The folks at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona told me all about the merits of flax seed. They told me to sprinkle it here, sprinkle it there, sprinkle it everywhere. While at this desert destination, I did just that. I dipped into the bowls of flax scattered at all dining locations, and I topped my bagels, cereals, salads, and more with this powerful substance. As soon as I got home from this little slice of paradise, I bought my own personal container of flax. I promptly placed it in my refrigerator, have used it a few times, and just recently realized I'd forgotten why exactly it's so good for me.

I've done some research, and now I know a little more about this thing called flax -- and I remember why it must become a part of my everyday life.

Flax, also known as Common Flax or Linseed, is an annual plant that grows to 120 cm tall, with slender stems. Native to the region extending from the eastern Mediterranean to India, its leaves are green, its flowers blue, its fruit round and containing glossy brown seeds. Grown for both its seeds and its fibers, parts of this plant are used to make fabric, dye, paper, medicines, fishing nets, and soap. The seeds, like what sit in my refrigerator, come in two forms -- brown and yellow or golden. The yellow, golden variety is the one most often consumed.

It's already been established that type 2 diabetes increases the risk of pancreatic cancer. And now, research indicates there is also a link between type 1 diabetes and this type of cancer.

The risk is relatively small -- but still, those with type 1 diabetes have a likelihood of developing pancreatic cancer that is twice as high as in non-diabetics. This is similar to the risk those with type 2 diabetes face.

There are many theories about the link between diabetes and pancreatic cancer, and this research -- published in the British Journal of Cancer -- helps narrow the scope of the theories.

For example, one researcher says the study rules out "a cancer-inducing role of the insulin-producing beta-cells in the pancreas, because in type 1 diabetes these cells have largely or entirely been destroyed."

Experts say people with diabetes should focus their attention on the most common complications of diabetes such as heart disease, eye disease, and kidney disease and not on the very small risk of cancer. In the whole scheme of things, pancreatic cancer is a rare disease -- and even twice the risk is not very significant.

Skin cancer awareness month doesn't arrive until May, but Olay and the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery have already chosen their spokesperson for the 2007 Skin Cancer Takes Friends campaign.

Emmy-nominated Desperate Housewives actress Marcia Cross will kick off a nationwide free skin cancer screening and education initiative to alert Americans about the importance of early detection and prevention in the fight against a disease that has affected her personally.

"I'm proud to be part of a cause that is near and dear to my heart," says Cross. "Having had two family members suffer from melanoma, I've come to understand the importance of skin cancer detection and prevention. Knowing what I know about the dangers of sun exposure, I take extra care to protect myself with a large hat, sunglasses, daily UV protection, and of course, an annual screening."

Cross has become an partner in the crusade against skin cancer so she can encourage people to protect not only themselves but their family members and friends too.

Beginning on April 1, log onto skincancertakesfriends.org to find a dermatologist offering free screenings in your area. Take a friend with you to your screening during the months of May, June, and July and each of you will pay not a penny.

Many people don't know just how dangerous skin cancer can be. Yet it's the most common form of cancer in the United States and the incidence of melanoma -- the deadliest form of the disease -- is rising faster than any other cancer. Right now, one in five Americans will develop skin cancer during their lifetimes. And every 67 minutes, someone dies of melanoma.

Screening is a must for everyone -- regardless of skin color, ethnicity, age, or geography. So mark your calendar for April 1 if you'd like a free screening. If money is not an issue, make an appointment today.

Breast cancer drug tamoxifen, designed to cut recurrence in women with estrogen-receptor positive disease, has been shown to continue working long after women stop taking the drug. And two studies suggest it might also offer long-term protection for healthy women with high risk of developing breast cancer.

One such study found the drug decreases risk of hormone-sensitive breast cancer by 39 percent over 20 years. Another shows a 34 percent decrease for up to eight years after the therapy concludes.

Published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, one study -- the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study, or IBIS -- looked at 7,145 women at high risk of breast cancer. And for the first time, clear evidence has surfaced in support of the merits of tamoxifen after the completion of treatment.

IBIS study participants took either a daily dose of tamoxifen or a placebo for five years. At the eight-year mark, 87 women who took the actual drug were diagnosed with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. And 129 women in the placebo group were diagnosed with the same disease.

In the second study, researchers from the Royal Marsden Hospital in London investigated 20-year data on 2,471 healthy women at high risk of breast cancer who took tamoxifen for six or seven years. Similar results were found.

Despite the benefits of tamoxifen as a preventative treatment, the drug is not currently approved for this use in the UK, where breast cancer is the most common form of female cancer.

Lung and colorectal cancer drug Avastin has been tested for the first time against the most common and deadly form of brain cancer.

Duke University researchers used Avastin, known chemically as bevacizumab, in combination with a standard chemotherapy agent in patients with recurrent brain tumors called gliomas. Good news -- the two drugs together stopped tumor growth for twice as long as any other therapy.

Gliomas are mostly incurable in all cases, but this new treatment approach may extend life and may help preserve physical and mental function for a longer period of time for patients fighting this deadly disease.

"These results are exciting because of the possible implications for a patient population that currently has the poorest possible prognosis going into treatment -- those with malignant brain tumors that have recurred after initial treatment," says the lead researcher whose findings appear in the journal Clinical Cancer Research.

A drug commonly used to minimize the toxic effects of chemotherapy has been shown in mice to cause bone loss and promote tumor growth, according to the results of a recent study.

This drug, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) -- also known as Neupogen, Neulasta, and Granocyte -- helps restore white blood cell counts that take a beating during chemotherapy, protecting cancer patients from an increased risk of infection.

According to researchers, G-CSF -- essentially a growth factor -- encourages bone breakdown. And any therapy that decreases bone density can enhance tumor growth in bones. So doctors are urged to closely monitor their patients during chemotherapy with regular bone density scans. They can also prescribe medications to prevent bone loss if necessary. And patients can protect their bones by consuming enough calcium and vitamin D and engaging in regular exercise.

Currently, research on cancer patients treated with G-CSF have not yielded the same strong results researchers found among mice.

The details of this study appear online in the journal Blood, and will be published in an upcoming print issue.

It could be the cure for the common hospital gown -- you know, the faded, ultra-thin gowns with the revealing and drafty designs. If only hospital buyers could fork over a few extra bucks, we could all lounge in our hospital beds in The Original Healing Threads -- a stylish alternative to standard-issue hospital attire.

Cancer patient Peg Feodoroff was thinking of the traditional humiliating hospital gown in the spring of 2003 while she was undergoing treatment for stage 3 melanoma and her sister, Claire, was undergoing chemotherapy for stage 4 metastatic colon cancer.

Feodoroff's thoughts led to an idea. And so she recruited Claire and another sister, Patty, and together the three sisters crafted a machine-washable, wrinkle-resistant, StainSmart garment with an Asian-inspired look and special features -- long, wide sleeves that roll up for tests, hidden panels easily accessed for bandage changing, inner pockets to hold treatment and drainage bags, and easy-to-use buttons, fasteners, and ties. Breakaway pants and robes and also part of the The Original Healing Threads collection.

A portion of The Original Healing Threads profits go to creating Claire's Foundation, a group supporting single mothers fighting terminal illnesses, in honor of Claire, who lost her battle with cancer just one year ago.

Don't wait for your local hospitals to buy into this novel idea. Buy one on-line for yourself or a loved one. Prices range from $44 to $120.

New research indicates when women and men have lung cancer of the same stage and receive the same treatment, women are more likely to survive.

Several studies extracting data from national cancer registries have shown that lung cancer survival is different for men and women. This study, published in the journal Chest, is the first to compare the sexes when staging and treatment are identical.

It took seven years to follow 1,085 patients with non-small cell lung cancer -- the most common type of the disease -- and at five years, 60 percent of women were still alive compared with 50 percent of men. Overall, female survival rates were consistently higher for all stages of the disease.

Researchers, who ensured there were no differences between the sexes in terms of race, other diseases, smoking history, lung function, and treatment, are not exactly sure why women fare better. But they speculate that women might respond better to chemotherapy.

What researchers do know for sure, however, is that these findings -- if given a chance -- could help improve the overall five-year survival rate for patients with non-small lung cancer by helping to locate new therapeutic options.

In a radical new approach to attacking cancer, researchers will soon attempt to kill tumors by infecting them with viruses that cause ailments like the common cold.

This virus therapy treatment -- considered the third pillar alongside chemotherapy and radiation -- could one day become standard battle against cancer.

One Belfast doctor says anything that could improve the lives of cancer patients is worth a try. And try is exactly what Leonard Seymour, Professor of Gene Therapy at Oxford University, plans to do when he begins leading trials later this year.

Seymour, who has been working with viruses that kill cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue, will use a stealth virus masked from the body's immune system with a polymer coat that could travel through the bloodstream and reach tumors.

Two viruses are likely candidates for study in the first clinical trials -- adenovirus, cause of a cold-like virus, and vaccinia, cause of cowpox and a component in the smallpox vaccine.

Preliminary research on mice shows that virus therapy works well on tumors resistant to standard cancer drugs. But several years of trials will be necessary before the therapy can be considered for use on all cancers.

I once waited to see my oncologist -- in a room with nothing more than outdated magazines and my own wandering mind -- for four hours. I offered up 20 hours of my time for chemotherapy treatments and then spent five days -- two times, for a total of ten days -- waiting in the hospital for doctors to determine how to raise my blood counts and decrease my fever after the completion of a dose-dense chemotherapy attack. I traveled to and from radiation appointments for 35 days, spending an average of 90 minutes on each of these round-trip excursions. I reclined in an infusion chair every three weeks for 12 months so that a new breast cancer wonder drug could sail through my veins. I spent 52 hours in that chair. And I spent countless hours pouring out my emotions to a counselor, in an attempt to clear my mind of all that cancer took from me -- including my time.

These are just seven memories I have of time lost to cancer. There are others -- countless others -- but this should suffice as proof that among all the potential side effects that accompany cancer, loss of time is a guarantee.

According to the first study to put a price tag on the time patients spend battling cancer, it seems the disease steals at least $2.3 billion worth of time for patients in the first year of treatment alone.

Eleven of the most common cancers were included in the study. And it was determined that 368 hours are lost during the first year of treatment for ovarian cancer. For lung cancer, 272 hours are lost. For kidney cancer, 193 hours go down the drain. These hours don't take into account time spent in bed recovering from surgery or chemotherapy treatments. It accounts only for time engaged in actively receiving care -- it counts chemotherapy, radiation, blood tests, scans, surgery, check-ups, waiting to see doctors, and driving to and from appointments.

The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, sheds new light on the burden of commitment -- the human cost of cancer.

"Cancer is more than the just the dollars and cents for the medicines and the treatments and the doctors. It's also the lost opportunities for the patients," said the American Cancer Society's Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, of this overlooked reality.

Lichtenfeld says this study demonstrates the need for early detection. The earlier cancer is caught, the less time patients spend in the system. It also shows the need for more targeted therapies that spare patients physical side effects and allow them opportunities for taking pills at home instead of receiving treatment in clinics.

I would love to have back the time I spent treating and recovering from cancer. But I'm not heartbroken over my lost time. Because it bought me something in the end -- more time.

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.

A variation of a virus that infects common household mice might be responsible for one-third of the breast cancer cases occurring in the US, according to research presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium as reported by WedMD.

The mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV), is spread like a cold virus from person to person, although the researchers are not certain if this virus is spread by sneezing or food contamination, or other means of transmission.

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine's Dr. James F. Holland is quoted as saying, "In Asia, the virus plays a very small role in causing the disease. The human breast cancer virus may explain why breast cancer rates differ throughout the world." The house mouse in question is not commonly found in Asia.

For so long, we have been told that the Asian diet pyramid, when compared to the Western diet pyramid, was one of the contributing factors in higher breast cancer cases for US women, and lower breast cancer cases for Asian women. It might well bea contributing factor still, as diet is firmly established as a cause for increasing the risks of all cancers. However, we cannot ignore that the researchers found the common house mouse virus present in the breast cancer tissue samples in 30-40 percent of the women from North America, Europe, and Australia.

That virus plays a role in the development of some cancers is a known, and it brings up interesting questions as to what leads to cancer, and potentially some explanations for the incidence of breast cancer for women who practice what is traditionally considered a healthy lifestyle and have none of the risk factors. Cancer is complex. As time goes on, I believe we are all going to sit back and be surprised at some of the causes for cancer as they are discovered.

In a Phase III trial involving 878 lung cancer patients, the drug bevacizumab, known as Avastin, increased the overall survival rate to 35 percent when combined with the chemotherapy drugs paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients who were given paclitaxel and carboplatin without Avastin had a 15 percent chance of responding to treatment.

Two months ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved Avastin as a first-line treatment for patients with inoperable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer. Avastin works by stopping the formation of blood vessels that feed oxygen and nutrients needed for tumor growth. Because the drug is a targeted therapy, in that it leaves healthy tissue alone while going after cancer cells, some of the traditional side-effects from conventional chemotherapy, such as hair loss, nausea, or vomiting, are avoided.

According to Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center at UT Southwestern Chief of Hematology/Oncology's Dr. Joan Schiller, "Twenty years ago, we thought no treatment could help patients with advanced lung cancer. Ten years ago, we found that chemotherapy could improve survival of these patients. Now, we are finding out that this very unique drug called Avastin can also help improve survival even more. Avastin is the first of this very exciting family of drugs to be approved for lung cancer, and there are several other drugs of this type under development which may prove to work even better."

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.