Débora Miranda

Débora studied Communication Sciences in her sunny home country Portugal, then moved to Germany to study journalism and worked for Deutsche Welle radio. Finally, she went to Brussels to explore the complicated structure of the European Commission, returned to Germany for some more live programmes, night shifts and challenging interviews. In the end, she went to London to report on one of the most fascinating fields of journalism: Health.

[email protected]
Follow Debora on Twitter @debmir
Find Debora's Portuguese blog here www.debdiletante.wordpress.com
Find Debora's English blog here www.mindourmind.wordpress.com

Greenhouse gas is increasingly related to cities' lifestyle.

You would be wrong if you think that it is cities in general that cause higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study has published figures of emissions for 100 cities in 33 countries and concluded that each city’s lifestyle is to blame.

Researchers say that attributing greenhouse gas emissions to particular cities is not helpful in the battle against climate change. Policymakers instead need to better understand the sources of those emissions to develop action plans to tackle the issue.

Comparing Cape Town in South Africa with London in the UK, the study ‘Whose greenhouse gas is it anyway?’ shows that UK capital city has overall lower emissions.

Similarly, the emissions per person in Denver, USA, are double those of people in New York; although the Big Apple has a greater population density it has a much lower dependence on private vehicles for commuting.

Continue reading »

The NHS Screening Programme started in 1998 (CreativeCommons)

New figures published by Cancer Research UK say that breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in the country. According to the report, one in every eight women will eventually have the disease.

The news has received attention from various media and the keyword remains the same: prevention. The NHS screening programme is estimated to save 1,000 lives each year.

But Professor Michael Baum, who set up the first breast screening centre in the UK, says that the introduction of screening actually increases the incidence of breast cancer by 50 per cent. He claims that women who are invited to get screened are unaware that the harms of breast screening are greater than the benefits.

Continue reading »

A CT scan generates a three-dimensional image of the lung, enabling the detection of small tumours (Creative Commons)

Using CT scans to screen heavy smokers or ex-smokers can reduce lung cancer deaths by 20 per cent, according to a large study from the US National Cancer Institute. At first glance, the research is good news in the fight against lung cancer. Yet the results are being overstated by companies who produce the scanners, ignoring the potential risks of widespread use of the test.

The US National Lung Screening Trial started in 2002 and involved 53,000 people aged 55 to 74 who had at least a 30 pack year history of smoking cigarettes. This means that they had either smoked three packs a day for 10 years or one pack a day for 30 years. The sample group therefore had a high risk of developing lung cancers. The research analysed the risk of dying from lung cancer when using either the new 3-D scan or the conventional chest X-rays.

The use of spiral CT scans has increased dramatically over the last two decades. A CT lung scan is different from standard X-rays. It uses thousands of two-dimensional X-ray images to generate a three-dimensional image of lung tissue. It therefore gives clinicians a multiple-image scan of the entire chest allowing them to find even the smallest tumours. However, the scans use an extremely high dose of radiation to generate the images, which actually increases the chance of getting a lung cancer.

Those who participated in the trial were screened for lung cancer using either a single frontal chest X-ray or a CT scan every year for three years. The patients were then monitored for up to five years and lung cancer death rates in both groups recorded; a 20 per cent reduction for the CT scan group.

Those undergoing too many lung cancer scans ‘could develop breast cancer’

The research is good news for the detection of lung cancer, but one should not forget the risks associated with high resolution CT scans. Professor Stephen Duffy, screening expert at Cancer Research UK, believes the results of the study are “very encouraging” but a full analysis is needed to confirm these risks.

While CT scans are painless they expose patients to radiation that can potentially cause new cancers. Ned Patz, professor of radiology at Duke University Medical Center who helped design the trial, said that a person receiving frequent CT scans in order to detect lung cancer could develop breast cancer or other lung cancers as a result of the tests.

It is also important to be aware that screenings do not diagnose cancer. They only detect potential problems that must then be analysed further by doctors in order to confirm or deny the presence of cancer, using tissue analysis. Tissue is retrieved by making an incision through the ribs to perform a lung biopsy, a serious and risky operation.

Moreover, screenings often detect suspicious lumps and bumps that turn out to be benign tumours. Increased use of CT scans would inevitably lead to invasive investigation of far more benign nodules, causing unnecessary worry and pain to many patients and carrying huge financial implications for healthcare providers.


Should everyone be screened for lung cancer?

‘No’ is the common answer among experts who reacted after the results of the study were published.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, according to the World Health Organisation. Although there are 100 million smokers and ex-smokers in the USA, many lung cancer cases are diagnosed in people who have either quit smoking or never used tobacco. This news may be reassuring for many worried ex-smokers. However, doctors believe that this information could spur more non-smokers to ask for the scans.

The fact is that researchers cannot tell whether CT screening programmes help non-smokers or people younger than 55. Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society stated that for now “no medical groups should endorse screening for lung cancer”. Dr Otis Brawley advised people to “have conversations with their doctors about whether lung cancer screening is right for them”.

He also warned that the benefits of screening in the real world may not be the same as in the study. For instance, whilst heavy smokers and ex-smokers participating in the trial lived in large cities and were treated at major cancer centres, many people are screened at community hospitals. Smaller facilities tend to have less technologically advanced follow-up procedures for suspicious results, meaning CT scans for all patients may simply be impossible.

Finally, what the study shows is only applicable to a specific group of people: heavy smokers. Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society, Dr Leonard Lichtenfeld, said that it does not give any useful information to non-smokers, ex-smokers or people who only smoke lightly – and still develop lung cancer. He stated: “If you are a younger person, who has ‘only’ smoked a pack a day for 20 years, this study tells you nothing”.

The rise of an against-lung cancer business

Since the study was published, increased marketing of CT scans has started. For example, Minnesota Lung Center, specialists in pulmonary disease diagnostics, has published advertisements for lung cancer screenings that mention the study in support of their services: “Minnesota Lung Center is now offering lung cancer screening. Please contact our centralised call centre to schedule an appointment”.

Minnesota Lung Center advert (Gary Schwitzer)

Health care journalist Gary Schwitzer has strongly criticised the advertisement, saying: “Nowhere in the ad will you read about the potential harms of such scans; the false positive rate, what happens when you get a false positive and more costs”. The advert also fails to mention that 300 heavy smokers had to be scanned in order for just one to benefit from the screening and extend their life. “But six clinics in this chain are standing by to take your money and do your scan”, Schwitzer added.

Currently, neither Medicare (a social insurance programme administered by the government of the United States), nor private insurance companies pay for lung cancer screenings with CT scans, according to the director of the US National Cancer Institute Harold Varmus. However, insurance plans generally do pay for diagnostic CT scans when patients already have other signs of lung cancer.

In the battle against breast cancer, health officials can now provide mammograms for less than US$100, enabling access to large numbers of younger and poorer women to receive screening. Harold Varmus said that the Medicare programme plans to review the study results to decide whether to cover lung screenings for high-risk patients. In the meantime, it is unclear at what age screening for lung cancer should begin, how often screening should occur or even who is at high-risk.

As companies continue to spin the results in an attempt to increase profits, the true implications of the research remain unclear. Yet all health advisors are clear on one thing: smoking is still highly linked to lung cancer. So, in order to reduce the risk of getting the disease, you may want to quit – or better still never start.

UNFCC talks in Cancun, Dec 2010 (UN Climate Talks, Creative Commons)

A media support programme has allowed 35 journalists from 29 developing countries to cover this year’s Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun. Media watchers will be interested to see if this has any noticeable effect on international coverage of the issues.

The project - Climate Change Media Partnership – aimed to give journalists a new opportunity to engage with both leading scientists and policy-makers. Governments were in the spotlight after negotiations strongly disappointed climate change campaigners at last year’s summit in Copenhagen.

Continue reading »

Have you forgotten about swine flu? Perhaps you shouldn’t. Although the World Health Organisation has said the swine flu is over, its Global Influenza Surveillance Network remains with eyes wide open. In this podcast we will hear about a new research, led by Imperial College of London, which highlights the dangers caused by the mutation of this virus. Débora Miranda spoke to the author of the study.

Prof Ten Feizi, photographed by Debora Miranda

Transcript

Swine flu, H1N1, Mexico, pandemic influenza – in 2009, these words dominated the headlines worldwide. Thousands of people have caught the virus and hundreds have died. Today the pandemic isn’t considered active and people tend to forget about it. Are you still washing your hands twenty times a day? Probably not. But maybe you should. Because a new study has shown that the virus could come back – in a more dangerous form.

According to the World Health Organisation, there was a mutation of the virus in two out of every hundred infected people. I spoke to Professor Ten Feizi, from the Imperial College, who led a study about the dangers of this mutation.

Prof. Feizi:

“As you probably know, the virus tends to mutate, it’s a very changeable virus. And it is distinctly possible that it does actually change in the infected patient. Now, when we look at these mutants from these fatal cases, this tendency to bind to the 2/3 receptors is substantially enhanced – and that means that it has a greater predilection to go to the lung.”

Débora Miranda:

“And that depends on the person?”

Prof. Feizi:

“That depends not so much on the person because these structures are very common in everybody. It depends on the cell – the 2/6, which the seasonal virus binds to, the 2/6 receptors are found in the nose, in the throat, in the upper airway.”

Débora Miranda:

“Does it have anything to do with patients at risk?”

Prof. Feizi:

“No, these are things that are present in everybody. The 2/3 receptors are known for residing very deep in the lung.”

In other words: the so-called seasonal flu virus attaches to receptors that are found in our throat and nose, whereas the swine flu virus is much more attracted to receptors in the lungs.

As if the problem wasn’t bad enough, the researchers have found that the mutation of the virus makes it attach to other receptors: the ciliated cells. These cells look like a broom: the bristles have the function of brushing up the dust and bacteria all the way up to our mouth and nose, so we can dispose of them, for example by coughing. They are like cleaners in our body. You can now predict the danger: this new variant infects the ciliated cells, the cleaners become ill and so can’t clean anything. This means that the virus hangs around, having a greater chance of going down to the lungs. Professor Teizi explains that the consequences for the lungs are not only the viral or the bacterial pneumonia caused by the H1N1 as we first knew it…

Prof. Feizi:

“…but also greater predisposition to severe infection, severe consequences, because the normal clearance activity of these cells is damaged.”

The authors of this study believe that monitoring the progress of the virus is essential and that the Surveillance of the World Health Organisation is absolutely justified.

Prof. Feizi:

“When we know what happened in Mexico, there was a very rapid spread, a lot of fatalities and indeed and in this country too as you may know there were some fatalities of particularly unexpected of young, babies, children, healthy people, apart from people who had predisposing conditions.”

Therefore, if we have a more immune population – reached through vaccination – the virus becomes less able to infect. Professor Teizi’s advice is that vulnerable individuals, such as hospital workers, the elderly, and those who are offered the vaccine should take it – even if they think that it’s all a bit of an overreaction to the pandemic.

Prof. Feizi:

“A lot of people including some scientists not in the field may be thinking that this is exaggeration. What happened 2009 did happen and I think that a lot of people realise that this virus can suddenly change, this virus can develop new properties. We have to be prepared because it is impossible to predict what this virus will do.”

Débora Miranda for Elements Science

Memberships

Member Button linking to the Association of British Science Writers (ABSW) - an association of science writers, journalists, broadcasters and science-based communications professionals - many of whom are available for freelance work