Researchers behind the Optima trial found that a genomic test called Prosigna can identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from chemotherapy after surgery. For many of these patients, hormone therapy alone produced similar outcomes.

The findings could help doctors personalize treatment decisions and reduce unnecessary exposure to chemotherapy and its side effects.

How the Study Was Conducted

The Optima trial enrolled 4,429 patients aged 40 and older with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This is the most common type of breast cancer worldwide.

Doctors typically recommend chemotherapy for patients in this group because they face a higher risk of recurrence. Researchers from institutions including University College London and the University of Glasgow used genomic testing to determine whether some patients could safely avoid the treatment.

The study focused on the Prosigna test, which examines the activity of 50 genes within a tumor. The test estimates the likelihood that cancer will return within 10 years and helps identify patients who may benefit most from chemotherapy.

Similar Outcomes Without Chemotherapy

Researchers reported that patients classified as lower risk achieved similar results whether they received chemotherapy or not.

Five years after treatment, 93.7% of patients who received hormone therapy without chemotherapy remained alive and free from breast cancer recurrence. Among those who underwent both chemotherapy and hormone therapy, the figure was 94.9%.

The researchers concluded that omitting chemotherapy did not significantly worsen outcomes for patients identified as lower risk through genomic testing.

Reducing Treatment Burden

Chemotherapy remains an important treatment for many breast cancer patients. However, it can cause significant side effects, including fatigue, nausea, hair loss, fertility complications and cognitive difficulties.

As a result, researchers have increasingly explored ways to identify patients who can safely avoid the treatment.

The Optima investigators estimated that more than two-thirds of patients in the study could potentially skip chemotherapy when doctors used genomic testing to guide treatment decisions.

The findings support the growing use of precision oncology, an approach that tailors treatment based on the biological characteristics of an individual’s tumor rather than relying solely on traditional risk factors.

Part of a Broader Shift in Breast Cancer Care

The results add to a growing body of evidence supporting genomic testing in breast cancer treatment.

Earlier studies involving genomic tools such as Oncotype DX also found that many patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer can safely forgo chemotherapy when genetic testing indicates a low likelihood of benefit.

However, treatment recommendations still depend on several factors, including age, menopausal status, lymph node involvement and specific tumor characteristics.

Researchers stressed that the Prosigna test is not intended to replace chemotherapy altogether. Instead, it helps identify patients who are less likely to benefit from the treatment.

Potential Impact on Future Care

The Optima trial could influence future breast cancer treatment guidelines and help reduce unnecessary chemotherapy use.

Beyond improving patient quality of life, a more targeted treatment approach could lower healthcare costs by avoiding therapies that provide limited benefit.

Researchers said they will continue monitoring trial participants to assess long-term outcomes and confirm the durability of the findings.

The results highlight the increasing role of genomic medicine in cancer care and suggest that many patients may be able to receive effective treatment with fewer side effects.

The post Genomic Test Could Help Millions of Breast Cancer Patients Avoid Chemotherapy appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Scientists say the common cold-triggered headache offers clues to pain pathways

The sharp headache often known as “brain freeze” may last only seconds, but researchers say the phenomenon continues to provide insights into how the brain processes pain and temperature changes.

Often triggered by eating ice cream, frozen drinks, or other very cold foods too quickly, brain freeze — medically known as cold-stimulus headache or sphenopalatine ganglioneuralgia — affects a large share of the population. Researchers and medical specialists have long studied the condition because it appears to involve some of the same neurological pathways linked to migraine headaches and other pain disorders.

Health experts describe brain freeze as a brief but intense headache that typically develops when extremely cold substances come into contact with the roof of the mouth or the back of the throat. The pain is usually felt in the forehead or temples and often disappears within a minute or two.

Medical researchers have not reached complete agreement on the exact biological mechanism behind the sensation. However, several leading theories suggest that rapid cooling of tissues in the mouth triggers sudden changes in nearby blood vessels and activates pain-sensitive nerves.

Research reviewed by medical institutions including Harvard Health Publishing indicates that exposure to intense cold may cause blood vessels in the palate to constrict before quickly widening again. This rapid vascular response is thought to stimulate branches of the trigeminal nerve, one of the body’s main sensory nerves responsible for transmitting facial pain signals.

Scientists believe the brain may interpret those nerve signals as pain originating from the head rather than the mouth, a phenomenon known as referred pain. Similar mechanisms are observed in other pain conditions where the location of discomfort differs from the source of the stimulus.

Researchers have also explored whether brain freeze could help explain aspects of migraine biology. Some studies have reported that people who experience migraines may be more susceptible to cold-stimulus headaches, suggesting possible overlap in the neural pathways involved. However, researchers have not established that brain freeze causes migraines or predicts future neurological disease.

Clinical observations indicate that the condition is generally harmless. The discomfort usually resolves on its own once the temperature inside the mouth returns to normal. Medical organizations including the Cleveland Clinic describe brain freeze as a temporary physiological response rather than a sign of underlying illness.

Because episodes are brief and difficult to reproduce under controlled conditions, scientists face challenges in studying the phenomenon directly. That limitation has contributed to ongoing debate about the precise role played by blood flow changes, nerve activation, and temperature-sensitive receptors.

Some researchers argue that the body’s response may serve a protective function. Rapid temperature shifts inside the mouth can trigger reflexes designed to maintain stable conditions around sensitive tissues and blood vessels near the brain. Early findings suggest these reactions may reflect broader neurological mechanisms involved in detecting potentially harmful environmental changes.

While brain freeze remains a temporary nuisance for many people, scientists say the familiar headache continues to offer a useful window into how the nervous system interprets pain. Understanding those responses could eventually contribute to research on migraine disorders and other forms of headache, though further study is needed before drawing broader medical conclusions.

The post Why Brain Freeze Continues to Fascinate Scientists Beyond the Ice Cream Cone appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Autoimmune diseases occur when the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks its own cells and tissues, potentially causing chronic, sometimes life-threatening conditions. Affecting tens of millions globally, these diseases are particularly common among women and often present with vague or overlapping symptoms that complicate diagnosis.

Recent research is exploring treatments that go beyond symptom management, aiming to reprogram the immune system or delay disease onset. Clinical trials targeting conditions such as lupus, myositis, and type 1 diabetes have shown early promise, signaling a potentially transformative era in autoimmune care.

What Are Autoimmune Diseases?

Autoimmune diseases encompass more than 100 distinct conditions, each defined by the specific tissues or organs they impact. Examples include:

• Rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: primarily attack joints.

• Sjögren’s disease: leads to dry eyes and mouth.

• Myositis and myasthenia gravis: weaken muscles through different mechanisms.

• Lupus: can cause skin rashes, joint pain, fevers, and organ damage affecting the kidneys, heart, and lungs.

Symptoms can be unpredictable. Patients may experience long periods of stability punctuated by sudden flares, often without identifiable triggers.

Challenges in Diagnosis

Diagnosing autoimmune conditions is often complex. Early symptoms may be nonspecific, intermittent, or resemble other illnesses. Overlapping effects on major organs further complicate detection.

Diagnosis usually involves multiple blood tests to identify antibodies that mistakenly target healthy tissue, combined with symptom evaluation and ruling out other conditions. Some diseases, like multiple sclerosis, now benefit from updated guidelines and physician education aimed at streamlining the diagnostic process.

How the Immune System Malfunctions

The human immune system is a sophisticated network of cells and proteins designed to recognize and neutralize threats such as viruses, bacteria, or cancer cells. Normally, it can distinguish between foreign invaders and the body’s own tissues — a state known as tolerance.

Autoimmune diseases emerge when this balance fails. Misguided immune cells or antibodies attack healthy tissue, while regulatory mechanisms fail to restore order. Over time, this misdirected response can lead to chronic illness.

Triggers and Risk Factors

Most autoimmune conditions result from a combination of genetic susceptibility and environmental triggers rather than a single gene defect. Potential triggers include infections, pollutants, or lifestyle factors like smoking. For instance, Epstein-Barr virus exposure is linked to multiple sclerosis.

Emerging research identifies key molecular actors in disease onset. Neutrophils, white blood cells that respond to infection or tissue injury, are now believed to play a central role in conditions like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis when overactive.

Why Women Are More Vulnerable

Women account for roughly 80% of autoimmune patients, often developing conditions at a young age. Hormones are a factor, but genetic differences may also contribute. Females carry two X chromosomes, and abnormalities in how one is silenced can increase susceptibility.

Men, while less frequently affected, can develop severe autoimmune conditions. VEXAS syndrome, discovered in 2020, primarily affects men over 50 and can cause blood clots, respiratory issues, and night sweats.

Certain populations face higher risks: lupus is more prevalent among Black and Hispanic women, while Northern Europeans are more likely to develop multiple sclerosis.

Treatment and Management

The global market for autoimmune disease treatments exceeds $100 billion annually, excluding healthcare visits and productivity losses. Treatments are generally lifelong and, while often covered by insurance, can be costly.

Historically, high-dose steroids and broad immunosuppressants were standard, carrying risks such as infections or cancer. Today, newer therapies target specific molecules, reducing some side effects. Nonetheless, treatment remains largely trial-and-error, with limited predictive tools to guide patient choices.

Advances in research, including immunomodulatory therapies and early intervention strategies, aim to improve outcomes and quality of life for patients worldwide. Clinical trials are testing approaches to reset immune function, offering hope for more durable solutions

Source: AP News – There are more than 100 autoimmune diseases, and they mostly strike women. Here’s what to know

The post Understanding Autoimmune Diseases: Causes, Risks, and Emerging Treatments appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Study Finds Major Drop in Peanut Allergies Among Young Children

The study, led by Dr. David Hill of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, analyzed electronic health records from dozens of pediatric practices to track food allergy trends before and after the introduction of the new guidance. “That’s a remarkable thing,” Hill said. “There are fewer kids with food allergy today than there would have been if we hadn’t implemented this public health effort.”

Researchers found that peanut allergies in children ages 0 to 3 dropped by more than 27% after the initial 2015 guidance for high-risk infants, and by more than 40% after broader recommendations were released in 2017. While overall food allergy rates in the U.S. continue to rise—now affecting about 8% of children—the data suggest that the peanut-specific trend has reversed course.

Background: How Early Feeding Became the New Norm

For decades, medical advice discouraged parents from feeding peanuts and other potential allergens to children before age 3. That changed after the 2015 Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) trial, led by Dr. Gideon Lack at King’s College London, found that introducing peanut-containing foods to infants as early as 4 months old reduced the likelihood of developing an allergy by over 80%. Follow-up research showed the protective effect persisted into adolescence for roughly 70% of children.

The LEAP trial revolutionized pediatric allergy prevention and prompted new guidelines from U.S. and U.K. health authorities recommending early exposure to peanuts for both high-risk and average-risk infants. The guidance was expanded in 2017 and updated again in 2021 to include all major food allergens such as dairy, soy, and eggs.

Slow Implementation Among Pediatricians

Despite the strong evidence, adoption of the early-feeding approach has been uneven. Surveys show that only about 29% of pediatricians and 65% of allergists follow the full 2017 guidelines. Many doctors and parents initially questioned whether introducing allergens so early could be done safely outside of controlled clinical trials.

“The data show encouraging progress, but implementation is still incomplete,” said Dr. Ruchi Gupta, a pediatric allergy specialist at Northwestern University, in a commentary accompanying the study. Gupta noted that the dataset may not fully represent all U.S. pediatric populations but nonetheless provides “promising evidence that early allergen introduction is not only being adopted but making a measurable impact.”

Public Health and Parental Education

Food allergy advocates say the findings are an encouraging sign of progress. “This research reinforces what we already know and underscores a meaningful opportunity to reduce the incidence and prevalence of peanut allergy nationwide,” said Sung Poblete, CEO of Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE), a nonprofit that supports the 33 million Americans living with food allergies.

The updated 2021 guidelines recommend introducing peanuts and other allergenic foods between four and six months of age—without the need for prior screening tests. The approach, experts say, can help the immune system build tolerance safely through gradual exposure.

“It doesn’t have to be a lot of food,” Hill explained. “Small tastes of peanut butter, milk-based yogurt, soy products, or nut butters are good ways to help the immune system learn to tolerate these foods safely.”

From Skepticism to Acceptance: A Parent’s Experience

For many parents, the idea of feeding babies peanuts still feels counterintuitive. Tiffany Leon, a Maryland-based registered dietitian and FARE director, introduced peanuts and other allergens early to her sons, James and Cameron, following the updated recommendations. Initially, her own mother was alarmed by the shift in advice.

“At first, she was shocked,” Leon said. “But as a dietitian, I practice evidence-based recommendations. When I saw the science and the new guidelines, I knew this was the right approach.”

Leon says her experience reflects a growing awareness among parents that early allergen exposure can be both safe and beneficial. “It’s a big change from what we were told years ago, but it’s one that’s making a real difference for kids,” she added.

Why Early Feeding Matters

Peanut allergy occurs when the immune system mistakenly identifies peanut proteins as threats, triggering symptoms that range from hives and breathing difficulties to potentially fatal anaphylaxis. In the United States, about 2% of children have a diagnosed peanut allergy—one of the most common and severe food allergies worldwide.

The success of early feeding in reducing peanut allergy risk has inspired similar research into preventing other common allergies. Scientists are studying whether early exposure to milk, eggs, and tree nuts could offer similar protective effects.

Global Health Implications

Experts say the U.S. experience offers valuable lessons for other countries facing rising allergy rates. The World Health Organization and national pediatric associations in Canada, the U.K., and Australia have adopted similar early-feeding guidance, though implementation remains inconsistent across regions and socioeconomic groups.

“This is one of the few clear examples of a population-level intervention changing the trajectory of a chronic condition,” Hill said. “It shows what’s possible when science, policy, and clinical practice align.”

Source: AP News – Advice to feed babies peanuts early and often helped 60,000 kids avoid allergies, study finds

The post Early Peanut Feeding Helped 60,000 U.S. Children Avoid Allergies, Study Finds appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Breakthrough in Early Cancer Detection

The Galleri blood test, developed by U.S.-based pharmaceutical company Grail, can detect fragments of cancerous DNA circulating in the bloodstream. It is designed to identify cancers at an early stage, when treatment is more likely to be effective and potentially curative.

In a trial involving 25,000 adults in the United States and Canada over one year, nearly 1% of participants received a positive test result. Subsequent medical follow-up confirmed cancer in 62% of these cases. Lead researcher Dr. Nima Nabavizadeh, associate professor of radiation medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, stated that the findings could “fundamentally change” the approach to cancer screening.

High Accuracy and Early Detection

The trial demonstrated that the Galleri test correctly ruled out cancer in over 99% of participants who tested negative. More than half of detected cancers were identified at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of successful treatment.

When combined with conventional screening for breast, bowel, lung, and cervical cancers, the test increased the total number of detected cancers seven-fold. Notably, three-quarters of detected cases were cancers for which no routine screening currently exists, including ovarian, liver, stomach, bladder, and pancreatic cancers.

The test accurately identified the origin of cancer in approximately 90% of cases, providing crucial information for timely and targeted treatment.

Expert Perspectives on Potential Impact

Sir Harpal Kumar, president of biopharma at Grail, described the results as “very compelling,” emphasizing that most cancer deaths occur because cancers are detected too late. “The goal is to shift to earlier detection, when we can use treatments that are more effective and potentially curative,” he said on BBC Radio 4.

However, some experts caution that earlier detection does not automatically translate into reduced mortality. Clare Turnbull, professor of translational cancer genetics at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, stressed the need for randomized studies with mortality as a primary endpoint to confirm the test’s real-world benefits.

Naser Turabi of Cancer Research UK added that careful evaluation is required to avoid overdiagnosis of cancers that may never have caused harm. He noted that the UK National Screening Committee will play a central role in reviewing evidence before any NHS adoption.

Ongoing Research and NHS Trials

The topline results from the North American trial are set to be presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology congress in Berlin, though full peer-reviewed data have not yet been published.

In England, a three-year NHS study involving 140,000 participants is underway, with results expected next year. The NHS has indicated that, if the findings are favorable, the Galleri test could be expanded to an additional one million people, potentially reshaping national cancer screening strategies.

Future Implications for Cancer Care

The Galleri test represents a potential leap forward in early cancer detection, particularly for cancers lacking established screening programs. Experts highlight its promise in identifying diseases when interventions are most effective, potentially reducing the burden of late-stage diagnoses.

At the same time, further research is essential to understand the balance between early detection and overdiagnosis. Ongoing trials and rigorous peer-reviewed studies will be critical in determining how the test may be integrated into routine clinical practice.

Stay informed with JournosNews.com — your trusted source for verified global reporting and in-depth analysis. Follow us on Google News and BlueSky for real-time updates.

Source: BBC – Exciting results from blood test for 50 cancers

The post New Blood Test Shows Promise in Detecting Over 50 Types of Cancer Early appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The incidence of colorectal cancer among younger adults is increasing worldwide, prompting concern among oncologists who are calling for stronger public awareness, earlier screening, and more research into potential environmental causes.

Rising Trend Among Younger Adults

Colorectal cancer — once considered a disease of older adults — is now being diagnosed more often in people under the age of 50. Studies reviewed by Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Kimmie Ng show that the rate of early-onset colorectal cancer has been rising by roughly 2% annually since the mid-1990s.

Dr. Ng, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and founding director of its Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center, said the trend is evident across both genders and regions. “It’s shocking to see perfectly healthy young people, with no family history, suddenly facing Stage 4 disease,” she told CNN’s Chasing Life podcast.

Globally, early-onset colorectal cancer is now the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men under 50. By 2030, experts project it will surpass breast cancer as the top cancer killer in women under 50, according to data cited by Ng.

Understanding the Scale of the Problem

Although the number of younger patients remains relatively small compared with older adults, the increase has drawn attention from researchers and public health officials. Ng emphasized that, in absolute terms, such cases are “still relatively rare,” but the consistent rise suggests a worrying generational shift.

“Younger people face unique challenges,” Ng noted. “Many are raising children, supporting parents, or building their careers. A diagnosis at this stage of life has a massive emotional and social impact.”

Screening Recommendations and Gaps

Screening programs have significantly reduced colorectal cancer rates among older adults. However, those benefits have not extended to younger populations. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lowered its recommended screening age from 50 to 45 in 2021 for people at average risk.

Ng said another reduction is unlikely in the near term due to practical and medical factors, including the relatively low incidence rate among very young adults, the cost of large-scale screening, and procedural risks such as bleeding or false positives.

Instead, Ng advocates for a more tailored approach: identifying individuals at higher risk — including those with family histories or genetic predispositions — and encouraging them to undergo earlier screening.

Recognizing Early Warning Signs

Awareness of symptoms is critical to early detection. Among younger patients, the most common sign is blood in the stool, particularly when it is mixed within the stool rather than appearing on tissue or in the bowl.

Other warning signs include unexplained weight loss, prolonged changes in bowel habits such as persistent diarrhea or constipation, thinner stool, abdominal pain, and fatigue that may indicate anemia.

Ng urged young adults to speak openly with healthcare providers about such symptoms, no matter how uncomfortable the conversation may be. “It’s vital to normalize discussions about bowel habits,” she said.

Environmental and Lifestyle Links

Researchers believe environmental and lifestyle factors may be driving the generational increase in colorectal cancer. “Each generation since 1950 faces higher risk,” Ng explained. “Someone born in 1990 now has over four times the risk of developing rectal cancer compared to someone born in 1950.”

The leading hypothesis links this trend to environmental exposures and modern lifestyles. Potential contributors include obesity, sedentary behavior, and diets high in processed meats, refined sugars, and sugary beverages.

However, Ng noted that many young patients do not fit this profile. “Some of them are marathon runners or eat organic diets — yet they’re still diagnosed. This means other environmental factors, such as microplastics or early-life exposure to toxins, could play a role,” she said.

Genetics and Family History

While genetics account for only a small portion of early-onset cancer cases, experts recommend that anyone diagnosed with cancer at a young age undergo genetic testing.

Inherited conditions such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis can increase the risk of developing colorectal and other cancers. “All young patients should receive familial genetic testing,” Ng said, emphasizing that family medical history remains a vital tool for early prevention.

Individuals with close relatives who have had colorectal cancer may need to begin screening earlier than the general population, which can be lifesaving.

The Psychological and Physical Toll on Young Patients

Younger patients often have the strength to tolerate intensive treatments like chemotherapy, surgery, or radiation. But despite their physical resilience, survival outcomes are not always better than those of older patients.

According to Ng, individuals under 35 tend to have poorer survival rates compared with older patients diagnosed with the same stage of cancer. Emotional strain, disruption to family life, and financial challenges compound the physical burden.

Advocating for Screening and Awareness

Experts continue to stress that screening saves lives. Ng reaffirmed the importance of adhering to recommended screening ages — 45 for average-risk individuals, and earlier for those with family histories.

She encouraged both physicians and patients to break the stigma surrounding gastrointestinal symptoms. “Doctors should routinely ask: ‘Are you seeing blood in your stool? Have you noticed changes in bowel habits?’ These questions could lead to earlier detection,” she said.

Ng also urged public health authorities to renew efforts to reach the national target of screening 80% of the population — a goal that remains unmet.

A Call to Action

The rise in early-onset colorectal cancer underscores the urgent need for awareness, research, and early testing. While the exact causes remain unclear, lifestyle, diet, environmental exposure, and genetics are all under scrutiny.

Health experts agree on one message: pay attention to your body. Recognizing early symptoms, maintaining regular check-ups, and seeking screening at the appropriate age can significantly reduce risk and save lives.

Source: CNN – More young people are getting early-onset colorectal cancer. 5 things to know

The post Rising Cases of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Alarm Experts Worldwide appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Plant-based meats were once the rising stars of the grocery aisle, promising a tasty, eco-friendly way to eat less meat. But lately, sales in the U.S. have cooled — and many people aren’t sure if these products are really healthy.

Nutrition experts and researchers say there’s more to the story. While these meat alternatives are “ultraprocessed,” they might still offer big benefits for personal health and the planet — if you know what to look for.

Here’s what’s really going on with plant-based meat, what the latest science says, and what to keep in mind before your next burger night.

What Are Plant-Based Meats, and Why Do They Matter?

Plant-based meats are products designed to look, cook, and taste like real meat — but they’re made entirely from plants. Think of brands like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, whose burgers even “bleed” like beef.

These alternatives are part of a global push to reduce meat consumption. That’s because raising animals for food is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the nonprofit Good Food Institute, swapping just one beef burger for a plant-based one can cut emissions by up to 98% and land use by 97%.

But the buzz has faded. Sales in the U.S. have slowed, and health professionals haven’t fully embraced them. The reason? Many see them as ultraprocessed foods — a label that’s often linked with negative health outcomes.

Can Ultraprocessed Foods Be Healthy?

The term ultraprocessed often makes people think of junk food. These are products that go through heavy industrial processing, often include additives, and rarely resemble the ingredients they started from.

Plant-based meats fit that definition. They’re often made using methods like extrusion, and they include ingredients like binders, preservatives, colorings, and even GMOs. For example, Impossible Burger uses a genetically modified yeast to create heme, the molecule that makes it look and taste like beef.

Still, experts say not all ultraprocessed foods are created equal.

“We need to get to a place where we start to rate ultraprocessed foods,” said dietitian Joy Bauer, who consults for Beyond Meat. “There are some that are super healthy and can help people move in positive directions.”

Some manufacturers are already responding. Both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have reformulated their products to be lower in saturated fat and sodium, while still delivering taste and protein.

What About Fat, Salt, and Other Nutrients?

One major concern is saturated fat, which can raise the risk of heart disease. Early versions of plant-based meats often had similar saturated fat levels as real beef, mainly due to coconut oil — which is nearly all saturated fat.

But changes are happening.

• Impossible Foods now uses less coconut oil in its flagship burger, dropping saturated fat from 8 grams to 6 grams.
• Beyond Meat switched from coconut oil to avocado oil, cutting saturated fat to as little as 1–2 grams in some products.

Salt is another issue. Many plant-based burgers still contain more sodium than unseasoned meat. But researchers point out that people usually add salt when cooking regular meat anyway.

In one study led by Stanford nutrition researcher Dr. Christopher Gardner, participants ate beef for two months, then switched to Beyond Meat products. Salt intake and blood pressure stayed the same — but participants lost weight and had lower levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol after the plant-based phase.

Are New Plant-Based Products Healthier?

Yes, some new versions are noticeably better. Nutrition scientist Roberta Alessandrini from PAN International studied plant-based meats in the UK and Australia. She found that recent products are now:

• Lower in salt
• Lower in saturated fat
• Equal in protein
• Much higher in fiber (meat has none)

Some companies are also simplifying their ingredient lists, using a variety of plant proteins — like lentils, peas, soy, and brown rice — to offer complete proteins.

“Sodium is now down 20%,” said Beyond Meat’s Shira Zackai. “And the ingredient list is streamlined.”

What Should You Look for on the Label?

Experts recommend reading the nutrition label carefully — especially for:

• Saturated fat: Less is better. Aim for saturated fat to be less than one-third of total fat.
• Sodium: Keep an eye on salt. Harvard’s Dr. Walter Willett suggests looking for products with about 1 milligram of sodium per calorie.
• Healthy fats and complete proteins: Products with nuts, soy, or legumes tend to be more nutritious than starch-heavy ones.

“Salt and saturated fat are the two really important factors,” Willett said. “But taste matters too — otherwise, people won’t stick with it.”

Can These Products Help the Planet?

Experts agree: If people eat more plant-based meat instead of animal meat, it could help reduce climate change, deforestation, and water use.

But there’s a catch — price.

“These products are quite a bit more expensive than basic hamburger,” Willett said. “To really make a difference, they need to be price competitive so people can afford to eat them regularly.”

The Bottom Line

Plant-based meats are here to stay, and they’ve come a long way since they first hit store shelves. While they’re technically ultraprocessed, new versions are healthier, tastier, and more eco-friendly than ever.

If you want to reduce meat in your diet — for your health or the planet — these products can be a smart option. Just be sure to check the label, compare brands, and look for lower saturated fat and sodium.

Eating better doesn’t have to mean giving up burgers. Sometimes, it just means choosing a different kind.

Source: CNN – Eating this ultraprocessed food may be good for you and the planet, experts say

The post Why Plant-Based Meat Isn’t as Unhealthy as You Think, According to Nutrition Experts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

There’s some genuinely good news in the fight against heart disease: Heart attack deaths have plummeted by nearly 90% over the past 50 years in the U.S., and overall deaths from heart disease have dropped by 66% among adults 25 and older, according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

That’s a huge win.

“Over the past 50 years, our understanding of heart disease — what causes it and how to treat it — has improved dramatically,” said Dr. Sara King, lead author of the study and a resident at Stanford University School of Medicine. “People are surviving heart attacks today that would have been a death sentence decades ago.”

But Here’s the Catch: Other Heart Conditions Are on the Rise

While fewer people are dying from heart attacks, deaths from other heart-related conditions have been quietly climbing. In fact, non-heart attack cardiac deaths have increased by 81%, the study found.

That includes:

• Arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats) – up 450% since 1970
• Heart failure – up 146%
• Hypertensive heart disease (caused by high blood pressure) – up 106%

In 1970, heart attacks made up more than half (54%) of all heart-related deaths. By 2022, that number dropped to 29%, as other forms of heart disease became more prominent.

“This shift is significant,” said Dr. Andrew Freeman, a cardiologist at National Jewish Health in Denver, who wasn’t involved in the study. “These days, people are less likely to die from a heart attack — but many are left dealing with chronic, debilitating conditions.”

Living Longer, But Not Necessarily Better

Surviving a heart attack doesn’t always mean you’re back to normal. “You might be alive,” Freeman explained, “but now you have heart failure, need a daily mix of medications, and feel short of breath just walking across the room. It’s one thing to survive — it’s another to feel healthy.”

What’s Driving the Rise in Other Heart Diseases?

Researchers say it comes down to a mix of lifestyle, aging, and chronic health conditions:

• Obesity: up from 15% in 1970 to 40% in 2022
• Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: now affect nearly half of all U.S. adults
• High blood pressure: increased from 30% in 1978 to nearly 50% in 2022
• Poor diet and sedentary lifestyles: both common contributors

And let’s not forget the Baby Boomer effect: an aging population more prone to developing heart issues is also a major factor.

“All of these risk factors contribute to the ongoing burden of heart disease — especially when it comes to heart failure, arrhythmias, and hypertension-related conditions,” said Dr. Latha Palaniappan, senior author of the study and professor of cardiovascular medicine at Stanford.

What Needs to Happen Now? Prevention — and Starting Young

“Heart disease hasn’t disappeared,” Palaniappan said. “Our focus needs to shift toward prevention — and it needs to begin early, even in childhood.”

Experts say this means doubling down on:

• Healthy eating habits
• Regular physical activity
• Managing blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar
• Educating the public about the importance of early intervention

Because while it’s a win that more people survive heart attacks, the ultimate goal is living longer and feeling well while doing it.

Source: CNN – Deaths from heart attacks are way down. Here’s what’s killing us instead

The post Heart Attack Deaths Are Down—But Other Heart Diseases Are Rising appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A powerful new tool in the global fight against HIV has arrived — but whether it can live up to its promise may depend more on access than science.

The U.S. has just approved the world’s only twice-yearly HIV prevention shot, a drug called lenacapavir, developed by Gilead Sciences. It’s being hailed as a potential game-changer: in two major studies, it nearly eliminated new HIV infections in people at high risk, outperforming existing daily pills.

“This really has the possibility of ending HIV transmission,” said Greg Millett, public policy director at amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research.

But despite the breakthrough, there’s a growing concern: will enough people actually get the shot?

How It Works: A New Kind of PrEP

While we still don’t have an HIV vaccine, PrEP — or pre-exposure prophylaxis — has become a frontline method of preventing infection. But current options, like daily pills or injections every two months, come with hurdles: people forget doses, miss appointments, or face stigma.

That’s where lenacapavir steps in.

Marketed under the new brand name Yeztugo (it’s already sold as Sunlenca for HIV treatment), the shot is given twice a year as two injections under the skin of the abdomen. The drug forms a slow-release “depot” that offers long-lasting protection.

Users must test negative for HIV before starting, and while the shot doesn’t prevent other STDs, its ease and effectiveness could dramatically expand prevention access — especially for people who can’t or won’t take a daily pill.

Game-Changing Results From Major Studies

The numbers speak for themselves:

• In a landmark trial of 5,300 young women and girls in South Africa and Uganda, zero participants who received lenacapavir became infected with HIV. By contrast, around 2% of those on daily PrEP pills did.
• A second study involving gay and gender-diverse participants in the U.S. and other high-risk countries found similarly high effectiveness.

For people like Ian Haddock of Houston, the difference has been life-changing.

“Now I forget that I’m on PrEP because I don’t have to carry around a pill bottle,” said Haddock, who took part in the study and now gets the shot every six months. “Just remembering a clinic visit every six months is a powerful tool.”

So What’s the Catch? Access and Affordability

Despite its promise, access to lenacapavir may be severely limited — especially in places that need it most.

• In the U.S., the shot will cost about $28,218 a year before insurance. Gilead says it expects private insurers to cover it and has financial assistance programs, but looming challenges remain:
  • A Supreme Court case could overturn insurance coverage mandates for PrEP.
  • Medicaid cuts under consideration in Congress could put it further out of reach.
  • Much of the CDC’s HIV prevention outreach infrastructure was dismantled under the Trump administration, limiting efforts to get the shot to high-risk communities.

Carl Schmid of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute worries the opportunity is slipping away.

“We’re basically pulling the rug out of HIV prevention and testing and outreach programs.”

A Global Lifeline—But Not for Everyone

Worldwide, 1.3 million people are newly infected with HIV each year. Yet Gilead’s plan to expand lenacapavir access outside the U.S. is limited — and leaves out many middle-income countries.

• Gilead has partnered with six generic manufacturers to provide low-cost versions to 120 low-income countries, mostly in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.
• Until those generics are available, Gilead will donate enough doses for 2 million people at no profit.

But that’s not enough, says Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS.

“If it’s unaffordable,” she said, “it will change nothing.”

Countries in Latin America and elsewhere that don’t qualify as “low-income” could be stuck in limbo — unable to afford the brand-name version and ineligible for the generics.

Dr. Gordon Crofoot, a Houston physician who helped lead the U.S. trial, summed it up:

“Everyone in every country who’s at risk of HIV needs access to PrEP. We need easier access to PrEP that’s highly effective — like this is.”

The Bottom Line

Lenacapavir has the potential to become the most effective tool yet in the global fight to end HIV — offering protection that’s powerful, discreet, and refreshingly low-maintenance. But its success won’t just depend on science. It depends on the systems in place — or falling apart — to deliver it.

If access barriers aren’t addressed, this twice-a-year shot may join a long list of HIV breakthroughs that could save lives… if only people could get them.

Source: AP News – The world’s only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV could stop transmission — if people can get it

The post The New HIV Shot That Could Stop Transmission — If People Can Get It appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Lung cancer is often linked in our minds with smoking — but what happens when people who have never smoked start getting diagnosed more and more? The surprising rise of lung cancer among non-smokers is turning heads in the medical world, challenging old assumptions and raising important questions about causes, risks, and treatment.

Martha’s Story: A Wake-Up Call

Take Martha’s experience. At 59, she never considered herself a smoker — sure, she’d occasionally lit a cigarette at parties, but nothing regular. So when her cough changed and her mucus thickened, she thought it was just a flare-up from a rare lung disorder she already had. Doctors initially agreed it was nothing to worry about.

But after an X-ray revealed a shadow on her lung, things quickly escalated. A CT scan and bronchoscopy confirmed a tumour. Four months after she first mentioned symptoms, Martha was diagnosed with Stage IIIA lung cancer. The tumour had invaded nearby lymph nodes but hadn’t spread further.

“It was a total shock,” Martha says. And her story isn’t unique.

Lung Cancer Beyond Smoking: A Growing Global Concern

Lung cancer remains the world’s most common cancer and the deadliest, with around 2.5 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths in 2022 alone. While smoking still accounts for the majority of cases, smoking rates have dropped in many parts of the world over the last decades. At the same time, lung cancer diagnoses among people who have never smoked now make up 10 to 20% of cases — and that percentage is rising.

Dr. Andreas Wicki, an oncologist from the University Hospital Zurich, explains, “Lung cancer in never-smokers is emerging as a distinct disease, with unique molecular features that affect treatment and outcomes.” Interestingly, younger lung cancer patients—those in their 30s or 40s—are more likely to be non-smokers, and the cancer type tends to differ as well.

A Different Type of Lung Cancer

The kind of lung cancer common among smokers—squamous cell carcinoma—used to dominate until the mid-20th century. But in never-smokers, nearly all lung cancers are adenocarcinomas, which originate in mucus-producing cells.

The catch? Adenocarcinomas are often diagnosed late because small tumors don’t cause obvious symptoms. Persistent cough, chest pain, and breathlessness only show up once the tumour grows or spreads. “Because most people associate lung cancer with smoking, non-smokers may dismiss early warning signs, delaying diagnosis until advanced stages,” says Wicki.

Why Are Women More Affected?

Non-smoking women are more than twice as likely as men who never smoked to develop lung cancer. This may be linked to differences in lung anatomy, environmental exposures, and genetics. A key player is a mutation called EGFR, which is especially common in women and notably in Asian women.

Scientists suspect female hormones and genetic variants affecting estrogen metabolism might explain this higher incidence, though research is ongoing.

The Role of Genetics: Driver Mutations and Targeted Therapies

Cancer cells in non-smokers often carry “driver mutations” that fuel tumour growth. EGFR mutations are the best-known example. Once these mutations were identified, drug companies developed targeted therapies—EGFR inhibitors—that block the mutant protein’s activity.

“About 20 years ago, these drugs showed great promise,” Wicki says. “Many patients responded well, but resistance often developed, leading to relapse.” Newer generations of these drugs are now improving survival, with some patients living more than 10 years after diagnosis—an incredible leap from the less-than-12-month survival rates seen two decades ago.

What’s Causing Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers?

Without smoking as a cause, what else is driving lung cancer? Experts point to a mix of environmental and genetic factors:

• Radon exposure and second-hand smoke
• Indoor air pollution from cooking fumes and burning wood or coal, especially in poorly ventilated homes
• Outdoor air pollution, which is now recognized as the second leading cause of lung cancer worldwide after smoking

Air pollution—specifically tiny particles called PM2.5 found in vehicle exhaust and fossil fuel smoke—has been linked to lung cancer, particularly among those with EGFR mutations.

How Air Pollution May Trigger Lung Cancer

New research from the Francis Crick Institute in London sheds light on how air pollution might kickstart lung cancer in non-smokers carrying the EGFR mutation. Instead of directly mutating DNA like cigarette smoke, PM2.5 particles activate immune cells called macrophages. These cells release signals that “wake up” dormant mutant cells in the lungs, pushing them to grow into tumors.

This discovery opens exciting possibilities for new ways to prevent lung cancer by targeting the lung environment, not just the cancer cells themselves.

The Bigger Picture: Air Pollution’s Growing Impact

Air pollution’s connection to lung cancer isn’t new—it was mentioned as a possible cause as early as 1950. Yet for decades, anti-smoking policies dominated lung cancer prevention.

Today, 99% of the world’s population lives in areas exceeding the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines. Rising pollution in places like India and China means the lung cancer burden from environmental factors may grow.

In the US, wildfires are causing spikes in PM2.5 levels, linked to increased lung cancer cases. Experts agree that shifting away from fossil fuels is critical not only for climate change but also for lung health.

Looking Ahead: Changing Perceptions and Hope

As treatments improve, lung cancer in never-smokers is becoming more manageable, challenging the stereotype that lung cancer is a smoker’s disease or a death sentence.

Martha, now almost three years post-diagnosis, takes an EGFR inhibitor. It’s not easy—side effects like fatigue and skin issues make daily life challenging—but the drug works. “The fatalistic view of lung cancer is changing, and that’s a hopeful sign,” she says.

With ongoing research and growing awareness of environmental risks, the future may hold better prevention and longer survival for those diagnosed with this mysterious form of lung cancer.

Source: BBC – The mystery rise of lung cancer in non-smokers

The post The Rise of Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers: What You Need to Know appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.