Just recently, European researchers announced that MRI scans offer a new way to detect breast cancer in its earliest form. They can even prevent cancer among high-risk women.

Better than standard mammograms, MRI can detect a nonmalignant tumor called ductal carcinoma in-situ, or DCIS. Once found, the lesion can be surgically removed before it becomes cancerous.

Think about this: It is believed that almost all breast cancer starts out as DCIS. And this: if MRI were the gold standard breast cancer screening tool, we might be able to prevent a lot more breast cancer cases than we do now. It seems researchers agree.

Most women who are faced with hair loss due to radiation or chemo usually get at least one wig and alternate wearing the wig with hats, bandannas, and scarves. Here are a few tips to get ready for wearing a wig and tips on choosing a wig.

If your hair is long, consider having it cut shorter so that switching to a wig or other head attire will be less noticeable. Once your hair begins falling out, many former patients advise shaving your head. This puts you in control of the situation and eliminates finding your hair all over the pillow or in the shower.

Some women rush out and buy an expensive natural hair wig and then regret it later because not only is it expensive but it requires a lot of upkeep. Synthetic wigs are less expensive and are easier to maintain and they look and feel natural. So keep in mind that six months after your last treatment you should have your hair back again. It may not be the same color and texture as before your treatments but it is natural.

Before starting treatments take a current photo of your hair and even save a swatch from the top front of your head in case you want to find a wig close to your present color. Use lighting near a window or outside to match the wig to your hair swatch or photo. if You want to purchase your wig before your hair falls out, measure your head with your hair slicked down. Always measure around the back of your head with a tape measure above your eyebrows and ears. If your head measures between size ranges, choose the larger size. You can also consider buying or using a hat sizer.

The wig will not look natural if it's pulled too far down in front and it should never be placed over your ears. Treat your wig like your own hair when styling and remember your beauty shop or hair salon personnel can always help you with styling your wig just like your own natural hair.

It's been reported that procrastination is on the rise. Not only that, but it makes people poorer, fatter, and unhappier too.

It took 10 years of research when it was projected to take only five years -- procrastination at its best -- to come to this conclusion. And now Canadian industrial psychologist and University of Calgary professor Piers Steel is talking about his giant 30-page study that appears in this month's Psychological Bulletin.

Something must be done about this problem, says Steel, who reveals 26 percent of the American public consider themselves chronic procrastinators. This is up from five percent in 1978 and is likely due to the tempting diversions facing us in this day and age -- TVs, cell phones, video games, iPods, the Internet, and Blackberries.

It's no surprise with such temptations that a quarter of Americans say they procrastinate. When it comes to the sexes, men are worse than women -- about 54 out of 100 chronic procrastinators are men -- and the young are more like to procrastinate than the old. Three out of four college students consider themselves procrastinators. And it seems perfectionists procrastinate less because they don't like to delay.

Steel says procrastination wastes time. And it's costly too.

"The U.S. gross national product would probably rise by $50 billion if the icon and sound that notifies people of new e-mail suddenly disappear," he said.

Steel found a delay in filing taxes on average costs a person $400 a year. Last-minute Christmas shopping with credit cards was five times higher in 1999 than in 1991. Clearly, procrastination is expensive.

Procrastination also has physical and emotional costs. Procrastinators tend to be less healthy, less wealthy, and less happy. They are also harder to heal of their problems than alcoholics.

Steel, who plans to one day compare the procrastination practices in various countries and cultures, says his field has benefits. The more he knows about the problem, the less he indulges in delay tactics. He did, however, acknowledge that his study was completed five years late. But what he likes about this study is this -- "If you take a day off from it, you can always say it's field research."

The cost of drugs to treat cancer can be very expensive. If you do not have good medical insurance it could prove disastrous for you and your family.

I read an article in Cure Magazine last night called Help for Patients. In this article it provided information on assistance programs. It also mentioned that many patient assistance programs will require proof of income, social security income, interest and retirement to prove financial burden and to meet income requirements of the programs.

Patients interested in enrolling in an assistance program can start by doing some research on the organizations listed below:

• Amgen Reimbursement Connection: 800-272-9376 www.amgen.com/patients/assistance.html
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation: 800-736-0003 www.bmspaf.org
• CancerCare: 800-813-4673 www.cancercare.org
• GlaxoSmithKline's Commitment to Access: 866-865-6491 www.commitmenttoaccess.gsk.com
• Genentech's Single Point of Contact: 888-249-4918 www.spoconline.com
• Lilly Cares: 800-545-9662 www.lillycares.com
• Partnership in Prescription Assistance: 888-477-2669 www.pparx.org
• Patient Advocate Foundation: 866-512-3861 www.copays.org
• Pfizer's FirstRESOURCE: 877-744-5675 www.pfizerhelpfulanswers.com
• RxAssist and Rx Outreach Patient Assistance Programs: www.rxassist.org
• RxHope: 877-979-4673 www.rxhope.com
• Sanofi-Aventis's PACT plus: 800-996-6626
• Schering-Plough's Commitment to Care Program: 800-51-7157 www.schering-plough.com
• Together Rx Access: 800-444-4106 www.togetherrxaccess.com

Catherine Jones has breast cancer. And she needs Herceptin in order to fight for her life. But Herceptin, a targeted drug used to treat HER2 positive breast cancer, is very expensive -- and for some time, Jones was not sure how she could possibly pay for this potentially life-saving therapy.

Jones, 49 and a resident of New Plymouth, New Zealand, decided to ask for help. So she set up the Herceptin for Catherine Trust to raise the $80,000 needed for the treatment. In less than four weeks, she received $64,600 in donations.

Jones is overwhelmed by the support and says she will continue to use the trust to raise funds -- not just for herself, but for other women in need.

The New Zealand government and its drug-buying agency Pharmac does not fund Herceptin. So most breast cancer patients who medically qualify for the treatment have no means of receiving it.

Jones, who is about to receive her third of 17 Herceptin doses, thinks she can help. She is surely off to a great start.

The combination of breast cancer drugs Tykerb and Xeloda are effective at slowing the progression of metastatic breast cancer after the drug Herceptin fails -- but the drug duo is only effective at extending the lives of patients for a few months, according to the results of a recent international clinical trial.

The trial, led by Charles E. Geyer, M.D., of Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh and published in the December 28 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, focused on 324 women whose breast cancer had spread to other organs. The women had already been treated with Herceptin for a median of 42-44 weeks -- and then half received Xeloda chemotherapy and half received both Xeloda and Tykerb.

Women who received the drug combination had more than a 50 percent delay in disease progression. Their cancer spread after a median 8.4 months, compared to 4.4 months for women who received only Xeloda.

Targeted drugs Herceptin and Tykerb are major advances in the fight against breast cancer -- for the 20 percent of diagnosed women with the aggressive HER2 positive disease -- and they are also quite expensive. While some say they are worth every penny if they offer a cure, others question the cost if they only delay the disease progression for a few months. Such was the case in this study.

Perhaps the greatest potential for these agents is for use before breast cancer spreads, when they may improve the chance for a cure.

I'm sending off my wig to a new friend tomorrow. It's all wrapped and boxed and packaged and ready to travel from Gainesville, Florida to the east coast of the sunshine state where it will land in the hands of a young women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

This new friend found me here -- on The Cancer Blog -- and we have been corresponding back and forth via e-mail about all sorts of cancer topics -- like surgery and pathology and chemotherapy and most recently, wigs. She asked me just the other day what type of wig I wore after I lost my hair to chemotherapy. I told her I didn't like full wigs, that they felt too unnatural, that I feared my little boys would rip them off my head in the middle of the grocery store. I told her I opted for underhair -- a hairfall of sorts made of plain, white, soft cotton on the top with hair hanging only from the sides and back. It is worn with hats, to cover the cotton part, and it feels quite secure -- although it did sail off my head at the beach one day, compliments of a strong breeze.

I told my new friend that I was completely happy with my choice. I told her the underhair is made of human hair and that customers get to choose the color, texture, length, and size. The wig can be washed, dried, curled, styled, and cut. It looks so real that some people didn't even know chemotherapy took my hair. It was the perfect disguise for me.

I led my new friend in the direction of this wig -- www.hiphat.com -- where she could order her very own handmade underhair. I told her to ask her doctor for a prescription for a cranial prothesis and to see if her insurance company would reimburse her some of the cost of this fairly expensive wig option. And then I realized it would be silly for her to do all this work and spend so much money when my wig is tucked away in my closet, sitting pretty on a nice styrofoam head, doing nothing more than collecting dust.

I don't need my wig anymore. But my new friend does. So tomorrow, it begins traveling her way. And she can keep it for as long as she needs it, for as long as I don't need it. Which I hope is forever.

Cancer cells sometimes secrete specialized proteins into the bloodstream that serve as indicators of tumor growth. These tumor markers are often distinctly associated with a particular type of cancer. Like prostate cancer.

The most well-known tumor marker today is the PSA -- the prostate-specific antigen. PSA is a highly specific protein that is secreted only by cells of the prostate gland. It is one of the most widely used -- and the only widely accepted -- screening test for cancer.

There's also the tumor marker CA-125, used in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and in the monitoring of response to treatment for the same disease. There's CEA for colon cancer, CA-19-9 for pancreatic cancer, AFP for liver and testicular cancer, beta-HCG for testicular cancer, and CA 15-3 for breast cancer. And research is under way on newer, more useful tumor markers. This is a good thing -- because some tumor markers are not specific enough or sensitive enough to accurately predict tumor growth.

This is why my oncologist does not recommend I enter the world of tumor markers, despite my status as a breast cancer survivor. He suggests I rely simply on how I feel for monitoring my chances for cancer recurrence. If I experience any worrisome symptoms, he will be the first to wage an all-out assessment of my health. But without symptoms, tumor markers are not likely to help me at all.

A peek at my breast cancer tumor markers would likely be hazy, inconclusive, and not all that helpful. Examination of tumor markers can lead to false positives. It can lead to expensive and often unnecessary follow-up testing. It can lead to worry and panic and even alarm if the numbers are not in the hoped-for range.

Although an abnormal tumor marker level may suggest cancer, this alone is typically not enough to diagnose the disease. Measurements of tumor markers are usually combined with other tests, such as a biopsy, to confirm cancer. So what would I do with an abnormal number and nothing suspicious to biopsy? I would worry. I would panic. Perhaps unnecessarily.

My doctor suggests I refrain from a wild cancer chase. And I am happy with his suggestion. Between my own awareness, follow-up oncology appointments, mammograms, annual OB/GYN check-ups, and more, I am confident any health issues that come my way will be detected early -- and can be resolved in good time. I have no need for confusing tumor marker details. Unless they are conclusively recommended, I will survive without them. More important, I will survive without worry.

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.

I just read a breast cancer survivor's commentary about the color pink -- about how she hates pink, is sick of seeing pink, is tired of companies capitalizing on the breast cancer color in order to sell products. She calls the color wimpy and too feminine -- and while she accepts that she may just be grumpy about this topic, she is not too happy that pink is the color that symbolizes a serious disease. She would have preferred red or purple, colors that signify strength and power. But pink is what we've got -- and I happen to be okay with it.

I'm okay with pink because I like the color. I'm okay with it because it's recognizable -- and there can't be too many people out there who don't know that pink and breast cancer go hand in hand. To me, the color itself raises awareness. If I buy a pink vacuum cleaner and am reminded of the words breast and cancer each time I suck up dirt from my carpet, then I'm in the loop -- even if minimally. And if it prompts me to check my own breasts or schedule a screening appointment, then I benefit. I'm not sure a green vacuum cleaner would have the same effect. And when I wear my new Key to the Cure t-shirt -- with a pink ribbon gracing the front -- and someone inquires about the shirt, I will have an opportunity to spread some words about breast cancer. Pink doesn't have to be wimpy. It can be powerful.

There are surely companies out there taking advantage of the color pink because it sells. But if sales truly benefit breast cancer research, then it's a win-win situation in my opinion. I am happy that $31 of my $35 t-shirt goes directly to breast cancer initiatives. Sure, the shirt was a bit expensive. But so is breast cancer -- and I have the bills to prove it -- so if simply buying a pink ribbon t-shirt allows me to walk around as a billboard and allows breast cancer research some more momentum, then I am game.

I will wear my new shirt when I run in the Making Strides Against Breast Cancer 5K event in two weeks. And I will wear a bright pink ribbon in my hair. And I may even wear pink shorts. Because I think pink is empowering. And I'm happy it's everywhere -- because it illustrates that breast cancer is everywhere. And that is not okay.

Chloe is a little girl conceived through in vitro fertilization -- not because her parents could not conceive in the traditional manner but because they wanted to make sure Chloe had no predisposition to cancer in her genetic makeup. And in vitro fertilization is one method of almost ensuring this. There is still a three percent chance of failure but Chloe's parents felt confident in the elective process that would mostly prevent her from inheriting a genetic mutation for colon cancer that has devastated her family -- Chloe's father carries this mutation, and his mother, grandfather, and two uncles have all died from colon cancer.

A growing number of couples are using preimplantation genetic makeup to detect a predisposition to cancers that may or may not develop later in life. Using this procedure, parents subject their tiny embryos to genetic tests to determine whether or not they harbor defective genes. Essentially, parents get to pick and choose from embryos in a petri dish which one they want. Since the embryo that became Chloe did not test positive for any defective genes, she was the chosen one. And she is now a healthy two-year-old girl.

It's an ethical minefield -- this scientific creation of human life and the picking and choosing of which embryos will survive and which ones will not. One expert says the issue centers around what is considered serious enough to warrant such testing -- and who gets to make this decision. Ethical dilemmas surrounding this issue will only continue to grow as more and more options become available. Already embryos are tested for predisposition for obesity and deafness and a mild skin condition. Some clinics even screen for gender. Some fear this practice may lead to a genetic class divide where the wealthy will become more genetically pure than the poor -- because this process is difficult and expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars without insurance coverage.

Chloe's parents are happy they made the choice they did. Her father says he doesn't know if he could handle being told his daughter has cancer -- especially with the knowledge that he could have prevented it.

It's a question that could face any one of us at any time -- the question over whether to pay the high cost of cancer treatment, when it could send us into debt, or to discontinue treatment in order to save money for the family members who will survive us. Dying of lung cancer, Carolyn Hobbs was confronted with this exact question when considering a new biotechnology drug -- Erbitux -- that she learned cost $1,800. The drug may have extended her life but she determined it wasn't worth it -- and she refused the treatment.

During the last decade, expensive new treatments -- some upwards of $50,000 -- have given some patients their first real fighting chance against disease. The problem with these treatments, however, is that most patients will only survive an extra few months. A lucky few may survive for years. For some, maybe the small fortune these few months or years cost is worth it. For others, squandering their life savings on an extended death sentence is not worth it.

For me -- right now -- I believe I would do anything possible to ensure a longer life. And according to one poll, nearly one-third of Americans faced with death would also do anything possible to survive just a bit longer. This percentage is up from one-fifth in 1990. So I have some company in my corner. But I have not walked in the shoes that require this type of decision. I can only speculate about how I might approach this life-and-death decision. And hopefully, I will never have to make it.

In USA Today, Prices soar for cancer drugs, are some disturbingly stunning and eye-opening facts regarding the current cost of cancer drugs and an examination of where the costs might be headed. For example, Avastin, a newer drug used to treat colorectal cancer, costs about $50,000 dollars a year in treatment. That price is expected to go to $100,000 dollars a year if Avastin is approved to treat breast and lung cancers. It would be an understatement to say cancer patients and insurance companies are concerned. It's an uneasy feeling.

Some cancer drugs can cost $10,000 dollars a month for a single drug. The average monthly cost for a prescription cancer drug is estimated at $1,600 dollars. Without insurance, few could afford to buy life saving drugs and the consumer has to be sitting precariously perched at the mercy of insurance companies to keep funding the medicine. I think it would be safe to say that any cancer patient among the 45 million uninsured Americans is going without much-needed  medications if they have to come up with the money to buy the drugs. At these prices it is not possible.

"These costs are out of control," says Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, which is planning a conference focused on drug costs in the fall. "We can't allow it to continue." Who is going to stop the drug companies from charging what they want?

"It's really exploiting the desperation of people with a life-threatening illness," says Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

I just posted about quacks who exploit the desperation of cancer patients. While I do not equate drug companies with that jailed quack specifically, there seem to be more bad guys than the obvious scoundrels who prey on vulnerability. I don't have the answers but I am pessimistic about how this turns out for the cancer patient. I have yet to see anything in our society fall in price. I don't begrudge a business of profit -- but this is starting to look like a free-for-all and forget who might be hurt along the way.  What do you think?

In Medical News Today, is the feature one percent reduction in cancer mortality would be worth nearly $500 billion dollars. With the ever-increasing costs of the latest in cancer drug treatments -- and what a life is worth in deciding whether or not to allow access to  drugs for cancer patients needing them -- this is an interesting and valid perspective in calculating costs of disease. According to a new study by economists Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, a one percent reduction in mortality from cancer would be worth nearly $500 billion in social value of improved health and longevity. These estimates in dollars are based on the enjoyment of consumption and time during additional years of life, rather than how much a person earns.

"Since the benefits of cancer research are large, substantially greater research expenditures would be worthwhile," Murphy and Topel wrote. "A war on cancer that would spend an additional $100 billion on research and treatment may be worthwhile even if it had a one-in-five chance of reducing mortality by just one percent."

According to the researchers, from 1970 to 2000, gains in life expectancy added about $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth. While the economists are advocating in favor of additional research dollars, I believe the information from the study applies equally well when arguing if it is economically feasible to treat every cancer patient with drugs that will extend life. So for those who keep their focus on the pragmatic bottom line, and argue we simply cannot afford to treat everyone with expensive life-extending drugs, this is compelling evidence that in the long-run, you are losing money by not spending money now.