Sexy. Seductive. Super-intelligent. All aptly describe Sharon Stone. Another is sportswoman, as Stone is an avid golfer. During a recent interview with Golf for Women, she shared a story about her father, also an avid golfer, surviving esophageal cancer by playing golf.

Given three months to live, her father was able to play through his chemotherapy and radiation treatments because of specially-built clubs designed by the golf equipment company Callaway. A feeding tube inserted after surgery prevented him from being able to bend. Without the new clubs, he would not have been able to continue in a much-loved positive activity.

Around the same time, Rob Lowe's father was being treated for cancer with a new targeted drug therapy, Avastin, and they helped Stone obtain the same drug for her father. She attributes the game of golf and the help of her friend Lowe with saving her father's life.

Twenty-two operations later, when Stone's father had successfully beaten cancer, she called the Callaway company to let them know how much a part she believed the company had in her father's recovery. The woman who took the call began to cry because it was the one year anniversary of her own mother's death from cancer and Stone's call lifted her spirits that something the company had done might have helped someone survive cancer.

For many golfers, golf is more than a sport. "Golf teaches you about life, about humanity, about things that will make you a better person," explains Stone. At the end of the article, Stone offers this advice, "Your life is a book; every page you write, you carry with you. You don't get to tear the pages out and throw them away. So write wisely. It doesn't matter what others write, ever, ever, ever. They don't know you at all. But what you write is indelible." Spirited. Insightful. Centered. All Sharon Stone.

Sharon Shakes It Up, Hollywood's A-list femme fatale has strong opinions about everything--including golf, is the Golf for Women cover story in the January/February 2007 issue. The interview has been published online here.

I started my breast cancer treatment under the care of one oncologist. And then in a search for more warmth and compassion, I landed in a new relationship with a new oncologist. He offered me just what I was seeking. Plus something I didn't expect.

My new oncologist offered me a new treatment plan -- a new course of action that better suited my specific disease.

U.S. researchers reported yesterday that breast cancer patients were urged to change their treatment plan more than half the time when they received a second opinion from a multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists.

Researchers at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center believe second-opinion changes are a result of different interpretations of breast imaging and pathology results, consideration of new techniques and treatments, discovery of undiagnosed second cancers, and emerging medical research.

It wasn't a formal multidisciplinary team that delivered me a new, better opinion for my own cancer care. It was one man, who merged instinct and science and then consulted a well-know oncologist friend who agreed with the approach I ended up following.

I am thankful for everything I gained from my second opinion -- the warmth, the compassion, the treatment plan that has served me well for two years.

Twenty years from now, no one will die of cancer and heart disease, according to an expert in Perth, who believes advances in genetic technology will one day leave death by cancer in the dust.

Professor John Shine, director of the Garvan Institute for Medical Research in Sydney, says people will still get cancer -- they just won't die from it. He shared last week at a genetics conference in Perth, "I think there's no doubt death from cancer will be confined to the annals of history, And I think a very similar thing will apply to heart disease."

Despite reservations from some about genetic technology, Shine believes the desire to combat cancer -- once and for all -- will prevail over political opinion. And so that leaves only technical obstacles in the way. It's just a matter of time before these scientific hurdles are no longer issues.

Shine, known as the father of cloning, pioneered gene research in the 1970s when he identified the genes for insulin and the human growth hormone.

The New Zealand Herald has quoted Nobel Laureate and principal scientist at Cancer Research UK Sir Tim Hunt as predicting that while targeted cancer drugs will continue to be developed, it is not likely that a penicillin-type wonder drug to cure cancer will be found. Basically, he explains that cancer cells work the same as normal cells do, but to eliminate cancer cells would mean wiping out normal cells in the process. At least, that is my understanding of what he said. Here is the exact quote, in case I am missing something vital in the translation:

"Basically cancer cells grow using all the same mechanisms that normal cells in the body use. So you could stop the cancer cell growing by standing the right distance from an atom bomb, but then all your other cells also stop growing at the same time." To me, that almost sounds like the standard chemotherapy we go through now.

I am not a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, and I respect the intelligence and training of any scientist who has achieved that honored status, but I do not know that I completely agree with his prediction. I don't know that there will be one specific wonder drug like penicillin, that you take and the cancer is gone, but I do think the advancements made in targeted therapies will one day make it seem as if there is a wonder drug. Cancer is over one hundred different diseases. It might simply be a matter of diagnosing the specific cancer, and then administering a specific targeted drug for that cancer. I realize this is a ways off, but I am hopeful for the future of cancer treatments.

Then again, who knows what scientists will stumble upon in their studies. Could there be a penicillin out there for cancer? Might be. I don't think we can rule out any potential possibility. That's my opinion. What say you?

Health care coverage for working Americans is like a brittle tree in a hard wind -- and the larger limbs are beginning to snap. Between the years 2000 to 2005, 6.8 million more people became uninsured according to the latest report from the U.S. Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. Current data estimates 46.6 million people are without health insurance coverage. As employer-based health insurance continues to fade, government programs are taking up the slack -- up to a point. But given the lack of funding, there is only so much that can be offered.

In a statement issued by the Center for American Progress, "These problems did not just happen: they resulted from flawed economic and health policies which force Americans to work more for less. When it returns after Labor Day, this Congress should act to mitigate these problems by passing a straightforward minimum wage increase and extend health funding for programs like the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Moreover, policy makers should recognize the need for major change, such as providing affordable health care to all Americans and taking action to address growing income inequality."

Some are calling for a government-based universal health care system that guarantees health care coverage for all Americans. Others are suggesting a mix of private and public health care coverage. What ever the solution, there certainly needs to be one.

We can start with a shift in perspective and change in expectation. If you are working full-time for a company, presumably your efforts are helping that company make a profit. Health insurance coverage should not be viewed as a luxury benefit, nor should the largest burden of health insurance premiums be shouldered by the employee whose earnings just meet living expenses. Yet, this is happening every day in this country. The hard wind continues to batter the brittle tree.

Personally, I am not sold on a government-run, government-backed universal health plan simply because I have covered too many horror stories about rationed care in other industrialized countries. It seems a combination of programs might be the solution but the government and our elected officials certainly need to be held accountable for implementing programs that insure all Americans.

American Public Health Association Georges Benjamin is quoted by United Press International as saying, ""This is the worst news we've had all year. Our nation is not secure if we're not healthy."

We are not the homeliest bloggers in the hills, as Al Capp's Li'l Abner strip described the original Sadie Hawkins, but today is our version of the American folk tradition of Sadie Hawkins Day here at The Cancer Blog.

We are not going to ask you to dance because that would be silly -- this is a blog after all -- but we are inviting you to tell us what you would like to read more about -- what you would like to read less about -- and what you might like to read about that we haven't been blogging about at all.

More research -- less research; more human interest -- less human interest -- more blogging from a personal perspective -- less personal; more tips -- less tips in facing the struggles with cancer; more nutrition and recipes -- less food talk; more prevention topics -- less prevention.

We try in earnest, each and every day, to blog about important issues in all-things-cancer-related, but as we get dressed up in our finest each day, we are inviting you to give us an idea how close we come and how far we need to go in publishing what you want to know.

Less than one year ago, Rep. John P. "Jack" Murtha, D-Pa., came crashing onto the national scene with his opinion that the U.S. military could accomplish nothing more in Iraq and should be pulled out of the war zone. It was a harsh opinion -- and one his Democratic partners thought might hurt their party at a time when they were trying to gain control of Congress. The fact that the Democrats had been seen as weak on national security didn't help. And then a funny thing happened.

Murtha, 74 -- a decorated Marine and the first combat veteran of the Vietnam War elected to the House of Representatives -- became one of the most popular Democrats around, despite or maybe because of his passionate beliefs. Once a behind-the-scenes kind of man, he is now in the public eye. He's out raising money for Democrats in many states. He's attending fundraising events with Al Gore and others. And he's gathering allies at every turn. And while he still faces opposition, he believes that he must make public what he stands for. And so he does. And because of his recent uncharacteristic charismatic presence, details about this once-to-himself man are emerging. Details like these: A local airport is named for him. An institute for the study of neuroscience and pain is named for him. And a breast cancer center bears the name of his wife, Joyce.

The Joyce Murtha Breast Care Center at Windber Medical Center opened its doors in February 2002. Located in Windber, Pennsylvania, this center began as a collaboration between Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Windber Medical Center and ever since its beginning has offered full diagnostic services for breast health and disease in one convenient location.

Murtha is surely raising awareness with his opinion about the military and national security and war. And even breast cancer gets a little press out of the whole frenzy surrounding this man and his efforts. Which reminds me that somehow, breast cancer seems to touch the lives of just about everyone is some way.

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!

Dr. Lisa Melton of the London-based registered charity Novartis Foundation, has written The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale, published in the New Scientist, that takes a look at the benefit of whole foods versus antioxidant supplements -- and concludes that something is lost in the extraction from whole foods making supplements essentially useless to health benefit. She even suggests, based on research, that some antioxidant supplements have been shown to create health problems.

Roy Thayers has experienced death up close, as he was caregiver for his first wife as she battled cancer -- he knows what it is like to watch someone fight for their life -- and he was there when she lost her life to cancer.

Thayers, who at the age of 77 lives alone, was recently told by his doctors that he was at risk for a fatal heart attack and might lose his life if he didn't undergo heart surgery to unblock the heart valves immediately.

The problem of avoiding death and living longer became a matter of time and money. When the NHS put Thayers on a nine-month waiting list for heart surgery, he worried he might not have that long to wait -- considering the urgency with which the doctors had impressed upon him concerning the imminent threat of a fatal heart attack without surgery. He was told he could have the surgery immediately if he paid for it himself.

University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers have confirmed what more than a few cancer patients have personally believed for some time now. Stress increases cancer growth and finding ways to relax and reduce stress is beneficial to cancer survivorship.

In a preclinical study carried out on mice with ovarian cancer, researchers found that cancerous tumors grew and spread faster when the mice were experiencing increased levels of stress. According to the researchers, the conclusion of this study is the first definitive link between psychological stress and the biological processes that make ovarian tumors grow and spread. It appears stress hormones bind to receptors directly on tumor cells and, in turn, stimulate new blood vessel growth and other factors that lead to faster and more aggressive tumors.

"The concept of stress hormone receptors directly driving cancer growth is very new," said Dr. Anil Sood, the study's senior author. "Not much had been known about how often these receptors are expressed in cancer, and more importantly, whether they had any functional significance. Our research opens a new area of investigation."

The good news in this -- besides the fact that this study begins to validate what cancer survivors have been saying for years in the personal belief of the link between stress and cancer -- is that stress can be controlled and reduced by lifestyle changes and medication. In fact, the researchers found a beta blocker heart medication effectively blocked the adverse effect stress hormones had on tumor growth.

This could open new areas of research. Indeed, Dr. Sood and his team will continue to research the role of stress in cancer and examine the effects of stress hormones on cancers besides ovarian cancer. To read more about the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center preclinical study, go here.

Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey announced plans to launch a test program where they will be implanting an ID microchip in people who suffer from chronic diseases. The radio frequency identification device (RFID) microchip will include family contact information and medical history. The purpose is to give emergency room medical staff the ability to access a patient's information if they are brought to the emergency room and are unable to speak on their own.

According to the test program team, Horizon will start sending letters to patients with chronic diseases explaining the new program and inviting them to participate. The program will be cost-free and voluntary for those who wish to participate.

RFID implanted microchips in surgical sponges is one thing -- in people? I don't know.

I am taking an informal poll. Would you consent to having a microchip implanted in your right arm for the purpose of information retrieval?

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?

Michael Fumento is an author, journalist, and attorney specializing in science and health issues. And he has a lot to say about the Surgeon General's recent announcement that the second-hand smoke debate is over -- that second-hand smoke does in fact kill. Fumento believes that the debate is over means if you have your doubts, then keep them to yourself -- that the topic is not up for discussion any longer. But Fumento states that we should definitely have doubts -- about the effects of second-hand smoke and about what the Surgeon General has to say about it.

Does life imitate art or does art imitate life? It's an age-old chicken and the egg question of which came first and which then followed. When it comes to primetime television, with images beamed into the living rooms and bedrooms of nearly every household in this country  -- it might be more the subject of distortion for the sake of sensationalism than imitation.

Today, the Academy of Television Arts&Science announced this year's 58th annual Primetime Emmy Awards nominees for drama series that include two weekly medical shows, House and Grey's Anatomy. Scrubs is nominated in the comedy series category.

Which got me to thinking about the impact, if there is one, on the viewer's idea about the medical community.

While there might be a drug-addicted doctor out there with such a genius IQ that he is supported by a medical team that makes allowances for the anti-social behavior his addiction creates, I am certain in real life the medical community does a better job of self-policing itself than they do in regard to House.

When it comes to watching the social drama of sex, introspective angst and egos run rampant on Grey's Anatomy, I suppose when you put any group of people together it's only a matter of time before some of them become entrenched in a mobius strip of narcissism, but still I don't believe this is a realistic representation in the life of an intern.  

At least Scrubs is just silly and does not attempt to seriously portray itself as anything other than a light-hearted spoof. But when it comes to shows written with an intent for dramatic real life settings, I wonder if the images we are exposed to on a regular basis can have an influence on perception and can alter attitude -- especially if you are not critically analyzing what you are watching -- and for the sake of entertainment, who does that?  Do you think these medical shows, on a subconscious level, affect the viewer's perception of the medical community?