Won't You Be My 'Breast Friend'?? A Free Monthly E-Newsletter!

Name
Email
March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

What I'm Tweeting...

Powered by Twitter Tools.

I NEED MORE FEEDBACK!

Hello World-

I have been posting comments on this site for almost a year. I have searched the internet on an ongoing basis to find quality articles on breast health, safe screening techniques and overall preventative strategies. Are these helpful? Are you being educated, informed and inspired? SHOW ME- write a comment! Good or bad, I can take it or embrace it! Are you getting my monthly breast check reminder?  Then SIGN UP! If you havent got a thermography scan yet- WHY NOT??? You can even book an appointment online! www.longevitywi.com in Wisconsin, Illinois, Arizona and Nevada.

 All other states: http://www.thermologyonline.org/Breast/breast_thermography_clinics.htm 

Tammy

Birth control & abortions increase breast cancer risk

Less than two months since the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force issued new guidelines recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.

An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]

Additionally, Dolle’s team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.

“Although the study was published nine months ago,” observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, “the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women.”

Brinton was the chief organizer of the 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link, which falsely assured women that the non-existence of the link was “well established.” [2]

Dolle’s team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk increase for women who have had abortions. They listed abortion among “known and suspected risk factors.”

Brinton and Daling had previously studied this population from the Seattle-Puget Sound area in the 1990s and reported risk increases between 20% and 50% among women with abortions. [3,4] In the 2009 study, they and their co-authors wrote that their findings concerning induced abortion, OC use and certain other risk factors, “were consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women.”

“Obviously, more women will die of breast cancer if the NCI fails in its duty to warn about the risks of OCs and abortion and if government funds are used to pay for both as a part of any healthcare bill,” said Mrs. Malec.

A brief analysis of the study (click here) , Dolle et al. 2009, was provided by Dr. Joel Brind, professor of biology and endocrinology and deputy chair for biology at Baruch College, City University of New York.

Last year, studies from Turkey and China also reported statistically significant risk increases for women who had abortions. [5,6]

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women’s organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Is chemo necessary after diagnosis? Test now available!

This test shows almost 1/3 of breast cancer patients didn’t need chemotherapy. Although this test is expensive, the cost completely outweighs the cost of chemotherapy- at an average of $10,000 PER CHEMO TREATMENT! This article was taken from medical news today.

A 21-gene test that predicts whether early stage breast cancer patients will benefit from chemotherapy is having a big impact on treatment decisions by patients and doctors alike.

The test caused doctors to change their treatment recommendations in 31.5 percent of cases, while 27 percent of patients changed their treatment decisions. In most such cases, the change by both doctors and patients was to avoid chemotherapy.

The multigene test, Oncotype DX®, is made by Genomic Health Inc. The test examines 21 genes from a tumor sample to determine how active they are. A test score between 0 and 100 predicts how likely the cancer is to recur. For women with low scores, chemotherapy is not recommended.

More than 120,000 breast cancer patients have undergone the test since it became commercially available in 2004. The test is intended for patients who have a type of breast cancer, called estrogen receptor-positive, that has not spread to the lymph nodes. About 100,000 such cases are diagnosed each year.

Doctors said the test increased their confidence in their treatment recommendations in 76 percent of cases. And in 97 percent of cases, doctors said they would order the test again.

After receiving test results, patients reported they were significantly less conflicted about their decision and felt significantly less anxiety about their situation.

The test costs $3,910, and generally is covered by insurance. Researchers said the test might lower overall costs by avoiding the expense of chemotherapy in some patients.

Source: Loyola University Health System
Full Article: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175635.php

GOOD NEWS ABOUT POMEGRANITES!

From Medical News today

US researchers found that pomegranates contain six natural compounds that may prevent the growth of hormone-dependent breast cancer by blocking the enzyme aromatase, which changes androgen to estrogen. However, experts caution this does not mean people should expect the same results from eating pomegranates, because this was an “in vitro” (test tube) study and results on the lab bench don’t always translate to animals and humans.

The study, which was published in the 1 January issue of Cancer Prevention Research, is the work of Dr Shiuan Chen, director of the Division of Tumor Cell Biology at the Beckman Research Institute of the City of Hope, Duarte, California and colleagues also from City of Hope and the Center for Human Nutrition at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles.

For the study, the researchers screened ten compounds in a group known as ellagitannins.

Chen and his team found that the compound with the strongest impact was urolithin B (UB), which appeared to inhibit multiple estrogen-producing mechanisms that fuel the growth of breast cancer.

They also found that UB prevented estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells from multiplying.

Chen told the press that:

“By suppressing the production of estrogen, urolithin B and other phytochemicals found in pomegranates can prevent hormone-responsive breast cancer tumors from growing.”

The other phytochemicals they found were urolithin A (UA), methylated UA, acetylated UB, methylated UB and UB sulfate: these also inhibited aromatase activity but to a lesser extent.

Other studies have found pomegranate juice is high in antioxidants and contains compounds that can control the growth of breast and prostate cancers humans, said the researchers.

Chen said the results of the study suggest that:

“Pomegranate intake may be a viable strategy for preventing breast cancer.”

Full article: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/175411.php

Healthcare Researcher Finds Success With New Anti-Cancer Drug

Here is a good article to start off the new year right!!

A study conducted at Scott and White Healthcare in Temple, Texas, found that a new drug stopped the growth of breast tumors in mice. This drug is unique in that it works both by stopping the cancer cells from growing and metastasizing to other organs, and by stimulating the immune system to destroy breast cancer cells and keeps them from coming back. This is the only drug that’s able to work in both ways, while all other treatments work in one way or another. And, this research initiative not only involves physicians and biologists working together to bring treatments from the laboratory to the bedside, but a unique third component - agriculturalists.

Researcher Alexzander Asea, Ph.D., the Effie and Wofford Cain Endowed Chair in Clinical Pathology, and division chief of investigative pathology at Scott & White Healthcare and the Texas A&M Health Science Center, said “we found that some of the mice were essentially cured.”

“All anti-cancer drugs broadly fall into two categories; either directly killing cancer cells (often healthy cells as well), or vaccines that help sick patients by boosting the immune system to better fight off cancer. This new drug works both ways, as a vaccine by taking away the cancer cell ability to grow, multiply and spread to distant organs, and by educating the immune system to recognize the breast cancer cells as ‘foreign invaders’ that need to be attacked and destroyed - and to continue that process over time,” Dr. Asea said.

Dr. Asea went on to say “breast cancer cells fly under the radar of the immune system, by turning off the machinery that normally puts recognition structures on the surface of cancer cells which the immune system uses to recognize and destroy them. To overcome this problem, this injectable drug turns on this machinery within the cancer cells allowing the immune system to recognize the cancer cells and kill them. The unique thing is that the revved-up immune cells will continue patrolling for any hidden cancer cells months and years after the last cancer cells have been killed,” Dr. Asea said.

“Collaborating with the agricultural community on this research also allows us to use a special delivery mechanism of the drug that doesn’t cause the negative side effects you see with more traditional treatments like chemotherapeutic agents,” explained Dr. Asea.

Dr. Asea said only about one year of additional work is required before Phase I clinical trials can begin in women with metastatic breast cancer at Scott & White Hospital. “However, this stage requires a significant amount of funding. We’re currently looking at various sources including federal, state and private sources to get this promising drug to the patients who need it.”

Source:
Katherine Voss
Scott & White Healthcare


Full Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/174749.php

Can Loneliness Cause Breast Cancer?

What are your thoughts? I feel surely that stress, sorrow, fear, pain loss and depression are huge factors. This article was taken from the Health Freedom Alliance blog- a great website. www.healthfreedomalliance.org

Scientists now know that loneliness causes increased breast cancer risk in rats. Whether that translates into loneliness causes breast cancer in humans is yet to be shown. It might be hard to find women willing to be locked up and isolated from the world in order to duplicate the rodent study. Researchers believe isolation causes stress which raises levels of a hormone that helps to trigger tumour growth. Rats who were kept in solitude were three times more likely than others to go on to develop the cancer. The tumours the rodents developed were also larger and more deadly. More than 45,000 women develop the devastating disease every year in Britain.

Reducing feelings of loneliness could potentially cut the numbers affected, the team behind the latest study believes.

Their findings show that levels of a stress hormone called corticosterone increased the rats who were kept in isolation.

The researchers believe that this hormone affects how cells grow, creating tumours.

The study also found that levels of the chemical stayed higher for longer in isolated rats exposed to stressful situations, such as smelling the odour of fox, than in rodents who lived together, the researchers found.

“This study offers insight into how the social world gets under the skin,” said Gretchen Hermes, from Yale University, who led the study.

Martha McClintock, from the University of Chicago and one of the co-authors of the study, added: “We need to use these findings to identify potential targets for intervention to reduce cancer and its psychological and social risk factors.

“In order to do that, we need to look at the problem from a variety of perspectives, including examining the sources of stress in neighbourhoods as well as the biological aspects of cancer development.”

However, cancer charities said that previous studies in humans did not suggest that there was a link between breast cancer and stress.

Ed Yong, from Cancer Research UK, said: “Overall, research in humans does not suggest there is a direct link between stress and breast cancer.

“But it’s possible that stressful situations could indirectly affect the risk of cancer by making people more likely to take up unhealthy behaviours that increase their risk, such as overeating, heavy drinking, or smoking.”

Meg Macarthur, from Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said: “This extremely early stage research is based on a sample of 40 rats – 20 of which were isolated to identify the impact of stress on developing breast cancer.

“This very small study suggests that stress due to isolation might increase the number of breast cancer tumours; however, these findings cannot be directly translated to humans.”

The findings were published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6751766/Loneliness-can-increase-risk-of-breast-cancer.html

More good news about mushrooms

If you like mushrooms this is your lucky day. If you like to wash them down with a little green tea you’ve hit the jack pot. Scientists found that women consuming at least a third of an ounce of fresh mushrooms every day were 64 per cent less likely to develop a breast cancer. The study, carried out in China, also showed women who combined a mushroom diet with regular consumption of green tea saw an even greater benefit. The risk among women in this group was reduced by almost 90 per cent. Scientists found that women consuming at least a third of an ounce of fresh mushrooms every day were 64 per cent less likely to develop a tumour.

Dried mushrooms had a slightly less protective effect, reducing the risk by around half.

The study, carried out in China, also showed women who combined a mushroom diet with regular consumption of green tea saw an even greater benefit.

The risk among women in this group was reduced by almost 90 per cent.

Researchers say the latest findings, published in the International Journal of Cancer, do not prove eating mushrooms will stop cancer and more studies are needed to confirm the results.

But laboratory tests on animals do show the fungi have anti-tumour properties and can stimulate the immune system’s defences.

Some evidence suggests mushrooms act in a similar way to breast cancer drugs called aromatose inhibitors, which blocks the body’s production of the hormone oestrogen, which can encourage the development of cancer.

Last month, scientists in California began a trial to see if taking mushroom extract twice a day for a month helps breast cancer survivors remain free of the disease.

Around 40,000 women a year in Britain are diagnosed with breast cancer. The disease affects one in nine women at some point in their lives and diet is thought to be a key factor.

Rates of the disease in China are four to five tines lower than in some western countries.

The new study, by a team at the University of Western Australia in Perth, looked at more than 2,000 Chinese women.

Approximately half the women had suffered breast cancer.

After taking account of other factors that could have contributed to cancer, such as being overweight, lack of exercise and smoking, scientists analysed eating habits and came up with the finding on mushrooms.

A separate study of 52,700 men and women, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that a vegetarian diet may help to protect against cancer

Researchers at the University of Oxford divided people aged 20 to 89 into meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans and found a lower rate of cancer among fish-eaters and vegetarians compared with meat-eaters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5000582/Eating-mushrooms-daily-may-cut-breast-cancer-risk-by-two-thirds.html

New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50

NEW ADICE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TASK FORCE…. HEY- WHAT ABOUT RECOMMENDING THERMOGRAMS?  DUH!!! (I did notice they didn’t talk at all about over radiating- which is why I am leary of their change). They also are not recommending women do monthly self breast checks. This I am opposed to- because only a woman knows if change is happening and lumps are growing and/or shifting. WHAT DO YOU THINK???

Nov 16, 2009 (5:18p CST)
By STEPHANIE NANO and MARILYNN MARCHIONE  (Associated Press Writers)

NEW YORK -  Most women don’t need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It’s a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society’s long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn’t be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.

“The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn’t likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department.

Experts expect the task force revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.

“Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society’s deputy chief medical officer.

The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.

The new advice says:

_Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

_Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force’s previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)

_The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.

The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday’s issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

“This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over,” the society’s chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

That stance “is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them,” he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.

Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.

In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.

The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

“It’s an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened,” said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.

Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

“You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women,” Mandelblatt said.

She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.

Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.

“Screening isn’t perfect. But it’s the best thing we have. And it works,” said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization’s Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: “We think that women deserve that benefit.”

But Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center agreed with the task force’s changes.

“Overall, I think it really took courage for them to do this,” she said. “It does ask us as doctors to change what we do and how we communicate with patients. That’s no small undertaking.”

Abernethy, who is 41, said she got her first mammogram the day after her 40th birthday, even though she wasn’t convinced it was needed. Now she doesn’t plan to have another mammogram until she is 50.

Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action, said the group was “thrilled” with the revisions. The advocacy group doesn’t support screening before menopause, and will be changing its suggested interval from yearly to every two years, she said.

Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits, she said.

“Women are entitled to know what they are and to make their best decisions,” she said. “These guidelines will help that conversation.”

___

Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione reported from Milwaukee.

Cancer Care Cuts: REALLY?

I am having mixed feelings about this article… what are your thoughts? Cancer drug costs are so expensive- not to mention chemo treatments run about $10,000 each… add on radiation, hospital charges and doc’s fees: $$$$$$ Do I really think Docs are going to close up shop for    1-4%? WHAT ARE THE CHANCES?

PREVENTION, PEOPLE. It needs to be all about PREVENTION.

American Society Of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Statement On Cuts To Cancer Care In 2010 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule

02 Nov 2009 

Below is a statement for attribution to ASCO CEO Allen S. Lichter, MD:

“Today, CMS issued its physician fee schedule for 2010. The schedule included a one percent cut to oncology services in 2010, part of an overall six percent reduction in reimbursement for cancer care over the next four years. We are deeply concerned that these cuts will continue to erode access to cancer care in the United States.

“The cumulative effect of previous cuts has already caused oncologists to close practices, consolidate locations, and turn away Medicare patients. Further reductions will jeopardize access to care for more people with cancer across the country. Oncology cannot sustain additional cuts at a time when the number of people with cancer is increasing, practice expenses continue to rise, and the oncology workforce is dwindling.”

ASCO’s fee schedule fact sheet summarizes how cuts in Medicare coverage to date have already affected patient care, forcing physicians to close practices, consolidate locations, and turn away Medicare patients.

Source
American Society of Clinical Oncology


Scientists Discover Protein That Stops Cancer Spread

HOW EXCITING IS THIS NEWS? DOES IT COME IN CHERRY FLAVOR?

Scientists in the US have discovered that cancer tumors that don’t spread to other parts of the body secrete a protein called prosaposin and that metastatic tumors, which do spread, don’t secrete much of it. They suggest this discovery could lead the way to developing new treatments that stop cancers from spreading.

Read the full article: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/155283.php