Cancer cases are expected to more than double between the years 2000 and 2030, says the director of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

This upward climb will occur primarily in poor countries due to an increase in population growth, longer life expectancy, more smoking, and a lack of health care in low and medium-resource countries.

"What's going to happen between now and 2030 is that the population is going to increase from about 6.5 billion to 8 billion in 2030," Dr. Peter Boyle reports. "So even if the risks remain constant at each five-year age group, because we've got more people around, we're going to have more cases of cancer.

It's the unfortunate successes for developed countries over the past 40 years, such as the export of cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption, that have doomed poorer countries, says Boyle.

Consider this definition of doom: By the year 2030, there will be 27 million cases of cancer, 17 million deaths caused by the disease, and 75 million people living with cancer.

I just received my University of Florida alumni magazine and right smack in the middle of the publication is a story about cancer. The gist of the article is that there's an explosion of effort and activity in cancer research at this institution -- much like all over the nation -- and featured are all sorts of new cancer techniques and strategies and treatments. But one thing in particular stood out to me. What I read -- in the space of just two short sentences -- jumped off the page and really made me think.

This one thing is what I am about to share, and I'm calling it my Thought for the Day. It's a great morsel of information -- short, sweet, easy to digest, and perfectly powerful -- and so I invite you to read on, let this string of words sink into your mind, think about it over the course of the day, and then determine how you might use it in your own life. And then come back tomorrow, when another Thought for the Day will await you.

Think about this:

More than half of all cancer deaths can be prevented by maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Poor nutrition, obesity, physical inactivity, and cigarette smoking together account for 63 percent of all cancer deaths.

This year alone, 215,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. And sadly, not all of them will be treated equally.

Researchers reported last Tuesday that breast cancer patients who are either obese or poor are more likely to receive lower doses of chemotherapy. This might be why some women relapse and others do not, according to the researchers whose findings appear in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

This treatment discrepancy seems to stem from doctors who mean well and want to save certain women from severe side effects of chemotherapy. Doctors may be under-dosing obese patients, for example, because a larger dose based on weight could lead to worse side effects. There is no evidence this is true, however.

As for socioeconomic status, researchers report doctors are assuming less-educated patients won't stick with a tough course of treatment -- and so they prescribe less, in hopes patients will complete the regimen.

Researchers found that severely obese women were four times more likely to get less chemotherapy than they need. Women with less than a high school education were three times more likely to receive low doses of chemotherapy. And women living in the South were almost six times more likely to come up short on the drugs they need to save their lives.

"We have new therapies and cures out there for many forms of cancer and sadly, sometimes we're not curing people because they are not getting the full doses that should be standard," says Dr. Gary Lyman who led the study at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

A clinical study involving 1,000 prostate cancer patients was stopped this week by Southwest Oncology Group in Michigan due to concerns the treatment may have caused leukemia in three of the participants.

The men in the study received the chemotherapy drug mitoxantrone, thought to possibly improve survival rates for those with poor prognoses following prostate surgery. But before results could be measured, leukemia struck and researchers halted the study, declaring the leukemia findings "an unacceptable risk to patients."

While the assumption is that the drug caused the leukemia -- a disease commonly associated with children and the elderly -- it's still unproved at this point.

Mitoxantrone is not a worthless drug, say some experts. Since its release a decade ago, it has been used to decrease bone pain for men with advanced prostate cancer and to treat multiple sclerosis and, ironically, adult leukemia.

Health care provider Dr. Anthony Vendryes wrote Monday in the Jamaica Gleaner that he is distressed at the growing number of young women developing cancer -- especially breast cancer. He believes women are not working very hard at preventing the disease. He thinks we are just waiting for the problem to surface and then treating it with "painful and often ineffective" efforts.

According to Vendryes, research indicates a woman's risk of developing breast cancer is under her own control. If we live a lifestyle that promotes cancer, we are apparently likely to get the disease. Such a lifestyle would include gaining more than 11 pounds after the age of 18, exercising less than one time per week, eating less than five servings of fruits and vegetables per day, eating more than three ounces of red meat per day, ingesting too much fat and salt, consuming more than one alcoholic drink per day, and smoking cigarettes.

I am all for healthy living. And I believe achieving good health is under our control. I would personally recommend every woman take charge of her life in a healthful manner. But I do not believe as Vendryes states, "most women actually give themselves cancer by making poor choices in life." I think it's the word most that bothers me.

Obviously, there is a connection between lifestyle choices and chronic disease. And of course our level of health is under our control -- to some extent. But I don't believe it's fair to claim most women ask for breast cancer. I know I didn't.

I did not choose cancer. It chose me. Vendryes might say I am one of the disillusioned people who think cancer is entirely a matter of chance or entirely a matter of genetics. Actually, I suspect it's a combination of all factors. All I know for sure, however, is that my own lifestyle choices were pretty darn healthy prior to my diagnosis.

My weight has always been in a normal range -- and while I did gain more than 11 pounds twice in my life, it was due both times to the more-than-ten-pound babies I delivered into the world. I have always eaten a fairly healthy diet. I consume sweets, salt, and fats in moderation. I have never smoked and have consumed alcohol only minimally. And I have always consistently exercised.

I admit I have eaten red meat, although never daily. And I'm sure I fall short on the recommended intake of fruits and vegetables. But really, I cannot even begin to imagine that my lifestyle was an invitation for cancer. And it makes me sad that most other young women, shocked by a diagnosis of breast cancer like me, might think they asked for such a horrible disease.

It's been two years since my breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent "painful and often ineffective" treatments. And although I have made some lifestyle changes -- I never drink alcohol now, I exercise a little more, and I don't choose to eat red meat if other options are available -- my life is much the same as it was prior to cancer. And I am certain that if cancer makes a return visit to my body, it will not be because I asked for it.

United States drug company Merck hopes to offer the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil to developing countries at much lower prices -- within months, if possible.

Currently, the three-dose vaccine is not affordable in the developing world -- where 80 percent of cervical cancer deaths occur and 95 percent of females have never had a Pap test . And while the exact discounted price has not yet been determined, Merck professionals report they are committed to slashing the price of Gardasil for these women.

Merck also aims to help developing countries receive drugs sooner. Right now, there is a time lag of 15 to 20 years between the approval of drugs in the West and the time they reach these countries.

A not-so-new tumor-cell biomarker has been newly unveiled by researchers. And it just might predict how well women will fare after they've been diagnosed with breast cancer and how to best treat each cancer.

When expression of the marker -- called p27 -- is low, especially among women with hormone-receptor-positive tumors, prognosis is typically poor.

P27 was first discovered more than a decade ago but has not been useful for prognostic purposes until now. Previous studies on the marker failed to deliver all patients the same treatment -- so researchers could never determine if outcomes were due to p27 or treatment. But a recent study -- published in the December 6 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- followed the same patients receiving the same treatment for newly diagnosed, hormone-receptor-positive, moderate-risk breast cancer.

The new study found women with tumors high in p27 expression had a five-year survival rate of 91 percent. Women with a low expression had a five-year survival rate of 85 percent.

No association was found between p27 expression and survival among women with hormone-receptor-negative tumors.

The next step in the study of this potentially important marker is to better define how women will benefit from this information.

As Larry Stewart tells it, the story begins 26 years ago, when a week before Christmas he was fired from his job. It was the second year in a row he had been fired from a job the week before Christmas. As he sat in his car at a drive-in restaurant commiserating his untimely employment fate, he noticed the car hop was not wearing a warm coat as she worked in the elements of winter cold for nickels and dimes in tips. Although his recent unemployment status made his financial security uncertain, he decided to pay for his meal with a $20 dollar bill and told her to keep the change.

What happened next changed his life and the lives of countless others who would come to benefit from the generosity of a stranger. The car hop began to cry. She told Stewart he had no idea how much the extra money would help. Touched by her reaction, he went to the bank, withdrew $200 dollars, and then drove around looking for people who might need a few extra dollars.

Over the last 26 years, the cable television and long-distance telephone service businessman, who went on to earn millions after his rocky start in the working world, has given away over a million dollars. Anonymously. Stewart never wanted anyone to know his name or the name of his company. Until now.

Stewart has been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus that has spread to his liver. He thinks it is time to reveal the mysterious identity of the Secret Santa many in Missouri and elsewhere have wondered about for the last 26 years. Why? By speaking publicly about giving, he is hoping to inspire others to give. According to Stewart, "that's what we are here for -- to help other people out."

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.

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."

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.

Screenings for colorectal cancer offer more than a chance for early treatment -- they offer the chance to avoid cancer completely. The disease usually starts with growths called polyps that can take a decade to turn cancerous. If polyps are found and removed, cancer can be avoided altogether. Yet many are avoiding the screening. And polyps that go undetected can turn to a cancer that can lurk silently in anyone -- especially during middle age and beyond. And black Americans are especially at risk.

Almost 42 million Americans over the age of 50 are not getting checked for colorectal cancer -- the nation's No. 2 cancer killer. Perhaps it's the financial burden that comes with the life-saving procedure. Now in five states, a government-funded program is offering free testing for the poor. But still, many will fall through the cracks in many states. And while Medicare pays for screenings, this federal program is for people 65 and older -- a long wait for someone at age 50 who needs the test but does not have insurance.

Perhaps it's the part of the body under study that steers people away. Perhaps it's the manner in which the test is performed -- a long, flexible tube is used to visually inspect the colon -- that turns heads in the wrong direction. While the financial burden is a valid deterrent, other worries or fears should be put to rest. The test is not all that bad, says one doctor who had a colonoscopy himself. The worst part of the whole experience may be the liquid mixture that is consumed prior to the test that cleans out the system -- minor discomfort really in the scope of the alternative. Cancer.

Colonocopies are recommended just once every 10 years. And nearly 60 percent of deaths from colorectal cancer can be prevented if each person over the age of 50 finds some way to make this screening happen. And if not this screening, there are other options -- like a fecal test that is done annually but is more more affordable and can be quite effective too. So consider your options. And make a choice.

If you count yourself among the working poor, or one of the vanishing middle-class in a constant struggle to make ends meet, do not read this -- it is not going to cheer you up.

The most significant and unavoidable risk factor that increases the chance of being diagnosed with cancer is the aging process. The older we get, the more susceptible we are to developing cancer. Because of this fact, research into the aging process, how we age, and why we age -- even if the research is not specifically looking at the link between aging and increased cancer risk -- still might one day provide some insight into the potential for reducing cancer risks associated with aging.

In the 11th report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), children growing up in an affluent urban environment and children from rural areas are at higher risk for developing many cancers.

Researchers studied cancer clusters where leukemia and other childhood cancers were reported, and have come to the conclusion that affluent children are being raised in an environment that is too clean. Called the dirty hypothesis, children living in too sterile an environment where they are not exposed to infection have weak immune systems.

For rural children, infection brought in to the rural community by people from larger populated urban areas, might be causing genetic damage that leads to cancer.

With the exception of the processing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, and Dounreay in Scotland, the researchers also state they found no general pattern of increased cancer incidence around nuclear plants.

The researchers feel confident in the reported results of this study. They invite further study into the hypothesis of their findings. The database was constructed from the National Registry of Childhood Tumours by staff of the Childhood Cancer Research Group in Oxford, and included 12,415 cases of childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and 19,908 cases of children with solid tumors registered under the age of 15 in England, Wales and Scotland from 1969 to 1993. To download the 160 page report, go here.

It seems like common sense to me -- that lifestyle choices can affect a person's risk for contracting cancer -- but apparently, many people are not aware of this. Or they are aware but are not heeding the advice that might just save them from this life-threatening disease. According to Carolyn "Bo" Aldige, president of the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, in Alexandria, Va., it's not undiscovered treatments and therapies that are key to fighting off cancer -- it's likely that the toll cancer takes can be reduced by lifestyle changes and routine screenings. Aldige reports that nearly half of all cancer deaths are preventable. And she urges us to consider these facts.

• Smoking is the most preventable cause of death in the United States and causes nearly one in five deaths, killing about 438,000 Americans each year. Yet 45 million adults still smoke -- 23 percent of them men and 19 percent of them women.
• Poor nutrition, inactivity, and obesity account for one in three of the 564,830 deaths from all cancers. Experts say that excess calories cause mutations that start genes traveling down pathways that cause cells to divide out of control -- and that's what cancer is. According to Aldige, if each person could magically acquire the perfect body mass index, there would be a whole lot less colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers.
• It requires little time and not much discomfort for certain screenings that can detect cancer at an early enough stage that it can be successfully treated. There are already screenings for breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, cervical cancer, and skin cancer. And soon, there may be a simple screening for lung cancer too.
• A diet rich in nutrients and vitamin supplements helps maintain health and prevent cancer.

There are some highly effective defenses against cancer -- but they require some attention and effort on the part of each individual. Not everyone will make health-conscious choices -- some for reasons out of their control (lack of access to screenings, for example) and some for reasons I personally do not understand. But maybe that's because I have already had cancer and I know that I don't ever wish for it to return. So for that reason alone, I plan to adhere to the considerations listed above. It seems like common sense to me.