Just recently, European researchers announced that MRI scans offer a new way to detect breast cancer in its earliest form. They can even prevent cancer among high-risk women.

Better than standard mammograms, MRI can detect a nonmalignant tumor called ductal carcinoma in-situ, or DCIS. Once found, the lesion can be surgically removed before it becomes cancerous.

Think about this: It is believed that almost all breast cancer starts out as DCIS. And this: if MRI were the gold standard breast cancer screening tool, we might be able to prevent a lot more breast cancer cases than we do now. It seems researchers agree.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common form of leukemia in adults. According to the National Cancer Society an estimated 60,000 people are living throughout the United States with CLL.

An article published in The Lancet stated that the chemotherapy combination of Fludara plus Cytoxan improves progression free survival compared to therapy consisting of Fludara alone. The drugs used to treat CLL consist of Fludara, Cytoxan and chlorambucil. Recent studies have shown that Fludara in combination with Cytoxan to be the most effective treatment for CLL.

Researchers wanted to test to see if higher anticancer responses were seen with the combination of Fludara plus Cytoxan, treatment with Fludara alone or treatment with chlorambucil.

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.

Researchers have made a stem cell discovery that may help treat pancreatic cancer -- one of the deadliest forms of the disease.

University of Michigan scientists have found cancer stem cells in pancreatic tumors that appear to drive cell tumor growth and could lead to the development of drugs to target and kill these cells.

Pancreatic cancer kills 97 percent of people diagnosed with the disease within five years. Half of all diagnosed patients die within six months of diagnosis, and this cancer -- that spreads quickly and is rarely detected at an early state -- kills 33,000 each year in the United States alone. So any improvement in the study of this disease is a true gift.

"The clinical implications of this work are significant," said Dr. Diane Simeone, director of the Gastrointestinal Oncology Program at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Centre and lead author of the study, published in the journal Cancer Research.

"We've made baby steps in improving the survival in these patients -- on the order of a few months (longer to live) -- over the past decade or so. But we really haven't had a major breakthrough in coming up with something that has the potential to provide a cure," she said.

Simeone says killing these cancer stem cells is like pulling out the root of a weed. And she says the best way to pull out the root is to target these stem cells instead of the traditional approach of shrinking tumors by killing as many cells as possible -- an approach that may be flawed because cancer stem cells tend to resist standard therapies.

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.

The standard dose of some medications are too high and dangerous for the patients, where some patients respond the exact opposite and show that the standard dose is too low to produce beneficial effects. It would seem to be a simple case of age, gender, or genetic differences to explain the individual variability in response to the drugs.

A study at the University of Kansas is reporting that variations in the body's production of hydrogen peroxide, which is believed to serve as a signaling molecule at low levels, can affect the accumulation of drugs inside our cells.

Oxidative stress, an increase in hydrogen peroxide levels, may have an increased response to a given dosage of a drug. This seems to show that it is in our best interest for physicians to provide more individualized dosing of drugs.

Hydrogen peroxide effects could be especially important in therapeutic drugs such as aminophylline, carbamazepine, lithium, carbonate, phenytoin, theophylline and warfarin. The researchers think that small changes in the doses of these drugs could cause either subtherapeutic or toxic results.

My new breast cancer friend recently sat through her second infusion of Adriamycin and Cytoxan -- the long-time traditional chemotherapy combination for breast cancer -- and all the while, listened to another breast cancer survivor share her thoughts on these two drugs.

This woman told my friend she opted to stray from these chemotherapy agents because of their toxic side effects, because of their combined potential for causing other cancers, like leukemia. She instead took another drug route and was happy for her decision. My friend, however, was scared.

My friend returned home from her treatment and found herself reading a Cancer Blog post reporting that Adriamycin and Cytoxan may no longer be the gold standard treatment for breast cancer, that Taxotere and Cytoxan may become the preferred, safer option.

Fear and panic set in, and my friend e-mailed me, in search of perspective from a recipient of the drugs she was starting to believe are both ineffective and cancer-causing.

I am not a doctor. I am not an expert. I am not qualified in any way to represent the facts about medical research. But I am surviving breast cancer. And I did spend eight difficult weeks under the influence of Adriamycin and Cytoxan, given every two weeks in a dose-dense fashion. So I have an opinion about these drugs -- and about most things breast cancer related.

I shared my opinion with my friend, who has since decided to proceed with her prescribed treatment plan. I told her that in rare cases, chemotherapy can cause a second cancer, like leukemia. But this is not common, and the unlikely risk does not outweigh the benefit of receiving chemotherapy to address the cancer at hand.

I also shared with my friend that we can only benefit from therapies that are available and effective at the time of our treatment. Studies prove that Adriamycin and Cytoxan work -- that's why so many women are treated with this accepted method. Drugs in the research pipeline may one day definitively replace what is available today. But we must be OK with what we receive -- because we have no control over what lies ahead. We must live in the here and now -- with the knowledge that should our cancers return, bigger and better options may await us.

Consider Herceptin. Once not even an option for women with aggressive HER2 positive breast cancer, this targeted drug may be the magic bullet in an attack against this disease. I received Herceptin. My friend will receive Herceptin. Timing was on our side for this medical breakthrough.

Timing may not have been on our side should a new gold-standard drug treatment emerge and replace Adriamycin and Cytoxan. But we can still trust these two drugs will do their jobs, will prevent a recurrence of a disease that is so much more treatable today than it was years ago. Lucky for us.

Canadian and international researchers suspect adding a high-dose vitamin D pill to chemotherapy might improve treatment for advanced prostate cancer. So they are recruiting 1,000 men for a two-year clinical trial in order to investigate their suspicions. Currently, there is little to offer patients who no longer respond to to standard treatment.

The trial will test the pill calcitriol -- a biologically active form of vitamin D and naturally occurring hormone -- to see how it works in combination with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel. Precautions will be taken to minimize side effects that can occur with high-dose supplements.

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that 20,700 men in Canada will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year. About 4,200 of these men are expected to die from the disease.

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is uncommon in adults between 15 and 50 years of age but occurs more frequently in individuals over 50 years of age. The Philadelphia chromosome is a specific gene mutation that occurs in about 20 percent of all ALL cases. The Philadelphia chromosome occurs when specific genetic information is switched. Patients who are Philadelphia chromosome positive typically do not respond well to standard therapies.

Researchers want to find new strategies to improve outcomes for Philadelphia chromosome positive ALL patients. Gleevec has shown some anticancer responses in these patients who no longer responded to standard treatments.

According to a study was done and published in the journal Leukemia, the survival at one year was 66 percent for those patients who received chemotherapy and Gleevec. Among comparison subjects the survival at one year was 43 percent.

What also sounded very promising was that the probability of surviving for one year without a relapse was 58 percent for those in the study and only 11 percent among comparison patients.

If you have been diagnosed with stage I, stage II or stage III breast cancer you might be eligible to participate in a trial that uses bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy along with standard treatments.

When breast cancer metastasizes it often spreads first to the bone. Bisphosphonates have been shown to slow the progression of cancer in the bone. This trial will test to see if bisphosphonates when used as adjuvant therapy may delay or prevent bone metastasis from happening altogether.

This phase III trial will compare two newer and stronger bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate called clodronate that has been shown to interrupt bone metastasis in early stage breast cancer.

Bone metastasis can lead to fractures, spinal cord compression and it can be very painful. If we can halt the spread of breast cancer to the bone with an additional adjuvant therapy it can save many lives.

Just before my treatment for breast cancer began and during a consultation about what chemotherapy drugs I was about to receive, my oncologist stepped away from my exam room to check on something. When she returned to the room, she told me that she was determining whether or not I qualified for a clinical trial. I had no idea what this meant at the time. All I knew was what she told me -- that my prognosis was too good at that moment to qualify for anything currently under study. I did not fit a profile for anything. I was not a candidate for a clinical trial.

I now know that clinical trials are a critical component of research -- they validate a drug's success or weakness and they provide hope for many who may be at the end of their treatment rope and need something new to consider. A clinical trial is a comparison of standard treatments to newer treatments in an effort to discover better methods for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Doctors, scientists, and other health professionals conduct these tests according to strict guidelines set by the Food and Drug Administration -- which establishes mandatory guidelines to ensure the maximum safety of the patient.

Clinical trials rely on volunteers -- and sadly, there is a current shortage of patients willing to participate in trials. Experts say that, for the past few decades, just five to 10 percent of all cancer patients in the United States have joined a clinical trial. There is an urgent need -- because the demand for willing, eligible participants far exceeds the supply. Some experts are even recommending that the small pool of candidates that does exist be rationed to only the most important cancer studies -- leaving other studies with no hope for completion. There is no good solution in sight. But the reasons for the shortage are becoming apparent. It's not that patients are unwilling to join. It's that they are unaware, uninformed, not even sure this opportunity is possible -- because doctors are not suggesting trials to their patients. Treatment on a protocol is more demanding for doctors than routine medical care. And it costs doctors to submit to a trial. And trials burden doctors with regulations and paperwork. And some doctors worry about litigation if something experimental goes wrong. So they often don't approach the topic -- and the result is that a wonder drug may sit in a dark freezer because there are not enough people to test it. This potential wonder drug may never show promise, may never save a life, may never see the light of day.

So I guess my oncologist was ahead of the game in this matter -- she compared my diagnosis and prognosis with the needs of all available clinical trials and found that there was not match. Had she not done this, I would have never thought to ask about the possibility -- which is exactly what patients should do instead of waiting for a doctor to make the suggestion. Because it may never happen.

For more information on clinical trials, please visit the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups.

Lung cancer affects more than 80,000 American women annually. More than 70,000 of these cases are fatal. Thirty thousand more women die from lung cancer than from breast cancer. And lung cancer claims more lives of more women than breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers combined. Yet a new study reveals that American women are uninformed about statistics like these -- and about the threats posed by lung cancer.

A 2006 survey of 500 women provides a snapshot of women's attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer -- and the overwhelming conclusion is that there is a widespread lack of awareness about the nation's top cancer killer. And here's the lowdown:

• Only 41 percent of women know that lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in the United States.
• Only 8 percent of women know that exposure to radon gas is the second leading cause of lung cancer -- 60 percent instead believe that second-hand smoke is the culprit.
• Only 36 percent of women know lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer.
• Only 41 percent of women know that one in 17 women will develop lung cancer sometime in her life.
• Only 4 percent of women know that women typically fare better than men following lung cancer treatment.
• And 25 percent of women mistakingly believe that there is a standard screening test to detect lung cancer in its early stages. Currently, there is not one.

Lung cancer is often believed to be a man's disease. But it is not. It affects tens of thousands of women too. And now I -- as one of the previously uninformed women -- know better.