Here are the 10 ways.

1. Moderate your alcohol consumption: drinking alcohol increases the risks of cancers of the pharynx, mouth, larynx, rectum, esophagus, colon, and liver. Women should limit themselves to one alcoholic beverage per day. Men should limit themselves to two.

2. Eat plenty of raw fruits and vegetables: The American Cancer Society recommendation is to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables daily since they are loaded with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and other substances that decrease the risk of cancer. Recent studies have shown that the connection between eating vegetables and fruits and lower risk of cancer risk isn’t as strong as once thought. However the majority of researchers still subscribe to the idea that a plant-based diet is one of the best ways to secure overall health.

3. Think about chemoprevention: Chemoprevention is using natural or synthetic compounds to reduce the cancer risk or recurrence. Tamoxifen, prescribed to prevent breast cancer in women, is the most famous chemoprevention agent. The downside: chemoprevention drugs may have serious side effects.

4. Decrease the amount of fat in your diet: Studies suggest that high-fat diets are linked to several types of cancer, including postmenopausal breast, colon, and lung cancer. High-fat diets are usually high in calories and increase the risk of obesity. More study is required to understand which types of fat should be avoided and what amount effects cancer risk.

5. Stay within your ideal weight zone: Being overweight will tend to increase the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer as well as cancers of the endometrium, colon, esophagus and kidney. There have been studies showing that obesity increases the risk of cancers of the prostate, liver, stomach, gallbladder, pancreas, ovary and cervix. Some studies estimate that excess weight is a factor in 15 to 20 percent of cancer-related deaths.

6. Get screening exams: Pap tests, mammograms, colonoscopies and other routine screenings obviously don’t prevent cancer. But screenings will detect cancers early, when treatment is more likely to be successful.

7. Exercise: Evidence increasingly suggests that people who exercise have lower risk of certain cancers than those who are sedentary. From 45 to 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity a day, on most days of the week, is considered optimal to decrease the risk of breast and colorectal cancers.

8. Limit radiation exposure: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, from the sun, sunlamps or commercial tanning beds, is the primary cause of skin cancer.

9. Stop smoking or don’t start smoking: The risk of cancers caused by smoking is proportional with the length of time a person has smoked and the quantity of cigarettes smoked. Lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death among Americans is caused by smoking. Quitting smoking decreases the risk of lung cancer and it is never too late to take action on this.

10. Guard yourself from infection: Infections caused by viruses are well known to be risk factors for a wide variety of cancers. Human papillomavirus (HPV), which is a sexually transmitted disease, is the most frequent cause of cervical cancer. Chronic hepatitis B and hepatitis C aggravate the risk of liver cancer. They are usually spread by contact with contaminated blood, contaminated needles or sex. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that leads to AIDS, additionally increase the risk of many cancers.

Finding the right foods and nutrition supplements that help prevent cancer is a difficult aspect of research: often, when researchers think that they understand something, a newer study arrives that finds that the opposite is true.

Lung cancer was diagnosed 220,000 times last year and resulted in 160,000 fatalities. Researchers are searching for vitamins that help reduce cancer risk. Beta-carotene was once a contender as an anti-carcinogen. However in 2004, a major study found that in the case of smokers, beta-carotene supplements increased lung cancer risk.

With such reversals in their thinking, cancer researchers are careful to curb their enthusiasm over new studies that may offer hope in lung cancer prevention. However this week, there have been two new studies which have discovered very promising qualities to green tea and green vegetables.

Folic Acid and Phytochemicals

In one study which included over one thousand current or former smokers it was found that people whose diets had been high in folic acid, leafy-green vegetables and those currently taking multivitamins rich in phytochemicals (vitamins A, C, K, folate, carotenoids and lutein) showed lower levels of genetic changes causing lung cancer in smokers.

The second found that compared with Taiwanese smokers who drank at least one cup of green tea a day, smokers who did not drink green tea were almost thirteen times more likely to get lung cancer. Smokers who had genetic variations that put them at greater risk of developing lung cancer didn’t get quite as much protection from green tea as those who didn’t have those genetic variations. But they still benefited.

The polyphenols found in tea, and especially in green tea, have drawn lots of attention as potential cancer-blockers. This study was presented at a conference being held this week in Coronado, Calif., on lung cancer and its molecular origins. It’s sponsored by the American Assn. for Cancer Research.

The leafy-greens study, published in the journal Cancer Research, appeared online Tuesday. Officials of the National Cancer Institute, which funded the study, lauded the study as “well designed.” But in a statement, NCI’s biomarkers research group chief Sudhir Srivastava cautioned that more research would need to strengthen the evidence–even for leafy greens–before it could serve as the basis for dietary recommendations.

The Benefits of Leafy Greens for Lung Cancer

Signs and Symptoms: An individual experiencing lung cancer, will experience shortness of breath, chronic coughing up blood, wheezing similar to asthma or bronchitis, pain in the chest, severe tiredness, losing weight, hoarse throat, or swallowing impediments.

Causes: The main causes of lung cancer are carcinogens, radiation, and viruses.

Smoking – Cigarettes contain at least fifty carcinogens,released whenever an individual inhales. Obviously not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. However the risk becomes much higher. The scariest discovery is that people can acquire lung cancer from overexposure to cigarettes. Currently, over 10% of people with lung cancer haven’t even smoked a cigarette.

Radon Gas – The US Environmental Protection Agency, estimates that one in 15 homes have radon levels above the recommended levels. This invisible gas cannot be smelled and is created through the breakdown of radioactive radium or uranium.

Asbestos – This is a carcinogen that can cause many types of cancers. Only 3% of deaths from lung cancer are caused by asbestos, yet it is a very dangerous material.

Treatments: Patients having lung cancer have many treatment options. If the cancer is found earlier, surgery can be tried to remove the tumor. However, if the cancer has metastasized, the patient can get chemotherapy. With these two types of treatment, scientists and doctors have developed adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, interventional radiology, and targeted therapy.

2009 Uniting Against Lung Cancer Video

The findings, published in the October 2009 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, highlight the need to develop specific health policies and interventions to address social disparities.

Although prior studies have focused on factors that contribute to disparities in specific cancers, the Mailman School researchers’ goal in this study was to understand why racial/ethnic disparities emerge in some cancers but not others. The study used data from more than 580,000 cancer cases in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries to compare racial/ethnic differences in survival across a spectrum of cancers, classified according to their five-year relative survival rates as a measure of how amenable each cancer is to medical interventions. The authors hypothesized that racial/ethnic disparities increase as medical interventions improve overall survival because individuals with more socioeconomic resources are in a better position to exploit medical advances to protect their health.

The results found that, as compared with whites, substantial survival disparities existed in more treatable cancers in African-Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Hispanics, and several subgroups of the Asian/Pacific Islander population.

Lance Armstrong is the ultimate athlete, a cancer survivor, who dominated the most brutally intense event in sports. Armstrong won seven consecutive Tours from 1999-2005, He not only made history, erasing previous records, he revolutionized cycling.

By doing so, Lance Armstrong became one of the most controversial athletes in his sport. His athletic prowess was so unbelievable that it divided mere mortals into two camps: those he inspired against those who suspect that he must have been doping.

With Armstrong, it all comes down to belief. No one believes in Armstrong more strongly than Armstrong himself. Of everything, that was perhaps his most vital winning ingredient.

A modest, fatherless childhood and being written off as an athlete when cancer doctors gave him less than a 50/50 chance of living left Armstrong with a chip on his shoulder as large as his native Texas. “I’ll show ‘em” could be his motto. More than merely competitive, Armstrong thrives on confrontation. Deadly illness, dizzying mountain climbs, accusations of doping, perceived slights from other riders — all these and more he burned as fuel to power his intense drive.

His first post-op words to the surgeon who removed tumors from his brain, according to the cyclist, were “I can kick your ass on a bike any day.”

At the Tour, the most ferocious demonstration of his implacable will came in the mist-cooled Pyrenees in 2003, when his winning streak brushed within a whisker of a premature end. Accelerating uphill away from his rivals, Armstrong shaved too close to the roadside crowds and snagged his handlebar on a spectator’s bag, slamming him to the ground.

Riders with less steel and less luck — Armstrong was fortunate not to break a bone — might have thrown up their hands in despair. Not him. His eyes burning charcoal black with fury, Armstrong jumped back on his bike and powered past everyone, rescuing what until then had been a sub-par race for him. Of the Tours he won, that was the only one where he showed hints of vulnerability.

“Everyone has a bad day, an off day but Lance is that well trained that it never happens to him. Hats off,” says 13-time Tour veteran Stuart O’Grady. “For seven years, to never fall sick, to never have (a serious) accident. The level of professionalism that he’s shown has made cycling that much bigger. Armstrong is a superstar, a celebrity in all aspects of life.”

Passing years, wealth, fame, fatherhood and traveling the world smoothed some of Armstrong’s abrasiveness. As much as he showed a mean streak on the bike, he has shown compassion off it, throwing himself into campaigning against cancer with the same zeal he once reserved for cycling. But even as he developed a taste for modern art, populated gossip pages and rubbed shoulders with presidents and pop stars, the need to prove himself still smoldered under his tailored suits.

After his last win in 2005, Armstrong announced that he was “100 percent retired” and that “it would take an absolute miracle to bring me back.” In fact, it took less than that in 2008 — just a belief that his successors weren’t worthy and that he could still be a contender, and anger that doping accusations had followed him into retirement.

“I’m doing this for my kids,” he told biographer John Wilcockson, explaining his comeback. “I don’t want them growing up and reading all these things about me and doping.”

Yet nothing Armstrong does will silence the suspicions. They appear destined for perpetual limbo, with Armstrong unable to prove he was clean — short of spending 24/7, 365 days a year under constant surveillance, who could? — and his accusers unable so far to produce incontrovertible evidence he was dirty.

It’s an unsatisfactory situation that bothers even some of those who know, like and respect him. Prince Albert II of Monaco, a member of the International Olympic Committee, says Armstrong wouldn’t be his athlete of the decade because of the doubts.

“Obviously you can also argue, ‘OK, maybe he took something a few years ago and then now how could he be on something after winning the battle against cancer? How could he afford simply health-wise to be on any kind of drugs?’ But he still had results after that, incredible ones,” the prince told the AP. “It is a very tricky one.”

What is certain is that five of the eight riders who shared the Tour podium with Armstrong in his winning years served doping bans at some point in their careers. Another two were allegedly tied to doping rings. Armstrong was the leader among a sullied bunch.

Armstrong’s laserlike focus on the Tour, building his year and team toward that sole goal, had no equal. His attention to detail and use of new technology raised standards in cycling. In spring training, on empty, rain-soaked roads and snow-blocked mountain passes, Armstrong methodically reconnoitered the route, planning where he would strike during the three Tour weeks in July. Traditionalists in France huffed at Armstrong’s “American” ways, bridling that he steamrollered over their beloved race without the off-the-cuff panache of a rider like Eddy “The Cannibal” Merckx, whom Armstrong calls the greatest cyclist ever.

But, in doing so, the French also paid Armstrong a strange backhanded compliment, because only those at very top draw such emotion in this nation of revolution.

“The French public doesn’t like people who win,” says Jean-Francois Pescheux, who as competition director for the Tour designs the route. “The first year, they’re happy. The second year, less so and at the third, they have had enough.”

Neale had also been recuperating from injuries sustained after being hit by an automobile while driving his Vespa scooter in Toronto on Aug. 3, 2007.

His friends and musicians were totally shocked by the news, particularly since many of them thought that he was finished with the worst part of his illness and was in a recovery phase.

“That guy just exuded what it is to be a really cool, down to earth, just amazing individual,” Toronto hip-hop MC Kardinal Offishall told CP backstage at the SOCAN awards on Monday. “Wow. Canada really lost something special.”

Family members and some of his friends were at his side as he died.

“Through all these challenges, Haydain’s sense of humour and love of music were ever-present,” his wife Michaela said.

He consistently brightened the room with his singing and his dazzling smile. His playful presence and rich voice will be missed by us all. Jacksoul was to release “SOULmate,” on Dec. 1 with 10 new tracks.

The first single, “Lonesome Highway,” was co-produced and co-written by Neale, and touches on his recovery, supported by his wife, daughter Yasmin and numerous others. Former Treble Charger frontman Greg Nori considered Neale a close friend since the two men worked side by side in studio space at the Sony offices.

“This guy was an extremely, extremely generous person,” Nori said backstage at the SOCAN event. “(He) was always 120 per cent to me, as an individual, he really was. I always had a really great friendship with him and we had a great respect for each other.

“I never saw the guy get mad. He only had positive energy about him. That’s my recollection of him. Never, ever did I see any kind of jealousy out of him, or negativity.”

Kardinal Offishall, likewise, said Neale was a special human being.

“People who never had the chance to meet him were able to see that not just through his music, but just in how he carried himself, just the type of dude that he was,” said the rapper, who says he had checked in on Neale’s status by sending a text message to a mutual friend just days before his death.

Jacksoul’s previous hits include “Can’t Stop” and “Still Believe in Love.” Neale was known for his soulful, elastic croon, for a voice that was faithfully smooth but organic and expressive.

“Hopefully his music will live on,” said Hedley guitarist Dave Rosin. That’s all any artist can hope. … It’s a sad thing.”

Nori, meanwhile, praised Neale’s integrity, versatility and commitment to his artistic ideals.

“I think he was always tackling something that wasn’t the flavour of the moment,” Nori said. “I think it was always a struggle to him because it wasn’t flavour of the moment, and it didn’t sell as much.

“He always had the ability to go do that if he wanted to, but he stuck to his guns and stayed with what he knew was in his heart, and I commend him for that.”

An interment with a private family gathering will take place later this week.

Dr. Glen Weiss, Director of Thoracic Oncology at TGen Clinical Research Services (TCRS) at Scottsdale Healthcare, said the study showed the value of conducting computer modeling, or “in silico” research.

TCRS is a partnership of TGen and Scottsdale Healthcare. The partnership allows molecular and genomic discoveries made by TGen and others around the world to reach the patient bedside in the Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center at Scottsdale Healthcare as quickly as possible through clinical trials with agents directed at specific cancer targets.

Researchers hope that over time in silico research will help lower health care costs while speeding up the process of turning scientific discoveries into treatments for patients.

“There are pathways that you can identify just from an in silico analysis. And we can use these types of tools to explore treatments for patients, down the road,” said Dr. Weiss, an Associate Investigator in TGen’s Cancer and Cell Biology Division and the senior author of the paper, which will appear in print in JTO’s November edition.

The study sought to identify metabolic pathways — a series of chemical reactions occurring within a cell — that could be targeted by drugs in patients with both small-cell and large-cell lung cancers. Small-cell lung cancer represents about 15 percent of all lung cancers. The rest are classified as non-small cell lung cancer, of which large-cell lung cancer represents about 10 percent.

The study used publicly available data sets, searching for connections that may have been previously overlooked.

“Within those datasets, there are common pathways. We point out some examples that provide some proof-of-principle from the in silico search,” said Dr. Weiss, who was joined in his research by TGen’s Dr. Chris Kingsley and by Dr. Anoor Paripati of the Scottsdale Clinical Research Institute at Scottsdale Healthcare.

As an example, the study cites one particular signaling pathway, Wnt/ß-catenin, that could be targeted by two drugs, vorinostat and dasatinib, both of which are under study in clinical trials.

“This is an exploration of the publicly available data sets in an attempt to answer a new question. It shows that you can look at pathways and identify targets. We did our validation by looking at what’s been tested, or what’s available already,” Dr. Weiss said.

In silico research, which is far less costly than conducting genetic profiling analysis of cancer tumors, will become more common as the National Cancer Institute ramps up its cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid, also known as caBIG.

Such in silico research should lead to targets for further laboratory and clinical research, and also should help clinicians provide more personalized treatment for patients, Dr. Weiss said.

“There is going to be a wealth of profiling data out there in the near future. You can then apply techniques like this, and hopefully design smarter clinical trials to find the drugs that would work,” Dr. Weiss said.

These included cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate.

When the researchers looked at individual types of alcohol, though, only beer and “spirits” — and not wine — were linked to elevated cancer risks.

In general, the odds increased in tandem with the men’s lifetime alcohol intake, according to findings published in the Cancer Prevention and Detection. With several cancers, men who drank at least once a day tended to have higher risks than those who drank on a regular, but less-than-daily, basis.

When it came to esophageal cancer, for instance, men who had a drink one to six times per week had an 83 per cent higher risk than teetotalers and less-frequent drinkers, while daily drinkers had a three-fold higher risk.

In addition, when the researchers looked only at daily drinkers, the risks generally increased with the number of years the men had been drinking daily.

“Our results show that the heaviest consumers over the lifetime had the biggest increases in the risks of multiple sites of cancer,” researcher Dr. Andrea Benedetti told Reuters.

Many studies have suggested that moderate drinking — usually defined as no more than a drink or two per day — can be a healthy habit, particularly when it comes to heart disease risk.

But the current study suggested that even such moderate drinking levels are linked to higher risks of certain cancers, at least when the alcohol of choice is beer or liquor.

The question of whether moderate drinkers should cut down, however, cannot be answered by a single study.

The Science Behind Beer and Health
October 2006 (Medialink) – Who knew that beer may help reduce the risk of heart disease and certain other chronic diseases related to aging? According to a professor of medicine and public health at the Boston University School of Medicine, it may. Dr. Curtis Ellison spoke at a conference on a panel called, “Beer: To Your Health!,” held by the Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy at the University of Maryland-College Park. This conference reviewed the science on health benefits of moderate beer and alcohol consumption and the challenges of communicating a balanced message to the public.

Brewed from barley, malt and other grains, some studies suggest that beer may have heart-healthy benefits and that older adults who consume moderate amounts of alcohol may have a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, osteoporosis – and maybe even obesity.

The key is moderation. U.S. dietary guidelines define “moderation” as one drink per day for women, and two for men. Experts say that for those who choose to drink, alcohol should be consumed with food – and that the total number of alcoholic drinks should not be averaged out for the week. That means people should not save their ‘drink a day’ all week and then have seven drinks on Saturday night.

The research released Wednesday is the first to show Iressa can be more effective than chemotherapy as a first-line treatment, and some experts are hopeful it will prompt the Food and Drug Administration to allow wide use of the drug, made by AstraZeneca PLC. Others are skeptical. Though the study shows an effect on cancer growth over one year, the drug’s impact on long-term survival is still in question. Also, the study was done in Asia, and the drug seems to work best with specific patients — Asians, women and nonsmokers who carry a specific gene mutation.

“I’d venture to say that additional studies will be requested in the United States population,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer.

AstraZeneca, which funded the study, is not planning a new push for expanded FDA approval of the drug, a company spokeswoman said. But the company is continuing to share data about the drug with federal health officials, she added.

Iressa is a daily pill that more precisely targets cancer rather than healthy cells. It’s an attractive alternative to standard chemotherapy, which involves trips to a hospital or clinic for infusions of poisonous chemicals that cause nausea and hair loss. In 2003, the FDA approved Iressa as a last-resort treatment for patients with the most common form of lung cancer, called non-small-cell lung cancer. The market was significant: Lung cancer kills more Americans than any other kind of tumor, and the Cancer Society estimates it will cause nearly 160,000 U.S. deaths this year. Non-small-cell lung cancer represents 85 percent of lung cancer cases.

But in 2005, the FDA stopped allowing new patients to go on Iressa after early results from a federally sponsored study failed to show it improved lung cancer patients’ survival rates. Another lung cancer pill, Roche Group’s Tarceva, acts in a way similar to Iressa and remained on the market as a treatment for patients not helped by chemotherapy. There wasn’t widespread outcry at the loss of Iressa because Tarceva remained available, said Dr. Edward Kim, a lung cancer specialist at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Interest in Iressa continued, though, as doctors have become increasingly interested in personalized approaches to cancer treatment. Studies have shown some drugs work better in certain breast and colon cancer patients than others, and earlier studies have found that Iressa dramatically shrunk tumors in patients who had lung cancers with a specific genetic mutation. That kind of scenario is observed in only a small fraction of U.S. lung cancer patients, but is much more common in Asia, scientists say.

The latest study was led by Dr. Tony Mok of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and involved about 1,200 patients throughout southeast Asia. The study group included the kind of people most likely to have the mutation, said Dr. Pasi Janne, a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute lung cancer specialist.

The study measured cancer growth within a year after treatment, comparing patients who got Iressa to others who got chemotherapy. After one year, 25 percent on Iressa were alive without their cancer getting worse, as compared to 7 percent of those on chemo. Results were even better in those with the mutation. In those without the mutation, chemotherapy was more effective. The study was published online Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine. A second study released by the journal concluded that large-scale screening of lung cancer patients for the genetic mutation is feasible and can lead to wiser treatment.

Cancer Facts : How Does Lung Cancer Develop? embedded by Sandy Hutchens

Lung cancer develops when smoking, air pollutants and free radical formation damages sensitive lung tissue, causing the cellular DNA to restructure and malfunction. Avoid lung cancer by quitting smoking with information from a doctor in this free video on cancer.

Expert: Dr. David Cathcart
Bio: Dr. David Cathcart specializes in occupational medicine and has an in-depth knowledge of cancer, as well as experience dealing with cancer patients and treatment for multiple years.