|
Breast cancer – detection and treatment updates
|
New detection method being developed
Researchers at Harvard Medical School are working on a method to distinguish between malignant tumors and benign masses in breast tissue. Malignant breast tumors have a higher percent of a calcium salt called hydroxyapatite, while in benign tumors there is more calcium oxalate. The researchers are developing a contrast agent that binds just to the calcium salt in the malignant tumors and then using optical tomography they can “reconstruct a three-dimensional image of tissues deep inside the breast”. Unfortunately human trials are still a few years away but when or if it becomes available for use it will be especially helpful for women with more dense breasts whose cancer is difficult to detect with mammograms.
New recommendations for women with cancer found in one breast
A big story this week has been the new recommendation that women with a recent diagnosis of cancer in one breast should have an MRI of their other breast. In their study 3.1% of women with cancer in one breast were found to have cancer in their other breast even though a mammogram didn’t previously detect it.
Other News
Women whose breast cancer is negative for the three significant markers – 1) estrogen receptor (ER), 2) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and 3) progesterone receptor (PR) – sometimes referred to as “triple negative” cancers are more likely to be African American or Hispanic, under 40 years old, with a lower socioeconomic status. These types of tumors are more likely to be aggressive and deadly.
A study at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center shows that 44% surgeons “do not refer the majority of their breast cancer patients to a plastic surgeon prior to the initial surgery”. Older women in the UK may not be getting the best treatment for breast cancer according to a study in the British Journal of Cancer. They seem to have a lower chance of receiving primary surgery, undergoing axillary node surgery and undergoing steroid receptor tests, lowering their odds of survival.
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Stumble:
Kirtsy:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like my blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (what does this mean?)
or by email!
Thanks! I really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Estrogen-receptor-positive or estrogen-receptor-negative?
- Blood test to detect breast cancer
- Women’s Health Weekly Review – April 19-25
March 27, 2007
|
Why people don’t eat better
|
In my last post I asked:
So why don’t more people eat better? I would love to know a way to do a real survey and find out the causes – what percent of people don’t know any better, which don’t care, can’t afford to eat better, how many are too stressed and busy to take the time, etc.
Then yesterday I saw this press release from Johns Hopkins: “Johns Hopkins researchers examine why people eat the foods they do“.
Their study assessed the dietary choices of 4,356 U.S. adults from 20 to 65 years old. They found that ethnic, gender and income levels played a big role in the choices people made. I didn’t see a mention of the role of that education levels might play or how a busier, more stress filled life may influence what people eat.
The socio-economic status and income levels of those surveyed were taken into account though. I would guess that both of these tend to correlate with education levels – leading to a lot of people not eating right because they honestly don’t know any better.
It seems likely that stress and a busy lifestyle play a part also. I’m sure there are many people out there with very little time who eat fast food – because it is fast. Working long hours, running around here and there taking care of errands and doing stuff with kids makes it very difficult for many to be at home and cook regular meals.
And for myself – whenever I feel a bit stressed I tend to grab the most saltiest, fattiest*, sugary foods I can find around the house, regardless of how much good nutritious food we have.
Its not easy to eat right with when we are constantly surrounded by food that is not good for us to eat – but tastes good. Between advertising, people around us eating badly and all the junk in grocery stores sitting real close to the good stuff – its a wonder anyone eats well.
I would still love to get more data on why people eat what they do – especially the roles that knowledge of nutrition, general education levels and stress play. With more information it would be easier to identify the groups that need the most help and then find ways to make eating right easier for them.
(* “saltiest, fattiest” – are those real words? I don’t know, but I like them – them seem to make the point better.)
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Stumble:
Kirtsy:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like my blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (what does this mean?)
or by email!
Thanks! I really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Eating healthy to stay healthy
- Do we really want to be healthy?
- Kids need all the nutrition help they can get!
March 23, 2007
|
Nutrition and cancer
|
Lots of news stories this week about diet and cancer prevention as well the prevention of diabetes.
First, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, there is a paper presenting evidence that postmenopausal women who eat a diet high in plants, especially those rich in lignans have a lower chance of developing hormone receptor positive breast cancers. Lignan is a type of phytochemical found in many plant foods such as seeds, whole grains, fruits and vegetables. Specifically in this study it was found that in over 50,000 postmenopausal French women whose diet had the highest amount of lignans had a 17% lower chance of developing breast cancer.
Another paper in the same journal shows that postmenopausal women eating a high-fat diet have an increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer. Diet information was collected in over 150,000 women and it was found that those who got 40% of their calories from fat had a 15 to 32% greater chance of getting breast cancer compared to those with only 20% of their calories coming from fat.
The International Journal of Cancer reports that women in their study who got most of their fat and protein calories from animal products, rather than plants, had a greater chance of getting endometrial cancer. And in the Journal of Nutrition researchers show that people who eat a lot of fruit and little meat have a much lower chance of having polyps which could develop into colon cancer. Out of 700 something people studied those who ate lots of meat were 70 percent more likely to have had a polyp.
And far as type 2 diabetes goes, in the American Journal of Epidemiology there is a paper by Allison Hodge of the University of Melbourne, Australia showing that people who eat more salad and cooked vegetables and less meat and other fatty foods have a much lower chance of developing the disease. Other recent research (American Journal of Public Health) shows a positive correlation between diets high in soft drinks and a risk for diabetes.
All this right after a report from the CDC indicating that most Americans are not eating anywhere near enough fruits and vegetables, putting them at a much greater risk of heart disease, cancer, etc. Apparently only a third of Americans eat anywhere near the recommended amounts.
Of course, most all of this data is derived from self-reports of what people eat which is unlikely to be completely accurate. Nevertheless it seems there is more than enough data pointing in the direction that more fruit and vegetables and less fat in the diet helps people stay healthier.
So why don’t more people eat better? I would love to know a way to do a real survey and find out the causes – what percent of people don’t know any better, which don’t care, can’t afford to eat better, how many are too stressed and busy to take the time, etc. Any one know how to have a scientifically accurate survey done? I’m guessing it would be too expensive for most people, like myself, to do it though.
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Stumble:
Kirtsy:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like my blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (what does this mean?)
or by email!
Thanks! I really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
March 19, 2007
|
Recent developments in breast cancer research
|
According to research by Mary Ann Gilligan and published in the American Journal of Public Health women who have surgery for breast cancer in a hospital that has done a lot of them are 20% less likely to die from breast cancer within 5 years
Women who had radiation for breast cancer in the 1970’s and 80’s have a 35-40% greater chance of having heart disease within 20 years. Women who smoked had a even greater risk of heart attack. In addition women who had chemotherapy along with the radiation had a even higher risk of heart disease.
The FDA recently approved the use of GlaxoSmithKline’s Tykerb for women with HER-2 positive advanced breast cancer in combination with the oral chemotherapy drug, Xeloda (capecitabine) who are not responding to Herceptin anymore.
Researchers at the University of British Columbia recently announced in the Public Library of Science the discovery that a protein called podocalyxin changes the shape and adhesive quality of tumor cells. Further research may designing antibodies to block the function of the protein to help fight metastasizing cancer.
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Stumble:
Kirtsy:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like my blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (what does this mean?)
or by email!
Thanks! I really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- New breast cancer gene discovered
- New drug for HER2/neu breast cancers may be available soon!
- Breast cancer update – 7/12/07
March 14, 2007
|
More good reasons to exercise regularly
|
A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences led by Scott Small shows that exercise can lead to new brain cell growth in the hippocampus. The hippocampus is part of the limbic system of the brain and is involved in memory and spatial navigation. Previous research had shown that exercise can result in the growth of new brain cells in mice in their equivalent of the human dentate gyrus (which is part of the hippocampus). In this study 11 people had MRI’s of their brains done and then participated for 3 months in a cardiovascular exercise program. An MRI was was then performed again and it showed an increase in new cell growth in the dentate gyrus of the people’s hippocampus. The new cell growth was measured by detecting an increased blood flow in the dentate gyrus through the MRI.
A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine presented evidence that vigorous cardiovascular exercise seems to decrease the chances of developing breast cancer in some women. This study involved examining data from over 100,000 women. Those that reported that they had exercised for more than 5 hours a week had a 20% less chance of developing invasive breast cancer and a 31% lower risk of early stage breast cancer compared to women who said they only exercised less than a half an hour a day. (I guess if House saw this study he would say that women who lie have a 20% less chance of getting breast cancer )
A study in the American Journal of Epidemiology a while back suggests that women who exercise more have lower chance of getting uterine fibroids. Uterine fibroids – also known as uterine leiomyomas – are benign tumors in the uterus and can result in problems with fertility and pregnancy and well as cause bleeding and pain. Donna Day Baird and her group at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina report that of the more than 1000 women they screened for fibroids that the women who were more active were less likely to have them. More specifically they found that women who exercised for 7 or more hours a week had a 40% lower chance of having them compared to those who exercised less than 2 hours a week. Even women who exercised 4 hours a week had a somewhat lower chance of having them.
The American Heart Association also recently released new guidelines for women to help prevent cardiovascular disease. One the new recommendations is for women to exercise 60 to 90 minutes everyday.
It seems we are always hearing about how regular exercise is good for our health. I wonder how many people really do exercise on a regular basis? And why or why not? I have been for a while now, but not as much as is recommended – maybe only 3-4 hours of cardiovascular exercise a week. I’d like to increase that a bit – but how to find the time?
________________________________________
If you like this post please share or vote for it below:
Stumble:
Kirtsy:
delicious:
reddit:
Digg:
________________________________________
If you like my blog please subscribe to read updates in a
feed reader (what does this mean?)
or by email!
Thanks! I really appreciate all your support!
________________________________________
Related Posts:
- Stay fit to reduce risk of breast cancer
- New drug for HER2/neu breast cancers may be available soon!
- Breast cancer – exercise, obesity and tamoxifen
Next Page »