Pages

Showing posts with label Cancer fighting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cancer fighting. Show all posts

Saturday, 22 June 2019

Cutting cancer risks | 10 recommendations


https://healthticket.blogspot.com/2019/06/game-changing-cancer-drugs-which-can.html



Our cancer prevention recommendations

Cutting out high-calorie foods and sugary drinks. Drinking less alcohol. Losing weight.
What changes could you make to your life to reduce your risk of getting cancer?
Based on the latest scientific research about how to prevent cancer, our advice is practical and simple to understand.
Cancer Prevention Recommendations weight graphic

Be a healthy weight

Keep your weight within the healthy range and avoid weight gain in later life
Cancer Prevention Recommendations physical activity graphic

Move more

Be physically active as part of everyday life – walk more and sit less
Cancer Prevention Recommendations wholegrains graphic

Enjoy more grains, veg, fruit & beans

Eat a wide variety of wholegrains, vegetables, fruit and pulses such as beans
Cancer Prevention Recommendations fast food graphic

Avoid high-calorie foods

Limit consumption of fast foods and other processed foods high in fat or sugar
Cancer Prevention Recommendations red meat graphic

Limit consumption of red and processed meat

Eat no more than three portions of red meat a week and eat little, if any, processed meat
Cancer Prevention Recommendations alcoholic drinks graphic

For cancer prevention, don’t drink alcohol

If you do, limit alcoholic drinks and follow national guidelines
Cancer Prevention Recommendations supplements graphic

Don’t rely on supplements

Eat a healthy diet rather than relying on supplements to protect against cancer
Cancer Prevention Recommendations breastfeeding graphic

Breastfeed your baby

If you can, breastfeed your baby for six months before adding other liquids and foods
Cancer Prevention Recommendations cancer survivors graphic

Cancer survivors

After a cancer diagnosis, follow our recommendations, if you can

Our recommendations

How do we know that they work?
























https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventing-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations

Game-changing cancer drugs which can attack all tumours will be fast-tracked by NHS

Game-changing cancer drugs which can attack all types of tumour will be fast-tracked by the NHS, the head of the health service will today announce.
A computer illustration of cancer cells
A revolutionary class of treatments could offer hope to thousands of patients in cases which were previously untreatable CREDIT: SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Simon Stevens will say that a revolutionary class of treatments - known as “tumour agnostic” drugs - could offer hope to thousands of patients in cases which were previously untreatable.
They work by targeting tumours according to their genetic make-up, rather than where they originate in the body.
As a result, they can be used to treat a range of type of diseases - shrinking tumours in up to three quarters of cancers tested.
Today Mr Stevens will tell a conference of NHS leaders in Manchester that preparations are underway to ensure the next generation of treatment can be quickly made available to patients.
Two of the first drugs are expected to be licenced later this year, and could be approved by NHS rationing bodies soon after, depending on price negotiations.
Earlier detection and treatment of cancer is a central part of the long-term plan for the health service.
Mr Stevens is expected to tell the NHS Confederation conference: “This exciting new breakthrough in cancer treatment is the latest example of how the NHS can lead the way in the new era of personalised cancer care.
“The benefits for patients, in particular children, of being able to treat many different types of cancers with one drug is potentially huge, helping them to lead longer, healthier lives.”
It follows a decision last year to make England the first country in Europe to fund another pioneering treatment, called Car-T, which programmes the body to attack rogue cells, for children.
Today Mr Stevens will say that children should also be among the first to benefit from the new generation of drugs, which target tumours with the genetic variation which accelerates growth.
With such treatments, testing the tumour’s genes or other molecular features assists in deciding which treatments may be best, regardless of where the cancer is located.
The advances are possible because of the NHS national genomic medicine and testing service, launched last year, which allows patients to be tested to see who can benefit from access to targeted treatment, often when no other options are available.
The genetic flaw - known as neurotropic tyrosine receptor kinase, or NTRK - is most commonly found in rare cancers such as  salivary tumours and infantile fibrosarcoma but is also in low levels in more common cancers.
Two drugs - Larotrectinib, produced by Bayer, and entrectinib, from Roche, are expected to be the first drugs to be licenced, later this year.
Health officials said around 850 patients a year could benefit from the frontrunners while many thousands a year are eventually expected to benefit from other treatments on the horizon.
The drugs work by blocking the NTRK enzyme, effectively shrinking the tumour. Early clinical trials showed the tumour responded in two thirds to three quarters of the cancers tested.
Existing cancer drugs need to be approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for each individual type of cancer they treat such as breast or colon cancer.
However, when approved, the new drugs would be available to treat all types of tumour without individual approval.
Mr Stevens will urge health leaders to prepare to introduce the drugs, ahead of meetings next week about how to ensure speedy adoption of the drugs.
Today he will also say that manufacturers need to set fair and affordable prices for the treatments. In recent months, a number of deals have been agreed between the NHS and manufacturers, allowing the rollout of drugs for rare disease, but they remain at loggerheads about the pricing of a treatment for cystic fibrosis, which the NHS refuses to fund.
Mr Stevens will today say: “Preparations are underway to make sure the NHS can adopt these next generation of treatments, but manufacturers need to set fair and affordable prices so treatments can be made available to those who need them.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/18/game-changing-cancer-drugs-can-attack-tumours-will-fast-tracked/






Monday, 1 April 2019

Scientists behind game-changing cancer immunotherapies win Nobel medicine prize

STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Reuters) - American James Allison and Japanese Tasuku Honjo won the 2018 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine on Monday for game-changing discoveries about how to harness and manipulate the immune system to fight cancer.
Monday, 1 Oct 2018
The scientists' work in the 1990s has since swiftly led to new and dramatically improved therapies for cancers such as melanoma and lung cancer, which had previously been extremely difficult to treat.
"The seminal discoveries by the two Laureates constitute a landmark in our fight against cancer," the Nobel Assembly at Sweden's Karolinska Institute said as it awarded the prize of nine million Swedish crowns (766,930 pounds).
Allison and Honjo showed releasing the brakes on the immune system can unleash its power to attack cancer. The resulting treatments, known as immune checkpoint blockade, have "fundamentally changed the outcome" for some advanced cancer patients," the Nobel institute said.
The literature prize will not be handed out this year after the awarding body was hit by a sexual misconduct scandal. A Swedish court on Monday found a man at the centre of the scandal guilty of rape and sentenced him to two years in jail.
REVOLUTIONISED CANCER TREATMENT
Allison's and Honjo's work focussed on proteins that act as brakes on the immune system - preventing the body's main immune cells, known as T-cells, from attacking tumours effectively.
Allison, a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, worked on a protein known as CTLA-4 and realised that if this could be blocked, a brake would be released.
"It immediately occurred to me, and some of the people in my lab, that maybe we can use this to unleash the immune system to attack cancer cells," Allison told a news conference after getting the prize.
Honjo, a professor at Kyoto University since 1984, separately discovered a second protein called PD-1 and found that it too acted as an immune system brake, but with a different mechanism.
The discoveries led to the creation of a multibillion-dollar market for new cancer medicines.
Bristol-Myers Squibb's CTLA-4 therapy Yervoy was the first such drug to win approval, in 2011. However, it is medicines targeting PD-1 blockade that have proved a bigger commercial hit, led by Merck & Co's Keytruda in 2014.
These and rival drugs from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Sanofi now offer new options for patients with melanoma, lung and bladder cancers.
Sales of such medicines, which are given as infusions, are expected to reach some $15 billion this year, according to Thomson Reuters consensus forecasts. Some analysts see eventual revenues of $50 billion.
Honjo, who is now 76, told a news conference in Tokyo he was honoured to get the Nobel, but his work was not yet done.
"I would like to keep on doing my research ...so that this immune treatment could save more cancer patients," he said.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe congratulated Honjo in a phone call, telling him: "I believe the achievements of your research have given cancer patients hope and light."
Allison told a news conference he was in a "state of shock" hours after learning from his son that he had won a Nobel prize.
"As a basic scientist, to have my work really impact people is just one of the best things," he said. "I think it's everybody's dream. And I've been lucky enough to do work that is benefiting people now."
Commenting on the award, Kevin Harrington, a professor at the Institute of Cancer Research in London, said the work had revolutionised cancer treatment.
"We’ve gone from being in a situation where patients were effectively untreatable to having a range of immunotherapy options that, when they work, work very well indeed," he said in a statement. "For some patients we see their tumours shrink or completely disappear and are effectively cured."
Graphic of Nobel laureates: http://tmsnrt.rs/2y6ATVW

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2018/10/01/2018-nobel-medicine-prize-awarded-for-cancer-research/

Let’s look at lungs, closely

Lung cancer is the third most common cancer in Malaysia, accounting for 19.8% of all medically certified cancer mortality in this country (Second Report of the National Cancer Registry, Cancer Incidence in Malaysia).
Monday, 26 Mar 2018
Catch it early: The importance of early diagnosis cannot be emphasised enough – early detection of lung cancer remains the cornerstone of treatment success.
Catch it early: The importance of early diagnosis cannot be emphasised enough – early detection of lung cancer remains the cornerstone of treatment success.
Since most lung cancer patients are diagnosed when they reach an advanced, incurable stage, mortality rates in Malaysia remain high – over 75% of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at either stage III or IV, and often, patients can only be offered palliative but expensive therapy.
It is a well known fact that individuals who have had family members diagnosed with cancer are prone to developing the disease themselves.
And while genetics may predispose certain people to lung cancer, cigarette smoking remains a major risk factor.
Local data suggests 92% of Malaysian male lung cancer patients have a significant history of smoking.
Lung cancer occurs mostly in men over age 50, and the incidence in those under age 40 is relatively lower (approximately 5%).
In spite of the statistics, cigarette smoking in Malaysia starts early, with a whopping 36.9% of children between ages 14 and 15 using e-cigarettes and vaping devices.
Despite the Government’s best efforts to deter Malaysians from picking up the habit – including a National Strategic Plan to make Malaysia smoke-free by 2045, the prevalence of smoking in Malaysia is exceptionally high.
Smoking not only harms the health of an individual or family, but has serious implications on our national treasury.
The morbidity and therapy of smoking-related diseases account for approximately RM440mil annually, and is thus a major economic burden on our personal and national healthcare finances.
The high prevalence of lung cancer in Malaysia and the fact that smoking is the most common, preventable cause of death, mandates serious consideration for disease screening.
Screening for lung cancer ups the chances of early diagnosis, facilitating early effective intervention.
There is no question that the earlier a lung cancer is diagnosed and treated, the better the patient’s chance of survival.
Studies from the United States, UK and Europe have shown that screening for lung cancer increases the chances of early diagnoses.
Published studies evaluating the efficacy of a lung cancer screening programme indicate the need to target screening of individuals of the highest risk to make the programme cost-effective.
Our collective challenge, therefore, is to identify that high-risk group here in Malaysia.
A pilot study targeting a smaller “at risk” based on local epidemiology of the disease should be undertaken to determine precisely who should be screened.
Of course, a national anti-smoking policy that prevents tobacco use is far more effective than a screening programme.
After all, we are all familiar with the adage, prevention is better than cure.
Some might argue that national resources and efforts should be prioritised for preventative strategies instead, but this will only address a future generation.
Even if all cigarette smokers were to quit smoking today, it would take 20 years before the resulting decrease in mortality from lung cancer becomes evident.
Lung cancer screening does not compete or contradict efforts to promote smoking cessation.
Lung cancer is a major and costly health concern and the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in this country.
Due to the long latency phase of lung cancer, smoking cessation will have minimal impact for many decades.
The importance of early diagnosis cannot be emphasised enough – early detection of lung cancer remains the cornerstone of treatment success.
A well-executed and comprehensive screening programme may potentially save many lives and billions of ringgit in the long term, although admittedly evaluating cost-effectiveness is not straight forward.
It is imperative, however, that appropriate clear guidelines and quality assurance programmes are established by a dedicated multi-disciplinary interest group prior to embarking on a national screening programme.
The case for lung cancer screening in Malaysia is persuasive and the decision time is now.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/03/26/lets-look-at-lungs-closely-screening-for-lung-cancer-in-malaysia-are-we-there-yet/

Sunday, 31 March 2019

‘Cancer victims seeking alternative treatment a worrying trend’

KUALA LUMPUR: The Government has expressed concern over the trend of cancer patients seeking alternative treatments that have not been scientifically proven, says Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.
Friday, 27 Jul 2018
“Such unproven methods actually worsen their health.
“While it is good that cancer was detected at its earliest stage, seeking proper medical treatment is vital.
“It could be a question of trust. As a result, patients who sought alternative treatments only approach medical specialists when the cancer has spread,” she said at the launch of the War on Cancer campaign here yesterday.
The campaign is an initiative by the College of Physicians of Malaysia, Academy of Medicine of Malaysia, Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia and Academy of Sciences Malaysia.
It provides a platform for various government medical-related agencies and higher learning institutions to raise awareness on cancer among the public through research, improved cancer management and supporting cancer patients and their families.
Dr Wan Azizah, who is also Women Development, Family and Community Minister, said the Health Ministry’s statistics for 2016 showed that cancer was the third highest cause of deaths at government hospitals at 13.6%, compared to 8.9% in 1996.
She said the follow-up management after early detection of cancer should be emphasised.
“This includes curative and follow-up treatment that is carried out on evidence-based protocol.
“The Government is committed to finding the best way to prevent the spread of cancer. The gap in the prevention and elimination of cancer must be closed,” she added.
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/07/27/cancer-victims-seeking-alternative-treatment-a-worrying-trend



Thursday, 14 February 2019

Robert O. Young - author of the "pH Miracle" book

Bad news continues to accumulate for "pH Miracle Living" quack Robert O. Young

March 16, 2016.

Last night was one of those nights where, for whatever reason, I ran out of steam. Whether it was residual effects from the change to daylight savings time this weekend or just a day in the operating room, I don't know, but I crashed on the couch hard, at least until lighting and thunder from the storms rolling through between 2 and 3 AM woke me up for a little while.
Fortunately, I do have a little tidbit to post, a very good one as well. Remember, the "pH Miracle Living" quack, Robert O. Young? He claims to be a naturopath, but even that claim, like pretty much everything he claims, seems to be dubious at best. (Yes, he's even a fake quack.) Basically, to Young, cancer, AIDS, sepsis, and basically all diseases are due to "excess acid," and the cure is "alkalinization."
I first discovered Young nine years ago, and, since then, I've discussed his extreme quackery from time to time on this blog. Young claims to be able to treat cancer and—as is the case with so many quacks like him—a wide variety of other serious diseases, such as lupustype I diabetes (you read that right, not type II diabetes), metastatic prostate cancer, and cancer in general. Not surprisingly, Young is also quite antivaccine, publishing anecdotes from parents who believe their child is "vaccine damaged" and appeals to support antivaccine groups like the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
Perhaps the most famous incident involving Young was his treatment of Kim Tinkham. At the time she encountered Young in 2008, Tinkham had recently been diagnosed with breast cancer, described as stage III, and was being urged to undergo surgery. She refused. In the end, Tinkham paid the ultimate price for her trust in Young.
When last I visited Young's sordid tale, he had been convicted of practicing medicine without a license, but the jury had deadlocked on the other charges, the ones that would garner him some serious jail time, the charge of fraud being the most prominent one.
Beautifully, Young's still in jail, and, as promised by the district attorney the last time I wrote about him, he is going to be tried again on the deadlocked charges:
Author of the well-known “pH Miracle” books, and philosophy, Young already was placed in prison Feb. 3. following being found guilty of two charges of practicing medicine without a license.
However a hung jury, after deliberating two weeks, found him innocent of one charge of practicing medicine without a license and didn’t convict him of six fraud and grand theft charges. Jury members voted 11-1 to convict on the two medical charges but deadlocked 8-4 on fraud charges.
Prosecutors said they would retry Young, 64, on the six fraud charges. “We have victims who are entitles to get verdicts,” Deputy District Attorney Gina Darvas said after refiling charges.
These are the charges:
Prosecutors in their original 13-page complaint, said Young charged four terminally ill patients at least $50,000 each for treatment. one paid more than $120,0 Prosecution witnesses included family members of cancer patients who had gone to the center and subsequently died.
Pfingst said people sought help from Young specifically because he was a naturopathic practitioner and not a medical doctor. Young never said his technique would cure cancer, Pfingst said. Needles used for intravenous treatments were applied by licensed doctors and nurses, he said.
Quacks like Young frequently retreat to this claim when busted. Never mind that Young has explicitly claim that cancer is cells "spoiled by acid" and that reversing it is easy with an "alkaline diet." Of course, quacks frequently use weaselly language with plausible deniability, a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" sort of tactic that says they can cure cancer without actually explicitly saying it, in order to be able to defend themselves by claiming that they never told the patient that their quackery would cure them. Never mind that Young's multiple books and websites are bursting with claims about how cancer and all manner of diseases can be reversed by his methods.
So basically Young is at least as bad as Stanislaw Burzynski.
After nine years of following this quack's exploits and noting that while his trial was pending he was still traveling all over promoting his "pH Miracle Living" claims, continuing to bilk dying patients, and being very active on Twitter and social media promoting his business, I also take no shame in feeling intense schadenfreude over this:
Young had been out of jail on $100,000 bail earlier this year as his trial started and stopped several times before concluding. He even toured Europe during the last year, continuing to give large public lectures and conduct private consultations. With his convictions, however, his bail was increased to $700,000. His supporters have raised only $16,000 through an online crowdsourcing site for legal bills to date.
Young’s attorney, high-profile former San Diego District Attorney Paul Pfingst, told Vista Superior Court Judge Richard Whitney last week that Young was tapped out financially. A public defender now will represent him.
Yes! True, I have some doubts that Young is truly broke and suspect he must have substantial funds hidden in offshore bank accounts that he can't access from prison. Also, given that he is now facing a civil suit by a woman with stage IV ovarian cancer who was advised by him not to undergo conventional medical treatment. Even so, it is good to see him experience what so many of his patients did: The extraction of large quantities of his wealth. True, this time it was mostly legal fees and bail, but it's still good to see.
It would be even better to see Young spend the rest of his life in prison. Given that Young is now 63, it might not be outside of the realm of possibility, although I'd be surprised if he drew a sentence long enough to guarantee that.
Here's hoping I'm surprised in the coming year. Here's also hoping that Young will be forced to use prison food to "alkalinize" himself for many years to come.


Also:
Last night was one of those nights where, for whatever reason, I ran out of steam. Whether it was residual effects from the change to daylight savings time this weekend or just a day in the operating room, I don't know, but I crashed on the couch hard, at least until lighting and thunder from the storms rolling through between 2 and 3 AM woke me up for a little while. Fortunately, I do have a little tidbit to post, a very good one as well. Remember, the "pH Miracle Living" quack, Robert O. Young? He claims to be a naturopath, but even that claim, like pretty much everything he claims, seems…
If there's one thing that's frustrating about the U.S. justice system, it's just how slow the wheels of justice grind. For example, it's hard to believe that it was over two years ago that "pH Miracle" quack Robert O. Young was arrested for fraud, grand theft, and practicing medicine without a license, producing one of my favorite images ever on this blog, that of Young in a blue prison jump suit. The only way it could have been better would have been if it had been an orange jumpsuit, but unfortunately a contact in San Diego tells me that San Diego County doesn't use orange jumpsuits for its…
There is no doubt in my mind that Robert O. Young is among the worst cancer quacks I have ever encountered. I’ve never been able to figure out how he manages to continue to practice after over 20 years, given the egregiousness of his quackery. Indeed, I was overjoyed when I learned back in January when finally—finally!—I got to see Young in a prison jumpsuit being hauled before a judge after having been arrested and charged with 18 felony counts of grand theft and practicing medicine without a license, as well as administering intravenous treatments in an unlicensed facility. As I noted at…
Being a cancer surgeon and researcher, naturally I tend to write about cancer a lot more than other areas of medicine and science. It's what I know best. Also, cancer is a very common area for unscientific practices to insinuate themselves, something that's been true for a very long time. The ideas don't change very rapidly, either. Drop a cancer quack from 2014 into 1979, and he would probably be right at home. Of course, part of the reason is because the "elder statesmen" of cancer quackery today were just getting their starts in 1979. Still, the same ideas keep recurring even as far back…

Two women died of breast cancer yesterday. One was named Kim Tinkham. One was named Elizabeth Edwards. In some ways, these women were similar. True, one was older than the other, but both of them died far sooner than they should have, one at age 53, the other at age 61. Both engaged in activism about breast cancer. Both were ambitious, driven women. Both died in the presence of their friends and family. Both died within hours of each other. Both demonstrated the implacable killer that breast cancer can be. There the similarities end. One of these women (Kim Tinkham), for example, died…



Monday, 29 October 2018

Can going organic reduce cancer risk?

To reduce your risk of cancer, you know you should quit smoking, exercise regularly, wear sunscreen and take advantage of screening tests.
Can going organic reduce cancer risk?
A recent study suggests consuming organic food, as opposed to conventional food, may help reduce risk of some types of cancer. — TNS
New research suggests another item might be added to this list: Choose organic foods over conventional ones.
A study of nearly 70,000 French adults who were tracked for an average of 4.5 years found that those who ate the most organic foods were less likely to develop certain kinds of cancer than the people who ate the least.
Because of the way the study was conducted, it is impossible to say that the organic foods people ate were the reason why they had fewer cases of cancer.
But the results are significant enough to warrant follow-up studies, the researchers wrote.
“Further research is required to identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk,” they wrote in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
The researchers have an idea about what factors those may be: pesticides.
At least three of them – glyphosate, malathion and diazinon – probably cause cancer, and others may be carcinogenic as well, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
“Organic products are less likely to contain pesticide residues than conventional foods,” they wrote.
That’s because the rules farmers must follow in order to use the organic label generally prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides (although pesticides based on natural compounds like hydrogen peroxide and soaps are allowed).
Previous studies have found that pesticide residue is more prevalent on conventionally grown produce than on its organic counterparts.
For instance, a report out in 2018 from the European Food Safety Authority found residue from one or more pesticides on 44% of the conventionally produced food samples that were tested.
Meanwhile, 6.5% of the organic food samples tested had detectable pesticide residues.
And there’s evidence that those pesticides are metabolised in the body. The urine of people who eat few (if any) organic foods contains higher concentrations of chemicals derived from pesticides than the urine of people who eat organic food regularly.
In the United States, more than nine out of 10 people have measurable amounts of pesticides in their urine or their blood, and these concentrations are known to fall when people switch from conventionally produced foods to organic ones.
Consuming fewer pesticide-related chemicals certainly seems like a good idea. But whether that’s associated with an actual health benefit is unclear.
So a team from Inserm, the French equivalent of the US National Institutes of Health, went looking for data.
In an ideal world, they would recruit thousands of volunteers and randomly divide them into two groups: one that follows an organic diet and one that doesn’t.
They would monitor these volunteers to make sure they were keeping to their assigned diets and observe the other things they do that could influence their cancer risk.
Then, after many years, they would count up the number of cancers diagnosed in each of the groups and see if there was a difference that could be explained only by the amount of organic food they ate.
But this is not an ideal world, so the researchers had to make do with the data that were available.
They focused on people who joined a large, ongoing health and nutrition study starting in 2009.
They were questioned about 16 categories of foods – including fruits, vegetables, eggs and wine – and how often they ate organic versions of them.
Once a year, they provided health updates, including whether they had been diagnosed with cancer.
By the end of 2016, there were 68,946 French adults who met all of these criteria and were included in the analysis. Their average age when they joined the study was 44, and 78% of them were women.
Between 2009 and 2016, cancer was diagnosed in 1,340 of the volunteers.
The most common type was breast cancer (459 cases), followed by prostate cancer (180 cases), skin cancer (135 cases), colorectal cancer (99 cases), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (47 cases) and other types of lymphomas (15 cases).
The study authors ranked the volunteers according to how frequently they ate organic foods and divided them into four equally sized groups.
This revealed that the people who ate organic food most often had higher incomes, more education and higher-status jobs.
They were also more likely to exercise, to have quit smoking, and to eat higher amounts of healthful foods such as fruits and vegetables.
All of these things are associated with a lower risk of cancer.
After they took these and other demographic factors into account, they found that the people who ate organic food most frequently were 25% less likely to develop any kind of cancer than the people who ate organic food the least.
The overall effect of choosing lots of organic foods was similar in magnitude to having a family history of cancer.
When they considered each type of cancer separately, they found that only three had a statistically significant association with organic food consumption.
One of them was postmenopausal breast cancer: The women who ate organic foods most often were 34% less likely to receive this diagnosis than women who ate organic foods the least. (There were hints of reduced risk for premenopausal breast cancers as well, but the difference was smaller and could have been due to chance.)
Another was non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: The most frequent eaters of organic foods were 86% less likely to get this form of cancer than their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum. The difference between the two groups was just barely big enough to be statistically significant.
The last category was all lymphomas: People who ate organic food most often were 76% less likely to get cancers of the lymph system than people who ate organic foods the least.
Some of these findings were in line with past studies, and some were not.
In particular, the French researchers compared their results with data from the Million Women Study in Britain.
In the study, participants who ate organic food regularly had a 21% lower risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma than participants who didn’t eat organic food at all.
However, there was no reduction in overall cancer risk, and the risk of breast cancer was slightly higher among women who ate organic food routinely than it was for women who didn’t eat it at all.
“It now seems important to evaluate chronic effects of low-dose pesticide residue exposure from the diet,” the French researchers concluded.
A team from the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health noted several strengths of the new report in a commentary that was also published recently.
Glyphosate, malathion and diazinon have all been associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, so the researchers may be on to something, the Harvard authors wrote.
They also praised the study for including tens of thousands of people and following them prospectively instead of retrospectively.
But there are also several shortcomings that limit the strength of the study’s results, they added. For instance, no attempt was made to confirm people’s claims about the amount of organic food they ate.
The French researchers also assumed that the more organic foods a person ate, the lower their exposure to pesticide residue would be. This may be true, but there is no data to back it up.
“At the current stage of research, the relationship between organic food consumption and cancer risk is still unclear,” the Harvard researchers wrote.
What’s “urgently” needed is a more detailed study that would address some of the problems in the French report, according to the commentary.
“If future studies provide more solid evidence supporting the consumption of organic foods for cancer prevention, measures to lower costs and ensure equitable access to organic products will be crucial,” the Harvard authors wrote.
In the meantime, “concerns over pesticide risks should not discourage intake of conventional fruits and vegetables”, they advised.
“The benefits of consuming conventionally grown produce are likely to outweigh the possible risks from pesticide exposure.” – Los Angeles Times/Tribune News Service

https://www.star2.com/health/2018/10/29/organic-reduce-cancer-risk/