Cancer Cells

A new genetic test accurately predicts which women will have a greater chance of breast cancer recurrence, according to studies that hold out hope of increasing survival rates among high-risk patients while helping others avoid agonizing chemotherapy. "The results are quite striking," said one of the researchers, JoAnne Zujewski, director of breast cancer therapeutics in the Clinical Investigations Branch of the National Cancer Institute. The technique was the subject of three new studies, which were released yesterday and Thursday at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Five years ago, Tony Caputi had a common blood test for prostate cancer known as a PSA. Afterward, he felt relieved: His reading was 1.1, and most doctors believed that anything under 4 was normal. But during a subsequent internal exam, a physician noticed something suspicious and recommended a biopsy. It turned out that Caputi, then 43, had prostate cancer after all. "Just based on the PSA alone, I was below the threshold," said Caputi, who works for the American Foundation for Urologic Disease in Linthicum and whose cancer is now in remission.

Significant numbers of older men whose results on a popular screening test for prostate cancer are normal might nonetheless have cancer, a new study has found. The result, medical experts say, raises questions about what a "normal" test score should be and whether these men are better off left alone or treated when, through biopsies, cancer cells are discovered. It also amplifies a controversy over the test, known as the PSA, and whether finding prostate cancer early and treating it by removing or destroying the prostate is, on balance, helping or harming men. The PSA test is a blood test that looks for prostate specific antigen, a protein released by prostate cells.

Researchers at St. Louis University are working on a new way to kill tumors using genetically engineered viruses that replicate in cancer cells while leaving healthy cells untouched. "These engineered viruses kill cancer cells through a mechanism that is completely different from chemotherapy or radiation" and could be much safer, said Dr. William Wold of the university's school of medicine. Wold's group has been working for years to develop adenoviruses - viruses similar to those that cause the common cold - that are able to infect only cancer cells.

Only a minority of patients treated with a breakthrough lung-cancer drug appear to benefit, a discovery that is sending researchers back to the drawing board, doctors in Manhattan said yesterday. Before federal approval of Iressa last year, patients had clamored for the drug and legions of patient advocates lobbied and met with congressional leaders, demanding approval of the drug. Iressa is one of a burgeoning class of cancer drugs known as "targeted therapy." Unlike conventional chemotherapy, targeted medications home in on specific cellular receptors, sites that stud the surface of cancer cells.

Mosquito-borne viruses are usually bad news - the cause of such dangerous illnesses as dengue and yellow fevers, eastern equine encephalitis, West Nile fever and others. But a research team at the New York University School of Medicine has found a mosquito-borne virus that may someday prove to be good news for cancer victims. The Sindbis virus, named for the town in Egypt where it was identified 50 years ago, has been found to target and kill tumor cells in mice. Better yet, it does not appear to have toxic effects on healthy cells.

Dean Gordanier, 54, is a tax lawyer, fitness buff, father of three and veteran of the roller-coaster ride of hope and despair that is a way of life for growing numbers of people with cancer, thanks to the promise, and the heartbreak, of new drugs. Many of these "targeted therapies" are scientifically breathtaking. With names like Gleevec, Avastin, Iressa and the still-nameless SU11248, these drugs are the closest scientists have come yet to the holy grail - knocking out cancer cells without wreaking too much havoc on the rest of the body.

Dr. Judah Folkman felt a building excitement as he sat in the third row of a cavernous Chicago exhibit hall, where more than 5,000 scientists waited to learn if his decades-old theory was right: Can you really fight cancer by blocking tumors' blood supply? Several anti-tumor drugs based on that premise seemingly hadn't worked. Avastin, the Genentech drug Folkman was waiting to hear about, had once been among them - failing to help terminal breast cancer patients. But as the Harvard University researcher listened to the latest results last week, it seemed clear that Avastin was responsible for modest but striking results: It had extended the lives of colon cancer patients on chemotherapy by about five months.

During World War II, the development of penicillin was credited with saving thousands of Allied lives. Afterward, battalions of scientists swarmed over swamps, marshes, jungles and forest underbrush looking for other fungi that could combat infection. Researchers screened thousands of compounds, leading to the discovery of streptomycin and other early antibiotics. But other compounds didn't pan out. Among them was a toxin from the jack-o'-lantern mushroom. Although it showed prom-ise as an antibiotic, it was too poisonous to be used on humans.

SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- I recently came across a movie on television in which a very beautiful, classy actress looked really terrible because she wasn't wearing any makeup and had serious dark circles under her eyes. But she seemed pretty spunky as she told her children she was, well, ill. The minute an actress appears without makeup, has circles under her eyes and is acting spunky, you can bet one thing: She's going to die of cancer by the end of the movie. This is such a clichM-i that when I was told I had breast cancer five years ago it felt as if I'd stepped into a bad movie and would soon get dark circles under my eyes and have to act spunky about the whole thing.