Discussing Breast Cancer

I just read the results of a particularly disturbing study. Here’s a quote from the news article that caught my eye:

“According to new research, eating as little as a quarter of a grapefruit a day may increase the risk [of breast cancer] by 30 per cent in older women.”

They mean post-menopausal women as far as I can tell. But whatever, sisterhood in survivorship surpasses age differentiators any day.

OKAY, I’m with you if you’re nervous, I LOVE grapefruit. Because my cancers have been estrogen receptive (ER+) I AM reasonable about eliminating soy from my diet (no snacking on edamane for me, but please, soy sauce is mandatory when I stir fry).

But grapefruit? Seriously?

Here’s the good news: I recently had a conversation with a doctor about a story I’m working on and she explained how studies have to be replicated time and time again in order to have weight within the medical community. This study most likely has more to do with the fact that a certain demographic eats more grapefruit coincidentally and that demographic is susceptible to breast cancer for other reasons!

STILL … I’m not a doctor or a medical researcher and I’m not going to have a grapefruit every day of my life now, am I?

The question is … are you?

How do you feel when you read these studies? Does this one chap your tootie as well? Or do you give it very little weight? Do tell.

Seriously … I just read that Republican presidential candidate, Tommy Thompson, announced he’d put “vast resources” towards finding a cure for breast cancer by 2015.

Thompson’s wife, mother-in-law and daughter all had breast cancer. That’s heartbreaking. “I pledge to all women here to come up with a cure to breast cancer,” said Thompson on Monday at a restaurant in Iowa. While I was prepared to get all ‘who the heck can promise that’ and be all uppity about it, I read his personal connection towards the disease and my heart went out to him. His passion for our plight is sincere, I’m sure of that, if nothing else.

Then I visited his campaign site and found two fantastic links:

His My Space page with video and Google maps. LOVE it..

His flickr account with all kinds of photos. Hysterical that this guy uses flickr.

Let’s watch this guy, and see how he does, shall we?

The National Cancer Institute decided not to proceed with research into drugs that could prevent breast cancer. The benefits of the research for women at high risk of the disease were outweighed by the potential and uncertain dangers. Too many unknowns at this point to move forward. (Read the story in the Washington Post here.)

I wasn’t at high risk before I was diagnosed (heck, I was barely at risk at all). Would I have taken a preventative drug? No way, no how. But if I were at high risk … well, I’d most likely have wanted to do everything and anything to prevent even one little cancer cell from growing in my body.

Many women at high risk of breast cancer get voluntary mastectomies … can you really blame them?

I think it was a mistake to cancel the effort. I mean, how many mistakes resulted in wondrous medicines and cures? Seriously! Can you spell PENICILLIN?

Maybe in their work to research preventative medicines they’d have come across a cure.

What are the environmental causes of breast cancer and how can we put an end to them? That is a question that should be top of mind for researchers.

Last week I interviewed a survivor for a story I’m working on (yes, I do that often) and she was talking to me about her organization (Connecticut Breast Cancer Coalition/Foundation) and the research they are working on funding related to the link between the environment and breast cancer cases.

This morning I read this cool article in the Jamaica Gleaner of all places about a study conducted by the Silent Spring Institute in the US (funded by Susan G. Koman for the Cure and assisted by additional researchers from Harvard University, Roswell Park Cancer Institute and the University of Southern California): Environmental Pollutants and Breast Cancer.

Here’s the fact that made me take pause: “The researchers identified 216 chemicals that caused breast tumours in animals. They broke down the compounds in this way: 73 are present in consumer products or as contaminants in food.”

Contaminants in food … holy crap, we’re doomed. Just when you think you’ve heard enough reasons to only consume organic foods but you’re still not changing your ways, this comes up. (Believe me, I’m a seriously slow convert myself; maybe this will be the conduit for change for me).

So I’m nervous, right, and I go on to read this on the Silent Spring Institutes’s press release on the study: “the overwhelming majority of chemicals people are exposed to have never been tested for cancer risk.”

Holy crap. Just think about it.

More research needed? Heck, yeah! Let’s save our daughters and our granddaughters from getting breast cancer when they’re … say … ten.

I just read an Associated Content article at dentalplans.com about Chemoprevention. The article is called Top Drugs to Prevent Breast Cancer. Admittedly, the writer states that no drug actually does prevent breast cancer. So why the heck did she say that in the title, you ask? Because she wanted a strong title? Because she doesn’t have a glimmer of experience on the topic but wanted to make a buck writing about it? Because she doesn’t realize that there are a ton of people out there that would have given their lives to prevent their cancer diagnosis? Who knows … but it ticks me off.

You can’t always trust Associated Content articles so be careful what you read. Associated Content states on their web page that writers are invited to “share your knowledge and earn extra cash along the way.” They are not necessarily credible news stories and their articles cannot be viewed that way.

Now, giving the writer the benefit of the doubt, and the people at dentalplans.com for that matter, the article does state the names of a some popular drugs and provide links to pages where the reader can get more information. She clarifies her title in the first sentence.

But I urge you to be wary of what you read, in case you aren’t reading information from a reliable, credible journalistic source, and read beyond the title.

You can, on the other hand, trust a reliable source like the MayoClinic for the scoop on Chemoprevention.

Be smart about what you read … and I’ll do my part to help you filter out the crap as best as I can.

A new category of drugs called luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists (say that ten times fast) are effective treatment for premenopausal women with estrogen receptive breast cancer according to a report in the UK medical journal, The Lancet.

Read the news story here; meanwhile, here’s a quote from The Lancet: “LHRH agonists provide an additional class of agents for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer.”

I’ve been saying for a while now that there were few adjuvant therapy options for premenopausal women — and that more research needed to be conducted in that area. Apparently I wasn’t the only one that felt that way. Way to go all.

As I learn more about this one, I’ll get you more information.

Many thanks to Erinn over at Parenting our Children … I appreciate the fact you forwarded me that link!

Fact: Men can get breast cancer.

Fact: Less than 1% of all breast cancers occur in men.

Fact: Women and men with advanced stage breast cancer face the same survival rates.

Fact: Men diagnosed with early stage disease are more likely to die than women with early stage disease (according to the results of a recently publicized study).

Dr. Zeina A. Nahleh, assistant professor Hematology-Oncology at the University of Cincinnati, reported that, “among men whose breast cancer had not spread to the lymph nodes, the typical survival time was 6 years, compared with nearly 15 years among women.”

Seems more research needs to go into this, but since the rate of occurence is low, there hasn’t been much activity in this area.

Meanwhile, I don’t know any male survivors but I’d love to hear from them (if they’re reading) or about them (if you know them).

Spread the word. I want to discuss male breast cancer, too.

I just read this article in the Washington Post about an Avon Walk for Breast Cancer and smiled.

Walks are analogous to breast cancer fights, aren’t they? I spoke about this once at a speech I gave for the American Cancer Society. They’re long and often arduous, the weather sometimes sucks, it gets dark before the dawn … yet somehow, God willing, you make it to the finish line.

Anyway, love this story and just wanted to share.

The American Cancer Society has started a new study (called CPS-3) to determine “lifestyle, behavioral, environmental and genetic factors that cause or prevent cancer and to ultimately eliminate cancer as a major health problem for this and future generations.”

They are hoping to enroll 500,000 individuals in this effort and track them for the next 20 years.

Their current study population is aging … they must recruit another generation of individuals to support this body of research.

According to the ACS website, these massive studies have helped to determine (and I quote these directly from this website):

* The link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer
* The significant impact of being overweight or obese on risk of cancer occurrence and death
* The impact of hormones, physical activity, diet, various medications and vitamins, and various other factors in relation to cancer risk
* The impact of air pollution on cardiopulmonary conditions motivating the Environmental Protection Agency to propose more stringent limits on particulate air pollution
* the link between aspirin use and reduced risk of colon cancer
* the link between postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy and various gynecologic cancers (such as breast and ovarian cancer)
* the link between diabetes and cancers of the pancreas and colon
* the link between physical activity and lower risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, and aggressive prostate cancer)

Where would we be today without this information??? How many cancers have been prevented because of ACS study information? How many lives have been saved?

Study participation is critical. What a great way to contribute and support people touched by cancer.

When I had my last surgery I participated in a Yale study related to post surgical deep vein thrombosis — it felt great to be able to assist researchers in a way that I could.

Registration of individuals who are between the ages of 30 - 65 who have never been diagnosed with cancer and are willing to commit to the study long term can sign up at an upcoming Relay for Life event.

Visit www.cancer.org/cps3 or call 888-604-5888 to obtain more information.

A study that was in the news last week after it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that expensive, high tech mammography machines didn’t help radiologists “find more tumors and significantly increased the number of false alarms.” I read about this study and the scrutiny these pieces of equipment are under in an article in The Washington Postthat highlights the debate about mammography screening in general. This whole issue begs the question: what is better, a false alarm from an imperfect screening measure (an area of the breast that look suspicious but in actuality, is not) or an undiagnosed cancer?

As someone who was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 35 at an early stage, I say the latter. I would rather go through a litany of tests and find out I didn’t have cancer then have cancer and not know about it.

Then Reuters releases this information today: women who experience a ‘false positive’ are more likely to do self-breast exams and more likely to return for subsequent mammograms. However, they experience higher levels of anxiety than they should have to when it comes to a routine screening procedure and that anxiety can have lasting effects. Hello? Anxiety? Imagine the anxiety of getting diagnosed with a breast cancer that had been growing in your body undetected and unbeknown to you for years and learning that had you been screened your cancer might have been detected earlier and you might have had a better chance to fight the disease and live if you had gotten regular mammograms? Is there really a comparison?

(Thanks to Soochal at Flickr for the beautiful photograph.)

I just read this great post over at Mental and Emotional Health about pharmaceutical noncompliance. Noncompliance is a huge issue in the breast cancer world — so huge I thought I’d touch upon it here.

A 2006 study at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute stated that 1 in 5 patients may not adhere to prescribed hormone therapy. Hormone therapy that is intended to prevent recurrence and keep survivors alive.

There has been tons of research into just how dangerous this is for a survivor (just read these findings from a study covered in the European Journal of Cancer).

Some noncompliance is due to forgetfulness; face it, we’re all quite busy. My OB/GYN has been telling me for the last twenty years to take a daily multivitamin and do I always remember? Hardly. Thank God I’m better at giving my kids their Flintstones vitamins each morning.

Some people might not understand their dosage instructions and find themselves too embarrassed to ask for clarification (especially if they’ve asked before). Please don’t feel this way … you can ask them over and over and over again if you need to. It’s their job to help you and they want to help you, too.

Cost might be an issue for some people. There are resources though, please don’t let this stop you — look to the National Cancer Institute for information on financial assistance.

There are those blasted side effects … the most likely culprit. I can’t say much about this because you do have to weigh the pros and cons. But each time I’ve done this, life with side effects wins over the alternative each time.

Finally, there’s denial … please don’t let this be your reason not to take medication. You’ve had breast cancer, it was real, and if you aren’t able to come to really recognize this … I’d love for you to get help. Your emotional health matters just as much as your physical health.

I love it when I’m in the news. It means I’m successfully raising the world’s awareness of breast cancer, focusing people on the importance of early detection, and helping women feel empowered as a result.

You’ve heard of the AP (Associated Press)? Well, my post the other day on When to Start Getting Mammograms raised the interest of the powers that be at asap, the “AP’s unique, provocative, smart and creative multimedia news service.”

Here’s the asap article that is already being picked up by other papers (like in Pennsylvania and Ohio).

LOVE it.

You might question when you should get a baseline mammogram, when you should start getting regular mammograms and how often you should get mammograms once you start. Even the guidelines can be confusing:

This is so dangerous … it makes me nervous just thinking about it!

Yes, there are risks associated with mammography primarily because it is a form of radiation, like an x-ray.

But mammography saves lives (just read this information based on an American Cancer Society study).

Fewer women die from breast cancer after mammography becomes routine.

Let me say that again … fewer women die from breast cancer after mammography becomes routine.

Cancer caught earlier responds better to treatment.

If I didn’t go for that baseline mammogram when I was 35, the cancer that was growing in my body would have gone undetected for at least five years until I went for my first mammogram when I was 40. If I didn’t go for that mammogram when I turned 40 … well, I can’t even speculate, but I’d venture to guess that I wouldn’t have had a curable disease.

Remember … I didn’t have a family history of the disease. I didn’t have a palpable lump. I had a strong sense that something was wrong with my body and I acted upon it.

There are no studies to back up that reason for getting a mammogram. Just common sense.