Hormones doubled breast cancer risk
(Guy Rhodes/Sun-Times News Group)
The risk of breast cancer doubled for post-menopausal women who were on a once-popular combination hormone therapy for at least five years, according to a new analysis of the landmark study that established a clear link between hormone use and breast cancer.
The use of combined hormone therapy — estrogen plus progestin — in the United States plummeted after results from the 2002 Women’s Health Initiative trial were published. This was followed by a decrease in breast-cancer rates a year later.
The risk of breast cancer doubled for women who took the post-menopausal hormone therapy of estrogen plus progestin for at least five years.
But there was still some question as to why: Was it the hormone therapy, or was it changes in mammography, or something else?
“This is very strong evidence that estrogen plus progestin causes breast cancer,” said Dr. Marcia Stefanick, a Stanford University professor of medicine who is co-author of the new study, reported in today’s New England Journal of Medicine.
The new study also found that breast-cancer risk dropped sharply within two years of stopping combined hormone therapy.
The researchers analyzed data from more than 15,000 women involved in the original trial, which was stopped early after increases in heart disease, stroke and breast cancer risks were found.
Add comment February 9, 2009
thebreastdiva
Obesity ‘fuels cancer in women’
About 6,000 middle-aged or older women in the UK develop cancer each year because they are obese or overweight, a Cancer Research UK-funded study says.
The study, which looked at 45,000 cases of cancer in 1m women over seven years, says this is about 5% of such cases.
It is published online by the British Medical Journal and blames excess fat for 50% of cases of womb cancer and a type of oesophageal cancer.
Last week an international study warned of the link between cancer and weight.
‘Bigger impact’
The World Cancer Research Fund warned that carrying excess weight significantly increased the risk of cancer.
Figures indicate that about 23% of all women in England are obese and 34% are overweight.
The latest study looked at how often cancers occurred in 1.2m UK women aged 50 to 64 over a seven year period. More than 45,000 cases of cancer and 17,000 cancer deaths occurred during that time.
Lead researcher Dr Gillian Reeves, from Oxford University, said: “We estimate that being overweight or obese accounts for around 6,000 out of a total 120,000 new cases of cancer each year among middle-aged and older women in the UK.
“Our research also shows that being overweight has a much bigger impact on the risk of some cancers than others.
“Two thirds of the additional 6,000 cancers each year due to overweight or obesity would be cancers of the womb or breast.”
Age difference
The research found that the link between weight and risk of cancer depended on a woman’s stage of life.
For example, being overweight increases the risk of breast cancer only after the menopause and the risk of bowel cancer only before the menopause.
Sara Hiom, from Cancer Research UK, said: “This research adds to the evidence regarding the impact of being overweight or obese on developing cancer and dying from the disease.
“While most people readily associate carrying extra weight with being a general health risk, many do not make a specific link with cancer.”
Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of the charity Weight Concern, said: “Whereas it was once thought there was little one could do to prevent cancer, it’s now clear that lifestyle impacts greatly on overall cancer risk.
“The message is clear. Invest in a healthier lifestyle today and we can reap the benefits of reduced disease risk and longer life tomorrow.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7079799.stm
Add comment February 6, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: Breast Cancer, Cancer, lose weight, Obesity, women
What’s Wrong With Being Overweight?
Not long ago, obesity was seen mainly as a cosmetic problem. The purpose of dieting was to improve your appearance, especially in time for bathing-suit season. Exercise was a way to tighten bulges around the stomach and thighs. As a last resort, there were diet doctors, although they were regarded with suspicion — even within the medical community — for popularizing fad diets and preying on people’s vanity.
In just the last few years, however, the medical view of overweight, or excess body fat, has undergone a sea change. No longer just a cosmetic problem, it is now known to be a public health problem of the same magnitude as smoking. Indeed, government statistics list overweight as the second-leading cause of preventable death in the United States, after smoking. By increasing the risk for a variety of serious diseases — for example, heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, and several forms of cancer — overweight and its more severe form, obesity, cause 280,000–325,000 deaths in this country each year. For many people, losing weight is not an act of vanity; it’s a struggle for survival.
The dangers of excess weight have come to light at a time when the rates of overweight and obesity are soaring. More than half of all adults in the United States are overweight, and 26% are obese — an increase of more than 50% in the last three decades. Obesity rates are rising dramatically among children, too, an ominous sign for the future health of our population.
Entry Filed under: Breast Cancer, Breast Health, Cancer, Heart Health, Obesity, weight loss
Add comment January 29, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: Cancer, deaths, disease, heart disease, Obesity, overweight Weight Management Center
Database Helps Assess Your Breast Cancer Risk
Health News
SUNDAY, Jan. 25 (HealthDay News) — If you want to learn more about the key risk factors for breast cancer, such as obesity, pollutants or smoking, a database can guide you to the available evidence that confirms or quells an association.
“Breast cancer is multifactorial. It would be rare for there to be a single environmental chemical that alone would be sufficient to cause an increase in breast cancer,” said Dr. Robert Schneider, co-director of breast cancer research at New York University School of Medicine in New York City.
“In many cases, an increased risk of breast cancer is quite small, and we don’t yet know how each factor affects the risk of breast cancer,” he said, explaining that it’s similar to a puzzle. “We need to know how all of the pieces fit together, and this database begins to help us start assessing some of that.”
The database, a joint project of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Environmental Factors and Breast Cancer Science Review project led by the Silent Spring Institute, includes information on 216 chemicals, diet, smoking, physical activity and weight that may play a role in the development of breast cancer.
Fewer than 100 chemical compounds have been identified as human carcinogens by the International Agency of Research on Cancer. However, that doesn’t mean that all other chemicals are safe, just that they haven’t been tested. And, an estimated 80,000 chemicals have been registered for commercial use in the United States, according to the database study, which was published in a recent issue of the journal Cancer.
Although many factors have been associated with breast cancer, Schneider said his top three would include the chemical bisphenol A, radiation exposure from CT scans and delayed first pregnancy.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is an estrogenic chemical found in many products made of polycarbonate plastic (clear, hard plastic), such as baby bottles, reusable water bottles, food storage containers, food cans and water supply pipes, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Although no human studies have confirmed an association with breast cancer, a study done in mice suggests there may be a link. However, the U.S Food and Drug Administration recently said the agency felt there were “adequate margins of safety” for the chemical in the amounts commonly consumed.
“We don’t know what constitutes an unacceptable level,” said Schneider who would prefer to err on the side of caution and limit BPA exposure, especially in infants and young girls.
Schneider said another concerning risk factor is the amount of radiation people are exposed to for routine health problems, particularly from CT scans.
Although the last risk factor from Schneider’s top three — delayed first pregnancy — isn’t one people are likely to change, he said it’s important to be aware of it. “In a modern society, it’s exceedingly difficult to have a pregnancy before 20 when it would be quite protective,” said Schneider.
Dr. Jay Brooks is chair of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. He said, “When you look at environmental and chemical risk factors, you have to remember that we live in a sea of chemicals, and those chemicals have made our lives so much nicer, and it’s hard to know exactly what each one does to an individual’s risk.
“I advise my patients to try to control the things you have good control over. Weight is a huge issue in breast cancer, as is the use of combined estrogen/progesterone after menopause,” he added.
Brooks said extra weight is a risk factor that many women underestimate, but being overweight clearly increases risk. And, he said, estrogen therapy alone used to ease menopausal symptoms doesn’t seem to increase risk the way the estrogen/progesterone combination does.
More information
To learn more about breast cancer risk factors, check the searchable database from the Silent Spring Institute.
Last Reviewed 01/25/2009 | Last Updated 01/25/2009
Related News
* Some Heart Failure Meds May Raise Fracture Risk in Women
* In Kids, Genes May Affect Leukemia Treatment
* Ovary Removal May Not Be Needed in Endometrial Cancer
* Childhood Cancer Survivors Not Getting Recommended Mammograms
* Gene Variant Raises Risk for Brain Cancer at Young Age
Add comment January 27, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: breast cancer risk, environmental risks., factors for breast cancer
Foods that Help You Fill Up Faster
Eat less and still lose weight? How is this possible?
Certain foods fill you up faster — and satisfy you longer — than others. Knowing which healthy foods are the most filling and incorporating them into your diet can help you lose weight. And remember, it’s not just what you eat, but how you eat that can make a difference in how full you feel. To help you figure out a strategy that’s going to leave you feeling satisfied while eating less, we’ve interviewed three registered dieticians about filling up while slimming down.
Foods That Help You Feel Full Faster
Fiber
Foods that are high in fiber fill you up on fewer calories, says Tanya Zuckerbrot, MS, RD, and author of The F-Factor Diet. Whole grains, such as whole wheat breads and pastas, oatmeal, and brown rice, are complex carbohydrates that have more fiber and nutrients, and, typically, fewer calories than simple carbs like those in cake, candy, and soda.
Fruits and veggies
“Many fruits and vegetables have high water and fiber contents, making them the ultimate low-calorie filler,” says Zuckerbrot. Grapefruit, apples, pears, berries, broccoli, cauliflower, and asparagus are especially filling. Additionally, says Marisa Moore, RD, National Spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association, you should opt for whole fruit over fruit juice whenever possible. “Whole fruit provides all the benefits of juice with an added bonus — fiber, which can keep you feeling full longer,” she explains.
Lean protein
Research indicates that protein ranks high on the scale of foods that make you feel full and creates a greater feeling of satisfaction than other foods, according to Moore. The best choices are animal and plant proteins that are high in calories but low in fat. These include fish, white-meat poultry, fat-free dairy products, egg whites, legumes, beans, peas, and lentils.
Healthy fats
In addition to high-fiber whole grains, fruits and veggies, and lean protein, Lona Sandon, MEd, RD, LD, and a National Spokesperson for the ADA, recommends adding healthy fats to your diet. “For instance, you can use a light olive oil-based dressing,” Sandon says, “and add a spoonful of nuts or seeds to your salads,” because these also contain “good” fats.
Strategies to Help Fill You Up Faster
Start smart. Sandon, Moore, and Zuckerbrot all recommend beginning lunch or dinner with a broth-based, vegetable-filled soup or a salad. “Research suggests that including a broth-based soup or veggie salad with low-calorie dressing may help you eat fewer calories during your meal,” says Moore. Zuckerbrot adds that since these foods take longer to eat, they can also help curb your hunger and prevent you from overeating your main dish.
Don’t skip meals. To avoid filling up on unhealthy options, fuel your body with healthy foods periodically throughout the day, suggests Sandon. This means no skipping meals. “Eat at regular times spaced evenly throughout the day and try to eat approximately the same amount of food at each meal.” Sticking with a schedule, adds Zuckerbrot, will help keep your metabolism working and burning more calories daily.
Use a smaller plate. “We tend to eat with our eyes, not our stomachs,” says Sandon. “For many people, the sign of fullness is an empty plate.” Consuming healthier portion sizes on a smaller plate may have the same effect. For a balanced meal, Sandon recommends loading up at least half your plate with veggies and fruit, then filling a quarter of the plate with lean protein and the other quarter with bread, pasta, or a potato.
Slow down. Because it takes about 20 minutes for the brain to realize that the stomach is full, eating more slowly may help prevent overeating, says Moore. “It allows you to get to the point of being satisfied, not stuffed.” Additionally, many people tend to ignore common signs of fullness, such as the feeling of tightness in the stomach, says Sandon. “Don’t keep eating until your fullness is uncomfortably obvious. Instead, take time out to put your fork or spoon down between bites and have a sip of water while observing the physical sensations of your stomach.”
Add comment January 21, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: fiber, fill up faster, healthy foods, Weight Loss
My New Years Resolution update!
Monday January 5th, I started my New Year’s Resolution to lose weight for this year. I’m writing this in an effort to keep myself on it, and let you know that if you have weight to lose, this is a very safe and healthy way to change your lifestyle!
I did it back in January of 2007, and lost 37 pounds that year and kept if off almost a full year. 2008 came and went and I found myself at 208 pounds on January 5th. Needless to say, I’d gained it all back plus some! I’m a big boned girl, so 175 is my ideal weight. 33 pounds is my goal for this year! (The sad thing is, I’d been taking enRgy for the whole month of December and had already lost 5 pounds, even through the holidays!)
On Monday, I weighed and measured myself and my total inches for measuring neck, bust, both upper arms, diaphragm, waist, abdomen, hips, both thighs, knees, and calves totaled 398.75 inches! Today after the 1st 2 cleanse days of Isagenix’s 9 day cleanse, I weighed 202 lbs, and my total inches measured 372.75! That’s 6 pounds and 26 inches!!! There were inches lost on every measurement, even my neck! Since I am apple shaped, most of my weight is to the front of me and around my midsection. I even lost 2 inches off my waist. Needless to say, the next 5 days will be MUCH easier, and I am so encouraged to keep going!
I won’t say the 2 cleansing days were easy, they weren’t. You’re drinking 4 oz of the liquid cleanse followed by 8 ounces of purified water 4 times a day, plus an accelerator capsule in the a.m. and after lunch. There are also little chocolate (or vanilla) wafers they call snacks that you can eat between your cleanse drinks and if you absolutely need to, you can eat a small handful of almonds, a hard boiled egg, 1/2 an organic apple or a couple of slices of Hormel all natural smoked turkey, but not all of them, just 1.
Today on day 3, and for the next 5 days, I’ll get a chocolate shake for breakfast, a nice and healthy 400-600 calorie high fiber, lunch of my choice, and then a shake for supper (much better than the last 2 days of cleansing!) then finally next Monday and Tuesday, I’ll finish it off with 2 more cleansing days.
Last time when I did this I’d lost 17 lbs during my 9 day cleanse from Isagenix, and my husband, Bart, lost 19. This time I’m doing it by myself, and I must say doing it with a buddy is much easier!
Once I do my 9 days, I’ll start on the South Beach diet and keep taking my enRgy supplement from GBG which has had me cleaning house and feeling much more energetic than I have in a long time. I think this is a great plan for me to get on track for a healthier 2009!
I’ll keep you informed of my progress again in a few days! If you have questions, call me at 985-892-5858.
Add comment January 7, 2009
thebreastdiva
Alternating Mammography and MRI May Be Best for High-Risk Women
M. D. Anderson study finds improved breast cancer detection by alternating screening tests every six months
M. D. Anderson News Release 12/13/08
Huong Le-Petross, MDMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alternated with mammography at six-month intervals can detect breast cancers not identified by mammography alone, a research team from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center will report at the 31st at the CRTC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
MRI is known to be more sensitive in detecting breast cancers than mammography, with a 71 - 100 percent accuracy compared to a 16 - 40 percent accuracy for mammography. As a result, annual breast cancer screening for high-risk women now typically includes MRI along with mammography and a clinical breast exam.
“In the high-risk population, the recent standard of practice is to perform mammography and MRI every year,” said Huong Le-Petross, M.D., assistant professor of diagnostic radiology at M. D. Anderson and the study’s first author. “What we started to do at M. D. Anderson was to see if we could do mammography and then six months later do a breast MRI exam, followed six months later with a mammogram exam, and then six months after that with a breast MRI. That way the women would receive an imaging modality screening every six months.”
In the pilot study, to be presented at a poster session on Dec. 13, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 334 women who had participated in a high-risk breast cancer-screening program at M. D. Anderson from Jan. 1997 to Dec. 2007. The women had undergone between one and four MRI screening cycles and were considered to be at high risk if they had hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, a personal history of breast cancer, a biopsy indicating atypia or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), or a 20 percent or higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer, as estimated by the Gail model.
In the all-M. D. Anderson study, 86 of the 334 high-risk women (26 percent) underwent this alternating approach. Among this group, 46 percent completed the first round of MRI screening, 28 percent completed the second round, 13 percent completed the third round, and 4 percent completed the fourth round. The other 248 women underwent prophylactic mastectomy or were started on chemoprevention agents. All study participants were given a clinical breast exam every six months. The median follow-up time was 2 years, with a range of one to four years).
The alternating MRI and mammography screening program detected nine cancers among the 86 women-five invasive ductal carcinomas, three invasive lobular carcinoma, and two ductal carcinomas in situ. Five (55 percent) of these cancers were identified by MRI but not by mammography, three (33 percent) were found by both MRI and mammography, and one (11 percent) cancer, a tumor one millimeter in size, was overlooked by both screening techniques. No cancer was detected by mammography alone.
“We found that MRI picked up the majority of cancers, while mammography picked up only three out of the nine,” Le-Petross noted. With five of the eight cancers detected by MRI, the mammogram from six months earlier was either normal or suggested benign findings.
“The global picture is that MRI can pick up cancers that mammography cannot,” Le-Petross said. “This would suggest that in this population it is more beneficial for the patient to have screening MRI so that we can pick up small lesions before a mammogram can detect them.”
One important unanswered question is whether an alternating MRI and mammography screening program will save lives. “That is going to take a 5- to 10-year follow-up to determine,” Le-Petross added. “It is an exciting question because mammography has always been the standard, and now we are challenging that gold standard examination.”
In addition to Le-Petross, other authors on the all-M. D. Anderson study include: Gabriel Hortobagyi, M.D., professor and chair of the Department of Breast Medical Oncology; Banu Arun, M.D., associate professor in the Departments of Breast Medical Oncology and Cancer Prevention and the study’s senior author; Deanna Atchley, Department of Breast Medical Oncology; and Gary Whitman, MD, professor in the Department of Radiology. 12/13/08
©2008 The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center
1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030
1-800-392-1611 (USA) / 1-713-792-61
Add comment January 3, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: Breast Cancer, Breast Health, high risk population, Mammography, mri
Is Your Bra Killing You?
Have you ever thought that your bra may be one of your worst enemies? In Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer’s book, Dressed to Kill, The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, there is compelling information that leads women to that stunning conclusion.
Is it really possible that this most popular under-garment could actually be responsible for breast cancer – at least to a certain degree? The scientific community acknowledges what is called, “culturogenic diseases, or in other words, diseases that are directly related to life-style factors. High-heeled shoes, smoking cigarettes, and a high-fat diet are examples of life-style diseases or creating health problems.
But who would have thought that bras could be causing women serious health challenges? Interestingly, in a study carried out between 1991 and 1993, the authors interviewed 4,700 women in five cities across the United States. Some of their findings were shocking, most of them were distressful and every one of them important to women’s breast health.
In their survey of women who had experienced breast cancer, 99 percents said they had worn their bras twelve hours or more per day. Women who wore a bra all day and to bed experienced a 600% increase of breast cancer than woman among the general population. Even more significant is a 125-fold (12,500%) increase of breast cancer among women who wore a bra 24/7 than a woman who didn’t wear a bra at all. This is a substantially higher risk than the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
After 2 years of studies, Singer and Grismaijer compiled their studies and sent them to experts such as the director of the National Cancer Institute, the national vice-president of the American Cancer Society, the executive director of the American Women’s Medical Association and even to the famed Dr. Samuel Epstein, to name just a few. Many of the recipients of this report were women leading large organizations for women’s health or prominent cancer organizations. The result?
Not one responded. Not even the women’s groups. None. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, whose best interests these organizations have at heart.
Are Singer and Grismaijer correct in their assumption that bras have a direct correlation to breast cancer? Their evidence is compelling enough that I take my bra off whenever possible – in appropriate places to be sure – and have also felt it important to share many of these statistics with female friends and business associates.
Perhaps the adage of the 1960’s to burn the bra wasn’t such a bad idea?
Add comment January 2, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: bras, bras and breast cancer, Breast Cancer
Males of All Species are Becoming More Female
Various studies are indicating that unregulated chemicals released into the environment are causing male animals and humans to take on feminine characteristics.
Thousands of chemicals released into the environment are interfering with animal and human endocrine systems. These chemicals, nicknamed “gender-benders,” are causing the males in many species to become feminized.
In British lowland rivers, 50 percent of male fish were found to be growing eggs in their testes. Hermaphrodite polar bears have also been born.
Since all vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, the feminization of other animals could indicate a similar pattern in humans.
 |
Dr. Mercola’s Comments: |
| Endocrine disrupting chemicals are everywhere these days. You are exposed to them from a variety of sources, including countless common household products, toys, and personal care products.
Some of these “gender-bender” agents include:
For more information about the various health hazards inherent with each of these agents, please click on the individual links above. But, what these various substances all have in common is that they can affect your, and of course your children’s, endocrine system and reproductive health. The glands of your endocrine system and the hormones they release influence almost every cell, organ, and function of your body. It is instrumental in regulating mood, growth and development, tissue function, metabolism, as well as sexual function and reproductive processes. But is it true that males are slowly “disappearing;” morphing into females? Well, many studies now indicate these toxins may indeed be wreaking silent havoc within our male population. Male infertility is on the rise, and, about 250,000 fewer boys have been born in the last 30 years in the United States and Japan. Scientists are linking these phenomenons to a body accumulation of these types of gender-bending toxins. Taking a Closer Look at Phthalates Phthalates, or “plasticizers,” are a group of industrial chemicals used to make plastics like polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more flexible and resilient. They’re one of the most pervasive of the endocrine disrupters. Phthalates are found in, among other things:
Although Chem TRUST’s study, “Effects of Pollutants on the Reproductive Health of Male Vertebrate Wildlife—Males Under Threat,” focuses on the ill effects of various endocrine disruptors on wildlife, their disturbing findings are also relevant for humans, because all vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors. Therefore, the feminization of other animals, such as polar bears, deer, whales and otters, just to name a few, could very well indicate that a similar pattern is taking place in humans as well. Their study lists the symptoms found in each of the numerous species tested, which includes testicular cancer, hermaphrodites, genital deformations, low sperm counts, and infertility. And, in fact, numerous studies over the past eight years confirm that similar dangers are posed to human health. One study found that pregnant women who are exposed to phthalates gave birth more than one week earlier than women who were not exposed to them. And, the more a pregnant woman is exposed to high levels of phthalates, the greater the risk her son will have smaller genitals and incomplete testicular descent, leading to impaired reproductive development. The chemical also appears to make the overall genital tracts of boys slightly more feminine. It is believed that phthalates have these adverse effects because they reduce testosterone synthesis by interfering with an enzyme needed to produce the male hormone. This raises yet another worry: What if they also alter other biological processes dependent on this hormone? Why wouldn’t they? Other studies have linked the chemical to thyroid problems in both women and men, and researchers have also suggested a link between phthalates and illnesses like allergies, asthma, and contact dermatitis, all of which are on the rise in children. How Can You Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic Chemicals? In July 2008, the U.S. Congress finally passed legislation banning six types of phthalates from children’s toys and cosmetics. Legislators in Washington, Vermont and California have also restricted phthalate use in children’s goods, and several major retailers, including Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us, Lego, Evenflo and Gerber claim they will phase out phthalate-laden toys voluntarily. Yet, so many more products contain endocrine disruptors of varying types; trying to avoid them all can seem like an impossible task. It’s difficult, yes, but there are still a number of practical techniques you can use to limit your exposure to endocrine disruptors, and other common toxins. Here are a few of my recommendations:
|
|
Related Articles:
How to Avoid the Top 10 Most Common Toxins
Alarm Over Gender-Bender Chemical in Household Cleaning Products
Why Are Kids Entering Puberty Before They Enter School?
Add comment January 1, 2009
thebreastdiva
Tags: Bisphenol-A, eat organic, endocrine disruptors, gender benders, males becoming more female, phthalates, testosterone, toxic chemicals
Your Breasts—and Your Life—are in Your Radiologist’s Hands
by William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
If you’re smart, choosing a doctor is a decision that you don’t take lightly. You ask for recommendations. You talk to friends. You check backgrounds. But in the end, your health and your life could really be in the hands of the one doctor who you don’t choose and will probably never even meet: your radiologist.
This is especially true, as it turns out, for women going for their mammograms. According to new research, the accuracy of those mammogram readings can vary WIDELY. (Another strike against an already dangerous test.) The research discovered inconsistencies even when a lump was present, leaving women open to false positive results or even missed diagnoses.
The team of researchers from Group Health, a non-profit health maintenance organization, found that the ability to accurately detect cancer varied from 27 percent to 100 percent amongst the 123 radiologists studied. On average, 21 percent of breast cancers were missed entirely and 4.3 percent of women underwent a needless biopsy.
Those are frightening and deadly figures. For a killer such as breast cancer to be so poorly diagnosed, you have to wonder how many women were doomed by this level of neglect and ineptitude. Here’s another frightening figure: There will be an estimated 178,000 new cases of breast cancer, and 40,000 deaths caused by this scourge.
It just reinforces the sad reality that in today’s healthcare system, you can’t trust anyone. It’s not enough for you to stay on top of routine check-ups-you need to check out the doctors that are checking you out.
Keeping an eye on your breasts for all the right reasons,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Add comment December 31, 2008
thebreastdiva
Tags: breast cancers, choosing a doctor, false positives, healthcare system, lumps, mammograms, missed diagnosises, needless biopsies, new cases of breast cancer, radiologist, routine check ups
| Previous Posts |