New Blood Test Offers Better or Equal Skin Cancer Detection Rate than a Biopsy

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the world, and it’s the one that’s most easily treated when caught early. Since the blood test is less invasive than a biopsy, this new advance should be helpful in convincing more people to receive treatment early on.

It’s a world first. A newly developed blood test is capable of the early detection of melanoma, with over 80 percent accuracy.

It could help save thousands of lives, according to the Australian Edith Cowan University Melanoma Research Group scientists who developed the test.

Melanoma is the most deadly form of skin cancer, claiming 59,782 lives around the world in 2015. Australasia, North America and Europe are the regions most susceptible to the disease.

There’s good news. If caught early, the survival rate for melanoma climbs to 95 percent. But if you miss that early window, your chances will plummet to below 50 percent. This is what the blood test is designed to help prevent.

[…]

The blood test, called MelDX, works by detecting the antibodies the body produces as soon as melanoma develops. The team analysed 1,627 different types of antibodies, and narrowed them down to a combination of 10 that indicate the presence of melanoma in the body.

They then took blood from 104 people with melanoma and 105 healthy controls, and found that MelDX was capable of detecting melanoma with 81.5 percent accuracy.

More specifically, it was able to detect the cancer in 79 percent of the patients with melanoma; and has a false positive rate in only 16 percent in healthy patients.

The detection rate may actually be a little higher than the accuracy of skin biopsies, which, according to a 2012 study, was 76 percent in an Australian public hospital.

That’s not a perfect result, but it does provide a starting point before other, more invasive tests are embarked on; in conjunction with current diagnostic techniques, it could improve early diagnosis – and therefore people’s chance of survival.

The next step, the researchers said, will be to take MelDX to clinical trial, which is currently being organised, and which could help refine the test.

“We envision this taking about three years. If this is successful we would hope to be able to have a test ready for use in pathology clinics shortly afterwards,” said Melanoma Research Group head Mel Ziman.

“The ultimate goal is for this blood test to be used to provide greater diagnostic certainty prior to biopsy and for routine screening of people who are at a higher risk of melanoma, such as those with a large number of moles or those with pale skin or a family history of the disease.”

Meanwhile, there are easy ways you can help protect yourself from melanoma and other skin cancers, including wearing sunscreen, staying in the shade during the hottest hours of the day, and avoiding UV tanning beds.

Analysis: Harmful Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs Lurking on 75% of U.S. Meat

The wise (in my view) decision to avoid meat isn’t only a moral position due to how animals are treated in factory farms — it is also a health position. Processed meat has been declared as carcinogenic by the WHO, U.S. chicken has been found to be able to cross-contaminate kitchens with its inadequate cleanliness standards, and now even plant protein has been declared by scientific research as healthier than meat protein.

A new analysis offers alarming findings as many Americans get ready to fire up their grills for the 4th of July—nearly 80 percent of supermarket meat was found to have antibiotic-resistant bacteria, also known as superbugs.

That’s according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which sifted through over 47,000 tests of bacteria on supermarket meat, including beef, chicken, pork, and turkey, undertaken by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System in 2015, the most recent year for which the data is available.

“Consumers need to know about potential contamination of the meat they eat so they can be vigilant about food safety, especially when cooking for children, pregnant women, older adults or the immune-compromised,” said report author Dawn Undurraga, a nutritionist with the Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy organization. The high levels, the report notes, call into question the effectiveness of the FDA’s 2013 guidance calling for reduction in the use of  use of antibiotics to make livestock grow more quickly.

Undurraga noted that “the government still allows most producers to give highly important antibiotics to healthy animals to compensate for stressful, crowded, and unsanitary conditions,” which are rampant on factory farms. “These non-treatment uses are counter to WHO recommendations, and create a breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”

EWG also says the FDA continues to downplay the data, even as warnings about the threat of antibiotic resistance increase at thenational and global level.

According to the WHO, such resistance remains “one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today,” and warns the crisis “is rising to dangerously high levels in all parts of the world.”

EWG’s new analysis shows that three in four bacteria on the grocery store meat samples were resistant to at least one of the 14 antibiotics tested. The group stressed that being resistant to just one is cause for concern, as genes that confer the trait of antibiotic resistance can transfer from one bacterium to another.

[…]

Alongside the analysis, EWG also sent a letter (pdf) to the FDA, which warned that “there are alarming and growing numbers of superbugs in supermarket meat,” and called on the agency to take urgent action to live up to its mission.

[…]

In the absence of such action, EWG points consumers to a short guide to help avoid superbugs, which includes tips such as being aware of misleading labeling, choosing organic meat, and using safe practices in the kitchen.

Negative Behavior in Rough Times to Significant Others Has More Impact Than Positive Behavior, Study Finds

Something to think about in balancing relationships.

Refraining from bad behavior toward a significant other during stressful life events is more important than showing positive behavior, according to a Baylor University study.

Compared with positive gestures, negative ones tend to trigger more intense and immediate responses, according to the study. And how a couple works together during trying times is associated with individual well-being as well as satisfaction with the relationship.

“When people face stressful life events, they are especially sensitive to negative behavior in their relationships, such as when a partner seems to be argumentative, overly emotional, withdrawn or fails to do something that was expected,” said researcher Keith Sanford, Ph.D., professor of psychology and neuroscience in Baylor’s College of Arts & Sciences.

“In contrast, they’re less sensitive to positive behavior — such as giving each other comfort,” he said.

The study also found that low doses of a behavior are most important, and over time, more extreme levels have less impact.

“Because people are especially sensitive to negative relationship behavior, a moderate dose may be sufficient to produce a nearly maximum effect on increasing life stress,” Sanford said. “After negative behavior reaches a certain saturation point, it appears that stress is only minimally affected by further increases in the dose of relationship problems.”

[…]

“When people face stressful life events, it’s common to experience both positive and negative behavior in their relationships,” Sanford said. “When the goal is to increase feelings of well-being and lessen stress, it may be more important to decrease negative behavior than to increase positive actions.”

Some Genetic Links of Psychiatric and Neurological Brain Disorders Found

Research to improve the treatments of the future that also highlights how much there is about the human mind that isn’t yet scientifically known.

Today, we use sophisticated methods, such as DNA tests, AI analyses, and high-tech treatments, to understand brain disorders such as depression, Alzheimer’s, and schizophrenia.

But there’s still a lot of really basic stuff about these conditions that we simply don’t understand. That hinders our ability to effectively treat the hundreds of millions of people suffering from psychiatric and neurological illnesses.

In an effort to improve our understanding of brain disorders, an international team of researchers unified under the name the Brainstorm Consortium set out to determine if there’s a genetic link between different disorders.

They published the results of their study this week in the journal Science.

The first step in the study was gathering a lot of data.

First, the researchers pulled data from various genome-wide association studies (GWASs), which look for tiny variations in the human genome that crop up more frequently in people who have a certain disease or disorder than in those who don’t.

In total, the GWASs that the researchers analyzed included data on 265,218 patients with at least one of 25 brain disorders. Ten disorders were psychiatric (major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia, etc.) and 15 were neurological (Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, etc.).

The GWASs also included 784,643 people not diagnosed with any of those disorders to act as control subjects.

[…]

The point of all this data? To find connections that might give the researchers clues about where else to look for information about these brain conditions, especially what they might have in common.

Once they gathered all this data, the Brainstorm Consortium researchers could start to look for those connections.

They discovered that many psychiatric disorders shared the same genome variants. Schizophrenia in particular overlapped significantly with most of the other psychiatric disorders.

The same was not true for the neurological disorders. The researchers believe this suggests that psychiatric conditions are more closely related, at least genetically, than are neurological disorders, which seem to have more distinct genetic causes.

[…]

Ultimately, better understanding the genetic connection between various disorders could improve how we treat them in the future, Pat Levitt, one of the authors of the Brainstorm Consortium’s paper, noted in a news release.

While the authors assert the need for further studies, their international collaboration puts us one step closer to understanding the human brain.

If we’re lucky, that understanding will improve how we treat disorders to such an extent that today’s “high-tech” treatment options will seem antiquated when compared to the treatments of tomorrow.

Research: Depressive Episodes Can Damage Memory

The extent of the damage depends on the severity and length of the depressive episodes. This new research gives a concrete example of why it is important to improve mental health outcomes — it turns out that depression can have directly negative effects on the brain, and there are plenty of implications for human society based on that.

During a depressive episode the ability of the brain to form new brain cells is reduced. Scientists of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum examined how this affects the memory with a computational model. It was previously known that people in an acute depressive episode were less likely to remember current events. The computational model however suggests that older memories were affected as well. How long the memory deficits reach back depends on how long the depressive episode lasts. The team around the computational neuroscientist Prof Dr Sen Cheng published their findings in the journal PLOS ONE on 7th June 2018.

Computational model simulates a depressive brain

In major depressive disorder patients may suffer from such severe cognitive impairments that, in some cases, are called pseudodementia. Unlike in the classic form of dementia, in pseudodementia memory recovers when the depressive episode ends. To understand this process, the scientists from Bochum developed a computational model that captures the characteristic features of the brain of a patient with depressions. They tested the ability of the model to store and recall new memories.

As is the case in patients, the simulation alternated between depressive episodes and episodes without any symptoms. During a depressive episode, the brain forms fewer new neurons in the model.

Whereas in previous models, memories were represented as static patterns of neural activity, the model developed by Sen Cheng and his colleagues views memories as a sequence of neural activity patterns. “This allows us not only to store events in memory but also their temporal order,” says Sen Cheng.

Impact on brain stronger than thought

The computational model was able to recall memories more accurately, if the responsible brain region was able to form many new neurons, just like the scientists expected. However, if the brain region formed fewer new brain cells, it was harder to distinguish similar memories and to recall them separately.

The computational model not only showed deficits in recalling current events, it also struggled with memories that were collected before the depressive episode. The longer the depressive episode lasted the further the memory problems reached back.

“So far it was assumed that memory deficits only occur during a depressive episode,” says Sen Cheng. “If our model is right, major depressive disorder could have consequences that are more far reaching. Once remote memories have been damaged, they do not recover, even after the depression has subsided.”

Regenerative Bandage Hydrogel Boosts Internal Self-Healing for Wounds

A very notable advance that should become a promising part of healing in the future.

A simple scrape or sore might not cause alarm for most people. But for diabetic patients, an untreated scratch can turn into an open wound that could potentially lead to a limb amputation or even death.

A Northwestern University team has developed a new device, called a regenerative bandage, that quickly heals these painful, hard-to-treat sores without using drugs. During head-to-head tests, Northwestern’s bandage healed diabetic wounds 33 percent faster than one of the most popular bandages currently on the market.

“The novelty is that we identified a segment of a protein in skin that is important to wound healing, made the segment and incorporated it into an antioxidant molecule that self-aggregates at body temperature to create a scaffold that facilitates the body’s ability to regenerate tissue at the wound site,” said Northwestern’s Guillermo Ameer, who led the study. “With this newer approach, we’re not releasing drugs or outside factors to accelerate healing. And it works very well.”

Because the bandage leverages the body’s own healing power without releasing drugs or biologics, it faces fewer regulatory hurdles. This means patients could see it on the market much sooner.

The research was published today, June 11, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Although Ameer’s laboratory is specifically interested in diabetes applications, the bandage can be used to heal all types of open wounds.

[…]

The difference between a sore in a physically healthy person versus a diabetic patient? Diabetes can cause nerve damage that leads to numbness in the extremities. People with diabetes, therefore, might experience something as simple as a blister or small scratch that goes unnoticed and untreated because they cannot feel it to know it’s there. As high glucose levels also thicken capillary walls, blood circulation slows, making it more difficult for these wounds to heal. It’s a perfect storm for a small nick to become a limb-threatening — or life-threatening — wound.

The secret behind Ameer’s regenerative bandage is laminin, a protein found in most of the body’s tissues including the skin. Laminin sends signals to cells, encouraging them to differentiate, migrate and adhere to one another. Ameer’s team identified a segment of laminin — 12 amino acids in length — called A5G81 that is critical for the wound-healing process.

[…]

The bandage’s antioxidant nature counters inflammation. And the hydrogel is thermally responsive: It is a liquid when applied to the wound bed, then rapidly solidifies into a gel when exposed to body temperature. This phase change allows it to conform to the exact shape of the wound — a property that helped it out-perform other bandages on the market.

“Wounds have irregular shapes and depths. Our liquid can fill any shape and then stay in place,” Ameer said. “Other bandages are mostly based on collagen films or sponges that can move around and shift away from the wound site.”

Patients also must change bandages often, which can rip off the healing tissue and re-injure the site. Ameer’s bandage, however, can be rinsed off with cool saline, so the regenerating tissue remains undisturbed.

Not only will the lack of drugs or biologics make the bandage move to market faster, it also increases the bandage’s safety. So far, Ameer’s team has not noticed any adverse side effects in animal models. This is a stark difference from another product on the market, which contains a growth factor linked to cancer.

“It is not acceptable for patients who are trying to heal an open sore to have to deal with an increased risk of cancer,” Ameer said.

Next, Ameer’s team will continue to investigate the bandage in a larger pre-clinical model.

Loneliness Itself Bad for Heart Health and a Significant Factor in Premature Death, Research Finds

It’s a health problem in its own right.

Loneliness is bad for the heart and a strong predictor of premature death, according to a study presented today at EuroHeartCare 2018, the European Society of Cardiology’s annual nursing congress. The study found that feeling lonely was a stronger predictor of poor outcomes than living alone, in both men and women.

“Loneliness is more common today than ever before, and more people live alone,” said Anne Vinggaard Christensen, study author and PhD student, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. “Previous research has shown that loneliness and social isolation are linked with coronary heart disease and stroke, but this has not been investigated in patients with different types of cardiovascular disease.”

[…]

Feeling lonely was associated with poor outcomes in all patients regardless of their type of heart disease, and even after adjusting for age, level of education, other diseases, body mass index, smoking, and alcohol intake. Loneliness was associated with a doubled mortality risk in women and nearly doubled risk in men. Both men and women who felt lonely were three times more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression, and had a significantly lower quality of life than those who did not feel lonely.

“Loneliness is a strong predictor of premature death, worse mental health, and lower quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease, and a much stronger predictor than living alone, in both men and women,” said Ms Vinggaard Christensen.

Ms Vinggaard Christensen noted that people with poor social support may have worse health outcomes because they have unhealthier lifestyles, are less compliant with treatment, and are more affected by stressful events. But she said: “We adjusted for lifestyle behaviours and many other factors in our analysis, and still found that loneliness is bad for health.”