Views Behind the News

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Progress in Detecting Ovarian Cancer?

What makes ovarian cancer so scary is not that it's inherently more deadly than many other kinds of cancer. If you catch it early, it can be highly treatable. But detecting it early is notoriously hard because the disease tends to hide, triggering few noticeable symptoms until it's so far advanced it's hard to stop.

Last summer the experts threw us a bone, acknowledging that most women with ovarian cancer do in fact have telltale symptoms: repeated bloating, abdominal discomfort, digestive troubles. Well, thanks, but some of us found that list maddeningly vague. Were we supposed to worry every time we felt gassy?

This time experts may be on to something more helpful. Gil Mor and his team of researchers at Yale report they've developed a simple blood test that identifies early-stage ovarian cancer with 99 percent accuracy. That news, which appears in the Feb. 15 issue of the journal Clinical Cancer Research, means we women may soon be able to be screened for ovarian cancer almost as routinely as we get our blood pressure checked.

The new test measures six blood proteins that, in combination, are strong markers of ovarian cancer's presence. Mor, an associate professor in Yale's department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences and the study's lead author, said the test, designed to be affordable, may be widely available later this year, pending results of a larger clinical trial in March.

But Debbie Saslow, breast and gynecologic cancer director of the American Cancer Society, greets the news with caution: Though there's hope that early detection of ovarian cancer will translate into more lives saved, that connection's not yet been fully established. And, he adds, we need to wait and see how that larger trial turns out before we start celebrating.

What Was I Just Saying?

I'd better write this down fast before I forget what I'm writing about.

Actually, memory lapses -- the ones we all seem so sure are afflicting us more as we age -- might in fact be less common among older people today than they were just a decade ago.

Researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School found that folks who were 70 or older in 2002 experienced less cognitive impairment (memory loss and dementia) than people that age in 1993. Of 11,000 people studied, 8.7 percent of the 2002 group showed signs of cognitive impairment, down from 12.2 percent of the earlier group.

Reporting in the Feb. 20 online version of the journal Alzheimer's and Dementia, the study team credited gains in education level, wealth and cardiovascular health. Those in the 2002 group likely benefited from more-rigorous education standards and higher rates of high school graduation and college enrollment that took hold when they were young; front-loading cognitive skills seems to keep people's wits quick later in life. And increased attention to cardiovascular health (especially in controlling risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol and smoking) apparently also paid off in terms of fewer strokes and other vascular problems that can affect the brain.

But the news isn't all upbeat. Although percentage-wise, things look brighter, the sheer size of the population entering seniordom means numbers of cognitively impaired people will remain high for years. Researchers are also watching younger generations. The education- and wealth-related gains those kids might have made may well be outweighed by increases in Type 2 diabetes, unhealthy weight levels and high blood pressure, all of which can cause cognitive impairment.

Another good reason to get moving. Do it now -- before you forget.

Taking the Man's Side

Okay, gentlemen. Don't bet that "The Secrets of Happily Married Women" (Jossey-Bass, 2008) doesn't have you in mind. The book is co-written by the same Scott Haltzman whose "The Secrets of Happily Married Men" (2006) said men should treat marriage like an important job.

In his new tome, Haltzman asserts that men need to "feel cared for." They "need acknowledgment of their efforts" and "have trouble verbalizing love and regret." They need "to protect their families" and "to be right and in control." (Pardon me while I gag.) Finally, men "need action" and "have an undeniably strong attraction to females." (Duh.)

Haltzman recommends women not try to make guys perfect. And he encourages us to "have lots of sex." He drew much of his approach from his own clinical practice (he's a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University) and from the experiences of folks who have contributed to http://www.HappilyMarriedWomen.com.

The more-sex part sounds appealing. But is there something condescending and manipulative in Haltzman's advice? Tell us your thoughts at health@washpost.com.

-- Jennifer Huget