The Impact of Economic Recession on the Incidence and Treatment of Cancer

Purpose: The impact of economic recessions on the incidence and treatment of cancer is unknown. We test the hypothesis that cancer incidence and treatment rates decrease during a recession, and that this relationship is more pronounced in cancers that present with mild, more easily ignored symptoms. Methods and Materials: Data on incidence and treatment for all cancers, and breast and pancreatic cancers specifically, from 1973-2008, were collected using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER). The data was adjusted for race, income, and education. Unemployment rate was used as the measure of economic recession. Data was log-transformed, and multivariate linear mixed regression was used. Results: Adjusting for socioeconomic factors, the data revealed a significant inverse correlation between unemployment and rates of cancer incidence and treatment. Every 1% increase in unemployment was associated with a 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6-2.8%, p<0.001) reduction in cancer incidence, a 2.0% (1.2-2.8%, p=0.0157) decrease in surgery, and a 9.1% (8.2-10.0% p<0.001) decrease in radiation therapy (RT). Breast cancer incidence and treatment had a dramatic inverse relationship - 7.2% (6.3-8.1%), 6.7% (5.7-7.6%), and 19.0% (18.1-19.8%), respectively (p<0.001 for all). The decrease in incidence was only significant for in situ and localized tumors, but not in regional or distant breast cancer. Compared to breast cancer, pancreatic cancer had a weaker relationship between unemployment and incidence: 2.6% (1.8-3.3%, p=0.0005), surgery: 2.4% (2.0-2.7%, p<0.001), and RT: 1.9% (1.5-2.2% p<0.001). Conclusions: Increasing unemployment rates are associated with a decrease in the incidence and treatment of all cancers. This effect is exaggerated in breast cancer, where symptoms can more easily be ignored and where there are widely used screening tests relative to pancreatic cancer

Sterile Protection against Plasmodium knowlesi in Rhesus Monkeys from a Malaria Vaccine: Comparison of Heterologous Prime Boost Strategies

Using newer vaccine platforms which have been effective against malaria in rodent models, we tested five immunization regimens against Plasmodium knowlesi in rhesus monkeys. All vaccines included the same four P. knowlesi antigens: the pre-erythrocytic antigens CSP, SSP2, and erythrocytic antigens AMA1, MSP1. We used four vaccine platforms for prime or boost vaccinations: plasmids (DNA), alphavirus replicons (VRP), attenuated adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad), or attenuated poxvirus (Pox). These four platforms combined to produce five different prime/boost vaccine regimens: Pox alone, VRP/Pox, VRP/Ad, Ad/Pox, and DNA/Pox. Five rhesus monkeys were immunized with each regimen, and five Control monkeys received a mock vaccination. The time to complete vaccinations was 420 days. All monkeys were challenged twice with 100 P. knowlesi sporozoites given IV. The first challenge was given 12 days after the last vaccination, and the monkeys receiving the DNA/Pox vaccine were the best protected, with 3/5 monkeys sterilely protected and 1/5 monkeys that self-cured its parasitemia. There was no protection in monkeys that received Pox malaria vaccine alone without previous priming. The second sporozoite challenge was given 4 months after the first. All 4 monkeys that were protected in the first challenge developed malaria in the second challenge. DNA, VRP and Ad5 vaccines all primed monkeys for strong immune responses after the Pox boost. We discuss the high level but short duration of protection in this experiment and the possible benefits of the long interval between prime and boost

Current meter data from the slope waters off central California, 25 July 1978 - 1 June 1980 /

This report presents current speed, direction, and temperature time series data acquired from the upper 500m of water over the continental slope off central California over a two-vear period from July, 1978 to June 1980.Central California Nearshore Current Study, sponsored by the Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior.http://archive.org/details/currentmeterdata00birdN

Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects

Genetically engineered (GE) crops were first introduced commercially in the 1990s. After two decades of production, some groups and individuals remain critical of the technology based on their concerns about possible adverse effects on human health, the environment, and ethical considerations. At the same time, others are concerned that the technology is not reaching its potential to improve human health and the environment because of stringent regulations and reduced public funding to develop products offering more benefits to society. While the debate about these and other questions related to the genetic engineering techniques of the first 20 years goes on, emerging genetic-engineering technologies are adding new complexities to the conversation. Genetically Engineered Crops builds on previous related Academies reports published between 1987 and 2010 by undertaking a retrospective examination of the purported positive and adverse effects of GE crops and to anticipate what emerging genetic-engineering technologies hold for the future. This report indicates where there are uncertainties about the economic, agronomic, health, safety, or other impacts of GE crops and food, and makes recommendations to fill gaps in safety assessments, increase regulatory clarity, and improve innovations in and access to GE technology.https://scholarship.richmond.edu/bookshelf/1238/thumbnail.jp

Mean parasitemias of the 5 Control monkeys compared to the 3 monkeys from vaccine groups which contained their parasitemia below 2%.

<p>The X axis is normalized so day 1 is the first day parasites were detected in the blood for each animal. Monkeys which controlled their parasitemias had slower growth rates.</p

Daily parasitemias from individual monkeys after sporozoite challenge.

<p>Panel A, Control group: average parasitemia levels of 5 individual animals was presented as a thick grey line (Cont.) and is included in all 6 panels for comparison; B, Pox group; C, VRP/Pox group; D,VRP/Ad group; E, Ad/Pox group; F, DNA/Pox group; The dotted line in each panel shows the parasitemia level 2% at which we treated animals with anti-malaria drug. One monkey (206) in Panel E, and 3 monkeys (219, 249 and 251) in Panel F that had no detectable parasitemia are shown as horizontal lines.</p

Summary of Sterile Protection in Five Pk4 DNA/Pox Vaccine Studies.

<p>Summary of five published vaccine studies in rhesus monkeys using the Pk4 DNA/Pox vaccine and challenge with 100 Pk sporozoites IV. Trial a is the present experiment. Trial b is from Rogers (18). Trials c and e are from experiment 3 in Weiss (19), Trial d is from experiments 1 and 2 in Weiss (19). N gives the number of animals receiving the Pk4 DNA/Pox vaccine, and Sterile gives the number of animals which did not develop parasites in the blood. Longer regimens give higher proportion of sterilely protected animals.</p