It's been suspected that taking too many vitamins may spike men's risk of dying from prostate cancer. On Wednesday, the biggest study yet to link high-dose multivitamins and prostate damage was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Government scientists have been looking at the diet and health of almost 300,000 men. One third reported taking a daily multivitamin. Five percent were heavy users, marked by use more than seven times per week. Within five years of the study's launch, 10,241 men had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. About 1,476 had an advanced form of the disease. And 179 died.

It seems heavy multivitamin users were nearly twice as likely to get fatal prostate cancer as men who never took the pills. Yet, oddly, researchers found no link between multivitamin use and early-stage prostate cancer. It could be that vitamins have little effect until a tumor appears -- and then it spurs growth.

More studies are on the horizon for this topic, which is becoming more and more pressing.

Red meat makes headlines -- again -- due to new research indicating it increases a woman's chances of developing breast cancer. I've heard this before. Maybe that's because it's becoming pretty conclusive.

Findings are most significant for post-menopausal women because these are the women with the highest rates of consumption -- about one portion of red meat per day. This daily doses puts them at a 56 percent greater risk than women who eat no red meat.

Researchers at the University of Leeds followed the eating habits and health of more than 35,000 women over the past seven years to gather their data, published in the British Journal of Cancer.

Newer versions of oral contraceptives -- with lower levels of estrogen and progestin -- reduce the risk of ovarian cancer more than older concoctions of birth control pills

Researchers at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, whose work is published in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, say birth control pills have long decreased the risk of ovarian cancer. But over the years, doses of hormones in these pills have been decreased to reduce side effects -- and this seems to have an even stronger protective effect against the disease.

Studies show for women who had used any oral contraceptive a 50 percent reduction in risk of developing ovarian cancer compared to women who had never taken the pills. This risk was reduced by 38 percent
for women who took high estrogen and high progestin pills and by 81 percent for those taking pills with low levels of these hormones.

"Up to 42 percent of ovarian cancers might have been avoided if all women used some form of combined oral contraceptive pills," say researchers.

"An estimated 73 percent of ovarian cancers might have been avoided if all women used oral contraceptive pill formulation of low estrogen and low progestin."

Doctors prescribing anemia drugs for patients with kidney disease and cancer were urged by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday to carefully dispense of these drugs due to an increased risk of death and other serious problems, such as blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks in patients with chronic kidney failure and rapid tumor growth in patients with head and neck cancer who receive doses higher than recommended.

The potentially harmful drugs, sold under than brand names Procrit, Epogen, and Aranesp, are genetically engineered versions of a natural protein -- called erythropoietin -- that increases the number of red blood cells. The drugs, with combined 2006 U.S. sales of $10 billion, are commonly used for patients with certain forms of kidney disease and for those receiving chemotherapy for cancer.

The FDA is adding warnings to the drugs' labels that will strongly instruct doctors to use the lowest possible dose needed to help patients avoid blood transfusions.

The FDA will also take a close look at how the drugs are marketed, including claims the drugs can improve the quality of life.

A meeting of FDA officials to further discuss this issue, believed to stem from drug overuse by dialysis centers and oncologists who make more money by using more of the drugs. is scheduled for May 10. Recommendations could lead to additional revisions of the drugs' labels.

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.

Canadian and international researchers suspect adding a high-dose vitamin D pill to chemotherapy might improve treatment for advanced prostate cancer. So they are recruiting 1,000 men for a two-year clinical trial in order to investigate their suspicions. Currently, there is little to offer patients who no longer respond to to standard treatment.

The trial will test the pill calcitriol -- a biologically active form of vitamin D and naturally occurring hormone -- to see how it works in combination with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel. Precautions will be taken to minimize side effects that can occur with high-dose supplements.

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that 20,700 men in Canada will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year. About 4,200 of these men are expected to die from the disease.

It has just recently been discovered that CT scans for children have been inappropriately used in two Ontario hospitals. As a result, some children have received excessive doses of radiation, putting them at greater risk of developing cancer later in life.

Staff at the two hospitals -- Peterborough Regional Health Centre is one -- reported that in close to 50 percent of selected cases, the appropriate equipment settings were not used.

Herein lies the problem -- developing organs are more susceptible to damage, and giving a small child an adult dose of radiation in a CT scan delivers the same amount of radiation as 4,000 traditional X-rays. Research shows that increased exposure to radiation over time can cause radiation-induced cancer.

CT scans are valuable diagnostic tools because they create 3-D images of organs, offering a better view of head injuries, chest trauma, cancer, and fractures. So they should not be disregarded -- but clearly, hospitals need to improve the management of all scanning procedures.

In Ontario, a diagnostic image safety committee has already been formed. The goal of this committee is to develop standards and do a better job of tracking radiation levels.

Experts are encouraging Ontario parents to refrain from worry unless their children have received many CT scans. And all parents are encouraged to speak up before their children receive CT scans. "Is my child receiving a pediatric protocol?" is all it takes.

More evidence shows that dose-dense chemotherapy is better than conventional treatment in early breast cancer. The results were presented at the 2006 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).

Chemotherapy for breast cancer given at shorter intervals between doses can increase survival rates. The researchers want to keep evaluating this method of treatment to see if there are any long term side effects.

A Phase III trial conducted in Germany studied 1284 patients under the age of 65 who had at least four lymph nodes containing metastatic cancer. Patients were assigned to receive either dose-dense chemotherapy or conventional treatment.

At five years the relapse-free survival was 70 percent in the dose-dense arm, compared with 62 percent in the conventional-dose arm. Patients did seem to have a lower quality of life with the dose-dense method of treatment but recovered after a few months.

Researchers concluded that updated results continue to demonstrate better efficacy with dose-dense chemotherapy than with conventional therapy in early breast cancer.

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

No one is suggesting that men start taking aspirin for prostate health if they are not already taking aspirin or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for other reasons. However, Mayo Clinic researchers do say that men who are already taking a daily dose of aspirin might be enjoying a better level of prostate health. According to researchers, aspirin seems to prevent or delay an enlarged prostate that can lead to urinary difficulties such as frequent urination, trouble urinating, weak urine stream and an urgent need to urinate.

While the researchers cannot state why NSAIDs benefit prostate health for benign prostatic hyperplasia, previous research has indicated aspirin provides certain prostate cancer prevention benefits. Many older adults already take aspirin, or other NSAIDs, for heart health and arthritis, and taking aspirin now appears to offer another added benefit in prostate health for men. Aspirin is not without its downside. Researchers do warn that taking aspirin can lead to stomach ulcers. As with any drug, one has to weigh the risk against the benefit.

Just before my chemotherapy for breast cancer started -- when I was fantastically frightened by the toxic drugs that were about to drip into my veins -- I was told by doctors, nurses, survivors, friends that I would be just fine. I was young and strong and tough. I would easily tolerate the beating my body was about to take. This is what I was told and actually came to believe myself. I had no other choice really than to approach chemotherapy with a fighter mentality. And so I did. And I did pretty well for my first three doses of Adriamycin and Cytoxan -- given every two weeks instead of three in a dose-dense fashion -- followed by one injection of Neulasta 24 hours later to maintain normal blood counts. And then something happened. And I did not end up tolerating the chemotherapy my gut told me was a scary endeavor.

In the past clinical trials and studies showed that high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant could improve survival for those diagnosed with advanced stage breast cancer. The hopefulness of this procedure curing women has gone off to the sidelines. These days doctors will only perform high-dose chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant under a clinical trial.

Researchers from Spain and Johns Hopkins University conducted a study that showed there are some breast cancer patients that could benefit from high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant. The study included 84 breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive nodes. These patients were followed for over five years after receiving high-dose chemotherapy and a stem cell transplant.

They wanted to evaluate the significance of cancer cells detected in circulating (peripheral) blood (PB). The study showed in that timeframe that those patients that had detected PB cancer cells had a three hundred percent increase in death over those without PB cancer cells.

If they could isolate a group of patients that do benefit from high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant then maybe the treatment can come back into mainstream use and save some lives.

My port -- that thing that pops up from under the skin on my collarbone, that thing that by default stays in place because I can't decide whether or not to remove it -- is now officially in maintenance mode, now that my treatment for breast cancer is complete. My last Herceptin infusion was on June 28. And my first port flush was today. For as long as I keep my port -- and for as long as it has no real use -- I must have it flushed one time each month. So today, I strolled into the cancer infusion center where I've spent many hours and this time spent just a few minutes -- enough time for my usual chemo nurse to puncture the skin on top of my port, push through a rather large needle, and inject a dose of blood thinner into the lines of the port to keep clots away. The whole procedure was harmless, painless, no big deal at all. And I will return one month from today for a repeat performance.

One day these once-a-month visits may become a hassle. After all, I have to find a place for this appointment in my already-busy schedule and find childcare for my kids and find a place to park. I have to numb my port and endure a needle stick and sometimes fight traffic to get home. And the whole trip to and from the cancer center takes longer than the procedure itself. Clearly, this may be a waste of time for a port I don't even need right now. But at the moment, this visit is just what I need while I sort out the details of my post-treatment world. I need to go back to the infusion center. I need the comfort of the drive. I need to feel part of the chemo community. I need medical people swirling around me. I need a bit of hand holding. For now anyway.

In November 2004, my husband I and decided to try to have a third child. But instead of getting pregnant, I got breast cancer. And with the aggressive treatment I would receive -- surgery, dose-dense chemotherapy, radiation, and Herceptin therapy -- becoming pregnant was not an option. Birth control became my only option -- an option that has many limits for premenopausal women surviving breast cancer.