Is Your Sunscreen Dangerous?
|
Skin Cancer rates soar for baby boomersSkin Cancer Rates Soar for Baby Boomers Cancer Research UK says people in their 60s and 70s are far more likely to suffer from malignant melanoma than their parents. The charity blames the sharp rise on skin damage the baby boomers suffered in their youth, when cheap foreign holidays first became available and sun beds became popular. Caroline Cerny, the charity's SunSmart manager, said: "Back then we knew less about sunburn and how closely it's linked to the development of skin cancer. We thought it was part of getting a tan and nothing to worry about. "Now we know that's not true. We know sunburn is a serious sign that your skin has been damaged, that your DNA has been damaged, and getting sunburn really increases your risk of getting malignant melanoma." The charity's figures show that back in the 1970s just seven in every 100,000 older people developed the cancer. Now that figure is up to 36 in every 100,000. And by 2024 the rate is expected to have increased to 49 in every 100,000. That is up another third. Sue Deans developed malignant melanoma in her early 60s and blames her love of the sun as a teenager. "I used to get what I thought was a nice colour," she said. "Sometimes I overdid it. My skin would peel and I'd pick it off. That's what we did in those days. We did not think of the damage we were doing." More than 10,000 people a year are diagnosed with malignant melanoma. Around 2,000 die. Cancer Research UK says melanoma can be largely prevented by using sunscreen and seeking shade in the middle of the day. Last Updated (Friday, 02 April 2010 01:56) |
New Melanoma Drug Looks PromisingCHICAGO – Researchers have scored the first big win against melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. An experimental drug significantly improved survival in a major study of people with very advanced disease. The results, reported Saturday at a cancer conference, left doctors elated. "We have not had any therapy that has prolonged survival" until now, said Dr. Lynn Schuchter of the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania, a skin cancer specialist with no role in the study or ties to the drug's maker. The drug, ipilimumab, (ip-ee-LIM-uh-mab), works by helping the immune system fight tumors. The federal Food and Drug Administration has pledged a quick review, and doctors think the drug could be available by the end of this year. "People are going to have a lot of hope and want this drug, and it's not on their doctors' shelves," although some may be able to get it through special programs directly from its maker, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Schuchter said. Melanoma is the most serious form of skin cancer. Last year in the United States, there were about 68,720 new cases and 8,650 deaths from the disease. Worldwide, more than 50,000 people die of melanoma each year. "The incidence is rising faster than any other cancer," said one of the study's leaders, Dr. Stephen Hodi of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. "When it spreads to vital organs, it's almost always fatal." Doctors also reported Saturday at the conference that an experimental drug for lung cancer patients with a certain gene showed extraordinary promise in early testing. The drug, Pfizer Inc.'s crizotinib, (crih-ZAH-tin-ib) targets a gene that promotes tumor growth and is found in about 4 percent of lung cancers, especially among younger, non-smokers. Nearly 220,000 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States alone, and it is the world's top cancer killer. Two other gene-targeted treatments, Tarceva and Iressa, help about 20,000 lung cancer patients annually in the U.S. The skin cancer study involved 676 people around the world with advanced, inoperable melanoma who had already tried other treatments — a very grim situation. They were given one of three treatments: ipilimumab by itself, with another immune-stimulating treatment, or the immune-stimulating treatment alone. After two years, 24 percent of those given the drug alone or in combination were alive, versus 14 percent of those given just the immune-stimulating treatment. Average survival was 10 months with ipilimumab versus just more than six months for the others, which worked out to a 67 percent improvement in survival for those on the drug, said one of the study's leaders, Dr. Steven O'Day of the Angeles Clinic and Research Institute in Los Angeles. Doctors hope the drug can provide more benefit if given earlier in the course of the disease and to less sick patients. Ten percent to 15 percent of patients on ipilimumab had serious side effects related to the drug's actions on the immune system. Most were treatable with high doses of steroids, but 14 deaths were thought to be related to the treatment. That's still far fewer than deaths due to the cancer. The study was funded by Bristol-Myers and Medarex Inc., a company that co-developed the drug and was bought by Bristol-Myers last year. A spokeswoman said Bristol-Myers has not yet set a price for the drug, but similar treatments for other cancers cost several thousand dollars a month or more. Results were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology's annual conference in Chicago and published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione, Ap Medical Writer – Sun Jun 6, 3:49 am ET Last Updated (Monday, 07 June 2010 02:10) Many skin infections are self-induced!Hospitals Could Stop Infections by Tackling Bacteria Patients Bring In, Studies Find
Hundreds of thousands of patients each year suffer from infections after surgery, and experts say more than half of those infections stem from bacteria the patients themselves are carrying in their nose or on their skin. Otherwise harmless bacteria can enter the body through surgical incisions and cause infections that can require expensive treatment, slow recovery or even cause death. But two new studies suggest relatively simple ways hospitals can prevent many infections by killing the bacteria on the patient before surgery, with methods of screening, scrubbing or pretreating the patient that many hospitals do not typically use. “This is going to be a huge help to the infection-control crowd,” said Marcia Patrick, a nurse and board member of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, who was not involved with either study. “How can we not do this? It would truly be penny-wise and pound-foolish. And it’s the right thing to do for patients.” The studies, published Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine, examined infections that develop at the site of surgery, often around the incision, and afflict more than 300,000 patients a year in the United States. While experts are increasingly trying to stop hospital-acquired infections by approaches including stepped-up hand-washing by doctors and nurses, the new studies looked at the bacteria patients may be carrying before entering the hospital, especially a common bacteria, staphylococcus aureus. “About one-third of people at any one time carry this bacterium in their nose or on their skin,” said a co-author of one study, Dr. Henri Verbrugh, a professor of medical microbiology at Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands. “It does not give them any problem, but if they go to a hospital and the skin is somehow breached, they are really prone to invasion or infection by their own bacteria.” Dr. Verbrugh and colleagues tested patients for the bacteria using nasal swabs. They treated about 500 who carried the bacteria for five days with an antibiotic ointment on their noses and showers with soap treated with chlorhexidine, an antiseptic. After surgery, which sometimes occurred during the five-day treatment, those patients were 60 percent less likely to develop infections than patients receiving a placebo of ointment and soap. The study included only patients whose operations were extensive enough to require at least five days of hospitalization. Dr. Richard P. Wenzel, an infectious disease specialist at Virginia Commonwealth University, who wrote an editorial about the studies, said he would recommend the approach primarily for serious operations like heart surgery or joint replacements, or patients with immune system problems. But Dr. Wenzel said the method used in the second study should be adopted across the board. That study, conducted at six United States hospitals, compared the skin disinfectant hospitals use 75 percent of the time before surgery with another one. The researchers found that patients receiving the standard disinfectant, povidone-iodine, were significantly more likely to develop infections. Those cleaned with the alternative, chlorhexidine-alcohol, got 40 percent fewer total infections, and half as many staphylococcus aureus infections. A study author, Dr. Rabih O. Darouiche, a professor of medicine at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Houston, said chlorhexidine-alcohol was recommended a decade ago by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for cleaning when catheters were inserted, but had not been extensively studied for surgical preparation. Ms. Patrick said most hospitals still used the iodine solution largely because “we’ve always done it this way.” Cost is a factor with both studies’ methods. Dr. Darouiche said chlorhexidine-alcohol costs about $12 per patient compared with $3.50 for povidone-iodine. His study was financed by CareFusion, which makes both products. It had no access to the data. Dr. Verbrugh, whose study was financed by several companies, said the most expensive part of his approach was the rapid-screening test for bacteria, about $20. He said some United States cardiac departments had begun using the nasal ointment for all heart surgery patients, without screening them for bacteria. Experts not involved in the studies said the added costs of the methods were dwarfed by the money saved preventing infections, which can run to tens of thousands of dollars per patient. “Everybody wins on this,” Dr. Wenzel said. “Patients obviously have less morbidity, and hospitals and medical centers and insurers save a lot of money.” |

