Breast cancer findings

[BethML]

CNN reported some recent breast cancer prevention & statistics findings today-- relating to nutrition and exercise-- that you might want to know about:

"Consistently it's been found that women who drink more than one drink a day have about a 20 percent higher risk for breast cancer than women who do not drink," said Harmon Eyre, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society.

Post-menopausal women who are obese also have about a 20 percent higher risk of getting breast cancer, Eyre said. Doctors think this is because once the ovaries stop producing estrogen, the hormone is released from fat cells. Studies have shown that the more estrogen a woman has circulating in her body, the higher the risk of breast cancer.

"Estrogen causes breast cells to proliferate, and the more the cells proliferate, the more likely a mistake will be made during replication, which can lead to cancer," said Leslie Bernstein, an epidemiologist with the department of preventative medicine at the University of Southern California.

Bernstein's work has pointed to something else women can do to reduce their risk of breast cancer: Get active.

Her studies have shown that among both young and menopausal women, exercising two to three hours per week can result in a 30 percent reduced risk of getting breast cancer -- and four or more hours a week can lead to a 50 percent reduction. Women who exercise have lower levels of estrogen, Bernstein said."

[food girl]

I eluded to the increased risk for breast cancer in the recent "how does alcohol fit into your routine" thread. Obviously I didn't say the right thing (i.e. that it is OK). But then again, I do work in a cancer center and I see very sick, bald, miserable women crying because the news is bad and they have little ones at home.

I would do anything to avoid that happening to me or anyone else if I could.

I have to say that breast cancer does seem like one of the 'equal opportunity' cancers. It strikes vegetarian marathoners as well as twinkie-eating couch potatoes. I do ask all of my patients about alcohol consumption and it does seem to correlate with breast cancer in premenopausal women.
Lisa

[beccathebaker]

I know that you were speaking of the alcohol posting that I added to. Even though my type of cancer was not breast but uterine, i must say that like food girl mentioned, lifestyle does not always determine someones cancer risk. I had been a vegan, an exercise fanatic, and at a normal weight when my uterine sarcoma was discovered! Funny thing is, when I was finishing chemo and my weight was so low, a few doctors suggested a little white wine before dinner to stimulate appetite and promote health! So there you go- never can make any assumptions. In fact, as a nutritionist I must say that I am amazed at the conflicting information that is presented to the public everyday. Any one see the study in yesterdays paper regarding the dangers of a diet low in saturated fat for risk of stroke in women? -Becca

[donleyk]

There is a report out today how fruits and veggies don't help with the prevention of breast cancer. The nutritionist being interviewed tried to stress that this was no reason to not eat fruits and veggies.... but you know people don't always hear anything but the headlines. It's such a pity.

[food girl]

ooh, I am embarrassed. :0 I guess I am talking out of both sides of my mouth- I do reccommend a "nip" to help appetite too Becca.

I think the alcohol thread just shows how people latch onto the nutrition message that most meets what they want to do.

I don't think that we have the whole story on cancer & diet. I wonder what kind of increased risk you have if you are always fretting about what you eat?!

An interesting note. I read a research article done on the people of Okinowa. These people have the longest lifespan of any population on earth. Researchers looked and diet, exercise & environmental hazards. They couldn't find anything that would distinguish these people from other Asian poplulations. When they asked the people what they thought was their reason for longevity they said that it was (fill in some unpronouceable foreign word here), which basically meant that they cared for and looked out for each other. The really amazing thing was that many people gave this as a reply.

Examples given were: if your neigbor doesn't come out of his house in the morning, every one goes over to see if he is sick or what is wrong, and if your elderly produce vendor suddenly starts selling bruised vegetables, you buy them anyway because she needs the money.

Wouldn't it be nice to live like that?

Lisa

[donleyk]

Lisa,

Yes, it would be wonderful to live like that.

[Leslie w]

As much as I pay attention to scientific studies I still only take them w/ a grain of salt. Journalists esp. are so quick to jump the gun w/ reporting studies that they don't include the whole picture and that bothers me. Sure a lot of women who have breast cancer drink. And a lot of women who have breast cancer don't drink. My sister developed breast cancer at 38, she didn't drink. My girlfriend also has breast cancer, she too doesn't drink. There's so much guilt involved when someone does develop cancer - as you who work w/ them know - that the last thing a breast cancer patient wants to hear is "I must have contributed to my cancer because I enjoyed my 2 glasses of wine with dinner."

I'm not disputing this study. I agree that obese women produce more estrogen and that can lead to breast cancer. And a healthy diet and exercise program is important to everyone; but with every study I hear about high fat, excess sugar or alcohol consumption leading to cancer I also hear another study, some posted in medical journals, that dispute the correlation between these substances and cancer. One recent study I read about in AJM talked about how a long term study was done on nurses who had breast cancer. 50% switched to a low fat alcohol free diet and 50% did not. After studying this group for 10 years they noted there was no increase in breast cancer reoccurance in the women who did not follow a diet than from women who did. So that is why I remain skeptical about all studies. After a while you don't know who to believe.



[This message has been edited by Leslie w (edited 02-14-2001).]

[Don]

One area of research that may yet yield some interesting results is being done with Japanese American women. Recent arrivals from Japan have the same rate of breast cancer (very low) that women in Japan have. However, as their time in the US increases, breast cancer rates increase. We see similar results with other Asian populations. If we could figure out what has changed to make the breast cancer rates increase in Asian-American populations, we might figure out what we are doing wrong.

[Leslie w]

In those cases Don they are wondering if the American diet, being higher in fat could be a contributing factor because Japanese women in Japan eat a low fat diet high in fish. When they come to the States they start adopting an American diet and all the problems that can be associated w/ it. Again this theory (a good one) disputes other studies which say that high fat diets are not a problem. I think the best form of prevention is monthly breast exams and annual mammograms. I've had one every year since I turned 30 because of my sister. Now I'm also reading that premenopausal women at risk should have ultrasounds instead of mammos because the tissue is more dense making it difficult to read on a mammography.

[BevP]

I'm with Leslie in taking those news reports with a grain of salt. I read a headline once that red wine and chocolate lower cholesterol. Reading the article, they added that the down side of wine and chocolate more than off set the advantages. Only those facts were later in the article where few people read.

Another gripe concerning that recent announcement that fruits and veggies won't help with breast cancer. Too many people will only hear something like "fruits and veggies don't help prevent cancer. So I don't have to eat them any more." The press don't IMHO stress enough that these foods are just plain good for you. And worse, people don't hear what little the press do stress.

I wish "they" could just decide to push moderation and portion control. Add some form of exercise and just aim for general health instead of obsessing over one little fact today, another little fact tomorrow, etc. It just confuses people and in frustration they don't even try.

Ok, I'll jump off the soap box and grab my glass of red wine and chocolate bar! Hey, I have high cholesterol and this helps! http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/wink.gif (Any excuse, right!)

[browneye]

A couple thoughts fwiw:

My mother is currently being treated for breast cancer. Her two aunts died from same disease. She has been a tea-totaler all of her life.
Family history is a huge risk factor in this disease. I believe there are likely many contributing factors.
I am also a nurse, and used to work in the Oncology unit.
On the asian question-I'm sure you are all aware of the soybean correlation, that is, is is possible that soy helps reduce the risk of breast cancer and some believe it may be protecting Asian women to some extent. There are many conflicting studies, but I also know that I aim to enjoy my life, and moderation is key to that. As much as I am motivated to eliminate the breast cancer risk factors that I have, I also will continue to enjoy my glass of wine with my husband each evening. There are also studies out there that suggest that the merrier, more well-rounded you are, the less risk...
I'm all for enjoying life!

[Don]

Hi Leslie,

You're right less fat and more fish are two of the reasons being suggested to explain the increase in breast cancer in Japanese American women. Some researchers are also looking at soy intake. Japanese women in Japan are much bigger consumers of soy products than are the US women. The problem is that there are so many factors to consider that it will take some time before we figure out exactly what is going on.

[Leslie w]

I didn't know about the soy thing. I guess I won't pass up the soy nuts at Trader Joes anymore!

I'm a nurse too and I find that working in the medical community has also made me very skeptical of the medical community. I've seen the dark side of ignorance and it isn't pretty. If any of you ever find a lump in your breast and your doctor says to you "it's probably nothing, lets check it in a few months" get a second opinion, and a third if necessary. After all, their lives aren't on hold, your's is. And cancer doesn't discriminate. We're all at risk.

[kwormann]

Leslie

It is interesting you talk of the "dark side" of medicine and cancer. My mother has a good friend who used to be a cancer researcher. She eventually left the field out of disgust with doctors who didnt want to talk to her about the research because an actual cure for cancer would result in less money made....I have hard time believing this (read....not wanting to) because Im an optimist and believe doctors are such to help people, but I wasnt there in the situation and she was......

Kim

[Leslie w]

Kim, That could be true, I don't want to scare anyone and I should say I have seen great things done in hospitals and there are many doctors I would entrust w/ my life. But I have also seen women w/ advanced stages of breast cancer because their doctors didn't think their lump was anything more than a cyst and didn't do anything about it until their lump got bigger.

[Don]

Leslie,

You are so right. Please, if anyone finds a lump or a mark on the skin that even looks suspicious, demand a biopsy. A good friend of mine had a sore on her leg that she thought was suspicious. She made an appointment with a dermatologist at her HMO. The dermatologists dismissed her concerns and told her to return in a month or so. When she returned, she was told that it was nothing, but that the doctor would freeze the spot to remove it. A month or so later, when the spot was still there, she returned and demanded a biopsy. The biopsy indicated that she has aggressive Stage 3 (spread to the lymph nodes) melanoma. Had the doctor done the biopsy four months earlier, the cancer may have been caught in Stage 1 or 2, increasing her survival likelihood immensely. Now her greatest hope is to get into a vaccine trial (a new cancer treatment) at the National Institutes of Health. So, please, do not take "no" from your doctor if something concerns you!

[BevP]

Jessica, one of my best friends is a reporter also, although TV. And you're right, people do need to make their own decisions. But, let's be honest, most people only hear the headline and maybe hear the body of the story. And most people don't think. I guess my biggest frustration is news, tv, print etc...is augmented by magazines. Every month you hear about a new different diet or whatever. And different studies on exercise. Exercise at least 30 minutes 5x week. No! Exercise just 10 minutes. No! Do these certain exercises. Diet. Don't diet. Yo yo dieting is bad, so don't risk it. Yo yo dieting is not bad, keep trying to lose that weight. And that's just diet and exercise, not something as headline grabbing as the word cancer. Every month there are studies that contradict other studies.

All this information is in the respectable news as well as the respectable magazines. No wonder people just give up in frustration. Why can't the medical field think twice before releasing these studies. Demand a minimal control on every single study to help explain why they contradict each other. And why does the press have to jump on something and make it seem like a BIG deal. Next week, it's old and now there's a new BIG deal. But very little follow up. I know, follow up doesn't sell. It's not the press' fault, it's the public.

I'm all for free press, I'm just asking the free press to also think as much as they are asking their readers/viewers to think.

[food girl]

First let me say that I STRONGLY believe the media is too blame for much of our nutrition misinformation. I have been completely misquoted in the print media and later told that "bicycles and broccoli don't make headlines"! Many good journalists don't know beans about statistical significance, previous studies done. . . and they don't know how ridiculous (or maybe they don't care)they sound to the experts and even to the people that they are interviewing.


About the breast cancer and vegetable study:

There are several problems with this study. First, the range of intakes is very small, so seeing a statistically significant difference is difficult.

In other words, if you compare women eating 2 servings per day with women eating 4 servings per day (a typical spread in an American population), there is not enough difference between the high & low consumsers of these foods to pick it up in a study (probably one, out of many, reasons that the fiber studies didn't show a benefit for colon cancer; those study designs were pretty crappy as well and the conclusions WAY beyond what the data actually said, but that's a whole lecture by itself!).

There may be a 'threshold' effect and that you need to eat at least 7-9 servings to see a significant difference in cancer rates.

This is only one study and isn't well-designed at that, so don't take it too seriously.

Lisa

[This message has been edited by food girl (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Leslie w]

7 to 9 servings a day! That would blow out my insides! http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/eek.gif I love veggies and hate fruit, with the exception of a few seasonal items. I drink 100% juice. Does that count?

[BevP]

Originally posted by Leslie w:
7 to 9 servings a day! That would blow out my insides! http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/eek.gif I love veggies and hate fruit, with the exception of a few seasonal items. I drink 100% juice. Does that count?


Sorry, juice doesn't have the fiber or some of the other goodies that the whole veggie has. But it beats sodas http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/wink.gif!

[Jessica]

I definitely take all news reports with a whole box of salt, but as a reporter, I would ask you not to blame the media, particularly the print media.
Yes, there are programs and newspapers that sensationalize health information and that is unfortunate. But most reporters are simply sharing the results of new studies and the articles are meant to tell the public about the research, not to plug any particular study. We are all responsible for sifting through the information to find what we think is sensible and reasonable.
I write about technology, not health, but it hurts me when people are quick to criticize or blame the news media. Most of us journalists are honest and hard-working folks who do as much research as our deadlines allow (except when we waste time on bulletin boards http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/smile.gif). Informing the public is our job; making decisions for people is not our job.
I could go on about the value of the free press, but I will end my rant. Please take this with good will; I am not slamming any particular post here.
Thanks for "listening."

[browneye]

Leslie:
Also consider soy milk, I personally love the chocolate Silk brand, but not others too much. I also try to include tofu in a stir-fry occasionally, but it is not my family's favorite food. Just some ideas. I will have to try those soy nuts at Trader Joes! Didn't know about them..

[Tiger]

As a mammographer I can tell you the number one risk of breast CA is being a women. One in eight women will be diag. with breast CA. If this was a male diease with those stats there would be alot more being done about it!
The best thing you can do is self-exam monthly. Get to know your breasts. You will be the first to notice a change. 40 and older you need yearly mammograms. Sooner if you're high risk.
Ultrasound shouldn't replace mammograms unless you're very young. Ultrasounds usually follow-up mammograms to rule out cysts ect.

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 02-25-2001).]

[Julie O]

BevP--

It may seem like a good idea to have the medical community stop publishing "misinformation" about various health issues. But, that's really not the problem. The scientific literature where these studies are published is written for scientists & doctors, not journalists or the general public. Most of the public simply isn't educated enough about the scientific process to properly interpret these studies. (I don't want to sound mean. There's a whole long explanation about the science education most of us received that I really can't go into here.) Even journalists who report (in other words summarize) the results of the studies simply don't understand enough about the studies to present the evidence as it should be.

Science is a continually evolving field of knowledge. As scientists, we learn from the research that is done. Often, studies which are reported in the news simply should never have been mentioned because the research was conducted so poorly. That's why you often hear about a second study which disproved earlier research. (believe the second study. They're usually designed to disprove poor research that's already been done.) Particularly in medical studies, the research is somewhat biased by who pays for the study. For example, if you heard about the soybean industry paying for a study that said soy was effective at preventing breast cancer, the research might not be as credible as if the government paid a university professor to perform the research.

By preventing dissemination of research through scientific journals until the research had been double or triple checked, the scientific process would be severly bogged down. Advances could not be made nearly as quickly as they are currently.

I know it can be frustrating to watch news reports about science & health. You really should not take reports too seriously. There is a lot of poor research going on, and unfortunately, that seems to be what gets reported. (A chocolate bar a day might keep the doctor away, for example.) If you wonder about a study, talk to your doctor about it. Or, be friend your neighborhood scientist. http://www.cookinglight.com/bbs/smile.gif