Cancer patients who have heart attacks are typically not treated with a course of life-saving aspirin because of the belief that these patients might experience lethal bleeding.

This belief is now under dispute and researchers at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center say that without aspirin, the majority of these patients will die. Their arguments, subject of a recent study, will be published in the February 1 issue of the journal Cancer.

Aspirin has been viewed as harmful because of its tendency to thin blood. Because cancer patients can experience low platelet counts and abnormal clotting, aspirin has been considered a contraindication. But this study found that nine of 10 cancer patients with low platelet counts who experienced heart attacks and who did not receive aspirin died. Only one patient died, however, in a group of 17 cancer patients who received aspirin.

This conclusion -- that aspirin helps people with cancer just as it does for people without cancer -- may help medical professionals determine guidelines for treatment of heart attacks in cancer patients. Because right now, physicians are uncertain about how to balance treatment for both conditions.

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.

Cancer of the esophagus is one of the fastest rising cancers in the United States -- but the common screening test, both expensive and risky, is not widely used. Thankfully, a newer option, around since the mid-90s, is quicker and easier and is catching on around the country.

Trans-Nasal Esophagoscopy (TNE) is the better option, and it works like this: a doctor numbs the nose, inserts a thin, flexible tube -- no bigger than a pencil -- through the nostril and into the esophagus, removes a bit of tissue for biopsy purposes, takes a few pictures, and pulls the tube back out through the nostril. The patient gets to watch it all on a monitor and gets to depart from the procedure with no ill effects.

Traditional esophagus cancer screening involves a similar tube that is inserted through the mouth. Due to the gag reflex, patients are sedated. While there are often no complications from the procedure itself, the intravenous sedation can cause problems.

"You don't need those risks to see what's going on," says one doctor, who reports that esophageal cancer responds very well when caught early by tools like TNE.

In the continuing battle of the bulge, and realizing that more families eat out more often than ever before, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, commissioned a report to discover ways to stop the growing weight gain epidemic. Based on the Keystone Report, the FDA is recommending that restaurants cut back on portions, serve more fruits and vegetables and provide nutritional and caloric information with the meals they serve.

You can imagine how well this is going over with the 900,000 restaurants and other food establishments in this country. For a restaurant to implement what the government is suggesting they do, the report itself notes that the laboratory work needed to calculate the calorie content of a menu item can cost $100, or anywhere from $11,500 to $46,000 to analyze an entire menu. That is not taking into account any menu changes. But who exactly is making us fat?

Traditionally, the medical community has focused its resources on cancer treatment in saving lives. Rather recently, there is a growing trend and interest in cancer prevention. As a result, there is more awareness and conversation about the causes of cancer, and the ways to prevent cancer. Although less than ten percent of the population links cancer risks to obesity, one of the leading lifestyle factors that is known to raise the risk for cancer is obesity. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University conducted an online survey that revealed rather startling results. When it comes to obesity, half of the people who responded to the survey said they would give up a year of life rather than be obese. In addition, they indicated they would walk away from their marriage, give up the possibility of having children, be depressed or become alcoholic rather than be obese.

It gets more extreme. Five percent said they'd rather lose a limb than get fat, while four percent said they'd rather be blind than be overweight. Of those who responded, three percent were underweight, 41 percent were normal weight, 21 percent were overweight, 21 percent were obese and 14 percent were very obese. There is something desperately sad about the truth of how we feel about being fat. Being overweight is not good. Maintaining a healthy weight is good. However, it seems being fat is dangerously weighted in more than our concern for health. The psychological pain appears profound for many even considering the possibility of being overweight and illustrates the lengths people would be willing to go to be thin. Alcoholism? Loss of limb? Blindness?

Before I even get started, here is a sampling of the news headlines that are appearing in relation to a study indicating mothers who work outside the home are in better health than stay-at-home mothers. Working mothers less likely to become obese -- Working moms healthier than full-time homemakers -- Mothers who work enjoy better health -- Working Moms -- Healthier and thinner.

According to researchers who analyzed data from a study that tracked the health of women born in 1946 -- women who were employed outside the home were less likely than stay-at-home mothers and single mothers to report poor health or to be obese in middle age. Obesity is a known lifestyle factor contributing to a greater risk for a number of cancers. However, Dr Anne McMunn, of the University College in London, takes obesity into a debatable realm when she states that it has been known for some time that women who combine employment with motherhood and partnership have better health.

Reuters Health is reporting that Karin B. Michels of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston is stating the results of a research study suggest that women with larger breasts have a greater risk of developing breast cancer before menopause than women with smaller breasts do.

According to the research, if you are a skinny woman with large breasts, you have an 80 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than skinny women with small breasts do. The researchers did not find a link between bra cup size and breast cancer risk among overweight or obese women. Michels says it's just practical common sense. "The bigger the breast, the more breast cells. The more cells you have, the more cells are at risk for a potential mutation or malignant change." I see her logic, and I am not going to spend too much time arguing over this scientific study, but I do know many small breasted breast cancer survivors.