Elizabeth Ann Overturf noticed a lump in her breast when she was 23. She was told that it couldn't be anything because of her age and was sent home. Symptoms began to pop up and gradually got worse until she was very ill at 26, and it was only then that the truth behind her lump was discovered: She had breast cancer, which had now become stage 4 metastic cancer. She died at 28.

Liz's story is heartbreaking, but it has (sort of) a happy ending. Her sister, Ramon Russell, started a company that channeled Liz's passion for fashion and named it after her. Uptown Liz is an online store specializing in products from companies that give back by donating some of their proceeds to charity. You can't go wrong when you're shopping for a cause, right?

(via Back in the Skinny Jeans )

The Sister Study is a clinical trial that is now enrolling patients to determine what environmental factors and genes play a part in developing breast cancer.

Researchers want to find what causes breast cancer, and through understanding this they can work to prevent the disease altogether. There are some known factors to contribute and or prevent the development of breast cancer -- diet, exercise, hormone therapy, breast-feeding and smoking. However, the prevalence of the disease suggest there are other factors at play that we are not aware of at this time.

Women who fit the following criteria are urged to enroll in the Sister Study and join the fight against this disease:

• A sister related by blood, alive or deceased, diagnosed with breast cancer.
• Ages 35 -74 years.
• Living in the United States or Puerto Rico.

The Sister Study is being conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and will be evaluating women from all backgrounds, occupations, races and ethnicities to attempt to identify environmental and genetic factors that may be associated with affecting the risk of breast cancer.

I think all the time about how I'm treating my body. Just yesterday, while making a tuna sandwich I wondered if I was using too much light mayonnaise. I considered the fact that tuna contains mercury, that I should monitor how much of this product I consume.

How much is too much anyway?

I worried that my tuna was slathered on white bakery bread, a true diet no-no, and I found solace in only two items -- my hand-picked strawberries and the water I poured in my cup.

Wait, the strawberries were pretty plump, ripe, red, and juicy -- an indication they were possibly pumped full of hormones and sprayed with pesticides before I washed and gulped them down.

How did I do overall at lunch? I think maybe not so good. I did run 2.5 miles and completed 20 push-ups, a bunch of sit-ups, and few core exercises. Maybe I come out balanced in the end. Maybe not.

I think about this sort of stuff every day because of cancer. I've already had it -- and I don't want it again. So I try to eat right. I exercise. I don't smoke. I don't drink alcohol. But here's my dilemma: I did all this before my cancer diagnosis (with the exception of an occasional drink), and the disease still lived in my body -- maybe for many years before I knew it was there. What should I do differently now when I didn't do all that bad before?

Shall I exercise all day long? Eat only the most pure and untainted of foods? Somehow that doesn't seem much like living. So I suppose I'll keep on doing what I do every day -- living in moderation -- with hopes that I've had my one and only brush with cancer and that the bout I had was caused by something other than how I treat my body.

Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion? This is the first of I've heard of it -- and I consider myself fairly well-versed in the topic of breast cancer. Maybe I missed a beat somewhere along the line.

Think about this:

There is a Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer out there and Karen Malec, head of the group, says there would be far fewer breast cancer cases and deaths if women had been told the truth in the 1980s when conclusive evidence linked abortion with the disease.

Malec reports that government scientists wrote a letter in 1986 to the British journal Lancet, acknowledging that abortion causes breast cancer. She says as of 2006, eight medical organizations had recognized abortion as one cause of the disease.

Now this has nothing to do with delaying pregnancy until later in life -- also a known risk factor. Abortion stands on its own and is problematic because carrying a pregnancy to term is what protects against breast cancer, says Malec.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not agree and stands behind several studies backed by strong data concluding induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

Malec says such studies are seriously flawed.

"We call on the Society and other cancer businesses to put their priorities in order," she says. "Women's lives and cancer prevention are more important than making money, doing cancer walks, and protecting the abortion and pharmaceutical industries."

Malec also condemns Susan G. Komen For the Cure for donating money to Planned Parenthood -- a group she calls the nation's leading abortion business.

"It's unthinkable that groups that claim to want to eradicate the disease would help fund a cancer-causing organization, especially when the funds could be directed to legitimate health organizations."

Unthinkable? I'm not sure.

I need to think about it.

The skin cancer we so desperately try to avoid may be caused, in part, by the very thing we use to prevent the disease -- sunscreen.

Scientists at the University of California report in the journal Free Radical Biology & Medicine that some of the chemicals found in sunscreen products can become cancer-causing agents once they are absorbed into the skin.
And perhaps this is why more and more people are developing skin cancer, despite the increasing use of sun lotions.

"Sunscreens may be doing more harm than good," says lead researcher Dr. Kerry Hanson.

May is the important word here. Sunscreens may contribute in some way to the incidence of skin cancer. But the jury is still out. And experts are not sure right now how significant this research will be in the long run.

I had no idea my February 10 post Some children's bath products linked to cancer would spark such great debate. At the very moment I write, the post has received more than 64,000 hits and 70 comments.

I must admit when the comments started rolling in, I was a bit nervous. Even though I merely reported the facts on this topic, had no claim to any of the information, and didn't even share my opinion on the matter, the highly charged words written by so many well-meaning readers made me feel a bit like I was caught in the middle, like I started an argument and needed to jump back in, sort things out, and create harmony among those responding to my words.

But then I realized debate is not such a bad thing. It sheds light on all sorts of valid viewpoints. It educates. It raises awareness. And that's what cancer causes are all about.

Having read all the comments that now are officially assigned to this one post, I am so much more enlightened than when I summarized the story I came across revealing that some bath products contain a bit too much of a chemical called 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that is already known to cause cancer in animals.

All I really knew at the time I wrote the post is that the FDA has no regulation over this chemical and that cosmetic companies must monitor themselves. Some don't do such a good job, and herein lies the debate.

Some readers say big deal, what's the harm really in a little extra dash of chemical in a whole tub of water. Perhaps if our children soaked all day for many days in this chemical, cancer might strike. But a quick bath with a tiny trace of 1,4-dioxane is not likely to do any harm. One reader wrote that we shouldn't stress so much about headlines that scare us into believing everything causes cancer, that we'll probably live a whole lot longer just living our lives free of constant worry.

Another camp of readers say a little bit of something bad is still too much. Over the course of a lifetime, how do we know our children won't pay for our mistaken belief that this hype is just -- hype. Some cancer surviving readers wonder if their cancer was caused by their plentiful childhood bubble baths. And some go to great lengths to find natural, organic, chemical-free products, whatever the financial cost.

A few consultants for these natural products left their own comments, claiming to help those consumed with anxiety. Others scolded these business people for capitalizing on the fears of others with products that have not been proved any safer.

There are advocates of moderation who wrote. And individuals seeking more information. And people who located resources for others to investigate.

There is indeed a rich commentary on the link between bath products and cancer that follows one short post I wrote late one night, after my own children were bathed -- with Dove soap and generic shampoo -- and put to bed. And I am indeed happy to know my small contribution on the topic has generated such a powerful windfall of thought and concern.

Wyeth officials say their hormone replacement therapy Prempro is not the cause of one Ohio woman's breast cancer. But two jury decisions prove otherwise.

The first jury, in October, awarded Jennie Nelson and her husband $1.5 million in compensatory damages, validating Nelson's claim that her breast cancer -- resulting in a double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation -- was caused by the Prempro she took for six years. When this verdict was thrown out due to a mistrial, a retrial began.

The retrial concluded yesterday -- with a Philadelphia jury awarding the Nelsons this time with $3 million.

"Both times this case has been heard on terms established by Wyeth and still the juries have clearly found that Prempro causes breast cancer," says Nelson's attorney Tobias Millrood, adding that Wyeth puts sales ahead of patient safety.

Wyeth respectfully disagrees and argues that it acted responsibly in the promotion of its hormone replacement products and in disclosing with doctors and patients all therapy-associated health risks.

Millions of women have used Wyeth's hormone replacement therapies to control the effects of menopause, and the company, sanctioned in January to pay $1 million to an Arkansas breast cancer survivor, now faces more than 5,000 lawsuits of this same nature.

Despite a large-scale study revealing drugs like Prempro increase the risk of breast cancer if used for five years or more, the drug still remains on the market. And Wyeth is so sure their drug is not at fault for causing Nelson's breast cancer that they plan to appeal yesterday's verdict.

A clinical study involving 1,000 prostate cancer patients was stopped this week by Southwest Oncology Group in Michigan due to concerns the treatment may have caused leukemia in three of the participants.

The men in the study received the chemotherapy drug mitoxantrone, thought to possibly improve survival rates for those with poor prognoses following prostate surgery. But before results could be measured, leukemia struck and researchers halted the study, declaring the leukemia findings "an unacceptable risk to patients."

While the assumption is that the drug caused the leukemia -- a disease commonly associated with children and the elderly -- it's still unproved at this point.

Mitoxantrone is not a worthless drug, say some experts. Since its release a decade ago, it has been used to decrease bone pain for men with advanced prostate cancer and to treat multiple sclerosis and, ironically, adult leukemia.

Joey, my oldest child, is six years old and already quite a clever creator. He can make houses out of sticks and boats out of cardboard boxes. He can build an entire city with toy blocks and crafty cabins with the same Lincoln Logs his daddy used more than 30 years ago. Most recently, Joey has been sharpening his skills with Lego.

Today, while his daddy built him a Lego jet, Joey constructed his own masterpiece. He called it his Cancer Center.

I wasn't around to hear Joey dedicate his building to such an important cause. But I heard about it after the fact when Joey offered me a mini-tour of the structure. I learned that the center has a helicopter landing pad and offices with windows for the employees. I was shown an emergency vehicle with its own system for taking blood from patients, rendering it healthy, and then returning it to the body. And then just as I wanted more -- more details, more specifics, more history on just why he built this cancer center -- Joey's attention moved elsewhere. And so I know nothing more about the cancer center sitting in the playroom of my house.

Cancer is no strange topic for Joey who has been along on my own cancer ride for the past two years -- so perhaps I am the inspiration for his architectural creation. But I suspect the real driving force behind Joey's latest project is the vacant land we passed yesterday. This land is the future site of a new cancer center in our city, and Joey probably heard me talking about the ground breaking ceremony that just took place. Regardless, cancer was on his mind this morning. And while the topic may be far from his mind now -- and I'm sure the building will be demolished by the day's end -- I am touched that for mere moments, Joey was invested in a noble cancer endeavor.

Before 2002, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was believed to prevent many conditions, and doctors routinely prescribed hormone pills. But when a 2002 study found HRT raises the risk of breast cancer, heart disease, and other problems, the use of hormones plummeted.

On Thursday, researchers reported that the rate of breast cancer cases in the United States dropped more than seven percent in 2003 -- the year after the landmark study that caused a backlash against hormones. This backlash is considered the leading cause for the now-reported decline in breast cancer cases.

Now, even more women are expected to abandon the pills. And doctors worry that women with severe menopausal symptoms -- who need the treatment -- will deny themselves the benefits hormones can offer.

There are ways to take advantage of the benefits, however, and still minimize the risks. One gynecology group shares the following suggestions.

• Take the lowest dose for the shortest time -- two or three years if possible. Start out small and add more medication if symptoms do not decrease.

• Do not take hormones to try to prevent heart disease -- because they do not prevent it.
  

• Never take estrogen without progestin if you still have a uterus. This raises the risk of uterine cancer.

• Try periodically to cut your dose and wean yourself off.

For those who don't definitively need hormone therapy, it's important to discontinue use. But some women truly do need the treatment and should not abruptly stop their therapy in light of news that is not definitive in itself. As always, consultation with a physician is the best first step.

Previous posts on the topic of HRT and breast cancer are as follows.

• Different perspective on drop in breast cancer cases
• HRT use drops breast cancer rates drop
• Hooray for HRT!?
• HRT and smoking dramatically increases breast cancer risk
• HRT increases breast cancer risks

Cell phones don't cause cancer, according to a major study from Denmark that tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users -- many of them users for more than 10 years and some for more than 20 years.

In the largest ever study to yield good news about the safety of cell phones, scientists matched phone records to the Danish Cancer Registry -- a listing that records every citizen who gets the disease -- and on Tuesday, the study results were revealed.

Cell-phone users are no more likely than anyone else to develop cancer.

But the lead researcher of this massive investigation says doubts will surely linger. There is really no biological basis for concern about radio waves, he says. But people still worry.

Cell phones beam radiofrequency energy that can penetrate the outer edge of the brain, causing suspicion about the origin of various cancers. Most research has found no link between cell phones and cancer, but the phones have never been given a definite clean bill of health either.

"As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become reassured that these devices are safe," says one cell phone researcher.

October is over. Breast Cancer Awareness Month is over. And while the persistent push of pink products is not so strong these days, there still are pink products out there. And for one more week, participating Panera Bread locations will continue offering the October special -- the Pink Ribbon Bagel.

The Pink Ribbon Bagel is not actually pink. But it's in the shape of the breast cancer ribbon. And it contains cherry chips, dried cherries, and cranberries -- yummy -- that give it a pinkish glow. And it benefits breast cancer research, with a quarter from the sale of each Pink Ribbon Bagel designated for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.

I give my stamp of approval. This bagel, provided for participants at my local Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Walk, tastes something like a sweet dessert when topped with cream cheese. Although it may not be the healthiest of snacks -- with 390 calories and 22 grams of sugar -- it's still a nice treat. With a nice presentation. For a good cause.

In 2006, 174,470 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States. About 92,700 men and 81,770 women will develop the disease -- the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women.

An estimated 162,460 men and women will die of lung cancer this year, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer deaths and taking more lives than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. While most people diagnosed with lung cancer will die within the first two years of diagnosis -- this has not changed in 10 years -- some people are cured. There are currently about 333,000 long-term survivors.

Testicular cancer, cancer in one or both of the testicles, usually occurs in young men and will strike about 8,250 of these men this year. About 370 men will die.

A man's lifetime risk of developing this cancer -- that typically shows up in only one testicle -- is 1 in 300, securing it as one of the less common cancers in the United States. The chances of dying from testicular cancer are 1 in 5,000, making it one of the most curable forms of cancer. Yet it is still the most common form of cancer in men ages 15-34. It is also a cancer commonly characterized by denial and embarrassment. As a result, it is one of the least mentioned cancers.