ReportWire

Tag: colon cancer

  • Potential link between extreme long distance running and colon cancer in younger adults, study finds – WTOP News

    A new study shows a potential link between extreme endurance exercise and increased risk of advanced colon cancer in younger adults, according to research at Inova Schar Cancer Institute, in Fairfax, Virginia.

    A new study shows a potential link between extreme endurance exercise and increased risk of advanced colon cancer in younger adults, according to research at Inova Schar Cancer Institute, in Fairfax, Virginia.

    Dr. Tim Cannon, a medical oncologist, told WTOP after examining several young endurance runners under the age of 40 who had advanced colon cancer, he hypothesized that prolonged stress on the gut during long-distance running may trigger cancer-causing mutations.

    In the study of 100 adults between the ages of 35 and 50, who had run five or more marathons or two or more ultramarathons, Cannon found 15% of the participants had advanced adenomas, which are precancerous lesions, compared to the expected 1% to 2% in non-runners in this age range.

    In addition, 41% had at least one adenoma.

    “The normal risk in the 35 to 50 population would be one-fifth of those numbers,” Cannon said.

    The average age of the participants was 42.5 year old — two and half years before the recommended age of 45, for a first screening colonoscopy.

    “The reason we all get colonoscopies, or we should all get colonoscopies, when we turn 45, is because if we remove a polyp or adenoma before it becomes cancerous, then we’re likely going to be safe from cancer,” Cannon said.

    An often-ignored warning sign for endurance athletes

    Cannon said long distance runners, and many of their physicians, have downplayed bleeding after a run.

    “It’s very common among long distance runners, and it’s often been called ‘runner’s colitis,’” Cannon said. “The slang is ‘runners’ trots.’”

    “People have assumed that ‘runner’s colitis’ is a benign entity, so they’ve been saying ‘It’s normal for runners to bleed.’ And the reason I know this, is because that’s what these runners who have cancer are telling me,” Cannon said.

    Cannon said blood in the stool, for runners or any person, should be checked out.

    “The most common presenting symptom for someone with colon cancer is blood in their stool,” Cannon said. “That’s the most common reason we learn someone has polyps or cancer is because they’re bleeding.”

    Cannon said further research is underway, in examining this possible link. However, there could be other reasons extreme endurance athletes seem at risk of developing colon cancer at younger age.

    “It could be the runners’ diets. It could be other aspects of their lifestyle that they have in common. It could be they drink from bottles with BPA or some other carcinogen more often than regular people,” who don’t engage in similar long-distance activities.

    However, Cannon hopes that this preliminary study will prompt runners to get screening colonoscopies before the age of 45.

    “I do think that it should raise awareness that any bleeding from a runner is a reason get a colonoscopy,  and not something to be ignored,” Cannon said. “Exercise is good, overall — please don’t use this as an excuse not to exercise.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    Neal Augenstein

    Source link

  • Eating to Help Control Cancer Metastasis  | NutritionFacts.org

    Randomized controlled trials show that lowering saturated fat intake can lead to improved breast cancer survival.

    The leading cause of cancer-related death is metastasis. Cancer kills because cancer spreads. The five-year survival rate for women with localized breast cancer is nearly 99 percent, for example, but that falls to only 27 percent in women with metastasized cancer. Yet, “our ability to effectively treat metastatic disease has not changed significantly in the past few decades…” The desperation is evident when there are such papers as “Targeting Metastasis with Snake Toxins: Molecular Mechanisms.”

    We have built-in defenses, natural killer cells that roam the body, killing off budding tumors. But, as I’ve discussed, there’s a fat receptor called CD36 that appears to be essential for cancer cells to spread, and these cancer cells respond to dietary fat intake, but not all fat.

    CD36 is upregulated by palmitic acid, as much as a 50-fold increase within 12 hours of consumption, as shown below and at 1:13 in my video How to Help Control Cancer Metastasis with Diet.

    Palmitic acid is a saturated fat made from palm oil that can be found in junk food, but it is most concentrated in meat and dairy. This may explain why, when looking at breast cancer mortality and dietary fat, “there was no difference in risk of breast-cancer-specific death…for women in the highest versus the lowest category of total fat intake,” but there’s about a 50 percent greater likelihood of dying of breast cancer with higher intake of saturated fat. Researchers conclude: “These meta-analyses have shown that saturated fat intake negatively impacts breast cancer survival.”

    This may also explain why “intake of high-fat dairy, but not low-fat dairy, was related to a higher risk of mortality after breast cancer diagnosis.” If a protein in dairy, like casein, was the problem, skim milk might be even worse, but that wasn’t the case. It’s the saturated butterfat, perhaps because it triggered that cancer-spreading mechanism induced by CD36. Women who consumed one or more daily servings of high-fat dairy had about a 50 percent higher risk of dying from breast cancer.

    We see the same with dairy and its relationship to prostate cancer survival. Researchers found that “drinking high-fat milk increased the risk of dying from prostate cancer by as much as 600% in patients with localized prostate cancer. Low-fat milk was not associated with such an increase in risk.” So, it seems to be the animal fat, rather than the animal protein, and these findings are consistent with analyses from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Physicians’ Health Study (PHS), conducted by Harvard researchers.

    There is even more evidence that the fat receptor CD36 is involved. The “risk of colorectal cancer for meat consumption” increased from a doubling to an octupling—that is, the odds of getting cancer multiplied eightfold for those who carry a specific type of CD36 gene. So, “Is It Time to Give Breast Cancer Patients a Prescription for a Low-Fat Diet?” A cancer diagnosis is often referred to as a ‘teachable moment’ when patients are motivated to make changes to their lifestyle, and so provision of evidence-based guidelines is essential.”

    In a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial, researchers set out “to test the effect of a dietary intervention designed to reduce fat intake in women with resected, early-stage breast cancer,” meaning the women had had their breast cancer surgically removed. As shown below and at 4:02 in my video, the study participants in the dietary intervention group dropped their fat intake from about 30 percent of calories down to 20 percent, reduced their saturated fat intake by about 40 percent, and maintained it for five years. “After approximately 5 years of follow-up, women in the dietary intervention group had a 24% lower risk of relapse”—a 24-percent lower risk of the cancer coming back—“than those in the control group.” 

    That was the WINS study, the Women’s Intervention Nutrition Study. Then there was the Women’s Health Initiative study, where, again, women were randomized to lower their fat intake down to 20 percent of calories, and, again, “those randomized to a low-fat dietary pattern had increased breast cancer overall survival. Meaning: A dietary change may be able to influence breast cancer outcome.” What’s more, not only was their breast cancer survival significantly greater, but the women also experienced a reduction in heart disease and a reduction in diabetes.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Foods That Disrupt Our Microbiome | NutritionFacts.org

    Eating a diet filled with animal products can disrupt our microbiome faster than taking an antibiotic.

    If you search online for “Crohn’s disease and diet” or “ulcerative colitis and diet,” the top results are a hodgepodge of conflicting advice, as you can see below and at 0:15 in my video Preventing Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Diet

    What does science say? A systematic review of the medical literature on dietary intake and the risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease finds that Crohn’s disease is associated with the intake of fat and meat, whereas dietary fiber and fruits appear protective. The same associations are seen with ulcerative colitis, the other major inflammatory bowel disease—namely, increased risk with fat and meat, and a protective association with vegetable intake. 

    Why, according to this meta-analysis of nine separate studies, do meat consumers have about a 50 percent greater risk for inflammatory bowel disease? One possibility is that meat may be a vehicle for bacteria that play a role in the development of such diseases. For instance, meat contains “huge amounts of Yersinia.” It’s possible that antibiotic residues in the meat itself could be theoretically mucking with our microbiome, but Yersinia are so-called psychotropic bacteria, meaning they’re able to grow at refrigerator temperatures, and they’ve been found to be significantly associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This supports the concept that Yersinia infection may be a trigger of chronic IBD.

    Animal protein is associated with triple the risk of inflammatory bowel disease, but plant protein is not, as you can see below and at 1:39 in my video. Why? One reason is that animal protein can lead to the formation of toxic bacterial end products, such as hydrogen sulfide, the rotten egg gas. Hydrogen sulfide is not just “one of the main malodorous compounds in human flatus”; it is a “poison that has been implicated in ulcerative colitis.” So, if you go on a meat-heavy, low-carb diet, we aren’t talking just about some “malodorous rectal flatus,” but increased risk of irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel syndrome (ulcerative colitis), and eventually, colorectal cancer. 

    Hydrogen sulfide in the colon comes from sulfur-containing amino acids, like methionine, that are concentrated in animal proteins. There are also sulfites added as preservatives to some nonorganic wine and nonorganic dried fruit, but the sulfur-containing amino acids may be the more important of the two. When researchers gave people increasing quantities of meat, there was an exponential rise in fecal sulfides, as seen here and at 2:37 in my video

    Specific bacteria, like Biophilia wadsworthia, can take this sulfur that ends up in our colon and produce hydrogen sulfide. Eating a diet based on animal products, packed with meat, eggs, and dairy, can specifically increase the growth of this bacteria. People underestimate the dramatic effect diet can have on our gut bacteria. As shown below and at 3:12 in my video, when people are given a fecal transplant, it can take three days for their microbiome to shift. Take a powerful antibiotic like Cipro, and it can take a week. But if we start eating a diet heavy in meat and eggs, within a single day, our microbiome can change—and not for the better. The bad bacterial machinery that churns out hydrogen sulfide can more than double, and this is consistent with the thinking that “diet-induced changes to the gut microbiota [flora] may contribute to the development of inflammatory bowel disease.” In other words, the increase in sulfur compounds in the colon when we eat meat “is not only of interest in the field of flatology”—the study of human farts—“but may also be of importance in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis…” 

    Doctor’s Note:

    This is the first in a three-part video series. Stay tuned for The Best Diet for Ulcerative Colitis Treatment and The Best Diet for Crohn’s Disease Treatment

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Is Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware Best? Is Teflon Safe? | NutritionFacts.org

    Is Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware Best? Is Teflon Safe? | NutritionFacts.org

    What is the best type of pots and pans to use?

    In my last video, I expressed concerns about the use of aluminum cookware. So, what’s the best type of pots and pans to use? As I discuss in my video Stainless Steel or Cast Iron: Which Cookware Is Best? Is Teflon Safe?, stainless steel is an excellent option. It’s the metal chosen for use “in applications where safety and hygiene are considered to be of the utmost importance, such as kitchenware.” But what about studies showing that the nickel and chromium in stainless steel, which keeps the iron in stainless unstained by rust, can leach into foods during cooking? The leaching only seems to occur when the cookware is brand new. “Metal leaching decreases with sequential cooking cycles and stabilizes after the sixth cooking cycle,” after the sixth time you cook with it. Under more common day-to-day conditions, the use of stainless steel pots is considered to be safe even for most people who are acutely sensitive to those metals. 

    A little leaching metal can even be a good thing in the case of straight iron, like a cast iron skillet, which can have the “beneficial effect” of helping to improve iron status and potentially reduce the incidence of iron deficiency anemia among children and women of reproductive age. The only caveat is that you don’t want to fry in cast iron. Frying isn’t healthy regardless of cookware type, but, at hot temperatures, vegetable oil can react with the iron to create trans fats. 

    What about using nonstick pans? Teflon, also known as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), “is used as an inner coating material in nonstick cookware.” Teflon’s dark history was the subject of a 2019 movie called Dark Waters, starring Mark Ruffalo and Anne Hathaway. Employees in DuPont’s Teflon division started giving birth to babies with deformities before “DuPont removed all female staff” from the unit. Of course, the corporation buried it all, hiding it from regulators and the public. “Despite this significant history of industry knowledge” about how toxic some of the chemicals used to make Teflon were, it was able to keep it hidden until, eventually, it was forced to settle for more than half a billion dollars after one of the chemicals was linked to “kidney and testicular cancers, pregnancy-induced hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and high cholesterol.”

    “At normal cooking temperatures, PTFE-coated cookware releases various gases and chemicals that present mild to severe toxicity.” As you can see below and at 2:38 in my video, different gases are released at different temperatures, and their toxic effects have been documented. 

    You’ve heard of “canaries in the coal mine”? This is more like “canaries in the kitchen, as cooking with Teflon cookware is well known to kill pet birds,” and Teflon-coated heat lamp bulbs can wipe out half a flock of chickens. 

    “Apart from the gases released during heating the cooking pans, the coating itself starts damaging after a certain period. It is normally advised to use slow heating when cooking in Teflon-coated pans,” but you can imagine how consumers might ignore that. And, if you aren’t careful, some of the Teflon can start chipping off and make its way into the food, though the effects of ingestion are unknown.

    I could find only one study that looks at the potential human health effects of cooking with nonstick pots and pans. Researchers found that the use of nonstick cookware was associated with about a 50 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer, but that may be because of what they were cooking. “Non-stick cookware is used in hazardous cooking methods (i.e. broiling, frying, grilling or barbecuing) at high temperatures mainly for meat, poultry or fish,” in which carcinogenic heterocyclic amines (HCA) are formed from the animal protein. Then, the animal fat can produce another class of carcinogens called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Though it’s possible it was the Teflon itself, which contains suspected carcinogens like that C8 compound from the movie Dark Waters, also known as PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid.

    “Due to toxicity concerns, PFOA has been replaced with other chemicals such as GenX, but these new alternatives are also suspected to have similar toxicity.” We’ve already so contaminated the Earth with it, though, that we can get it prepackaged in food before it’s even cooked, particularly in dairy products, fish, and other meat; now, “meat is the main source of human exposure” to these toxic pollutants. Of those, seafood is the worst. In a study of diets from around the world, fish and other seafood were “major contributors” of the perfluoroalkyl substances, as expected, given that everything eventually flows into the sea. Though the aquatic food chain is the “primary transfer mechanism” for these toxins into the human diet, “food stored or prepared in greaseproof packaging materials,” like microwave popcorn, may also be a source. 

    In 2019, Oral-B Glide dental floss was tested. Six out of 18 dental floss products researchers tested showed evidence of Teflon-type compounds. Did those who used those kinds of floss end up with higher levels in their bloodstream? Yes, apparently so. Higher levels of perfluorohexanesulfonic acid were found in Oral-B Glide flossers, as you can see below and at 5:28 in my video.

    There are a lot of environmental exposures in the modern world we can’t avoid, but we shouldn’t make things worse by adding them to consumer products. At least we have some power to “lower [our] personal exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

    This is the second in a three-video series on cookware. The first was Are Aluminum Pots, Bottles, and Foil Safe?, and the next is Are Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils Safe?.

    What about pressure cooking? I covered that in Does Pressure Cooking Preserve Nutrients?.

    So, what is the safest way to prepare meat? See Carcinogens in Meat

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What About Animal Protein and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What About Animal Protein and Vegetarians’ Stroke Risk?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Might animal protein-induced increases in the cancer-promoting growth hormone IGF-1 help promote brain artery integrity? 

    In 2014, a study on stroke risk and dietary protein found that greater intake was associated with lower stroke risk and, further, that the animal protein appeared particularly protective. Might that help explain why, as shown in the graph below and at 0:31 in my video Vegetarians and Stroke Risk Factors: Animal Protein?, vegetarians were recently found to have a higher stroke rate than meat eaters?

    Animal protein consumption increases the levels of a cancer-promoting growth hormone in the body known as IGF-1, insulin-like growth factor 1, which “accelerates the progression of precancerous changes to invasive lesions.” High blood concentrations are associated with increased risks of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, potentially explaining the association between dairy milk intake and prostate cancer risk, for example. However, there are also IGF-1 receptors on blood vessels, so perhaps IGF-1 promotes cancer and brain artery integrity.

    People who have strokes appear to have lower blood levels of IGF-1, but it could just be a consequence of the stroke rather than the cause. There weren’t any prospective studies over time until 2017 when researchers found that, indeed, higher IGF-1 levels were linked to a lower risk of stroke—but is it cause and effect? In mice, the answer seems to be yes, and in a petri dish, IGF-1 appears to boost the production of elastin, a stretchy protein that helps keep our arteries elastic. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:41 in my video, higher IGF-1 levels are associated with less artery stiffness, but people with acromegaly, like Andre the Giant, those with excessive levels of growth hormones like IGF-1, do not appear to have lower stroke rates, and a more recent study of dietary protein intake and risk of stroke that looked at a dozen studies of more than half a million people (compared to only seven studies with a quarter million in the previous analysis), found no association between dietary protein intake and the risk of stroke. If anything, dietary plant protein intake may decrease the risk of stroke. 

    However, those with high blood pressure who have low IGF-1 levels do appear to be at increased risk of developing atherosclerosis, which is the thickening of the artery walls leading up to the brain, but no such association was found in people with normal blood pressure. So, there may be “a cautionary lesson for vegans” here. Yes, a whole food, plant-based diet “can down-regulate IGF-1 activity” and may slow the human aging process, not to mention reduce the risk of some of the common cancers that plague the Western world. But, “perhaps the ‘take-home’ lesson should be that people who undertake to down-regulate IGF-1 activity [by cutting down on animal protein intake] as a pro-longevity measure should take particular care to control their blood pressure and preserve their cerebrovascular health [the health of the arteries in their brain] – in particular, they should keep salt intake relatively low while insuring an ample intake of potassium” to keep their blood pressures down. So, that means avoiding processed foods and avoiding added salt, and, in terms of potassium-rich foods, eating beans, sweet potatoes, and dark-green leafy vegetables. 

    Might this explain the higher stroke risk found among vegetarians? No—because dairy and egg whites are animal proteins, too. Only vegans have lower IGF-1 levels in both men and women, so low levels of IGF-1 can’t explain why higher rates of stroke were found in vegetarians. Then what is it? I think the best explanation for the mystery is something called homocysteine, which I cover next. 

    If you aren’t familiar with IGF-1, my videos Flashback Friday: Animal Protein Compared to Cigarette Smoking and How Not to Die from Cancer are good primers. 

    Beyond eating a plant-based diet, how else can we lower our blood pressure? Check out the chapter of hypertension in my book How Not to Die at your local public library. 

    This is the eighth video in a 12-part series on vegetarians’ stroke risk. If you missed any of the previous ones, check out the related posts below.

    Coming up, we turn to what I think is actually going on:

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • What Should We Drink?  | NutritionFacts.org

    What Should We Drink?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Here is a review of reviews on the health effects of tea, coffee, milk, wine, and soda.

    If you’ve watched my videos or read my books, you’ve heard me say, time and again, the best available balance of evidence. What does that mean? When making decisions as life-or-death important as what to feed ourselves and our families, it matters less what a single study says, but rather what the totality of peer-reviewed science has to say.

    Individual studies can lead to headlines like “Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke and Cancer,” but to know if there is a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, it would be better to look at a review or meta-analysis that compiles multiple studies. The problem is that some reviews say one thing—for instance, “breathing other people’s tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer”—and other reviews say another—such as, the effects of secondhand smoke are insignificant and further such talk may “foster irrational fears.” And, while we’re at it, you can indulge in “active smoking of some 4-5 cigarettes per day” without really worrying about it, so light up!

    Why do review articles on the health effects of secondhand smoke reach such different conclusions? As you can imagine, about 90 percent of reviews written by researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry said it was not harmful, whereas you get the opposite number with independent reviews, as you can see below and at 1:18 in my video Friday Favorites: What Are the Best Beverages?. Reviews written by the tobacco industry–affiliated researchers had 88 times the odds of concluding that secondhand smoke was harmless. It was all part of “a deliberate strategy to use scientific consultants to discredit the science…” In other words, “the strategic and long run antidote to the passive smoking issue…is developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, medical evidence that passive smoking [secondhand smoke] is not harmful to the non-smoker’s health.”

    Can’t we just stick to the independent reviews? The problem is that industry-funded researchers have all sorts of sneaky ways to get out of declaring conflicts of interest, so it can be hard to follow the money. For instance, it was found that “77% failed to disclose the sources of funding” for their research. But, even without knowing who funded what, the majority of reviews still concluded that secondhand smoke was harmful. So, just as a single study may not be as helpful as looking at a compilation of studies on a topic, a single review may not be as useful as a compilation of reviews. In that case, looking at a review of reviews can give us a better sense of where the best available balance of evidence may lie. When it comes to secondhand smoke, it’s probably best not to inhale, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:30 in my video

    Wouldn’t it be cool if there were reviews of reviews for different foods and drinks? Voila! Enter “Associations Between Food and Beverage Groups and Major Diet-Related Chronic Diseases: An Exhaustive Review of Pooled/Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews.” Let’s start with the drinks. As you can see below and at 2:51 in my video, the findings were classified into three categories: protective, neutral, or deleterious.

    First up: tea versus coffee. As you can see in the graph below and at 2:58, most reviews found both beverages to be protective for whichever condition they were studying, but you can see how this supports my recommendation for tea over coffee. Every cup of coffee is a lost opportunity to drink a cup of green tea, which is even healthier. 

    It’s no surprise that soda sinks to the bottom, as you can see below and at 3:20 in my video, but 14 percent of reviews mentioned the protective effects of drinking soda. What?! Well, most were references to papers like “High Intake of Added Sugar Among Norwegian Children and Adolescents,” a cross-sectional study that found that eighth-grade girls who drank more soda were thinner than girls who drank less. Okay, but that was just a snapshot in time. What do you think is more likely? That the heavier girls were heavier because they drank less soda, or that they drank less sugary soda because they were heavier? Soda abstention may therefore be a consequence of obesity, rather than a cause, yet it gets marked down as having a protective association. 

    Study design flaws may also account for wine numbers, as seen below and at 4:07 in my video. This review of reviews was published in 2014, before the revolution in our understanding of “alcohol’s evaporating health benefits,” suggesting that the “presumed health benefits from ‘moderate’ alcohol use [may have] finally collapsed”—thanks in part to a systematic error of misclassifying former drinkers as if they were lifelong abstainers, as I revealed in a deep dive in a video series on the subject.  

    Sometimes there are unexplainable associations. For example, one of the soft drink studies found that increased soda consumption was associated with a lower risk of certain types of esophageal cancers. Don’t tell me. Was the study funded by Coca-Cola? Indeed. Does that help explain the positive milk studies, as you can see in the graph below and at 5:02 in my video? Were they all just funded by the National Dairy Council? 

    As shown below and at 5:06, even more conflicts of interest have been found among milk studies than soda studies, with industry-funded studies of all such beverages “approximately four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the [study] sponsors than articles without industry-related funding.”

    Funding bias aside, though, there could be legitimate reasons for the protective effects associated with milk consumption. After all, those who drink more milk may drink less soda, which is even worse, so they may come out ahead. It may be more than just relative benefits, though. The soda-cancer link seems a little tenuous and not just because of the study’s financial connection to The Coca-Cola Company. It’s hard to imagine a biologically plausible mechanism, whereas even something as universally condemned as tobacco isn’t universally bad. As I’ve explored before, more than 50 studies have consistently found a protective association between nicotine and Parkinson’s disease. Even secondhand smoke may be protective. Of course, you’d still want to avoid it. Passive secondhand smoke may decrease the risk of Parkinson’s, but it increases the risk of stroke, an even deadlier brain disease, not to mention lung cancer and heart disease, which has killed off millions of Americans since the first Surgeon General’s report was released, as you can see below and at 6:20 in my video

    Thankfully, by eating certain vegetables, we may be able to get some of the benefits without the risks, and the same may be true of dairy. As I’ve described before, the consumption of milk is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, leading to recommendations suggesting that men may want to cut down or minimize their intake, but milk consumption is also associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk. This appears to be a calcium effect. Thankfully, we may be able to get the best of both worlds by eating high-calcium plant foods, such as greens and beans.  

    What does our review-of-reviews study conclude about such plant-based foods, in comparison to animal-based foods? We’ll find out next.

    Stay tuned for the exhaustive review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on major diet-related chronic diseases found for food groups in What Are the Best Foods?.

    The alcohol video I mentioned is Is It Better to Drink a Little Alcohol Than None at All?, and the Parkinson’s video is Pepper’s and Parkinson’s: The Benefits of Smoking Without the Risks. I also mentioned my Dairy and Cancer video. 

    What about diet soda? See related posts below. 

    What’s so bad about alcohol? Check out Can Alcohol Cause Cancer? and Do Any Benefits of Alcohol Outweigh the Risks? for more. 

    I’ve also got tons of milk. Check here.

    My recommendations for the best beverages are water, green tea, and hibiscus herbal tea. Learn more in the related posts below.

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • New AI tool at UCHealth improves polyp detection rate during colonoscopies

    New AI tool at UCHealth improves polyp detection rate during colonoscopies

    DENVER — Sarah Wartell first started noticing the signs in 2020.

    “I went to the ER a couple times, you know, being told it was food poisoning or, you know, a stomach bug,” said Wartell.

    She was experiencing weight loss, abdominal pain, and nausea among other things – all symptoms of colon cancer.

    Despite being brushed off by multiple doctors, she kept pushing for answers.

    “When they were telling me no, it’s anxiety, I kind of felt like I was losing my mind if I’m being perfectly honest,” she said.

    Finally, Wartell underwent a colonoscopy that would save her life.

    Doctors diagnosed her with stage three colon cancer at the age of 40.

    Wartell is one of millions of Americans receiving a colon cancer diagnosis at a younger age.

    Advocating for herself is what saved her life, and something that UC Health associate professor of medicine Dr. Swati Patel advises.

    “The best time to talk about colon cancer risk and screening is the moment you meet your doctor. You’re never too young to discuss this. And when you are eligible for screening, the best test is the one that gets done,” said Dr. Patel.

    This past fall, UC Health implemented a new AI tool that acts as a second set of eyes during endoscopies.

    It allows surgeons like Dr. Patel to detect even the smallest polyps.

    “If more people are looking at the screen, we improve polyp detection rate,” she said. “I think you know, long term, it’s still to say whether adding this technology really improves large polyp detection or certainly cancer detection. But it sort of equalizes the playing field to ensure that everyone’s getting kind of a good quality colonoscopy in terms of the inspection.”

    Wartell is now cancer-free after getting treated by experts at UC Health.

    With March being Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, she has this advice for others:

    “Take good care of you. You’re precious. You’re important. Your body, it gives you all the arrows and cues – just listen to ‘em.”


    The Follow Up

    What do you want Denver7 to follow up on? Is there a story, topic or issue you want us to revisit? Let us know with the contact form below.

    Adria Iraheta

    Source link

  • Seniors With Few Years Left Often Advised to Get Colonoscopy

    Seniors With Few Years Left Often Advised to Get Colonoscopy

    March 21, 2023 – Most of the time, when a polyp is found during an older adult’s colonoscopy, it is unlikely that a concerning polyp or colon cancer will be found during a future surveillance scan. Yet most patients are advised to repeat the colonoscopy even if they aren’t expected to live very long, a new study has found. 

    “Given the lack of clear guidance about when to stop colonoscopy in older patients, I am not surprised that physicians recommend surveillance even in patients with low life expectancy,” said Ziad Gellad, MD, MPH, with Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC, who was not involved in the research.

    “These are nuanced decisions that require shared decision making. It’s not easy to tell patients that they are too old to get preventive care, especially patients in whom your only interaction is the procedure itself,” Gellad said. 

    Current guidelines recommend doctors and patients make decisions about repeat colonoscopy in older adults with prior polyps, weighing the potential benefits (identifying and removing meaningful polyps to prevent cancer) against the burdens and potential harms, such as bleeding.

    While most colon polyps are not harmful, a subset of polyps, if allowed to grow, have the potential to develop into cancer, a transformation that can take 10 to 15 years. This long timeline highlights the importance of considering life expectancy in deciding which patients should have a repeat colonoscopy.

    The new study involved nearly 10,000 adults age 65 and older undergoing surveillance colonoscopy due to a prior polyp. Fewer than 1 in 10 of these individuals were found to have advanced polyps or colorectal cancer during a repeat colonoscopy. 

    Yet the vast majority (87%) of individuals whose doctor gave a recommendation to stop or continue colonoscopy were advised to return for another procedure at some point – even when they had no significant colonoscopy findings or limited life expectancy, including less than 5 years. 

    In some cases, the recommended time to repeat colonoscopy was greater than the individual’s life expectancy.

    Complications during colonoscopies happen to about 26 in every 1,000 people — nearly 10 times greater than the potential benefits as seen in their study in terms of identifying cancer.

    These findings “may help refine decision-making” about the potential benefits and harms of pursuing or stopping surveillance colonoscopy in older adults with a history of polyps, write the investigators, led by Audrey Calderwood, MD, with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, NH. 

    Based on their findings, they think older adults expected to live fewer than 5 more years should skip surveillance colonoscopy.  The same goes for individuals whose life expectancy is between 5 and less than 10 years and they only have “low risk” polyps.

    For the healthy senior with a life expectancy of 10 or more years and recent “advanced” polyps, they suggest the doctor provide a recommendation for future surveillance colonoscopy with a caveat that the ultimate decision is dependent on health and priorities at the time the colonoscopy is due.

    Source link

  • Gut Check: The Real Reason You Avoid That At-Home Stool Test

    Gut Check: The Real Reason You Avoid That At-Home Stool Test

    Feb. 16, 2023 – Many people, including 20% of Americans ages 50 to 75, are behind on colorectal cancer screenings – even though do-it-yourself tests let you collect a sample easily and privately in your own home. 

    One possible explanation: A lot of people convince themselves they don’t need it. 

    Psychologists call this “defensive information processing” – adopting beliefs to lessen fears of a threat. And new research in the journal Cancer suggests it could be a key reason that some people don’t get recommended colorectal cancer screenings. 

    Researchers surveyed 2,600 people in Ireland who had been invited to complete at-home stool tests to screen for colorectal cancer a few years prior. 

    Compared to people who took the test, those who refused it scored higher on measures of defensiveness. Examples included avoidance, denial, assuming the risk of colorectal cancer didn’t apply, or arguing against the evidence for the test.

    People were especially unlikely to complete the stool test if they scored high on two behaviors:

    • Denying the urgency of needing to be tested. They assumed they could wait until they were less busy or when another, better test might come along.
    • Self-exemption, meaning they assumed they didn’t need a test because they had regular bowel movements, lived a healthy lifestyle, or ate plenty of vegetables. 

    “These arguments underlie a lack of awareness of how colorectal cancer develops,” says study author Nicholas Clarke, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at Dublin City University in Ireland. “Bowel cancer can take 10 years to begin to show any signs or symptoms in a person.”

    By the time symptoms occur, the disease is often at a later, harder-to-treat stage. According to the CDC, almost 88% of adults diagnosed with colorectal cancer at an early stage live for 5 years or more, compared to only 16% of those diagnosed with late-stage cancer.

    In this study, people received a mailed invitation to do their screening. In a different context, other defensive behaviors might occur. In the U.S., for example, when a health care provider broaches the subject of screening, people “may engage more in counter-arguing or opting out,” says Clarke. “We do need further research in this area to understand how defensive reactions may differ depending on the context in which the test is offered.” 

    There’s a social component too – in the study, people in more economically deprived areas scored higher on defensiveness and were less likely to take part in screening. 

    “The need to carry out further research and design evidence-based interventions which tackle these disparities is key to improving colorectal cancer screening uptake rates,” says Clarke. 

    This is particularly important for men, as men have higher rates of colorectal cancer than women and yet are less likely to get screening, says Clarke. 

    So, what can you do if your gut reaction is to decline a test? 

    “I think if a person receives an invitation to be screened and initially has a negative reaction, or thinks, ‘No, I’m not doing that,’ or ‘I don’t need that,’ they should reflect on why they have had that initial reaction,” says Clarke. “If a person recognizes that, it would be useful to look for trustworthy information, such as on the American Cancer Society or Irish Cancer Society websites.” Talking to your doctor can help you make the right choice for you. 

    As a society, we can do more to spread the word, too. That means raising public awareness of colorectal cancer, how it develops, and how long a person can have it without symptoms, says Clarke. “I believe if people were aware of the trajectory of the disease, they would be less defensive to the invitation to be screened.”

    Source link

  • The COVID Emergency Is Ending. Is Vaccine Outreach Over Too?

    The COVID Emergency Is Ending. Is Vaccine Outreach Over Too?

    Stephen B. Thomas, the director of the Center for Health Equity at the University of Maryland, considers himself an eternal optimist. When he reflects on the devastating pandemic that has been raging for the past three years, he chooses to focus less on what the world has lost and more on what it has gained: potent antiviral drugs, powerful vaccines, and, most important, unprecedented collaborations among clinicians, academics, and community leaders that helped get those lifesaving resources to many of the people who needed them most. But when Thomas, whose efforts during the pandemic helped transform more than 1,000 Black barbershops and salons into COVID-vaccine clinics, looks ahead to the next few months, he worries that momentum will start to fizzle out—or, even worse, that it will go into reverse.

    This week, the Biden administration announced that it would allow the public-health-emergency declaration over COVID-19 to expire in May—a transition that’s expected to put shots, treatments, tests, and other types of care more out of reach of millions of Americans, especially those who are uninsured. The move has been a long time coming, but for community leaders such as Thomas, whose vaccine-outreach project, Shots at the Shop, has depended on emergency funds and White House support, the transition could mean the imperilment of a local infrastructure that he and his colleagues have been building for years. It shouldn’t have been inevitable, he told me, that community vaccination efforts would end up on the chopping block. “A silver lining of the pandemic was the realization that hyperlocal strategies work,” he said. “Now we’re seeing the erosion of that.”

    I called Thomas this week to discuss how the emergency declaration allowed his team to mobilize resources for outreach efforts—and what may happen in the coming months as the nation attempts to pivot back to normalcy.

    Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

    Katherine J. Wu: Tell me about the genesis of Shots at the Shop.

    Stephen B. Thomas: We started our work with barbershops and beauty salons in 2014. It’s called HAIR: Health Advocates In-Reach and Research. Our focus was on colorectal-cancer screening. We brought medical professionals—gastroenterologists and others—into the shop, recognizing that Black people in particular were dying from colon cancer at rates that were just unacceptable but were potentially preventable with early diagnosis and appropriate screening.

    Now, if I can talk to you about colonoscopy, I could probably talk to you about anything. In 2019, we held a national health conference for barbers and stylists. They all came from around the country to talk about different areas of health and chronic disease: prostate cancer, breast cancer, others. We brought them all together to talk about how we can address health disparities and get more agency and visibility to this new frontline workforce.

    When the pandemic hit, all the plans that came out of the national conference were on hold. But we continued our efforts in the barbershops. We started a Zoom town hall. And we started seeing misinformation and disinformation about the pandemic being disseminated in our shops, and there were no countermeasures.

    We got picked up on the national media, and then we got the endorsement of the White House. And that’s when we launched Shots at the Shop. We had 1,000 shops signed up in I’d say less than 90 days.

    Wu: Why do you think Shots at the Shop was so successful? What was the network doing differently from other vaccine-outreach efforts that spoke directly to Black and brown communities?

    Thomas: If you came to any of our clinics, it didn’t feel like you were coming into a clinic or a hospital. It felt like you were coming to a family reunion. We had a DJ spinning music. We had catered food. We had a festive environment. Some people showed up hesitant, and some of them left hesitant but fascinated. We didn’t have to change their worldview. But we treated them with dignity and respect. We weren’t telling them they’re stupid and don’t understand science.

    And the model worked. It worked so well that even the health professionals were extremely pleased, because now all they had to do was show up with the vaccine, and the arms were ready for needles.

    The barbers and stylists saw themselves as doing health-related things anyway. They had always seen themselves as doing more than just cutting hair. No self-respecting Black barber is going to say, “We’ll get you in and out in 10 minutes.” It doesn’t matter how much hair you have: You’re gonna be in there for half a day.

    Wu: How big of a difference do you think your network’s outreach efforts made in narrowing the racial gaps in COVID vaccination?

    Thomas: Attribution is always difficult, and success has many mothers. So I will say this to you: I have no doubt that we made a huge difference. With a disease like COVID, you can’t afford to have any pocket unprotected, and we were vaccinating people who would otherwise have never been vaccinated. We were dealing with people at the “hell no” wall.

    We were also vaccinating people who were homeless. They were treated with dignity and respect. At some of our shops, we did a coat drive and a shoe drive. And we had dentists providing us with oral-health supplies: toothbrush, floss, paste, and other things. It made a huge difference. When you meet people where they are, you’ve got to meet all their needs.

    Wu: How big of a difference did the emergency declaration, and the freeing-up of resources, tools, and funds, make for your team’s outreach efforts?

    Thomas: Even with all the work I’ve been doing in the barber shop since 2014, the pandemic got us our first grant from the state. Money flowed. We had resources to go beyond the typical mechanisms. I was able to secure thousands of KN95 masks and distribute them to shops. Same thing with rapid tests. We even sent them Corsi-Rosenthal boxes, a DIY filtration system to clean up indoor air.

    Without the emergency declaration, we would still be in the desert screaming for help. The emergency declaration made it possible to get resources through nontraditional channels, and we were doing things that the other systems—the hospital system, the local health department—couldn’t do. We extended their reach to populations that have historically been underserved and distrustful.

    Wu: The public-health-emergency declaration hasn’t yet expired. What signs of trouble are you seeing right now?

    Thomas: The bridge between the barbershops and the clinical side has been shut down in almost all places, including here in Maryland. I go to the shop and they say to me, “Dr. T, when are we going to have the boosters here?” Then I call my clinical partners, who deliver the shots. Some won’t even answer my phone calls. And when they do, they say, “Oh, we don’t do pop-ups anymore. We don’t do community-outreach clinics anymore, because the grant money’s gone. The staff we hired during the pandemic, they use the pandemic funding—they’re gone.” But people are here; they want the booster. And my clinical partners say, “Send them down to a pharmacy.” Nobody wants to go to a pharmacy.

    You can’t see me, so you can’t see the smoke still coming out of my ears. But it hurts. We got them to trust. If you abandon the community now, it will simply reinforce the idea that they don’t matter.

    Wu: What is the response to this from the communities you’re talking to?

    Thomas: It’s “I told you so, they didn’t care about us. I told you, they would leave us with all these other underlying conditions.” You know, it shouldn’t take a pandemic to build trust. But if we lose it now, it will be very, very difficult to build back.

    We built a bridge. It worked. Why would you dismantle it? Because that’s exactly what’s happening right now. The very infrastructure we created to close the racial gaps in vaccine acceptance is being dismantled. It’s totally unacceptable.

    Wu: The emergency declaration was always going to end at some point. Did it have to play out like this?

    Thomas: I don’t think so. If you talk to the hospital administrators, they’ll tell you the emergency declaration and the money allowed them to add outreach. And when the money went away, they went back to business as usual. Even though the outreach proved you could actually do a better job. And the misinformation and the disinformation campaign hasn’t stopped. Why would you go back to what doesn’t work?

    Wu: What is your team planning for the short and long term, with limited resources?

    Thomas: As long as Shots at the Shop can connect clinical partners to access vaccines, we will definitely keep that going.

    Nobody wants to go back to normal. So many of our barbers and stylists feel like they’re on their own. I’m doing my best to supply them with KN95 masks and rapid tests. We have kept the conversation going on our every-other-week Zoom town hall. We just launched a podcast. We put out some of our stories in the form of a graphic novel, The Barbershop Storybook. And we’re trying to launch a national association for barbers and stylists, called Barbers and Stylists United for Health.

    The pandemic resulted in a mobilization of innovation, a recognition of the intelligence at the community level, the recognition that you need to culturally tailor your strategy. We need to keep those relationships intact. Because this is not the last time we’re going to see a pandemic even in our lifetime. I’m doing my best to knock on doors to continue to put our proposals out there. Hopefully, people will realize that reaching Black and Hispanic communities is worth sustaining.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Healthy Plant-Based Diets Lower Men’s Odds for Colon Cancer

    Healthy Plant-Based Diets Lower Men’s Odds for Colon Cancer

    By Cara Murez 

    HealthDay Reporter

    TUESDAY, Nov. 29, 2022 (HealthDay News) — Are you an older man worried about your risk for colon cancer? Eating whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes may improve your odds of dodging the disease, new research shows.

    “Although previous research has suggested that plant-based diets may play a role in preventing colorectal cancer, the impact of plant foods’ nutritional quality on this association has been unclear,” said study co-author Jihye Kim, from Kyung Hee University in South Korea, “Our findings suggest that eating a healthy plant-based diet is associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.”

    Kim noted that colon cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and that a man has a lifetime odds for developing it of one in 23. A woman has a lifetime risk of one in 25.

    The new report was published online Nov. 29 in BMC Medicine.

    The researchers studied a population of nearly 80,000 American men, finding that those who ate the highest average daily amounts of healthy plant-based foods had a 22% lower risk of colon cancer compared to those who ate the lowest amounts of these foods.

    While studying more than 93,000 American women, the researchers did not find the same association.

    “We speculate that the antioxidants found in foods such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains could contribute to lowering colorectal cancer risk by suppressing chronic inflammation, which can lead to cancer,” Kim said in a journal news release.

    “As men tend to have a higher risk of colorectal cancer than women, we propose that this could help explain why eating greater amounts of healthy plant-based foods was associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk in men, but not women,” Kim added.

    The risk also varied by race. While colon cancer risk was 20% lower in Japanese American men who ate the most plant foods compared to those who ate the least plant foods, it was 24% lower in white men who ate the highest amounts of these healthy foods compared to those of the same race who ate the least.

    No significant associations were found between plant-based diets and colon cancer in Black, Hispanic or Native Hawaiian men. This could be because of other cancer risk factors that exist in those groups, the study authors suggested.

    The data came from a multiethnic survey among adults recruited from Hawaii and Los Angeles between 1993 and 1996. About 30% of male participants were Japanese American, 26% were white, 24% were Hispanic, 13% were Black and 7% were Native Hawaiian.
     

    Study participants reported their usual food and drink intake during the previous year. The researchers evaluated that intake based on healthy and unhealthy plant foods, then calculated the incidence of new colon cancer cases until 2017 using data from cancer registries.

    The investigators accounted for other factors, such as age, family history of colon cancer, body mass index (based on height and weight), smoking history, physical activity levels, alcohol consumption, multivitamin use, daily energy intake and, for women, use of hormone replacement therapy. Nearly 5,000 participants (2.9%) developed colon cancer during the study period.

    The study was observational and could not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. It also did not account for the beneficial effects of fish and dairy on colon cancer. It’s also not known for how long participants adhered to their recorded diets.

    Future research is needed to investigate genetic and environmental factors that may influence the association between plant-based food intake and colon cancer between racial and ethnic groups, the authors said.

    More information

    The American Cancer Society has more on colon cancer.

     

     

    SOURCE: BMC Medicine, news release, Nov. 29, 2022

    Source link

  • Your Next Colonoscopy Could Get an Assist From AI

    Your Next Colonoscopy Could Get an Assist From AI

    Nov. 11,  2022 – Artificial intelligence holds a lot of potential in medicine, helping doctors find skin cancer, flagging potential issues on a chest X-ray, and assisting in many other procedures. Screening for colorectal cancer during a colonoscopy is another prime example.  

    A colonoscopy — recommended for Americans at average cancer risk starting at age 45 — won’t be much different for patients with the addition of artificial intelligence, or AI. But behind the scenes, AI could be making detection of any precancerous polyps or cancerous lesions more likely. 

    “AI-enhanced colonoscopy effectively turbocharges the physician’s ability to find even the most subtle precancerous polyps,” says Tyler M. Berzin, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Center for Advanced Endoscopy at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. 

    The technology is designed to flag anything the computer “sees” as suspicious, but it does not replace the training and expertise of a gastroenterologist. Even with AI, doctors remain at the patient’s side and perform the procedure. 

    The doctor remains in full control, says Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at University of Kansas School of Medicine in Kansas City, KS. “AI is assisting and alerting them to colon polyps — the precancerous lesions in the colon — so that the doctor can remove them.”

    Controversy Continues

    Size, height, and numbers matter with polyps. Doctors generally remove or biopsy lesions 10 millimeters and larger. 

    But there remains less consensus about the best approach to smaller polyps.

    “The clinical relevance of detecting and removing small (5 to 9 mm) or diminutive (less than 5 mm) adenomas is a subject of ongoing debate,” Berzin and co-authors wrote in a leading gastroenterology journal in May 2020. 

    One of the potential disadvantages to using AI polyp tools, for example, is “the risk of removing a higher number of diminutive or hyperplastic polyps, which increases cost and risk, without any benefit to the patient,” Berzin says. 

    “Trained gastroenterologists are experts at identifying and removing precancerous colon polyps,” Berzin says. “But a gastroenterologist working with an AI polyp detection tool has a big advantage because AI computer vision tools can simultaneously analyze every pixel of the endoscopy monitor and can do so without being distracted or fatigued for even a millisecond.”

    The benefit for patients is “another pair of eyes looking for polyps and helping the doctor,” says Sharma, who is also chair of the Artificial Intelligence Task Force at the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

    How It Works

    AI is based on computer instructions called algorithms that learn the difference between worrisome and benign colonoscopy images and videos. AI gets better over item in a process called machine learning. When an AI system spots a potential area of concern, the technology calls attention to it by framing it within a box on the screen. Some systems also sound an audible alarm. 

    “We are seeing more interest in using these algorithms since they will standardize endoscopists’ polyp detection and, therefore, reduce the number of colon cancers missed,” says Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Swedish Health Services in Seattle. 

    “These products are slowly gaining traction. During colonoscopy scheduling, patients should ask if their endoscopist has access to augmented diagnostic tools,” she says. 

    The technology is not accurate 100% of the time – there can be false positives where the system flags a bubble in the colon, for example, as potentially dangerous. That’s just one reason that doctors still have the final say on whether a polyp is suspicious or not. 

    AI or no AI, “colonoscopy has long been our most effective tool for preventing colon cancer, detecting precancerous polyps earlier than any other screening method,” says Berzin, who is also an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

    AI Can Be Costly

    AI and machine learning already play a role in “smart” technologies (smartphones, smartwatches, and smart speakers), self-driving cars, and speech recognition software. But the use of AI in medicine is comparatively new. And like a lot of novel technologies, it’s also expensive. “The AI equipment needs to be purchased and is expensive,” Sharma says.  

    “The cost of the algorithms currently can be prohibitive for some centers in the current health care landscape,” Parasa agrees. “The cost is likely to come down as more algorithms enter the GI market, as it is with other software solutions.”

    Colorectal Cancer Is Common

    Not counting some kinds of skin cancer, colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Americans. It is also the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, the CDC reports. More than 150,000 Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and more than 50,000 will die in 2022, according to National Cancer Institute figures

    Future Insights

    More research is needed to examine how humans and this technology interact, Berzin says. “The most interesting research in this space will not be about comparing ‘physician versus AI,’ but will be focused on understanding the nuances of ‘physician plus AI.’”

    In the U.S., there are at least three FDA-approved AI algorithms for polyp detection, and more are being developed, Parasa says. 

    “In addition, other applications which are currently available on the European market might be available in the U.S. market in the near future, including polyp characterization.”

    “As the field matures, we will likely see more AI augmentation tools that will assist us in detecting and diagnosing GI conditions in real time,” she adds. “A suite of algorithms like this will definitely improve patient care and outcomes.”

    Even though AI is somewhat of a work in progress in medicine, Berzin expects the combination of doctor and AI technology “will translate into the highest possible protection from colon cancer in the long term.”

    Source link

  • How a Wrong Diagnosis Masked a Young Woman’s Cancer

    How a Wrong Diagnosis Masked a Young Woman’s Cancer

    Nov. 7, 2022 — Two years ago, then 28-year-old Ashley Teague began losing weight. At the time, the Indianapolis, IN, native and mother of two was 6-foot-1 and weighed about 270 pounds.

    She chalked it up to her busy schedule. She had started a photography business and was travelling “all the time.”

    She didn’t know why, but she began losing weight without exercising and without changing her diet, she says. 

    But a few months later, Teague began having intermittent pain on her left side. She went to see he doctor, who said she needed blood work. After everything came back normal, she was told to change her diet and avoid spicy food, which she says she did. 

    A few weeks later, Teague says she began having black, tar-like stools and then diarrhea. She says whatever she ate went right through her within 10 to 15 minutes of eating, so she went back to the doctor.

    Worried, she questioned if she should get a colonoscopy. She says she was turned down, being told she was too young to need the procedure. Desperate for answers, Teague asked for additional tests.

    “I said OK, can I at least get a CT? Can we just run some more tests because I know my blood work came back fine, but I’m literally telling you, something’s not right, I’m not feeling right. I’m not sleeping through the night, I’m being woke up to my stomach [sounding like] somebody’s fighting in there, it’s just a constant rumble. And she’s like ‘OK, it sounds like IBS, so we’re going to treat you for IBS.’”

    The results of the CT scan and more blood work came back fine, but she says the IBS medication provided no relief.

    “I go back [and] I said, “This stuff isn’t working. The medicine for IBS isn’t working,” she says, noting that at this point, she was having blood in her stools.  

    Teague’s 56-year-old mother was also a patient at the same medical practice where she was being treated. After being diagnosed with kidney cancer at 38 and then breast cancer at 52, the two-time cancer survivor underwent genetic testing and found out she had Lynch syndrome, which is a genetic disorder caused by a mutation in a gene. It increases the risk of various types of cancer.

    The gene typically is inherited and is passed from parents to children. If one parent has it, there’s a 50% chance their children will also have the gene. According to the CDC, people with Lynch are more likely to get colorectal, endometrial, stomach, liver, kidney, brain, and skin cancers. And they often develop these cancers at an early age — before they turn 50.

    Colorectal and endometrial cancers are the most common cancers caused by Lynch. The likelihood of getting colon cancer if you have the condition can be as high as 80% to 85%.

    The syndrome is extremely underdiagnosed. Most people aren’t aware they have the gene until they get cancer and undergo genetic testing. Lynch Syndrome International, an organization founded by survivors, their families, and health experts specializing in the syndrome, estimates that about 1 million people in the U.S. have Lynch syndrome but only 5% are currently diagnosed.

    Teague says she told her providers that her mother had Lynch syndrome, but they never suggested she be tested for the disorder.

    “I’m telling them my mom had Lynch, I’m telling them that she had kidney and breast cancer.”

    But when her father had cancerous polyps removed from his colon, “all of a sudden everybody’s scrambling to get me a colonoscopy,” she says. 

    By now, 7 months had gone by. Teague’s colonoscopy revealed a large mass that was the size of a baseball on her colon. It was cancerous. 

    “My heart just sank,” she says. 

    Teague says she got excellent care from her surgeon. But unfortunately, most of her colon had to be removed. 

    “They left me about 5 to 6 inches of colon. He was able to merge it with my small intestine so that I wouldn’t have to have a colostomy bag and would still be able to use the restroom regularly,” she says. 

    Teague says the surgeon who treated her was the first doctor to suggest she get tested for Lynch syndrome. Once she did, it wasconfirmed that she did have the condition. The American Cancer Society estimates there will be 106,180 new cases of colon cancer in the U.S. this year. Approximately 4,200 colorectal cancers a year are caused by Lynch syndrome, according to the CDC. 

    Moving Forward

    It may seem like what Teague experienced is extreme, but Otis Brawley, MD, professor of oncology and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, says most of what happened during her 7-month journey was not so out of the ordinary.

    “If you have someone who is 28 years old who comes in, ‘I’ve got weight loss, I’ve got nondescript symptoms,’ the doctor should — because so many people come in with that and it is absolutely nothing — the doctor should talk to them, the doctor should counsel them, and the doctor should not go directly to a colonoscopy even though the patient is asking for one.”

    But “if they have a prolonged period of having these problems, several months, well documented where they come back to the doctor several times, then it might be appropriate to do some imaging to include colonoscopy,” he says. 

    Brawley also says that people with Lynch should undergo surveillance of their colon and several other organs like the uterus, starting in their 20s. 

    His advice to someone having a similar experience to Teague: Be persistent.

    “Try to keep an open dialogue with your [doctor] and preferablytry to keep the same [doctor],” he says. “Let them know that what you started trying out last week, 2 or 3 or 4 weeks ago, is not working and you still have the symptoms. That is all part of the diagnostic process. The mistake is some people think, ‘Oh, I came in and I said I had this, the doctor should diagnosis it immediately.’ That is not the case. Very frequently you have to go back over and over again to see the doctor. And it’s very common for people to have very nondescript abdominal problems, and it’s fine to say ‘I believe this is irritable bowel syndrome and let’s do these things and if it continues, come back.’ And that’s the way it should be worked at.”

    But Brawley concedes it’s hard to second guess these things when you weren’t in the room.

    That said, “black, tarry stools actually mean blood in the stools,” he says. “That would prompt most doctors to want to do some type of colonoscopy.”

    Still, it’s not always cut and dry.

    Teague says when she told the doctors there was blood in her stools, they ordered a CT scan, which Brawley says was “the appropriate thing to do.”

    Teague was persistent. She made multiple trips to her doctor’s office. She says sometimes she was in such pain she made several visits to the emergency room, creating a paper trail.

    From the time she started going to the doctor with symptoms to the time the colonoscopy found the tumor was 7 months. By then, she had lost about 30 pounds.

    “A little bit outside of the length of time that it would be, that I would consider to be normal,” Brawley says. “I would say, I would hope that these sorts of things would be diagnosed within 3 or 4 months, but 7 months with folks having appointment issues and especially during COVID time, that’s not that outrageous, it’s on the edge of what I would call acceptable.”

    “Unfortunately, in our system, our system is not that great in doing things expediently,” Brawley says. 

    Mandeep Sawhney, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, is a Lynch syndrome expert. He says the rates of colon cancer and the number of people dying from the disease are going down. All good news, but that’s only half the story.

    “For reasons that we don’t fully understand, the rates of colon cancer are increasing in our younger patient population, and that’s unusual. People born in 1990 are two times more likely to develop colon cancer and four times more likely to develop rectal cancer than people born in 1950. A significant proportion of cancers that develop in young patients are the result of syndromes like Lynch syndrome. And because cancers overall are uncommon in young patients, it often takes much longer for them to get diagnosed because [doctors] don’t often think that a person in their 20s or 30s could have colon cancer.”

    “One of the things we’ve been really been talking to our primary care [doctors] about, especially with the understanding that there’s a marked increase in young people getting colon cancer, is to keep that up and center when you see a patient who’s complaining of bleeding from rectum and when you see a patient who’s complaining of change in bowel habits that you don’t have a good explanation for. Don’t ignore young patients with bleeding or these symptoms. Consider a full evaluation like you would with an older patient.”

    Sawhney recommends that children of Lynch syndrome patients get tested between 16 to 18 years of age.

    “If you look at 100 young patients who develop colon cancer, I’d say about 25% to 30% will have Lynch syndrome, but the other 70% we never come up with an explanation for why they develop cancer at a young age. And that’s worrisome, especially considering that we really made big strides in colon cancer because of screening, because of colonoscopy that are being done. For once, we are actually seeing a drop in the number of cancers that are being diagnosed, and that’s great, but at the same time we’re seeing this alarming trend where for reasons we just don’t understand, young people, sometimes in their 20s or 30s are getting colon cancer, which we never really saw before.”

    Two years out from her surgery, Teague has not fully regained her appetite. She says her mental health has deteriorated. She has anxiety, is a bit more paranoid, and says she’s becoming a hypochondriac. But she believes she survived her ordeal for a reason. So she’s sharing her story in the hopes it may help others, especially millennials.

    “I do want our millennials to know do not be discouraged. Keep going to the doctors, keep making the appointments, keep going to the ER, create a paper trail so once you do get a doctor who’s going to take you seriously, they can look back,” she says. “Do not be discouraged by no insurance, do not be discouraged by our age, do not be discouraged by the circles that the medical professionals talk. Don’t let anyone talk circles around you, don’t let anyone convince you that you’re not feeling what you’re feeling. If you know something’s not right, if you feel something’s not right, keep advocating for yourself.”

    Teague says she will have her daughters, ages 10 and 6, tested for Lynch when they turn 18.

    A GoFundMe page has been set up to help with her medical bills as well as the startupcosts for a foundation she’s creating to shine a light on colon cancer awareness and educate people globally about Lynch syndrome.

    Source link

  • Colonoscopy Benefits Lower Than Expected, Study Shows

    Colonoscopy Benefits Lower Than Expected, Study Shows

    Oct. 10, 2022 — Getting a colonoscopy might not offer as many benefits as we previously thought about what is considered a gold standard in cancer screening, according to a surprising new study out of northern Europe. 

    After a 10-year follow-up study of people who were invited to receive a colonoscopy, researchers compared their results to a group of people who did not get the cancer screening. The former group had only an 18% lower risk of getting colon cancer, and the procedure didn’t make much difference in colon cancer deaths, according to results published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

    Colon cancer — the second leading cause of cancer in the U.S. and the third in the world — is commonly found in adults over age 50.

    During a colonoscopy, doctors insert a small camera through your anus to examine your large intestine and rectum (AKA your colon).

    “The absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned,” says Michael Bretthauer, MD, a gastroenterologist from the University of Oslo Department of Medicine in Norway, and lead researcher of the study.

    If you hate colonoscopies, don’t start jumping with glee just yet. The study also had its flaws. 

    Researchers invited about 28,000 people enrolled in a long-term Northern European healthy study to get a colonoscopy. A little less than half — 42% — (actually received it. 

    “It’s hard to know the value of a screening test when the majority of people in the study didn’t get it done,” says William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer at the American Cancer Society.

    However, study patients who did undergo a colonoscopy had a 31% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer, and cancer-related deaths dropped in half as compared to those who were not screened. This result points to the value of continued screening.

    Getting a colon cancer screening is still the best method of prevention, says Karen Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer at the American Cancer Society.

    “The American Cancer Society recommends colorectal cancer screening, including colonoscopy, for adults beginning at age 45,” Knudsen says. “There’s no reason to change that direction. Recommended cancer screenings should be a routine part of good health.”

    Click here for more information on colon cancer screening.

    Source link

  • ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    ‘It Just Seems Like My Patients Are Sicker’

    The most haunting memory of the pandemic for Laura, a doctor who practices internal medicine in New York, is a patient who never got COVID at all. A middle-aged man diagnosed with Stage 3 colon cancer in 2019, he underwent surgery and a round of successful chemotherapy and was due for regular checkups to make sure the tumor wasn’t growing. Then the pandemic hit, and he decided that going to the hospital wasn’t worth the risk of getting COVID. So he put it off … and put it off. “The next time I saw him, in early 2022, he required hospice care,” Laura told me. He died shortly after. With proper care, Laura said, “he could have stayed alive indefinitely.” (The Atlantic agreed to withhold Laura’s last name, because she isn’t authorized to speak publicly about her patients.)

    Early in the pandemic, when much of the country was in lockdown, forgoing nonemergency health care as Laura’s patient did seemed like the right thing to do. But the health-care delays didn’t just end when America began to reopen in the summer of 2020. Patients were putting off health care through the end of the first pandemic year, when vaccines weren’t yet widely available. And they were still doing so well into 2021, at which point much of the country seemed to be moving on from COVID.

    By this point, the coronavirus has killed more than 1 million Americans and debilitated many more. One estimate shows that life expectancy in the U.S. fell 2.41 years from 2019 to 2021. But the delays in health care over the past two and a half years have allowed ailments to unduly worsen, wearing down people with non-COVID medical problems too. “It just seems like my patients are sicker,” Laura said. Compared with before the pandemic, she is seeing more people further along with AIDS, more people with irreversible heart failure, and more people with end-stage kidney failure. Mental-health issues are more severe, and her patients struggling with addiction have been more likely to relapse.

    Even as Americans are treating the pandemic like an afterthought, a disturbing possibility remains: COVID aside, is the country simply going to be in worse health than before the pandemic? According to health-care workers, administrations, and researchers I talked with from across the country, patients are still dealing with a suite of problems from delaying care during the pandemic, problems that in some cases they will be facing for the rest of their lives. The scope of this damage isn’t yet clear—and likely won’t come into focus for several years—but there are troubling signs of a looming chronic health crisis the country has yet to reckon with. At some point, the emergency phase of COVID will end, but the physical toll of the pandemic may linger in the bodies of Americans for decades to come.


    During those bleak pre-vaccine dark ages, going to the doctor could feel like a disaster in waiting. Many of the country’s hospitals were overwhelmed with COVID patients, and outpatient clinics had closed. As a result, in every week through July 2020, roughly 45 percent of American adults said that over the preceding month, they either put off medical care or didn’t get it at all because of the pandemic. Once they did come in, they were sicker—a trend observed for all sorts of ailments, including childhood diabetes, appendicitis, and cancer. A recent study analyzed the 8.4 million non-COVID Medicare hospitalizations from April 2020 to September 2021 and found not only that hospital admissions plummeted, but also that those admitted to hospitals were up to 20 percent more likely to die—an astonishing effect that lasted through the length of the study.

    Partly, that result came about because only those who were sicker made it to the hospital, James Goodwin, one of the study’s authors and a professor at the University of Texas Medical Branch, in Galveston, told me. It was also partly because overwhelmed hospitals were giving worse care. But Goodwin estimates that “more than half the cause was people delaying medical care early in their illness and therefore being more likely to die. Instead of coming in with a urinary tract infection, they’re already getting septic. I mean, people were having heart attacks and not showing up at the hospital.”

    For some conditions, skipping a checkup or two may not matter all that much in the long run. But for other conditions, every doctor’s visit can count. Take the tens of millions of Americans with vascular issues in their feet and legs due to diabetes or peripheral artery disease. Their problems might lead to, say, ulcers on the foot that can be treated with regular medical care, but delays of even a few months can increase the risk of amputation. When patients came in later in 2020, it was sometimes too late to save the limb. An Ohio trauma center found that the odds of undergoing a diabetes-related amputation in 2020 were almost 11 times higher once the pandemic hit versus earlier in the year.

    Although only a small percentage of Americans lost a limb, the lack of care early in the pandemic helped fuel a dangerous spike in substance-abuse disorders. In a matter of weeks or months, people’s support systems collapsed, and for some, years of work overcoming an addiction unraveled. “My patients took a huge step back, probably more than many of us realize,” Aarti Patel, a physician assistant at a Lower Manhattan community hospital, told me. One of her patients, a man in his late 50s who was five years sober, started drinking again during the pandemic and eventually landed in the hospital for withdrawal. Patients like this man, she said, “would have really difficult, long hospital stays, because they were at really high risk of DTs, alcohol seizures. Some of them even had to go to the ICU because [the withdrawal] was so severe.”

    Later in the year, when doctors’ offices were up and running, “a lot of patients expressed that they didn’t want to go back for care right away,” says Kim Muellers, a graduate student at Pace University who is studying the effects of COVID on medical care in New York City, North Carolina, and Florida. Indeed, through the spring of 2021, the top reason Medicare recipients failed to seek care was they didn’t want to be at a medical facility. Other people were avoiding the doctor because they’d lost their job and health insurance and couldn’t afford the bills.

    The problem, doctors told me, is that all of those missed appointments start to add up. Patients with high blood pressure or blood sugar, for example, may now be less likely to have their conditions under control—which after enough time can lead to all sorts of other ailments. Losing a limb can pose challenges for patients that will last for the rest of their lives. Relapses can put people at a higher risk for lifelong medical complications. Cancer screenings plummeted, and even a few weeks without treatment can increase the chance of dying from the disease. In other words, even short-term delays can cause long-term havoc.

    To make matters worse, the health-care delays fueling a sicker America may not be totally over yet, either. After so many backups, some health-care systems, hobbled by workforce shortages, are scrambling to address the pent-up demand for care that patients can simply no longer put off, according to administrators and doctors from several major health systems, including Cleveland Clinic, the Veterans Health Administration, and Mayo Clinic. Disruptions in the global supply chain are forcing doctors to ration basic supplies, adding to backlogs. Amy Oxentenko, a gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona who helps oversee clinical practice across the entire Mayo system, says that “all of these things are just adding up to a continued delay, and I think we’ll see impacts for years to come.”


    It’s still early, and not everything that providers told me is necessarily showing up in the data. Oddly enough, the CDC’s National Health Interview Survey found that most Americans were able to see a doctor at least once during the first year of the pandemic. And the same survey has not revealed any uptick in most health conditions, including asthma episodes, high blood pressure, and chronic pain—which might be expected if America were getting sicker.

    It’s even conceivable that the disturbing observations of clinicians are a statistical illusion. If for whatever reason only sicker people are now being seen by—or able to access—a doctor, then it can be true both that providers are seeing more seriously ill patients in medical facilities and that the total number of seriously ill people in the community is staying the same. The scope of the damage just isn’t yet clear: Maybe a smaller number of people will be worse off because of delayed cancer care or substance-abuse relapses, or maybe far more people—more than tens of million of Americans—will be dealing with exacerbated issues for the rest of their lives.

    None of this accounts for what COVID itself is doing to Americans, of course. The health-care system is only beginning to grapple with the ways in which a past bout with COVID is a long-term risk for overall health, or the extent to which long COVID can complicate other conditions. The pandemic may feel “over” for lots of Americans, but many who made it through the gantlet of the past two-plus years may end up living sicker, and dying sooner.

    This disturbing prospect is not only poised to further devastate communities; it’s also bad news for health-care workers already exhausted by COVID. Laura, the Manhattan internist who treated the colon-cancer patient, told me it’s disheartening to see so many people showing up at irreversible points in their disease. “As doctors,” she said, “our overall batting average is going down.” Aarti Patel, the physician assistant, put it in blunter terms: “Burnout is probably too simple a term. We’re in severe moral distress.”

    Nothing about this grim fate was inevitable. Laura told me that “going to the doctor mid-pandemic may have posed a small risk in terms of COVID, but not going was risky in terms of letting disease go unchecked. And in retrospect it seems that many people didn’t quite get that.” But there didn’t have to be such a stark trade-off between fighting a pandemic and maintaining health care for other medical conditions.

    Some hospitals—at least the better-resourced ones—figured out how to avoid the worst kind of delays. Mayo Clinic, for example, is one of a number of systems with a sophisticated triage algorithm that prioritizes patients needing acute care. In the spring of 2021, Cleveland Clinic launched a massive outreach blitz to schedule some 86,000 appointments, according to Lisa Yerian, the chief improvement officer. And the Veterans Health Administration provided iPads to thousands of veterans who lacked other means of accessing the internet in the spring of 2020, ensuring a more seamless transition to virtual care, Joe Francis, who directs health-care analytics, told me. Thanks in part to these efforts, Francis said, high-risk patients at the VHA were being seen at pre-pandemic levels a mere six months into the pandemic.

    These health-care systems also suggest a path forward. America may still be able to stave off the worst of the collateral damage by reaching the patients who have fallen through the cracks—and already the data suggest that these patients tend to be disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and low-income. Tragically, it’s too late for some Americans: People who died of cancer can’t come back to life; amputated limbs can’t regrow. Others still have plenty of time. Hypertension that’s currently uncontrolled can be tamped down before causing an early heart attack; drinking that’s gotten out of hand can be corralled before it leads to liver failure in a decade; undetected tumors can be spotted in time for treatment. An uptick in premature death and disability, summed over millions of Americans, could strain the health-care system for years. But it’s still possible to prevent an acute public-health crisis from seeding an even bigger chronic one.

    Tim Requarth

    Source link