Following are a few observations from the meeting Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research, 12/07. A few themes that reoccurred in many of the sessions were that: · Chronic inflammation is a precursor of many types of cancers · There is a link, at the molecular level, between energy balance, metabolism and cancer · Weight, nutrition, and exercise significantly contribute to cancer risk From a methodological point of view this meeting was very varied. It included more behavioral and social science than at many cancer meetings, including work on: · Risk communication and decision making · Genetic testing and counseling · Prevention behaviors including screening, tobacco cessation, diet and exercise Leslie Bernstein received an award for excellence in cancer prevention research and presented a lecture on her work on breast cancer prevention. Over her career, she examined the effects of exercise and weight on the onset of puberty and hormonal patterns during adolescence, and their impact on breast cancer. She indicated that the average American woman has three times as many periods during her lifetime as a traditional “hunter gatherer” woman. This is due to differences in onset of puberty and menopause, as well as childbearing and nursing patterns. The concomitant increase in lifetime exposure to estrogen presumably accounts for a significant amount of increased breast cancer in industrialized societies. By demonstrating that physical exercise can impact breast cancer risk, she was showed that woman industrialized societies can, nevertheless, impact their risk in other ways. There was a great deal of work on cell, molecular and tumor biology. Although these talks typically indicated that the work could lead to predictors of risk and/or targets for chemoprevention, many could have been presented in a meeting that was not focused on prevention. I attended an interesting session on the rising controversy about the helical CT trials for screening for lung cancer. There was heated discussion of methodology and the risk of radiation-induced cancer from CT screening. I found a presentation by Peter Bach, an epidemiologist from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, of particular interest. The title of his talk was: “Over-diagnosis” Does it exist for lung cancer?” He argued (convincingly to me) that there are important differences in the pattern of lung cancers detected by CT scan versus in clinical practice. Further, this implies that CT scanning not only leads to many false negatives, but detection of many cancers that would never be of clinical consequence. These differences included rates of cancer by gender and for smokers vs. non-smokers. Additionally, modeling of cancer doubling time suggested that CT scans were picking up cancers that were unlike those that had different developmental patterns than those of clinically relevant cancer, as well as early, clinically relevant cancer. The discussion after his talk was among the most heated I have experienced at a scientific meeting. One of the early “Meet the Expert” sessions also focused on lung cancer. In particular, Margaret Spitz, an epidemiologist from MD Anderson presented a good deal of both traditional epidemiological (e.g., smoking, diet, and family patterns) and molecular (e.g., gene expression profiles) data from lung cancer patients. She indicated how these types of data could be integrated and are relevant to risk assessment, as well impact of treatment. Written by Jane Perlmutter, advocate Jane encourages cancer advocates, especially those interested in research, to become familiar with AACR (American Association of Cancer Research). Although their membership consists largely of research scientists—basic, translational, and clinical—they have embraced the involvement of advocates. Several years ago they established a category of affiliate advocate membership, and launched CR Magazine which is targeted toward advocates. Additionally, their website includes a section specifically for advocates http://www.aacr.org/home/survivors--advocates.aspx that provides useful content that is regularly updated. Evidence of their commitment to partnering with advocates is their policy of offering opportunities for advocates to attend their many scientific meetings. This includes reduced or waived registration fees, travel scholarship, and their outstanding Scientist> This year they hosted similar programs in conjunction with their “Science of Cancer Health Disparities Conference” and ”Cancer Prevention Research Conference.” During each of these programs they support about 30 advocates to attend the meetings, and provide opportunities for advocates to interact with scientists (through structured mentorship and special interest sessions) and other advocates. She has participated in annual meeting SSPs for several years, and this year participated in the program associated with the Prevention meetings which are six years old, much smaller than the annual meeting (about 700 vs. 25,000 participants). janep@gemini-grp.com Posted December 2007 Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.