Nasopharyngeal cancer is most prevalent in South China and kills one in every three victims. The disease is thought to be linked to diets rich in preserved foods, like salted fish.

Scientists will soon test an experimental treatment for nose and throat cancer that will train the patient's own white blood cells to fight the disease. Some classes of T-cells have memory. Once these cells are taken from the patient and are exposed to invaders that they successfully fought off, they should launch the same response when they are re-introduced back into the patients own body.

One of the researchers stated "We expect the T-cells to initiate a very aggressive inflammatory reaction and during the process, not only will the T-cells attack the cancer cells, but other immune cells in the body will be called in to eradicate the cancer cells".

More on coffee -- a topic of panel discussion at the recent Experimental Biology 2007 meeting in Washington, DC, and subject of nearly 400 studies investigating consumption and cancer risk.

Think about this:

No one claims coffee is the new health food. And non-coffee drinkers are not encouraged to drink the beverage for their health. Yet the beverage is certainly losing some of its negative health image.

But is it enough?

Some say coffee protects against colon, rectal, and liver cancers (diabetes too). These same people recognize it also can increase the risk of leukemia and stomach cancer. Those at risk, like pregnant women and children, should limit their consumption.

Like many connections between cancer and diet, there just isn't enough research to tell a whole story. We can only take what's available and make our own educated decisions about our own individual lives.

What decision will you make about coffee?

Today I offer you not so much a Thought for the Day but a Question for the Day. Before I ask my pressing question, though, I want you to consider this story.

Diagnosed with a rare malignant melanoma on her retina in 2001, Ann Guthrie, a South Carolina wife and mother of two grown sons, endured radiation and chemotherapy. The treatments shrunk Guthrie's tumor, but another mass appeared two years later, forcing the removal of her right eye.

At about the same time Guthrie lost her eye, cancer was discovered in her lungs. It was inoperable. Then cancer landed in her brain. And now, without any approved treatment avenues, Guthrie is out of options.

Like many people with terminal illnesses, this woman is willing to try just about anything -- a clinical trial, experimental drugs, risky treatments -- to extend her life. If she's going to die anyway, why not? She just might live longer. And if she doesn't, she could at least help advance science by offering herself up as a sort of guinea pig.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed changes that would make it easier for patients to access options like these, it's just not that simple right now.

There are ethical issues -- like weighing the needs of people who think anything is better than death against the need of society to prove drugs and treatments work safely. The only way to ensure a sort of balance is through clinical trials -- and letting anyone participate in clinical trials, for example, would make the results harder to interpret.

And there are medical and legal risks. What if terminally ill patients end up in worse shape after a treatment with an experimental drug, for example? What if the FDA or a physician is considered responsible for adverse drug reactions?

Denying terminal patients their last bits of hope is difficult. "It's a hard discussion to have with a patient and his family," says one doctor. "There's a lot of tears. We all would love to be able to get them access to some form of therapy."

And now for my question:

What do you think about terminally ill cancer patients and their access to anything that might extend -- or save -- their lives?

If the experimental breast cancer drug Tykerb continues to prove successful in study participants, it could be headed for FDA approval.

Tykerb, now in international study, showed in early studies to be even more effective and to have fewer side effects than similar breast cancer drug Herceptin. Both drugs are part of a cluster of targeted therapies that attack cancer cells while sparing healthy cells. Designed for use on women whose breast cancer is HER2 positive -- meaning it contains too much of an aggressive protein -- Tykerb may be a wonder drug, with the capability of effectively keeping breast cancer at bay.

Dr. Paul Goss of MA General Hospital says, "We're seeing Tykerb, which is a pill, which is easier to take, has a broader attack and gets inside cells. It's like an electrical circuit that's turned on, and Tykerb can pull the lever, the circuit breaker, and switch it off."

When I received radiation after my lumpectomy I had to go every weekday for around six weeks. That was five years ago. These days researchers are talking about a new way to receive radiation treatments that are much shorter in duration.

Partial breast irradiation is a new option available to women but is still in the experimental stages. The new technique gives radiation only to the area of the breast where the cancer was removed. It would be given twice a day over a period of five days. A catheter, a small, flexible tube used to deliver the radiation treatment, may be in for a total of seven to ten days.

Whole breast radiation is now the standard of care and is given to the entire breast and not just the area where the cancer was removed. Past studies have show this method to be effective in keeping breast cancer from returning after a lumpectomy.

If you are interested in learning more about partial breast radiation, speak with your physician about participating in a clinical trial.

The breast cancer drug Tykerb may be one of the future wonder drugs available for women left with limited options for treating advanced-stage disease.

Tykerb, manufactured by British-based GlaxoSmithKline PLC, is currently an experimental drug that delays growth of tumors nearly twice as long as standard chemotherapy in patients who no longer respond to Herceptin -- a targeted drug that significantly decreases chances of recurrence for women with HER2 positive breast cancer. Herceptin blocks the swift growth of an aggressive protein on the cell's surface while Tykerb does its work on the inside of the cell. Herceptin is given intravenously. Tykerb is given in pill form.

Two previous posts -- one in April and one in June -- relfect the progress of Tykerb as reported in the media. With each new report, Tykerb seems to gain momentum and promise. And this past week, new reports revealed new promise as Glaxo began seeking regulatory approval of the Tykerb pill in Europe.

Glaxo has filed an application with the Food and Drug Administration for approval of this drug and is preparing to market the drug for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in women. Glaxo hopes to launch Tykerb -- also known as lapatinib ditosylate -- next year.

In a world of checks and balances, there are procedures that need to be adhered to in order to insure the objectivity of the process. In this case, the stages when a newly-developed drug goes from inception to market.

Drug company develops drug. Experimental drug enters scientifically-based clinical trials run by unbiased objective researchers. If all goes well, and the drug shows benefit in the treatment it was designed for, drug gets approved for use. Patient receives drug. Ideally, patient gets better.

Drug company develops drug. Drug company finances clinical trials, and pays researchers who will determine the effectiveness and safety of experimental drug. No need to continue on, the process is now potentially and ethically compromised.

This morning, from many reputable dead tree publications, runs this headline: AP: Researchers Escape Ethics Punishment. Why? According to the National Institutes of Health, "The majority of federal scientists investigated for improperly accepting personal money from drug companies or biotechnology firms escaped serious punishment, and investigators declined to proceed with several cases involving possible crimes."

The next time a reader comes by and extols the virtues of scientific medical research as the gold standard to which all else should be validated, I am simply pointing them to this investigative outcome. We should all be disillusioned and a wee bit angry that the wolves seem to be guarding the barn.

While still in the experimental stage, scientists have developed a drug that targets cancer cells without damaging normal cells in the process. Researchers are reporting that the RNA-based drug is showing success in laboratory tests involving mice.

Called a simple yet elegant way to target cancer cells for destruction without harming normal cells, the researchers believe that this novel way of treating cancer could enter clinical trials within a few years.

We recently posted Elephant Man drug trial victim showing signs of cancer, about a horrific ordeal involving six healthy young men who volunteered at Northwick Park Hospital, in London as participants in a clinical trial for a drug called TGN1412, designed to treat leukemia, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

According to the men, they were told by doctors there would be no serious short-term or long-term side effects from participating in the drug trial. That wasn't the case. The participants were misled regarding the safety of the experimental drug -- everything went terribly wrong -- and one of the six men has now been told he is showing signs of cancer.

Another egregious event has occurred on the other side of the pond, according to news of an allegation made by a woman who claims she was used as an experimental cancer drug guinea pig without consent.

The story began last year when Trelene Cave was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Treated at Epsom General Hospital and the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton, she was later sent to St George's Hospital for a second opinion before undergoing an operation. The trouble begins when St George's Hospital doctors allegedly treated Cave with Scotroc4, an experimental cancer drug, without her informed consent. She developed a blood clot and almost died.

Cave states in the news report that, "I trusted them totally. Nobody discussed it with me. I just can't understand it."

St George's Healthcare Trust has apologized to her and her husband Norman for the incident. An investigation has been called for into whether St George's Hospital doctors side-stepped ethical guidelines in treating Cave without her knowledge.

Thanks to Joel Arellano of Autoblog for this story tip!

Phylonix Pharmaceuticals researchers have announced results that show zebrafish are an efficient and effective animal model for assessing human melanoma, colorectal and pancreatic cancer cells at various stages of tumorigenesis.

According to the researchers, human cancer cells were not rejected by zebrafish embryos, a major problem with other animal models and new zebrafish angiogenic vessels formed in and around human cancer cell masses, similar to the process of cancer progression in humans.

There is growing interest in using zebrafish and some of the advantages in using zebrafish is that they are small; provide an opportunity in short experimental time; there is a statistically significant number of animals per test; zebrafish require only a small amount of drug and they are inexpensive to maintain.

For more information about zebrafish research, visit Phylonix Zebrafish Assays for Drug Screening.

When considering treatments for cancer, you want to hit it hard and wipe it out. Sometimes, if you don't get it right the first time, the second try at treatment finds you battling a cancer that has spread. ABC News John McKenzie ran a story Doctors Grapple with Lack of Volunteers that featured lung cancer patient John Ray facing a choice of a standard treatment or enrolling in a clinical trial to test two drugs that researchers believe might be successful for lung cancer treatment.

As Ray explained his choice by saying, "The standard treatment has had good success, and I just didn't want to risk not being able to have that."

According to researchers, for the more than 400 cancer drugs now in clinical trials, only three percent of cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials. They state that the reason there are not higher numbers of cancer patient participants enrolled in clinical trials is because patients are simply not aware there is a clinical trial they could be enrolled in. Other reasons include risk and convenience.

I would have speculated that the number one reason more cancer patients are not enrolled in clinical trials, is that they make the same decision that Ray made, choosing a known treatment. Taking a chance on an unknown, at a moment when timing might mean everything, is life-threatening risky business. We all want better drugs and better treatments, but in the same spot, would you choose an experimental drug or a standard treatment to fight your cancer? It's a difficult choice.

The story I am about to tell you is horrific and gathered from various news accounts of the event that have been published over the months since it happened.

Last March, six healthy young men volunteered at Northwick Park Hospital, in London as participants in a clinical trial for a drug called TGN1412, designed to treat leukemia, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. According to the men, they were told by doctors there would be no serious short-term or long-term side effects. They were each paid £2,000. Within hours, the worst that could happen did, and the men were plunged into a nightmare beyond anything they could have imagined.

Just before my treatment for breast cancer began and during a consultation about what chemotherapy drugs I was about to receive, my oncologist stepped away from my exam room to check on something. When she returned to the room, she told me that she was determining whether or not I qualified for a clinical trial. I had no idea what this meant at the time. All I knew was what she told me -- that my prognosis was too good at that moment to qualify for anything currently under study. I did not fit a profile for anything. I was not a candidate for a clinical trial.

I now know that clinical trials are a critical component of research -- they validate a drug's success or weakness and they provide hope for many who may be at the end of their treatment rope and need something new to consider. A clinical trial is a comparison of standard treatments to newer treatments in an effort to discover better methods for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Doctors, scientists, and other health professionals conduct these tests according to strict guidelines set by the Food and Drug Administration -- which establishes mandatory guidelines to ensure the maximum safety of the patient.

Clinical trials rely on volunteers -- and sadly, there is a current shortage of patients willing to participate in trials. Experts say that, for the past few decades, just five to 10 percent of all cancer patients in the United States have joined a clinical trial. There is an urgent need -- because the demand for willing, eligible participants far exceeds the supply. Some experts are even recommending that the small pool of candidates that does exist be rationed to only the most important cancer studies -- leaving other studies with no hope for completion. There is no good solution in sight. But the reasons for the shortage are becoming apparent. It's not that patients are unwilling to join. It's that they are unaware, uninformed, not even sure this opportunity is possible -- because doctors are not suggesting trials to their patients. Treatment on a protocol is more demanding for doctors than routine medical care. And it costs doctors to submit to a trial. And trials burden doctors with regulations and paperwork. And some doctors worry about litigation if something experimental goes wrong. So they often don't approach the topic -- and the result is that a wonder drug may sit in a dark freezer because there are not enough people to test it. This potential wonder drug may never show promise, may never save a life, may never see the light of day.

So I guess my oncologist was ahead of the game in this matter -- she compared my diagnosis and prognosis with the needs of all available clinical trials and found that there was not match. Had she not done this, I would have never thought to ask about the possibility -- which is exactly what patients should do instead of waiting for a doctor to make the suggestion. Because it may never happen.

For more information on clinical trials, please visit the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups.

The University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention is conducting a study on NicVAX, an injectable nicotine vaccine, to determine how effective it might be in helping smoker's quit smoking cigarettes. In addition to the experimental vaccine, participants in the study will receive quit-smoking counseling.

"We are pleased to have been selected to test an experimental nicotine vaccine - a potentially important advance in treating tobacco addiction," says Michael Fiore, UW-CTRI director. "In this study, we will examine how the vaccine can help smokers break free of their dependence on tobacco - by reducing the effects of nicotine on the brain."

According to the researchers, every year 300,000 Wisconsin residents try to quit smoking and only one in 20 smokers who attempt to quit smoking cold turkey succeed. Because of the high-volume of volunteer interest, this study is closed to further participants. However, a second study by the Wisconsin Smokers' Health Study is still accepting new participants for an investigation into various stop-smoking treatments.

As we begin to see cancer vaccines come to market meant to prevent cancer, drug makers such as GlaxoSmithKline are experimenting with cancer vaccines for patients already diagnosed with cancer. One experimental vaccine, MAGE-3, is showing some promise in clinical trials to prevent a recurrence of lung cancer is set to enter Phase III clinical trials early next year.

According to GlaxoSmithKline, the liver cancer vaccine designed to help liver cancer patients from experiencing a recurrence of their cancer, is based on priming the immune system to attack tumors. Called a therapeutic vaccine, the drug maker is optimistic they are onto something that might prove to have a significant benefit to lung cancer patients and estimate the vaccine might be available in a couple of years.