A new study shows certain genes may make some lung cancer patients more sensitive to chemotherapy. This is a good thing -- increased sensitivity in this case means lower doses of drug therapy work as good or better than higher doses.

Researchers looked at more than 21,000 genes in cells common to non-small-cell lung cancer, the most common type of the disease. Of these genes, 87 came up with heightened sensitivity to the chemotherapy drug Taxol. To be exact, the genes were 1,000 times more sensitive when exposed to the drug for 48 hours.

Chemotherapy is a very blunt instrument, says one researcher. Locating genes that make chemotherapy drugs more potent at lower doses is a critical step toward tailoring treatment and minimizing side effects for patients.

Two other drugs -- Navelbine and Gemzar -- were tested on six of the Taxol-sensitive genes. The genes did not respond to these drugs.

I never would have predicted it -- that a tooth could become a tool for dispensing medication. But the refinement of such a creation is actually in the works and before long, you may be asking not for a gold or decorative tooth but for one capable of doling out your drugs in the exact doses and at the right times.

Think about this:

Researchers from Europe and Israel are working right now on a tiny dispensing system called IntelliDrug. Their goal is to create parts small enough they can fit into a false tooth placed in the back of the mouth. The device will release a specific amount of medication at certain intervals so patients receive the proper dosage right on schedule.

This invention, crafted by an Israeli dentist, could pick up the slack for people who forget to take medicine and could save lives for those whose lives depend on scheduled drug therapy. It could also allow for better absorption of medication into the body.

The IntelliDrug device will deliver medicine directly into the bloodstream through the lining of the cheek around the mouth. Saliva, meanwhile, mixes with the drug and carries it throughout they body in a manner more efficient than just swallowing a pill every few hours.

While researchers hope to one day turn their device into a replacement tooth, the apparatus -- consisting of a stainless steel housing, a pump, custom valves, a microprocessor, batteries, and a reservoir for the drug pill -- currently comes in the form of a block the size of two teeth. It is strapped to the the side of teeth and hugs the inside of the cheek. The unit can be removed, and a technician can refill the drug reservoir, clean the unit, and change batteries when necessary.

Clinical trials on pigs are ongoing. Human testing is expected to begin by the end of the year.

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.

There are four pages in the March 2007 Reader's Digest featuring amazing discoveries, devices, tests, and cures. And many of the snippets of information are -- yes -- somehow linked to cancer.

Think about this:

• A new ultrasound technique lets radiologists distinguish between malignant and benign breast lesions. Using elasticity imaging, researchers accurately identified harmless and cancerous lesions in almost all of the 80 cases studied. If results can be reproduced in a large trial, this technique could significantly reduce the number of breast biopsies required.

• Scientists seeking new treatment for diseases can use an online tool developed by researchers at MIT and Harvard. The Connectivity Map matches diseases with compatible drugs, based on the genetic profiles of both. So far, about 160 drugs and compounds are cataloged, and a few new uses for existing drugs have already been suggested. Eventually, all FDA-approved drugs will be included.

• For those who sometimes forget to take their pills, a new device -- that can be preloaded with up to 100 doses of medication -- could one day be implanted in the body and programmed to administer drugs via wireless signals. This device, successful in tests using dogs, was designed to deliver medicines that are less effective when taken orally.

Sometimes it seems cancer's grip is tightening. Other times, in the war against this pesky disease, it seems we are on the verge of something really great.

This year alone, 215,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. And sadly, not all of them will be treated equally.

Researchers reported last Tuesday that breast cancer patients who are either obese or poor are more likely to receive lower doses of chemotherapy. This might be why some women relapse and others do not, according to the researchers whose findings appear in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

This treatment discrepancy seems to stem from doctors who mean well and want to save certain women from severe side effects of chemotherapy. Doctors may be under-dosing obese patients, for example, because a larger dose based on weight could lead to worse side effects. There is no evidence this is true, however.

As for socioeconomic status, researchers report doctors are assuming less-educated patients won't stick with a tough course of treatment -- and so they prescribe less, in hopes patients will complete the regimen.

Researchers found that severely obese women were four times more likely to get less chemotherapy than they need. Women with less than a high school education were three times more likely to receive low doses of chemotherapy. And women living in the South were almost six times more likely to come up short on the drugs they need to save their lives.

"We have new therapies and cures out there for many forms of cancer and sadly, sometimes we're not curing people because they are not getting the full doses that should be standard," says Dr. Gary Lyman who led the study at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

The standard dose of some medications are too high and dangerous for the patients, where some patients respond the exact opposite and show that the standard dose is too low to produce beneficial effects. It would seem to be a simple case of age, gender, or genetic differences to explain the individual variability in response to the drugs.

A study at the University of Kansas is reporting that variations in the body's production of hydrogen peroxide, which is believed to serve as a signaling molecule at low levels, can affect the accumulation of drugs inside our cells.

Oxidative stress, an increase in hydrogen peroxide levels, may have an increased response to a given dosage of a drug. This seems to show that it is in our best interest for physicians to provide more individualized dosing of drugs.

Hydrogen peroxide effects could be especially important in therapeutic drugs such as aminophylline, carbamazepine, lithium, carbonate, phenytoin, theophylline and warfarin. The researchers think that small changes in the doses of these drugs could cause either subtherapeutic or toxic results.

Teenager Abraham Cherrix made national headlines recently with a legal battle that earned him the right to fight cancer on his own terms. Cherrix, 16, who chose to treat his disease with alternative treatments after traditional therapy failed to cure him of Hodgkin's disease, was told by the courts that his choice was not acceptable -- that he must undergo higher doses of chemotherapy in combination with radiation and followed by stem cell transplant. Cherrix ended up a winner in court and is currently receiving the therapy of his choice. But despite the legal win, Cherrix and his family are losing financially.

The Cherrix family owns a kayak company in Virginia, and spring and summer are peak seasons. Since the family had to close shop on many occasions due to court appearances, profits suffered. So on Sunday afternoon, local musicians headlined a fundraising concert -- billed as Voices for Choices -- to help with medical and court costs. Cherrix could not attend -- he's in the midst of treatment in Mississippi -- but the show went on. And while the money raised is not enough to cover all outstanding bills, it is enough to remind the family of all the caring people in the world.

Reports from family indicate Cherrix is doing well with treatment and that his tumor is shrinking. If he continues to make progress, he may be able to return home soon -- so he can thank those whose support is so much more than money can buy.

I have made on-line visits to Wikipedia many times -- mostly for information on cancer. And what I've found are endless resources, thoroughly-covered topics, and material that is easy to read and easy to understand. Wikipedia, a free on-line encyclopedia -- where readers can participate in editing and changing content -- offers information on just about any topic you can imagine. And here are seven stops you might make in pursuit of cancer-related material.

The Cancer Research UK conducted a survey of breast cancer survivors and found more than half admit they have missed taking the scheduled doses of chemoprevention medication. The three most common reasons the women gave for not taking the medicine were: tablets hard to swallow, difficulty in coping with side-effects and the fact that drugs were a constant reminder of illness. In addition, some women simply forgot to take the prescribed medication in a timely manner.

Experts believe a lack of communication with women in regard to handling the side effects of drugs and the importance of staying with treatment the entire length of time prescribed to prevent recurrence, might be lacking. They also feel that more needs to be done to understand why women would willingly chose to discontinue or interrupt long-term chemoprevention drug treatment.

The study was a small one involving 131 women who were at least two years past initial breast cancer diagnosis, but I am certain that given a larger study researchers might realize the same findings. In my opinion, after breast cancer diagnosis -- surgery, chemotherapy, radiation -- or a combination of all three treatments -- is not only a physical challenge but an emotional one. Once past active treatment, the resources and support for breast cancer survivors can fall off dramatically while the difficult issues of being a breast cancer survivor remain.

I feel fortunate to have received every cancer drug I needed to fight my breast cancer -- Adriamycin, Cytoxan, Herceptin, and every nausea pill, pain capsule, and anti-anxiety formula on the market. I got exactly what doctors thought I needed -- without worry about availability or funding or politics. I am lucky. Some in the UK are not so lucky.

Two targeted therapies for bowel cancer will not be used in Britain's state-run health system, according to NICE -- the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE, the country's financial watchdog, determined the high cost of the medicines meant their use was not compatible with the best use of resources. Patients are angry because these same two drugs -- Avastin and Erbitux -- are used widely in the United States and in much of Europe. And while neither drug offers a cure for bowel cancer, both treatments have been shown in clinical trials to extend life expectancy by four or five months in some patients.

Based on doses given during the trials, it is estimated that the average cost of treating one patient with Avastin would be around 16,800 pounds and with Erbitux -- about 11,700 pounds. Apparently, this is too much. But according to Hilary Whittaker of the charity Beating Bowel Cancer, the decision to deprive patients of this medication is a scandal. I agree. And for these patients, I am sad.

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.

According to Athens University researchers, taking paracetamol daily could reduce, by 30 percent, the risk of ovarian cancer. But the researchers warn that it might not be the best choice in cancer prevention. Why? Because taking paracetamol can lead to serious liver and kidney damage.

The words acetaminophen and paracetamol both come from the chemical names for the compound N-acetyl-para-aminophenol and para-acetyl-amino-phenol. In North America, paracetamol is sold in generic form or under a number of trade names like Tylenol, Anacin-3 and Datril. In Europe, it is known as Panadol.

In another recent study, Tylenol was found to cause liver damage even in small doses in just two weeks after taking the painkiller daily.

Dr. Neil Kaplowitz of the University of Southern California, hired by Purdue Pharma, which makes the prescription painkiller OxyContin to look into the effects of Tylenol on the liver said, "I would urge the public not to exceed 4 grams (eight extra-strength tablets) a day. This is a drug that has a rather narrow safety window." Heavy drinkers should not exceed 2 grams a day. But the makers of Tylenol argue that the study this study does not reflect the findings of the studies they have done on their product and that long-term high-dose Tylenol did not lead to liver disease.

The bottom line? Ovarian cancer does not occur as commonly as some of the other cancers, but it tends to be far more deadly unless caught in the earliest stage of development. Paracetamol or Tylenol, does and does not carry serious side effects, depending on the study and who is doing the study. Prevention, better methods of detection and more effective treatments would seem to be a better route in ovarian cancer prevention and cancer survivorship. But that does not help right now, for women who are concerned about being diagnosed with ovarian cancer and being told in the news there is an over-the-counter drug that might reduce the risk. Even though their study shows a benefit, Athens University researchers warn that deciding to take paracetamol as part of an ovarian cancer prevention strategy needs to carefully considered.

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.