Incredulous. Astounding. Unanticipated.

Those were my initial thoughts when I had a moment to read the two reports released yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about the use of tanning beds and sunburn/sun protective behaviors.

I was completely unprepared for the results of the studies. And I am supposed to know this stuff.

As I mentioned in one of the interviews published on the topic, the information contained in those studies raised my concern and passion about the topic to a new level. And if you are aware of this issue, it should raise your concerns as well. If the trends on tanning bed use and failure to engage in sun safe behaviors continue, we could be in for a serious problem regarding skin cancer and melanoma in years to come.

Now we have information from the CDC that the situation is worse than many of us thought.More...

To screen or not to screen for prostate cancer, that is the question. Or is it?

A report from the venerable United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) made it to the media yesterday--a bit ahead of schedule--and it not only says we aren't certain whether a man should get a PSA test to find prostate cancer early, it came flat out and said, effectively, "Don't do it!"

Now that is a recommendation that is going to create a good deal of discussion, I would think. More...

There are few times in life when one gets to watch history being made. Today is one of those times.

I am in New York with a number of colleagues from the American Cancer Society and other committed organizations to observe a UN High Level Meeting which will--at long last--put non-communicable diseases on the international agenda. The impact of the decisions made here over the next two days can indeed change the face of global health forever. More...

Please, please, please say it's so...

That was my initial reaction today when I saw news stories about a study presented at a breast cancer conference sponsored by a number of leading organizations with a professional interest in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

The headlines were pretty clear, to the effect that the study showed the value of screening mammography in women between the ages of 40-49. The accompanying stories suggested that this research essentially repudiated the recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force initially published in November 2009.

You may remember that event, since it created a huge amount of media and public interest when the Task Force suggested that screening mammograms to find breast cancer early should not be done routinely in women between the ages of 40 and 49. This was a change from its prior recommendation, and was in conflict with the opinions of the American Cancer Society and other organizations which conitinued to endorse routine breast cancer screening in this age group.

There has been a lot of water under the dam since then, and there have been additional scientific studies reported about the value of screening mammograms, some of which support breast cancer screening and others which do not.

Enter the reports this week that a study from Michigan suggests that screening mammograms and breast self-examination in women between the ages of 40 and 49 results in earlier diagnosis and less disfiguring treatment.

When I read the headlines and the news reports, I quickly came to the conclusion that there was a possible disconnect between what the reporters concluded from the study and what I thought was scientifically valid.  Mind you, I read these things with my own bias/conflict of interest: I have been a supporter of mammograms for women between the ages of 40-49, and believe they save lives in this age group. But my problem here is whether this particular research actually supports that position, as the press reports suggested.

Guess what? I don't think it does. More...

"Poverty is a carcinogen."

Those were the words of Dr. Samuel Broder when he was director of the National Cancer Institute in 1989.  

As amply documented in the annual "Cancer Facts and Figures 2011" released today by the American Cancer Society, cancer shows that poverty remains one of the most potent a carcinogen-rivaling tobacco and obesity-as we have ever seen.

We have heard lots and lots about how cell phones and Styrofoam cause cancer.  But do you hear anyone talking about the huge impact of poverty and limited education on cancer?

If you don't hear anything about a true carcinogen that statistics show causes 37% of the deaths from cancer in people between the ages of 27 and 64, then maybe you have the answer to a very important question: If we are serious about reducing the burden and suffering from cancer, why aren't we paying attention to those most in need? More...

I am on the plane home from the 2011 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting trying to figure out the best way to write a "wrap up" blog about my sense of what I learned and saw in Chicago over the past 4 days.

I wish I could tell you all the highlights of all the new studies and all of the exciting breakthroughs, but I can't.  Realistically is it impossible to attend all the sessions, read all of the thousands of abstracts and view the additional thousands of posters that are presented at this meeting.  There is so much information that trying to get one's arms around even a fraction of what is available is a monstrous effort.

I will leave it to others to write the headlines and the stories about what they think the latest and greatest research and/or treatment may be, and how it will impact the future of cancer care (they are frequently wrong).

For me, what is more important is the general sense of where we are today and where we are headed when it comes to reducing the burden and suffering from cancer.  Are we really making progress, or basically stalled at the status quo?

And then there where the lighter sides of the meeting, including redemption, blisterwalks, and whether I can ever become part of the social media scene if I keep forgetting my hashtags. More...

With today's press release from the International Agency for Research on Cancer-commonly known as IARC-the cell phone controversy is certain to heat up once again.

Unfortunately, drawing broad and sweeping conclusions based on a press release and a news conference leaves many of us wondering just what the evidence shows that led to the conclusion announced today that "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" may be possibly cause cancer in people. 

The quick translation of "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields"-or RMF-is huge, since this announcement is focused on the use of cell phones, which have been in widespread use by millions around the world for years.

So it is important to dissect the IARC statement for what it says-and what it doesn't say-and then try to interpret that information as it applies to our everyday lives. More...

Sometimes you just have to connect the dots to understand the world around us.  And sometimes the picture those dots paint isn't one that is particularly nice. 

I am beyond amazed that otherwise normal, clear thinking people can turn a blind eye to the harms of tobacco when it is their turn to make some extra money.

The case in point is the attitude that Wall Street has about investing in tobacco companies as a good way to make a buck.  In fact, tobacco stocks are right up there on the investment list when it comes to "widows and orphans" stocks. Those are the stocks you want to be invested in because they are safe, generally do well in recessionary times, and actually pay a dividend that is real money.

What has set me off this time is a brief commentary in a business journal called Barron's, where a columnist I read regularly (and respect) made some comments this week about the outstanding profitability of a tobacco company that is known for their commitment to menthol cigarettes. More...

Appalling.

I used that word once before back in January 2008 when I wrote a blog about the (then) new CEO of Philip Morris International (PMI).  His name is Louis Camilleri, and he was the subject of an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal talking about the spin-off of PMI from Philip Morris US so they could more easily sell their toxic products worldwide.

I called him the next generation of a merchant of death, seeming to relish the opportunity to make big money marketing deadly cigarettes to then fertile markets around the globe.

Well, Mr. Camilleri has surfaced again-this time making the outrageous comment that "tobacco is not that hard to quit."

You have to be kidding.  Cigarettes are incredibly addictive, and heavy smokers have a very difficult time quitting.  Our statistics in this country show that for the most part our ability nationwide to reduce the number of chronic smokers has hit a roadblock. More...

I am sitting here wringing my hands that so much has been made of some studies reported yesterday at a major radiology conference which suggest that the impact of the breast cancer screening guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in November 2009 has either been good or bad on doctor and patient behavior.

The reason I am doing the handwringing thing is because I don't think either study is particularly good at answering the question for which it was intended: have health professionals changed their screening recommendations to their patients as a result of those guidelines, or does it make a true difference in outcome for women between the ages of 40-49 who forgo screening mammograms?

Yet much is being made of these studies, as though they have some definitive answer to the questions they raised.  In my opinion, they don't.

Now, be certain to note that I was very much in the midst of the discussion back then when these guidelines were released, which suggested that women between 40-49 should not have routine screening mammograms (yes, that was the wording they used) and should consult with their health professional to determine whether they wanted to be screened or not.  For me, the operative language was "recommends against", and I made that point very clear.  Many equally expert folks thought then and think today that the available data does support a recommendation for routine screening mammography in women between the ages of 40 and 49.  So, we have a legitimate scientific disagreement and the discussions about that disagreement continue vigorously to this day.

But the key point to me is not who is right and who is wrong.  It is whether new data gives us better insights into the issue, and helps resolve some of the questions.  When studies that are not particularly informative take on a life of their own for the sole purpose of making a headline or allowing one side or the other to hammer home their point, then I believe someone should stand up and take those using such limited science to task. More...