Until the 1990s, most medical studies used only men. Women are included now, but more research is needed on how diseases, like cancer, affect each sex. Women have unique needs, after all, and it's critical that all angles are represented in important research findings.

Think you might want to volunteer and help advance research on this female front? Just visit womancando.org and find out how you can do your part.

"The power of one can make a difference," reads this website. "You can make a powerful contribution to improving women's health by participating in medical research and becoming part of the effort to understand health and treat disease. Today, it is easy to take health advances for granted. We know a lot about how to treat and prevent disease, but much remains to be learned."

Scientists have long believed that the carotenoids found in fruits and vegetables have a cancer preventive effect. In particular, epidemiological studies have found that as the consumption of tomato products increases, risk of certain types of cancer decreases.

Vicki's Tomato, Cauliflower, and Tempeh Salad.
1/2 head cauliflower
1 block tempeh crumbled and cooked crisp
2 medium tomatoes chopped
10 to 12 scallions sliced
1/2 cup mayonnaise
2 tbsp lemon juice
1 tsp chili powder
1 tsp garlic powder
Salt and pepper
Lettuce leaves for serving (optional)

Put the cauliflower through a food processor with the shredding disk or finely chop by hand. Put in boiling water, cover and reduce heat and let sit for 2 minutes then drain water and place cauliflower in large salad bowl.

Crumble the tempeh into a skillet on medium heat with 2 tablespoons of olive oil. Add the chili powder and garlic powder and sautee for 7 minutes getting the tempeh crunchy. Add to the cauliflower along with the chopped tomatoes and sliced scallions.

Combine the mayonnaise and lemon juice to make dressing and pour over salad and toss. Salt and pepper to taste. Serve over a bed of lettuce leaves. Makes 4 to 6 servings.

The National Cancer Institute shows studies have found the following risk factors for bladder cancer.

1. Age - The chance of bladder cancer goes up as you get older and is rarely found in anyone under 40 years old.
2. Tobacco - Cigarette smokers are three times more likely than non smokers to develop bladder cancer.
3. Occupations - People who work in these professions or who handle these products have a higher risk of developing bladder cancer. Rubber, chemical, leather, textile, printers, painters, machinists, metal workers, hairdressers, and truck drivers.
4. Infections - Certain parasites increase the risk of bladder cancer.
5. Race - Whites get bladder cancer twice as often as African Americans and Hispanics. The lowest risks are Asians.
6. Gender - Men are three time more likely to develop bladder cancer which may be because of the above occupational risks.
7. Chlorine - By products of chlorine are being closely studied.
8. Saccharin - The artificial sweetener has shown to cause cancer in animals and is being studied closer for the risks on humans.

If you have blood in your urine, pain during urination, or frequent urination or the feel the need to urinate often, please discuss your concern with a doctor. Early detection of bladder cancer has been a proven factor in the survival rate of this disease.

Remember that old saying -- An apple a day keeps the doctor away? Well, it seems that an apple peel a day might keep cancer at bay, according to a new study.

A dozen compounds have been found called triterpenoids. These compounds found in the peel of an apple either inhibit or kill cancer cells in lab cultures.

"We found that several compounds have potent anti-proliferative activities against human liver, colon and breast cancer cells and may be partially responsible for the anti-cancer activities of whole apples," says Rui Hai Liu, Cornell associate professor of food science.

Previous studies have shown that apples not only fight cancer cells in the laboratory but they also have shown to reduce the number and size of mammary tumors in rats.

So, don't peel those apples. Eat the whole thing!

Is there a link between breast cancer and abortion? This is the first of I've heard of it -- and I consider myself fairly well-versed in the topic of breast cancer. Maybe I missed a beat somewhere along the line.

Think about this:

There is a Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer out there and Karen Malec, head of the group, says there would be far fewer breast cancer cases and deaths if women had been told the truth in the 1980s when conclusive evidence linked abortion with the disease.

Malec reports that government scientists wrote a letter in 1986 to the British journal Lancet, acknowledging that abortion causes breast cancer. She says as of 2006, eight medical organizations had recognized abortion as one cause of the disease.

Now this has nothing to do with delaying pregnancy until later in life -- also a known risk factor. Abortion stands on its own and is problematic because carrying a pregnancy to term is what protects against breast cancer, says Malec.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not agree and stands behind several studies backed by strong data concluding induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer.

Malec says such studies are seriously flawed.

"We call on the Society and other cancer businesses to put their priorities in order," she says. "Women's lives and cancer prevention are more important than making money, doing cancer walks, and protecting the abortion and pharmaceutical industries."

Malec also condemns Susan G. Komen For the Cure for donating money to Planned Parenthood -- a group she calls the nation's leading abortion business.

"It's unthinkable that groups that claim to want to eradicate the disease would help fund a cancer-causing organization, especially when the funds could be directed to legitimate health organizations."

Unthinkable? I'm not sure.

I need to think about it.

Oh no. I think I 'm headed for melanoma. At the very least, I seem to have a very high risk for developing the disease, thanks to my once-stubborn pursuit of a silly tan.

Think about this:

A review of seven different studies concludes that using a tanning bed under the age of 35 -- I'm so guilty -- can increase the risk of melanoma by 75 percent. Even those who have ever used indoor tanning were 15 percent more likely to develop the disease.

We're talking the deadliest form of skin cancer here. So deadly some experts are recommending strong measures to restrict the use of tanning beds by young people. Adults should be discouraged from tanning, some say, but access should be limited for those under the age of 18.

New Jersey already has regulations in place -- those under 14 are banned from tanning salons and anyone between 14 and 18 must have parental consent.

If I could turn back time, I would listen to my grandma. She told me the sun -- and tanning beds too -- were no good. But I was young. And I didn't care.

Now I'm older. And I care. But it may be too late. It seems this could be one lesson I learn the hard way.

An independent report revealed recently that women employed at the Toowong site of ABC's former Brisbane studios in Australia were six times more likely to develop breast cancer than other women.

The site has been vacated. And the hunt is on -- for the cause of this unusually high rate of the disease.

No luck yet -- but new findings, while not definitive on what has caused this cluster, do indicate exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is not a factor -- because the low frequency fields at the site were typical of other workplaces and residences, without any such cancer cluster.

Further testing will take place in an attempt to solve this on-going mystery, chronicled in the posts that follow.

ABC journalists walk out over cancer cluster concerns
Breast cancer cluster closes ABC studios in Australia
Connecting the clues in Australia cancer cluster

Fewer women are getting mammograms. Facilities offering mammograms are closing. Mammogram machine usage is declining. And we don't really know why.

"We're heading in the wrong direction," says Carol Lee, professor of radiology at Yale University School of Medicine and chair of the American College of Radiology's commission on breast imaging.

"If this decline holds up, it will be very worrisome," she says.

"We're looking at a possible increase in deaths if we see this continue," according to Diana Balma, vice president of public policy at Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Studies don't show which women -- rich or poor, young or old, educated or uneducated -- are skipping these critical screenings, but there are a few possible reasons for this dangerous drop.

Think about this:

Perhaps there are fewer facilities, staffed by fewer radiologists and technologists due to high lawsuit rates and modest reimbursement. This is scary -- because the number of women old enough to get screened is increasing.

Women may be missing out on all sorts of necessary medical care because of inadequate health insurance or other access problems.

Women may be choosing, for whatever reasons, not to get mammograms, despite strong public urging that women age 40 and older get screened one time every year.

And now think about this:

Recent news about declining breast cancer rates may not be all that good. It may not be that fewer women are developing breast cancer. It may simply be that fewer women are getting early diagnoses because of irregular or nonexistent screening.

Newer versions of oral contraceptives -- with lower levels of estrogen and progestin -- reduce the risk of ovarian cancer more than older concoctions of birth control pills

Researchers at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, whose work is published in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, say birth control pills have long decreased the risk of ovarian cancer. But over the years, doses of hormones in these pills have been decreased to reduce side effects -- and this seems to have an even stronger protective effect against the disease.

Studies show for women who had used any oral contraceptive a 50 percent reduction in risk of developing ovarian cancer compared to women who had never taken the pills. This risk was reduced by 38 percent
for women who took high estrogen and high progestin pills and by 81 percent for those taking pills with low levels of these hormones.

"Up to 42 percent of ovarian cancers might have been avoided if all women used some form of combined oral contraceptive pills," say researchers.

"An estimated 73 percent of ovarian cancers might have been avoided if all women used oral contraceptive pill formulation of low estrogen and low progestin."

A new PSA density test may help identify men at high risk of developing prostate cancer.

The test, used after a biopsy finds no signs of life-threatening prostate cancer, can compare the size of a man's prostate to his levels of a cancer-related protein called prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

Even though both men with high and low PSA densities can have clean biopsies, studies show it's men with very high PSA densities who are at greatest risk of developing prostate cancer. This and the fact that biopsies can miss between 20 and 33 percent of tumors makes this new test a potential breakthrough for the prevention and detection of prostate cancer.

National Cancer Institute director John Neiderhuber worries the NCI 2007 budget could be slashed by five to 10 percent. And he worries that key cancer research will inevitably come to a halt as a result.

Worries stem from budget cuts proposed by President Bush. Cuts would cost the NCI between $36 million and $4.7 billion -- but Bush reports that NCI funding has doubled in the past 10 years and would still remain relatively high. And due to the recent American Cancer Society announcement that cancer deaths dropped for the second straight year, White House spokesman Tony Fratto says, "We're proud of the significant investment that we have made in cancer research. We're also proud of the results showing that researchers are delivering on that investment."

But researchers still worry. They worry cuts will undermine their successes. They feel like the rug is being pulled out from under them, just as they are making significant progress. They suspect 95 clinical trials could be postponed or cancelled, 3,000 patients could miss the opportunity of joining a trial, and some cancers will be completely eliminated from studies.

"There is a real cost in human life," says Allen Lichter, executive vice president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, of the more-than-monetary toll budget cuts will take on NCI research efforts.

One study already on hold, pending funding decisions, is the next phase of a study evaluating whether a class of drugs called aromatase inhibitors, can prevent breast cancer. Another research group has opted to stop studying brain tumors. This is a huge loss to patients with this type of cancer, says Lichter.

It's a huge loss to all of us really -- because cancer will affect each of us in some way, some day. And so with cut budgets come cut hopes, cut dreams, and sadly -- cut survival.

It's an unsettling journey -- the pursuit of the five-year cancer survival mark. Some say each year of cancer survival makes the future more of a sure thing. And so surviving five years -- the traditional landmark of real remission -- is a big accomplishment. But then there's the perspective of numbers that for me say I have a 93 percent chance of surviving breast cancer for five years. After that, though, there's no telling what will happen. So I am eagerly awaiting the moment when I cross the five-year finish line as I anxiously realize this very same moment may also signal a more dismal outlook.

The paradox hit me straight in the face yesterday as I was waiting for my radiation oncologist to give me another six-month all clear announcement. I was reading the January/February 2007 issue of Coping magazine while I waited. And as I flipped through the pages, I landed right at these words:

Studies show that half of all breast cancer recurrences occur after completion of five years of standard tamoxifen therapy. Additionally, a third of women with estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer experience a recurrence, and more of half of these recurrences occur more than five years after surgery.

Now this doesn't apply directly to me. My breast cancer was estrogen receptor-negative which makes me a non-candidate for tamoxifen. And this is what scares me. My tumor was aggressive and while my treatment was also aggressive, I don't get the extra five-year protection from hormone therapy. If women taking this drug can have recurrences after completing the therapy, I wonder what's in store for me having not had it.

Maybe I'm making comparisons that don't amount to any real conclusions. Perhaps my type of disease allows for a more secure future. Or perhaps it places me on shaky ground. I don't know for sure. And I don't think I'll dive any deeper into research than I already have. Instead, I will live for today -- while enjoying the announcement my oncologist shared with me yesterday. All clear!

All cells in our body are programmed to die. They have a limited lifespan and they die when they are damaged, worn out or no longer needed by the body. This is a normal process called apoptosis, programmed cell death, that the body depends on to be healthy. When cells die they are replaced by new ones.

In cancer cells the process of apoptosis fails and the damaged cells live on and multiply indefinitely and uncontrollably. Most chemotherapy drugs that are given to cancer patients are aimed at killing fast dividing cells, this is sometimes successful at halting the disease but these drugs damage many normal tissues.

Researchers look to find smarter drugs that do not have severe side effects but target only the cancer cell itself. A new drug being studied in the lab suggests that it may prove to be more effective and less toxic than current chemotherapy drugs. The drug called ABT-737 has a different strategy for attacking cancer. Instead of poisoning the cancer cells, the new drug attempts to reactivate the cell death program that had failed.

The leader of the project, Dr. David Huang says "Much more remains to be done to assess the drug's safety and effectiveness in patients, but early results from the laboratory are promising. Our hope is that the new drug will prove to be more effective while having fewer side effects".

The lung cancer drug Gefitinib has been taken off shelves in the United States due to ineffectiveness. But it remains effective in some Taiwanese lung cancer patients, according to a study published in the journal Lung Cancer.

The study, conducted by the National Health Research Institutes, involved 65 non-small-cell lung cancer patients and found that more than 50 percent of participants responded to the drug therapy -- while only 10 percent respond in Western studies.

A genetic mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) was found in most patients who responded to Gefitinib. The mutation is rare in Western countries but much more common in East Asian countries where the mutation increases the likelihood of developing adenocarcinoma.

About 6,800 Taiwanese patients develop non-small-cell lung cancer every year. Of these, 65 percent of cases are adenocarcinoma. Of this group, 57 percent will have the genetic mutation. And roughly half will respond to Gefitinib.

In her award-winning documentary Toxic Bust, filmmaker Megan Siler takes on the issues and realities of toxic chemicals women are exposed to at home, in the community, and during work in relation to the potential links to breast cancer. Siler focuses on three breast cancer hot spots -- San Francisco and Silicon Valley in California and Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

Siler is not alone in her investigative work of environmental links to cancer risks. Even though the current percentage of federally-funded research dollars allocated to the links between cancer and exposure to environmental toxins is in the single-digits, there are those who have spent a good deal of time, energy and resources into studying the cause and effect of the environmental risks to cancer. In the last six years, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has conducted extensive studies regarding toxic chemicals in the environment. Among the 72 people who participated in the EWG studies, a chemical body burden of 455 industrial pollutants, pesticides and other chemicals in blood, urine, and breast milk were found.

The Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition analyzed the hair, blood, and urine samples of ten study participants and found that every person tested had at least 26 and as many as 39 toxic chemicals in his or her body and the exposure to toxic chemicals came from everyday activities and products. Breast Cancer Action released State of the Evidence 2006: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer? which provided compelling scientific evidence pointing to some of the 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use today as contributing to the development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone function or gene expression. The report also identifies radiation exposure, such as that from X-rays and CT scans, as the longest-established environmental cause of breast cancer. In the United States, a woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer has tripled in the last 40 years.

Wendy Mesley, co-host of CBC's Marketplace and breast cancer survivor, produced and hosted the investigative documentary Chasing the Cancer Answer, that provided revealing interviews with an outspoken American doctor, frustrated cancer victims in southern Ontario, pharmaceutical sales representatives in Paris, France, and activists working to increase awareness of prevention measures. Greenpeace issued a report that Chernobyl cancer deaths have been grossly underestimated. Award-winning and highly-respected journalist and public commentator Bill Moyers produced a PBS documentary Trade Secrets investigating the history of the chemical revolution and the body burden of synthetic chemicals that pose dangers to human health.

We have additional links related to the topic of environmental links to cancer risk at Earth Day: environmental cancer risks and Cancer Epidemic: are we poisoned from birth? Cancer defines about 100 diseases characterized by the uncontrolled, abnormal growth of cells. No one single factor is going to be the cause for all cancers. However, environmental exposure from toxic chemicals cannot be ignored as one, and perhaps multiple, contributing factors in raising the risks of developing cancer.