Conflict of Interest in Cancer Studies

WASHINGTON, May 11, 2009 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- A U.S. study have found that nearly one third of cancer research articles published in medical journals have financial ties with pharmaceutical companies.

As the great comedian Lenny Bruce might have deadpanned- "I'm so shocked".

The study, published online on Monday in the journal Cancer, indicates that conflicts of interest may cause some researchers to report biased results that are favorable to pharmaceutical companies.

Reshma Jagsi of the University of Michigan and her colleagues reviewed 1,534 cancer studies published on eight medical journals, including Cancer, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.

According to the researchers, 17 percent of the studies declared industry funding while 12 percent had a study author who was an industry employee. Randomized trials with reported conflicts of interest were more likely to have positive findings.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties," said Jagsi. "If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support."

"Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide," she said.

Many medical journals now require researchers to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the articles they submit for publication, but the researchers urged that "journals should embrace both rigorous standards of disclosure and heightened scrutiny when conflicts exist."

New Research: Vitamin D May Lower Heart Disease Risk

Medical researchers are discovering a greater relationship between heart disease and vitamin D -- a nutrient already linked to reducing certain cancers.

Studies announced Wednesday at an American Heart Association's conference on cardiovascular health showed an increased association between people with high levels of vitamin D and a lower risk of heart disease.

Adolescents in particular could face long-term implications if they don't get enough of the vitamin, which can be absorbed through exposure to the sun and is found in certain fishes and in popular fortified foods, including milk and cereal.

One study found that American teens with low levels of vitamin D in their blood were almost four times more likely to have metabolic syndrome, a cluster of heart disease risk factors such as high blood pressure and abdominal fat.

"If you have other risk factors like obesity, you should be hyper-vigilant," said Jared Reis, a post-doctoral research fellow at The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore. His study, presented at the conference at the Innisbrook Resort, looked at health data of more than 3,500 American teens from 2001-2004.

Although cardiovascular research about the nutrient is still evolving, previous studies have linked vitamin D intake to lower risks of colon, prostate and breast cancers, according to the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements. Together with calcium, it also has been historically used to supplement bone health.

This news comes at a time when Americans appear to be decreasing their vitamin D intake. The percentage of Americans deficient in the nutrient increased to 9.2 percent in 2005-06, from 2.6 percent in 1988-94, said researcher Sandy Saintonge of the New York Hospital Queens.

If you aren't taking vitamin D I recommend at least 1000 IUs daily, preferably 2000IUs. Carlson's Vitamin D is cheap ($5.50) and easy to take, so why wouldn't you?

(Acknowledgments: McClatchy-Tribune Information Services and Mary Shedden of the Tampa Tribune)

High Fat Diet Causes Cancer? Not so fast...

A recently published study in the journal BMC Cancer found some interesting associations between dietary fat and cancer. Unfortunately the way these findings were reported in the press were highly misleading.

First, the headlines. Science Daily, a generally reliable source of info for folks like me, reported this: "Excessive Dietary Fat Caused 300 Percent Increase in Metastasizing Tumor Cells in Animal Models".

Now- tell the truth- what immediately came to mind when you read that?

Let me guess: "Another study "confirming" how bad saturated fat is, and how low-fat eating can help prevent cancer".

Wrong, grasshopper.

The researchers didn't even investigate saturated fat.

Here's what they did: They implanted tumor cells in mice. Then they fed one group a "high-fat" diet and the other group a "lean" diet. Then, using a number of sophisticated measuring techniques, they looked to see how the diets impacted the ability of cancer cells to metastasize (spread from one part of the body to another).

Here's what they found: Oleic acid- the kind of (monounsaturated) fat found in olive oil- had precisely no effect on the spreading of the cancer. Linoleic acid, however, had a big effect- the rate of metastasis rose a dramatic 300 percent!

Linoleic acid is Omega-6: it's the fat found in all those vegetable oils that everyone tells you are so good for you. Corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, etc.

This information was buried in the 15^th paragraph (of a 19 paragraph article).

There's been mounting evidence that overconsumption of omega-6 fats may not be such a great thing. I've been saying for a long time that the balance between omega 6 and omega 3 fats in the diet is an extremely important one for human health. The ideal ratio is between 1:1 and 4:1. More typically, those consuming a Western diet get between 15:1 and 25:1.

You can shift this balance to a more healthy one by cutting back on high omega-6 vegetable oils (which are generally inferior to begin with) and increasing your intake of omega 3's.

You shouldn't cut omega-6's out of your diet completely- they're good for you in the right amounts. Be sure to get a high quality omega-6, like GLA found in evening primrose oil, and stay away from the commercial processed vegetable oils.

Save 10%: When you order this special EPA/DHA + GLA bundle (normally $52.94) for just $47.65

Calcium / Vitamin D May Reduce Colon Cancer

Research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego this year suggests that vitamin D and calcium supplements may reduce colon cancer risk.

Veronika Fedirko of Emory University presented research showing that giving patients with polyps 2 grams of calcium, 800 IUs of vitamin D or a combination of the two for six months was associated with an increase in a protein that controls programmed cell death (called apotosis). The protein is called Bax. Fedirko found that by increasing Bax in the tissue of the colon, a greater number of precancerous cells- like those found in polyps- may make like those old Mission Impossible tapes and self-destruct. There was the greatest effect in those that received both the calcium and vitamin D which seem to work synergistically in a number of applications.

In a related study presented at the same meeting, Robert Bostick, MD, MPH and colleagues found that individuals who consume high amounts of vitamin D and calcium have increased levels of a protein that moderates the movement and proliferation of colon cells.

The current studies contribute more evidence for a protective role for calcium and vitamin D in colorectal cancer. Dr. Bostick's team is involved in a ten year study at several centers which will evaluate the effects of increased calcium and vitamin D on the recurrence of colon cancer.

One of the best selling supplements on our website has been the Douglas Labs Cal-6-Mag, an inexpensive and effective blend of calcium, magnesium and vitamin D.