Cold and Flu Sufferers Should Ease Back Into Fitness Routine

TUESDAY, Feb. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Although physical activity can help boost your immune system, people who are sick should tone down their workout or skip it altogether, experts advise.

"Regular exercise is a great way to reduce stress and sleep better at night. This helps boost your immune system. However, vigorous exercise and extreme conditioning can have a negative impact on your health if you're sick," Joe Berg, a personal trainer and fitness specialist at Loyola Center for Health, said in a Loyola University news release.

"When fighting a viral illness, it's best to keep your exercise session short and not as intense. If you have a fever or stomach bug it might be best to hold off," Berg added.

For those recovering from an illness, it's best to ease back into a workout routine slowly. Berg recommends starting small with some light aerobics, such as walking and cycling at an easy pace as well as body weight squats, push-ups and planks. In the plank exercise, you rest your weight on your forearms with your elbows directly beneath your shoulders, keeping your body in a straight line from your head to your feet.

"These exercises cover the major muscles of the body and when performed in moderation, can help boost your immune system," explained Berg.

For people worried about being exposed to germs at the gym, Valerie Walkowiak, medical integration coordinator at the Loyola Center for Fitness, pointed out that heading outside or working out at home may be a good way to stay healthy and fit during the cold and flu season.

"Weather permitting, it's always great to just get out of the house and walk or run to get in some cardio exercise. Just make sure you wear the proper clothes to keep warm. This includes layers of clothing, a hat, scarf, gloves and appropriate shoes," said Walkowiak.

When the weather makes exercising outdoors impossible, there are ways people can work out at home -- even if they don't have special equipment. Walkowiak said you can get your heart rate up without leaving the house by climbing the stairs, jogging in place or doing jumping jacks. She added that a home-based circuit training routine can be created by alternating two to three minutes of these cardio exercises with 30 to 60 seconds of strength-training moves, such as push-ups, squats, seated rows or heel raises.

"You don't have to have dumbbells, bands or tubing to get in some strength training at home. Try using household items to add resistance such as soup cans, gallon jugs of water or your own body weight," Walkowiak noted.

In order to target all the muscle groups, Walkowiak recommended doing the following exercises:

Chest, shoulder and triceps: do push-ups on the floor or against a wallBack, rear shoulders and biceps: try seated or standing row exercises using soup cans Legs, glutes and core: perform squats, sit-to-chair stands or lunges Calfs: do heel raises on the edge of a step Core: do planks, abdominal crunches, abdominal twists and leg raises Biceps: do bicep curls using soup cansTriceps: using a soup can or weighted object do kickbacks or over presses

Anyone who does go to the gym should remember to wipe down machines and wash their hands often, the experts advised.

-- Mary Elizabeth Dallas
Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Loyola University Health System, news release, Feb. 14, 2013

View the original article here

Sharp Rise Seen in Robotically Assisted Hysterectomies

By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Feb. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Nearly 10 percent of hysterectomies in the United States are performed robotically, say researchers who found the "robo" procedures jumped dramatically between 2007 and 2010.

But they question whether robotic surgery is preferable to another minimally invasive procedure, laparoscopic surgery, for women having their uterus removed for non-cancerous conditions. While the two procedures have similar complication rates, the robotically assisted hysterectomy costs roughly $2,200 more than the laparoscopic procedure, according to the new study.

"The robotically assisted procedure was substantially more expensive," said the study's lead author, Dr. Jason Wright, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City.

Wright said more work is needed to determine which women would benefit from robotic hysterectomy.

"This data also raises a lot of questions about surgical innovations and the need to find ways to better study them before they diffuse into practice," he added.

Results of the study are published in the Feb. 20 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Hysterectomy is a common treatment for non-cancerous gynecological conditions, such as fibroids, endometriosis and excessive bleeding. As many as one in nine U.S. women will undergo such a procedure, according to the study.

Different surgical techniques exist for performing a hysterectomy. One choice is traditional open surgery, where a surgeon removes the uterus through a 5- to 7-inch opening in the abdomen. Another is vaginal hysterectomy -- removal of the uterus through the vaginal opening. Laparoscopy is done with special tools that allow surgeons to perform the surgery using only small incisions. Robotically assisted surgery is similar to laparoscopic surgery, but the surgeon uses a robotic device instead of a laparoscope to do the procedure.

Dr. Michael Zinner, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said there are advantages to robotically assisted surgery in certain situations.

"The robotic device is easy to learn," Zinner said. "The wrist on the machine gives you [greater flexibility] unlike a straight laparoscope that's more like a chopstick. If the surgeon has any slight tremor, the machine evens it out," he said. In cases such as prostate surgery, where the surgery must take place in a very confined space and there's a significant risk of nerve damage, the delicate, articulating robotic device can be ideal, he said.

But for larger areas of the body, a laparoscope generally works just as well. "Nobody talks about using robotic surgery for removing the gallbladder," noted Zinner, because it would be more expensive without providing an additional benefit. Zinner co-wrote an editorial in the same issue of the journal.

In the current study, Wright and his colleagues reviewed data from more than 264,000 women who had a hysterectomy for a non-cancerous condition.

Robotically assisted hysterectomies were performed 0.5 percent of the time in 2007. By 2010, that number had jumped to 9.5 percent. The rate of laparoscopic surgery also increased during this time period, from 24.3 percent to 30.5 percent, according to the study.

At hospitals that introduced robotically assisted hysterectomy, its use quickly rose, the study found. But at hospitals without the robotic option, use of laparoscopic hysterectomy increased during the same time period. Overall, abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies declined.

Robotically assisted hysterectomy was less likely to lead to a hospital stay of two days or more compared to laparoscopic surgery, but the two procedures were similar in all other measured complications.

Where the two procedures differed most significantly was in cost, with $6,679 the median fee for a laparoscopic hysterectomy versus $8,868 for the robotically assisted procedure.

Joel Weissman, deputy director and chief scientific officer at the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women's Hospital and co-author of the editorial, said the robotic machine costs about $1.5 million and requires extra personnel.

"It's a little bit unclear who's paying the extra cost," he said. "It seems like at this point in time, insurers are paying the same whether the surgery is robotically assisted or not. But hospitals have to somehow pay those extra costs."

If you're considering a robotically assisted procedure, Zinner and Weissman advised talking with your doctor about which procedure will deliver better results. If two procedures are similarly effective, they suggested comparing costs.

In the case of hysterectomy, because robotically assisted surgery and laparoscopic surgery have similar results but significantly different costs, Zinner said he'd like to see more surgeons training in the laparoscopic procedure.

Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Jason Wright, M.D., Levine Family Assistant Professor of Women's Health, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City; Joel Weissman, Ph.D., deputy director and chief scientific officer, Center for Surgery and Public Health, and associate professor of health policy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston; Michael Zinner, M.D., chief of surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and clinical director, Dana Farber-Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Boston; Feb. 20, 2013, Journal of the American Medical Association

View the original article here

Fluorescent Tracer 'Lights Up' Brain Tumor for Surgery

By Barbara Bronson Gray
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Feb. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Neurosurgeons report that they harnessed the power of fluorescent light to illuminate a brain tumor so the entire growth could be removed.

A report describes a case in which a patient with glioblastoma swallowed a pill, called 5-ALA, and was taken to surgery about four hours later. The medication attached itself to tumor cells, causing them to glow brightly. Once the skull was opened, the doctors focused a blue light on the tumor, which gave the cancerous cells a pink glow, so the surgeons could differentiate malignant tissue from healthy tissue.

"This is a very, very good thing," said study author Mitchel Berger, chairman of neurosurgery at the University of California, San Francisco. "In this case, we just happened to notice we could see evidence of the tumor spreading along the way of the ventricles [a communicating network of brain cavities], which showed we could see tumor dissemination."

The authors noted that the best way to extend survival is to remove as much of the brain tumor as possible. The research is published in the Feb. 19 issue of the Journal of Neurosurgery.

It's not always easy to see precisely where a tumor has spread in the brain. Some types of tumors can be particularly difficult to identify and remove, even with the benefit of MRI and surgical microscopes.

The use of fluorescence appears to be more effective than MRI technology, at least in this case, because the glow allows surgeons to see microscopic remnants of the tumor and areas of the cancer that might be mistaken for edema, or swelling, Berger explained. "This is an inexpensive way to identify high-grade tumors," he said.

Glioblastomas are a fast-growing type of tumor that usually occurs in adults and affects the brain more often than the spinal cord, according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

Why do tumor cells respond differently to the fluorescent drug than the body's other cells do? Their metabolism involves porphyrin, which has a tremendous ability to absorb light, Berger explained. Porphyrin is an organic compound, like the pigment in red blood cells. The pill used in the case report is derived from porphyrin.

The report focused on the case of a 56-year-old man who had undergone resection of a glioblastoma located in the right occipital lobe of his brain in 2005. Several years later, when symptoms reappeared, an MRI scan showed three distinct, new sites of tumor in the patient's right temporal lobe.

In surgery, when the surgeons viewed the fluorescent tumor cells, they could tell rather than being a new tumor, the cancer had spread from its original location on the right side of the brain through a pathway along the wall of the right ventricle. The researchers found that the use of 5-ALA during surgery enabled them to see the actual pathway of the tumor as it had spread.

The use of 5-ALA changed the patient's prognosis. "Multi-centric disease worsens the prognosis," Berger explained.

While the technique has been used in Europe for several years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of 5-ALA in the United States. Any surgeons using 5-ALA do so with limited permission from the FDA, Berger noted. The medication, 5-ALA, is manufactured by DUSA Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Michael Schulder, vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., explained that "while the FDA considers 5-ALA a drug, which would require a lengthy process for approval, neurosurgeons see it as a surgical aid, which would take far less time to get the OK."

While Schulder said he thinks 5-ALA probably will add about six months to the anticipated survival of patients with high-grade gliomas, he said that attempts to improve the ability to remove these tumors will only go so far. "In the end, however helpful the use of 5-ALA or similar compounds may be in the surgical removal of brain cancers, it won't be the answer. The treatments will have to be biological to truly have an impact on survival, and ultimately, on a cure."

Schulder said he thinks it would be possible for fluorescence to be used in other types of surgeries, if surgeons could become comfortable using a surgical microscope with the benefit of a special light (something neurosurgeons are accustomed to using). He noted that he also thinks the technique might apply to some spinal surgeries, where visualizing the spinal cord is critical.

Schulder said he thinks the use of fluorescence in cancer surgery is promising. "It's a very important concept: if you can see a tumor better, you can remove it without affecting healthy tissue."

Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Mitchel Berger, M.D., professor and chairman, neurosurgery, department of neurological surgery, University of California, San Francisco; Michael Schulder, M.D., vice chairman, department of neurosurgery, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y.; Feb. 19, 2013, Journal of Neurosurgery

View the original article here

Cold and Flu Sufferers Should Ease Back Into Fitness Routine

TUESDAY, Feb. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Although physical activity can help boost your immune system, people who are sick should tone down their workout or skip it altogether, experts advise.

"Regular exercise is a great way to reduce stress and sleep better at night. This helps boost your immune system. However, vigorous exercise and extreme conditioning can have a negative impact on your health if you're sick," Joe Berg, a personal trainer and fitness specialist at Loyola Center for Health, said in a Loyola University news release.

"When fighting a viral illness, it's best to keep your exercise session short and not as intense. If you have a fever or stomach bug it might be best to hold off," Berg added.

For those recovering from an illness, it's best to ease back into a workout routine slowly. Berg recommends starting small with some light aerobics, such as walking and cycling at an easy pace as well as body weight squats, push-ups and planks. In the plank exercise, you rest your weight on your forearms with your elbows directly beneath your shoulders, keeping your body in a straight line from your head to your feet.

"These exercises cover the major muscles of the body and when performed in moderation, can help boost your immune system," explained Berg.

For people worried about being exposed to germs at the gym, Valerie Walkowiak, medical integration coordinator at the Loyola Center for Fitness, pointed out that heading outside or working out at home may be a good way to stay healthy and fit during the cold and flu season.

"Weather permitting, it's always great to just get out of the house and walk or run to get in some cardio exercise. Just make sure you wear the proper clothes to keep warm. This includes layers of clothing, a hat, scarf, gloves and appropriate shoes," said Walkowiak.

When the weather makes exercising outdoors impossible, there are ways people can work out at home -- even if they don't have special equipment. Walkowiak said you can get your heart rate up without leaving the house by climbing the stairs, jogging in place or doing jumping jacks. She added that a home-based circuit training routine can be created by alternating two to three minutes of these cardio exercises with 30 to 60 seconds of strength-training moves, such as push-ups, squats, seated rows or heel raises.

"You don't have to have dumbbells, bands or tubing to get in some strength training at home. Try using household items to add resistance such as soup cans, gallon jugs of water or your own body weight," Walkowiak noted.

In order to target all the muscle groups, Walkowiak recommended doing the following exercises:

Chest, shoulder and triceps: do push-ups on the floor or against a wallBack, rear shoulders and biceps: try seated or standing row exercises using soup cans Legs, glutes and core: perform squats, sit-to-chair stands or lunges Calfs: do heel raises on the edge of a step Core: do planks, abdominal crunches, abdominal twists and leg raises Biceps: do bicep curls using soup cansTriceps: using a soup can or weighted object do kickbacks or over presses

Anyone who does go to the gym should remember to wipe down machines and wash their hands often, the experts advised.

-- Mary Elizabeth Dallas
Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Loyola University Health System, news release, Feb. 14, 2013

View the original article here

Fraudulent Data May Have Led to Use of Risky Treatment in ICUs

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Feb. 19 (HealthDay News) -- Studies loaded with fraudulent data may have encouraged the use of a treatment for patients in intensive care units that now appears to do more harm than good, new research shows.

At issue is hydroxyethyl starch, an intravenous solution sometimes used to replace lost blood volume in critically ill patients. According to a new review article in the Feb. 20 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the starchy solution may instead boost their risk of death or kidney failure.

"Almost certainly, what is happening is that some of the starch molecules leak out of blood vessels into the kidney itself so the kidney doesn't work as efficiently," said Dr. David Taylor, chairman of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Ochsner Health System in New Orleans. He was not involved in the new review.

Luckily for American patients, hydroxyethyl starch is not commonly used in the United States, Taylor said. But the new analysis serves as a cautionary tale on how fraudulent data can end up endangering patients' lives.

As Taylor explained it, critically ill patients often develop leaky vessels, and so quickly require intravenous fluids to keep their blood pressure stable and to improve organ function.

One such fluid is simple saline or salt water, known as crystalloid solution. This is the cheapest fluid available, but it tends to leak out of blood vessels, which means it can also leak into the lungs, under the skin and into various organs.

As a result, researchers have spent considerable time and effort trying to find less leaky alternatives to saline. The protein albumin, derived from human blood, is commonly used after cardiac surgery, when the risk of fluid collecting in the lungs is high, Taylor explained. Although albumin is less leaky than saline, it is more expensive.

Hydroxyethyl starch is similar to albumin, but it contains starch molecules, which are less likely to leak out of the blood vessels than saline.

Still, many researchers had reservations about using a starch-based solution from the beginning, Taylor said.

"If you have salt water and it leaks out, you just get some salt into the tissue and it goes away with a little bit of time," he explained. On the other hand, "if you have starch in the tissue it's not so easy to get starch out of there, and many people were worried about the possibility of complications."

It turns out there was even more reason to be suspicious of any alleged benefits of hydroxyethyl starch. In 2011, investigators discovered that the lion's share of research on the treatment that was conducted by German anesthesiologist Dr. Joachim Boldt was fraudulent and had to be retracted.

So the author of the current paper wondered: Would the purported benefits of hydroxyethyl starch hold up once Boldt's data was excluded?

Led by Dr. Ryan Zarychanski, of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, the team pooled data from 38 previous studies on the issue, including those by Boldt.

That analysis concluded that patients who received hydroxyethyl starch did not fare any better than other types of fluid.

But when the Boldt studies were excluded from the mix, hydroxyethyl starch was actually associated with an increased risk of death, kidney failure and need for dialysis among patients, the new research found.

It's impossible to gauge how many patients were damaged by Boldt's falsified research, but this new study highlights "how the inclusion or exclusion of the Boldt papers associated with research misconduct can shift the balance toward harm," said Dr. Massimo Antonelli, author of an editorial accompanying the new study.

"It showed also how the worldwide administration of starches for volume replacement therapy have caused the increase of acute renal failure and affected mortality," said Antonelli, a professor of intensive care and anesthesiology at the Catholic University-A.Gemelli University Hospital in Rome.

He added that a task force of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an organization devoted to reducing death from sepsis, recently issued guidelines warning against using starches for fluid replacement.

"These findings will reinforce [those] recommendations," he said.

Taylor stressed, however, that it would still be helpful to find alternatives to both albumin and saline.

A person in the intensive care unit (ICU) can have 1-2 liters more of fluid going into their body than out, said Taylor. Each liter weighs 1 kilogram, or 2.2 pounds.

"It's possible to gain anywhere from 8-10 pounds in fluid [in the ICU] so it would be a great to have an alternative to 10 pounds of weight," he said. However, a starch solution "is not a good alternative because it increases the risk of dying or needing dialysis," Taylor said.

Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: David Taylor, M.D., chairman, pulmonary and critical care medicine, Ochsner Health System, New Orleans; Massimo Antonelli, M.D., professor, intensive care and anesthesiology, Catholic University-A. Gemelli University Hospital, Rome; Feb. 20, 2013, Journal of the American Medical Association

View the original article here

Alcohol Blamed for 1 in Every 30 Cancer Deaths: Study

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, Feb. 14 (HealthDay News) -- For anyone who still thinks that drinking does not contribute to cancer, a new report finds that alcohol is to blame for one in every 30 cancer deaths each year in the United States.

The connection is even more pronounced with breast cancer, with 15 percent of those deaths related to alcohol consumption, the researchers added.

And don't think that drinking in moderation will help, because 30 percent of all alcohol-related cancer deaths are linked to drinking 1.5 drinks or less a day, the report found.

Alcohol is a cancer-causing agent that's in "plain sight," but people just don't see it, said study author Dr. David Nelson, director of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

"As expected, people who are higher alcohol users were at higher risk, but there was really no safe level of alcohol use," he stressed.

Moderate drinking has been associated with heart benefits, Nelson noted. "But, in the broader context of all the issues and all the problems that alcohol is related to, alcohol causes 10 times as many deaths as it prevents," he said.

The best thing people who believe they are at risk for cancer can do is reduce their alcohol consumption, Nelson said. "From a cancer prevention perspective, the less you drink, the lower your risk of an alcohol-related cancer and, obviously, if one doesn't drink at all then that's the lowest risk," he said.

The report was published online Feb. 14 in the American Journal of Public Health.

To determine the risks related to drinking and cancer, Nelson's team compiled data from a variety of sources, including the 2009 Alcohol Epidemiologic Data System, the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the 2009-2010 National Alcohol Survey.

Along with breast cancer in women, cancers of the mouth, throat and esophagus were also common causes of alcohol-related cancer deaths in men, accounting for about 6,000 deaths each year.

Each alcohol-related cancer death accounted for an average of 18 years of potential life lost, the researchers added.

Previous studies have shown drinking is a risk factor for cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum and, in women, breast cancer, the researchers noted.

According to the American Cancer Society, it's not entirely clear how alcohol might raise cancer risk. Alcohol might act as a chemical irritant to sensitive cells, impeding their DNA repair, or damage cells in other ways. It might also act as a "solvent" for other carcinogens, such as those found in tobacco smoke, helping those chemicals enter into cells more easily. Or alcohol might affect levels of key hormones such as estrogen, upping odds for breast cancer.

One expert says the findings in this study are consistent with what has been shown before.

"Nobody is recommending that if you do not drink to start drinking for any reason," said Susan Gapstur, vice president of epidemiology at the cancer society. "If you do drink, limit your consumption."

Gapstur did point out that smoking is a much more powerful factor in cancer deaths than alcohol. Although some 20,000 cancer deaths can be attributed to alcohol each year, more than 100,000 cancer deaths are caused by smoking, she said.

To strike a balance between the cancer risk of drinking and its possible benefit in preventing heart disease, Gapstur suggested talking with your doctor about the risks and benefits of drinking.

Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: David Nelson, M.D., M.P.H., director, Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, U.S. National Cancer Institute; Susan Gapstur, Ph.D., M.P.H., vice president of epidemiology, American Cancer Society; Feb. 14, 2013, American Journal of Public Health, online

View the original article here

Cancer Chemotherapy Tied to Slight Rise in Risk for Leukemia

THURSDAY, Feb. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Chemotherapy can be a lifesaver for thousands of cancer patients, but a new study suggests that it might slightly raise the odds for a type of leukemia later in life.

Over the past 30 years, the risk for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has increased for patients who underwent chemotherapy for certain forms of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the new study found.

On the other hand, the researchers from the U.S. National Cancer Institute said other cancer survivors may have a reduced risk for AML due to a change in chemotherapy agents that occurred decades ago.

One expert not connected to the study stressed that cancer patients need to put the findings into perspective.

"It's important to realize that the risk of developing acute myeloid leukemia related to prior chemotherapy is small and increases with the number of chemotherapy treatments given over time," said Dr. Jonathan Kolitz, chief of hematologic oncology at the North Shore-LIJ Cancer Institute in Lake Success, N.Y.

The study was published online Feb. 14 in the journal Blood.

The findings aren't a big surprise to oncologists.

"It has long been known that some types of chemotherapy are associated with a high risk of developing subsequent leukemia," explained study lead author Lindsay Morton, in NCI's Radiation Epidemiology Branch in the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, in an NCI news release. "The goal of this study was to better understand how cancer patients' risk of developing leukemia has changed over time."

In conducting the study, the researchers assessed the risk for leukemia of more than 426,000 adults who received chemotherapy for cancer diagnosed between 1975 and 2008. Of these patients, 801 went on to develop AML.

Patients who survived non-Hodgkin lymphoma were at greater risk for AML, the team found. According to the researchers, that may be due to prolonged survival for forms of the disease that require multiple courses of chemotherapy.

Since 2000, patients treated for esophageal, prostate and cervical cancer were also found to be at greater risk for AML, the researchers say. The study also showed that those treated for cancer since the 1990s for cancers of the bones and joints, as well as the endometrium (uterine lining), are also at increased risk for AML.

Meanwhile, patients treated for ovarian cancer, myeloma, and possibly lung cancer may be at reduced risk for AML. The researchers suggested the lower risk among patients with these forms of cancer may be linked to a treatment switch that occurred in the early 1980s from an agent called melphalan to newer, platinum-based chemotherapy.

More research is needed to determine the risks associated with various chemotherapy agents, the researchers said.

For his part, Kolitz said that it is "gratifying to see that the likelihood of developing leukemia from the treatment of several of the studied cancers actually fell over the last decade, very likely because of decreased use of drugs that are most potently [linked to leukemia risk]."

Another expert agreed that the overall risk to any one cancer patient is small.

"This study confirms that a very small number of patients may be at risk for the development of a second cancer due to the effects of chemotherapy," said Dr. William Carroll, a pediatric oncologist at NYU Langone Medical Center, in New York City.

"Patients should always ask their doctor about the risk of serious side effects associated with particular parts of therapy, and whether agents with fewer side effects can be substituted without compromising the best chance for cure," said Carroll, who is also director of the NYU Cancer Institute and a professor at the NYU School of Medicine.

"Finally," he added, "it is increasingly clear that certain patients may be more likely to experience certain side effects based on their own genetic makeup. The ability to determine who is at greatest risk [via genetic testing], thereby allowing therapy to be tapered is one of the fundamental goals of personalized medicine."

-- Mary Elizabeth Dallas
Copyright © 2013 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Jonathan Kolitz, M.D., associate chief, hematologic oncology, North Shore-LIJ Cancer Institute, Lake Success, N.Y.; William L. Carroll, M.D., pediatric oncologist, NYU Langone Medical Center, and director, NYU Cancer Institute, and professor, NYU School of Medicine, New York City; U.S. National Institutes of Health, news release, Feb. 14, 2013

View the original article here