Enzo Maccarinelli, the WBO world champion, will fight David Haye, the newly-crowned WBC and WBA world champion, in all-British cruiserweight contest. The face-off between the division’s top two British fighters, which will evoke memories of the clashes between Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank, will take place on March 8, with the venue yet to be decided.

Swansea’s Maccarinelli last fought on the Joe Calzaghe-Mikkel Kessler undercard at the Millennium Stadium in November, stopping Mohamed Azzaoui in the fourth round. Haye, meanwhile, picked himself up from the canvas to stop Jean-Marc Mormeck in the seventh round and claim the WBC and WBA titles in November. Both men responded to the announcement with relish.

“I’m delighted that Haye has finally put pen to paper and the fight is happening,” said Maccarinelli. “There is nothing like a big fight between the top two British fighters in the division to get the public excited. I believe that this will rival, if not better the Nigel Benn-Chris Eubank epics. We are both big punchers but I believe that I am the hardest hitter out of the two of us. Once I drop Haye he won’t be getting up.”

Haye was in similarly combative mood. “I’m glad that politics have been put to one side and that [promoter] Frank Warren and my manager Adam Booth have made the fight happen. I feel that it is my duty as world champion to fight the very best and I guarantee that I will knock out Maccarinelli to convince the few doubters that I am the best cruiserweight that Britain has ever produced.”

Both fighters can point to impressive records. Maccarinelli has stopped 21 of his 29 opponents, 16 of them inside the first three rounds, while Haye has halted 19 of his 21 opponents, claiming 14 stoppages inside the first three rounds.

“If there is one fight I would buy a ticket to watch it would be Maccarinelli-Haye,” said Warren. “I’m in the business of delivering big fights and this is certainly a real fight for the boxing fans and media and one that they have been clamouring for. It has all the ingredients for a potentially thrilling fight: two big names, both huge punchers, both have been put down but got up to win and plenty of pride at stake.”

THURSDAY, March 6 (HealthDay News) — New research shows that women who experienced a recurrence of their breast cancer had almost twice as much estrogen in their blood as women who remained cancer-free after treatment.

This indicates that circulating estrogen levels contribute to a recurrence as much as the initial malignancy does.

That information is not entirely new, said Dr. Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “That’s the reason we use drugs that help to lower estrogen levels. Estrogen causes increased cell division; we think it can perhaps start breast cancer,” she said. “But this is a good study in that it has a lot of patients and proves that they have a demonstrable increase in estrogen levels over patients who don’t have a recurrence.”

Where there’s a problem, there’s also often a solution.

“Anti-estrogen drugs can only have so much impact,” said study author Cheryl Rock, a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine. “There are two things apart from these drugs that can help to lower estrogen, or we believe it can, because it can in the general population. One is moderate to vigorous exercise, and the other is healthy weight management, achieving an ideal weight.”

The hormone estrogen is produced not only by the ovaries, but also by fat tissue.

Previous research has shown that estrogen contributes to the risk of primary breast cancer in postmenopausal women, but there has been less evidence of the role of estrogen in cancer recurrence.

“The relationship between circulating estrogen and risk for primary breast cancer is very well-established, but there were surprisingly few studies in which estrogen levels have been measured in breast cancer survivors,” Rock explained.

This study, published in the March issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, followed 153 pairs of women who had had breast cancer (one in each pair experienced a recurrence, while one did not) for more than seven years.

Two-thirds of the participants were using tamoxifen, a drug which interferes with estrogen’s activity in the body.

In the end, women with more circulating estrogen were more likely to have a recurrence.

There may be other factors at play also, Rock said. For instance, sex hormone-binding globulin basically makes estrogen available to get into tissue. “If estrogen is bound to that protein, it’s not going to float right over to the cell,” Rock said. “When people are overweight, they have higher blood levels of insulin, which suppresses synthesis of that protein, so exercise not only is related to actually helping weight management but, because it lowers insulin, it might make the hormonal situation look better.”

And don’t rule out existing anti-estrogen drugs, experts added.

“This study justifies the use of drugs that help decrease estrogen levels like tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors,” Wu said. “[In the future], we may want to titrate different levels of anti-estrogen medications. Right now, we have a standard dosage for everyone, whereas women who are heavier or other women who may have higher estrogen levels for one reason or another may need larger doses.”

More information

Visit the «www.cancer.gov» for more on breast cancer.

June 24, 2007 — Dear John: I understand that individuals can, via IRS section 165, claim tax deductions for stock fraud or theft. Are there any such exemptions applicable to those who suffer financial crimes such as blackmail and extortion? M.K.

Dear M.K.: For this question I consulted with Alan J. Straus, chairman of the New York Society of Certified Public Accountants’ IRS Committee and you will probably like his answer: kinda.

“Any loss resulting from a crime is a ‘casualty loss’ that is deductible,” says Straus. “There are special rules for deducting business losses vs. personal casualty losses but, in general, a casualty loss as a result of a crime from fraud is a deduction.”

So, technically, it would seem that you might be able to deduct losses from blackmail and extortion. But proving both are a little difficult, I would think, unless there’s been a trial and someone has gone to jail. Even then, I would think that your tax return would get extra special attention from the IRS.

The IRS is pretty lenient in what it considers theft, which it explains “occurs when someone steals your property.” Included in the definition are blackmail, burglary, embezzlement, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, larceny and robbery.

But I think that if you get too far down that list you have troubles that far exceed getting a mere tax deduction. Call the IRS and someone will direct you to the pertinent publication.

* * *

Dear John: I was doing my tax return early this year and noticed that I was going to owe money. Could I have donated items to charity and deducted them to reduce the amount I owed? A.M.

Dear A.M.: This question is so easy that I almost tossed it. But I’ll baby you just in case others don’t understand the rules.

Your donations to charities and other qualified organizations are only good for the calendar year in which you donate. For example, if you donated in March 2007, you have to wait until you file your 2007 tax return (in 2008) to get the deduction.

* * *

Dear John: You might want to explicitly write that the Plunge Protection Team is opposed to fast and large price drops in stocks, not slow and long-continuing drops. E.H.

Dear E.H.: The fact of the matter is that I don’t know what the Plunge Protection Team is all about because nobody in government will discuss the group’s role or release the minutes of its meetings - despite legally filed requests.

The PPT is formally known as the President’s Group on Financial Markets. And if you call the Treasury Department in Washington you’ll see that the group has an office, employees and everything like that.

And, yes, I think they only get involved if the stock market is having a dangerous drop that might damage national security. But the fact is, whenever there’s an organization inside government that is shrouded in mystery, there’s always the chance - nay, the likelihood - for abuse.

Send your questions to Dear John, The N.Y. Post, 1211 Ave. of the Americas, N.Y., N.Y., 10036, or john.crudele@nypost.com.