Breast Health Blog

YAY! YAY! YAY! I think I will have a glass right now

Article from Medical News Today: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240065.php

Regular alcohol consumption raises breast cancer risk, except for red wine, which has the opposite effect when consumed in moderation, researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles reported in the Journal of Women’s Health. The authors explained that the chemicals in the seeds and skins of red grapes slightly reduce estrogen levels and raise testosterone among premenopausal females - thus reducing their breast cancer risk.

The authors stress that it is the red grape that has the beneficial compounds, and not just red wine. They suggest that women should consider red wine when choosing an alcoholic beverage to consume, rather than encouraging wine over grapes.

This study contradicts in part a widespread belief that the consumption of all types of alcoholic drinks raises a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer, because alcohol raises estrogen levels, which in turn encourages the growth of cancer cells.

However, the researchers found that premenopausal women who consumed eight ounces of red wine every evening for approximately a month, had lower estrogen and higher testosterone levels. They tried out the same with another group of women, but they had to consume white wine - it did not have the same effect.

Moderate female alcohol drinkers should perhaps reassess their choices, the authors suggested.

Study co-author, Chrisandra Shufelt, MD, wrote:

“If you were to have a glass of wine with dinner, you may want to consider a glass of red. Switching may shift your risk.”

There are over 230,000 new diagnoses of breast cancer each year in the USA - it is the leading type of female cancer in the country, the authors wrote. Approximately 39,000 adult females died from breast cancer in 2011, says the American Cancer Society.

The study involved 36 premenopausal females. They were randomly selected into two groups:

• The red wine group (Cabernet Sauvignon)
• The white wine group (Chardonnay)

For one month, they drank eight ounces of their designated wine every evening. During the second month they swapped groups, i.e. the women on white wine during the first one switched to red wine during the second month. Blood was collected from each participant four times, twice each month, to check for levels of hormones.

The scientists wanted to find out the ingredients of red wine might imitate what aromatase inhibitors do. Aromatase inhibitors are drugs that inhibit aromatase, an enzyme which is involved in estrogen levels. Aromatase inhibitors are used in breast cancer therapy.

They found that red wine lowers estrogen levels, which in turn should stem cancer cell growth. They added that test tube studies had indicated the same thing.

Co-author Glenn D. Braunstein, MD, explained that even though white wine (grapes) appears to lack the protective elements found in red wine (grapes), this does not necessarily mean that white wine raises breast cancer risk.

Braunstein, said:

“There are chemicals in red grape skin and red grape seeds that are not found in white grapes that may decrease breast cancer risk.”

Braunstein added that a larger study is needed to determine how safe and effective red wine might be in reducing breast cancer risk.

EDUCATION, RISK FACTORS, DIET AND AWARENESS… NOT MAMMOGRAMS!

Article taken from Medical News Today- Aug 3rd, 2011 
Breast cancer death rates have dropped over the last few years in Europe, however, researchers from France, Norway and the UK say this is due to better treatment and health systems rather than breast cancer screening. In an article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), the authors wrote that “..breast cancer mammography screenings have not played a direct part in the reductions of breast cancer mortality in recent years.”

In most developed nations breast cancer mortality has been dropping over the last few years. The authors add that it is very hard to determine what proportion of that reduction over two decades of mammography screening is due to early detection or better management.

As far as cervical cancer is concerned, the evidence is clearer that screening programs have brought about lower death rates. From 1965 to 1980 Nordic countries implemented screening programs before their European neighbors, and experienced earlier falls in cervical cancer death rates.

In this study the researchers decided to use a similar approach. They compared breast cancer mortality trends within three pairs of countries:

• Northern Ireland vs. The Republic of Ireland
• The Netherlands vs. Belgium (and Flanders)
• Sweden vs. Norway

All the investigators had expected to see death rates dropping earlier in the countries that implemented breast cancer screening programs first. The pairs of countries had similar peoples, similar breast cancer risk factors, and pretty much the same levels of healthcare services. The only real difference was that in each pair, one country started mammography screening much later than the other.

The authors gathered data from the WHO (World Health Organization) mortality database on causes of death from 1980 to 2006. They also collected information on risk factors, death, mammography screening and cancer treatment.

Between 1989 and 2006, death rates from breast cancer fell by the following rates in the three pairs of countries:

• 29% in Northern Ireland, compared to 26% in the Republic of Ireland
• 25% in the Netherlands, compared to 20% in Belgium (25% in Flanders)
• 16% in Sweden compared to 23% in Norway

The death rates in the pairs of countries were not that different, even though mammography screenings were implemented many years apart, the authors explained. The researchers also pointed out that the greatest reductions were among females aged 40 to 49, whether or not they had screening available appeared to make no difference.

The authors concluded:

“The contrast between the time differences in implementation of mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality.

Improvements in treatment and in the efficiency of healthcare systems efficiency may be more plausible explanations. “

 What do you think? Although radiation is still a factor in this imaging, it sounds promising….

[ted id=1047]

http://www.ted.com/speakers/deborah_rhodes.html

(Video link is at top right)

THIS IS WHY THERMOGRAPHY IS NECESSARY PEOPLE!!! At the end of this article, they state a sonogram is a better and/or a conjuctive choice. First of all, you cannot get a sonogram without a mammogram- and getting the referral and/or costs coverered (from a $1,000 to $2,500 range) by insurance is a whole other factor!

This article is from Medical News Today archived Sept. 21st, 2010   

Mammography alone is not effective for breast cancer screening in women in their 40s because their breast tissue usually appears the same color as tumors in the images, according to  Stanford University published recently in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Newsday/Chicago Tribune reports. The researchers said that mammograms work best for women older than age 50 because breast tissue in postmenopausal women appears gray on mammograms, which contrasts well with white areas that could be tumors. However, younger women have denser tissue that appears white and tends to obscure tumors.

The researchers used an assessment technique called the Breast Cancer Screening Simulator to devise hypothetical screening scenarios in which they estimated the median tumor size detectable on a mammogram. They also estimated the tumor growth rate in women ages 40 through 49 and 50 through 69. They found that tumors grew faster and were more difficult to find in younger women.

Rajiv Datta, medical director of the cancer center at South Nassau Communities Hospital, said mammography of younger women produces “a whiteout effect,” which is why health care providers should never “rely on mammography alone” in assessing possible tumors in younger women. He said alternate imaging tests — such as sonograms — can assist physicians when mammograms have questionable results.

This is from the Health Freedom Alliance.

A survey of Massachusetts women has found a potential link between the use of household cleaners and air fresheners and breast cancer. The study included interviews with 787 women who had breast cancer and 721 who did not. Researchers asked all the women about pesticide use but found little association.
But when about 400 women in each group were asked about cleaning products, researchers found a potential connection.
In fact, breast-cancer risk was highest among women who reported the most use of cleaning products and air fresheners; it was double the risk for those who reported low use of the products. Most study participants were white and middle-aged and were part of the Cape Cod Breast Cancer and Environment Study, which had financial support from the state of Massachusetts.

The results are published in the journal Environmental Health.

The connection was drawn mostly between mold and mildew cleaners and air fresheners. Surface and oven cleaners were not associated with increased risk. Chemicals of concern include synthetic musks, phthalates, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, terpenes, benzene and styrene and some antimicrobial agents, said Julia Brody, the lead researcher and executive director of the Silent Spring Institute.

Studies of this nature come with an inherent weakness, called recall bias. The researchers acknowledged that women who have cancer and believe in an association with cleaners might be more likely to report high use of them.

That said, the study adds weight to previous animal research showing that the same chemicals cause mammary-gland cancer in animals and disrupt the endocrine system, contributing to tumor growth, Brody said.

Much about the causes of breast cancer remains unknown. Many patients believe in environmental links, but they are notoriously difficult to prove.

“Although there seems to be an association between cleaning products and cancer, that’s a long way from saying, ‘Cleaning products cause breast cancer,’” said Dr. Charles Shapiro, director of breast medical oncology at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center.

“I wouldn’t take too much from it,” Shapiro said, noting that the study was relatively small and that it’s impossible to draw definitive conclusions about cause and effect. He also cautioned that what is found in the laboratory in animal models doesn’t necessarily play out among humans.

“The take-home, if any, is if you’re worried about it, try to avoid those products,” he said.

Sandra Steingraber, a New York ecologist, cancer survivor and author of Living Downstream, said she’d advise everyone to stop using chemical cleaners. She uses vinegar and baking soda to clean her house.

“I just see this as such an easy problem compared to a lot of things,” said Steingraber, who is on the faculty at Ithaca College.

The new research, she said, “points to the really vexing problems of trying to make correlations between past exposures and present disease rates.”

Steingraber said: “Clearly, the conversation is shifting now. We can’t just sort of look at the murky evidence on cancer and the environment and sort of set it aside because it’s too inscrutable.”

This article taken from and medical news today and Health Freedom Alliance- SOUNDS GOOD ENOUGH TO EAT!

Breast cancer cells – even the most aggressive type – died after treatments with peach and plum extracts in lab tests at Texas AgriLife Research recently, and scientists say the results are deliciously promising. Not only did the cancerous cells keel over, but the normal cells were not harmed in the process. AgriLife Research scientists say two phenolic compounds are responsible for the cancer cell deaths in the study, which was published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. The phenols are organic compounds that occur in fruits. They are slightly acidic and may be associated with traits such as aroma, taste or color.

“It was a differential effect which is what you’re looking for because in current cancer treatment with chemotherapy, the substance kills all cells, so it is really tough on the body,” said Dr. David Byrne, AgriLife Research plant breeder who studies stone fruit. “Here, there is a five-fold difference in the toxic intensity. You can put it at a level where it will kill the cancer cells – the very aggressive ones – and not the normal ones.”

Byrne and Dr. Luis Cisneros-Zevallos originally studied the antioxidants and phytonutrients in plums and found them to match or exceed the blueberry which had been considered superior to other fruits in those categories.

“The following step was to choose some of these high antioxidant commercial varieties and study their anticancer properties,” Cisneros-Zevallos said. “And we chose breast cancer as the target because it’s one of the cancers with highest incidence among women. So it is of big concern.”

According to the National Cancer Institute, there were 192,370 new cases of breast cancer in females and 1,910 cases in males in 2009. That year, 40,170 women and 440 men died from breast cancer. The World Health Organization reports that breast cancer accounts for 16 percent of the cancer deaths of women globally. Cisneros-Zevallos, an AgriLife Research food scientist, said the team compared normal cells to two types of breast cancer, including the most aggressive type. The cells were treated with an extract from two commercial varieties, the “Rich Lady” peach and the “Black Splendor” plum.

“These extracts killed the cancer cells but not the normal cells,” Cisneros-Zevallos said.

A closer look at the extracts determined that two specific phenolic acid components – chlorogenic and neochlorogenic – were responsible for killing the cancer cells while not affecting the normal cells, Cisneros-Zevallos said.

The two compounds are very common in fruits, the researchers said, but the stone fruits such as plums and peaches have especially high levels.

“So this is very, very attractive from the point of view of being an alternative to typical chemotherapy which kills normal cells along with cancerous ones,” Byrne added.

The team said laboratory tests also confirmed that the compounds prevented cancer from growing in animals given the compounds.

Byrne plans to examine more fully the lines of the varieties that were tested to see how these compounds might be incorporated into his research of breeding plums and peaches. Cisneros-Zevallos will continue testing these extracts and compounds in different types of cancer and conduct further studies of the molecular mechanisms involved.

The work documenting the health benefits of stone fruit has been supported by the Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center at Texas A&M University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Tree Fruit Agreement.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/190800.php

If I did the math right in my head (and I generally am not a math gal) The false positives are ridiculously high.  Tell me, has anyone else done the math?

HERE’S THE ARTICLE:

Mammograms detect few breast cancers in women younger than age 40 and often lead to more tests and unwarranted anxiety because of false positives, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Reuters reports.

For the study, radiologist Bonnie Yankaskas of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and colleagues analyzed the medical records of 117,000 women ages 18 through 39 who received their first mammogram in 1995. After one year, no tumors were identified in women younger than age 25. In addition, 12.7 per 1,000 women ages 35 to 39 required additional tests after their mammograms detected a lesion, though very few had cancer, Reuters reports.

“In a theoretical population of 10,000 women aged 35 to 39 years, 1,266 women who are screened will receive further workup, with 16 cancers detected and 1,250 women receiving a false-positive result,” the study found. The study added that before a woman receives a mammogram, “[h]arms need to be considered, including radiation exposure because such exposure is more harmful in young women, the anxiety associated with false-positive findings on the initial examination, and costs associated with additional imaging.”

In an accompanying editorial, Ned Calonge of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment suggested that women younger than age 40 do not receive mammograms unless they detect a lump in their breast (Fox, Reuters, 5/3).

The age at which women should begin routine breast cancer screenings is a subject of debate among experts, the AP/Miami Herald reports (AP/Miami Herald, 5/3). In November 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued guidelines suggesting that most women should begin routine mammograms to screen for breast cancer at age 50, not age 40 as previously recommended. In setting the new guidelines, the experts weighed the benefits of early screening against the risks, including the chance that a mammogram could result in a false positive, prompting unnecessary treatments and stress (Women’s Health Policy Report, 11/17/2009).

For the full report:  http://www.nationalpartnership.org.

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

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