Hep C infection may increase risk of lymphoma - Infectious Diseases

Hep C infection may increase risk of lymphoma

Virus can hike chances of immune-system cancer by 30 percent, experts say

WASHINGTON - Infection with the hepatitis C virus, already linked to liver cancer and cirrhosis, also increases the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, researchers said on Tuesday.

Researchers tracked 146,394 U.S. military veterans infected with the virus and 572,293 veterans who were not, and found that hepatitis C infection boosted the risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 20 percent to 30 percent.

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is cancer that originates in the lymphoid tissue that makes up the lymph nodes, spleen and other organs of the immune system, with tumors developing from white blood cells. It is more common in men than women.

Hepatitis C infection also raised by 300 percent the risk for a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma called Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia. Risk for cryoglobulinemia, involving abnormal levels of certain antibodies in the blood, also rose.

The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The hepatitis C virus causes hepatitis, a disease marked by liver inflammation, as well as liver cancer and cirrhosis.

It is carried through the blood and spread from one person to another through the exchange of bodily fluids �" for example, by sharing needles during injection drug use or by sexual contact. It also was spread via blood transfusions before 1990, when screening for the virus began.

“The thought is that hepatitis C is a chronic infection, and as a chronic infection it results in chronic stimulation of the immune system. And these cancers are cancers of the immune system, essentially,” Dr. Thomas Giordano of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, lead author of the study, said in a telephone interview.

Infection with the hepatitis C virus, also called HCV, came before the development of these cancers and the increased risk was long-lasting, the study found.

Click for related content'Smart-bomb' drugs for lymphoma underusedWoman contracts hep B during oral surgeryFood and Drug Administration: Sugar substitute doesn't cause cancer

“Although the risk of developing lymphomas is small, our research suggests that screening of HCV-infected individuals could identify conditions which may lead to cancer,” co-author Dr. Eric Engels of the National Cancer Institute, part of the U.S. National Institutes of health, said in a statement.

“It might then be possible to prevent progression to lymphoma,” Engels added.

The study looked at patients in U.S. Veterans Affairs health care facilities from 1997 to 2004. All but 3 percent were men, most were white, and their average age was 52.

There are more than 4 million people infected with the hepatitis C virus in the United States, representing 1.6 percent of the population.

Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

'Raw' almonds may no longer be raw - Before You Bite

'Raw' almonds may no longer be raw

TODAY's Phil Lempert reports on effort to pasteurize the popular nuts
By Phil LempertTODAY Food Editor

Phil LempertTODAY Food Editor•Profile•document.write('')E-maildocument.write('');

The USDA is attempting to require that all almonds grown in California to be sterilized with various pasteurization techniques in response to Salmonella outbreaks in 2001 and 2004 that were traced to raw almonds. All almonds, with two exceptions, would undergo a sterilization process that includes chemicals and/or high-temperature treatments. Organic raw almonds will not be fumigated and undergo only the steam-heat treatment thus they are no longer "raw," and small-scale growers can sell "raw" almonds only direct from farm stands.

The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, is requesting that the Food and Drug Administration reopen the proceeding for public comment as the proposed change was not effectively communicated to the public. In fact, only 18 comments were received on the proposal �" all from the almond industry which, unlike consumers, retailers and other organizations concerned with food safety, received a personal letter or fax from the USDA on the proposal and an invitation to comment.

In light of the recent foodborne illnesses involving peanut butter, spinach, lettuce and pet foods there is little doubt that consumers are more concerned about food safety than ever, which certainly offers the USDA a window of opportunity to institute stricter regulations and different technologies to reduce food safety problems. Most food safety issues occur when contaminated water, soil or transportation and handling equipment come into contact with the product. But, according to The Cornucopia Institute, this USDA regulation might well be  ignoring the root causes of food contamination  "dangerous and unsustainable farming practices."

Concerns raised about the proposal include the costs of the chemical and heat treatments (a propylene oxide chamber runs up from $500,000 to $1,250,000 and a roasting line from $1,500,000 to $2,500,000) as well as transportation costs to and from treatment facilities, which would place a heavier burden on small farmers as opposed to big business.

Even more important is that the most common method of sterilizing almonds is by propylene oxide fumigation, which is listed by the International Agency on Cancer Research as a possible carcinogen. It is banned in the European Union, Canada and Mexico, among many others, from being used in the treatment of food for human consumption.

We agree with The Institute's main contention �" these almonds which would be labeled "raw" is deceptive to those who wish to buy truly raw, unprocessed almonds. It's time to separate out the technology benefits (or drawbacks) from labeling issues and allow shoppers to be able to trust what’s listed on the package as being “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

For more food safety information and tips visit Phil’s website www.supermarketguru.com

Phil Lempert is food editor of the TODAY show. He welcomes questions and comments, which can be sent to phil.lempert@nbc.com or by using the mail box below. For more about the laagsdhfgdf trends on the supermarket shelves, visit Phil’s Web site at SuperMarketGuru.com.

oMailbag = new Array();mainsectionID="";navsectionID=""; oMailbag.appWidth = 460; oMailbag.BoxStyle = 3053755; oMailbag.appHeader = "Questions or comments?"; oMailbag.appDeck = "Do you have a question for Phil Lempert? He'll try to address your comments and suggestions in a future column.
(PLEASE NOTE: Questions and comments about show segments or columns not featuring Phil should be sent to Today@nbc.com)"; oMailbag.sTBHead = "Write your question or comment in box below.
NOTE: Your e-mail address will not be used for publication. Also, please be sure to let us know if you do not want your name or hometown used."; oMailbag.sSubject = "Phil Lempert questions"; oMailbag.aRetLink = new Array("http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3032633/","Back to Today home page"); oMailbag.sMailTo = "TodayContributors@feedback.msnbc.com,phil.lempert@nbc.com";oMailbag.bTown = 1; if (window.MailbagYB) { MailbagYB(oMailbag); }

Can We Slow Aging? - Health For Life

Can We Slow Aging?

A compound found in red wine may extend the human life span. A report from the front lines.
Photo Illustration by Nitin Vadukul for Newsweek
Resveratrol: Does it protect from aging?

By By David Sinclair, Ph.D. and Anthony L. Komaroff, M.D.Newsweek

Dec. 11, 2006 issue - Nothing seems more inevitable than aging and death�"not even taxes. Every plant, animal and person you have ever seen will eventually die, including the person in the mirror. But some recent research suggests that aging as we know it may not be inevitable. Indeed, as our understanding of it grows, aging can be seen not as an immutable reality from which there is no escape, but as the product of biological processes that we may be able to control someday.

We already know that some animals do not seem to age. Many cold-water ocean fish, some amphibians and the American lobster never reach a fixed size; they continue to grow bigger, to be able to reproduce and to live until something kills them. What these creatures seem to be telling us is that something in their genes�"and possibly in ours�"controls the pace of aging, and that aging is not the fate of every living thing.

Throughout the history of life on earth, one of the most common difficulties that animals (and their cells) have faced has been a lack of food. About 70 years ago, scientists discovered that when animals are forced to live on 30 to 40 percent fewer calories than they would normally eat, something unusual happens: they become resistant to most age-related diseases�"cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's�"and live 30 to 50 percent longer. Restricting calories slows aging.

But how? What are the underlying genes that preserve vitality and stave off disease? No one knows for sure why aging occurs, but one important reason is probably the accumulation of DNA damage�"from radiation, mutation-causing chemicals or, particularly, oxidants. Inside every animal cell are many mitochondria�"little "power packs" that use oxygen to generate energy. In doing their jobs, however, mitochondria produce chemical byproducts�"oxidants �"that damage DNA and other components inside cells. It may not seem fair, but it's a fact of life. Fortunately, our cells are not defenseless against such assaults. They have genes that spring into action to defend against DNA damage, including genes that repair damaged mitochondria.

About 15 years ago, armed with powerful new molecular-research techniques, a few scientists began to investigate these genetic phenomena. At MIT, Dr. Leonard Guarente (along with one of the authors of this piece, David Sinclair) discovered that adding an extra copy of a gene called Sir2 caused yeast cells to live 30 percent longer. Today many researchers suspect that Sir2 or other sirtuin genes�"which are present in all animals, including humans�"are responsible for the health benefits of calorie restriction, perhaps by repairing our DNA. But if, in order to kick the sirtuins into action, we had to restrict our calorie intake by 30 to 40 percent, would it be of any practical use? Few of us would be capable of restricting our diets so severely that we were constantly hungry: whether or not it made life longer, it would surely make life feel longer.

nwurl = (window.location.href.split("id/")[1]);nwid = nwurl.substring(0,8);urlbegin = 'http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/';urlend = '/site/newsweek/';wburl = urlbegin+nwid+urlend;//document.writeln(wburl);document.writeln(""); document.writeln("");

CONTINUED1 | 2 | 3 | Next >