Last week we featured the story of Joseph Weston, an airman at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. Diagnosed in June with ALL just weeks after he began basic training, Airmen Weston is now facing an administrative discharge from the military. Administrative discharge disqualifies him from receiving a disability pension, and he will not receive the three years of chemotherapy that would be covered by the Veteran's Administration if his ALL had not been labelled as a pre-existing condition by the Air Force's medical board. Up until the 23rd of November, he was also housed in a holdover unit along with recruits who had failed drug tests.

After Weston's story was featured in a San Antonio paper, he was moved to Fisher House, a facility for airmen undergoing medical treatment. Weston was also assigned a mentor to help him get to and from appointments and treatment and to serve as a liason to Weston's family. I hope to hear in the next few months that the Air Force has decided to give Airman Weston an honorable discharge, and the medical benefits he has so far been denied.

Air Force recruit Joseph Weston was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) just a few weeks after he entered basic training. Usually, a soldier diagnosed with a life-threatening illness like ALL would be given an honorable medical discharge and would be entitled to medical and disability benefits. With such a serious illness, a soldier would be classified as 100% disabled and would be entitled to receive a monthly pension from the federal government. Joseph Weston won't receive any of these benefits, and will be denied even an honorable discharge.

Instead, the Air Force is administratively discharging Weston, claiming that his leukemia had developed before he entered boot camp. However, blood tests taken the day Weston entered training did not show that he had leukemia, and his leukemia was not diagnosed until a few weeks after he started basic training. Until Weston's case is completely resolved, he has to stay in the medical holding squadron, the same unit where recruits are placed who have failed drug tests and are being discharged. It could be as long as six months before the situation is resolved and Weston can go home.

Traditionally, leukemia patients who are in the hospital for their first round of chemotherapy are kept on a special diet, called a neutropenic diet, to prevent infection. A neutropenic diet only includes foods that have been cooked, and no raw fruits and vegetables are allowed, as they may be contaminated with bacteria that could potentially cause a serious infection for patients whose immune systems are already weak.

However, a new study suggests that a diet that includes raw fruits and vegetables may not increase the risk of major infections during initial chemotherapy treatment. The patients in this study were given antifungal and antibiotic drugs to fight infection, and one group was kept on the neutropenic diet while the other group was allowed to have some fresh fruits and vegetables. 29% of patients in the raw-diet group developed a major infection during the study, and 32% of patients on the neutropenic, or cooked, diet developed an infection. While a neutropenic diet is still the standard for leukemia patients in the hospital, perhaps this study will allow some patients to enjoy the health benefits of fresh fruit and vegetables during treatment.

A study conducted by the Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group and funded by the National Cancer Institute showed that initial chemotherapy with Cerubidine (daunorubicin) at higher doses increases survival time for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. Although the results are only a preliminary analysis, they were revealed to allow the public to benefit from the positive results of the trial.

Ask your health care team if higher-dose daunorubicin chemotherapy is an option for you or your loved one. The purpose of studies like this are to improve treatment for everyone who leukemia, and it's important to make sure that this study's positive results benefit you or your loved one who has AML.

The National Cancer Institute is funding a study testing the effectiveness of Canadian cold and flu remedy Cold-FX in boosting the immune system of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients against respiratory infections. Both the effects of CLL and the treatments for it lower the ability of CLL patients' immune systems to fight off infections, and even a minor cold could progress into a life-threatening case of pneumonia. Reducing respiratory infections could mean reduced need for hospitalizations for CLL patients, which cost $125 billion in the year 2000.

Ask your doctor about the availability of this trial in your area, and possibly avoid some infections during this cold and flu season.

Inmate Lanny Barnes had leukemia before he was sentenced to life in prison for running over a family in a McDonald's parking lot in 2006, an attack that killed two-year-old Avery King and injured four other people. Since October 2007, Barnes' care for his leukemia cost taxpayers $470,000, or just over a third of the sheriff's medical budget for that time period. Apparently, Barnes needed a bone marrow transplant before he went into custody, but prison officials have refused to say whether or not he has received a transplant.

Medical care for seriously ill prisoners presents a difficult situation for the prison system. Regulations demand that prisoners be treated humanely, which means that medical care must be given while prisoners are in custody. Does this requirement for medical care demand that life-saving treatments such as a bone marrow transplant must be given? Without aggressive treatment, Barnes' leukemia would cause his death within a few months. Does humane treatment demand that his death be prevented with all available means, no matter how expensive? What do you think Mr. Barnes' rights are? What should be done when a prisoner needs a bone marrow transplant, or an organ transplant? Should they get the same priority as patients outside the prison system? Share your thoughts about Barnes' situation in our forums.

After researchers at Washington University in St. Louis completely sequenced the genome of a woman's acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) tumor, they found eight genes that had not previously been identified as being involved in the development of AML. The genes were found by comparing the genome of the tumor cells and normal cells form the patients skin, and identifying which genes differed. Of these, researchers say that 3 of the genes are tumor suppressors, while the other genes involved have functions that could be linked to the development of leukemia and possibly other cancers.

Identifying new genes that are involved in triggering AML gives researchers a new direction for treatment research and development, testing drugs that affect the specific genes involved. These targeted therapies may work better than conventional treatments, and could prolong survival if they are found to be effective at safe doses.

In a new study published in the journal Cancer, researchers at the Mayo Clinic found that a change in treatment protocol for early stage, high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) can delay the need for conventional chemotherapy. The new protocol involves using certain biomarkers to predict the prognosis in patients newly diagnosed with CLL, then treating patients identified as being at risk for a poorer prognosis with monoclonal antibodies right away, rather than waiting for disease progression before starting treatment.

While this particular finding is still being studied, all patients at the Mayo Clinic are being given the predictive tests and the monoclonal antibodies being used in the study are already approved and available. Monoclonal antibodies that are not joined to any other substance, such as rituximab or alemtuzumab, do not have the same serious side effects that are associated with conventional chemotherapy drugs; while researchers cannot say that the new treatment protocol increases survival time or quality of life, being able to hold off on conventional chemotherapy is desirable because of the side effects involved.

Thirteen-year-old Hannah Jones of London, England was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of 5, and chemotherapy used to treat her leukemia affected Hannah's heart. After eight difficult years of treatment, Hannah now needs a heart transplant, but she has refused the procedure. Hannah says she would rather spend the remainder of her life at home with her family, rather than recovering from major surgery in the hospital. A heart transplant is a risky procedure in all cases, but even more so for people with other illnesses, like Hannah. There is a chance that the anti-rejection drugs required for the transplant would cause a relapse of her leukemia.

Much like the case of an 11-year-old Canadian boy who tried to refuse further chemotherapy, the hospital from which Hannah receives care tried to remove Hannah from her parents' care after Hannah refused to go to the hospital for the transplant, with her parents' agreement. Unlike the boy from Canada, however, the hospital withdrew the complaint after a social worker from Children's Welfare interviewed Hannah and determined that she was mature enough to refuse treatment on her own behalf.

What do you think about Hannah's decision? Should the wishes of a 13-year-old be respected in this situation? How old is old enough to refuse major treatment like a heart transplant, and is it the responsibility of a parent to force these types of procedures on a child? Discuss Hannah's situation in our forum, and share your thoughts about the rights of young patients like Hannah.