Category: Living Well Written by Michigan Chronicle Staff
Children of parents who live to a ripe old age are more likely to live longer, and are less prone to cancer and other common diseases associated with aging, according to a study co-authored by a University of Michigan researcher.
People who had a long-lived mother or father were 24 percent less likely to get cancer, according to an international collaboration led by experts at the University of Exeter Medical School, supported by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in the South West Peninsula.
The scientists compared the children of long-lived parents to children whose parents survived to average ages for their generation.
Co-author Kenneth Langa, M.D., Ph.D., professor of internal medicine at U-M Medical School, is the associate director for the U-M-based Health and Retirement Study (HRS), which provided the data used for the study.
“The unique detailed longitudinal data available in the HRS allowed us to quantify the possible health benefits of having healthy and long-lived parents,” says Langa, who is also research investigator at the Center for Clinical Management Research at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System and member of the U-M Institute for Social Research, Institute of Gerontology and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.
Kenneth Langa, M.D., Ph.D.“The considerable benefits that we found in our study—both in terms of decreased cancer risk and longer life-span—need to be followed up and confirmed in additional studies with more detailed genetic information so we can better pinpoint the potential links between healthy long-lived parents and their healthy long-lived kids.”
The scientists classified long-lived mothers as those who survived past 91 years old, and compared them to those who reached average age spans of 77 to 91. Long-lived fathers lived past 87 years old, compared with the average of 65 to 87 years. The scientists studied 938 new cases of cancer that developed during the 18-year follow-up period.
The team also involved experts from the National Institute for Health and Medical Research in France (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médical) and the University of Iowa.
They found overall mortality rates dropped by up to 19 per cent for each decade that at least one of the parents lived past the age of 65. For those whose mothers lived beyond 85, mortality rates were 40 percent lower. The figure was a little lower (14 percent) for fathers, possibly because of adverse lifestyle factors such as smoking, which may have been more common in the fathers.
In the study, published TBC in the Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, researchers analyzed data from a series of interviews conducted with 9,764 people taking part in the Health and Retirement Study. The participants were based in America, and were followed from 1992 to 2010. They were interviewed every two years, with questions including the ages of their parents and when they died. In 2010 the participants were in their 70s.
Professor William Henley, from the University of Exeter Medical School, said: “Previous studies have shown that the children of centenarians tend to live longer with less heart disease, but this is the first robust evidence that the children of longer-lived parents are also less likely to get cancer. We also found that they are less prone to diabetes or suffering a stroke. These protective effects are passed on from parents who live beyond 65 – far younger than shown in previous studies, which have looked at those over the age of 80. Obviously children of older parents are not immune to contracting cancer or any other diseases of ageing, but our evidence shows that rates are lower. We also found that this inherited resistance to age-related diseases gets stronger the older their parents lived.”
Ambarish Dutta, who worked on the project at the University of Exeter Medical School and is now at the Asian Institute of Public Health at the Ravenshaw University in India, said: “Interestingly from a nature versus nurture perspective, we found no evidence that these health advantages are passed on from parents-in-law. Despite being likely to share the same environment and lifestyle in their married lives, spouses had no health benefit from their parents-in-law reaching a ripe old age. If the findings resulted from cultural or lifestyle factors, you might expect these effects to extend to husbands and wives in at least some cases, but there was no impact whatsoever.”
In analyzing the data, the team made adjustments for sex, race, smoking, wealth, education, body mass index, and childhood socioeconomic status. They also excluded results from those whose parents died prematurely (i.e. mothers who died younger than 61 or fathers younger than 46).
The study could not look at the various sub groups of cancer, as numbers did not allow accurate estimates. This study was carried out in preparation for a more detailed analysis of factors explaining why some people seem to age more slowly than others. Future work will use the UK Biobank, which analyses a cohort of 500,000 participants.
Other collaborators on the paper were Dr. Jean-Marie Robine, of the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médical, Robert Wallace of the University of Iowa and David Melzer of the University of Exeter Medical School.
Last Updated on Friday, 31 May 2013 11:02
Category: Living Well Written by Michigan Chronicle Staff Writer
Are certain drugs more effective against some types of prostate cancers than others? Researchers know that not all therapies work for all patients – the next question is to figure out how to match the right treatments with the right patients.
A new clinical trial is testing whether targeting treatments to a genetic anomaly can lead to better treatments for prostate cancer. The trial, led by investigators at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, is being conducted at 11 sites throughout the country.
The phase 2 trial will look at patients with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer, which means the cancer has spread and has stopped responding to hormone-based treatments. The target being evaluated is a genomic rearrangement that causes two genes called TMPRSS2 and ERG to fuse together. This gene fusion, believed to be the triggering event of prostate cancer, was initially discovered in 2005 by U-M researchers led by Arul Chinnaiyan, M.D., Ph.D.
“We hope this study will help us understand why certain patients respond to therapy and certain patients do not. By better understanding the evolving biology of prostate cancer, we will have the ability to better treat the disease,” says the clinical trial’s principal investigator, Maha Hussain, M.D.,FACP, professor of internal medicine and urology, and associate director of clinical research at the U-M Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Study participants will undergo a biopsy to determine whether their tumor expresses the gene fusion, which occurs in about half of all prostate cancers. All participants will receive the standard hormone-based therapy abiraterone. Each group – gene fusion positive and gene fusion negative – will then be randomly assigned so half of participants will also take an experimental drug called ABT-888 in addition to abiraterone.
The trial’s design is based on scientific data indicating the potential for improving abiraterone’s effect on the tumor and that this improvement may be more evident in patients whose tumors have the gene fusion.
“Can we better select treatments for prostate cancer based on the genes in the patient’s cancer? We hope that what we learn from this study will help us to better control and better treat the deadly stage of prostate cancer,” Hussain says.
ABT-888 is a new type of cancer-fighting drug that’s designed to block an enzyme called PARP that’s known to directly interact with the gene fusion, leading to cancer growth and progression. Lab studies have found that a PARP inhibitor, when added to hormone therapy, helped shrink tumors in general and especially those expressing the TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion. This new clinical trial tests that finding in patients.
“In order to beat your enemy you’ve got to understand it. We are getting closer and closer to understanding the enemy which is cancer,” Hussain adds.
For information about this trial, “A Randomized Gene Fusion-Stratified Phase 2 Trial of Abiraterone with or without ABT-888 for Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer,” call the U-M Cancer Answerline at 800-865-1125.
Prostate cancer statistics: 241,740 Americans will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year and 28,170 will die from the disease, according to the American Cancer Society
Last Updated on Friday, 31 May 2013 11:02
Category: Living Well Written by Dr. Scott Whitaker
The mainstream corporate-controlled media is heralding Angelina Jolie's decision to have her perfectly healthy breasts and ovaries removed as an act of women's liberation and the hopeful prevention of her supposed high risk of getting breast cancer in the future. Angelina was bamboozled, just like other high-profile celebrities Sharon Osbourne and Miss America contestant Allyn Rose, who took the same measures.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see where this insane medical advice could ultimately lead: At risk for kidney cancer?...Remove your kidneys. Risk of colon cancer?...Take out your colon. Lung cancer?...Remove lungs, just in case. That is the logic of the cancer industry and doctors who have deceived Jolie and countless other sheeple (including the legions that follow the "Think Pink" people) into maiming their bodies based on FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real) and medical quackery. For that matter of ill advice, hell, why not just gut your whole body, to be on the "safe" side?!
Sadly, the cancer industry raises billions of dollars yearly based on irrational fears spread by doctors and the media, yet there is still NO cure in sight. The fact of the matter is that cancer is a systemic metabolic condition, not some "gene" passed down from the family tree. From my observation, the ONLY hereditary disease is ignorance. Even if cancer is diagnosed in breast tissue, that is not the only place it is growing. Therefore, the idea that someone can prevent cancer by just removing their breasts is absurd. If the conditions for cancer are present in the body [due to nutritional deficiencies, exposure to chemicals, fluoride toothpaste, aluminum deodorants, fungi, estrogen from soy & chicken, processed foods, pork, uncontrolled stress, radiation (mammograms), etc.], cancer will develop in ANY area of the body, not just in breast tissue.
Yet, now that the media and mainstream medicine are pushing Ms. JoIie's decision to remove her breasts and ovaries, I can almost read the next headline. It would quote Good Morning America's anchor Robin Roberts stating something like: "I wish that I had a preventative mastectomy too. Then I wouldn't be in the shape I'm in now" (sick, bald caused by chemotherapy, or in need of blood transfusions). It is shameful how the media and cancer industry parade this once beautiful African-American woman around like a side show in a circus to promote their agenda. It is especially shameful considering the fact that a woman's risk of breast cancer can be reduced by 80% by simply adding Vitamin D (sunshine).
Living a healthy, anti-cancer lifestyle-based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure, a spiritual connection with the Creator, and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals-are the most effective things people can do to PREVENT cancer. Being bamboozled and breast-less is not the answer; it only continues to promote more suffering and 'medisin'. For that matter, imagine how it would be if all men starting getting their testicles removed to prevent possible testicular cancer? That would make about as much sense as: 'hey, let's all remove the wheels from our cars so we do not get a flat tire!' Mindless!
Last Updated on Thursday, 23 May 2013 12:39
Category: Living Well Written by Cathy Nedd
As high schoolers prepare for final exams, teens nationwide may be tempted to use a “study drug” – a prescription stimulant or amphetamine – to gain an academic edge. But a new University of Michigan poll shows only one in 100 parents of teens 13-17 years old believes that their teen has used a study drug.
Study drugs refer to stimulant medications typically prescribed for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); commonly prescribed medicines in this category include Adderall, Concerta, Ritalin, and Vyvanse.
Among parents of teens who have not been prescribed a stimulant medication for ADHD, just 1% said they believe their teen has used a study drug to help study or improve grades, according to the latest University of Michigan Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health. However, recent national data from Monitoring the Future indicate that 10% of high school sophomores and 12% of high school seniors say they’ve used an amphetamine or stimulant medication not prescribed by their doctor.
Sometimes students without ADHD take someone else’s medication, to try to stay awake and alert and try to improve their scores on exams or assignments. Taking study drugs has not been proven to improve students’ grades, and it can be very dangerous to their health, says Matthew M. Davis, M.D., M.A.P.P., director of the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health.
“Taking these medications when they are not prescribed for you can lead to acute exhaustion, abnormal heart rhythms and even confusion and psychosis if the teens get addicted and go into withdrawal,” says Davis.
“What we found in this poll is a clear mismatch between what parents believe and what their kids are reporting. But even though parents may not be recognizing these behaviors in their own kids, this poll also showed that one-half of the parents say they are very concerned about this abuse in their communities,” Davis says.
White parents were most likely to say they are “very concerned” (54%), compared with black (38%) and Hispanic/Latino (37%) parents.
Despite this concern, only 27 percent of parents polled said they have talked to their teens about using study drugs. Black parents were more likely to have discussed this issue with their teens (41%), compared with white (27%) or Hispanic (17%) parents.
“If we are going to make a dent in this problem, and truly reduce the abuse of these drugs, we need parents, educators, health care professionals and all who interact with teens to be more proactive about discussing the issue,” says Davis.
Over three-quarters of parents polled said they support school policies aimed at stopping abuse of study drugs in middle schools and high schools. Overall, 76% of parents said they believe schools should be required to discuss the dangers of ADHD medication abuse.
Another 79% support a policy to require students with a prescription for ADHD medications to keep their pills in a secure location such as the school nurse’s office—a requirement that would prohibit students from carrying medicines of this nature that could potentially be shared with, or sold to, other students.
“We know teens may be sharing drugs or spreading the word that these medications can give their grades a boost. But the bottom line is that these prescription medications are drugs, and teens who use them without a prescription are taking a serious risk with their health,” Davis says.
Last Updated on Monday, 20 May 2013 20:58
- Conyers Applauds $318 Thousand Grant to the Henry Ford Health System
- Michigan's Kidney Foundation Hosts Annual Kidney Walk at the Detroit Zoo
- According to U of M Poll, Most Michigan parents, grandparents prefer research hospitals for pediatric care
- Arthritis Walk Raises $200,000; 3,000 Walkers Participate
Digital Daily Signup
Sign up now for the Michigan Chronicle Digital Daily newsletter!