Women in England are not showing up for their annual pap tests. And their absence from this critical screening opportunity is increasing their risk of cervical cancer -- a cancer that is curable if detected early.

New figures reveal that 660,000 women between the ages of 25 and 29 are invited for screening in England. Nearly 80 percent of these women accepted their invitations and reported for their tests in 1995 -- but only 69.4 percent did so last year. Women aged 30 to 34 are also down in attendance -- by about 800 women per week. Essentially, this means about 2,000 women each year who have pre-cancerous cells are missing the chance for early detection and diagnosis.

The Department of Health, now investigating the falling figures, attributes the decline to perhaps a not-so-successful screening program, discomfort about the procedure, or fear that the experience will be embarrassing.

Scientists from Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are developing a tiny implant that will allow doctors to see what's happening with tumors from the inside out.

If all proceeds according to plan, doctors will one day be implanting tiny sensors inside tumors to determine whether or not cancer drugs are shrinking the tumors. The sensors will also determine whether or not tumors are growing.

Cancer specialists have long wished for better methods of measuring the success of drugs. While blood tests can show if a drug has reached the bloodstream, they don't reveal much about the tumor itself. This small silicone cube, no bigger than two millimeters on each side and embedded in a tumor or lymph node, would remain in the body throughout treatment while essentially broadcasting what's going on inside the tumor.

MIT scientists hope to begin animal experiments within months. Their goal is to one day make the implant as thin as the pieces of led used in mechanical pencils.

This research, funded by the National Cancer Institute, is part of a long-term project to make medical technologies that will cure cancer. It's all part of journey toward complete targeted cancer treatment. And this little implant will have the power to communicate whether or not these treatments are working.

Smoking is not an easy habit to break, and of the many methods tried, only a handful seem to work. Of the methods that do seem to work -- nicotine-replacement products; bupropion drugs; counseling; classes; calling a helpline or talking to a health professional -- younger smokers between the ages of 16 and 24 years who smoke and try to quit only use one of the recommended methods of help by talking to a professional. Because of this, younger smokers are less likely to be successful in quitting, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

During the 2003 National Youth Smoking Cessation Survey, the CDC found that younger smokers most often tried to quit smoking by cutting back on the number of cigarettes they smoked each day; not buying cigarettes; exercising; using the buddy system and trying to quit with a friend; telling others they were quitting and changing to a lighter brand of cigarette, switching to chewing tobacco, snuff, or other tobacco products. None of these methods are recommended by the US Public Health Service.

According to the National Youth Smoking Cessation Survey, 77 percent of younger smokers have tried to quit at least once without success. Over a third have tried to quit smoking numerous times without success. Researchers suggest that many younger smokers may need help with other high-risk behaviors such as binge drinking; depression or ADD/ADHD.

If you are a younger smoker who is trying to quit, the CDC encourages you to call 1-800-QUIT-NOW or talk to your physician about methods that might lead to more success. The 2-page summary of the National Youth Smoking Cessation Survey is available as a pdf document.

The magazine Beyond: Live and Thrive After Breast Cancer made its public debut on September 19 when it arrived on the shelves of bookstores and grocery stores across the United States. And the magazine -- created to help breast cancer survivors nurture their physical and emotional health -- has caused quite a stir already.

Readers of a previous Cancer Blog post introducing the magazine say they can't get enough it and can't wait for the next issue. Contributing Editor Martha Miller Johnson says it's been a crazy month for the magazine team. She reports that the magazine is selling incredibly well, that she is receiving the most amazing e-mails from a wonderful group of women. The Des Moines Register and Connecticut Post both have done big stories on the magazine and in the midst of the flurry of success, work has already begun on the next and second issue that will hit newsstands on March 20, 2007.

Beyond is published by Meredith Special Interest Media twice per year in Fall/Winter and Spring/Summer editions. Currently, subscriptions are not available, but the magazine is available all across America and can also be purchased on-line.

It's no surprise this magazine has caught the attention of people everywhere. It's a timely, colorful, glossy breast cancer handbook. It's chock full of candid stories, recent research, and helpful hints. It's a breast cancer community that is inspiring, hopeful, and completely comforting.

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.

George W. Bush declared five years ago that no federal funding would be allocated for embryonic stem cell research. He has not changed his mind -- and two weeks ago vetoed a bill that would allow this research. He says that supporting the bill would be supporting the taking of innocent human life in order to find medical benefits for others. For Bush, it crosses a moral boundary. But most Americans support stem cell research and would like to see the Bush White House loosen its restrictions, says Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Until this happens, though, scientists and researchers find themselves in an ethically-charged minefield, operating carefully and responsibly and ethically.

Dr. Peter Dirks -- a neurosurgeon specializing in childhood brain cancer at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children who has been making headlines around the world for isolating brain cancer stem cells two years ago -- is one person weighing in on controversial issue of stem cell research. Dirks does not use embryonic stem cells but instead uses cells from tumors removed during brain surgery that would otherwise be discarded. But he says embryonic stem cell research is critical for his success. It's what has led to the findings that exist today -- and it holds the clues for further discovery. It's a delicate matter, though, regardless of the politics surrounding the issue. Before he harvests stem cells from any patient's brain tumor, for example, Dirks asks parents to sign a three and a half-page consent form. And that's just the beginning.

Federally-funded embryonic stem cell research does not yet have its beginning here in the United States. Maybe the tides will change. Maybe we will see progress. Maybe we won't. Only time will tell.

I read something yesterday written by a reporter who is fed up with the treatment of celebrities in the media. She is tired of the spectacular headlines about babies born to celebrities and adoptions by celebrities and every-day struggles of celebrities that blur the fact that these same things happen to real people -- non-celebrities -- and are rarely covered in the news. Sure, some of the celebrity coverage may lead to awareness. The fact that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are talking of adopting another child may encourage others in the world to reach out to homeless children. But where is the news about hoards of women who gather and walk in search of a cure for breast cancer? And why was the coming-out announcement by former In Sync band member Lance Bass the top news story on CNN the other day? Because people pay attention to announcements like these -- and however disturbing it may be -- is causes a stir. And perhaps, like this reporter says, others will gain some strength from Bass and will tackle their own sexual orientation more openly.

A news story caught my attention the other night. Not because of the news -- initially -- but because of the names that were thrown around. Names like Kelly Ripa and Lindsey Lohan and Molly Shannon -- names that were not all that important in the scheme of the story I would eventually hear. But they hooked me. And then I learned about a great event that took place last Saturday in an effort to raise funds for ovarian cancer.

Super Saturday is a day-long summer fundraising event for the entire family -- created by Donna Karan and sponsored by In Style magazine. The day features a designer garage sale with more than 200 designers, a raffle, a carnival for kids, food and refreshments, and goodie bags. All proceeds -- from ticket sales and the garage sale and raffles -- go to the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. Last year's event raised $2 million. And this year, the tally for the ninth annual event that took place in the Hamptons, is yet to be reported. What was reported is that the event was a success -- and celebrities were in attendance. And that made me pay attention.

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.

If you plan to use the nicotine patch to quit smoking, it would be nice to know up front if it's going to work. Because nothing is more discouraging than making an attempt at something and believing you have help -- only to find out the help was no help at all. The problem seems to be in the basic fact that nicotine metabolizes in the body at different rates for different people. The higher the metabolism rate, the more cravings a smoker experiences. The more cravings, the less likely a standard nicotine patch will be effective. Researchers believe that a simple blood test to measure the rate at which a smoker metabolizes nicotine can predict the success or failure outcome of a smoking cessation program using the patch.

"If a prospective study replicates these results, we will be in a position to recommend this blood test to tailor the type and dose of nicotine replacement therapy for smokers who wish to quit," states Caryn Lerman, PhD, Associate Director for Cancer Control at the Abramson Cancer Center and Director of the University of Pennsylvania Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Center.

Here's what I am thinking -- if they know how the body metabolizes nicotine to satisfy the addictive cravings for nicotine, why can't they come up with something that blocks the process before it begins? Thereby making smoking a completely unsatisfactory experience. Just a thought.

Researchers report that the treatment success rate for younger men who undergo external beam radiation for prostate cancer is the same as it is for older men. This contradicts the traditional belief that radiation therapy is not considered a good choice for treating younger men because younger men are considered to suffer from more aggressive prostate cancer. But, according to the results of the study conducted by researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center, the five-year-survival was 94 percent for men 55 or younger, 95 percent for those 60 to 69, and 87 percent for men 70 or older when men of all age groups received the same external beam radiation treatment.

The researchers of this study added, "that the results of this study cannot be used to prove that radiation is as a good or better than radical prostatectomy because the study didn't include a prostatectomy arm. However, other studies have shown that external beam radiation is equivalent to permanent prostate seed implantation and radical prostatectomy in patients with T1-2 prostate cancer."

According to University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers, of the patients diagnosed with stage III or IV non-small-cell lung cancer, those who have never smoked respond better to chemotherapy and had better cancer survival rates than current or former smokers. Researchers speculate this might be due to the fact that patients who have never smoked do not have the same levels of genetic damage smokers do, in addition to better lung function. For smokers who continue to smoke, compared to smokers who quit at diagnosis, the outcome of chemotherapy treatment remained the same. However, for smokers who quit, the chances for developing new lung tumors decrease. The authors of the report conclude that continued efforts at campaigns designed to discourage people from taking up the smoking habit in the first place is a critical public health issue.