fordoctors

A UK company has launched a new genetic risk assessment service which they claim will allow doctors to draw up personalised breast cancer screening and prevention programmes.

The test combines information about a woman's lifestyle with a DNA test. The results are combined to calculate her overall 'absolute risk' of breast cancer, according to the company, BreastHealthUK.

The gene test is provided by Icelandic company deCODE genetics and is carried out using a sample of DNA extracted from a mouth swab.

*With more and more commercial genetic screens emerging, there's an urgent need for well-designed studies evaluating these types of tests.*

- Dr Lesley Walker, director of cancer information, Cancer Research UK

It looks at seven gene variations - or SNPs - that are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, several of which were discovered by Cancer Research UK scientists.

It combines these with results from a lifestyle risk calculation programme called the Tyrer-Cuzick model, also developed by Cancer Research UK-funded scientists.

Women are then presented with the results in consultation with an experienced breast surgeon or genetic counsellor, so thattheir genetic and lifestyle risk factors can be discussed and the implications fully explained.

The test is not available on the NHS but can be obtained privately for ?700.

Breast surgeon Professor Gordon Wishart, medical director of BreastHealth UK, commented: "Although genetic testing is still a relatively young technique, when combined with proven methods to elicit lifestyle and family history factors, it can provide breast surgeons with new insights into detection and prevention of this disease."

However, experts pointed out that there is still a long way to go before the genetics of breast cancer is fully understood, and that research is needed to prove that these commercial tests will actually reduce cancer death rates.

Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information, commented: "Assessing your risk of cancer and interpreting the results of genetic tests is a very complex matter. With more and more commercial genetic screens emerging, there's an urgent need for well-designed studies evaluating these types of tests - we need to know more about their clinical and psychological impacts, and their current scientific value."

Dr Walker continued: "We've still only got a few pieces of the genetic puzzle. Genetic testing without this missing information means we risk worrying women who may never develop the disease. The commercial market for genetic testing should be properly regulated and appropriate information on the pros and cons should be conveyed to customers.

"At this stage, Cancer Research UK would recommend that women worried about their risk of cancer visit their GP or contact Cancer Research UK's information nurses on 0808 800 4040. Women with a strong family history of breast cancer will be offered genetic testing on the NHS."

Women with a strong family history of breast cancer are already eligible for genetic testing on the NHS. According to guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), women can be referred to specialist genetics services if they have a high risk of developing breast cancer.

This risk is usually determined by looking at a number of factors, including the age at which close relatives were diagnosed with breast cancer; whether a relative had cancer in both breasts; and whether any men in the family have had breast cancer.

US scientists have discovered a previously unknown way by which a cancer-causing version of the Myc gene speeds up the progression of the disease.

A faulty version of Myc is already known to interfere with the early stages of DNA activity in the nucleus of the cell. It prevents DNA from being 'transcribed' into RNA, which is an essential first step in making proteins for cell growth and function.

However, scientists at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) have now found that the faulty Myc gene can also act directly on the final stage of protein production.

*Genes like Myc contribute to cancer in many different ways and every time we discover a new one, we give ourselves another potential avenue for beating the disease.*

- Ed Yong, health information manager, Cancer Research UK

Dr Maria Barna, a faculty fellow in the university's Biochemistry and Biophysics Department and one of the study's senior authors, explained that cancer-causing genes such as Myc regulate a number of distinct cellular processes.

"The key to our studies was the ability to generate novel genetic tools to halt Myc's action on protein production. This demonstrates how essential this process is for cancer formation," she revealed.

Co-senior author Dr Davide Ruggero, assistant professor of urology at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, commented: "Control of protein production rapidly affects cell behaviour, and in a robust manner.

"The ability of the Myc oncogene to directly alter this process may well explain the rapid progression of cancer formation."

In order to find out whether Myc-induced protein production plays a role in cancer, the researchers bred two types of mice - one of which was prone to cancer and over-expressed the Myc oncogene, whilethe other had lowered protein production.

This resulted in mice which had the destructive Myc traits as well as an enhanced ability to suppress protein production.

The researchers found that in these mice, cell growth, division and death - which is required to counter cancer - were restored to near-normal levels.

This also helped to counter Myc-induced damage to chromosome function, indicating that Myc causes changes in the genetic integrity of cells through control of protein production and that it may disrupt a number of genes.

Dr Ruggero said: "We discovered a previously unrecognised link between alterations in protein synthesis and the mechanism by which cells maintain the integrity of the genome.

"We found that when Myc is overexpressed, this leads to changes in protein levels of a key gene that is essential for normal distribution of genetic material between daughter cells during cell division."

The discovery, which appears in Nature, suggests that existing drugs which counter increased protein production could slow down tumour growth in cancers where Myc is overactive.

Ed Yong, Cancer Research UK's health information manager, said: "Genes like Myc contribute to cancer in many different ways and every time we discover a new one, we give ourselves another potential avenue for beating the disease."

Ref: Barna et al. Nature 456, 971-975 (18 December 2008)

Researchers are working to develop a saliva test for breast cancer that could vastly reduce the use of dangerous and invasive breast cancer screening techniques such as mammograms."This will be a noninvasive, quick means of detection," said lead researcher Charles Streckfus, a professor of diagnostic sciences at the Dental Branch of the University of Texas (UT) at Houston. "With it, dentists will be able to catch cancers before a woman can feel a lump."Researchers have discovered that the onset of breast cancer changes the density of different proteins excreted by the salivary glands. In the current study, published in the journal Cancer Investigation, Streckfus and other researchers from the UT-Houston Dental Branch and Medical School compared the protein levels found in the saliva of 10 women with breast cancer, 10 healthy women and 10 women with a type of tumor called fibroadenoma.Fibroadenoma is the most common kind of benign breast tumor."Saliva is a complex mixture of proteins," said researcher William Dubinsky. "We go through a process that compares different samples by chemically labeling them in such a way that we can not only identify the protein, but determine how much of it is in each sample. This allows us to compare the levels of 150-200 different proteins in cancerous versus non-cancerous specimens to identify possible markers for disease."The researchers identified 49 proteins that were present at different levels between the three groups. These proteins should hypothetically allow doctors to use such a saliva test to alert them when a woman has a tumor, and to determine whether it is cancerous or benign."This is a unique finding," Streckfus said, "as it targets both the benign and malignant tumor, which could potentially reduce the number of false positives and false negatives associated with current cancer diagnostics".Previously, the same team of researchers was able to correctly detect whether a woman had breast cancer 85 percent of the time, using only one saliva protein as a marker. With 49 different markers, Streckfus says that the accuracy of the test should be closer to 95 percent.In the current method, the saliva sample is placed onto a hand-held, gold-plated chip or lab dish, developed by UT-Austin biochemists. A laser analyzes the protein content of the sample."I see this as a future public health service by dentists," Streckfus said. "Most folks, especially women and children, visit the dental office way more often than they ever see the physician. Saliva is a non-invasive, quicker way for detection."Many obstacles remain before this test could be available, however. The first step is more studies to confirm the effectiveness of the protein markers as diagnostic tools in a larger group of patients. Streckfus and colleagues hope to launch a large, multicenter clinical trial of the test within the next two years, and to apply for FDA approval within five.The only saliva test currently approved by the FDA is one for HIV/AIDS.A saliva test for breast cancer has many advantages over current diagnostic methods such as ultrasounds, mammograms, biopsies and blood tests. It would be far less invasive and expensive than most such tests, and have a much higher accuracy rate than blood tests, which are not currently favored for breast cancer diagnosis due to their poor accuracy.The higher accuracy of a saliva test comes in part from the fact that saliva proteins are much easier to detect than the proteins in blood, Dubinsky said."In the case of breast cancer, saliva analysis has been used to monitor patient response to chemotherapy or surgical treatment of the disease," said Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser for the British Dental Association. "The mouth itself is a good indicator of an individual's overall health, and dentists already play an important role in diagnosing and detecting oral cancers."Streckfus said that a saliva test would be particularly valuable in places where mammography centers are rare, such as in many Third World countries, or in breast cancer survivors who need to be regularly monitored for potential cancer recurrence.Regular use of mammograms is not only expensive and emotionally distressing, but can also be dangerous. Because women are exposed to X-ray radiation as part of the mammogram procedure, regular mammogram use actually increases women's risk of developing various cancers. For this reason, mammograms are not normally performed for women under the age of 40, in whom the risk of breast cancer is relatively low unless symptoms are present.But Streckfus warned that a saliva test cannot utterly replace mammograms, because the saliva test is unable to determine which breast contains the tumor.Nonetheless, cancer patient advocates have greeted the new research as promising. According to Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, the saliva test will one day be "a terrific advance.""I think advances like this test portend the day when we'll be able to diagnose disease that would be invisible using today's technologies," Lichtenfeld said. "[Patients will] be able to be diagnosed and treated before they would otherwise know they have the disease."Streckfus and colleagues are also researching whether saliva tests can be used to diagnose other cancers, including of the cervix, uterus, head, neck and ovaries. Another group of researchers, at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, is also working on a saliva test for head-and-neck cancer. According to Lichtenfeld, the Johns Hopkins team is farther along than the UT-Houston team, because their test relies on genetic rather than protein markers.

Is it possible that wearing a bra can actually cause cancer? Studies show that this is a very real possibility. The reason is that regularly wearing a bra prevents lymph drainage and circulation, which can greatly increase the possibility of developing breast cancer.The lymphatic and circulatory systems are responsible for both delivering vital nutrients and clearing out toxins. When the body does not have access to nutrients or when it is under the attack of toxins, cancer may develop.A study published in the European Journal of Cancer studied factors for breast cancer such as breast size and handedness. They discovered that premenopausal women who do not wear bras are less than half as likely to get breast cancer that those who regularly wear a bra. A study conducted by researcher David Moth revealed that even the lightest bras place pressure on the lymphatic system.Other research published in Chronobiology International in 2000 discovered that regular bra wearing decreases the production of melatonin, which is a potent natural antioxidant and the hormone that regulates sleep, boosts the immune system and, incredibly fights aging. Balanced melatonin levels are essential for the body to fight many types of cancer, including breast cancer.Researchers Singer and Grismaijer observed 4,500 women and their bra wearing practices. An amazing 3 out of 4 women who wore their bras 24 hours per day developed breast cancer. Women who wore their bras more than 12 hours per day had a 1 in 7 chance of getting breast cancer. 1 out 152 women who wore their bra less than 12 hours a day got breast cancer and an incredibly low 1 out of 168 women who rarely or never wear a bra developed breast cancer.These same researchers studied the indigenous populations of New Zealand and Australia. The Maoris, who are indigenous to New Zealand, are basically fully integrated into mainstream New Zealand life and interestingly have the same chances of developing breast cancer. The aboriginals of Australia on the other hand have not integrated into regular western society and do not regularly wear bras, and have practically no breast cancer. Japanese, Fijians, and many women from other cultures were found to have a significantly higher chance of developing breast cancer when they began wearing bras.It may be interesting to note that a very small proportion of men do develop breast cancer, exactly the same amount as women who go braless!European, Journal of Cancer 1991 ;27(2): 131-5.Cancer is Not a Disease by Andreas Moritz

The era of pre-birth genetic screening of babies has commenced. Doctors at University College in London have produced what they called the "world's first breast cancer gene-free baby" by screening a baby for the BRCA1 gene, which they claim causes breast cancer. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7...)That announcement is saturated with so many medical myths, it's difficult to know where to begin. For starters, the idea that the BRCA1 gene causes cancer is pure hogwash. There's no such thing as a gene that causes cancer by itself. The truth is that environmental factors such as exposure to cancer-causing chemicals in foods, medicines, personal care products, pesticides or other industrial chemicals causes the expression of the cancer gene. Without all that toxic chemical exposure, the gene never gets expressed in the first place.And it gets even better: You can eat raw broccoli sprouts or other cruciferous vegetables and suppress the BRCA1 gene so that you never grow cancer tumors at all. Thus, the patient has complete control over the expression of their genes based on their diet and environment, and there are literally hundreds of different foods that have an anti-cancer effect: Cruciferous vegetables, onions, garlic, red wine, green tea, raw cacao, omega-3 oils, and of course a whole universe of anti-cancer herbs and superfoods.This doesn't even mention the effects of vitamin D and exercise on the BRCA1 gene, both of which also suppress cancer.But modern medicine -- which is largely based on marketing-motivated quackery -- wants women to believe they have no control over breast cancer and that it all comes down to your genes, not your choices. That's the little trap they set for women, stripping them of their power and condemning them to a lifetime of medical "treatment" that just happens to earn outrageous profits for the drug companies.
Welcome to the new era of eugenicsSo now we have a new era being unleashed where babies born with the BRCA1 gene are going to be considered "defective" while babies born without the gene will be considered "superior."This is leading us into a dangerous new mindset where babies will be condemned as second-class citizens from the moment they're born simply because they carry a gene that the corrupt medical system mistakenly believes is a causative factor for some disease.The relevant movie to watch here is GATTACA (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/), a film that depicts a future society where your genes determine every opportunity you have in life: Your job, you income, your social standing and much more.GATTACA is a smart movie that sends a highly relevant warning message: If we begin to profile babies for their genes, then we are heading down a slippery slope of defunct medical ethics that could ultimately lead to a new division between the "genetic upper class" and the "genetic lower class."The next class war could very well be based on genetics, and parents will fret over the genetic makeup of their children, choosing to abort babies that don't have the "right" genes, even if those babies are perfectly healthy. And then we'll have medical companies offering to manipulate the genes of the fertilized egg, promising to give parents a baby with blond hair, or a high IQ, or a thin physique...It's just what we need, huh? A whole society of genetically-selected supermodels running around society, thinking they're superior because they've been genetically designed by scientists who think they're God.These gene-pushing doctors mistakenly think they can determine the future of a human being by manipulating the genes of the fetus. It's no surprise, after all: Most conventionally-trained physicians believe in outright determinism, thinking that there is no such thing as a soul, or free will, or a spiritual reality of any kind. You're born with genes, you "play out" your predetermined fate recorded in those genes, and then you die and that's the end of everything. It's a deeply pessimistic, deterministic point of view, and yet it's the view that's held by the vast majority of western doctors.The real truth is that while genes certainly have potential influence over a person's health, it is the environment (foods, health habits, exercise, exposure to chemicals, etc.) that is the far more important factor in determining what happens to an individual's health. I can take a room full of a thousand BRCA1 gene carriers and show every one of them how to live a life 100% free of breast cancer through simple, safe and low-cost methods that are available to everyone.Modern medicine refuses to do that. Because despite all the grand technology, the manipulation of human life and the arrogant playing God that takes place daily in the minds of western doctors, there's one thing they still haven't figured out how to do: Tell the truth to a patient about how they can prevent cancer, regardless of their genes.Modern medicine is a huge technical success and a complete humanistic failure. It offers the most impressive technology in the world and puts it into the hands of the most ethically-deficient professionals who are so pessimistic about the nature of reality that they don't even believe in the existence of their own souls.And do you really want scientists who don't even believe in the existence of the human soul to be playing God with your baby's genes?Disturbing.It should also be noted, by the way, that this whole process of "gene screening babies" involves testing the embryo at the eight-cell stage (when conception has already taken place and the baby is beginning to grow), and then throwing away any embryos that don't fit the desire genetic profile.In effect, the gene screening of babies involves the systematic destruction of viable human embryos that could grow into full-fledged babies. This opens up a whole new debate on the issue of abortion, of course, and I'd like to hear your comments on all this. Simply post your thoughts in the comment section below.The key issues are: At what point is the genetic screening of a baby going too far? Most people might agree, for example, that screening for major birth defects is acceptable, but is it acceptable to screen for things like blue eyes and then toss out the embryos that don't carry that gene?What will happen in the future of society if the gene screening of embryos becomes socially acceptable and is embraced by parents?What are the risks posed by a race of beings that engages in routine genetic selection? (For example, might be lose biodiversity? Might the BRCA1 gene have another positive purpose that doctors haven't identified yet?)Should humans be genetically engineered to insert new traits? Larger brains? Stronger muscles? Bigger boobs? (Parents could actually order up a boob job on their daughter before she's born!)Think carefully about this one. It's a hugely complex sociomedicalethical issue

Recent research published in the journal Breast Cancer Research has found that vigorous activities, which include chores such as digging in the garden and heavy housework, lower the risk of women getting breast cancer. This protective effect, however, only applied to women who were in the normal weight range.About Breast CancerIn 2004, over 185,000 women and more than 1,800 men in the United States alone were diagnosed with breast cancer, while almost 41,000 women and 362 men succumbed to the disease.In that year, breast cancer was the number two cancer killer of American women, ranked only after non-melanoma skin cancer, while also being their number five killer overall. In addition, for Hispanic women, breast cancer was the number one cancer killer.In Canada, the picture isn't much better either. Among Canadian women, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer. The Canadian Cancer Society has estimated that some 22,400 women will be diagnosed with it this year, while about 5,300 will succumb to the disease.Details of StudyExercise has already been heavily linked with the prevention of many chronic diseases. Also, previously, other studies had suggested that women who went through more physical activity had lower risks of getting breast cancer. But this time, the researchers dug deeper.In this study, conducted by the National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health, more than 32,000 women from across the United States were tracked for a period of 11 years. The average age of the subjects was 61, and all of them were free from chronic diseases at the start of the study. The participants were made to fill out a detailed questionnaire regarding their physical activity.The survey asked the participants to estimate the typical number of hours which they spent each day carrying out various physical activities. These included moderate activities such as bowling, gardening, hiking, jogging lightly, mowing the lawn, vacuuming the floor and walking.They also included vigorous activities such as aerobics, chopping wood, competitive tennis, cycling on hills, digging in the garden, fast dancing, heavy housework, heavy yard work, jogging quickly, running, scrubbing the floors and washing the windows.Findings of StudyOverall, the participants of the study spent an average of 5.9 hours each day taking part in non-vigorous activities, and an average of 1.2 hours doing vigorous activities. By the end of 11 years, 1,506 of the women had been diagnosed with breast cancer.The study found that the women who were the most active had a 13% lower risk of getting post-menopausal breast cancer, when compared with their least active counterparts.A significant finding is that this difference was a lot more pronounced in women in the normal weight range (body mass index below 25). For this group, the difference in risk between the most active and least active women was 30%.On the other hand, for women who were overweight or obese, there was no difference in risk between the most active and least active women."The association with physical activity was essentially limited to the leaner women," said Dr Michael Leitzmann, leader of the study.The ImplicationsOne limitation of the study was that it only measured the level of physical activity once, which would not have given a very accurate reflection of the women's level of physical activity over the whole period of the study. Even then, the study team still felt that physical activity in mid to late adulthood had an important influence on the risk of breast cancer.And, from the findings of the study, we can probably draw two conclusions. Firstly, even for women who are in the normal weight range, a sedentary lifestyle is still a risk factor for breast cancer. Further, for overweight women, being physically more active did not seem to help.The bottomline? If you are serious about averting breast cancer, you may want to watch your weight, and make sure you are getting enough vigorous exercise.Main SourceIntense activity curbs breast cancer risk (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald...)

A study on almost 24,000 Japanese women recently published in the British Journal of Cancer has found that lack of sleep can greatly increase the risk of breast cancer, with women who slept 6 hours or less every night having a significantly higher risk.Breast Cancer StatisticsBreast cancer is the most common cancer to hit women worldwide. In Japan, when age-standardized to the world population, the incidence rate was 28.3 per 100,000 in 1991, and rose to 39.5 in 2001.In the United States in 2004, the disease hit more than 185,000 women and over 1,800 men, with almost 41,000 women and 362 men dying from it that year. In that year, after non-melanoma skin cancer, breast cancer was the next highest cancer killer of American women. It was also their fifth highest killer overall.Next up, over to Canada, where, among the women, breast cancer is the most common type of cancer to strike. According to Canadian Cancer Society estimates, about 22,400 women will be diagnosed with the disease this year, with about 5,300 dying from it.With such grim statistics, every little thing which can be done to prevent and combat the disease becomes all the more critical.Details of StudyThe Ohsaki National Health Insurance (NHI) Cohort Study started in 1994 and involved 28,515 women in northeastern Japan. The questionnaire used included information on sleep duration and other lifestyle habits.Participants who had withdrawn from the NHI study before follow-up, had a history of cancer, did not provide information on their sleep duration, and who reported having slept for less than 4 hours or more than 12 hours every night were omitted. This left the data for 23,995 women to be analyzed. An 8-year period, from 1995 to 2003, was used, during which 143 women were hit with breast cancer.Findings of StudyThe women who slept 7 hours each night was used as the reference group. It was then found that women who slept 6 hours or less each night had a 62% higher risk of getting breast cancer. On the other hand, those who slept 9 hours or more every night had a 28% lower risk of getting the disease.It would follow, then, that those who slept 6 hours or less every night had 2.25 times the risk of getting breast cancer when compared to those who slept 9 hours or more each night.The results remained largely consistent even when participants who were diagnosed with breast cancer within 3 years from the start of the study were excluded, or when the data was analyzed by age and menopausal status.Previous StudiesThe findings of this study validates the findings of two previous prospective cohort studies relating breast cancer and sleep duration (Verkasalo et al, 2005, Wu et al, 2008). Those two studies had also shown a significant decrease in breast cancer risk for those who slept the longest.It must be noted, though, that another such study (Pinheiro et al, 2006) did not find any such association. The study team pointed out, however, that that study had looked at residential nurses, who underwent rotating-shift work and had varying sleep timings. The findings of that study thus might not be applicable to the general population.Strengths and Limitations of StudyAccording to the study team, their research had a couple of strong points. Firstly, it used study subjects from the general population, thus allowing for overall generalization of its findings. In addition, it used the Miyagi Prefectural Cancer Registry, which the study team said is “one of the earliest and most accurate population-based cancer registries in Japan”.There were also, however, several limitations. Firstly, self-reported sleep data was used, and assessment was also only carried out once. In addition, and probably very significantly, no information on sleep quality, sleep timing, use of sleep medication, or presence of sleep disorders were available. These factors, of course, are very important as they can directly or indirectly affect cancer risk.Further, the researchers added that they had no information with regard to rotating-shift work or night work, but they felt that would not have affected their findings greatly as more than half of the study subjects were housewives, farmers or retired.The Sleep Duration – Breast Cancer LinkWhy is breast cancer risk linked to sleep duration? The answer could lie in melatonin, which is secreted during night sleep. When a person sleeps fewer hours, less melatonin is secreted, and lower levels of the chemical had previously been associated with increased breast cancer risk.In addition, melatonin may possess an inhibitory effect on gonadal function, which includes synthetizing and secreting sex hormones. It had also been found to have an antiproliferative effect on breast cancer cells.The Bottom LineIf the findings from this study are indeed accurate, then there is an immense difference in breast cancer risk between sleeping 4 to 6 hours every night, and just sleeping 1 to 3 hours more each night. In fact, it is more than likely that the protective effects of sufficient sleep also extend to other forms of cancer. 7 hours of sleep a night may thus be a good number to aim for.Hopefully, in time to come, further research will reveal more information relating sleep and disease risk, with sleep quality and sleep timing being two of the main possibilities.Main SourceSleep duration and the risk of breast cancer: the Ohsaki Cohort Study (http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v99/n...)

Back in 1973 the evidence about the dangers of talc prompted the FDA to think about steps to reduce the level of the asbestos-like fibers in cosmetic talc. The dangers are that talc is related to asbestos – a known carcinogen – and that the presence of talc particles is linked to tumors. However, the FDA did not regulate cosmetic talc even after 1993 when the National Toxicology Program reported that cosmetic talc, which had no fibers, was the cause of tumors in animals.Talc is a soft green-gray colored mineral produced from rocks and processed into a powder. Pure talc mineral is a hydrous magnesium silicate. Some trace minerals are removed in processing but very small fibers remain which are similar to those that occur in asbestos.Most talc is formed from altered dolomite or magnesite when there is excess dissolved silica. A number of minerals associated with talc include: tremolite, serpentine, anthophyllite, magnesite, mica and chlorite. Note that there are six minerals are defined as asbestos and two of these are also talc – tremolite and anthophyllite.Commercial talc may contain impurities and contaminates such as asbestos and crystalline silica. In fact asbestos may occur in talc.Talc is used in diverse industries and for a wide variety of purposes. It is commonly used in cosmetics and body powders, including those for babies. It has hydrophobic surface properties helping to keep skin dry.In the paper industry, talc is used as a filler which enhances the quality of the paper for printing and appearance of opacity. It is used in ceramic tiles, and in paints and coatings. Did you know that the dust on some chewing gums contains talc? Talc is also used in in flea and tick powder, deodorants, chalk and crayons, textiles and soap.Now we have another study (published in the Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention journal) that shows that women who use talcum powder around their genital areas are 40% more likely to develop ovarian cancer. The study led by Dr Maggie Gates of Harvard Medical School analyzed 3,000 women. The risk of ovarian cancer for those who used talcum powder once a week was found to be 36%, while those using it every day the risk went up to 41%.In a recent separate incident a group of doctors at the Harvard Medical School found talc particles in the pelvis of a woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She had used talcum powder every day for around 30 years.In 1982 in Cancer magazine the conclusions from a study recommend that the lifetime use of talcum powder increases the risk of ovarian cancer by more than three times. Consequently, various cancer organizations warn against the use of talcum powder. For many people this warning is a bit late.Talc also causes poisoning due to accidental exposure. The website preventcancer.com (see link below) state that from the early 1980’s accidental inhalation of talc (baby powder) has caused the death or serious illness of several thousands infants.Talc is used in some medications such as some antiacids and in some antiseptics. So the question is is talc dangerous when used as medications? Actually there are so many questions we need to ask. What guidelines should be available and what regulations exist that protect people? Why do so many children suffer needlessly because of lack of care demonstrated by authorities? Why weren’t women protected against the use of talcum powder 30 years ago?Over and over again when there is a choice about caring for our fellow human beings and about earning profits, selfishness wins. And the authorities lack the care and the compassion required to serve us well.Reference: www.preventcancer.com/consumers/cosmeti...

According to a combined analysis of previous studies, adjuvant (post-surgery) treatment with an aromatase inhibitor results in fewer recurrences than treatment with tamoxifen (Nolvadex®) among postmenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. These results were presented at the 2008 annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).
Each year more than 180,000 U.S. women are diagnosed with breast cancer. Many of these breast cancers will be hormone receptor-positive, meaning that they are stimulated to grow by the circulating female hormones estrogen and/or progesterone.
Treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer often involves hormonal therapies that suppress or block the action of estrogen. These therapies include tamoxifen as well as agents known as aromatase inhibitors. Tamoxifen acts by blocking estrogen receptors, whereas aromatase inhibitors suppress the production of estrogen in postmenopausal women.
Several large trials comparing aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen have established the efficacy and safety of aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancers among postmenopausal women. Follow-up of these trials continues.
To further explore the effects of aromatase inhibitors, researchers affiliated with the Aromatase Inhibitors Overview Group conducted a combined analysis of previous studies, including the following six randomized trials:
Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC)
Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98/International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) 18-98
Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG)
German Austrian Breast Cancer Group (GABG)/Arimidex-Nolvadex (ARNO)
Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)/BIG 2-97
Italian Tamoxifen Anastrozole (ITA)
Some of these studies compared five years of treatment with an aromatase inhibitor to five years of treatment with tamoxifen, and others evaluated the effect of switching to an aromatase inhibitor after two to three years of tamoxifen.
The aromatase inhibitors that were evaluated were Femara® (letrozole), Arimidex® (anastrozole), and Aromasin® (exemestane).
In the studies that compared five years of tamoxifen to five years of an aromatase inhibitor, the following results were reported:
Over the course of five years, 9.6% of women treated with an aromatase inhibitor experienced a cancer recurrence compared with 12.6% of women treated with tamoxifen.
There was no statistically significant difference in survival between the two groups.
In the studies that evaluated a switch from tamoxifen to an aromatase inhibitor, the following results were reported:
Over the course of six years, 12.6% of women who switched to an aromatase inhibitor experienced a cancer recurrence compared with 16.1% of women who remained on tamoxifen.
Women who switched to an aromatase inhibitor also had modestly improved survival compared with women who remained on tamoxifen.
The researchers concluded that these results provide clear evidence that aromatase inhibitors significantly reduce recurrences in early, hormone receptor-positive, postmenopausal breast cancer. There was also some evidence that switching to an aromatase inhibitor after two to three years of tamoxifen improved survival compared with continued treatment with tamoxifen. The duration of follow-up in these studies is still somewhat short, however; longer follow-up may provide additional information about effects on survival.
Reference: Ingle J, et al. Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer: meta-analysis of randomized trials of monotherapy and switching strategies. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. December 10-14, 2008. Abstract 12.

New research moves us one step closer to personalised breast cancer treatment


The research shows that women who have a duplication of chromosome 17 in their tumour will benefit from anthracycline drugs, while others can be spared the side-effects of the treatment. This group of chemotherapy drugs includes epirubicin which has already been shown to improve women's survival by a third.
This research is important as both the chemotherapy drugs and the test are already available, so a change in clinical practice could happen in the very near future.
The results of the British study are being presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium today.Professor John Bartlett, a Cancer Research UK funded scientist from the University of Edinburgh, said: "We were looking for markers to help decide when to give women this type of chemotherapy using a test that is already part of patients' treatment.
"From previous trials we know that women who are treated with these drugs do better and are less likely to relapse. But, unless we know the drugs will be of benefit, we don’t want to give them to everyone because of the unpleasant side effects."
The researchers took small sections of tumours from over 2,500 women who had taken part in one of a number of studies, including the UK NEAT (National Epriubicin Adjuvant Trial)*. They tested the tumours to identify which markers could predict whether the chemotherapy treatment would be successful.
The results of the trial provide evidence that the marker – a duplication of Chromosome 17 – could be used to predict which women will benefit from chemotherapy and could go on to be introduced as a routine test in treatment**.
Professor Bartlett said: "This study gives us a key in the door to personalised chemotherapy treatment. Until now we haven't been able to predict which women are likely to benefit from this type of chemotherapy.
"We are now close to being able to use this new marker in the clinic to select appropriate therapies in early breast cancer."
Kate Law, director of clinical trials at Cancer Research UK, said: "These results are really encouraging and have the potential to change the way we treat women with breast cancer.

New research shows just how powerful the phytochemicals in green tea are turning out to be: they are now known to prevent breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer and other forms of cancer.
In fact, if green tea were a prescription drug, it would be called a "miracle cancer cure" drug, no doubt. (And it would be sold for $200 a pill, if not more.) But it's not a drug, and it's available to you right now for mere pennies. Green tea is simply one of the most powerful medicinal herbs known. It is especially useful for preventing cancer, and the research keeps on coming.
Every person suffering from cancer (or at risk of being diagnosed with cancer) should be taking green tea nutritional supplements. It has zero negative side effects, and yet delivers powerful anti-cancer compounds

Increases Risk Regardless of BRCA Status


Women with a significant family history of breast cancer but no BRCA mutation are four times more likely to develop breast cancer than women in the general population. These results were presented at the American Association for Cancer Research’s Seventh Annual International Conference in Washington, D.C. on November 17, 2008.[1]
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States, with approximately 180,000 cases diagnosed each year. Progress in the areas of screening and treatment has allowed for earlier detection and higher cure rates. Researchers continue to study the incidence rates and patterns of this disease with the hopes of further improving screening, prevention, and treatment.
Inherited mutations in two genes—BRCA1 and BRCA2—have been found to greatly increase the lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women. Mutations in these genes can be passed down through either the mother’s or the father’s side of the family. Women with BRCA mutations have an 85% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer and typically undergo more vigilant screening, chemoprevention with tamoxifen (Nolvadex®), and sometimes even prophylactic surgery. However, many women with a family history of this disease undergo genetic testing only to find that they do not have BRCA mutations. While this may be comforting in one sense, it does pose an interesting conundrum for screening and prevention in this group because the increased level of risk is unclear.
Researchers in Canada recently evaluated families with a significant history of breast cancer, which they defined as two or more breast cancers among close relatives under the age of 50 or three cases of breast cancer among close relatives at any age. They followed 1,492 women from 365 families for five years. None of the women included in the analysis had BRCA mutations. They then compared the rates of breast cancer with rates found in local breast cancer registries. The results indicated that women with a significant family history of breast cancer had a fourfold increase in breast cancer incidence. The elevation in risk was even higher among women under 40; who had a 15-fold increased risk compared with women under 40 in the general population.
Based on the results of this study, the researchers concluded that women with a significant family history of breast cancer have a 30 to 40% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. There was no elevated risk for ovarian, colon, or any other form of cancer. These results provide new insight for screening women with a significant family history of breast cancer, but no BRCA mutation. The researchers observed that women in this population might benefit from intensified screening as well as chemoprevention.
Reference:
[1] Metcalfe K, Finch A, Poll A, et al. Breast cancer risks in women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer who have tested negative for a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Proceedings from American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting. Abstract #B7.

A Norwegian study has raised the possibility that some breast cancers detected by routine screening may have regressed of their own accord if they had not been discovered and treated.
Research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine looked at rates of breast cancer among 119,472 women between the ages of 50 and 64, all of whom were screened three times between 1996 and 2001.
When compared with breast cancer rates in 1992 - when routine breast screening was not available - researchers from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found that rates of the disease increased significantly following the introduction of routine mammography.
This work highlights the importance of scientific research for the development of effective breast screening programmes. - Dr Kat Arney, science information officer, Cancer Research UK
The study authors noted that, if all of these newly detected cancers had developed and been diagnosed over time, there would soon have been a fall in incidence among older women.
However, breast cancer rates among regularly screened women remained higher, suggesting that a small minority of cancers would have spontaneously regressed without treatment.
For every 100,000 screened women there were 1,909 who developed breast cancer during the six-year period, compared with just 1,564 for every 100,000 women in the control group.
The study authors noted that the 'cumulative' incidence of breast cancer remained 22 per cent higher in the screened group, with screened women more likely to have breast cancer at every age.
"Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the researchers wrote.
"This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."
The scientists conceded that many experts are sceptical about the idea of spontaneous regression, but insisted that the idea merits "careful" consideration, particularly as 32 cases of spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer were reported in a recent literature review.
"This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs."
Dr Kat Arney, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said "This work tells us that there is much we still don't understand about the development and progression of breast cancer.
"It also highlights the importance of scientific research for the development of effective breast screening programmes."

Breast Cancer Incidence Higher Among Young African-American Women than Young White Women


The incidence of breast cancer among African-American women under 40 is higher than that of White women under 40, according to the results of an analysis published in the Journal of the National Cancer InstituteBreast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States, with approximately 180,000 cases diagnosed each year. Progress in the areas of screening and treatment has allowed for earlier detection and higher cure rates. Researchers continue to study the incidence rates and patterns of this disease with the hopes of further improving screening, prevention, and treatment.
The incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer has been on the rise, which may be largely attributable to more successful screening for the disease, as well as the use of menopausal hormones. However, the incidence rates of breast cancer in younger women have received less attention. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute recently used the Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) Database to analyze trends in breast cancer incidence during the period of 1992-2004.
The researchers analyzed over 300,000 cases of breast cancer based on age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, racial and ethnic categories, and pathologic features of the cancer. They found that although white women had higher incidence rates than black women after age 40, the reverse was true for younger women. In women under 40, the incidence rate per 100,000 woman-years was approximately 17 for black women, compared with approximately 15 for white women. The discrepancy was even higher for women under age 30.
Furthermore, they found that younger women were more likely than older women to have tumors with poor prognostic features (larger than 2 cm, positive lymph node status, and higher stage). Younger women also had higher incidence rates for inflammatory breast cancers and estrogen-receptor positive tumors.
The researchers concluded that based on this data, it is important to continue to monitor the trends in breast cancer incidence among younger women. Mammography is not recommended in younger women because high breast tissue density makes it less sensitive. However, if the incidence of breast cancer in younger women continues to trend upward, it will be important to identify preventive approaches, including the identification of early risk factors and biomarkers.

Reference:
Brinton LA, Sherman ME, Carreon JD, et al. Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States. Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal Naturally

A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system.Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age."Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in some people -- by the body's own innate defenses."Although many clinicians may be skeptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer.In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment

Breast Cancer: Prognosis, Treatment, and Prevention, Second Edition

Atlas of Selective Sentinel Lymphadenectomy for Melanoma Breast and Colon Cancer

Healing Cancer With NLP and Time Line Therapies


http://www.4shared.com/file/36542959/b89b383a/Tad_James_-_Healing_Cancer_With_NLP_and_Time_Line_Therapies.html

Breast Cancer Awareness


click here to download.....




http://www.4shared.com/file/64725723/9db119b6/TMS-Breast_Cancer_Awareness_QP.html