Wouldn't it be great if we could receive full-body scans every year to check for early signs of cancer and other disease? Even if possible and affordable -- right now, scans cost about $900 -- it still wouldn't be such a great idea.

Full-body scans often result in false alarms. People with harmless abnormalities may end up facing more tests, more risks, and more worry in order to rule out illness. The scan itself can present health hazards too. It exposes patients to more radiation than a chest X-ray and could slightly increase the risk of cancer, especially for those scanned every year.

How do we know, then, if something has gone awry in our bodies? Well, we can do our self-exams -- breast exams, testicular exams, skin exams -- and we can report for annual check-ups. We can respond to symptoms we experience -- if headaches are bothersome and persistent, your doctor may prescribe a head scan -- and we can pursue tests and screening that we really need for cancer prevention and early detection. Here are just a few:

OK, women of the world. Grab some paper and a pen and jot down this list of seven check-ups every woman needs. Don't just write them down, though. Make sure you take action on each and every one. They might just save your life.

1. Start with your weight, height, and BMI (body mass index). The scores you get on these simple tests are important because many conditions and diseases are associated with being overweight or underweight.

2. Check your blood pressure, and find out where you stand because hypertension is a disease with no symptoms. High blood pressure puts you at risk for cardiovascular disease -- but there are very effective treatments for this condition.

It's something that's painful and infuriating to me in my own experience, and thus something I feel very strongly about: people getting denied tests and treatment because of long line-ups of patients and limited resources.

It happens all the time in countries where healthcare is public, though we don't always hear about it. But here's one instance where we do: thousands of women are being denied breast exams in Oxfordshire, UK, because of staffing shortages. Women there between 50 and 70 are rightly entitles to a screening every 6 months but the NHS can't keep up with the demand and is turning women away. This has outraged cancer specialists and survivors, though they can't do much about it at this point.

Say what you will about the importance of public healthcare, but when things like this are happening, it should be a rather large indicator that it's just not working. My dad couldn't get screened for cancer until a couple of weeks before he passed away, and by then, obviously, it was too late.

Ovarian cancer is difficult to detect. There are no great screening tests to pick up on its presence in the body, and by the time symptoms appear, the disease has often progressed into an advanced stage. But a ray of light has recently emerged in the study of ovarian cancer -- and it could help in the prevention and early detection of this deadly disease.

Think about this, from the April 2007 issue of Woman's Day magazine:

Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine have identified a simple checklist of six symptoms associated with an increased risk of the disease and three of them -- if they occur at least 12 times per month and are present for less than one year -- were present 57 percent of the time in a study of women with early-stage disease.

And the three symptoms are: abdominal and pelvic pain, bloating and difficulty eating, and feeling full quickly.

If you experience these problems, especially if they are frequent or new, contact your doctor because identifying ovarian cancer quickly is key. In its early stages, the cure rate is 90 percent. But for advanced cancer, it's only 20 percent.

It might not be possible at this time to eradicate cancer altogether. But we may be able to stop cancer cells in their tracks through a process called senescence.

In senescence, cells don't divide. And when cells don't divide, they don't grow. In such a scenario then, cancer cells wouldn't divide and therefore couldn't grow.

Think about this:

According to lab tests on mice, triggering senescence in certain cells hampers the growth of some tumors.

Researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston are the ones behind the scenes on this project -- the study appears online in EMBO Reports, a publication of the European Molecular Biology Organization -- and all eyes are on the p53 gene.

The p53 gene lives within cells and works to nip cancer in the bud by springing to action in damaged cells that may be spinning themselves into a cancer frenzy.

Researchers say senescence ordered by the p53 gene is extremely important in suppressing tumor formation and is as important as apoptosis -- a type of programmed cell death. But in some cancers, senescence might not be enough to halt cancer, they found.

OK, so senescence is not a perfect approach to halting all cancers. But it seems to work for some -- so I say for now, let's take what we can get.

One out of three Americans will get cancer before they die. Who is at the highest risk?

Dr. David Nanus, an oncologist who has been treating cancer patients for over twenty years, says that "If you're obese or overweight, you have an increased incidence in a number of cancers". Nanus also tells CBS news that someone with a family history, someone who smokes, has a high fat diet and does not exercise are in the highest risk category for developing cancer in their lifetime.

According to the American Cancer Institute about one third of cancer deaths in 2006 were related to nutrition, physical inactivity and being overweight or obese -- and could have been prevented.

Nanus also says that "The biggest problem is the fear factor. People are so afraid of being diagnosed with cancer they wait. Even waiting three months can mean a difference between life and death.

White House press secretary and colon cancer survivor Tony Snow asks the public to refrain from jumping to conclusions regarding the surgery he will have on Monday to remove a growth from his lower abdomen.

Blood tests and a CAT scan of the growth show no presence of cancer, he reports. But still, he and doctors are proceeding cautiously due to his history.

Snow, a former Fox News radio and television talk show host, was diagnosed with cancer two years ago, when he was a commentator at Fox. Two months after surgery, he returned to the air and then became White House press secretary in April 2006.

Snow's plan is to be back behind the podium a few weeks after surgery, when he has a better idea of what it is he's dealing with.

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, has had many routine medical follow-ups since her 2004 breast cancer diagnosis. And all of them -- until just a few days ago -- resulted in what is generally termed a clean bill of health.

The term doesn't always come with a sense of relief for those of us surviving breast cancer -- or any cancer for that matter -- because it only really defines what our bodies are telling us at one specific moment. There are no magic blood tests, no special body scans, no conclusive ways of determining whether or not cancerous cells have gone astray and will one day surface again.

I asked my oncologist after my first six-month follow-up how he would know if my cancer returns. He told me it's really up to me to determine whether it comes back. It's up to me to get mammograms and ultrasounds and MRIs. It's up to me to report any symptoms and suspicions. It's up to me to track my general well-being so that it will be clear when something feels not-so-right. If I have a persistent cough or headaches that won't subside, my doctor will take action with X-rays and scans and tests. But as long as I feel fine and nothing troubling presents itself, then I remain in the clean-bill-of-health club.

Edwards no longer has a clean bill of health. But she is determined to use her newest diagnosis -- stage four metastatic cancer of the bones, considered treatable but not curable -- to work toward the best health she can acquire for as long as she can hold onto it. And that is about as good as any of us can do.

There are four pages in the March 2007 Reader's Digest featuring amazing discoveries, devices, tests, and cures. And many of the snippets of information are -- yes -- somehow linked to cancer.

Think about this:

• A new ultrasound technique lets radiologists distinguish between malignant and benign breast lesions. Using elasticity imaging, researchers accurately identified harmless and cancerous lesions in almost all of the 80 cases studied. If results can be reproduced in a large trial, this technique could significantly reduce the number of breast biopsies required.

• Scientists seeking new treatment for diseases can use an online tool developed by researchers at MIT and Harvard. The Connectivity Map matches diseases with compatible drugs, based on the genetic profiles of both. So far, about 160 drugs and compounds are cataloged, and a few new uses for existing drugs have already been suggested. Eventually, all FDA-approved drugs will be included.

• For those who sometimes forget to take their pills, a new device -- that can be preloaded with up to 100 doses of medication -- could one day be implanted in the body and programmed to administer drugs via wireless signals. This device, successful in tests using dogs, was designed to deliver medicines that are less effective when taken orally.

Sometimes it seems cancer's grip is tightening. Other times, in the war against this pesky disease, it seems we are on the verge of something really great.

This e-mail just arrived in my inbox. It's one of those chain things -- you know, the read this and forward it to 11 people or all your plumbing will blow up messages. And while I don't tend to pass on to friends and family these types of scare tactics, I realize that the words that follow are definitely worth a read.

So I've extracted all warning and threats from the message I received, and I've pared it down to a very funny piece of prose I believe will strike a chord with women everywhere who know how very important -- and how very painful and humiliating -- the dreaded mammogram can be.

And so here it is, in all it's glory. Read it, absorb it, love it, and pass it on. Or don't pass it on. I'll be OK with your decision either way. Promise.

Go Get Your Mammies Grammed

For years and years they told me,
Be careful of your breasts.
Don't ever squeeze or bruise them.
And give them monthly tests.
So I heeded all their warnings,
And protected them by law.
Guarded them very carefully,
And I always wore my bra.
After 30 years of astute care,
My gyno, Dr Pruitt,
Said I should get a Mammogram
"OK," I said, "let's do it."
"Stand up here real close" she said,
(She got my boob in line),
"And tell me when it hurts," she said,
"Ah yes! Right there, that's fine."
She stepped upon a pedal,
I could not believe my eyes!
A plastic plate came slamming down,
My hooters in a vise!
My skin was stretched and mangled,
From underneath my chin.
My poor boob was being squashed,
To Swedish Pancake thin.
Excruciating pain I felt,
Within it's viselike grip.
A prisoner in this vicious thing,
My poor defenseless tit!
"Take a deep breath," she said to me,
Who does she think she's kidding?!?
My chest is mashed in her machine,
And woozy I am getting.
"There, that's good," I heard her say,
(The room was slowly swaying.)
"Now, let's have a go at the other one."
Have mercy, I was praying.
It squeezed me from both up and down,
It squeezed me from both sides.
I'll bet SHE'S never had this done,
To HER tender little hide.
Next time that they make me do this,
I will request a blindfold.
I have no wish to see again,
My knockers getting steam rolled.
If I had no problem when I came in,
I surely have one now.
If there had been a cyst in there,
It would have gone "ker-pow!"
This machine was created by a man,
Of this, I have no doubt.
I'd like to stick his balls in there,
And, see how THEY come out!

Author Unknown

Katherine Schaefer was investigating methods for treating the inflammation seen in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis when something terrible happened -- she noticed her carefully cultured cells were dead. And then something wonderful happened -- she realized she had stumbled upon a potential new method of attacking cancerous tumors that have become resistant to existing drugs.

Schaefer and her colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York were testing a compound called a PPAR-gamma modulator -- a compound never considered a cancer drug, or a drug of any kind really -- when Schaefer made a calculation error and used a lot more of the compound than she should have. And her cells died.

Upon further study, Schaefer found the compound killed just about every possible epithelial tumor cell. These cells line organs such as the colon and also the skin. The compound, that works like taxane drugs but without eventual tumor resistance, also killed colon tumors in mice without making them sick.

The research team, whose findings are published in the journal International Cancer Research, plans more safety tests in mice. And eventually, if their outcomes are promising, they plan to design something they can patent as a new drug -- because they would love to see this disastrous lab experiment one day lead to treatment for cancers of the colon, esophagus, liver, and skin.

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.

Radioactive cancer patients attending this weekend's Super Bowl in Miami could be in for an alarming experience when they pass through radiation detectors designed to signal the presence of dirty bombs. Such cancer patients -- who have received treatment using radioisotopes and still may have tiny amounts of radioactive material in their bodies -- may want to come armed with letters from their doctors explaining their precarious set of circumstances.

The use of radioisotopes in medicine is growing -- and so is the use of radiation detectors in our security-conscious nation, which means patients are triggering alarms when they are not even aware they are being scanned, doctors and security officials say.

Nearly 60,000 people a day in the United States undergo treatment or tests that leave traces of radioactive material in their bodies, according to the Society of Nuclear Medicine. These traces are not enough to hurt anyone, but they are enough to trigger radiation alarms for up to three months.

Radioisotopes are commonly used to diagnose and treat certain cancers and thyroid disorders, to analyze heart function, and to scan bones and lungs. And many doctors already know to equip their patients with travel cards because of the problems they can encounter in public places.

Nearly 20 million nuclear medical procedures were performed in the United States in 2005 -- up 15 percent from 2001. Clearly, the number of people who could be mistaken for terrorists is quite large. So if you are one of these people -- with the power to create a buzz in a public setting -- get your papers in order so you can quickly confirm your identity as nothing more than a cancer patient.

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.