The Human Papillomaviruses (HPV) vaccine called Gardasil can protect from the infection of four types of the HPV virus. Two of these types cause up to 70 percent of all cases of cervical cancer.

Recommendations were released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of Gardasil. The FDA approved Gardasil in June 2006.

The role of ACIP is to advise the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about vaccine usage and vaccine-preventable diseases.

The recommendations published by the ACIP:

• Recommended age for routine vaccination of girls is 11-12 years.
• The vaccine can be given to girls as young as 9 years.
• Catch-up vaccination is recommended for girls and women between the ages of 13 and 26 years who were not vaccinated previously or who did not complete the full vaccine series (the vaccine is administered in three separate doses).
• Routine cervical cancer screening remains important following vaccination.

The ACIP's recommendations can influence policy and practice, but are not directly linked with school and daycare entry laws. These laws are made by individual states.

The American Journal of Public Health published a study that states women with early-stage breast cancer have a better survival if they undergo surgery at a hospital that performs large numbers of breast cancer surgeries.

To explore the link between hospital volume and breast cancer survival, researchers conducted a study among more than 11,000 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent surgery for Stage I or Stage II breast cancer. These surgeries were performed at 457 different hospitals in the United States.

Hospital volume of the number of breast cancer surgeries was defined as:

• low volume -- zero to nineteen cases per year
• medium volume -- twenty to thirty nine cases per year
• high volume -- forty or more cases per year

Study participants were followed for roughly five years after surgery:

• Compared to women treated at a low-volume hospital, women treated at a high-volume hospital were 17 percent less likely to die of any cause and 20 percent less likely to die of breast cancer.
• Surgery at the high-volume hospital was linked with better survival among women with lymph-node negative cancer as well as among women with lymph node positive disease.

It appears that the treatment at a hospital that performs a greater number of breast cancer surgeries appears to result in better survival among women undergoing surgery for breast cancer.

I had no idea my February 10 post Some children's bath products linked to cancer would spark such great debate. At the very moment I write, the post has received more than 64,000 hits and 70 comments.

I must admit when the comments started rolling in, I was a bit nervous. Even though I merely reported the facts on this topic, had no claim to any of the information, and didn't even share my opinion on the matter, the highly charged words written by so many well-meaning readers made me feel a bit like I was caught in the middle, like I started an argument and needed to jump back in, sort things out, and create harmony among those responding to my words.

But then I realized debate is not such a bad thing. It sheds light on all sorts of valid viewpoints. It educates. It raises awareness. And that's what cancer causes are all about.

Having read all the comments that now are officially assigned to this one post, I am so much more enlightened than when I summarized the story I came across revealing that some bath products contain a bit too much of a chemical called 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that is already known to cause cancer in animals.

All I really knew at the time I wrote the post is that the FDA has no regulation over this chemical and that cosmetic companies must monitor themselves. Some don't do such a good job, and herein lies the debate.

Some readers say big deal, what's the harm really in a little extra dash of chemical in a whole tub of water. Perhaps if our children soaked all day for many days in this chemical, cancer might strike. But a quick bath with a tiny trace of 1,4-dioxane is not likely to do any harm. One reader wrote that we shouldn't stress so much about headlines that scare us into believing everything causes cancer, that we'll probably live a whole lot longer just living our lives free of constant worry.

Another camp of readers say a little bit of something bad is still too much. Over the course of a lifetime, how do we know our children won't pay for our mistaken belief that this hype is just -- hype. Some cancer surviving readers wonder if their cancer was caused by their plentiful childhood bubble baths. And some go to great lengths to find natural, organic, chemical-free products, whatever the financial cost.

A few consultants for these natural products left their own comments, claiming to help those consumed with anxiety. Others scolded these business people for capitalizing on the fears of others with products that have not been proved any safer.

There are advocates of moderation who wrote. And individuals seeking more information. And people who located resources for others to investigate.

There is indeed a rich commentary on the link between bath products and cancer that follows one short post I wrote late one night, after my own children were bathed -- with Dove soap and generic shampoo -- and put to bed. And I am indeed happy to know my small contribution on the topic has generated such a powerful windfall of thought and concern.

A decade of research specific to the inherited form of pancreatic cancer has turned up a gene that could lead to earlier diagnosis and treatment for one of the deadliest forms of cancer.

The magical gene -- called palladin -- was discovered at the University of Washington after the extensive study of one family that has lost nine members over four generations to pancreatic cancer and has nine additional members with early signs of the disease.

Washington resident Ryan Chappell, a member of this family who had his pancreas removed just before cancer could strike, is very excited about this breakthrough.

"I feel really good that my family has not suffered (in vain)," the 21-year-old says. "Something has been accomplished from their contribution."

What the Chappell family has contributed to research is an understanding of a breakdown in a gene that makes a protein for the skeleton of pancreas cells. In this one family, the gene was mutated and produced large amounts of a misshapen protein that rolls like tumbleweed through the body, migrating 50 percent faster than other cells.

Scientists hope to translate their research findings into a diagnostic test to find excess amounts of the protein and to prevent the cancer cells from moving.

For now, early detection of pancreatic cancer rare because the pancreas is deep in the body, making it difficult to feel or see tumors through imaging tests. Symptoms -- like jaundice, abdominal and back pain, and digestive problems -- usually surface only after the cancer has spread.

Cancer of the pancreas is rare but is the third-leading cause of cancer death among people age 40 to 60.

Folate is a water-soluble B vitamin that occurs naturally in food. Folic acid is the synthetic form of folate that is found in supplements and added to foods.

The latest research has shown that the risk of developing colon cancer is linked to a diet low in folate. Study authors report that this is the first study to directly connect the two. The research was done on mice. Investigators report none of the mice fed a control diet developed cancer, but one in four mice on the folate-deficient diet developed tumors. The study reveals this may happen because a low level of folate may cause an increase in DNA damage. Study authors caution that while these results are encouraging, more research is needed on humans to know for sure the protective effect of folate for colorectal cancer.

Researchers point out they don't think its necessary to eat excessive amounts of folate, but they do recommend using diet supplements to meet the daily recommended amount. You can find folate in leafy green vegetables, like spinach and turnip greens, fruits such as citrus fruits and juices. Dried beans and peas are all natural sources of folate.

Scientists have determined that mouth cancer develops in two different ways which dictates the seriousness of the disease. This finding, revealed on Tuesday, could lead to better prevention and treatment. In laboratory experiments with healthy, early, and advanced cancer cells, researchers were able to pinpoint differences in the cells that determined the aggressiveness of the cancer. They found faults in the p53 gene, which stops damaged cells from dividing, and in the p16 gene, which helps regulate and prevent cancer from developing. Both changes are linked to more aggressive tumors. This is first-time evidence that some mouth cancer tumors are more aggressive than others and are unfortunately linked to poor patient survival.

Oral cancer typically stems from pre-cancerous lesions, changes, or patches in the mouth -- all of which are early signs of cancer. Recognizing which pre-cancerous changes are more likely to develop into aggressive tumors would allow doctors an insight that could help them prescribe the best treatment.

Smoking, use of chewing tobacco, and heavy alcohol consumption are the leading causes of mouth cancer. And smoking and drinking are a very dangerous combination. Like lung cancer, mouth cancer usually develops in people age 50 or older.

One of the most important factors in finding a cure for cancer is to figure out what causes our cells to change and become malignant. A study was done by Edinburgh scientists at the University of Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre.

There is an important protein residing in our cells that inhibits cancer. This protein is called p53. Another protein called MDM2 controls the activity of the p53 protein. The study showed that the ratio between the MDM2 and the p53 protein can become unbalanced. This can cause the P53 protein to not perform as it should.

If the cell protein MDM2 can be stopped from interfering with the protein p53 then that is another way that scientists can come up with new therapies to treat cancer. Let's hope for new non-toxic therapies while we are at it!

In all of my research on breast cancer -- and all of my attempts to discover what I may have done to invite this disease into my body -- I have learned that there are some behavioral risk factors related to cancer. Some risk factors are loosely linked and perhaps need further study. And some are definites. Like smoking. And consistent use of alcohol. Now a new study done on rats now shows that nicotine can reduce blood alcohol concentrations and can lead to heavier drinking. Smoking and drinking -- at the same time -- may be even more dangerous than originally thought.

Only two previous studies have examined the interactions between nicotine and alcohol. So there is very little research about how nicotine assists in the metabolizing of alcohol. Until now -- said Wei-Jung Chen, associate professor of neuroscience and experimental therapies at the Texas A&M Health Science Center in College Station, Texas. Chen said it was clear in her study that the presence of nicotine significantly reduced peak blood alcohol content. This was observed only when alcohol entered through the stomach -- and not when injected into the abdomen. For humans, this means that people smoking while drinking will have to drink even more to reach the effect they desire. This will ultimately lead to increased amounts of toxic byproducts in the body. And it may prevent absorption of beneficial drugs in some people who both smoke and drink. And I can't imagine that the list of negatives will stop here. But is there really any more information necessary to support the danger of this combination of risky behaviors -- behaviors that on their own are dangerous enough to cause worry and concern.

I woke yesterday morning to voices on the Today Show telling me that the use of hair dye is linked to incidences of lymphoma -- a general term for a group of cancers that originate in the lymphatic system. I know I've heard in the past about the possible link between cancer and the chemicals that add color to hair -- but the connection has never been revealed as very strong and the topic did not ever apply to me so I filed the information in the back of my mind. But now, it appears the link may be stronger than originally thought -- and I recently dyed my own post-chemo brown hair -- so I listened more intently this time and learned about the study that implies that touching up my roots may not be a wise practice.

The results of a European study, appearing in the July 1 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, reveal that roughly 10 percent of lymphomas in women could be caused by the use of hair dyes. The data suggest a small increase in risk -- and clearly more research is necessary -- but what researchers have found is that for the women who have dyed their hair more than 12 times, the risk is highest. And those who colored their locks before 1980 have the greatest risk. Since 1980, chemicals thought to be cancer-causing were eliminated from dyes -- although it is still not definite whether or not current hair dyes are risk-free. It is definite, say researchers, that further study of this topic is important. In the meantime, I think I will let my artificial reddish chestnut hues fade away while I enjoy the plain brown hair that covers my once-bald scalp.