Health : Health Buzz: Avastin Shouldn't Be Used for Breast Cancer, FDA Says |
- Health Buzz: Avastin Shouldn't Be Used for Breast Cancer, FDA Says
- 15 Gift Ideas Under $50 for Fitness Buffs
- Health Buzz: Autism Risk Linked to Freeway Proximity
- Talking to Teens About Marijuana—9 Do's and Don'ts
| Health Buzz: Avastin Shouldn't Be Used for Breast Cancer, FDA Says Posted: 17 Dec 2010 03:28 PM PST FDA: Risks Outweigh Potential Benefits of Drug The drug Avastin should no longer be approved to fight breast cancer, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded Thursday. The agency cited studies that have shown the drug doesn't prolong survival or slow the disease's progression and that it carries substantial risks, including severe high blood pressure, bleeding and hemorrhaging, and heart attack or heart failure. The agency's announcement does not mean it will remove Avastin from the market. For now, the drug continues to hold its approved status for breast cancer, pending an appeal process. Moreover, the FDA has not proposed revoking the drug's approvals for cancers of the colon, kidneys, brain, and lungs. Oncologists treating breast-cancer patients with Avastin should use their judgment in deciding whether to continue treatment or use other options, according to the FDA. Avastin's maker, Genentech, which received approval to market the treatment for breast cancer in 2008, indicated on Thursday that it would exercise the right to a hearing to contest the FDA's proposed revocation. The FDA's announcement follows the advice of an independent committee, which, in a 12-1 vote last July, recommended the FDA revoke the approval. While it's difficult to know whether a certain medication will help a breast-cancer patient, aspirin may be an effective therapy for survivors to cut risk of the disease's recurrence, U.S. News's Bernadine Healy reported in February. From: Aspirin: A Blockbuster Therapy for Breast Cancer Survivors? "Has it spread?" "Am I going to die?" These are the heart-sinking questions that invariably run through the minds of women who have been told that they have breast cancer. They courageously take on surgery, long and arduous chemotherapy, and radiation treatments, hoping to fend off the fate of the 40,000 women whose breast cancer will take a deadly turn this year, reappearing and relentlessly spreading throughout their body. The report released in February from the Nurses' Health Study, in a rather understated way, offers 2 million American women who have had breast cancer some vital and actionable information. Taking a single aspirin tablet—a baby aspirin or one adult pill—every other day can be lifesaving. (In fact, were these aspirin tablets a hot new biotech drug, we would be popping champagne right now.) The long-term, low-dose aspirin program was initiated a year or more after the cancer diagnosis as an add-on to treatment, not as a substitute for it, to control the fate of tumor cells silently left behind. For some women, this post-treatment phase is one in which the cancer has gone underground and not entirely disappeared. It can lead to unexpected recurrence with the cancer spreading sometimes 10 to 20 years after diagnosis. Scientists seem to have stumbled upon an easy way to cut that risk. The study followed 4,164 breast cancer survivors over a period from 1976 to 2006, assessing in detail their use of aspirin. The women studied initially presented with tumors ranging from small early invasive cancers confined to the breast to more advanced ones that had spread into surrounding lymph nodes. Over more than three decades of follow-up, 400 women had a cancer recurrence with distant tumor spread, which had killed 341 of them by the time the study ended. The power to spread is the power to kill, and what aspirin seems to be doing is interfering with that process. It was by coincidence, not by design, that almost half of the medically smart women in the NHS were diligently taking aspirin. The surprise finding: Those who made aspirin a regular habit, consuming low doses two to five times a week (mostly to help their hearts), were 71 percent less likely to have a deadly recurrence of their breast cancer compared to those who were taking little or no aspirin. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| 15 Gift Ideas Under $50 for Fitness Buffs Posted: 17 Dec 2010 03:17 PM PST This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Health Buzz: Autism Risk Linked to Freeway Proximity Posted: 17 Dec 2010 10:00 AM PST Living Close to a Freeway May Increase Autism Risk Could where you live could increase your child's chances of developing autism? New research suggests babies born to mothers who live close to freeways have double the risk of becoming autistic compared to other kids, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers examined nearly 600 children ages 2 to 5—roughly half of whom had autism— in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Those whose homes were within 1,000 feet of a freeway at birth appeared to be twice as likely to have autism, though the association didn't extend to major roads. Why freeways and not other highly-trafficked thoroughfares? Perhaps it's because of the type and quantity of the chemicals dispersed, the researchers speculated; in Los Angeles, for example, more than 300,000 cars cross some freeways daily, spewing pollutants. Past studies have linked autism to air pollutants, but the latest findings are the first to connect vehicular pollutants to the disorder. "This study isn't saying exposure to air pollution or exposure to traffic causes autism," lead researcher Heather Volk of the Saban Research Institute at Children's Hospital Los Angeles told The Los Angeles Times. "But it could be one of the factors that are contributing to its increase." Reported cases of autism jumped by 57 percent between 2002 and 2006, and about 1 in 110 children now has the disorder.
Want to Get in Shape? Take the Obama Challenge Remember when you were a schoolkid running a mile and groaning through push-ups to meet the president's physical fitness challenge? Now you can sign up for the Obama version of the program, along with your own kids, U.S. News reports. The latest challenge, part of first lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" initiative to end childhood obesity, aims to get 1 million children and their parents on their feet and moving daily. Stick it out for two months or so and you earn an official Presidential Active Lifestyle Award. The PALA challenge requires adults to exercise for 30 minutes a day—kids, for an hour—five days a week for six out of eight weeks. Or you can wear a pedometer and count your daily steps (adult target: 8,500; kids' target: 11,000 for girls and 13,000 for boys). Sign up for free at Fitness.gov, where you can also log your activities. Online fitness tests can help you assess your endurance, muscle strength, and flexibility, and measure the progress you're making with your workouts. [Read more: Want to Get in Shape? Take the Obama Challenge.]
TV Watching Is Bad for Babies' Brains Babies who watch TV are more likely to have delayed cognitive development and language at 14 months, especially if they're watching programs intended for adults and older children. We probably knew that 24 and Grey's Anatomy don't really qualify as educational content, but it's surprising that TV-watching made a difference at such a tender age, writes U.S. News contributor Nancy Shute. Babies who watched 60 minutes of TV daily had developmental scores one-third lower at 14 months than babies who weren't watching that much TV. Though their developmental scores were still in the normal range, the discrepancy may be due to the fact that when kids and parents are watching TV, they're missing out on talking, playing, and interactions that are essential to learning and development. This new study, which appeared in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, followed 259 lower-income families in New York, most of whom spoke Spanish as their primary language at home. Other studies examining higher-income families have also come to the same conclusion: TV watching not only isn't educational, but it seems to stunt babies' development. [Read more: TV Watching Is Bad for Babies' Brains.] This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Talking to Teens About Marijuana—9 Do's and Don'ts Posted: 17 Dec 2010 09:01 AM PST This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Health Buzz To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment