Usually, detecting cancer is done through a combination of physical exams, imaging tests, blood tests, and biopsies. A biopsy, where a tissue sample is taken and examined under a microscope. This process is time-consuming and often relies on parts of the health system working together quickly, which does not always happen. Some cancers, like brain, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers, are difficult to detect, which can slow diagnosis even further.

By contrast, liquid biopsies can detect cancer more quickly. This type of testing looks at bodily fluids (typically blood) for evidence of cancer cells by finding biomarkers that are shed by cancer cells into the bloodstream. Liquid biopsy technology is advancing fast and with new technologies emerging, such as using light to detect these signals. This is a similar approach to that used when small swabs are passed over luggage and analysed at airport security.

By combining this spectral analysis with artificial intelligence (AI), it is possible to speed up cancer detection at a significantly lower cost. At the forefront of this revolution in cancer detection is Dr. Holly J. Butler. Dr Butler is the co-founder and CTO of Dxcover, the company behind the award-winning multiomic spectral analysis platform. Grounded in biophotonics and driven by an unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes, Dr Butler is striving to bring about a new era of non-invasive diagnostics; one where a couple of drops of blood and a beam of light might one day save millions of lives.

Dr Butler, alongside an award-winning leadership and research team, has been developing methods to analyse blood samples using infrared spectroscopy. What they discovered was a way of ‘reading’ the biochemical fingerprint of disease in a standard blood test. This research became the foundation of an award-winning proprietary platform that leverages a unique combination of AI and spectral analysis to detect patterns in small blood amounts, allowing clinicians to find cancer earlier, more accurately, and far more affordably than many existing techniques.

The potential is enormous. Unlike conventional liquid biopsies, which rely on picking up fragments of tumour DNA, this platform is more wide-ranging in its approach. It uses a multiomic strategy – looking at proteins, lipids, metabolites, and more – through a process known multiomic spectral analysis. It translates to even tiny tumours, sized at just 0.2 cm, being capable of leaving a detectable trace. And it’s all done with just nine microlitres of blood.

Dr Butler’s drive to transform scientific ideas into reality started early. After her Ph.D., she took on a Scottish Enterprise-funded project to translate laboratory-based research into clinical diagnostics. Her entrepreneurial endeavours were making waves as early as 2017 – she was ‘Young Entrepreneur of the Year’ at the Scottish Women’s Awards and received the Women in Innovation award at the Global Game Changers Awards. She has continued to be a vocal advocate for women in STEM and an active mentor to early-career scientists and entrepreneurs via the Strathclyde Inspire network in the intervening period.

“I’ve always been drawn to problems where science can make a real, tangible difference in people’s lives,” she says. “To me, early detection for the most difficult to detect cancers is one of the biggest, most urgent problems we face – and one we hope to solve.”

Dr. Butler’s role in bringing this innovation along is as much practical as it is strategic. She is part of a team that spans lab operations, data, software, quality and regulatory affairs, pushing the science to clear the bars for real-world medical use. “You can’t just invent a technology,” she says. “You need to prove that it works, scale it with safety, meet stringent quality specifications, and prove how it fits into clinical pathways. That is the challenge.”

For Dr Butler, it is about the impact on lives. “Cancer still kills nearly 10 million people a year,” she says. “The difference between early or late detection can be life and death. We want to make early detection routine – not something that’s just for some individuals or comes too late.”

Now pursuing an Executive MBA, Dr. Butler is expanding her leadership credentials. “Science gave me the means to innovate,” she says. “But the MBA is teaching me to lead, to strategise, to build something that can last.”

That ecosystem, she hopes, will be one where innovation and inclusion go hand-in-hand. She’s particularly passionate about ensuring that diagnostic breakthroughs become accessible across communities. “We’re aiming for a future where your GP can run a test like this early—long before you’re even referred to a specialist,” she explains.

Dr. Butler’s work remains patient-centred and personal. “Every time we detect a cancer that would have been missed – that’s the goal,” she says. “And every time we improve the technology is a step closer to a world where fewer people have to hear the words, ‘if only we’d caught it sooner.'”

The post Shining a Light on Early Cancer Detection appeared first on Medika Life.

Understanding Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia

ALL is a type of cancer that predominantly affects the white blood cells and progresses rapidly, making early diagnosis and immediate treatment crucial. According to the American Cancer Society, about 6,550 cases are diagnosed annually in the United States alone, with higher incidence rates reported in children. Symptoms are often nonspecific and include fever, fatigue, and bruising, necessitating specialised diagnostic techniques for confirmation.

Diagnostic Approaches

In HICs, ALL diagnosis is typically confirmed through blood tests, bone marrow biopsies, and sophisticated imaging technologies. Genetic testing is critical in diagnosing and determining the specific subtype of ALL, which can guide targeted treatment approaches. Dr Jane Hollingsworth, a haematologist at Johns Hopkins University, states, “Genetic profiling has revolutionised our understanding of ALL, enabling personalised treatment plans that significantly improve outcomes.”

Conversely, in many LMICs, such basic diagnostic facilities are not readily available. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that access to essential diagnostic services, such as complete blood count tests, in some African countries is limited, leading to delayed or inaccurate diagnoses. Dr Abasi Ene-Obong, a clinician in Nigeria, comments, “In regions like ours, the lack of infrastructure means that many leukaemia patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, where treatment options are limited and less effective.”

“The survival gap between HIC[s] and LMIC[s] (>80% compared to ❤0%) is one of the most profound health inequities across different communicable diseases and NCDs,” according to the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC), CureAll Framework

Treatment Protocols and Access to Care

Treatment for ALL typically includes chemotherapy, which can be tailored to the genetic features of the leukaemia cells in HICs. More advanced options, such as immunotherapy and stem cell transplants, are also available, leading to improved survival rates. In the United States, the five-year survival rate for children with ALL has increased to 88.5%.

However, the scenario in LMICs is starkly different. “The availability of chemotherapy drugs can be sporadic, and advanced treatments like bone marrow transplants are often not feasible due to cost constraints,” explains Dr. Ene-Obong. The lack of healthcare infrastructure and trained medical professionals complicates the treatment landscape.

Outcome Disparities

These diagnostic and treatment disparities directly impact patient outcomes. Data from the GICC CureAll Framework indicate that the survival rates for ALL in many LMICs are below 30%, a stark contrast to those in HICs. The socio-economic factors, including poverty and lack of health insurance, exacerbate these outcomes, limiting access to care and continuity of treatment.

Innovative Solutions and Global Initiatives

Addressing these disparities requires innovative solutions and robust global initiatives. Research into more affordable, generic chemotherapy drugs and more straightforward diagnostic tests could make a significant difference.

Pharmaceutical interventions by the companies

By prioritising the development of cost-effective treatments and facilitating more affordable pricing models, pharmaceutical companies can enhance access to essential medicines in underserved regions. Investing in local healthcare infrastructure and training, collaborating with global health organisations, and participating in patent pools or licensing agreements to allow generic manufacturing could dramatically improve treatment accessibility. Engaging in these initiatives aligns with ethical business practices and expands market reach, potentially leading to sustained corporate growth and a stronger global presence in the fight against leukaemia.

Strategies that include task shifting, improving the quality of medicines, and innovative healthcare service delivery routes could make a significant difference. For example, the Observer Research Foundation recently discovered innovation; in South Africa, the Central Chronic Medication Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD/Dablapmeds) program has significantly improved access to chronic medication for stable patients by allowing them to collect their medication from external contracted pick-up points or fast lanes at public facilities using an SMS code, patients can save time and transport costs.

International efforts and skills sharing

A twinning programme is an innovative approach to enhancing child cancer care by fostering collaboration between hospitals in high-income countries (HICs) and those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These “Twin Centers” are designed to share expertise, resources, and medical practices to improve childhood cancer diagnosis, treatment, and overall management. The programme includes setting up registries, employing data managers to monitor and optimise care, and developing educational tools for nurses to enhance local capacities. This strategic partnership not only aims to transfer knowledge and medical practices but also addresses critical gaps in resources and expertise that often exist in LMIC settings, thereby improving patient outcomes and building sustainable healthcare infrastructures.

A collaborative initiative between St. Jude Global and the World Health Organization (WHO) aims to enhance global access to essential, life-saving cancer treatments for children. This effort responds to widespread challenges in securing safe and effective medications, as underscored by the fact that 71% of low-income countries experience significant shortages in cancer medicines. These shortages stem from inconsistent availability due to supply and demand fluctuations and complex regulatory environments. Additionally, the pursuit of the lowest-cost medications can compromise quality, further endangering patient safety. Financially, the exclusion of pediatric cancer medications from national healthcare budgets frequently imposes severe economic strains on families in low- and middle-income countries. This initiative was bolstered by a resolution for improved access to essential medicines, adopted at the 70th World Health Assembly, highlighting a global commitment to overcoming these barriers in cancer care.

Conclusion

The striking difference in ALL outcomes between HICs and LMICs emphasises the critical importance of developing and implementing a global strategy to promote healthcare equity. Dr. Hollingsworth aptly states, “We need a collective commitment to not only develop medical technologies but also ensure they are accessible where they are most needed.” By working together to bridge this gap, we can save countless lives and make significant progress towards achieving the broader sustainable development goals of health and well-being for all. Addressing the disparities in ALL diagnoses and treatments is a moral imperative and a crucial step in building a more equitable and sustainable future for all.

References

• World Health Organization (2021). Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC).
• American Cancer Society (2024). Key Statistics for Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL).
• Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. (2023). Facts and Statistics.
• Observer Research Foundation (2024). Health Equity and Inclusion in Action.
• St. Jude Global (2024): Global Platform for Access to Childhood Cancer Medicines.

The post Addressing Global Income Disparities in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Care appeared first on Medika Life.

Today we explore the clinical literature showing some studies reporting an association between low vitamin D levels and an increased risk of colorectal cancer, but others finding no such link.

Vitamin D and cancer — A randomized study

A 2018 clinical trial randomized participants to a control (marine omega-3 fatty acids, one gram daily) or vitamin D (cholecalciferol, 2000 IU daily).

The VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL) clinical trial enrolled nearly 26,000 American men (50 and older) and women (55 and older) to examine the impact of vitamin D3 on several outcomes:

• Cancer prevention
• Cardiovascular disease risk (heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality).
• Secondary endpoints included site-specific cancers, cancer mortality, and additional cardiovascular events.

The results? With a median 5.3-year intervention, vitamin D supplementation did not reduce cancer or cardiovascular risk, the study’s two primary endpoints.

There appeared to be no significant differences in the secondary endpoints, either. The vitamin D3 intervention did not reduce the incidence of total cancer mortality or breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer. Finally, treatment effects did not differ by baseline vitamin D blood levels.

The researchers reported no excess risks of high calcium levels (hypercalcemia) or other side effects associated with vitamin D supplementation.

But are we sure that vitamin D3 supplementation does not reduce cancer risk? A 2019 meta-analysis analysis of the scientific literature concluded that:

Vitamin D3 did not reduce cancer incidence but did drop cancer mortality.

In addition, a secondary analysis of the VITAL clinical trial published in 2019 showed that while vitamin D supplementation did not lower cancer incidence, it appeared to be associated with a reduced incidence of advanced cancer.

My take

The VITAL clinical trial has tremendous strengths, including a large population with racial and geographic diversity. The daily vitamin D dosing seems reasonable, with follow-up blood collection in many participants showing blood levels in the target range.

The study has some significant limitations, however. For example, the researchers examined only a single dose of vitamin D3. Hopefully, future studies will look at another dose. Finally, the follow-up is not nearly long enough. For example, cancer can take decades from its birth before it is clinically observable.

We may also need to consider cancer risk by genotypes of vitamin D-associated genes.

Here are the US Preventative Services Task Force recommendations:

• Premenopausal women. The USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with 400 IU or less of vitamin D and 1000 mg or less of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women. Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of daily supplementation with doses greater than 400 IU of vitamin D and greater than 1000 mg of calcium for the primary prevention of fractures in community-dwelling, postmenopausal women.
• Men and premenopausal women. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of vitamin D and calcium supplementation, alone or combined, for the primary prevention of fractures in men and premenopausal women.

Note this USPSTF observation: “These recommendations do not apply to persons with a history of osteoporotic fractures, increased risk for falls, or a diagnosis of osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency.” Given we don’t routinely test for deficiency, how would I know if I am deficient?

Daily vitamin D3 supplementation for five years among initially healthy adults does not appear to lower cancer or major cardiovascular event risk. The evidence is insufficient to make supplement recommendations for community-dwelling individuals.

Thank you for joining me in this look at vitamin D and cancer risk. Today, I will not examine the impact of vitamin D (and vitamin K) on bone fracture risk.

The post Does Vitamin D Drop Cancer Risk? appeared first on Medika Life.

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations of substances made from foods (fats, oils, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) with little or no whole foods. Manufacturers often add colors, flavors, emulsifiers, and other additives for cosmetic enhancement and other non-essential purposes.

The result? We have lots of low-cost production products that are convenient and taste great, rather than unprocessed (or minimally processed) foods.

We know that ultra-processed foods can harm our health, leading to chronic conditions such as high blood pressure (hypertension), diabetes, and obesity. A recently reported study from Brazil illustrates another peril: Ultra-processed foods (UPF) consumption appears to be linked with a significant increase in all-cause premature, preventable deaths.

Defining ultra-processed foods

When it comes to my local grocery store, I sometimes fantasize about placing a big sign at the ends of the aisles of processed foods shouting, “avoid this area.” You may have heard a newer term, ultra-processed foods. We are seeing increasing evidence linking this food category to significant health risks.

So, you may wonder, what is the difference between processed and ultra-processed foods? Processed food is simply one altered from its original form.

The International Food Information Council defines processing as “any deliberate change in a food that occurs before it is ready for us to eat.” Examples of processed foods include pasteurized, heated, canned, or dried ones. Some consider refrigerated foods to be processed.

Most foods have processing to some extent. Processing does not always make a given food less healthy. Researchers created a classification scheme to understand processing better.

• NOVA Group 1. Minimally processed and unprocessed foods. Vegetables, fruits, grains, beans, and nuts fall into this category. These foods may have gone through roasting, boiling, or pasteurization to increase shelf life or make them safe to eat.
• NOVA Group 2. Processed culinary ingredients obtained directly from group 1 foods or nature. Examples include olive oil, maple syrup, and salt. Group 2 foods are mostly substances used to prepare and cook group 1 foods.
• NOVA Group 3. Processed foods, including items made by adding ingredients like salt, sugar, or other substances from group 2 to group 1 food. Examples include fresh bread, fruits in syrup, and cheese.
• NOVA Group 4. Ultra-processed foods. These contain little, if any, of the foods or ingredients from group 1. These items are meant to be convenient, hyper-palatable, and low-cost and are usually high in sugars, refined grains, fats, preservatives, and salt.

Let’s look more closely at NOVA Group 4, the ultra-processed foods. As you can see from the following examples, foods in this group usually have substances you and I don’t use when we cook at home.

Examples of ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed foods include colorants, flavorings, modified starches, hydrolyzed proteins, hydrogenated oils, artificial sweeteners, and bulking agents. And I would be very remiss if I didn’t include my bete noir, high fructose corn syrup.

While reasonable individuals may disagree about classifying foods as highly processed, the guidelines appear reasonable.

Examples of ultra-processed foods include sugary beverages such as carbonated soft drinks, energy drinks, fruit punch, and sugar-laden coffee drinks.

Reconstituted meat products (such as hot dogs and fish sticks) fall into the ultra-processed category, as do frozen pizza and TV dinners. If you had sweet or savory packaged snacks such as cookies or chips, you had highly-processed foods. Not surprisingly, candies fall into this food group, too.

Other culprits include sweetened breakfast cereals, baking mixes (such as cake, brownie, or cookie mixes), packaged buns, and bread. I recently wrote about protein bars (and shakes).

Is My Daily Protein Bar Hurting Me? The Answer May Surprise You

AM I WRONG IN THINKING MY PROTEIN BAR HABIT (my lunch includes a protein bar, fruit, nuts, and tea) is harming me? A…

medium.com

Other problematic foods include ice cream, sweetened yogurt, cocoa mixes, instant soups, and boxed pasta products. Finally, margarine and ultra-processed spreads (for example, sweetened cream cheese) are NOVA Group 4 foods.

In summary, as Healthline nicely explains:

"Highly processed, or ultra-processed, foods contain few or no minimally processed or unprocessed ingredients and tend to be higher in calories, salt, fat, and added sugars. Plus, they contain additives such as flavor enhancers and thickeners."

Ultra-processed foods and premature death

Scientists designed a study to estimate premature deaths due to the consumption of ultra-processed foods in Brazil. The researchers estimated that approximately 57,000 individuals between 30 and 69 died prematurely from ultra-processed food consumption.

The Brazilian study is the first to estimate how ultra-processed food consumption impacts longevity. Researchers relied on a previous analysis, which compared the mortality risk of individuals consuming copious processed food to those who ate relatively small amounts of it.

Why age 30 to 69? The World Health Organization (WHO) considers death from non-communicable diseases premature at those ages. Here are the disturbing findings:

"If all adults in Brazil ensured that ultra-processed food made up less than 23 percent of their daily calories, the country might see around 20,000 fewer premature deaths annually. Most Brazilians are below that threshold, but a quarter of the country’s adult population gets up to half of its daily calories from ultra-processed food."

Before we in the United States point fingers, I remind you that, on average, ultra-processed food makes up around 57 percent of daily calories. The study’s lead author volunteers that “it is very likely that heart disease is among the main factors” contributing to these premature deaths. Diabetes, cancer, obesity, and chronic kidney disease may play a role as well,” he adds.

Research links ultra-processed food consumption with other negative health outcomes, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive decline.

Ultra-processed Foods and Mental Health

ULTRA-PROCESSED FOODS — FACTORY-MADE AND HIGHLY REFINED — influence our mental health? A new systematic review and…

medium.com

Finally, this is not the first study to demonstrate an association between ultra-processed food consumption (in large amounts) and a higher overall risk of death. An Italian study reported similar findings.

In addition, previous studies showed that ultra-processed food consumption is linked to other health problems, including an elevated risk for diabetes, cognitive decline, heart disease, and cancer.

Completely avoid ultra-processed foods?

The new study adds to a growing scientific literature linking ultra-processed food consumption to chronic diseases and premature death. The researchers remind us that a healthy, balanced diet should be centered on minimally processed fresh foods when possible. I would steer away from too many ultra-processed foods.

Do we in the United States need policies that disincentivize ultra-processed food consumption? Nutrition education might be one component, as is improving access to healthy foods in so-called food deserts.

It is not essential to dodge all highly processed foods to enjoy a healthy life. I eat for joy and as a part of social engagement. Oh, I like desserts that incorporate dark chocolate. Still, I try to consume such foods in moderation and work hard to increase my consumption of whole, minimally processed foods.

Is this approach easy for me? No, but having grapes, apples, and nuts within reach makes it easier. While I recognize that the term is overly broad, I prefer a Mediterranean diet pattern. And the occasional chocolate dessert.

Thank you for joining me today. I hope that you have a joy-filled day.

The post More Evidence Linking Ultraprocessed Foods and Early Death appeared first on Medika Life.

Researchers from Bergen (Norway) may have some answers: They recently discovered that lipids (more on this substance in a moment) associated with obesity make cancer cells more aggressive.

Let me back up a bit. A lipid is an organic compound that doesn’t dissolve in water. Examples include oils, fats, waxes, hormones, and certain parts of membranes of living cells. Lipids store energy and are chemical messengers.

Breast cancer basics

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Risk factors include non-modifiable ones such as age, female sex, and inherited genetics.

Potentially modifiable breast cancer risk factors include tobacco use, alcohol consumption, number of full-term pregnancies, and post-menopausal obesity. Let’s look at the last of these, excessive weight after menopause.

Women who are obese after menopause have an up to 1.12-times higher risk of developing breast cancer driven by so-called female hormones such as estrogen.

Moreover, analyses of collections of studies show obesity is associated with worse breast cancer survivability; the cancer is more likely to metastasize or spread to distant body sites.

Altered neighborhood around the cancer cells

In our lives, our surroundings can influence our behavior. The same phenomenon occurs when it comes to breast cancer that occurs after menopause.

The Norwegian researchers discovered this:

A changed environment surrounding an abnormal cell, associated with a change from normal body weight to overweight or obese, induces the cancer cell to adapt. The result? Malignant cells form a mass or tumor.

Here’s where things get curious: Study author Nis Halberg explains that these findings mean that “even in the absence of new gene mutations, obesity increases the risk that tumors will form.” He puts this in context: Obesity is the cause of about 500 000 new cancer cases annually — a number that will likely grow as obesity rates continue to rise.

Epigenetic change and cancer

I will end with a brief look at epigenetics. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers this definition:

Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence.

One common form of epigenetic change is known as DNA methylation. DNA methylation involves attaching small chemical (methyl) groups — each methyl group has one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms — to DNA building blocks.

When methyl groups are attached to a gene, that gene becomes silent, making no proteins. Lifestyle can cause epigenetic changes. I will continue to focus on my four pillars of health:

• Rest (adequate sleep)
• Diet
• Mindfulness
• Movement

Thank you for joining me today.

The post Why is Obesity Linked to Breast Cancer? appeared first on Medika Life.

One of the most common concerns of a breast cancer survivor following successful treatment is recurrence. Breast cancer survivors can be subject to a myriad of different medical concerns following their diagnosis, but the threat of additional cancer remains a looming one for many. A second breast cancer is the most common second cancer for survivors. This includes cancer in the same breast for those who opted for a breast-conserving lumpectomy, as well as the development of cancer in the breast opposite the one originally diagnosed. However, breast cancer survivors are also at an increased risk for several other cancers, including melanoma, colon cancer, sarcomas, thyroid cancer, and others.

Some of these cancers can be linked to radiation treatment, including lung cancer. Several studies have shown a longitudinal link between radiation therapy for breast cancer and an increased predisposition to lung cancer. However, it is important to note that, for many, radiation therapy helped to increase life expectancy as well. Understanding the potential costs and benefits of different treatment options can be complex. It is important, as always, to speak with your doctor(s) about the available options in order to understand the dynamics involved. Weighing the options is an important decision, and it should be an informed one.

The post What You May Not Know About Breast Cancer appeared first on Medika Life.