mouth and throat cancers are linked to smoking and drinking; smoking and drinking raises the level of acetaldehyde; acetaldehyde is linked to a greater risk of mouth and upper digestive tract cancers; and amino acid l-cysteine can bind effectively to acetaldehyde to block it from causing harm. From these facts, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital researchers created l-cysteine-containing and acetaldehyde-eliminating tablets. The first commercial product based on this patented method is l-cysteine containing chewing gum.

"We know that with this chewing gum it is possible to eliminate acetaldehyde totally from the saliva during smoking. We do hope that this will in the future turn out to be a novel method for the prevention of alcohol and tobacco smoking associated oral cancers," states Mikko Salaspuro, professor at the University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital.

Vitamin E succinate, classified as an antioxidant, is currently sold as a nutritional supplement. Knowing that vitamin E succinate -- or alpha tocopheryl succinate -- had some antioxidant ability to kill cancer cells, researchers decided to study how it worked in order to find a way to enhance the antioxidant compound into a more powerful and potent cancer chemopreventive agent. Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers were successful in discovering how the derivative of vitamin E functions that might lead to the development of an enhanced version to fight cancer. However, according to researchers, the power of vitamin E succinate to send cancer cells into a suicidal death, does not come from the antioxidant abilities of the derivative. The antitumor ability of the derivative is a separate function. Because of this, researchers state they believe their findings could lead to a potent chemopreventive agent that has both strong anticancer and antioxidant properties.