During screening colonoscopy, heavy drinkers of spirits or beer are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer, precancerous tumors, or large adenomas (polyps). On the other hand, wine drinkers have a lower risk.

Researchers at Stony Brook University questioned 2,291 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy about their drinking habits. Those who had more than 8 drinks of either alcoholic spirits or beer were significantly more likely to have an advanced colorectal neoplasia. Advanced neoplasia included cancer, high-grade dysplasia, villous tissue, adenomas 1 cm or greater, and more than two adenomas of any size.

Heavy drinkers had more than twice the risk of developing advanced polyps or cancer than abstainers or moderate drinkers. Wine appeared to have a protective effect with those consuming 8 or more glasses of wine each week having a lower risk.

Individuals over age 60, smokers, and the obese were also at higher risk.

Joseph Anderson, M.D. and his team concluded:

While there was a more than twofold increased risk of significant colorectal neoplasia in people who drink spirits and beer, people who drank wine had a lower risk. In our sample, people who drank more than eight servings of beer or spirits per week had at least a one in five chance of having significant colorectal neoplasia detected by screening colonoscopy.

[Read more about the study on *Reuters Health*.](http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=9707368&src=rss/healthNews)

[Read the study abstract in the *American Journal of Gastroenterology.*](http://www.amjgastro.com/showContent.asp?DID=4&SessionGUID=B9E28C55-3C9E-4DAC-9DBD-A5DECC905F45&id=ajg_4183292005&type=abstract)

A new immunochromatographic fecal occult blood test (IOBT) is more sensitive in finding colorectal cancers and the adenomas (polyps) that lead to colorectal cancer than the more commonly used guaiac-based test (GOBT) according to research presented last week at the [World Congress of Gastroenterology](http://www.wcog2005.org/). The test, developed in Japan, is available in the US marketed as OC-Light.

Nearly 1,600 individuals, at average risk for colorectal cancer, completed both the IOBT and the GOBT. Overall, 8.4% of them had a positive result on the new test compared to 3.4% on the older guaiac test. 1,9% tested positive on both. 154 of the 161 patients testing positive on either test had follow-up colonoscopy. In addition, 222 people not testing positive had colonoscopy.

During colonoscopy 26% of patients with a positive test had a large adenoma or polyp, 9% had cancer. Of those testing negative, 2% had adenomas and none had cancer.

The newer IOBT was more sensitive than GOBT in finding 50% of the advanced adenomas, 58% of precancerous conditions, and 100% of the cancers. The guaiac test sensitivity was 9% for adenomas, 12% for precancer, and 23% for cancer. Both tests were highly specific — more than 92% for all three conditions.

The test is simple to use — a sample of feces is collected in a small bottle and a test strip placed inside. One blue band means the test is negative for hidden blood in stool, a second band means that the test is positive. No special diet is necessary before the test.

Enrique Quintero, MD presented the study findings. He heads the gastroenterology department at the Hospital Universitario des Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.

Dr. Quintero pointed out the the study results are based on a single test and that repeated tests would increase sensitivity.

[Read more about the study results on *Medscape.*](http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/512826?src=hp43.infocus)

Despite seeing a doctor for primary care or a health maintenance visit and being part of a health insurance program for the previous five years, only 54% of a large group of patients were screened for colorectal cancer.

Researchers at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit identified a group of 21,833 patients, aged 55 to 70, who had at least one primary care visit in 2003 and who had been enrolled for the past 5 years in a health plan. They reviewed records to see how many had been screened for colorectal cancer using recommended schedules for colonoscopy, barium enema, fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), or sigmoidoscopy. They also looked at demographics, income, other health problems, and numbers of health maintenance visits made by individuals in the group.

Over the 5-year period, approximately 54% of people in the group received one of the screening examinations. Most common was colonoscopy (39.9%) with 28.3% receiving flexible sigmoidosopcy, and 4.3% a combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT.

Of those who did not receive recommended colorectal screening, 64% had at least 3 health maintenance visits.

More ealth maintenance or other primary care visits increased the likelihood that patients would be screened. Older patients, males, African-Americans, and those with higher incomes were more likely to receive recommended exams.

Over the five years from 1999 through 2003, annual screening rates for the group increased 3.1%.

Jennifer Elston Lafata Ph.D. and her colleagues published the results of their study in the October 1 2005, issue of *Cancer.*

They concluded:

Significant opportunities exist to increase colorectal carcinoma screening among primary care patients.

[Read the study abstract in *Cancer*](http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/28741)

ImClone Systems and Bristol Myers Squibb informed health care providers on September 13, 2005 about two new warnings added to the label for Erbitux© (cetuximab):

* **Longer observation times after infusion** Because some patients have experienced allergic reactions during and after Erbitux infusion, the following was added to the label: *A 1-hour observation period is recommended following the ERBITUX infusion. Longer observation periods may be required for patients who experience infusion reactions.*
* **Laboratory tests for low magnesium levels** Patients should be monitored for low magnesium levels and accompanying low calcium and potassium levels during treatment with Erbitux and for approximately 8 weeks after treatment ends.

About half of patients in clinical trials experienced low magnesium levels, 10 to 15% had severely depleted levels. Onset of low magenesium levels occured within days to months after beginning treatment and can be a risk after for several weeks after treatment ends.

[Dear Health Professional Letter from ImClone and Bristol Myers Squibb](http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/Erbitux_91405_dearhcp.pdf)

[FDA Medwatch changes to the Erbitux label](http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2005/Cetuximab_91405_PI.pdf)

[Associated Press story about the changes](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050915/ap_on_he_me/cancer_drugs)

Research with cancer cell lines has re-opened the question of the role of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in treating cancer. By using levels of the vitamin only available through intravenous injection, scientists were able to destroy cancer cells in 5 of 10 cell lines but not normal cells They believe that vitamin C generated hydrogen peroxide, and it was hydrogen peroxide that killed cancer cells

Previous studies have not confirmed theories that vitamin C was an effective treatment for cancer, but those studies used oral doses of the vitamin. Intravenous injection of a 10 gram dose produces 25 times the available ascorbic acid than a similar dose in oral form.

Scientists from the National Institutes of Health reported their findings in the September 12, 2005 online edition of the *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.* They wrote:

Taken together, these data indicate that ascorbate at concentrations achieved only by i.v. administration may be a pro-drug for formation of H2O2, and that blood can be a delivery system of the pro-drug to tissues. These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H2O2 may be beneficial.

Dr. Mark Levine, who led the study team, cautioned that treatments would have to be proven safe before being given to patients.

[Read the study abstract from the *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.*](http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0506390102v1)

[Read an article about the study from the BBC.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4238250.stm)

[Read more about the study, including cautions for patients, on *Medpage Today*](http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LeukemiaLymphoma/tb/1733)