A lab in Oklahoma is studying genes for combinations that predict breast cancer risk. A look into the 100 genes gathered from each woman -- via mouthwash -- allows researchers to categorize women with standard, moderate, or high risks of developing the disease.

The study begins with a lengthy questionnaire about medical history and leads to the collection of a DNA sample. Women simply rinse their mouths with a standard mouthwash and wait for results.

Geneticist Dr. Kara Casas says she hopes that regardless of results, women will choose a healthy lifestyle with a diet low in fat and alcohol consumption and with lots of exercise too. But those in the moderate and high-risk groupings will be advised to make other lifestyle changes to help decrease their chances of getting breast cancer. They may be asked to regulate estrogen levels, for example, and to report regularly for mammograms at an earlier age.

Casas says all women have some risk of developing breast cancer. But knowing what these risks are can help them better protect themselves -- which makes tests like this so important.

A total of 12,000 samples will collected for an FDA trial. For more information about this study in mouthwash, call 903-510-1173.

Cancer cells sometimes secrete specialized proteins into the bloodstream that serve as indicators of tumor growth. These tumor markers are often distinctly associated with a particular type of cancer. Like prostate cancer.

The most well-known tumor marker today is the PSA -- the prostate-specific antigen. PSA is a highly specific protein that is secreted only by cells of the prostate gland. It is one of the most widely used -- and the only widely accepted -- screening test for cancer.

There's also the tumor marker CA-125, used in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and in the monitoring of response to treatment for the same disease. There's CEA for colon cancer, CA-19-9 for pancreatic cancer, AFP for liver and testicular cancer, beta-HCG for testicular cancer, and CA 15-3 for breast cancer. And research is under way on newer, more useful tumor markers. This is a good thing -- because some tumor markers are not specific enough or sensitive enough to accurately predict tumor growth.

This is why my oncologist does not recommend I enter the world of tumor markers, despite my status as a breast cancer survivor. He suggests I rely simply on how I feel for monitoring my chances for cancer recurrence. If I experience any worrisome symptoms, he will be the first to wage an all-out assessment of my health. But without symptoms, tumor markers are not likely to help me at all.

A peek at my breast cancer tumor markers would likely be hazy, inconclusive, and not all that helpful. Examination of tumor markers can lead to false positives. It can lead to expensive and often unnecessary follow-up testing. It can lead to worry and panic and even alarm if the numbers are not in the hoped-for range.

Although an abnormal tumor marker level may suggest cancer, this alone is typically not enough to diagnose the disease. Measurements of tumor markers are usually combined with other tests, such as a biopsy, to confirm cancer. So what would I do with an abnormal number and nothing suspicious to biopsy? I would worry. I would panic. Perhaps unnecessarily.

My doctor suggests I refrain from a wild cancer chase. And I am happy with his suggestion. Between my own awareness, follow-up oncology appointments, mammograms, annual OB/GYN check-ups, and more, I am confident any health issues that come my way will be detected early -- and can be resolved in good time. I have no need for confusing tumor marker details. Unless they are conclusively recommended, I will survive without them. More important, I will survive without worry.

I remember thinking when my grandma was a spunky 80-year-old -- still going to aerobics classes in her purple tights -- that it must be sad to be such an age when so many friends and acquaintances are falling ill and passing away. My grandma was always one to care for others, call on others, pray for others -- and often she seemed to be the only one in her circle who was thriving. Somehow, she took it all in stride and continued baking and gardening and sewing and living strong until her own death at the age of 86 -- when she left her remaining friends and acquaintances wondering if their own time on Earth was approaching a quick end. At the time, I thought this loss of friends was merely a side effect of aging. It didn't seem to concern me at my own young age of 30. I didn't really know any 30-year-olds who were dying. And I didn't predict anyone my age would be dying until I was closer to the age of 80. How wrong I was.

I am now 36 years old. And I know many women my age who have died -- most of them because of breast cancer, the same disease I have been fighting for nearly two years. So it's not only sad to me that people my age are dying, it's also quite personal and frightening -- for it could easily me in the same predicament. So I feel vulnerable -- so many years earlier than I imagined.

I think I know how my grandma must have felt when her loved ones were leaving her. And I think I will take her same approach to coping with this unfortunate fact of life. Although I couldn't possibly bake and garden and sew like she did, I can keep busy with my own hobbies and interests. And I can continue living strong until my own death -- which hopefully won't occur until after I've made my appearance in purple tights. About 50 years from now.

During clinical studies, the Virtual Cancer Patient Engine (VCP) was found to be 70 percent accurate in predicting individualized patient response to chemotherapy drugs. The significance of the ability of this new technology to make accurate predictions in cancer treatments that will work before treatment begins is a 40 to 45 percent better accuracy rate than is currently predicted by oncologists. VCP analyzes how chemotherapy drugs will affect the growth of the cancer, how the chemotherapy drugs will behave in the body and how the cancer cells will respond to the chemotherapy drugs using mathematical modeling and computerized simulation between biological, pathological and pharmacological processes of drug-patient interactions.

According to researcher Dr. Abhik Mukherjee, "Every cancer is slightly different and every patient will respond to treatment differently. We wanted to find a way to predict how patients would respond to a particular drug in order to limit their side effects and give them the best chance of beating their disease."

Rather than throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, as Katie Couric described current cancer treatments, this technology has the potential for creating individualized treatments specific to the patient and their cancer in determining what will work ahead of time without putting the patient through unnecessary treatments that will not work. To learn more, visit Optimata.

Somehow, Amy -- my friend whose cancer has spread to her brain and lungs just five months after her initial treatment for breast cancer -- ended up comforting me today when we spoke about her shocking news. Somehow, Amy is the strong one -- convinced that she will live long after the year she was given to survive this cancer metastasis while I feel somewhat defeated. Somehow, Amy is approaching this ordeal with spunk and grace -- while I feel a bit deflated. Somehow, Amy is teaching me that attitude is everything. That there is still hope. That she can outlive the statistics and numbers that predict she will not fare well. Somehow, Amy is strengthening me through her difficult moments. Somehow, she is worrying about me -- the one not experiencing the blow of a cancer recurrence.

Somehow, Amy -- with more on her plate than any one person should have to manage -- has already established that she is a fighter. That she will fight for her life. That she will survive. Somehow, she makes me feel better.