Until the 1990s, most medical studies used only men. Women are included now, but more research is needed on how diseases, like cancer, affect each sex. Women have unique needs, after all, and it's critical that all angles are represented in important research findings.

Think you might want to volunteer and help advance research on this female front? Just visit womancando.org and find out how you can do your part.

"The power of one can make a difference," reads this website. "You can make a powerful contribution to improving women's health by participating in medical research and becoming part of the effort to understand health and treat disease. Today, it is easy to take health advances for granted. We know a lot about how to treat and prevent disease, but much remains to be learned."

Chemotherapy is harsh, which is good when it comes to killing cancer. What's not-so-good is that it can also cause hair loss, inflict nausea, and disable the proper functioning of all sorts of organs -- including the ovaries. Chemotherapy, therefore, can affect female fertility.

In some cases, doctors have extracted immature eggs from adult women about to receive chemotherapy, matured them in a laboratory, and then implanted them when the women are ready to have children. Until now, no one had ever tried this with eggs from young girls -- girls who have not yet undergone puberty. But it's just recently happened.

Doctors have removed eggs from young female cancer patients and for the first time, have brought the eggs to maturity before freezing them.

A new study shows men are three times more likely to develop certain types of skin cancer than women. But it doesn't have as much to do with sun exposure as we might think.

According to researchers at Ohio State University, gender differences put men at greater risk for non-melanoma skin cancers than their female counterparts.

Researchers tested the effects of UVB rays on mice and found male mice developed tumors earlier. The tumors were also larger and more aggressive than those found in female mice.

The study, published in the April 1 issue of Cancer Research, indicates it could be the higher levels of antioxidants females have in their skin that allow them to fight off tumors better.

Business is business. Maybe it's about making a difference in the world of consumers but mostly, it's about making money. I get that -- and if I owned my own company and offered some sort of product, surely my goal would be to reap a financial reward. And if I wanted to increase my reward, I guess I would consider new markets, new advertising, and new techniques for hauling in loads of cash.

So I see what's going on with the new Camel No. 9 cigarettes, in their hot-pink fuscia and minty-teal green packages with the slogan Light and Luscious. I understand this brand is targeting female smokers with enticing wording that Camel maker R.J. Reynolds executives say is meant to suggest dressed to the nines, putting on your best. I even get that it's a pretty savvy strategy. But somehow, it all seems so wrong.

In a world where more women die of lung cancer than breast cancer -- by a large margin -- how can anyone, even business people whose sights are set on profits, feel OK with the decision to encourage women to smoke?

Think about these passages that just recently published in a New York Times article:

Wall Street analysts praise the introduction of Camel No. 9, in regular and menthol flavors, as a further step by the R. J. Reynolds, a unit of Reynolds American, toward a new marketing strategy. The goal is to refocus on the biggest, most popular -- and most profitable -- brands, which include Kool as well as Camel.

"What we're about is giving adult smokers a choice," says one executive, "with products we believe are more appealing than existing products." The introduction of Camel No. 9 is part of plans to "focus on products that are 'wow,' " she added, "that add fun and excitement to the category."

Fun and excitement? Believe me, there's nothing fun and exciting about cancer. Now if I could only package that truth and market it to the world. I suspect I'd be a rich woman -- and I don't mean financially.

Simply being female puts all women at risk for breast cancer. That and age, race, family history, personal history, genetic make-up, when they had children, when they reach menopause, and a whole host of other possible factors.

Now U.S. doctors are officially calling body mass index, breast density, and alcohol consumption predictors of the disease, says Therese Bevers, medical director of the Cancer Prevention Center, at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Bevers helped write updated guidelines for the prevention of breast cancer and presented them at the 12th annual National Comprehensive Cancer Network in Hollywood, Florida on Friday.

The guidelines, featuring the revised list of risk factors, also offer treatment options for women -- including bilateral mastectomy for women who have tested positive for the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 as well as possible medical treatments with drugs such as tamoxifen and raloxifene.

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.

The ABC building in the Brisbane suburb of Toowong -- subject of a December 2006 post -- has been officially vacated following an investigation that turned up a cancer cluster among female employees.

Over the past 11 years, 10 women from this one building have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Eight of the women worked in the ABC newsroom, and most had been there for more than five years. The breast cancer risk for these women was six times higher than for the general population of women in the area. And while the investigation continues and clues are beginning to connect, the big question -- Why? -- has still not been answered.

It has been determined it is highly unlikely the increase in breast cancer was caused by exposure to radio frequency, low frequency electromagnetic radiation, or chemical contamination. According to experts, had any of these factors been at play, there would have been a rise in cancer among male employees as well as female employees. Therefore, it appears something specific to women has caused this cluster.

Perhaps clues will emerge from an analysis of lifestyle influences -- like smoking, diet, and alcohol and medication use -- and already women have answered questions pertaining to body weight, height, level of physical activity, and reproductive history.

One common theme among women is the use of oral contraceptives for periods varying from two to 18 years. Other interesting findings include the average number of babies born to the women -- 1.6 -- and the breastfeeding practices of the women -- each woman with a child breastfed for an average of 2.3 to 12 months -- and the educational background of the group -- of the 10 women, six have college degrees.

Experts says these are important factors. Early puberty, late menopause, lack of breastfeeding, use of oral contraceptives, and the trend of older mothers having fewer babies all can influence breast cancer risk. And so can level of education. Research shows increased rates of breast cancer in women with white collar jobs -- which is related to socioeconomic status and late childbearing.

Everything is important really -- because as breast cancer rates continue to skyrocket, all possible reasons need to be considered.

One in eight women in Australia will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 85. About 13,261 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2006. And it is predicted that 14,818 will be diagnosed in 2011.

Women with ovulation disorders -- and related infertility problems -- have a lower risk of developing breast cancer, according to a study of more than 116,000 women.

Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston studied data from the Nurses' Health Study II and evaluated female nurses aged 25 to 42, tracking them every two years beginning in 1989 and ending in 2001.

Results of the study, reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine, revealed 1,357 diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer. Overall, women with ovulation disorders had a 25 percent less chance of developing this disease than those without the disorder.

Also detected was an even lower risk of breast cancer for women who experienced induced ovulation for treatment of infertility. This is potentially great news -- pending more research, of course -- for women worried about breast cancer implications of infertility treatment.

On Friday, I had my annual OB/GYN appointment. It's the appointment known by all women for (1) its blood pressure check and humbling weigh-in, (2) the pee-in-a-cup ritual, (3) the get naked and change-into-a-paper-dress routine, (4) the finger-stick-iron-check, (5) the clinical breast exam, (6) the manual internal pelvic exam, and (7) the ever popular feet-in-stirrups Pap test. It's all so uncomfortable, so not fun. Yet it's all so necessary.

It was a visit with my OB/GYN that resulted in my breast cancer diagnosis two years ago this month. It was the clinical breast exam that confirmed the hard little lump I had found in the shower the previous day. It's what prompted my emergency mammogram a day later. It's what sent me on the wildest ride of my life. It's what keeps me going back for repeat yearly visits -- because I know if something goes wrong with my female parts, this doctor is likely the one who will make the discovery. He is likely the one who will save me from a late diagnosis of something terrible, the doctor who will set the wheels in motion for whatever comes after something terrible is detected.

I know already that (1) my blood pressure and weight are normal, (2) my urine is normal, (3) the paper dress is so not flattering, (4) my iron is normal, (5) my breasts are normal, and (6) my ovaries and uterus feel normal. I am only waiting on (7) the results of my Pap test that will reveal any abnormalities in the tissue of my cervix. This is the one test that can save me from cervical cancer or detect the disease in a stage that is completely curable. It's one of the best cancer screening tests around -- and I plan to receive it every year, year after year -- even if I have not one ounce of modesty left when it's said and done.

It's not so bad really. I'm accustomed to the rituals of the annual exam. I know the drill, know I will survive it all, know it's all critical for maintaining my health. So it's good really. Good -- compared to what could happen if something went undiscovered.

He an unlikely breast cancer survivor -- because he is a man. But still he developed the disease that roughly 1,700 men will contract this year. And while that statistics pertaining to women and men with breast cancer differ -- women are 100 times more likely to get the disease -- the biology of the disease is exactly the same. Under the microscope, breast cancer is breast cancer. It does not behave any differently in female and male bodies. And detection, treatment, and survival rates are nearly identical for both sexes.

Bob Riter, 49, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996. Now in remission, he works as the associate director of the Ithaca Breast Cancer Alliance in New York where he speaks out and educates the public about this widespread disease. He believes his personal story, with its different twist, prompts people to really listen.

Riter's audiences learn that breast cancer in men usually presents itself as a lump in the chest, dimpling of the skin, or changes in the nipple. Doctors can perform breast exams, mammography, and biopsy to investigate the possibility of the cancer that typically strikes men between the ages of 60 and 70. Treatment includes mastectomy to remove the tumor and surrounding lymph nodes, chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy.

It was the presence of blood coming from his nipple that sent Riter to his doctor -- and then to a surgeon who declared a diagnosis of breast cancer. Riter is somewhat of an exception because he reported to his doctor immediately. Most men do not. Many do not even realize they are at risk of breast cancer so they ignore symptoms. They also may go underground with their suspicions of breast cancer because of embarrassment. Both can lead to diagnoses of more advanced diseases.

Riter is doing his part to enlighten both men and women that men are not immune to breast cancer, that they should be active in monitoring their breast health. "I really like to go to national breast cancer meetings," he says, "because a lot of people know that men get breast cancer in theory, but until you have a face to associate with it, it's fairly abstract. And so I'm sort of that face."

The Runaways punk rock drummer, guitarist and songwriter Sandy West has died after a long battle with lung cancer. The Runaways, a 70s female punk rock band who made the tune Cherry Bomb a fan favorite, was attributed with being the launching pad for the solo careers of guitarists Joan Jett and Lita Ford.

Posted on West's website, "Sandy West was proud to be one of the founding members of The Runaways. While most teens were attending high school full time and planning for the prom, Sandy and The Runaways were forging a musical legacy. They were partly responsible for the punk movement, and played with or inspired bands like The Ramones, The Sex Pistols and Blondie."

The Runaways band members included Cherie Currie - vocals; Joan Jett - guitar, vocals; Lita Ford - guitar, vocals; Sandy West - drums, vocals; Michael Steele - vocals, bass; Peggy Foster - bass; Jackie Fox - bass; Vicki Blue - bass and Laurie McAllister - bass.

The Legacy page features comments from people in the industry who have worked with or have been inspired by The Runaways. Sandy West was 47.

There are various risk factors that can contribute to the development of breast cancer. Being female is the single biggest risk factor that on its own puts all women in jeopardy. But there are other risks -- many beyond our control and some more significant than others -- that can help explain why some women are diagnosed with the most common cancer in women in the United States. And why others are not.

It's day 15 in this Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the survivors spotlighted on this site are stacking up. Yet we've only just scratched the surface of breast cancer survivor stories. And by the end of October, we will have only featured a very small sample of survivors everywhere. There are countless others with their own powerful stories. It's sad there are so many stories shaped by breast cancer. It's empowering too -- because breast cancer survivors are a passionate bunch. They are passionate in their fights, passionate in their beliefs, passionate in their willingness to help others.

A passionate bunch of survivors can be found here on The Cancer Blog. They are all women, of various ages, with various backgrounds, defined by different experiences. They are also quite the same -- for they have all been touched by breast cancer. And their words of wisdom are strikingly similar, despite the contrast in characteristics that define these women and their very individual battles with breast cancer.

Here are seven survivor similarities worth spotlighting.

In the United States, mammograms are not recommended for women under the age of 40. Other then an annual check-up and a monthly self breast exam, young women with no family history of breast cancer have no medical tools available for preventing and detecting the disease. But no woman is immune to this disease -- and being female is the single most important risk factor for diagnosis. And young women do get breast cancer. I did. And so did Sharon Rutherford, a 36-year-old Ulster woman who was diagnosed in December.

Rutherford is urging health officials to lower the age for screening in Northern Ireland -- where routine breast screening programs are reserved for women between the ages of 50 and 64. Rutherford says this is inadequate as there is an "absolutely chronic" number of younger women suffering from breast cancer.

Although there is a reduced-age screening program that monitors women beginning at age 40, Rutherford would like to see the screening age reduced to 30. Until then, she is educating women about how they can be vigilant about their own care. She urges women to report to doctors anything that just doesn't feel right. And because doctors may excuse symptoms because women are "too young" for breast cancer -- that's what doctors told her -- women must aggressively pursue medical care. Rutherford kept pursuing the thickening she felt in her breast -- and eventually she was referred for screening.

Rutherford has had a partial mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation treatment. And she is now active in the Ulster Cancer Foundation's new support group -- specifically for women under the age of 40.

I think it's safe to say that a large amount of women in this world lack self confidence. Tack on a few incisions and scars, some lop-sided or altogether missing breasts, a handful of scattered blue tattoos, a head full of newly sprouting hair, swelling arms, drug-damaged fingernails and toenails, damaged veins, alien-like ports protruding from underneath skin, unpredictable hot flashes, and a foggy brain and it's clear that women surviving breast cancer may have a few of their own issues concerning self confidence. It doesn't take science to prove this reality -- although there are studies out there that do confirm and validate that breast cancer survivors struggle with positive self images.

Results of a study released Wednesday reveal that the vast majority of breast cancer patients in Taiwan lose self confidence after having their breasts removed. The study shows that 90 percent of participants feel they have lost their beauty and femininity following a mastectomy. Women worry about their partner's perception of them after such radical appearance changes. They doubt their roles in their workplace and families. They are even afraid of having sex with their partners. And if the patients' relationship with their spouses are not good in the first place, breast removal surgery will lead to divorce about 10 percent of the time.

There is no doubt that female roles vary from country to country -- and what studies show in Taiwan may not be completely applicable to women in the United States. But there is one universal truth that knows no boundaries -- all women recovering from the ravages of breast cancer will encounter struggles. Because breast cancer does not discriminate when it comes to compromising the self esteem of its targets.