The researchers don't seem to know why, but there is a decline in the number of women in the United States age 40 or older who have had mammograms over the last two years.

A study published in the journal Cancer says that during the period from 1987 to 2000, there was a steady increase in women receiving mammograms. They believe this to be somewhat responsible for the increase in breast cancer survival that occurred during that period. Supporting the phrase -- early detection saves lives.

They evaluate the trends in mammography use by a survey that is administered to 35,000 adults called the National Health Interview Survey. The current analysis focused on women who had mammograms in the last two years. The survey showed that in the year 2000, 70 percent of women reported they had a mammogram in the previous two years. In the year 2005, the number was down to 66 percent.

Research indicates that young breast cancer survivors have a harder time recovering emotionally from cancer than women who develop the disease later in life.

In Australia, a quality of life survey including 300 women found most survivors adjusted normally within 18 months after diagnosis. But women under the age of 50 reported more of a struggle with their emotional health.

Perhaps it's the direct threat to her life, or her fertility, or her sexuality, or her body image that brings on the added challenge for a young woman. Regardless, there are no easy solutions or quick remedies for lightening the load that weighs heavily on young minds.

Breast cancer changes everything, and bouncing back from the disease takes time. And this research validates the need for programs targeted at younger women, as well as further research to more clearly identify how to better help breast cancer's youngest victims.

More than 47 percent of people view their pets as family members, according to a 2002 American Veterinary Medical Association survey. It makes sense then that people are routinely treating their pets for ailments that might strike a family member -- like arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, allergies, dementia, obesity, and yes, cancer.

New studies show that Americans are stuffing their pets with more drugs than ever before. They are medicating their dogs, cats, and sometimes other pets as much as they medicate themselves -- and they are doing it with many of the same human drugs they use for themselves, like steroids for inflammation, antibiotics for infection, anti-depressants for anxiety, and even new slendering drugs for obesity.

It's a big market -- pharmaceuticals for pets -- and for those who love their pets so much they can't let go, going to extremes is worth every penny.

Think about this:

• For dogs and cats alone, Americans spent $2.9 billion on pet drugs in 2005. While this is equal to only one percent of human drug sales, the market has grown by half since 2000.

• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved more than 40 new pet drugs in the past five years.

• A single three-month course of pet chemotherapy can cost $3,000 -- and chemotherapy doesn't typically extend the life of an animal as much as it soothes symptoms of the disease.

• Health insurance for pets was nearly invisible in 2002 but has gained popularity over the past few years. Premiums can cost $30 per month, and the total market is expected to climb to $500 million in the next five years.

• Some human drugs leave pets with unexpected, sometimes deadly, side effects. The drug Rimadyl, made by Pfizer and used as a treatment for dogs with arthritis, has been shown to cause kidney and liver damage in some animals. More than 3,000 pet deaths have been attributed to this drug.

• Some question the priorities of a society that allows for medically treating pets like they are humans. Dianne Dunning, an ethicist at N.C. State's vet school is concerned that millions of animals are lost, unwanted, and euthanized while millions are spent on pet medicines. David Rothman, an expert in medicine's role in society from Columbia University, says, "If you can't get malaria drugs in some Third World countries, what are we doing with chemotherapy for cats?"

• Others don't flinch at the expense it requires to keep their pets alive. One man, whose dog was expected to die of lymphoma within weeks, still enjoys the company of his pet some two years later. Chemotherapy saved the dog's life and when asked if he thinks the drugs are too expensive, this man says NO -- because his dog is still here.
  

Findings from an international study suggest that women with a waist size of more than 34 inches are more likely to develop cancer of the womb than women who boast slimmer waistlines.

The study, funded in part by the British charity Cancer Research UK, sized up 223,000 women worldwide and determined that women with a waistline less than 31 inches have half the risk of developing womb cancer than their heavier counterparts.

There has been a significant rise in cases of womb cancer in Britain. And the link between the disease and weight gain is most prevalent among postmenopausal women who have never used hormone replacement therapy or the birth control pill.

According to the National Sizing Survey conducted in 2004, the average British woman now has a 34-inch waist. This is more than six inches bigger than the average size of a woman in the 1950s, says Dr. Lesley Walker of Cancer Research UK.

"Women are larger than they were when they existed on a wartime diet and were generally more active and this is having serious consequences," Walker says.

More than 6,000 women in the UK are diagnosed with womb cancer each year. The disease kills about 1,000 annually.

This just in from a survey conducted by Cancer Research UK:

More than one in four British adults believe cancer results from nothing more than fate. That's 27 percent of the adult population claiming cancer risk comes down to fate and is not linked to human predisposition or behavior.

Clearly, there are proven cancer-reducing behaviors -- like stopping smoking, maintaining a healthy weight, eating fruits and vegetables, and avoiding the sun -- and the fact that so many adults don't realize that half of all cancer cases can be prevented by lifestyle is alarming.

Dr. Lesley Walker, director of information at Cancer Research UK, says education is key for this group, dominated by British residents living in the most deprived areas of Britain and those over the age of 65.

A report has been released by Breast Cancer Action (BCA), a grassroots education and advocacy organization, on the side effects of aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The report is called "Side Effects Revealed: Women's Experiences with Aromatase Inhibitors". The study analyzed 612 women's responses to an online survey of AIs and their side effects. You can find the report online at http://www.bcaction.org/AIreport.

The results showed that 92 percent reported at least one side effect. Nearly 30 percent reporting stopping the use of AIs--84 percent of those that stopped taking the drug reported that it was because of the intolerable side effects. Almost fifty percent of those that stopped taking the drug because of side effects complained of joint-related problems. Other side effects included stroke, cough, swelling of extremities, flu-like symptoms, and anxiety. Many women said they had joint related issues, vaginal atrophy and dryness and general pain.

Many of the women said they did not receive information about short or long term side effects from their physicians. Executive Director of BCA, Barbara Brenner, said "Patients know about the side effects before their doctors do--they experience them firsthand. Now that hundreds of women taking aromatase inhibitors have spoken, it's time for the medical research community to respond with additional research on the side effects of these drugs."

A previous post related to this topic:

Breast cancer survivors reject chemoprevention drugs

Minnesota tops state health rankings for the fourth straight year, according to the annual United Health Foundation report -- which also shows Americans are 0.3 percent healthier in 2006 than they were in 2005.

The United Health Foundation survey has been around for 17 years -- and for 11 of these years, Minnesota has been at the top of the healthy list.

Rankings are based on factors such as access to health care, incidence of preventable disease, smoking rates, child poverty rates, and motor vehicle deaths. Minnesota boasts a low rate of uninsured (8.4 percent), a low rate of child poverty (10 percent), and a low infant mortality rate (5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births).

The other states in the top five are Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Connecticut. Louisiana was rated the least-healthy state and shares this spotlight with Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

A few states -- New Mexico, Idaho and West Virginia -- show declines in overall health. And others -- Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Kansas -- show the most improvement.

According to the results of a survey, cancer patients and caregivers turn to the internet primarily to research treatment options and information about cancer drugs. Of all cancers, breast cancer is the most frequently researched cancer. Of those researching cancer, 33 percent researched breast cancer, 20 percent researched skin cancer, and 18 percent researched colorectal cancer. By percentage of cancers researched, the exact breakdown is:

Breast cancer 34 percent; skin cancer 19 percent; colon/rectal cancer 18 percent; prostate cancer 17 percent; lung cancer 17 percent; ovarian cancer 14 percent; non-Hodgkins Lymphoma 11 percent; pancreatic cancer 6 percent; bladder cancer 6 percent and kidney/renal and pelvis cancers 4 percent.

By percentage, the types of information cancer patients and caregivers searched for were:

Treatment options 70 percent; diagnosis/symptoms of cancer 70 percent; causes of cancer 52 percent; cancer drug-related information 40 percent; information on coping with cancer 38 percent; experiences of people with cancer 33 percent; information on accompanying disorders 31 percent; guidelines for prevention 29 percent; information on support organizations 26 percent and clinical trial information 22 percent.

To learn more, read the Cancer Sufferers and Caregivers Take Their Fight Against Cancer Online survey as provided by comScore Pharmaceutical Solutions, who conducted the survey.

As a cancer patient or caregiver, do you feel the results of this survey accurately reflect your activities online?

Only half of prostate cancer survivors who suffer from erectile dysfunction (ED) said that it was an issue that concerns them, according to a survey conducted by Harvard Medical School in Boston researchers, and therefore do not speak with the doctor about sexual difficulties or ask for help with therapy that might make a difference -- like being prescribed Viagra.

In this study the researchers learned that it also depends on the type of prostate cancer treatment that influenced whether a man was bothered by ED. Over 75 percent of men who underwent radical prostatectomy asked for help the most; about 50 percent of men who were treated with brachytherapy asked for help; and less than 40 percent of men who were treated with external beam radiation spoke with the doctor about ED in expressing concern about sexual difficulties.

Researchers explained that men who undergo radical prostatectomy will experience a sudden loss of ability to achieve an erection, and then erectile function gets better. But for men who are treated with radiation therapy, the erectile dysfunction problems gradually worsen over time, and these are the men most likely not to speak about it.

According to the researchers, "Additional study is clearly warranted to clarify whether radiotherapy patients are simply more accepting of treatment-induced declines in sexual function or if their less frequent use of such assistance measures represents an important, and unmet, healthcare need."

The National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), established to explore complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science; to integrate scientifically proven CAM practices into conventional medicine; to train CAM researchers; and disseminate authoritative information to the public and professionals -- offers these definitions for alternative, complementary and integrative therapy.

Alternative therapy is used in place of conventional western medicine such as special diets to treat cancer instead of undergoing surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy recommended by a conventional doctor.

Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine such as using aromatherapy to help lessen a patient's discomfort following surgery.

Integrative medicine combines both mainstream western medical treatment and CAM therapies for which there is known high-quality scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness.

Based on the 2002 edition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics report, in the US, up to 62 percent of adults use some form of CAM. Although the survey indicated that people who use CAM come from all backgrounds -- according to the survey -- some people more likely than others to use CAM are women, those with higher educational levels, people who have been hospitalized in the past year, and former smokers when compared with current smokers or those who have never smoked.

Research has proven some CAM therapies to be valid, while finding others useless, and research continues. NCCAM offers information on research, clinical trials, highlights and alerts, health topic fact sheets, and the CAM Online Continuing Education Series, presented in eight chapters, for health care providers and the public to learn more about CAM.

How can that be? I preface this post with the disclaimer that I am not a medical professional. I am open to the possibility of extenuating circumstances. But honestly, if an obese person told me they were living a healthy lifestyle -- eating nutritious meals and exercising vigorously at least three times a week -- I'd be looking over their shoulder for Alice and the hookah pipe smoking caterpillar -- because I'd be under the impression reality had just taken a wavy turn to the left.

According to the Michigan-based health-care research firm Thomson Medstat, in a survey study involving 11,000 people, the majority of obese Americans stated they are living a healthy lifestyle because of healthy living habits and over 75 percent indicated they are involved in vigorous exercise at least three times a week.

To this Dr. David Schutt, from Thomson Medstat said, "There is, perhaps, some denial going on. Or there is a lack of understanding of what does it mean to be eating healthy, and what is vigorous exercise." Ya think? I am certain I may have just alienated over 60 percent of the American population, because that is how many people in this country are considered overweight, according to the Records from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I do not get as much exercise as I should. While I am well aware of the benefits of consuming healthy food, I will admit to the enjoyment of the occasional Little Debbie Cosmic Brownie or slice of Funfetti cake with Funfetti frosting because quite frankly, it is cheery food. But I am realistic that the ten extra pounds I am carrying around has to do with the eating more and moving less syndrome, and I cannot imagine anyone who is overweight not realizing or owning up to the reasons for the extra weight. As to extenuating circumstances all I can think is perhaps the survey questions were framed in such a way as to make the results appear as if overweight people live in some foggy realm of denial? What's your take on this topic?

Based on a survey, researchers are suggesting that doctors might need to ask women patients specifically about the paternal history of breast cancer in their family because some women do not appear to know that both sides of the family tree are equally important -- or are simply underreporting that information. When 800 women were asked about a family history for breast cancer, more women reported the mother's family history for the disease, less for the father's family history for the disease.

Virginia Commonwealth University researchers speculate part of the reason for the lack of paternal history being reported is that men in a family are less likely to be told of a woman relative who has been diagnosed with breast cancer and therefore be unable to share the family history accurately.

In regard to this study, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine stated, "family history of breast cancer is a risk factor for the disease, so any underreporting could have serious consequences for the accuracy of screening for breast cancer."

This is our informal poll to see if we get different results than the survery did. Do you know both sides of your family history for breast cancer and do you report information about both sides as equally relevant? If you are a woman, when asked about family history for breast cancer, have you been asked about the history for both sides of your family?

According to data available on cancer patients and caregivers, of all the patients diagnosed with cancer, at least 50 percent will be cared for by a family member. Cancer Caregivers Strength for Caring points to a survey from the Journal of Family Nursing that provides insight into the life and unmet needs of a cancer caregiver.

Some of the information from the study reveals that 82 percent of cancer caregivers are women; 71 percent are married; 54 percent live with the patient; 47 percent are more than 50 years old and 36 percent reported care giving took more than 40 hours of time per week.

Cancer caregivers make certain the person they are caring for has everything they need and often take care of the cancer patient's normal daily tasks, errands and chores that the loved one with cancer might not be able to do for themselves while undergoing cancer surgery and treatments. What the study found was cancer caregivers do not take time to take care of themselves and the toll it takes on the caregiver can be negative and profound.

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.

No one wants to openly admit this is true but one of the reasons why lung cancer has not received the research dollars other cancers receive and why treatment for cancer seems to differ for lung cancer patients than treatment for patients diagnosed with other more acceptable cancers is, in part, because there is a widespread belief that lung cancer is directly tied to smoking. As a result, lung cancer has long been stigmatized. However, as Dana Reeve's death from lung cancer illuminated, lung cancer is not entirely the karmic consequence of bad health habits or from a willful lack of prudent decision-making in lifestyle. Sometimes lung cancer has nothing to do with smoking.