Maryland fire company hosts screenings as new study shows deadlier risk of certain cancers
But a recent study from the American Cancer Society (ACS) suggests certain cancers pose an even deadlier threat for firefighters.
These researchers stress the need for things like cancer screenings to help with detecting the cancer early enough for some kind of prevention.
These screenings are taking place at the Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company this week, thanks to a federal grant.
The study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology last week, found an increased risk of mortality for most cancers in firefighters, but especially with kidney and skin cancers.
For kidney cancer, the study found firefighters had a 40% higher mortality rate than those who weren't firefighters.
For skin cancer, the mortality rate is 58% higher.
Howie Cohen, who always wanted to be a firefighter, has decades of experience under his belt.
"I mentioned it to a friend, and although I had a completely different career, I started volunteering," Cohen said.
The Pikesville Volunteer Fire Company is no stranger to a cancer diagnosis. Over the years, several members had died because of the disease.
That's why in 2018, Cohen wasn't surprised when he was diagnosed.
"I took a test here [at the firehouse]. We had one basic screening, just a blood test, and some markers came up for prostate cancer," Cohen said. "I knew it was coming. My numbers were going up."
Even though he's had surgery to remove his cancer, Cohen still looks to get screened when he can. It's why he signed up for a screening Monday at the PVFC firehouse on Sudbrook Lane.
Firefighters are 9% more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, as well as 14% more likely to die from cancer, according to research from the CDC and National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety.
The ACS stresses that screenings, like the one PVFC is hosting, are critical for prevention.
But, when cancer does surface, Cohen said, no matter what, the fire company rallies for each other.
"I had a traumatic injury last August, and from the time I was at the hospital until a month after I got home -- I almost had daily visitors from the firehouse," Cohen said. "I'd do the same thing for any other member. We had a member die of cancer three years ago now, and we were there every day."
A FEMA grant made this week's screenings at PVFC possible. The goal is to screen more than 50 active firefighters within the company.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
5 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Why urban designers should think like doctors
What if buildings and neighborhoods were planned with health and climate risks in mind, just like businesses use financial data to guide their decisions? What if public health and real estate weren't at odds, but instead coauthors of a healthier, more equitable urban future? That's the bold premise of Architectural Epidemiology, a new book that offers a radical rethinking of the relationship between place and health. Written by architect and public health expert Adele Houghton and Dr. Carlos Castillo-Salgado, an epidemiologist, the book introduces a place-based framework for aligning real estate investment with public health goals—using the tools of epidemiology to guide design decisions that affect buildings and the way they engage the surrounding city. At its core, architectural epidemiology is not a metaphor. It's a methodology. Diagnosing places like patients Just as a doctor might diagnose a patient based on symptoms and environmental exposures, Houghton and Castillo-Salgado's framework helps designers, developers, and policymakers diagnose the health of a place. The process begins by gathering publicly available health and climate data—rates of asthma, heat exposure, housing-cost burden, chronic illness, and more—and dialing into the specific needs of any real estate project boundary. These place-based insights then inform customized development strategies tailored to local needs. This isn't a one-size-fits-all checklist. It's a locally calibrated, equity-centered approach that asks: What are the most urgent public health and climate concerns in this neighborhood? And how can this project become part of the solution? Two case studies from the book, one in the South Bronx and another in East London, show how this approach plays out in the real world. Toxic infrastructure to health-first housing The South Bronx is one of New York City's most environmentally burdened neighborhoods. Residents face compounding public health concerns, including high rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and pediatric asthma—conditions tied directly to chronic exposure to air pollution, extreme heat, and poor housing conditions. Infrastructure like solid waste transfer stations, natural gas plants, and a daily flow of more than 750 diesel trucks has left a lasting environmental footprint. Three projects demonstrate how health-driven interventions play out in real life. Arbor House, a 124-unit LEED Platinum affordable housing development, took an indoor-focused strategy. With no regulatory leverage to reduce nearby traffic or emissions, the project team instead designed a protective shell: a high-performance building envelope, mechanical exhaust and ventilation systems, low-VOC materials, and a no-smoking policy. These features directly addressed local respiratory and cardiovascular risk data, providing a sanctuary of clean air in a polluted context. The Eltona, another LEED Platinum project by the same developer, built on these strategies but also benefited from its location within the Melrose Commons urban renewal zone. This area, guided by a community-authored plan, introduced pedestrian-prioritized streets and small green spaces to break up heat and pollution hot spots. This sort of coordinated planning can push health equity beyond the building envelope. The Peninsula represents an even bolder intervention: transforming a former juvenile detention center into a mixed-use anchor of community well-being. Once all phases are complete (anticipated in 2026), the project will deliver 740 units of affordable housing, a wellness center, daycare, supermarket, light industrial space, and a workforce development hub—all aligned with the long-standing Hunts Point Vision Plan. Created through a collaborative effort between local government and community groups, the plan calls for cleaner air, economic opportunity, and access to green space without displacing existing residents. This multiscalar transformation wouldn't have been possible without partnership. The development team committed to providing both affordable and middle-income housing, as well as commercial and industrial spaces aligned with local needs. The local government played a convening role, confronting outdated zoning and building codes to enable community-led regeneration. And community groups acted as watchdogs and visionaries—documenting health inequities, advocating for residents' needs, and ensuring decades of disinvestment didn't translate into displacement. From industrial blight to inclusive growth In East London's Hackney borough, Gillett Square shows how long-term, community-led urban design can build resilience without triggering displacement. Residents here also face elevated risks from exposure to traffic-related air pollution, unsafe pedestrian conditions, and mental health stressors, particularly among children and the elderly. Climate concerns such as extreme temperatures compound vulnerability, especially in a borough with high poverty rates and a large renter population. The project began in the 1980s as part of a broader, three-pronged effort to reduce crime, create economic opportunity for women- and minority-owned businesses, and preserve affordability in the face of rapidly rising property values. Organized by Hackney Co-operative Developments, a community interest company, this initiative has grown over 40 years into a model of place-based health equity. Unlike top-down redevelopment, the transformation of Gillett Square unfolded through continuous negotiation among residents, developers, and the local government. A former parking lot became the square itself. Adjacent buildings were renovated to create 30 affordable workspaces and 10 retail units prioritized for local startups and cultural groups. The existing street-facing storefronts remained intact, maintaining the character and economic rhythms of the block. During construction, current tenants were temporarily relocated—but not displaced—a rare feat in most urban redevelopment narratives. The built environment improvements weren't just aesthetic or economic. The renovated Bradbury Works building added insulation, operable windows, and improved ventilation to respond to extreme temperatures and indoor air quality concerns. It was also designed to accommodate a future rooftop solar array. Elsewhere on the square, an old factory became a jazz club. Another was converted into a mixed-use building with social housing and office space. Each adaptive reuse project layered with health-promoting elements such as natural light, passive ventilation, and energy efficiency. Importantly, these design moves responded to both immediate and long-term public health concerns identified in the architectural epidemiology framework: exposure to air pollution, heat vulnerability, mental health stressors, and pedestrian safety risks. The health situation analysis for the neighborhood emphasized the need for strategies that reduced the risk of obesity, mental health issues, and traffic-related injury, many of which were tackled by fine-grained, community-rooted design rather than by sweeping interventions. Gillett Square's evolution also depended on progressive land use policy and community engagement over time. The local government enabled critical rezonings: converting the parking lot into a plaza, allowing mixed-use development, and permitting the installation of small retail kiosks. The development team, operating as a nonprofit social enterprise, prioritized community interests. And community groups, many of which had been active in Hackney for decades, fought to ensure that the square's benefits didn't come at the expense of its existing residents. In a borough where 75% of residents are renters, and poverty rates among children and the elderly are among the highest in the U.K., the stakes of gentrification are high. Gillett Square proves that design can support resilience without fueling displacement—and that longevity, not speed, can be a hallmark of justice-oriented urban development. These case studies show that health equity can be the foundation, not a by-product, of urban development. By aligning investments with public health and climate data, Architectural Epidemiology offers a road map for building places that protect and uplift communities. This framework identifies community needs and guides community residents, developers, and designers to solutions that create value for both stakeholders and shareholders.
Medscape
5 minutes ago
- Medscape
Neoadjuvant vs Adjuvant Immunotherapy in Colon Cancer
The results of the phase III ATOMIC trial fired another volley in the ongoing debate over adjuvant vs neoadjuvant immunotherapy for patients with locally advanced colon cancer. But experts are divided about which treatment plan is the best. Adjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy has yet to square off against neoadjuvant immunotherapy in a head-to-head trial. Even if that trial doesn't happen, post hoc analyses of ATOMIC and the neoadjuvant NICHE-2 studies may clarify whether a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate and help determine which patients benefit more from one approach over the other, according to Christopher Lieu, MD, an investigator in the ATOMIC study. The ATOMIC study showed that adding adjuvant immunotherapy to standard-of-care chemotherapy following resection reduced the risk for disease recurrence or death by 50% compared with chemotherapy alone in the 355 patients with stage III colon cancer with mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), who received adjuvant atezolizumab along with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy, providing those in the pro-adjuvant camp with important data. In addition, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 86.4% with the combination compared with 76.6% with chemotherapy alone. The results of this trial were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025. 'These data established this combination as a new standard treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer and deficient mismatch repair,' said study author Frank A. Sinicrope, MD, during a press conference at the meeting. 'We regard this as a highly impactful study that will change clinical practice, and it actually represents the first immunotherapy adjuvant study in colon cancer.' In NICHE-2, patients were given neoadjuvant ipilimumab or nivolumab followed by surgical resection. At 3 years, 100% of all 111 patients treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab prior to surgery were recurrence-free, according to a presentation at last year's annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The DFS beat the prespecified success threshold of 93%. Adding Immunotherapy The standard treatment for stage III colon cancer, regardless of dMMR status, is surgical resection followed by FOLFOX chemotherapy. However, about 15% of patients with stage III colon cancer have dMMR and display resistance to chemotherapy, providing a rationale for adding immunotherapies to standard treatment. 'These tumors are unable to repair their DNA and therefore accumulate mutations that trigger an immune response that is ineffective due to immune checkpoint proteins. Therefore, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is very attractive in this setting,' Sinicrope said during the press briefing. Sinicrope is professor of medicine and oncology, and coleader of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Program at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Adjuvant Immunotherapy The ATOMIC trial is significant because it demonstrates improved DFS with the addition of immunotherapy to standard chemotherapy treatment, improving outcomes for patients with this type of locally advanced cancer over standard care. There are several rationales for adding immunotherapy following surgical resection. For example, staging relies on tumor appearance on CT scan, said Lieu, who is the codirector of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology at the University of Colorado Cancer Center in Aurora, Colorado. There are patients with dMMR or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) colon cancer that appear to have stage I or II disease on their CT scan. 'In those patients, starting with immunotherapy first may not be the best idea because after a stage I or II colon cancer is resected, they don't require any further therapy because of the low risk of recurrence,' he said. 'If you think it is an early-stage cancer based of radiographic findings, you could cut out the cancer and then only offer chemotherapy and immunotherapy if it is unexpectedly stage III. I think that there's certainly rationale for that,' he continued. Other arguments for adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors, like atezolizumab, with chemotherapy include synergy between cytotoxic and immune mechanisms and systemic insurance against micrometastatic spread. It also avoids the potential for rare immune complications from upfront immunotherapy that could delay surgery. 'I don't think that [giving all patients neoadjuvant treatment] is the answer. If you think that they have stage I or stage II colon cancer at the beginning, then you might end up hurting them with upfront immunotherapy,' said Lieu. Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy The standard treatment for stage III colon cancer, regardless of dMMR status, is surgical resection followed by chemotherapy, FOLFOX and capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) are two of the most common regimens. However, chemotherapy can be hard on patients, making neoadjuvant immunotherapy that can reduce or eliminate the need for post-surgical chemotherapy very attractive. The data from the NICHE-2 trial support the efficacy of neoadjuvant immunotherapy. 'The data strongly suggest that neoadjuvant immunotherapy is better than adjuvant immunotherapy and that chemotherapy for dMMR colorectal cancer has limited activity,' said Michael J. Overman, MD, Associate Vice President of Research for the MD Anderson Cancer Network in Houston, in an interview. 'Thus, I am a believer that neoadjuvant is the preferred approach for dMMR localized cancers.' Lieu said neoadjuvant immunotherapy might be more appropriate for more aggressive disease. 'What we discuss in our multidisciplinary clinic is that if these patients are diagnosed prior to surgery and particularly if they have aggressive features…those are some of the patients that I really would consider for neoadjuvant therapy,' he said. 'While it's high-risk disease, there could be some benefit to down-staging the patient, so that there isn't a positive margin. If there's pathologic complete response…and you don't have to give adjuvant chemotherapy, most people would consider that to be a win.' Overman noted that 'a big open area relates to whether the goal of neoadjuvant therapy should be operation or no operation. Likely both approaches can be done and that would be up to patient and physician.' However, 'with a nonoperative approach, we still have unknowns regarding disease assessment and surveillance for neoadjuvant therapy.' Patient-Specific Care In the absence of data from a head-to-head trial of the two approaches, a patient-specific approach may be the appropriate strategy, Lieu suggested. 'If I had a take home message, it's just that it's clear that these patients really require multidisciplinary discussion before an operation,' he said. Molecular testing has an important role to play as well, said Lieu. 'It speaks to the importance of doing biomarker testing for MMR, MSI, or both. Alarm bells should be ringing as soon as [either or both come] back positive; it should make everyone think for a second and make sure we have the right plan for the right patients.' Sinicrope reported several relationships, including with Eli Lilly, Guardant Health, Roche Holdings AG, Ventana Medical Systems, and Woven Health Collective. Lieu reported relationships with Amgen and Genentech.
Associated Press
7 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Will DEA Cole Dismantle Marijuana Research Blockade - MMJ Biopharma Will Be His First Test Case
Terry Cole's future as DEA Administrator depends on recognizing the difference between cartels trafficking illicit fentanyl and MMJ's BioPharma Cultivation developing FDA sanctioned cannabinoid medicines for neurological diseases. WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / August 5, 2025 / When President Donald Trump nominated Terrance C. 'Terry' Cole to lead the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), it was a clear signal: Cole's primary mission was to dismantle cartels, combat the synthetic opioid crisis, and restore enforcement-first leadership at an agency long mired in political controversy. With a 22-year career at DEA, followed by a successful stint as Virginia's Secretary of Public Safety, Cole embodies the hardened operational mindset of an agency laser-focused on disruption of illicit drug networks. But now, as DEA Administrator, Cole faces a leadership test that law enforcement experience alone cannot solve: Will he continue the agency's institutional stonewalling of legitimate cannabis pharmaceutical research, or will he embrace scientific integrity and public health necessity by facilitating companies like MMJ BioPharma Cultivation in their quest to bring FDA-approved cannabinoid medicines to patients suffering from Huntington's Disease and Multiple Sclerosis? Cole's Resume: Enforcement Rigor, but Regulatory Inertia? Terry Cole's career achievements are unquestionable. He oversaw complex anti-cartel operations in Mexico and Central America, served as DEA's liaison to the National Security Council, and, as Virginia's chief public safety official, led the state to a 44% reduction in overdose deaths in under a year. These are hard data points that speak to Cole's operational success in traditional enforcement. However, the regulatory side of DEA-particularly its Diversion Control Division-remains deeply flawed. The same bureaucratic apparatus that protected the University of Mississippi's research cannabis monopoly for 50 years has now turned to sabotaging private pharmaceutical developers through endless procedural delays. Cole's predecessors enabled this rot. The question is whether his enforcement first philosophy blinds him to the agency's scientific accountability failures. Boise's Resume: A Public Health Mission Obstructed by DEA Old Guard On the other side stands Duane Boise, President & CEO of MMJ International Holdings. A humanitarian entrepreneur with a 30 year track record in healthcare innovation, Boise has achieved milestones that any biotech CEO would envy: FDA Orphan Drug Designation, two active Investigational New Drug (IND) applications, and a DEA-approved Schedule I analytical lab registration. But despite MMJ's regulatory compliance, the DEA has refused to grant a Bulk Manufacturing Registration, effectively halting clinical trials for plant-derived cannabinoid therapies targeting neurological diseases. For over seven years, MMJ's applications have been entangled in a system designed to protect status quo interests, not scientific progress. Cole's Enforcement Mindset Needs a Public Health Reality Check Terry Cole's nomination under Trump was built on a mandate of enforcement and operational disruption. This makes him instinctively cautious-if not resistant-toward cannabis rescheduling debates and broader reform agendas. However, the MMJ BioPharma case is not about recreational legalization or policy rhetoric. It's about pharmaceutical-grade, FDA-regulated medicines for debilitating diseases. Cole's enforcement instincts must now evolve to recognize a critical distinction: The same laser-focused leadership that Cole used to dismantle cartel networks must now be directed inward-toward rooting out the institutional sabotage within the DEA's own licensing apparatus. What Cole Must Do-Now For Cole to succeed as a transformative leader rather than a caretaker of bureaucratic inertia, he must: The Legacy Crossroads Terry Cole's enforcement résumé has earned him the credibility to confront America's most dangerous narcotics traffickers. But his legacy will not be defined by how many cartel leaders he pursues; it will be judged by whether he had the vision to modernize the DEA into an agency that can differentiate between criminal enterprises and scientific innovation. If Cole ignores the compelling evidence presented by MMJ BioPharma-FDA designations, DEA lab registrations, and clinical urgency-he will perpetuate the very regulatory stagnation that has rendered the DEA's cannabis policy a global embarrassment. But if he acts decisively, Terry Cole has the chance to pivot from enforcement hawk to reformer-a leader who finally corrected the agency's war on science. The choice is his. MMJ is represented by attorney Megan Sheehan. CONTACT: Madison Hisey [email protected] 203-231-8583 SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings press release
