More About Cancer

 

Vitamin B17 is the alternative cancer solution!

Vitamin B17 also know Amygdalin or Laetrile, is found in Raw Apricot seeds and many other raw Fruit seeds and, is know to cure cancer!

Vitamin B17 is a big part of Real Natural Alternative Way to Cure or Prevent Cancer!

Vitamin B17 was the subject of great controversy over 35 years ago when some of the world's top scientists claimed that when consumed, the components of the seed make it 100% impossible to develop cancer and will kill existing cancer in most cases.

The pharmaceutical companies pounced on this claim about Vitamin B17 immediately and demanded that the FDA conduct studies about Vitamin B17. The results of these Vitamin B17 studies are found in the book called World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 by G. Edward Griffin or you may be able to get a copy from the library.

The apricot seed was claimed as the cure for all cancers over 35 years ago becuase of the Vitamin B17 which is also known as Laetrile and Amygdalin and is found in most fruit seeds: primarily apricot seeds.

It was even more strongly claimed that when one eats about 7 apricot seeds per day they can never develop cancer...Just as one can never get scurvy if they eat an orange every day, or pellagra if they have some B vitamins every day.

An Important Fact To Remember:

The pharmaceuticals companies together with the medical establishment pushed the FDA into making it illegal to sell "raw" apricot seeds or the B17 vitamin with information about its effects on cancer. Even to this day, you can't get raw apricot seeds in your health food store, only the sun dried seeds which have all the important enzymes killed off.

Pharmaceutical companies only conduct studies on patented chemicals they invent so that at the end of their study, if the drug gets approved, they have sole rights on its sale.(They make back tons more than the mere 250 million that they invested) They never do studies on foods that can't be patented and that can be sold by any supermarket.

The answer to cancer has been known for many years! The information that you're about to read regarding the B17 vitamin will guide you in how you can guarantee a nearly cancer free life or help your body get rid of cancer if you have it

Note: This is just a quick version of the facts found at this web site
and in the book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin.

The book 'World Without Cancer" covers a lot of information on studies that were covered up and great scientists who were arrested when they began telling others about the truth of B17 vitamin. Highly annotated for the serious student who wants to research the information for himself. This book contains studies on Amygdalin (B17 vitamin , laetrile) that were conducted at the famous cancer institute, Sloan Kettering and covered up. Full explanation of the politics of cancer from Mr. Edward Griffin. Go through the pages to learn from educated scientists and doctors.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth , and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

B-17 vitamin is found in most fruit seeds. Its components make it vital for our survival without cancer. Seeds are for everyone to eat. Don't wait and see if you develop cancer to start eating the seeds. Vitamin B17 is found in seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, grapes, and apricot. It is found in some beans and many grasses such as wheat grass.

The hard wooden pit in the middle of the apricot or peach for example, is not supposed to be thrown away. In fact, the wooden shell is actually a strong armor protecting one of the most important foods known to man, the seed. It is one of the main courses of food in cultures such as the Navajo Indians, the Hunzakuts, the Abkhazians and many more. Cultures such as these have never had a reported case of cancer when eating their traditional foods! We don't need to make the B17 vitamin seed a main course in our diets, but we do need the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds per day. This will nearly guarantee a cancer free life. Other foods that contain B17 vitamin are:

The bitter almond tree has also been banned
from the U.S. years ago.

Apricot seeds have the highest content of the B17 vitamin on earth. They are chewable, bitter and a necessity in our diet. Although apricot seeds are bitter, they must be integrated into our diets. They may be added to food or chopped up and swallowed with a teaspoon of honey or applesauce.The seeds may be used in combination with the Laetrile Cancer Therapy.

As a preventative, Dr. Krebs (the scientist who discovered the B17 vitamin) asserts that 7 or more apricot seeds per day will make it impossible to develop cancer in one's life time.

One or two of the B17 vitamin tablets (100 mg) is an acceptable supplemental dosage per day.

Stores do not sell "raw" apricot seeds because of the raids the FDA made on those stores with B17 vitamin and the apricot seeds years ago. In nearly all cases when the B17 vitamin is taken in high doses the tumors shrink. Now one is faced with the confusion of staying on the chemotherapy or stopping the chemo, due to the unclearness of what shrunk the cancer. Those that continue on with the chemotherapy have a relatively poor outcome.

We understand that once an individual is caught in the vacuum cycle of chemotherapy, radiation and operations, it is very difficult to pull away from this higher authority (principalities, prestigious doctors and hospitals) and say "NO" to more chemotherapy. My friend Jason still has a small tumor in his kidney and would not let Dr. Nagler of Beth Israel Hospital remove his kidney despite his certified "scare" letters sent to his house over and over again. Hundreds of people make the wrong decisions because they were expecting their tumor to disappear. This is one of the things you have to know.

When it shrinks down that's it, start rejoicing and continue on your natural regimen. Do not stop eating the seeds!!!. The tumor doesn't disappear. Most doctors will still see a tumor and continue to give a person chemotherapy (until they're dead) in attempts to make it disappear.

Malignant (cancerous) tumors are only a small percentage of the cancer. When the cancer part starts dying off, the tumor only shrinks down the percent that the tumor was cancerous.

In other words

If a kidney tumor is 10 percent cancerous the tumor will shrink down only 10 percent. So if you get a CAT scan, which one should never get (with 6 CAT scans there is over 60% more of a chance of one developing Leukemia; MRI's are much safer as they use magnetic imaging and not radiation) a 10 percent shrinkage will be concluded as "NO CHANGE" by a doctor. If you have cancer and would like some information on how to take the B17 vitamin as well as foods to eat and foods that you should not eat, keep reading. Here are some helpful tips on improving your health and preventing cancer along with using the B17 vitamin.

Note:

At least 21 days of the injectable B17 vitamin at 9 grams per day plus up to 6 seeds per hour. Start the seeds at a low dosage (such as 1 or 2 at a time) as they must go through your digestive tract and can cause nausea.

The injectable needs to be put into a vein. Up to eighteen 500 MG tablets per day of B17 vitamin and up to 6 seeds per hour for the seeds and/or tablets (start out with a low dosage and build up). Your digestive system must have time to accommodate the dosage. Plus there is a pancreatic enzyme that helps breaks down the protein wall around a cancer cell. You can get this enzyme by eating raw organic pineapple or you can order a product called "Megazyme Forte" from the same place you got the seeds. Eat just a helping or so of pineapple per day with the seeds. Start taking a low dosage of vitamin C every day (about 500 to 1000 MG) and slowly build your way up to 10,000 to 25,000 MG per day. This will take some time to get your body used to such levels so don't be too anxious about getting to the higher dosages right away. Some symptoms of too high a dose could be:

This does not mean that the product is not working. On the contrary, it means that your body is being detoxified too fast so you need to back off on the dosage. You want to detoxify your body at a slow rate so you won't get the symptoms described above.

Regardless if you have already torn down you immune system with chemo or radiation, you will want to build it up as much as you can. One way to do this is with a product called AHCC.

AHCC will help build your immune system up to the level that is needed to fight cancer and other diseases.
 

Drink a lot of pure water,microwater is the best

Juicing is good for your liver. You can get some beets and juice them with other vegetables. It is very important that you start slow on this as it could make you feel sick at first. Drink a small amount at first (such as 1/4 cup) and slowly build up to higher amounts. The beet juice will cause your liver to dump toxins into your system as it is a very good liver cleanse. A lot ( about 8 to 10 eight ounce glasses of water per day) of pure micro water will help you rinse the toxins out.

Foods you should NOT eat:

As you continue looking through the pages at this site you will find:

Biological and chemical descriptions of the destruction of a cancer cell by the components of a seed (B17 vitamin), politics of cancer, as well as doctors and scientists that are 100% sure that cancer is a direct result of a deficiency in B-17. Remember how scurvy, rickets, pellagra and Beri Beri were results of deficiencies in vitamins B and C. It took decades and killed millions before the kings and medical industry of the time accepted the simple vitamin solutions. Today, we are in a nearly identical situation concerning cancer.

Read Dr. Krebs speech on B17 at the Cancer Control convention I strongly suggest that you start prevention now and do not wait for cancer to develop before you take action. Now for my disclaimer: I am not a doctor and I have not had any traditional training. I am a person with information that other people have studied and proven to be effective and wrote in books. I just pass that information on to you.

THE BACKGROUND ON WHY THE FDA FORBIDS ITS USE

Amygdalin
(Vitamin B-17)

Dr. Manuel D. Navarro M.D.
NUTRITIONAL ONCOLOGIST


(This article was written by Dr. Navarro several years before he passed away in 1994.)
 

     "The American FDA claims that Vitamin B17 is poisonous in its propaganda – this herbal medicine obtained from over 1,200 species of plants distributed all over the world."

     "The FDA lied in its propaganda poster wherein it stated that B17 contains cyanide whish is half true. What it contains is the cyanide radical (CN) which needs to have an H ion before it becomes poisonous. The molecule of Vitamin B17 is in itself not poisonous until it is hydrolyzed or split by an enzyme called Beta glucosidase or glucuronidase (B.G). when B17 is injected into a cancerous patient, the B.G. around the cancer cells splits the B17 and the HCN produced diffuses into the cancer cells poisoning them, while the normal cells nearby are not poisoned due to the presence of an enzyme, rhodanese, - not found in the cancer cells. The rhodanese adds an Atom of Sulfur to the CN to form SCN, a very mild hypotensive."

     "It was brought out in the American Court trying a doctor who used B17 for his cancerous patient that the FDA has a large list of accepted drugs produced in the United States that are generally regarded as safe (GRAS list). This Gras list contains Amygladin and Amygladin is synonymous with Laetrile, the trade name of Vitamin B17.

Since then the FDA in its shame has stopped using this ploy to downgrade the use of Vitamin B17 that is highly competitive with the various drug products of the drug cartels approved by the FDA although they are more toxic than SCN produced from B17. The reactions of the FDA approved drugs are vomiting, loss of appetite, lowering of blood count suppression of the bone marrow where the immune body defenses are formed with the red and white cells and platelets to the detriment of the patients. The approved drugs poison the cancer cells as well as the normal cells!"

     "Orally, Vitamin B17 in the correct dosage of 2-4 grams a day for adult, in divided doses is very well tolerated. The intravenous administration of higher dosages does not produce any reaction. A baby girl of 4 months suffering from cancer of the adrenal that has spread to the liver, bones, etc, received Vitamin B17 per rectum and she got well her ailment. She celebrated her third birthday recently."

      "The Mayo Clinic in the issue of the American Journal of the America Medical Association of February 13, 1981 declared Vitamin B17 is safe, orally or parentally in the correct dosages. In the 36 years of using it we have not met yet with any toxic reaction."

Vitamin B-17 - Laetrile - Anti-Cancer Properties?

The diet of primitive man and most fruit-eating animals was very rich in nitrilosides. They regularly ate the seeds (and kernels) of all fruits, since these seeds are rich in protein, polyunsaturated fats, and other nutrients. Seeds also contain as much as 2 per cent or more nitriloside. There are scores of other major foods naturally, or normally, very rich in nitriloside.

Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside, amygdaline) is a designation proposed to include a large group of water-soluble, essentially non-toxic, sugary, compounds found in over 800 plants, many of which are edible. These factors are collectively known as Beta-cyanophoric glycosides. They comprise molecules made of sugar, hydrogen cyanide, a benzene ring or an acetone. Though the intact molecule is for all practical purposes completely non-toxic, it may be hydrolyzed by Beta-glycosidase to a sugar, free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone.

Apricot Kernels (Vitamin B17)

Apricot Kernels are the richest source of B17 (Laetrile). Ernst Krebs is the world's leading authority on the relationship between cancer and nitrilosides, and the inventor of laetrile.
 

Apricot kernels are known to prevent and cure cancer, even though the medical establishment has worked night and day and even lied to suppress it. Vitamin B17 is found in most all fruit seeds such as the apple, peach, cherry, orange, nectarine and apricot. It is found in some beans and many grasses such as wheat grass. The hard wooden pit in the middle of the peach is not supposed to be thrown away. In fact, the wooden shell is strong armor protecting one of the most important foods known to man, the seed.

It is one of the main courses of food in cultures such as the Navajo Indians, the Hunzas the Abkhasians and many more. Did you know that within these tribes there has never been a reported case of cancer? (And there are doctors and scientists from the U.S. living within these tribes right now studying this phenomena) We don't need to make the seed a main course but we do need the equivalent of about seven apricots seeds per day to improve our odd for a cancer-free life. Other foods that contain vitamin B-17 are: bitter almonds, millet, wheat grass, lima beans and more. (The bitter almond tree was banned from the U.S. in 1995.) The kernel or seed contains the highest amounts of vitamin B17.

One of the most common nitrilosides is amygdalin. This nitriloside occurs in the kernels of seeds of practically all fruits. The seeds of apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and the like carry this factor; often in the extraordinary concentration of 2 to 3 per cent. The rule of thumb when eating seeds is to eat the fruit along with the seeds. For example, you do not want to extract the seeds from 50 apples and eat only those seeds, however eating a few apples every day along with their seeds is perfectly safe.

 

Since the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate the non-toxic water soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they contain as vitamin B-17. The presence of nitriloside in the diet produces specific physiologic effects and leaves as metabolites specific chemical compounds of a physiologically active nature. The production by a non-toxic, water-soluble accessory food factor of specific physiological effects as well as identifiable metabolites suggests the vitamin nature of the compound.

Before considering the possible antineoplastic activity of this vitamin B-17, let us recall that the benzoic acid arising from it has certain antirheumatic and antiseptic properties. It was rather widely used (in Germany and elsewhere) for rheumatic disease therapy prior to the advent of the ortho-hydroxy addition product of benzoic acid known as ortho-hydroxybenzoic acid or salicylic acid. It was originally obtained from beech-wood bark.

Recall now, that thiocyanate also was once widely used, in both Germany and American medicine, as an effective agent for hypertension. Used as such, as the simple chemical, the dosage was difficult to control. Obviously, this difficulty does not arise from the thiocyanate usually produced in the body through metabolizing vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). However, chronic hypotension has been reported in Nigerians who eat quantities of the nitriloside-containing manioc (cassava)--especially that of the bitter variety.

Are we justified in suggesting that cancer itself might be another chronic metabolic disease that arises from a specific vitamin deficiency--a deficiency specifically in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)?

There are many chronic or metabolic diseases that challenge medicine. Many of these diseases have already been conquered. What proved to be their solution? By solution we mean both prevention and cure. What really cures really prevents. Let us think of some of these diseases that have found total prevention and hence cure. We are speaking of metabolic or non-transmissible diseases. At one time the metabolic disease known as scurvy killed hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes entire populations. This disease found total prevention and cure in the ascorbic acid or vitamin C component of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the once fatal diseases so aptly called pernicious anemia, pellagra, beri beri, countless neuropathies, and the like, found complete cure and prevention in specific dietary factors, that is, essential nutrients in an adequate diet.

No chronic or metabolic disease has ever found cure or prevention, that is, real cure and real prevention--except through factors essential to an adequate diet and/or normal to animal economy.

Does it seem likely, therefore, that cancer will be the first exception to this generalization that to date has not had a single known exception? In my humble opinion, certainly not. But does it follow from this that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is the specific antineoplastic vitamin? Logically, by itself, alone, this conclusion that nitriloside is the specific antineoplastic vitamin does not follow. However, examine the brilliant laboratory studies of Dr. Dean Burk of the Department of Cytochemistry of the National Cancer Institute in Washington. I believe that in light of the experimental evidence that he has produced, you might agree that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is indeed the antineoplastic vitamin and is certainly worth more investigation.

Nature's Own Cancer Prevention - Vitamin B17 !

Have you ever heard of vitamin B17? Maybe you have heard of its other name - Laetrile.

Americans cannot access vitamin B17 because the FDA took it off the market in the 1970s, and removed it from the B-Complex vitamins. It is unlawful for any health practitioner to administer this vitamin to patients. Apricot seeds are the best source for B17, but they have also been removed from the shelves of every health food store and natural market throughout the USA. Limited research has been conducted on vitamin B17 since 1977. Once it was banned, it was forgotten.

According to research from years ago, provided by nutritionists and medical scientists, vitamin B17 is a natural cyanide-containing compound that gives up its cyanide content only in the presence of a particular enzyme group called beta glucosidase or glucuronidase. Miraculously, this enzyme group is found almost exclusively in cancer cells. If found elsewhere in the body, it is accompanied by greater quantities of another enzyme, rhodanese, which has the ability to disable the cyanide and convert it into completely harmless substances. Cancer tissues do not have this protecting enzyme.

So, according to past scientific knowledge, cancer cells are faced with a double threat: the presence of one enzyme exposing them to cyanide, while the absence of another enzyme found in all other normal cells results in the cancer's failure to detoxify itself. Leave it to nature to provide a form of cyanide that can naturally destroy a cancer cell. The cancer cells that are unable to withstand the cyanide are destroyed, while the non-cancerous cells are not threatened by the cyanide, and, therefore, remain unharmed. Never underestimate the body's potential!

Vitamin B17 is found naturally in many foods. If you eat foods containing vitamin B17, your body will know what to do next. All other animals in nature instinctively do this. Consider it nature's cancer prevention. If only modern medicine would allow it.

San Francisco's Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D. discovered the healing qualities of vitamin B17 in 1923. His sons, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., PhD., and Byron Krebs, M.D. continued their father's research in 1952, refining Laetrile's (B17) nutritional qualities.

From their research, the Krebs believed cancer was not caused by an outside invading force but rather by malfunctions of the normal mechanics within the body itself. They identified cancer as a "deficiency disease." The body's malfunctions, according to their research, were the result of a deficiency of certain chemicals found in food, a deficiency of chemicals they specifically identified as vitamin B17, as well as a deficiency of enzymes known as trypsins produced in the pancreas.

The Krebs had discovered a natural, drugless method to help prevent cancer. But their discovery wasn't original. Years prior to any of the Drs. Krebs' works, Drs. George B. Wood and Franklin Bache, M.D. published a reference volume in 1833 in which they described amygdalin, derived from B17, as a common treatment for a wide range of diseases and disorders.

Vitamin B17 is also referred to as a nitriloside, which is the foundation for Laetrile, amygdalin, and prunasin. Together with the pancreatic enzyme trypsin, these can form a natural barrier against cancer growth. If foods containing any of the nitrilosides are eaten regularly, the body's own immune mechanisms can naturally battle cancer-forming cells. But if foods containing these critical vitamins are not regularly consumed (or manufactured), nature's mechanisms can't work as effectively against the buildup of factors at the root of cancer and the countless number of degenerative diseases.

This is happening to human beings today. Not only are advanced societies environmentally polluted to dangerous levels, but also more and more foods are being altered from their natural state by man's own doing. Modern freeze-dried, fat-free, sugar-free, calorie-free, weight-watchful, microwavable artificial food substitutes don't contain nitrilosides. Most food manufacturers don't even know what nitrilosides are. Never in human history have artificial foods saturated with preservatives and unhealthy chemicals dominated the food supply to the degree they do today. Modern nourishment is no longer nourishing.

In the late 1970's, Dr. Harold W. Manner, PhD., Chairman of the Biology Department at Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois, studied the overall value of Laetrile (B17). His work was well respected and considered among the first unbiased studies since the Krebs' in the 1920s. He reported Laetrile as being virtually non-toxic.

When Dr. Manner used Laetrile in his medical research, along with vitamin A and digestive enzymes, he discovered the production of antibodies was stimulated against spontaneous breast tumors in his laboratory mice. He studied the results of complete regression in 76 percent of the treated mice with mammary gland cancers.

Dr. Manner believed Laetrile received its best results when used in conjunction with digestive enzymes, a traditional balanced diet, and with vitamin A.

No physician has had more clinical experience with Laetrile than Ernesto Contreras, Sr., M.D. of the Contreras Hospital in Tijuana, Mexico, formerly The Oasis Of Hope Hospital. Dr. Contreras has clinically used Laetrile for more than forty years on thousands of terminally diagnosed patients, and has received impressive results.

One of Dr. Contreras' patients was a man suffering from severe colon cancer. Using Laetrile treatments in conjunction with detoxification protocols and proper vitamin supplementation, Contreras was able to arrest the progression of his patient's cancer. The man lived more than fifteen years beyond his predicted death.

 

 

Many people believe that cancer is a deficiency disease – like scurvy or pellagra – aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile.

This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle.

Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics – and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment.

With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.
Understanding Prognosis and Cancer Statistics: Questions and Answers

 
Key Points
  • A prognosis gives an idea of the likely course and outcome of a disease.
  • Many factors affect a person’s prognosis, including the type, location, and stage of the disease; the presence of a chromosomal  abnormality or abnormal blood cell counts (for some cancers); and the person’s age, general health, and response to treatment.
  • When predicting the prognosis, doctors sometimes use statistics based on groups of people whose situations are most similar to that of an individual patient.
  • Survival rate is a type of statistic that indicates the percentage of people with a certain type and stage of cancer who survive for a specific period of time after their diagnosis.
  • Doctors cannot be absolutely certain about the outcome for a particular patient. In fact, a person’s prognosis may change over time.
  • The doctor who is most familiar with a patient’s situation is in the best position to discuss prognosis, taking into account the individual characteristics of the patient that can affect the overall situation.
  1. What is a prognosis?

    People facing cancer are naturally concerned about what the future holds. A prognosis gives an idea of the likely course and outcome of a disease—that is, the chance that a patient will recover or have a recurrence (return of the cancer).
     

  2. What factors affect a patient’s prognosis?

    Many factors affect a person’s prognosis. Some of the most important are the type and location of the cancer, the stage of the disease (the extent to which the cancer has metastasized, or spread), and its grade (how abnormal the cancer cells look and how quickly the cancer is likely to grow and spread). In addition, for hematologic cancers (cancers of the blood or bone marrow) such as leukemias and lymphomas, the presence of chromosomal abnormalities and abnormalities in the patient’s complete blood count (CBC) can affect a person’s prognosis. Other factors that may also affect the prognosis include the person’s age, general health, and response to treatment.

  3. How do statistics contribute to predicting a patient’s prognosis?

    When doctors discuss a person’s prognosis, they carefully consider all factors that could affect that person’s disease and treatment and then try to predict what might happen. The doctor bases the prognosis on information researchers have collected over many years about hundreds or even thousands of people with cancer.

    When possible, the doctor uses statistics based on groups of people whose situations are most similar to that of an individual patient. Several types of statistics might be used to discuss prognosis. Some commonly used statistics are described below:

    • Survival rate indicates the percentage of people with a certain type and stage of cancer who survive for a specific period of time after their diagnosis. For example, 55 out of 100 people with a certain type of cancer will live for at least 5 years, and the other 45 people will not. Survival statistics may further categorize the people who die by cause of death because some will die from unrelated causes. For example, of the 45 people mentioned above, 35 may die from their cancer and 10 may die from other causes.

    • The 5-year survival rate indicates the percentage of people who are alive 5 years after their cancer diagnosis, whether they have few or no signs or symptoms of cancer, are free of disease, or are having treatment. Five-year survival rates are used as a standard way of discussing prognosis as well as a way to compare the value of one treatment with another. It does not mean that a patient can expect to live for only 5 years after treatment or that there are no cures for cancer.

    • Disease-free or recurrence-free survival rates represent how long one survives free of the disease, rather than until death.

    Because survival rates are based on large groups of people, they cannot be used to predict what will happen to a particular patient. No two patients are exactly alike, and treatment and responses to treatment vary greatly.

    The doctor may speak of a favorable prognosis if the cancer is likely to respond well to treatment. The prognosis may be unfavorable if the cancer is likely to be difficult to control. It is important to keep in mind, however, that a prognosis is only a prediction. Again, doctors cannot be absolutely certain about the outcome for a particular patient.

  4. Is it helpful to know the prognosis?

    Cancer patients and their loved ones face many unknowns. Understanding cancer and what to expect can help patients and their loved ones plan treatment, think about lifestyle changes, and make decisions about their quality of life and finances. Many people with cancer want to know their prognosis. They find it easier to cope when they know the statistics. They may ask their doctor or search for statistics such as survival rates on their own. Other people find statistical information confusing and frightening, and they think it is too impersonal to be of use to them.

    The doctor who is most familiar with a patient’s situation is in the best position to discuss the prognosis and to explain what the statistics may mean for that person. At the same time, it is important to understand that even the doctor cannot tell exactly what to expect. In fact, a person’s prognosis may change if the cancer progresses or if treatment is successful.

    Seeking information about the prognosis is a personal decision. It is up to each patient to decide how much information he or she wants and how to deal with it.

  5. What is the prognosis if a patient decides not to have treatment?

    Because everyone’s situation is different, this question can be difficult to answer (see Question 3). Prognostic statistics often come from studies comparing new treatments with best available treatments, not with “no treatment.” Therefore, it is not always easy for doctors to accurately estimate prognosis for patients who decide not to have treatment. However, as mentioned above, the doctor who is most familiar with a patient’s situation is in the best position to discuss prognosis, taking into account individual characteristics of the patient that can affect the overall situation.

    There are many reasons patients decide not to have treatment. One reason may be concern about side effects related to treatment. Patients should discuss this concern with their doctor and cancer nurse. Many medications are available to prevent or control the side effects caused by cancer therapies. Another reason patients might decide not to have treatment is that their type of cancer does not have a good prognosis even when treated. In these cases, patients may want to explore clinical trials (research studies). A clinical trial may offer access to new drugs that may be more promising than the standard treatments available.

    People interested in taking part in a clinical trial should talk with their doctor. Information about clinical trials is available from the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Cancer Information Service (CIS) (see below) at 1–800–4–CANCER and in the NCI booklet Taking Part in Cancer Treatment Research Studies, which is available at http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/Taking-Part-in-Cancer-Treatment-Research-Studies on the Internet. This booklet describes how research studies are carried out and explains their possible benefits and risks. The NCI is a part of the National Institutes of Health. Further information about clinical trials is available at http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials on the NCI’s Web site. The Web site offers detailed information about specific ongoing studies by linking to PDQ®, the NC

       

Stage at Diagnosis (2005 data now available)
 Diagnosis

There are fewer late-stage diagnoses for five major cancers where early detection is either recommended and/or widely used.

On this page:

Late-Stage Diagnosis of Cancer

Cancers can be diagnosed at different stages in their development. Stage of cancer diagnosis may be expressed as numbers (I, II, III, or IV, for example) or by terms such as "localized," "regional," and "distant." The lower the number or the more localized the cancer, the better a person's chances of benefiting from treatment and being cured.

Tracking the rates of late stage (distant) cancers is a good way to monitor the impact of cancer screening. When more cancers are detected in early stages, fewer should be detected in late stages.

Measure

Late-stage diagnosis rate: The number of new cancer cases diagnosed at a late (distant) stage, per 100,000 people per year. This report shows the rates for cancers of the prostate, colon, breast, and cervix uteri.

 

Period – 1980–2005 (Late stage prostate data is presented for the years from 1995 to 2005)

 

Trends

Prostate: Late-stage prostate cancer has fallen from 1995 to 2005, following the introduction of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

Colon: Falling

Female breast: Stable

Rectum (including Rectosigmoid Junction): Falling

Cervix: Falling from 1980–1996 and non-significant change from 1996–2005

View details for:
Colon  Female breast  Rectum  Cervix  Prostate
Figure D5. Rates of new cases of late stage disease: 1980-2005

 

Download: data (Excel) | image (JPEG) | slide (PowerPoint)

 

Most Recent Estimates

In 2005, five major cancers were diagnosed at a late stage at the following rates:

Prostate: 7.1 new cases per 100,000 men per year

Colon: 6.8 new cases per 100,000 people per year

Female breast: 7.4 new cases per 100,000 women per year

Rectum: 2.0 new cases per 100,000 people per year

Cervix: 0.7 new cases per 100,000 women per year

Healthy People 2010 Targets

There is no Healthy People 2010 target for this measure.

 

Groups at High Risk for Late-Stage Diagnosis

People who do not have regular, recommended cancer screening tests and/or experience a delay in following up on an abnormal screening test finding are at highest risk of being diagnosed with late-stage cancer.

 

Key Issues

A lower rate of diagnosis at late stages is an early sign of the effectiveness of cancer screening efforts. These lower rates can be expected to occur before decreases in death rates are seen. For example, the drop in new cases of late-stage prostate cancer probably was an early indicator of lower death rates observed for this disease.

Important differences among racial and ethnic groups in the percentage of cases diagnosed at a late stage contribute to disparities in cancer mortality.

 

Additional Information on Stage at Diagnosi

 

  Prevention
 

 

Cancer can be caused by a variety of different factors and may develop over a number of years. Some risk factors can be controlled. Choosing the right health behaviors and preventing exposure to certain environmental risk factors can help prevent the development of cancer. For this reason, it is important to follow national trends data to monitor the reduction of these risk factors. This section focuses on national trends data from two major groups of risk factors: Behavioral and Environmental.

Behavioral Factors
Scientists estimate that as many as 50–75 percent of cancer deaths in the United States are caused by human behaviors such as smoking, physical inactivity, and poor dietary choices. The first part of the Prevention section describes trends in the following behaviors that can help to prevent cancer.

Tobacco Use
Smoking causes about 30 percent of all U.S. deaths from cancer. Avoiding tobacco use is the single most important step Americans can take to reduce the cancer burden in this country.

Diet
Maintaining a healthy weight and eating a moderate-fat diet and enough fruits and vegetables while limiting consumption of red meat and avoiding too much alcohol is also an important step in reducing cancer risk.

Physical Activity
Obesity and physical inactivity cause about 25–30 percent of several of the major cancers in the U.S., including colon, breast, endometrial, kidney, and esophageal cancers. Obesity is estimated to cause 14 percent of cancer deaths in men and 20 percent of cancer deaths in women.

Sun Protection
The number of new cases of melanoma skin cancer has increased between 1975 and 2004, with an estimated number of 60,000 new cases in 2007.

Environmental Factors
Certain chemicals, biological agents, toxins, etc. are associated with cancer development. In this section, national trends data associated with environmental exposures and their relationship to cancer are reported.

Secondhand Smoke

Chemical Exposures

The environmental measures highlighted in this report were chosen based on the availability of national trends data and their inclusion in the Healthy People 2010 Report. Because national trends data were unavailable for other environmental exposures that cause cancer, they were excluded from this report.

  Person-Years of Life Lost (2005 data now available)
End of Life

Cancer is responsible for more estimated years of life lost than any other cause of death.

On this page:

Person-Years of Life Lost (PYLL)

Death rates alone do not give a complete picture of the burden that deaths impose on the population. Another useful measure, which adds a different dimension, is person-years of life lost (PYLL)—the years of life lost due to early death from a particular cause or disease. PYLL due to cancer helps to describe the extent to which life is cut short by cancer. On average, each person who dies from cancer loses an estimated 15.5 years of life.

Measure

PYLL due to a particular disease or cause: The difference between the actual age of death due to the disease/cause and the expected age of death. Specifically, this measure is estimated by linking life table data to each death of a person of given age and sex. The life table permits a determination of the number of additional years an average person of that age, race, and sex would have been expected to live.

 

Period – 2005

Trends – No trend data are available.

Most Recent Estimates

In 2005, cancer deaths were responsible for nearly 8.8 million PYLL. This is more than heart disease or any other cause of death.

Figure E4. Person-years of life lost (PYLL) due to major causes of death in the U.S. – 2005

 

Download: data (Excel) | image (JPEG) | slide (PowerPoint)

 

Also in 2005, lung cancer accounted for over 2.4 million PYLL, the most by far for any cancer. In contrast, prostate cancer, which primarily affects older men, accounted for approximately 274,000 PYLL.

Figure E5. Person-years of life lost (PYLL) due to cancer – 2005

 

Download: data (Excel) | image (JPEG) | slide (PowerPoint)

 

 

Healthy People 2010 Targets

There is no Healthy People 2010 target for this measure.

 

Groups at High Risk for the Most PYLL

Cancers that are both common and associated with poor survival are responsible for the most PYLL. Breast and colorectal cancers are also common cancers that strike people at a relatively young age and cause many years of life lost. Deaths from childhood cancers, which are uncommon, lead to the most years of life lost for the individual, but contribute only a small percentage to total PYLL.

 

Key Issues

The greatest impact on reducing the number of years lost to cancer will come from progress against common cancers—especially lung, breast, and colorectal cancers—as well as new scientific breakthroughs for cancers where the prognosis is poor (e.g., pancreatic cancer).

Additional Information on Person-Years of Life Lost

 

Colorectal Cancer: 2 Steps Backward

Mary Desmond Pinkowish, News & Views Editor

Rebecca Siegel, MPH, and her colleagues from the American Cancer Society (ACS)'s Surveillance and Health Policy Research department were writing what they thought would be a fairly routine article on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence trends when they came across some unexpected data: a striking increase among young adults.

"It just jumped out at us," she says.

The study, which was recently published in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention (2009;18:1695–1698), raises important questions concerning CRC risk factors likely to have contributed to these surprising results. And although only approximately 10% of CRC cases occur in young adults, these findings are a powerful reminder that clinicians should not dismiss symptoms that potentially signal CRC, even if they occur in a person aged younger than 50 years.

CRC has been one of the brightest spots in cancer prevention efforts. CRC rates have been generally declining since the 1980s, and the declines have accelerated in recent years. Since 1998, age-standardized incidence rates for the US population have decreased by an annual average of 2.8% in men and 2.2% in women. CRC screening, particularly colonoscopy in average-risk people aged 50 years and older, gets the majority of the credit for these advances and underscores the benefits of detecting and removing adenomatous polyps before they develop into cancer.

In this study, the investigators used data regarding invasive CRC cases diagnosed between 1992 and 2005 from the National Cancer Institute's 13 oldest Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries to calculate annual, age-adjusted CRC incidence rates and the annual percent changes in rates for people ages 20 to 49 years, stratified according to sex and race/ethnicity.

In non-Hispanic whites (the only group with enough cases for subset analyses), the team was able to analyze CRC incidence among 3 age groups (20–29 years, 30–39 years, and 40–49 years) and by stage of disease at diagnosis (local, regional, distant, or unstaged) and anatomic site of disease (proximal colon, distal colon, or rectum).

These analyses demonstrated that the overall incidence rate of CRC has been increasing since 1992 among adults ages 20 to 49 years: by 1.5% per year in men and 1.6% per year in women. In addition, there were differences in trends noted among various racial and ethnic groups. In non-Hispanic white men and women, there was an average annual increase of 2.0% and 2.2%, respectively. CRC incidence increased by 2.7% per year among Hispanic men, with no statistically significant changes observed among Hispanic women, non-Hispanic black men or women, and Asian American/Pacific Islander men or women. (The investigators could not provide incidence rates for American Indians/Alaska Natives because of limited data for this group.)

Annual percentage increases were highest in the group of patients ages 20 to 29 years: 5.2% for men and 5.6% for women. Anatomic subsite analysis indicated significant increases in tumors of the distal colon (1.5% for men and 2.3% for women) and rectum (3.5% for men and 2.9% for women), but not in the proximal colon. In contrast, for adults aged 50 years and older during the same time period, the incidence of CRC decreased by at least 1.8% annually for every diagnostic stage and by at least 2.7% annually for each anatomic site.

"This was a descriptive study, not one from which we can make cause-and-effect judgments," Ms. Siegel says. Nonetheless, unexpected results such as these invite speculation. Ms. Siegel and her colleagues note in their discussion that obesity is a strong risk factor for CRC, especially in men, and some studies have indicated that obesity poses a higher risk of CRC in premenopausal than in postmenopausal women. In addition, the increase in obesity has fueled an increase in type 2 diabetes mellitus, another known risk factor for CRC.

Dietary habits have also changed in recent decades and may explain at least some of the increased CRC risk noted among young adults. Ms. Siegel and her colleagues noted that the consumption of red and processed meats has been linked to an increased risk of CRC, whereas dairy products have been associated with a decreased risk. Since the 1970s, fast-food consumption has increased by a factor of 5 in young children and tripled in adults. Compared with those who do not eat fast food, people who eat more fast food tend to eat more red and processed meats and consume less milk. Ms. Siegel and her colleagues discussed nutritional data demonstrating that energy intake from burgers increased 30% between 1977 to 1978 and 1994 to 1996, whereas energy intake from milk decreased 42% during the same time period. "There is no recommendation for screening for CRC in younger adults who are not in a high-risk group [as defined in current screening guidelines, based on personal or family medical history of cancer, adenomas, or predisposing conditions]," says study co-author Elizabeth Ward, PhD, vice president of Surveillance and Health Policy Research for the ACS, "so they are not getting the benefits of screening," she adds.

According to Dr. Ward, it is unlikely that changes in screening technology or increased scrutiny could account for the increased CRC incidence noted among young adults. "The cancers in these patients were found because they are symptomatic. There has been no huge change in the technology of diagnosis" that could account for the observed increases, she says.

Like Ms. Siegel, Dr. Ward also believes that changes in CRC risk factors in recent cohorts of children and young adults may explain at least some of the increased incidence.

Should the age for CRC screening be lowered among people of average risk? Both Ms. Siegel and Dr. Ward agree that the changes are not large enough to justify that step.

"These findings have 2 implications," Dr. Ward says. "First, when young adults develop symptoms indicative of CRC, the clinician should consider the possibility of CRC even though few cases occur in younger adults," she says. The second lesson from these data is the importance of following ACS recommendations for diet and physical activity and the need to maintain a healthy body weight, she adds. "And the health care provider must ask about family history. People with a close family history of colorectal adenomas or carcinoma do need earlier screening," she says.

    Global CRC Incidence Trends

Dr. Ward and her colleagues reported equally unsettling findings as a second article in the same issue of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention (2009;18:1688–1694). This study used the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5) databases to calculate the ratio of incidence rates for 1998 through 2002 versus 1983 through 1987. Significant increases in the incidence of CRC (which were greater among men than women) were noted in economically transitioning countries of Eastern Europe, most parts of Asia, and select areas of South America. The United States was the only country in which CRC incidence rates declined for both males and females. "In some of these countries, CRC rates have exceeded those in the United States as populations adopt a Western lifestyle and dietary habits," Dr. Ward says.

Ms. Siegel and Dr. Ward agree that diet, physical activity, and weight trends in most of the world (and in some regions, trends in tobacco use) are the likely factors responsible for the increasing incidence of CRC. In high-income countries with established screening practices, such as the United States, this influence can be outweighed by the effect of screening among individuals aged 50 years and older, resulting in overall declines in age-standardized CRC incidence. However, this overall decline in the United States should not distract attention from the very disturbing trends observed among other populations and the need for appropriate public health, health policy, and health care interventions. Go