When Brandon Benoit suffered a football injury last year, he never dreamed that getting treated for that injury could change his life—and perhaps save it.

When Benoit was treated for his injuries at White River Medical Center, doctors discovered a build-up of fluid in his abdomen. Doctors made a preliminary diagnosis of peritoneal mesothelioma, which was confirmed by doctors at M.D. Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas. “If I hadn’t have gotten hurt, then I wouldn’t have known [about the cancer], he said.

Brandon Benoit and wife Nancy hope that by telling their story, they can encourage awareness of mesothelioma and highlight the importance of early detection of the cancer, which is caused by exposure to asbestos.

The Benoits say that it’s important for people to ask about mesothelioma testing in particular because the symptoms are not specific to mesothelioma, and it is easy for the cancer to be misdiagnosed. Symptoms of mesothelioma may include chest pain, difficulty when breathing, fever, cough, and sudden weight loss or gain.

One reason that symptoms are often overlooked is because mesothelioma has a long latency period. After exposure to asbestos the cancer may not develop for twenty to forty years, or even longer.

Brandon Benoit is just 35 years old—and mesothelioma is much more commonly seen in adults aged between 50 and 70, due to the long latency period and the fact that asbestos use has been largely discontinued in most industries. Brandon believes he may have been exposed to asbestos before he was five years old.

Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare form of a cancer that is itself very rare. Around three thousand cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in America each year, and of those somewhere between 10% and 20% are peritoneal. Very few specialists have significant knowledge of this rare type of mesothelioma, making treatment problematic.

However, Brandon and Nancy are both hopeful, thanks to the early detection of the cancer. Early detection of mesothelioma is rare, but can make a substantial difference in prognosis. Brandon says, “For me, I know that it was a shock when [the doctors] started talking about cancer, but once it settled in, I knew I would have to beat this.”

Brandon Benoit’s treatment begins with surgery at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. After a recovery period of several weeks, he will receive several sessions of chemotherapy over the course of five months.

Brandon and Nancy Benoit are expecting their first child one month after Brandon’s last surgery, in November.

A mesothelioma research group has discovered that treatment with anti-cancer drug Pemetrexed may be more effective if patients are treated with caffeine before receiving chemotherapy.

Pemetrexed (sold under the brand name Alimta) is usually given in combination with another chemotherapy drug called Cisplatin. The drug is one of a class of chemotherapy agents known as folate antimetabolites. It works by inhibiting certain enzymes that are used in DNA synthesis. The end result is that cells cannot synthesize new DNA molecules, leading to their death.

As with other chemotherapy drugs, Pemetrexed targets rapidly dividing cells, leading to side effects such as reduced immune function and hair loss caused by the death of hair follicles and immune cells as well as cancer cells. Side effects can be reduced if patients take supplements of folic acid and vitamin B12.

The combination of Pemetrexed and Cisplatin was approved by the FDA for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma in 2004. Pemetrexed is also approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

A report of the new Pemetrexed research, entitled “Caffeine markedly sensitizes human mesothelioma cell lines to pemetrexed,” appeared in the “Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology” journal in April 2008. The research group is based at the Departments of Medicine and Molecular Pharmacology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in The Bronx, New York.

Because caffeine was already known to improve the effects of radiation and chemotherapy-induced killing of cells, the researchers decided to investigate whether caffeine could improve the anti-mesothelioma activity of Pemetrexed.

The researchers used four different cell lines to test the effects of caffeine. Cell lines are altered so that they can grow in the laboratory almost indefinitely. Each was a different type of tumor cell line derived from mesothelial cells.

They found that all of the tumor cell lines were ‘sensitized’ with caffeine treatment, meaning that when the cells were treated with caffeine and then exposed to Pemetrexed, the cell-killing activity of the chemotherapy drug was improved.

Interestingly, the researchers found that ‘pulsing’ the cells with caffeine by applying caffeine in a series of short-term exposure periods was more effective than continuous exposure to the substance.

The researchers also found that Pemetrexed sensitization occurred in cells treated with an analog of caffeine, called theobromine. The caffeine analog may be safer to use in patients, as it can be administered more safely at higher doses.

The researchers concluded that caffeine and theobromine may both be useful at improving the effectives of Pemetrexed chemotherapy.

The Kirk A. and Dorothy P. Landon Foundation, in conjunction with the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), has created two new funding opportunities for scientists working on cancer research.

The Landon Foundation-AACR INNOVATOR Award for Cancer Prevention Research and the Landon Foundation-AACR INNOVATOR Award for International Collaboration in Cancer Research each offer a two-year $100,000 grant, and will be used to support the work of researchers focusing on cancer prevention and international collaboration, respectively.

The recipient of the first Landon Foundation-AACR INNOVATOR Award for Cancer Prevention Research is Carlo Maley, Ph.D. Maley is an assistant professor in the Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncogenesis at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. Maley plans to use the AACR INNOVATOR grant funds to develop models of Barrett’s esophagus, an abnormal condition that can lead to the development of esophageal cancer. Maley will try to determine why patients develop the cancer, and whether it is possible to predict who will develop the cancer.

The first recipient of the Landon Foundation-AACR INNOVATOR Award for International Collaboration in Cancer Research is a large team of experts in genetics, thoracic oncology, pathology, and geology working in the United States and Turkey.

The International Collaboration award aims to promote international collaborative cancer research as a means of accelerating the pace of progress towards cancer prevention and treatment. The recipient team includes researchers from the University of Hawaii, the University of Chicago, the NYU School of Medicine and Clinical Cancer Center, the University of Iowa, the University of Hacettepe in Ankara, Turkey, and the Hacettepe University School of Medicine in Ankara, Turkey.

This international research team has discovered a mesothelioma epidemic centered on a group of three Turkish villages. They have so far shown that the epidemic has been caused by a genetic predisposition to a ‘gene-environment interaction’ that makes the villages more likely to develop mineral fiber-related cancers. The Turkish villagers have an vastly increased incidence of mesothelioma, and the researchers have shown that exposure to erionite, an asbestos-like mineral, is the most likely cause of the cancer.

The researchers will use the AACR INNOVATOR grant to determine which genes have predisposed the villagers to developing mesothelioma. The results of their research may be important in mesothelioma prevention and treatment, because they may be applicable to many other geographic areas and communities around the world.

Margaret Foti, Ph.D., M.D. (h.c.), AACR’s chief executive officer, said “researchers must be willing to share resources and technologies, lend expertise and communicate new concepts, perspectives and methodologies to the worldwide cancer community. The work of Dr. Carbone and his team illustrates a commitment to all of these goals and it is a pleasure to recognize him and his team…”

Minnesota - This week, the Minnesota House of Representatives has finally passed the bill that gives the green light to the mesothelioma study on taconite miners in Minnesota’s Iron Range. Taconite, a form of magnetic iron ore, has been mined in the area for decades.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has already threatened to veto the bill, on the basis that the study is being funded from the wrong source.

The study will cost an estimated $4.9 million, and the House of Representatives has voted to fund the research via the state workers’ compensation special fund.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty believes that the study should be funded not from the special fund, but via the state’s taxpayers.

Those who oppose the use of special fund money would prefer the Iron Ranger miner study to be funded partially via funds from a state agency called Iron Range Resources. This agency is focused on the northeastern part of Minnesota rather than the entire state. Opponents to use the use of the workers’ compensation fund say it’s more appropriate to use Iron Range Resources funds because mesothelioma cases have been reported only in that region.

The research, which will be planned and executed by the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, is intended to determine why Iron Range taconite miners are at a vastly increased risk of developing mesothelioma, a type of asbestos cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure.

Jeffrey Mandel, an occupational physician in the School of Public Health, said “within the mining group, the rate of mesothelioma [is] significantly higher than it [is] supposed to be.” Since a preliminary study uncovered evidence of the high rate of mesothelioma, a more extensive research study has become a high priority.

The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that at least 58 Iron Range taconite miners have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. Nationally, the average incidence of the disease is one case in every 500,000 people.

The research will look at four different aspects relating to taconite mining in the Iron Range. Three will look at causes of death in Iron Range Miners, as well as the health of current and past miners, and of their families. A fourth study will compare air particle samples taken from northern Minnesota cities and compare those to Iron Range samples.

One of the principle objectives of the study is to determine exactly why Iron Range miners are developing mesothelioma: whether the increased incidence of the cancer comes from exposure to taconite, or whether the cancer is caused by exposure to a substance used in industrial processes.

The bill passed by the Minnesota House of Representatives won by a majority vote of 88-45. The University of Minnesota has attempted to obtain funding for similar research in the past, but has never received enough funding to complete an extensive study.

United Kingdom – British researchers have discovered that an existing drug may be able to protect people from the harmful effects caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers. The drug may even be able to protect people who inhaled the fibers several decades ago.

Asbestos-related diseases have become epidemic in many countries, including in America and Britain. Hundreds of thousands of people will eventually die from asbestos-related diseases. Due to the long latency period of asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma, many people who will eventually die may even now still appear to be healthy.

Around three thousand people are diagnosed with mesothelioma in America each year. Of those, approximately half may die within two years of diagnosis. Mesothelioma cancers are very difficult to treat, because the cancer spreads aggressively and is treatment-resistant.

Many asbestos exposure victims suffer from a disease called asbestosis, which causes considerable pain and difficulty breathing due to inflammation which causes the formation of scar tissue in the lungs.

Now a study published in “Science” explains that a new drug may be able to protect people who have been exposed to asbestos, and prevent the subsequent development of asbestos-related diseases.

The study explains for the first time how asbestos fibers cause the chronic lung inflammation that is thought to lead to asbestosis and eventually, mesothelioma.

The study was carried out by Prof Jürg Tschopp of the University of Lausanne, and other scientists in Europe and America. The research group has reported that the inflammation caused by asbestos is linked to a protein complex called Nalp3 inflammasome.

Nalp3 inflammasome is involved in other inflammatory diseases such as gout. That disease can be treated with an anti-inflammatory drug called Anakinra.

The research group believes that Anakinra might be able to slow down the progression of asbestosis by limiting inflammation in the lungs. Other diseases that are linked to the inhalation of mineral fibers might also respond to this preventative treatment.

Professor Tschopp says that Anakinra could be an effective preventative measure: “persons exposed to asbestos in the past and thus at high risk to get asbestosis or lung cancer could be treated with an inhibitor drug.”

In addition, the professor says, because the drug is already successful at treating gout, “we are…quite optimistic that the same treatment will work for asbestosis.”

However, Anakinra may need to be used in clinical trials to determine a safe and effective dose before it can be used to prevent asbestos-related diseases in the general population.

Support for a ban on asbestos in America continues to grow, with the Pacific Heart, Lung & Blood Institute adding its voice to the many who are calling for a complete ban on asbestos-containing products.

The Pacific Heart, Lung & Blood Institute is a non-profit corporation of doctors, patients, and advocates that advocate research and other measures that can help eradicate diseases of the heart, lungs, and blood. The PHLBI itself conducts research on mesothelioma at the Punch Worthington Research Laboratory, located at the UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine in California.

According to the PHLBI’s latest press release, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s draft bill is the best way of addressing the possibility of a true asbestos ban in this country (The “Ban Asbestos in America Act” of 2007 and “Draft Legislation to Ban Asbestos In Products,” 2008).

The PHLBI also rejects the “less than one percent” exemption that currently allows the use of asbestos as long as it comprises less than one percent of a product’s weight, saying that the one percent rule “perpetuate[s] the misery of the asbestos disease epidemic and is indefensible on public health policy grounds.”

Asbestos, says the PHLBI, “is responsible for the worst occupational health epidemic in our country’s history,” and the one percent exemption is “exemption is a stark reminder of the asbestos industry’s dark history of fabricating scientific research, stifling work safety regulation, and putting profits over people.”

The organization fully supports the House Committee’s draft bill as “the first federal legislation that recognizes what scientists have known for decades: there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. The committee print’s broad ban also reinforces the fact that there is no scientific or public health basis for allowing the one-percent exemption.”

In addition, the PHLBI points towards the “proven track record” of statutory toxin bans, such as those on PCBs and DDT.

The PHLBI supports taking asbestos ban legislation a step further, suggesting that legislation should include further funding for research on asbestos-related diseases. “A ban must be accompanied by significant resources for public awareness, for better treatment and for finding a cure.”

Provisions for research, says the organization, should establish a peer review grant program for funding asbestos research, fund a database, registry, and tissue bank, create an asbestos public awareness and surveillance program, and fund centers for research and treatment across the country.

Minnesota – The Minnesota study on taconite miners in the Iron Range of Minnesota has hit a funding snag, with opposing lawmakers debating over where the money for the study should come from.

The study itself was approved almost a month ago, and there is no debate over the necessity of the research. However, the study is now being held up by arguments over how the study should be funded.

Currently a total of 58 Minnesota Iron Range workers have died from pleural mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer that develops in the lining of the lungs. The only known cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos, and some asbestos-like minerals. Mesothelioma is difficult to diagnose, highly treatment-resistant, and incurable.

The proposed study is expected to cost $4.9 million, and will be led by a team of researchers from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. The study will attempt to answer three basic questions:

* Why are Iron Range taconite miners developing mesothelioma?
* Are the miners are developing other diseases in addition to mesothelioma?
* Could secondary exposure issues affect the families of Iron Range miners, or the larger community?

The researchers will collect data about the level of exposure to the dust, and incidence of health problems attributed to the dust, in miners and their families. The researchers will also investigate the chemical and physical properties of the dust to determine why it is causing cancer.

The problem, however, is that unless the current funding issues are resolved, the study may never get started. The ongoing debate centers on where the $4.9 million to pay for the study should come from.

Iron Range lawmakers want to fund the study using funds from the state Worker’s Compensation Fund. They believe it’s a logical source for the funding because the research will help to protect future mine workers.

However, other lawmakers would prefer the Iron Ranger miner study to be funded partially via funds from a state agency called Iron Range Resources. This agency is more focused on the northeastern part of Minnesota rather than the entire state. According to those who would prefer this funding source it’s more appropriate because mesothelioma cases have been reported only in that region.

According to the Iron Range lawmakers, funding the study using Iron Range Resources money means that the study would, in effect, be funded by property taxes, and this shouldn’t happen because previous health studies in other parts of Minnesota haven’t been funded this way.

What do asbestos and nanotechnology have in common? One is a naturally-occurring fibrous mineral that was heavily used for industrial and construction purposes last century, and the other is a new and potentially revolutionary technology-doesn’t seem, on the surface, that there’s anything in common there.

However, an environmental advocacy group called the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition disagrees, and has released a report asking that nanotechnology manufacturing in Silicon Valley be more tightly regulated. The report suggests that nanotechnology manufacturing might cause health problems similar to those caused by asbestos.

Asbestos is known to cause two serious lung diseases-asbestosis, and mesothelioma, a type of cancer that most often develops in the lining of the lungs. Both diseases are caused only by asbestos exposure, and both are difficult to treat, and ultimately incurable. Mesothelioma in particular is a highly lethal disease that is treatment-resistant and has an almost 100% mortality rate.

According to the SVTC report, similar diseases might result from working around nanotechnology: “Small particles are associated with well-known diseases such as asbestosis and silicosis, granulomas, and lung inflammation. Based on this knowledge, we can expect that the inhalation of particles as small as engineered nanoparticles could be hazardous.”

Very little is actually known about the potential health hazards associated with nanotechnology. Some nanomaterials are known to cause brain damage in fish, and some are known to be inhalable. Some might cause environmental issues if they are allowed to enter water environments.

Because of this potential hazard, SVTC is asking that nanotechnology-specific environmental regulations be devised. This includes labeling requirements for any products that contain nanomaterials, as well as new local laws that would require nanotechnology companies to disclose the types of chemicals they use in manufacturing nanomaterials.

Sheila Davis, SVTC Executive Director and spokesperson, said of the issue, “We’re looking at a new technology, and we have a 40- or 50-year-old environmental policy framework.” According to Davis, the majority of current US environmental regulations apply to large-scale production, and nanomanufacturing plants slip through the regulatory net because they don’t generate large volumes of products or waste.

Nanotechnology has emerged as a major industry in Silicon Valley. There are more than 110 companies in the area with nanotechnology manufacturing or researching facilities.

SVTC fears that toxic spills similar to those that occurred in Santa Clara Country in 1981 might be on the cards if the government doesn’t act now to regulate nanotechnology companies more rigorously. Sheila Davis believes that regulatory bodies “just need to learn from our [past] lessons. There’s no reason we should repeat them.”

Buffalo, New York - This week, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, opened a new $2.6 million dollar Clinical Research Center. The new research center is one of just a few in the United States that focus exclusively on clinical cancer research.

It is hoped that the new Clinical Research Center will allow for faster development of new and more effective cancer treatments. The center will also provide patients with a more extensive range of treatment options.

The center was sponsored with an anonymous donation of more than $2 million, and further funds were supplied by RPCI. The donation was so generous that the facility has enough funds to support its first two years of operation.

Donna Gioia, Chair of the Roswell Park Alliance Foundation, said, “The new Center is an outstanding example of the meaningful impact philanthropy continues to have at Roswell Park. Thanks to a donor’s investment, the Institute is positioned to become a national leader in expanding patient access to potentially life-saving treatment options.”

It includes modern treatment stations designed for shorter out-patient visits, and also includes in-patient beds. In fact, the new Clinical Research Center is unique in this respect, being the only dedicated cancer treatment and clinical trial center with in-patient facilities in America.

The intention is that both patients and their families can feel comfortable in this new facility, while patients are undergoing treatment in clinical trials being held there.

The new Clinical Research Center also features a fully-equipped conference room, a counseling room for patients and their families, and dedicated space for specimen processing and other laboratory work.

Clinical trials for many different types of cancer will be held in the research center, and it has been designed to allow patients to have easy access to information about the trials, too.

Alex A. Adjei, MD, PhD, Senior Vice President for Clinical Research, said, “Patients participating in early studies of new treatments are the pioneers of cancer research. They can benefit by being among the first to receive the best cancer treatment that science can offer…”

Donald L. Trump, MD, FACP, President and CEO of Roswell Park, said “Roswell Park is committed to developing and offering clinical research studies that promote improved quality of life, while offering hope and extended survival and ultimately cancer cure.”

More information about the Roswell Park Cancer Institute can be found at http://www.roswellpark.org/Home. The web site includes a search feature that allows interested patients to search quickly and easily for information about current and new clinical trials.

The results of a new study on Italian asbestos cement workers indicates that the risk of lung cancer in people exposed to the toxic mineral decreases when asbestos exposure ends.

The study, carried out by an Italian research group headed by Dr. Corrado Magnani of the University of Eastern Piedmont in Novara, Italy, appeared in the March 2008 issue of “Occupational and Environmental Medicine.”

However, the researchers also found that while the risk of pleural mesothelioma (which develops in the lining of the lungs) decreases after exposure ends, the risk of peritoneal mesothelioma (which develops in the lining of the abdominal cavity) actually continues to increase.

The research study, which sought to gather more information about the long-term risks of asbestos-exposure, involved a total of 3,434 male and female workers at an Italian cement plant that used asbestos. They worked at the plant between 1950 and 1986 (when the plant closed).

Confirmation of existing knowledge, and some surprising new information, was uncovered.
Both men and women in the study group had an increased risk of dying from any cause, including any type of cancer (including lung cancer and pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma).

Women in the study group were found to have an increased risk of developing uterine and ovarian cancers. Neither men nor women were found to have an increased risk of developing cancers of the digestive tract or larynx (relative to the risk in the general population).

Over the 41 year period of the study, the researchers found that 480 “excess deaths” were due to asbestosis (an asbestos-related disease that causes chronic lung inflammation) or some type of cancer (including mesotheliomas).
For the members of the study, the risk of developing pleural mesothelioma increased the longer the workers were exposed to asbestos. Surprisingly, however, the pleural mesothelioma risk actually began to decrease around fifty years after exposure had ceased.

A similar pattern was found for lung cancer. The peak period of risk in men was 30 to 39 years after exposure to asbestos ceased. For women, the peak period of risk was 20 to 29 years after exposure ceased. For both men and women, the risk began to decline after this period.
However, for peritoneal mesothelioma, the risks continued to increase more than forty years after exposure to asbestos ceased.

The researchers believe this data suggests that asbestos exposure causes pleural mesothelioma and peritoneal mesothelioma by different mechanisms.