A new study has found that up to 80 percent of cancer patients who undergo radiation treatment do not take medications to combat pain. According to the report, many of the patients cited fears of addiction as well as cost as their reasons for saying no to painkillers. However, the most common reason given was that their healthcare provider had not recommended medication. "To eliminate barriers to optimal pain management for cancer patients, healthcare providers should talk with their patients about pain symptoms and pain medications,” said Dr. Charles Simone, from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland.

The findings come from an Internet-based questionnaire posted on OncoLink examining analgesic use and pain control in cancer patients getting radiation treatment. Data from 106 patients were included in the analysis. 46 percent of patients reported pain related to the cancer itself, and 58 percent of subjects had pain from their treatment, the report's author’s note in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics. The only statistically significant factor linked to non-use of painkillers was educational level. Specifically, individuals with education beyond high school were less likely to use analgesics than those with lower educational levels (11 percent vs. 36%).

To improve pain control for cancer patients undergoing radiation, Dr. Simone said that his center, the Radiation Oncology Branch of the NCI, has established an electronic system that requires healthcare providers to assess pain levels and pain medication every time they see a patient.

For more information, click here

A California couple has filed an asbestos lawsuit against 55 companies, claiming that the mesothelioma the man was diagnosed with was wrongfully caused. Arvid and May Johnson claim Arvid was diagnosed with the disease on Sept. 15, 2008.

The lawsuit claims that while Arvid worked for various companies, including the U.S. Navy, Ace Hardware and various filling stations between the years 1947-2004, he was exposed to and inhaled dangerous asbestos fibers. Moreover, the suit claims that Johnson’s exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.

Due to the asbestos exposure, the Johnson’s claim that Arvid has become disabled and disfigured, which required him to spend large amounts of money for medical, hospital, and other health services necessary to treat the disease. As a result of his mesothelioma, Arvid is experiencing great physical pain and mental agony. Furthermore, the disease hinders and prevents Arvid from pursuing employment and as a result he lost large sums of money. Lastly, May claims that she has been deprived of the support, devotion, and care of Arvid.

The couple is seeking sums in excess of $50,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of $100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of $50,000.

NEWTON, MA - The Law Offices of James Sokolove (LOJS), dedicated to providing equal access to the civil justice system, announced that its MesoRC website ( www.MesoRC.com) has received a prestigious WebAward from the Web Marketing Association as one of the best web sites in 2008. Joining prior winners in the Health Care Standard of Excellence category, the website scored a first ever win for a law firm in that category.

This year's competition saw more than 2,400 sites from 45 countries being judged in 96 industry categories. Entries were judged on design, copy writing, innovation, content, interactivity, navigation, and technology.

"Our firm was founded with the mission that consumer legal needs are best met by giving consumers important and timely information," said James Sokolove, founder of LOJS. "In envisioning MesoRC, we wanted to build an innovative online community that would embody that mission by allowing mesothelioma victims and their loved ones to benefit from the experiences of others and to make their voices heard as they face life altering situations."

To Read the Press Release in its entirety, Click Here

Researchers from MIT have found that cells from different people don't all react the same way when exposed to the same DNA-damaging agent. The research team from MIT's Center for Environmental Health Sciences (CEHS) and the Departments of Biological Engineering and Biology, identified a group of 48 genes that can predict how susceptible an individual is to the toxic compound, known as MNNG. This finding could help clinicians predict how patients will respond to chemotherapy.

MNNG, is a DNA-damaging compound similar to toxic chemicals found in tobacco smoke and in common chemotherapy agent. The chemical usually kills cells by inducing irreparable DNA damage. However, the researchers found a wide range of susceptibility among cells taken from healthy people. "A cell line from one person would be killed dramatically, while that from another person was resistant to exposure," said Rebecca Fry, former MIT research scientist and lead author of the paper. "It wasn't known that cell lines from different people could have such dramatic differences in responses."

"Even if everyone is exposed to exactly the same things, they would respond differently, because we're all genetically different," said Leona Samson, senior author of the paper, director of CEHS, and an American Cancer Society Research Professor. The team members found that after measuring the expression of every gene in each cell line, they could predict cell sensitivity to MNNG from the expression of just 48 specific genes, with 94 percent accuracy. Several of those 48 genes have already been linked to cancer, said Samson, but it was not known that their expression is already altered before exposure to the DNA damaging agent.

This study is specific to MNNG, but similar efforts are now underway in Samson's lab to predict individuals' responses to other toxic agents, including cisplatin, a common chemotherapy agent, and temozolomide, used to treat brain cancer.

According to a recent study, conducted by the University of Rochester Medical Center researcher, and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers found that physicians missed many opportunities to recognize and possibly ease the concerns of their patients and routinely provided little emotional support. The study was based on 20 recorded and transcribed consultations with patients with lung cancer. Physicians rarely responded empathically to the concerns of the patients about mortality, symptoms or treatment options.

"When patients are struggling and bring up important issues, doctors don't have to take a lot of time to address them, but they do need to respond. Showing that they understand and giving their patients more of what they need is not that difficult," said Diane Morse, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry and of medicine at the Medical Center. The study sheds light on the types of situations and remarks that physicians should recognize as opportunities to express understanding and support, she said. The research also showed that empathic responses can be brief and do not make consultations longer.

Morse and her researchers examined 20 representative transcripts from recordings of 137 consultations between physicians at a Veterans Affairs hospital in the southern United States and patients with lung cancer or a pulmonary mass requiring surgical diagnosis. In the transcribed consultations, the researchers identified 384 moments or "empathic opportunities" when patients stated or alluded to concerns, emotions or stressors. These included statements about the impact of cancer, diagnosis, treatment or health care system barriers to care. They found that physicians responded empathically to 39, or just 10 percent of the opportunities.

Morse and her co-authors suggest that physicians who have patients with a life-threatening illness should consider providing empathy early in the encounter and throughout treatment to validate patient needs and explore ways to build understanding. The connection can begin with a simple phrase, such as: "It sounds like you are very concerned about that."