June 10th, 2011 by Peggy Polaneczky, M.D. in Health Tips
Tags: ca125, False Positives, Harm, NCI, OB/GYN, Obstetrics And Gynecology, Ovarian Cancer, PLCO, Radiology, Screening, Surgery, Transvaginal Ultrasound
No Comments »
In a large multicenter study enrolling over 70,000 women, annual screening with transvaginal pelvic ultrasound and ca125 blood testing did not reduce deaths from ovarian cancer, and in fact led to an increase in complications due to screening.
Investigators in the NCI-sponsored Prostate, Lung and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening trial randomly assigned over 78,000 women age 55-64 years of age to either annual screening with transvaginal pelvic sonograms for 4 years plus CA125 testing for 6 years or usual care at 10 study sites across the US., and followed the groups for up to 13 years. Over that time period, ovarian cancer rates in the screened group were 5.7 per 10,000 person-years vs 4.7 per 10,000 persons-years in the usual care group, with 3.1 deaths vs 2.6 deaths per 10,000 person years, respectively. Over 3000 women had false positive screening results, a third of whom had surgery and 15% of those operated on had a complications from their surgery. Deaths from other causes did not differ between the groups.
The investigators concluded that annual screening for ovarian cancer does not reduce mortality, and in fact caused harms among women with fals positive abnormal results.
This is not the first study that failed to find efficacy for ultrasound and ca125 in reducing mortality from ovarian cancer, but Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The Blog That Ate Manhattan*
June 10th, 2011 by PJSkerrett in Health Tips, News
Tags: Brain Cancer, Cancer, Cell Phones, Evidence, Health, IARC, Neurosurgery, Not Dangerous, Oncology, Technology
No Comments »
If the recent announcement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that cell phones may cause brain cancer has you worried, you might want to wait a bit before trashing your mobile phone and going back to a land line.
Last week, the IARC convened experts from around the world to assess what, if any, cancer threat cell phones pose to the 5 billion or so people who use them. After reviewing hundreds of studies, the IARC panel concluded that cell phone use may be connected to two types of brain cancer, glioma and acoustic neuroma.
That sounds mighty scary. But the IARC said the evidence for this conclusion was “limited.” Most studies have shown no connection between cell phone use and brain cancer. In the relatively small number of studies that have observed a connection between the two, the positive result could be due to chance, bias, or confounding.
The decision puts cell phones in IARC’s Group 2B category of agents that definitely or might cause cancer. Group 1 are things like asbestos, cigarette smoke, and ultraviolet radiation. Things in Group 2B are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Other denizens of this group include coffee, pickled vegetables, bracken ferns, and talcum powder.
I think the IARC decision puts cell phones on notice—a formal “we’ve got our eyes on you” warning—more than it fingers phones as a cause of brain cancer. For one thing, the evidence so far is pretty weak. Writing on the Cancer Research UK Web site, blogger Ed Yong offers a peak at the data through 2009, taken from a review by Swedish researchers. A graph from the paper shows that only one of 28 studies shows a statistically significant association between cell phone use and cancer. We’ll know more about the strength or weakness of the evidence when the panel publishes its report online later this week and in the July 1 issue of The Lancet Oncology.
For now, I’m far more concerned about being rammed by someone talking on his or her cell phone while driving than I am about getting brain cancer from a phone. If you think the IARC report warrants action, the FDA offers suggestions for reducing your exposure to radiofrequency energy from a cell phone, like using the phone less, texting instead of talking, and using speaker mode or a headset to place more distance between your head and the cell phone.
*This blog post was originally published at Harvard Health Blog*
June 9th, 2011 by RamonaBatesMD in Health Tips
Tags: Animal Bites, Anti-biotics, Bites, Donkey Bites, Horse Bites, Infectious Disease, Mammal Bites, Plastic Surgery, Surgery, Wound Care
1 Comment »
Earlier this week this tweet from @prsjournal caught my eye
Most Popular: Management of Horse and Donkey Bite Wounds: A Series of 24 Cases: No abstract available http://bit.ly/lgNkCS
I missed this article when it came out in the June 2010 issue of the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal. As I have covered fire ant bites, cat bites, and snake bites. Fellow blogger Bongi has written about hippo bites. It’s time to cover horse and donkey bites.
Dr. Köse, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Harran University Hospital, Turkey and colleagues presented a retrospective evaluation of 24 patients treated for animal bites (19 horse and five donkey bites) from 2003 to 2009. The head and neck were the most frequent bite sites (14 cases), followed by the extremities (8 cases) and the trunk (2 cases).
The article is very short, representing their personal viewpoint and experience. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
June 8th, 2011 by John Mandrola, M.D. in Health Tips
Tags: Cardiology, Cholesterol, HDL, Heart Disease, Internal Medicine, LDL, Lipitor, Mechanism Of Action, Statins, Unknown
No Comments »
When cyclists find out that I am a heart doctor, they most frequently ask about cholesterol numbers.
“…My cholesterol is this…What do you think?”
“…My doctor wants me to take a statin…But I read that these drugs might lower my functional threshold power 2.014 watts/40km.”
All this focus on numbers saddens me. Remember, I am a forest guy, not a tree guy. What’s more, as a doctor that revels in the adrenaline rush of ablating rogue circuits with technology that would impress even a twenty-something, I find questions about biochemistry dreary–like eating quinoa.
I wish folks would ask me about how to terminate AF with a catheter, or how an (evidenced-based) ICD saved a mom’s life, or perhaps even this: “Do you do heart surgery?”
But more often than not people want to know about cholesterol.
Okay. It just so happens that this week brought some very interesting news concerning the treatment of abnormal cholesterol lab values. News that big-picture docs have to like. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr John M*
June 8th, 2011 by PJSkerrett in Health Tips
Tags: Diet, Dietary Guidelines For Americans, Eating, Food Pyramid, Guidelines, Healthy Eating, MyPlate, Nutrition, Walter Willet
No Comments »
The crumbling Food Pyramid and its hip successor (MyPyramid) fell into oblivion yesterday, eroded by the stinging winds of science. Their replacement? A quartered plate called—wait for it—MyPlate that was designed to visually convey the elements of healthy eating to Americans of all ages.
The new icon consists of a white plate divided into four segments: green for vegetables, red for fruits, orange for grains, and purple for protein. Dairy has a prominent place, sitting where a glass of water should be. The hope is that the plate will nudge Americans away from meals dominated by meat and starch and towards meals made up mostly of plant-based foods.
The original Food Guide Pyramid debuted in 1992. It was built on shaky scientific ground. Over the next few years, research from around the world chipped away at the healthy eating message in the pyramid’s base (refined carbohydrates), the middle (meat and milk), and the tip (fats).
The Pyramid got an extreme makeover in 2005. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Harvard Health Blog*
In a large multicenter study enrolling over 70,000 women, annual screening with transvaginal pelvic ultrasound and ca125 blood testing did not reduce deaths from ovarian cancer, and in fact led to an increase in complications due to screening.
