Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Many Women Have Died Unnecessarily Because of surgery with MORCELLATORS

Why does Morcellation surgery continue when we know it kills women?   Why do doctors continue to do the surgery?  The answer: profits for medical device companies, profits for doctors.

How Many People Have To Die To Show A New Surgery Technique Isn't Worth It?
By Harriet Brown
Prevention Magazine
May 2014

"...Noorchashm stayed up nights writing strongly worded letters, posting comments on every website remotely relevant to the cause, and having strategic conversations with anyone who would talk to him. The only resulting change he saw was in his own reputation. He'd gone from star surgeon to social leper, shut out of the operating room at his own hospital (though he can't prove it was because of the campaign) and avoided by colleagues and former friends. "They closed ranks on me," he says now, with sadness in his voice. "I broke the white code of silence; I hung out our dirty laundry."..."


Dr. Noorchashm asks: "When new technology makes
medicine cheaper and more convenient, how many
patients have to die to prove it's not worth it?"

Petition by Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD:

My wife [Dr. Amy Reed] had a surgical procedure that spread cancerous cells throughout her body. She now has stage 4 cancer. Please sign my petition demanding the FDA stop a procedure that has spread cancer in thousands of women.

My wife Amy is a mother of six, and an accomplished anesthesiologist who helped treat victims of the Boston Marathon bombing last year.

Now, because of a dangerous, but standard, gynecological procedure her early stage cancer was spread -- causing stage 4 cancer. 
Last Fall, Amy went in for a routine hysterectomy to treat what we thought were benign fibroids, and had a minimally invasive “morcellation” procedure to remove her uterus. Little did we know that this procedure would end up spreading malignant cancer cells throughout Amy’s belly. What's more is that “morcellation” is totally avoidable and it has devastated thousands of women and families by spreading and upstaging dangerous cancers of the uterus and ovaries. 
Now we’re taking a stand in hopes of banning this surgery for good, and saving the lives of countless women and mothers. And the momentum is on our side.
Because of the momentum of this petition, numerous hospitals around the country have stopped performing this type of hysterectomy. Last week, a major health insurer -- Blue Cross Blue Shield -- announced that they would no longer cover the procedure. And Johnson & Johnson, which manufactures some of the surgical tools used in this procedure, issued a worldwide voluntary recall of the tools called "power morcellators," saying that they couldn’t guarantee that the procedure was safe for women to undergo.
The reason this surgical procedure is so controversial is that doctors have no reliable way of testing whether patients are at risk of having cancerous cells spread throughout their body during the surgery. That was the case with Amy -- in the process of removing her uterus, undetected cancer cells were spread throughout her abdomen region, and stage 4 cancer developed. The same has happened to scores of other women, globally. Women who went in thinking they were having a “minimally invasive” procedure, left the operating room with an advanced stage of cancer.
Last month, the FDA held public hearings on this surgical procedure. Amy and I traveled down to Washington, D.C., to talk about this petition and to bring Amy’s story to the attention of FDA and congressional regulators. They are currently debating whether to ban this procedure or not, and that’s why I need your help today.
I cannot tell you what this means to my wife, to me, and to our family. Together, we can help potentially save the lives of thousands of women moving forward. No other woman should ever have her uterine cancer upstaged to an advanced stage by a gynecologist practicing this totally avoidable procedure they call "morcellation."
Thank you,
Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD
Boston, MA

Health Alert: Many Women Have Died Unnecessarily Because Dangerous Cancers of the Uterus and Ovaries Are Being Spread using MORCELLATORS. Stop MORCELLATION in Minimally Invasive Gynecological Surgery. 


Friends of the Public,

Many women have been harmed and have died prematurely or unnecessarily because of a routine but avoidable gynecological practice known as MORCELLATION. This world-wide practice has devastated many families for well over two decades now.

More than 600,000 hysterectomies are done in the US every year. By the age of 70, one out of every three American women will have had a hysterectomy. About 90% of these surgeries are done for what is presumed to be a benign condition called fibroids. More and more of these surgeries are done with minimally invasive techniques.  Usually, to get the uterus out of the body using the "minimally invasive" technique, it is cut into small pieces with a machine called a morcellator.  However, a devastating problem happens if in fact the woman did NOT have fibroids – but if she actually had cancer.  Unfortunately, the tests that are done before a hysterectomy do not identify these cancers well.  Many gynecologists don't even bother getting any tests. In fact, morcellating cancer spreads the cancer inside the woman’s body.

This is called ‘up staging’ the cancer.
 
It is important to understand:

1) The average life span following accidental morcellation of sarcoma is only 24-36 months.
2) Only 15% of woman who have leiomyosarcoma (LMS) that has spread (stage 4) will be alive after 5 years.
3) Women with sarcoma who are morcellated are about 4 times more likely to die from sarcoma than if they had not been morcellated. 

This is an avoidable disaster.

This problem has been recognized for more than two decades.  A review of the literature reveals that 1 in 415 women who go for fibroid surgery actually has sarcoma.  This means that everyday 2-5 women in the US – and more around the world will have a deadly cancer spread because of morcellation.

This catastrophic problem has happened in our own family and we are fighting to stop this dangerous activity called morcellation.  A chance of 1 in 415 for such a devastating outcome is much too high to accept.  Women should be told the truth and the practice should stop.
Please help us bring an end to spreading cancer with morcellation.  There are alternatives.  Some surgeons have begun using a special bag to avoid spreading cancer cells.  Several of the reasons why this has not yet become commonplace are the fact that: a) bag morcellation takes more time – and time is money; b) lack of training; and c) lack of awareness.  Other people opt for a traditional open hysterectomy.  People need to understand their options – but – currently, most women never hear anything about morcellation or about the possibility of cancer upstaging. We need your help.
Please sign our petition so we can get the word out.  We want the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to change this "standard of care" by ending the needless waste of life caused by spreading cancer with morcellation.

For more information and original references see: http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/blog/onlinefirst/pages/post.aspx?PostID=188 ) (also see:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23189178) (also see:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565389).
The attached video below shows an example of morcellation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMnzQbRMWJ8

The following companies manufacture and distribute uterine morcellator devices:

1) ETHICON: Gynecare morcellator
2) Storz: Rotocut Morcellator
3) Richard Wolf Medical Instrumentation Company
4) LiNA: LiNA Xcise Cordless Laparoscopic Morcellator
5) Blue Endo MOREsolution Tissue Morcellator

Intuitive Surgical's Da Vinci Robot deserves special mention, as the frequency of robotic hysterectomies performed by minimally invasive gynecologists is currently on the rise across the United States. Note that Intuitive Surgical builds and markets the DaVinci robot, which is not itself a "morcellator". However, use of the DaVinci robot almost invariably appears to require that the uterus be minced up, or morcellated, into smaller pieces inside the woman's belly cavity in order to extract from the abdomen. A clear example is shown in the following YouTube video of DaVinci being used to perform a robotic hysterectomy and manually morcellating the uterus using the endo-wrist component of the robot (morcellation is being performed at minute 5:30 of the video).

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6luiX6UQmg

 Without morcellation using equipment manufactured by Intuitive Surgical, robotic hysterectomies would, likely, not be possible using the DaVinci Robot. It is noteworthy that the DaVinci robot does not appear to have a readily available warning label advising against its use to morcellate tumors with malignant potential inside the body. The company's Chief Medical Advisor, Dr. Myriam Curet, a surgeon herself, has been informed and advised of this severe hazard in the use of DaVinci for robotic hysterectomy and the absence of a readily available warning label.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Even Moderate Drinking Increases the Risk for Cancer

Even Moderate Drinking Increases the Risk for Cancer
Zosia Chustecka
Medscape
April 08, 2011

April 8, 2011 — "A considerable proportion of the most common and most lethal cancers is attributable to former and current alcohol consumption," concludes a large European study published online April 8 in BMJ.

The researchers attribute about 10% of all cancers in men and about 3% of all cancers in women to previous and current alcohol consumption.

The estimates come from an analysis of data from the huge ongoing European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer (EPIC) and from representative data on alcohol consumption compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The risk increases even with drinking moderate amounts.

"This research supports existing evidence that alcohol causes cancer and that the risk increases even with drinking moderate amounts," coauthor Naomi Allen, DPhil, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

The original data in the EPIC study were collected from 1992 to 2000, so "the results from this study reflect the impact of people's drinking habits about 10 years ago," Dr. Allen noted.

"People are drinking even more now than they were then, and this could lead to more people developing cancer because of alcohol in the future," she added.

Data From 8 Countries

The EPIC study, which is still ongoing, is one of the largest studies of diet and cancer ever conducted. It involved more than half a million people in Europe. For this analysis of alcohol and cancer, the researchers used EPIC data from 363,988 participants from 8 European countries — France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, and Denmark. Two of these centers (France and the Netherlands) recruited only women, so the total cohort was about two thirds female (254,870 women; 109,118 men). Data on the incidence of cancer was obtained through record linkage with national cancer centers and from sources such as death certificates, health insurance records, and pathology reports. Information on alcohol consumption was collected using a detailed questionnaire about the frequency and amount of drinking and the type of beverages consumed during the previous year. The researchers also computed data on alcohol exposure in the general population using data from a WHO survey. Cancer Attributable to Alcohol The researchers assumed a causal association between alcohol and cancer of the upper aerodigestive tract (which includes the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophagus), liver cancer, female breast cancer, and colorectal cancer (as decreed by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer). The team then calculated the proportion of these specific cancers that could be attributable to previous and current alcohol consumption. They estimated that, in 2008, alcohol was responsible for 44% of the upper aerodigestive tract cancers in men and 25% in women, 33% of liver cancer in men and 18% in women, 17% of colorectal cancer in men and 4% in women, and 5% of breast cancer in women. A substantial portion of these cancers attributable to alcohol consumption was linked to drinking more than the currently recommended upper limit, the researchers note. The World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research recommend a maximum of 2 drinks per day (about 28 g of alcohol) for men and 1 drink (about 12 g) for women. The team calculated that drinking more than this was responsible for 57% to 87% of the cancers attributable to alcohol (i.e., upper aerodigestive tract, liver, colorectal, and female breast cancer) in men and from 40% to 98% in women. "Our data show that many cancer cases could have been avoided if alcohol consumption is limited to 2 alcoholic drinks per day in men and 1 alcoholic drink per day in women, which are the recommendations of many health organizations," said lead author Madlen Schütze, PhD student and epidemiologist at the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Potsdam-Rehbrücke, Nuthetal, Germany. "Even more cancer cases could be prevented if people reduced their alcohol intake to below recommended guidelines or stopped drinking alcohol altogether," she said in a statement. Although a substantial portion of the cancers were attributable to high alcohol intake, the remaining cancers were attributable to drinking alcohol at or under the currently recommended levels. Risk Increases With Every Drink "The cancer risk increases with every drink, so even moderate amounts of alcohol — such as a small drink each day — increases the risk of these cancers," according to a press release from Cancer Research UK, which cosponsors the ongoing EPIC study, along with several European agencies. "Many people just don't know that drinking alcohol can increase their cancer risk," said Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK. "Cutting back on alcohol is one of the most important ways of lowering your cancer risk," along with not smoking and maintaining a healthy bodyweight, she said. The researchers touch on this point in their discussion. They refer back to studies that have shown a beneficial effect of alcohol on death from cardiovascular disease, especially coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke, which have in the past led to recommendations to enjoy a drink to benefit the heart. But they point out that "even though light to moderate alcohol consumption might decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease, and mortality, the net effect is harmful." "Thus, alcohol consumption should not be recommended to prevent cardiovascular disease or all-cause mortality," they write. No Sensible Limit The researchers also emphasize that this latest study, in addition to several others, shows that "there is no sensible limit below which the risk of cancer is decreased." This point was also made recently in an editorial in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2009;101:282-283), which accompanied findings from the British Million Women Study showing that even 1 drink a day significantly increased the risk for cancer (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:296-305). There is no level of alcohol than can be considered safe. At that time, editorialists Michael Lauer, MD, and Paul Sorlie, PhD, from the division of prevention and population sciences at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, wrote: "From a standpoint of cancer risk, the message of this report could not be clearer. There is no level of alcohol that can be considered safe." BMJ. Published online April 8, 2011. Full text

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Apples fight heart disease, cancer and strokes

Apples fight heart disease, cancer and strokes
by ANDREA PERRY
Daily Mail
Sep 14 2013

The old proverb of an apple a day keeps the doctor away is proving to be true.

If there is any one thing that you can do to stay well then it is to eat at least two apples daily according to a whole raft of new scientific research which places apples at the top of the healthy-living tree.

It may sound far-fetched but an apple contains so many beneficial ingredients that it will protect you from contracting a whole range of life threatening conditions such as cancer or suffering a stroke.

The latest pioneering research in America has revealed that drinking apple juice and eating apples can reduce the risk of heart disease.

The clinical trial involved healthy adults drinking 12oz of 100 per cent apple juice daily or eating two apples.

The time it took for cholesterol in the body to oxidise, or break down, increased by up to 20 per cent after just six weeks of following the apple diet.

It turns out that apples contain phytonutrients or phytochemicals (compounds found in plants) which act as antixiodents against LDL (low-density lipoproteins), the damaging portion of cholesterol in the blood stream.

Apples are also rich in pectins, which are soluble fibres which it has been demonstrated are effective in lowering cholesterol levels.

Dianne Hyson, a registered dietician and lead researcher of the study, said: 'Previous studies have shown that eating fruits and vegetables is associated with a reduced risk of coronary artery disease, but this is the first clinical study to show the potential benefits of active compounds in apple juice and apples.'

'A very moderate intake of apple juice or apples has the potential to reduce risk factors for heart disease in a fairly short period of time,' she said. 'These small diet changes might play an important role in a heart healthy diet.'

Volunteer, father of two Jack Farrell said: 'If I can get this result from just drinking 12ozs of apple juice a day, it's definitely worth making part of my daily routine.'

Other amazing facts about apples

Apples ward off strokes

Finnish researchers found that individuals who ate the most apples had the lowest risk of suffering a stroke, due to the benefits of the active compounds called phytonutrients found in apples.

Their conclusion was based on evaluation of dietary records and health outcomes of 9,208 men followed for 28 years.

Apples give you better lungs

British researchers found that apple eaters had better lung function than non-apple eaters.

After analysing the health and dietary records of 2,512 men, scientists discovered a strong link between positive lung function and the number of apples eaten each week.

Although other researchers had suggested that vitamin C from fresh fruit was responsible for improving lung function, this investigation found otherwise.

These researchers believe that it is the consumption of antioxidant-like phytonutrients in apples, such as flavonoids especially one member called quercetin which reduces the risk of cancer and heart attacks. This they say provides an explanation for the healthful effect of apples.

Apples beat cancer

Researchers in Hawaii found that an increased consumption of quercetin (from apples and onions) was associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer.

This was supported by epidemiologists from Finland's National Public Health Institute who concluded that a flavonoid-rich diet (and particularly those flavonoids from apples) was associated with a reduced risk of developing cancer.

Their study of 9,959 cancer-free men and women revealed that people who regularly consumed the most flavonoid-rich foods were about 20 per cent less likely to develop cancer.

The researchers found that lung cancer was 46 percent lower among those on these diets and that high consumption of apples was also directly associated with the lowest risk for coronary mortality.

This conclusion was based on their analysis of diet and health outcomes of an ongoing study of 5,133 Finnish men and women aged 30-69, who were initially free of heart disease when the study began in 1967.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Cancer, chemo linked to vets' lower risk of Alzheimer's

Cancer, chemo linked to vets' lower risk of Alzheimer's
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 15, 2013

BOSTON -- Military veterans diagnosed with most forms of cancer were less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease, and those treated with chemotherapy got even more protection, finds a study released Monday at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference here.

The study of 3.5 million veterans found an inverse relationship between Alzheimer's and all types of cancer except prostate and melanoma — both of which are largely detected through screening rather than symptoms. Aggressive screening of veterans might find cancers that would not otherwise have caused problems, said researcher Jane Driver, in explaining why those cancers might not share the same relationship with Alzheimer's.

More than 82,000 of the veterans developed Alzheimer's during the five years of the study, 24% of whom were previously diagnosed with cancer. When compared to projections for the general population, the risk of Alzheimer's was 51% lower than expected in liver cancer, 25% reduced in lung cancer and 13% lower in leukemia, according to the research. Other cancers' reduced risks seen in the study: pancreatic, 44%; esophageal, 33%; kidney, 22%; myeloma, 16%; lymphoma, 19%; head and neck, 15%.

There was no significant correlation between Alzheimer's and colorectal, bladder, stomach, genital, thyroid, sarcoma and brain cancer. Cancer patients who had chemotherapy lowered their Alzheimer's risk by 20%-45% for all cancers except prostate, the study showed.

Other research also supports this inverse relationship, including an Italian study released late last week, that found that those diagnosed with Alzheimer's ran a 43% lower risk of developing cancer than those without the disease, and people with cancer had a 35% lower chance of developing Alzheimer's. That study, in the journal Neurology, did not look as closely at individual cancers or treatment differences, though it did find a weaker link with prostate cancer and melanoma.

Driver said chemotherapy may offer extra protection because it reduces inflammation and may prevent brain cells from trying to divide. In Alzheimer's, brain cells often try to divide when they shouldn't, leading to their death, she said.

She said no one should take chemotherapy drugs, which are highly toxic, merely to reduce their risk of Alzheimer's, but the link suggests that it may be possible to develop medications to address both diseases. Certain chemotherapy drugs may turn out to be more protective of the brain than others, she added, so it may make sense to prescribe them more often.

Although it doesn't suggest any immediate treatments for Alzheimer's, the apparent connection with cancer is "one more puzzle piece" in helping researchers understand the memory loss and behavior changes of Alzheimer's, a fatal disease that affects an estimated 5.2 million Americans and is expected to strike nearly three times more over the next generation.

People with Alzheimer's suffer loss of memory, decreased thinking and language skills, and behavioral changes that can make caregiving challenging. Current treatments do not address underlying symptoms or stop progression of the fatal disease.

"We're starting to really understand what are the different pieces of the puzzle that make someone at increased or decreased risk," said Heather Snyder, director of medical and scientific operations for the Alzheimer's Association, the advocacy and research group that runs the international conference. "Understanding the pieces will help unlock additional targets and therapies and identify people at increased risk."

Another study released this morning showed that diabetics who take the drug Metformin seem to be better protected against Alzheimer's than those taking other diabetes medications, including Sulfonylurea. Nearly 26 million Americans have type 2 diabetes, which is largely associated with lifestyle factors. Roughly half of those with diabetes develop Alzheimer's as they age, so finding a drug that is also protective against Alzheimer's is immensely important, said researcher Rachel Whitmer, an investigator with the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research.

In her study of nearly 15,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, those who took Sulfonylurea had a 26% increased risk of developing Alzheimer's compared to those on Metformin. Not all patients can tolerate Metformin, but Whitmer said more research should certainly be done to see if that drug should be the first-line treatment for diabetes.

Among other studies discussed at the conference, which runs through Thursday:

-- Postponing retirement may protect against Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, likely because it keeps people intellectually engaged for longer, a study of French shopkeepers and crafts workers suggests;

--Socioeconomic differences such as education and income – not lifestyle factors or health status – may explain why African-Americans are more likely to develop Alzheimer's than whites, according to a study led by Kristine Yaffe of the University of California, San Francisco.

-- An expert panel gathered by the University of British Columbia concluded that online tests for Alzheimer's are unreliable and unscientific as well as ethically questionable, because of likely conflicts of interest, lack of proper consent and privacy concerns.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Diabetes drug metformin proves useful for other problems

Diabetes drug metformin proves useful for other problems
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 30, 2013

Early research suggests the decades-old diabetes drug metformin can slow cancer, reduce heart disease and perhaps limit the ravages of Alzheimer's. A new study shows it can extend lifespan in mice.

Could metformin, the most widely used diabetes drug in the world, be useful for fighting a number of health problems?

Early research suggests the decades-old drug can slow cancer, reduce heart disease and maybe even limit the ravages of Alzheimer's. Now, a new study in mice finds that it can extend life by a number of weeks — the human equivalent of 3-4 years.

It's far too soon for healthy people to consider taking the drug, researchers say, but the findings are provocative, and suggest science is getting closer to a day when it may be possible to pop a pill to live healthier longer.

Diseases of aging, like cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia are all linked along a biological pathway, researchers say. Eating less food appears to trigger that cascade, significantly extending life in animals, probably by slowing down metabolism.

Metformin is the third drug shown in early research to affect the same pathway, along with rapamycin, a powerful medication used to prevent rejection of transplanted organs; and resveratrol, a compound found in red wine.


"It's clear that we are edging toward developing a pharmaceutical intervention that is going to be able to delay or postpone aging," said Rafael de Cabo, a biogerontologist at the National Institute of Aging, who conducted the new mouse study, published today in Nature Communications. "For how much and how long I have no idea."

Brian Kennedy, CEO of The Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., said he envisions a day when, instead of giving people drugs after they get sick, healthy people will be able to take pills to avoid illness. Such a pill wouldn't prevent all aging, he said, but by delaying the deadliest diseases for even a few years, it could have a dramatic benefit on an individual's quality of life and the nation's economy.

Despite their optimism, both Kennedy and de Cabo said that healthy people should not be taking metformin at this point. While mice are a good model for diseases, they do not respond exactly as people do; and they live a totally controlled life inside a cage, de Cabo said.

Metformin caused severe kidney problems in mice taking a high dose, suggesting that researchers need to proceed with caution when testing the drug in people, de Cabo said. Even the low dose used in his study left mice with more drug in their bloodstream than diabetics get on their metformin regimen, so it's not yet clear what dose to use in healthy people.

The drug is also known to cause diarrhea, because it affects the metabolism of sugars in the digestive system.

So far, those two side effects have kept researchers from trying the drug on themselves. David Sinclair, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School who has done extensive research on resveratrol, said he took metformin along with his resveratrol for a short time. He stopped when he saw the toxic effects in this mouse study, which he co-authored. He said he wouldn't take rapamycin because of its side effects.

A new drug will eventually be developed, he predicted, that will amplify the benefits of these drugs and minimize their side effects.

"In terms of history, we're still at the very early stages of understanding how to slow aging in a safe way," said Sinclair.

Even if it turns out not to extend life, metformin has shown powerful results in other areas of research:

• Kevin Struhl, a molecular and cancer biologist at Harvard Medical School, said he has been impressed by early studies showing metformin's effectiveness at treating cancer and stopping cells from turning cancerous in the first place.

• At the University of Pennsylvania, Alzheimer's expert Steven Arnold is studying the drug's ability to slow or prevent mental decline.

• And other work has shown that metformin can help stop pre-diabetes before it turns into type 2 diabetes, said Karin Hehenberger, a molecular biologist, diabetes expert and chief medical officer at Coronado Biosciences, a Massachusetts biotech company focused on autoimmune diseases.



In terms of aging, we already know enough to help people until a pill can be developed, Kennedy said.

"There's a huge secret to (combating) aging right now," he said. "That's eat right and exercise."

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Tall women have higher cancer risk

Tall women have higher cancer risk; are smoking, drinking to blame?
By Monte Morin
LA Times
July 25, 2013

The taller a postmenopausal woman is, the greater risk she faces of developing cancer, according to a new study.

In a paper published Thursday in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers concluded that a woman's cancer risk increased 13% with every 4 inches of height.

The study is the latest of several to report an association between women's height and cancer, according to lead study author Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

While it is unlikely that height in and of itself promotes cancer, the multitude of factors that influence growth -- such as nutrition, genetics and environment -- are likely responsible.

"Height was significantly positively associated with risk of all cancers, [including] cancers of the thyroid, rectum, kidney, endometrium, colorectum, colon, ovary, and breast, and with multiple myeloma and melanoma," the authors concluded.

The study was based on data from 144,701 women, aged 50 to 79, who particiapted in the Womens's Health Initiative study in the 1990s. Researchers adjusted for other potential cancer risks, such as weight, smoking, alcohol consumption and hormone therapy, as well as for frequency of cancer screening.

When researchers examined the study cohort, they found that the women's average age and body mass index decreased as their height increased, whereas their average weight, rate of smoking and alcohol intake increased with height.

"As anticipated, younger women and women with higher income had greater mean height compared to older women and women with lower income, respectively," authors wrote.

Researchers offered a number of possible explanations for the connection between height and cancer risk.

Height is associated with increased milk intake in childhood, and higher levels of insulin-like growth factor, which promotes cell growth and inhibits programmed cell death, the authors noted.

Increased height might also be the result of exposure to steroid hormones. Authors noted too that taller women might have larger organs and skin surface area, which may put more cells at risk of malignant growth.

"Height should thus be thought of as a marker for one or more exposures that influence cancer risk rather than a risk factor itself," the authors wrote.

But because the study did not include men or premenopausal women, the conclusions about height are limited.

Also, the study data did not include information on leg length and sitting height -- known biomarkers of growth hormone exposure.