Here are links to two stories in the news this week concerning mothers and breast cancer.
The first was reported in The Daily Telegraph and is an extract from Sarah Gabriel’s book Eating Pomegranates: A Memoir of Mothers, Daughters and Genes. The author lost her own mother to breast cancer and the book deals with how she tries to tell her own young daughters about her diagnosis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/6016056/How-do-I-tell-my-children-Ive-got-cancer.html
The second story was reported in the Daily Mail and concerns Rebekah Gibbs, actress, who stars in BBC1’s Casualty. She was diagnosed with HER2 breast cancer at 36, just 9 weeks after giving birth to her first child, although she had found a lump part way through the pregnancy. She is taking part in a trial of the drug Lapatinib[1] (which can be taken in pill form), to see if it can be used as an alternative to Herceptin[2] (which is taken intravenously) in reducing the recurrence of cancer. At the moment, Lapatinib is used to treat secondary breast cancers that are not responding to other treatment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1207194/Why-Casualty-star-Rebekah-Gibbs-trying-new-potentially-dangerous-breast-cancer-drug.html
19th August 2009
[1] http://www.breastcancercare.org.uk/server/show/nav.800
[2] http://www.breastcancercare.org.uk/server/show/nav.397
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Monday, 17 August 2009
DEADLY STING OF NANOBEES
There has been much reporting in the press this week of new trials using ‘nanobees’ that effectively sting cancerous tumours to death. The poisonous chemical in a bee sting, melittin, is attached to ‘nanoparticles’ (tiny molecules) which are in turn injected into the patient. The melittin attacks cancerous cells, but leaves healthy cells alone. So, one of the potential advantages of this form of treatment over chemotherapy is that it is more targeted, meaning doses could be lower with far fewer side effects. Tests on groups of mice with cancerous breast tumours showed that after 4-5 injections of melittin-carrying nanobees over several days, the growth of these tumours was slowed by nearly 25%. The team working on these studies plan to start human trials next year.
The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation on 10th August 2009.
Read more about these trials at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6790927.ece
and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810174226.htm
12th July 2009
The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation on 10th August 2009.
Read more about these trials at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6790927.ece
and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810174226.htm
12th July 2009
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Only 3% aware of link between weight and cancer…
This is according to a survey by Cancer Research UK, the results of which were released on 4th August 2009. Each year, they survey a sample of the population to find out what they know about cancer risk factors and symptoms.
This year, 3,947 people were asked ‘What are the main changes people can make to their lifestyles to reduce the risk of cancer? ’Participants were not given any hints as to what these might be, but named the following:
Smoking – 66%
Food and diet – 59%
Exercise – 29%
Alcohol – 22%
Sun and skincare – 11%
Bodyweight – 3%
Don’t know/nothing – 7%
Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK said:
“We have estimated that more than 13,000 cases of cancer could be prevented each year if everyone maintained a healthy weight.”
“While many people associate weight with being healthy in general, this survey shows that most people don’t link it directly with their risk of cancer, or don’t know how much it can reduce their risk.”
“Leading a healthy life with a balanced diet and plenty of exercise does not guarantee that a person won’t get cancer but these healthy habits can help to cut the odds."
Being overweight is seen to be a risk factor as the fat tissues in overweight people produce more hormones and other growth factors than those in people of a healthy weight. High levels of some of these hormones can increase the risk of certain cancers, including breast cancer in women after the menopause.[1]
5th August 2009
[1] Source: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/obesityandweight/
This year, 3,947 people were asked ‘What are the main changes people can make to their lifestyles to reduce the risk of cancer? ’Participants were not given any hints as to what these might be, but named the following:
Smoking – 66%
Food and diet – 59%
Exercise – 29%
Alcohol – 22%
Sun and skincare – 11%
Bodyweight – 3%
Don’t know/nothing – 7%
Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK said:
“We have estimated that more than 13,000 cases of cancer could be prevented each year if everyone maintained a healthy weight.”
“While many people associate weight with being healthy in general, this survey shows that most people don’t link it directly with their risk of cancer, or don’t know how much it can reduce their risk.”
“Leading a healthy life with a balanced diet and plenty of exercise does not guarantee that a person won’t get cancer but these healthy habits can help to cut the odds."
Being overweight is seen to be a risk factor as the fat tissues in overweight people produce more hormones and other growth factors than those in people of a healthy weight. High levels of some of these hormones can increase the risk of certain cancers, including breast cancer in women after the menopause.[1]
5th August 2009
[1] Source: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/obesityandweight/
Spotlight on Cancer
In August, the Community Channel [1] is running The C Word, a month long season of programmes highlighting the need to spot cancer early to get the best chance of successful treatment and also the work of the organisations in this field.
A new series of films called Spotting Cancer Early are being premiered on the Channel during this season. They are covering lung, bowel, mouth and breast cancer.
There are two other programmes specifically relating to breast cancer - one on how to spot the symptoms of breast cancer in a new film called Being Breast Aware and another on how to get back to health after breast cancer, where women share experiences of how diet and exercise have improved their wellbeing called Eating Well, Being Active. There are a number of other films and programmes relating to other cancers.
On their website, they are featuring personal stories of those affected by cancer.
For more information see their website at www.communitychannel.org/cword
Cancer Research UK are also campaigning for the early detection of cancer and have information on their website at www.spotcancerearly.com
5th August 2009
[1] Sky 539: Virgin TV 233: Freeview 87 (6-9am)
A new series of films called Spotting Cancer Early are being premiered on the Channel during this season. They are covering lung, bowel, mouth and breast cancer.
There are two other programmes specifically relating to breast cancer - one on how to spot the symptoms of breast cancer in a new film called Being Breast Aware and another on how to get back to health after breast cancer, where women share experiences of how diet and exercise have improved their wellbeing called Eating Well, Being Active. There are a number of other films and programmes relating to other cancers.
On their website, they are featuring personal stories of those affected by cancer.
For more information see their website at www.communitychannel.org/cword
Cancer Research UK are also campaigning for the early detection of cancer and have information on their website at www.spotcancerearly.com
5th August 2009
[1] Sky 539: Virgin TV 233: Freeview 87 (6-9am)
Report reveals that Britain is spending less on latest generation of cancer drugs
On 26th July, the Daily Express (www.express.co.uk/posts/views/116468) referred to a new report showing that Britain is spending less than other major European countries on the latest generation of cancer drugs. Dr Graeme Poston, director of surgery at University Hospital in Aintree and leading cancer specialist has collated the figures which show that the NHS bill for cancer treatments works out at 60p per head of population. This compares to Italy who spend £2.94, Germany - £3.63, Spain - £4.58 and France £7.35.
Dr Poston said: “There’s a limit to what surgery can do. We need modern drugs to help survival rates and in many cases, people are unable to get them.”
Dr Poston said: “There’s a limit to what surgery can do. We need modern drugs to help survival rates and in many cases, people are unable to get them.”
Monday, 3 August 2009
Swine Flu
There has been an enormous amount of news coverage given to this issue in recent weeks and you will no doubt be aware that this virus is being managed at primary care level for patients considered to be at risk or with health conditions (such as those with weakened immune systems). The National Flu Service (going live on Thursday 23rd July) is intended to relieve the pressure on the NHS and GP surgeries by taking calls and emails from all other sufferers, going through a checklist to diagnose cases and giving access to anti-flu drugs where appropriate. They will refer high risk patients to their GPs.
However, for patients receiving care and treatment for breast cancer, a Consultant at the Royal Free Hospital and member of Cancerkin’s Medical Advisory Panel gives the following additional advice:
1. If you have swine flu, you should cancel your clinic appointment and rebook and let the breast care nurse and relevant secretary know. You should get tamiflu through your GP (not your hospital) and the same applies to the vaccine (when it becomes available).
2. All patients on chemotherapy or within 12 months of chemotherapy should get priority for the vaccine when it is out.
3. Patients don’t need to interrupt hormone treatment but would have to interrupt chemotherapy or radiotherapy if they have swine flu.
23 July 2009
However, for patients receiving care and treatment for breast cancer, a Consultant at the Royal Free Hospital and member of Cancerkin’s Medical Advisory Panel gives the following additional advice:
1. If you have swine flu, you should cancel your clinic appointment and rebook and let the breast care nurse and relevant secretary know. You should get tamiflu through your GP (not your hospital) and the same applies to the vaccine (when it becomes available).
2. All patients on chemotherapy or within 12 months of chemotherapy should get priority for the vaccine when it is out.
3. Patients don’t need to interrupt hormone treatment but would have to interrupt chemotherapy or radiotherapy if they have swine flu.
23 July 2009
Nearly two-thirds of UK adults risk their health through lack of exercise
This is according to a new survey published by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) to launch their new UK wide ‘Move for Health’ campaign on 1st July 2009, highlighting the importance of exercise in maintaining good health and preventing illness.
The findings of the survey are that the majority of adults (63%) are not physically active enough, which can have serious medical consequences including a higher risk of cancer, obesity, heart disease, type-2 diabetes and stroke.
Dr Laura Bell, Cancer Research UK science information officer said:
“We know that being physically active reduces the risk of breast and bowel cancer and that the more active you are, the more you can reduce your cancer risk. Aim to do at least 30 minutes of moderate activity a day, 5 days a week.”
“This means something that makes you warm and slightly out of breath like brisk walking, gardening or housework. Research tells us that around half of all cancers could be prevented by changes to lifestyle.”
Bridget Hurley, chartered physiotherapist and CSP spokesperson said:
“Regular physical activity is as important as eating 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day… Without sufficient physical activity you are increasing your risk of life-threatening illnesses”
Exercise doesn’t need to be expensive, boring or time consuming. Just going outside at lunchtime for a half an hour walk every day will greatly increase your fitness levels.”
The findings of the survey are that the majority of adults (63%) are not physically active enough, which can have serious medical consequences including a higher risk of cancer, obesity, heart disease, type-2 diabetes and stroke.
Dr Laura Bell, Cancer Research UK science information officer said:
“We know that being physically active reduces the risk of breast and bowel cancer and that the more active you are, the more you can reduce your cancer risk. Aim to do at least 30 minutes of moderate activity a day, 5 days a week.”
“This means something that makes you warm and slightly out of breath like brisk walking, gardening or housework. Research tells us that around half of all cancers could be prevented by changes to lifestyle.”
Bridget Hurley, chartered physiotherapist and CSP spokesperson said:
“Regular physical activity is as important as eating 5 portions of fruit and vegetables a day… Without sufficient physical activity you are increasing your risk of life-threatening illnesses”
Exercise doesn’t need to be expensive, boring or time consuming. Just going outside at lunchtime for a half an hour walk every day will greatly increase your fitness levels.”
1 in 3 women may be receiving treatment for breast cancer 'needlessly'
This is according to the results of a survey reported in the British Medical Journal on 10th July 2009, by a team from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark. The story was reported widely, including in a number of newspapers and in the BBC online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8143564.stm
The results of the survey suggested that up to one in three breast cancers detected by screening may be harmless and that while screening[1] may lead to earlier detection of lethal cancers, it is also detecting harmless ones for which women are receiving needless and (in some cases) gruelling treatment.
However, as can be seen from the report, a number of health professionals are concerned that the study has not only been “…selective in the statistics that it used…”, but also that it may deter women from attending screening which is estimated to save up to 1400 lives a year.
Dr Sarah Cant from Breast Cancer Care said:
“Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to predict which cancers found through screening will develop aggressively and which will grow very slowly” She added: “Based on all the current evidence, we believe the benefits of detecting breast cancer still outweigh the risks.”
[1] The NHS Breast Screening Programme provides free breast screening every three years for all women in the UK aged 50 and over. Around one-and-a-half million women are screened in the UK each year. Women aged between 50 and 70 are now routinely invited.
The results of the survey suggested that up to one in three breast cancers detected by screening may be harmless and that while screening[1] may lead to earlier detection of lethal cancers, it is also detecting harmless ones for which women are receiving needless and (in some cases) gruelling treatment.
However, as can be seen from the report, a number of health professionals are concerned that the study has not only been “…selective in the statistics that it used…”, but also that it may deter women from attending screening which is estimated to save up to 1400 lives a year.
Dr Sarah Cant from Breast Cancer Care said:
“Unfortunately, it is currently not possible to predict which cancers found through screening will develop aggressively and which will grow very slowly” She added: “Based on all the current evidence, we believe the benefits of detecting breast cancer still outweigh the risks.”
[1] The NHS Breast Screening Programme provides free breast screening every three years for all women in the UK aged 50 and over. Around one-and-a-half million women are screened in the UK each year. Women aged between 50 and 70 are now routinely invited.
Friday, 17 July 2009
June 2009
AVAILABILITY OF PROMISING NEW DRUGS AND TECHNIQUES TO CANCER SUFFERERS
A story in the Daily Mail on 25th June 2009 (www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1194817) reported on the existence of promising new drugs or surgical techniques that are currently available for cancer patients, often on the NHS, although many patients are unaware of them. They say that this may be due to a postcode lottery, a lack of expertise in how to go about getting them or a lack of the right equipment at a local hospital. So the question is how to go about getting these ‘cutting edge treatments’?
They refer to the new government guidelines, whereby each patient has a right to choose the hospital where they have their treatment. They suggest ways of getting hold of a drug or treatment you think might be of benefit, but is not being offered to you for a variety of reasons. Examples are referral for a second opinion, an appeal to an independent panel of a local primary care trust (PCT), use of the top up scheme and getting help and advice from a relevant charity.
The article then goes on to discuss the latest drugs and treatments that are available either on the NHS or privately for various cancers. In respect of breast cancer, they refer to instances where some NHS doctors are prescribing chemotherapy before surgery in an attempt to shrink the tumour. There has already been success with this approach, particularly with larger tumours, where the results in some cases have reduced the need for radical surgery and allowing for a lumpectomy rather than a mastectomy. They also talk about the use of the sentinel lymph node biopsy, which is available in some NHS hospitals, to determine if the breast cancer has spread through the lymphatic system. By using this technique, surgeons can avoid removing all the lymph nodes, possibly unnecessarily, to determine if the cancer has spread in this way.
PROMISING NEW DRUG IN TREATMENT OF CANCERS CAUSED BY FAULTY BRCA1 OR BRCA2 GENES
June 2009 - Cancer Research UK report on a promising new drug called Olaparib which has successfully completed a Phase 1 clinical trial at the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital in London. Early results indicate that the drug appears to be particularly effective in people whose cancers carry mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 cancer predisposition genes which are linked to breast, ovarian and prostate cancers.
The drug was given to 60 patients who had an inherited form of breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, caused by faulty BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. These genes are thought to be responsible for about 5% of breast and ovarian cancers and about 1-2% of early onset prostate cancers.
Early results of the trial (sponsored by AstraZeneca), published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that more than half of the patients saw their tumours shrink or stabilise, despite the failure of previous treatments. The drug is now being tested in larger trials.
Dr Peter Sneddon, an executive director of clinical and translational research funding at Cancer Research UK, which part funded the trial said:
“Although development of this drug is in its early stages, it is very exciting to see that it has the potential to work when other treatment options have failed.”
CANCER INCIDENCE & SURVIVAL BY MAJOR ETHNIC GROUP, ENGLAND 2002-2006
This is the name of a first report on ethnicity and cancer incidence, published on 25th June 2009 and produced by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) and Cancer Research UK. It is the first national analysis of cancer incidence in ethnic groups and looks at all cases of cancer diagnosed in England between 2002 and 2006.
It is said that the report will help shape policy on targeting relevant public health messages to the ethnic communities around the signs and symptoms of cancer.
Dr Lesley Walker, a director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK said:
“This report is a hugely important step forward in understanding how such a complex disease affects people from different ethnic groups.
The next step is to think about how we can target health messages appropriately, making sure different communities are aware of the signs and symptoms of the cancers that are most likely to affect them.”
It seems that while the white population is at a higher risk overall from cancer (including breast cancer), the report highlights the increased risk of certain cancers, like stomach, prostate and myeloma, in the black population, based on the data collected.
NON INVASIVE TREATMENT FOR BREAST CANCER
30th June - The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph reported on a ground breaking treatment for breast cancer, which uses light to target and kill tumours without the need for surgery. Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) has already being used to treat some other cancers, but a medical team at the Royal Free Hospital are trialling it for the first time on primary breast cancer. This pioneering work is being led by Mr Mo Keshtgar, leading breast cancer surgeon and member of Cancerkin’s Medical Advisory Panel. The treatment works by injecting the patient with drugs which make the target area sensitive to light. The drug is activated when a low power red laser is beamed at the area. The process starves the cells of oxygen, causing them to die. The potential advantages are that this treatment only attacks the cancer cells, rather than affecting surrounding healthy cells and could (in some cases)avoid the need for surgery. It could become an alternative to radiotherapy in the future.
Clinical trials are due to start on 20 patients this year at the Royal Free Hospital and it is hoped that if these and future trials are promising, with patients being monitored for 5 years after treatment, that this technique might be available within 6 years.
A story in the Daily Mail on 25th June 2009 (www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1194817) reported on the existence of promising new drugs or surgical techniques that are currently available for cancer patients, often on the NHS, although many patients are unaware of them. They say that this may be due to a postcode lottery, a lack of expertise in how to go about getting them or a lack of the right equipment at a local hospital. So the question is how to go about getting these ‘cutting edge treatments’?
They refer to the new government guidelines, whereby each patient has a right to choose the hospital where they have their treatment. They suggest ways of getting hold of a drug or treatment you think might be of benefit, but is not being offered to you for a variety of reasons. Examples are referral for a second opinion, an appeal to an independent panel of a local primary care trust (PCT), use of the top up scheme and getting help and advice from a relevant charity.
The article then goes on to discuss the latest drugs and treatments that are available either on the NHS or privately for various cancers. In respect of breast cancer, they refer to instances where some NHS doctors are prescribing chemotherapy before surgery in an attempt to shrink the tumour. There has already been success with this approach, particularly with larger tumours, where the results in some cases have reduced the need for radical surgery and allowing for a lumpectomy rather than a mastectomy. They also talk about the use of the sentinel lymph node biopsy, which is available in some NHS hospitals, to determine if the breast cancer has spread through the lymphatic system. By using this technique, surgeons can avoid removing all the lymph nodes, possibly unnecessarily, to determine if the cancer has spread in this way.
PROMISING NEW DRUG IN TREATMENT OF CANCERS CAUSED BY FAULTY BRCA1 OR BRCA2 GENES
June 2009 - Cancer Research UK report on a promising new drug called Olaparib which has successfully completed a Phase 1 clinical trial at the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital in London. Early results indicate that the drug appears to be particularly effective in people whose cancers carry mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 cancer predisposition genes which are linked to breast, ovarian and prostate cancers.
The drug was given to 60 patients who had an inherited form of breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, caused by faulty BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. These genes are thought to be responsible for about 5% of breast and ovarian cancers and about 1-2% of early onset prostate cancers.
Early results of the trial (sponsored by AstraZeneca), published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that more than half of the patients saw their tumours shrink or stabilise, despite the failure of previous treatments. The drug is now being tested in larger trials.
Dr Peter Sneddon, an executive director of clinical and translational research funding at Cancer Research UK, which part funded the trial said:
“Although development of this drug is in its early stages, it is very exciting to see that it has the potential to work when other treatment options have failed.”
CANCER INCIDENCE & SURVIVAL BY MAJOR ETHNIC GROUP, ENGLAND 2002-2006
This is the name of a first report on ethnicity and cancer incidence, published on 25th June 2009 and produced by the National Cancer Intelligence Network (NCIN) and Cancer Research UK. It is the first national analysis of cancer incidence in ethnic groups and looks at all cases of cancer diagnosed in England between 2002 and 2006.
It is said that the report will help shape policy on targeting relevant public health messages to the ethnic communities around the signs and symptoms of cancer.
Dr Lesley Walker, a director of cancer information at Cancer Research UK said:
“This report is a hugely important step forward in understanding how such a complex disease affects people from different ethnic groups.
The next step is to think about how we can target health messages appropriately, making sure different communities are aware of the signs and symptoms of the cancers that are most likely to affect them.”
It seems that while the white population is at a higher risk overall from cancer (including breast cancer), the report highlights the increased risk of certain cancers, like stomach, prostate and myeloma, in the black population, based on the data collected.
NON INVASIVE TREATMENT FOR BREAST CANCER
30th June - The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph reported on a ground breaking treatment for breast cancer, which uses light to target and kill tumours without the need for surgery. Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) has already being used to treat some other cancers, but a medical team at the Royal Free Hospital are trialling it for the first time on primary breast cancer. This pioneering work is being led by Mr Mo Keshtgar, leading breast cancer surgeon and member of Cancerkin’s Medical Advisory Panel. The treatment works by injecting the patient with drugs which make the target area sensitive to light. The drug is activated when a low power red laser is beamed at the area. The process starves the cells of oxygen, causing them to die. The potential advantages are that this treatment only attacks the cancer cells, rather than affecting surrounding healthy cells and could (in some cases)avoid the need for surgery. It could become an alternative to radiotherapy in the future.
Clinical trials are due to start on 20 patients this year at the Royal Free Hospital and it is hoped that if these and future trials are promising, with patients being monitored for 5 years after treatment, that this technique might be available within 6 years.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
April 2009
Record fall in deaths from breast cancer
Data from Cancer Research UK has revealed that for the first time since records began, in 1971, the number of women dying from breast cancer has fallen below 12,000. This is despite the increase in breast cancer diagnosis, up by more than 50% in the last 25 years.
Cancer Research UK data showed that in 2007, 11,990 women died from breast cancer in the UK. In 1971, the figure was 12,472. That figure rose to a peak in 1989 with 15,625 women dying from the disease, but since then figures have been falling, apart from a small rise in 2005.
The fall in deaths is thought to be due to a range of factors including the introduction of the NHS Breast Screening Programme in 1988, breast awareness among women and improved treatments given in addition to surgery, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone treatments, used to try and prevent the disease from coming back.
Professor Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK's chief clinician, said: "It's incredibly encouraging to see fewer women dying from breast cancer now than at any time in the last 40 years, despite breast cancer being diagnosed more often. Research has played a crucial role in this progress leading to improved treatments and better management for women with the disease. The introduction of the NHS breast screening programme has also contributed as women are more likely to survive the earlier cancer is diagnosed. We hope these new figures will encourage women over the age of 47 to attend screening and to know that even if a tumour is found, their chances of beating it are better than ever."
However, rates of breast cancer have risen significantly over the last 25 years and continue to rise year on year. It is the most common cancer in the UK and is the second most common cause of death from cancer after lung cancer. This is thought to be due to a number of factors such as age, obesity, drinking alcohol, reproductive factors and to a decreasing extent, HRT.
Also, many believe that improved detection rates may be leading to a higher incidence of breast cancers being detected. According to figures produced by the NHS Breast Screening Programme, more than 19 million women have been screened and over 117,000 cancers have been detected. In 2007-08 over 2 million women were invited for screening and 1.7 million were actually screened. This figure was an increase of 500,000 from the previous decade. It seems that inevitably, this rise in the number of women being screened has had a significant impact on the numbers being diagnosed.
The NHS Breast Screening Programme is currently available to women aged 50-70, but is intended to include women aged 47-73 by 2012 as part of the Government’s Cancer Reform Strategy.
Sources and references:
Cancer Research UK
BBC website
The Times newspaper
Eating walnuts could help reduce the risk of developing breast cancer
This is the claim made by a US study presented to the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
Researcher Dr Elaine Hardman, of Marshall University School of Medicine, said that although the study was carried out in mice, the beneficial effect of walnuts was likely to apply to humans too.
Dr Hardman and her colleagues studied mice that were fed a diet that they estimated was the human equivalent of two ounces of walnuts per day. A separate group of mice were fed a control diet. Standard testing showed that walnut consumption significantly decreased breast tumour incidence, the number of glands with a tumour and tumour size and that those that did arise took longer to develop and were smaller.
Dr Hardman said: "We know that a healthy diet overall prevents all manner of chronic diseases. It is clear that walnuts contribute to a healthy diet that can reduce breast cancer."
The BBC reports Anna Denny, a nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, saying that evidence for nuts reducing the risk of heart disease was currently stronger than it was for their anti-cancer properties. She said: "Although nuts are high in fat (and thus calories), the fatty acids in nuts are predominantly 'good' unsaturated fatty acids.
"Other additional components of nuts that may contribute to a reduction in heart disease and cancer risk include fibre and 'bioactive' compounds.
"More research is needed before it will be possible to attribute specific health benefits of nuts to specific bioactive compounds because nuts contain a complex mixture of different bioactive compounds."
They also report Josephine Querido of Cancer Research UK saying that there was insufficient evidence to show that eating walnuts could prevent breast cancer in humans. She said: "We know that a healthy balanced diet - rich in fruit and vegetables - plays an important part in reducing the risk of many types of cancer.”
Dr Alexis Willett, Policy Manager at Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said: “It is very difficult to know which individual foods influence the chance of getting breast cancer. That’s why this study in mice is interesting, but more research is needed in humans so we can understand more about how walnuts may affect breast cancer risk. “
Sources and References:
BBC
American Association for Cancer Research
Breakthrough Breast Cancer
March 2009
Alcohol Risks - red and white wine.
It has been known for some time that one of the risk factors associated with breast cancer is alcohol consumption. However, while previously, some research had suggested that red wine might have a small beneficial effect, a recent study says that this is not the case and that red and white wine have a similar impact on risk.
A study looking at alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer was published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2002. The results showed that not only was the risk of developing breast cancer slightly increased by drinking but the evidence also suggested that the more a woman drank, the greater her risk of developing breast cancer. Although the increase in risk per drink is small, it does add up (i.e. about 7% per drink)
The figures suggested that by the age of 80, the number of women who would develop breast cancer would be:
• 8.8 out of 100 if they don't drink at all
• 10.1 out of 100 if they have 2 drinks a day
• 13.3 out of 100 if they have 6 drinks a day
In March 2009, the results of a study carried out at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Centre in the US (and published in the Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention journal) showed that red and white wine have a similar effect on the risk of developing breast cancer.
The team interviewed over 6,000 women with breast cancer and over 7,000 who had no history of breast cancer. All were aged between 20 and 69. Both groups drank a similar amount of alcohol, including equal amounts of red and white wine. The results showed that women who drank 14 or more alcoholic beverages were 24% more likely to develop breast cancer than those who drank no alcohol, regardless of the type of alcoholic drink.
Dr Polly Newcomb, head of the Centre’s Cancer Prevention Programme said:
‘The general evidence is that alcohol consumption overall increased breast cancer risk, but other studies made us wonder whether red wine might in fact have some positive value’.
However: ‘We found no difference between red or white wine in relation to breast cancer risk. Neither appears to have any benefits… And if a woman chooses red wine, she should do so because she likes the taste, not because she thinks it may reduce her risk of breast cancer.’
Sources and references:
Cancer Research UK
‘No Difference Between Red Wine or White Wine Consumption and Breast Cancer Risk’ : Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 18 (3) 1007-1010 DOI
Night Shifts and Breast Cancer
A number of news sources reported that Denmark had begun compensating “dozens” of women who developed breast cancer after working night shifts. The BBC said the Danish government’s decision was based on a report from WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concluded that working nightshifts could increase women’s risk of breast cancer. Although this report has not yet been published, a summary “found a modestly increased risk of breast cancer in long-term employees compared with those who are not engaged in shift work at night".
The NHS website commenting on this story said: ‘It is not clear exactly how working at night might increase risk of cancer. There is a theory that disruption of the circadian system and the hormone melatonin are involved. Working at night is known to disrupt our circadian system, which regulates how we respond to night and day. This system affects how active we are, which hormones are produced, and which genes are switched on and off. Some of the genes affected by the circadian system can affect tumour growth, while the hormone melatonin, which is normally produced at night, affects immune system function.’
The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has commissioned its own report (due to be published in 2011) on the health impact of night-shift work, including its effects on breast cancer risk and will then consider what if any changes need to be made to recommended working practices in this country.
Cancer Research UK, commenting on this story have said that in their opinion: ‘the studies to date are unclear as to whether shift work actually causes breast cancer, in and of itself, or whether shift workers are more likely do other things that increase their risk, like being inactive or overweight’.
Sources and References:
• Straif K, Baan R, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Altieri A, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Cogliano V, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of shift-work, painting and fire-fighting. Lancet Oncol 2007; 12:1065-1066.
• NHS website
• Cancer Research UK
NICE reject NHS funding for cancer drug Tyverb (lapatinib) – GSK to appeal
GSK , the manufacturers of the drug Tyverb (also known as lapatinib) are appealing a decision by NICE (and also the SMC ) to reject funding for it by the NHS.
Tyverb is commonly used to treat a particular type of advanced breast cancer which has returned, despite use of standard treatments. It is not a cure, but can delay the progression of the cancer. It hit the headlines when it was used by Jane Tomlinson, who was given the drug as part of a trial. Her husband claimed the drug: ‘… gave Jane three months of reasonable quality life’. However, NICE said that it did not extend life by long enough to justify the cost to the NHS and as such would not recommend it for routine treatment.
GSK had offered to fund 12 weeks of treatment, on the basis that the NHS would only have to pay for ongoing treatment if the patient was still benefitting at the end of the trial period. GSK claimed that the cost for patients would be about £16,000 per annum and added that it could control the disease after standard chemotherapy and treatment with Herceptin had not stopped the disease from returning. They also said that a number of other European countries had granted funding for the drug (including France and Germany).
However, NICE considered that the cost would be nearer to £70,000 per annum and concluded that it was not a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
GSK have appealed the decision and the appeal panel will convene on 8th June 2009 to hear representations from the appellants.
GlaxoSmithKline
The National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence – drugs watchdog for England & Wales
Scottish Medicines Consortium – Scotland ‘s drugs watchdog
Sources and References:
The Scotsman
NICE
It has been known for some time that one of the risk factors associated with breast cancer is alcohol consumption. However, while previously, some research had suggested that red wine might have a small beneficial effect, a recent study says that this is not the case and that red and white wine have a similar impact on risk.
A study looking at alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer was published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2002. The results showed that not only was the risk of developing breast cancer slightly increased by drinking but the evidence also suggested that the more a woman drank, the greater her risk of developing breast cancer. Although the increase in risk per drink is small, it does add up (i.e. about 7% per drink)
The figures suggested that by the age of 80, the number of women who would develop breast cancer would be:
• 8.8 out of 100 if they don't drink at all
• 10.1 out of 100 if they have 2 drinks a day
• 13.3 out of 100 if they have 6 drinks a day
In March 2009, the results of a study carried out at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Centre in the US (and published in the Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention journal) showed that red and white wine have a similar effect on the risk of developing breast cancer.
The team interviewed over 6,000 women with breast cancer and over 7,000 who had no history of breast cancer. All were aged between 20 and 69. Both groups drank a similar amount of alcohol, including equal amounts of red and white wine. The results showed that women who drank 14 or more alcoholic beverages were 24% more likely to develop breast cancer than those who drank no alcohol, regardless of the type of alcoholic drink.
Dr Polly Newcomb, head of the Centre’s Cancer Prevention Programme said:
‘The general evidence is that alcohol consumption overall increased breast cancer risk, but other studies made us wonder whether red wine might in fact have some positive value’.
However: ‘We found no difference between red or white wine in relation to breast cancer risk. Neither appears to have any benefits… And if a woman chooses red wine, she should do so because she likes the taste, not because she thinks it may reduce her risk of breast cancer.’
Sources and references:
Cancer Research UK
‘No Difference Between Red Wine or White Wine Consumption and Breast Cancer Risk’ : Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 18 (3) 1007-1010 DOI
Night Shifts and Breast Cancer
A number of news sources reported that Denmark had begun compensating “dozens” of women who developed breast cancer after working night shifts. The BBC said the Danish government’s decision was based on a report from WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concluded that working nightshifts could increase women’s risk of breast cancer. Although this report has not yet been published, a summary “found a modestly increased risk of breast cancer in long-term employees compared with those who are not engaged in shift work at night".
The NHS website commenting on this story said: ‘It is not clear exactly how working at night might increase risk of cancer. There is a theory that disruption of the circadian system and the hormone melatonin are involved. Working at night is known to disrupt our circadian system, which regulates how we respond to night and day. This system affects how active we are, which hormones are produced, and which genes are switched on and off. Some of the genes affected by the circadian system can affect tumour growth, while the hormone melatonin, which is normally produced at night, affects immune system function.’
The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has commissioned its own report (due to be published in 2011) on the health impact of night-shift work, including its effects on breast cancer risk and will then consider what if any changes need to be made to recommended working practices in this country.
Cancer Research UK, commenting on this story have said that in their opinion: ‘the studies to date are unclear as to whether shift work actually causes breast cancer, in and of itself, or whether shift workers are more likely do other things that increase their risk, like being inactive or overweight’.
Sources and References:
• Straif K, Baan R, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Altieri A, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Cogliano V, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of shift-work, painting and fire-fighting. Lancet Oncol 2007; 12:1065-1066.
• NHS website
• Cancer Research UK
NICE reject NHS funding for cancer drug Tyverb (lapatinib) – GSK to appeal
GSK , the manufacturers of the drug Tyverb (also known as lapatinib) are appealing a decision by NICE (and also the SMC ) to reject funding for it by the NHS.
Tyverb is commonly used to treat a particular type of advanced breast cancer which has returned, despite use of standard treatments. It is not a cure, but can delay the progression of the cancer. It hit the headlines when it was used by Jane Tomlinson, who was given the drug as part of a trial. Her husband claimed the drug: ‘… gave Jane three months of reasonable quality life’. However, NICE said that it did not extend life by long enough to justify the cost to the NHS and as such would not recommend it for routine treatment.
GSK had offered to fund 12 weeks of treatment, on the basis that the NHS would only have to pay for ongoing treatment if the patient was still benefitting at the end of the trial period. GSK claimed that the cost for patients would be about £16,000 per annum and added that it could control the disease after standard chemotherapy and treatment with Herceptin had not stopped the disease from returning. They also said that a number of other European countries had granted funding for the drug (including France and Germany).
However, NICE considered that the cost would be nearer to £70,000 per annum and concluded that it was not a cost-effective use of NHS resources.
GSK have appealed the decision and the appeal panel will convene on 8th June 2009 to hear representations from the appellants.
GlaxoSmithKline
The National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence – drugs watchdog for England & Wales
Scottish Medicines Consortium – Scotland ‘s drugs watchdog
Sources and References:
The Scotsman
NICE
February 2009
Breast cancer screening peril
In a letter to The Times 23 signatories accuse the NHS Screening Programme of failing to provide women with all the facts when inviting them to routine breast cancer checks . They say that ‘none of their invitations for screening comes close to telling the truth. As a result, women are being manipulated…into attending’. The letter says that ‘there are harms associated with early detection of breast cancer by screening that are not widely acknowledged’. It notes that many breast cancers will not do any harm if left alone; but once detected, a woman may go on to a conveyor belt of unnecessary and often aggressive treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy and possibly chemotherapy.
This letter was published the day before an analysis by the Nordic Cochrane Centre of breast cancer and screening was published in the British Medical Journal. The analysis concluded that the information distributed by the NHS was one sided and misleading for those invited to take part. While it talks of the benefits of attending the programme, it does not tell them of the disadvantages i.e. the possibility of over-diagnosis, misdiagnosis, the potential harm of the treatments for cancer and the psychological trauma of being given a cancer diagnosis. They say ‘The leaflet has the authoritative title Breast Screening: The Facts suggesting that the information can be trusted…[but] it is inadequate as a basis for informed consent’. Their research showed that if 2000 women were screened regularly for 10 years, one would avoid dying from breast cancer, but 10 healthy women would be treated unnecessarily and a further 200 healthy women will have a false alarm.
The Nordic Centre study, led by Peter Gotzsche, notes that despite the fact that20% of cancers detected by screening were DCIS cases, the NHS leaflet makes no mention of this. Fewer than half of DCIS cases become invasive cases and it is often referred to as a pre cancerous condition. DCIS has been found to exist harmlessly in the breasts of about 9% of women at post mortem, but the increased use of mammography has led to vastly increased rates of DCIS being reported. One of the signatories to The Times letter, Professor Michael Baum, said that more cases should be treated like many prostate cancer cases, with a number of men allowed to live with the cancer and often dying of unrelated causes. He said ‘the number of invasive breast cancers being detected is not falling, despite the number of cases picked up by screening rising dramatically… You would expect serious cancers to drop because the early detection means the DCIS cases are not progressing. It just doesn’t add up.’ He has said that instead of screening the whole female population over the age of 50, every 3 years, women should be tested according to their level of risk.
However, the study is disputed by the NHS who report that the national screening programme detects more than 14,000 cancers annually and saves 1,400 lives. They add that 79% of cancers detected through screening are invasive. Professor Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK's chief clinician, said that any debate about the details "should not be allowed to distract anyone from the benefits of breast screening".
"Screening offers the best possible opportunity for early diagnosis of breast cancer and experts agree that this means a better chance of successful treatment," he explained.
"The information women receive at time of screening is based on careful research into the views of the women being screened. Improvements can always be made and we are contributing to a review by the Department of Health.”
19th February 2009
including surgeons, GP’s, oncologists, public health specialists and patient representatives
Done by mammography
Currently available to all women aged 50-70 every three years. It is to be extended to include women from 47-73 by 2012.
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Sources and Information:
The Times
The Sunday Times
Cancer Research UK
NHS
‘Breast Screening: the facts - or maybe not’ by Peter Gotzsche et al in the BMJ 2009;338:b86
Decline in breast cancer risk when HRT use stopped
The results of a US study, published in the New England Medical Journal, has provided further evidence that post menopausal women who take HRT (combined oestrogen plus progestin hormone therapy being the most commonly prescribed HRT in the UK) face a greater risk of breast cancer, but that when they stop taking HRT, the risk falls sharply again.
The study was part of a larger trial, started in the early 90’s, investigating post menopausal women. The HRT part of the study was stopped in 2002, when researchers found that women taking HRT had higher rates of breast cancer than those taking a placebo. This was followed by a significant drop in the number of women taking HRT, which was in turn followed by a corresponding fall in breast cancer rates. There has been much debate on whether these two facts are linked, but in this latest study, the researchers were satisfied that there was a clear link.
The study continued monitoring 15,000 women from the original study, who had all been urged to stop taking HRT in 2002 and compared this with data from women not originally involved, who had been given no specific advice on giving up. In the first group, the incidence of breast cancer was much higher in the 5 years up to 2002, but then fell rapidly, with diagnosed cases falling by 28% in a year. These women had approximately the same number of mammograms before and after 2002. This is relevant as some had argued previously that a reduction in the frequency of mammograms among women who stopped taking HRT might have contributed to the apparent fall.
Many women in the other group of women chose to stop taking the therapy and this coincided with a 43% fall in breast cancer rates between 2002 and 2003. Women in this group who continued taking HRT were at a higher risk of cancer, with the risk doubling for every 5 years of taking the HRT.
Dr Marcia Stafanik (co author and professor of medicine at Stanford University) said:
‘You start women on hormones and within five years, their risk of breast cancer is clearly elevated. You stop the hormones and within one year, their risk is essentially back to normal. It’s reasonably convincing cause-and-effect data’.
Dr Rowan Chlebowski, (chief investigator at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute and lead author of the study) advised:
‘Postmenopausal women and their physicians should consider these findings in weighing the risks and benefits of combined oestrogen plus progestin use, especially if the women plan to take the medication for more than five years’.
Professor Valerie Beral (director of Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit at Oxford University) said:
‘There has been a big drop in HRT use since 2002. Because of this about 1000 fewer UK women are developing breast cancer every year’.
However, Dr David Sturdee (president of the International Menopause Society, which represents HRT specialists) is not convinced. He said:-
‘There’s no doubt there has been a drop in breast cancer rates, which is good news, but this started before the reduction in HRT use. Breast cancer takes years to develop, so if this drop was due to stopping HRT, we wouldn’t be seeing it just yet. There’s something happening, which is worth investigating, but it’s unlikely to be HRT.
Sources and References:-
BBC News
Cancer Research News
Chlebowski RT et al. Breast Cancerafter use of estrogen plus progestrin in postmenopausal women.
N Engl J Med Feb 5; 360:573
Hormone injections improve survival in premenopausal breast cancer patients
A study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is thought to be the first to look at the long term impact of goserelin (more commonly known as Zoladex and given by injection) and its effectiveness compared to tamoxifen, an oestrogen blocking drug. Cancer Research UK scientists and their colleagues have shown that treatment with goserelin improves long term survival in premenopausal breast cancer patients.
Hormonal therapies interfere with the production or action of particular hormones in the body. Most breast cancers need supplies of the hormone oestrogen to grow. Production of oestrogen by the ovaries is stimulated by a hormone called leuteinising hormone, which is produced by the pituitary gland in the brain. Zoladex stops the production of leuteinising hormone from the pituitary gland, which leads to a reduction in oestrogen levels. The cancer cells then grow more slowly or stop growing altogether. The cancer may shrink in size.
Researchers recruited over 2700premenopausal women with breast cancer and placed them randomly in one of four treatment groups, receiving either Zoladex, tamoxifen, both drugs or neither one, for 2 years.
It was found that women who were given Zoladex experienced similar outcomes to those taking tamoxifen. 15 years after the start of treatment there were 8.5 fewer deaths per 100 and 13.9 fewer recurrences per 100 among those who were given Zoladex alone than among those taking neither drug. There was no significant benefit from taking both drugs.
It seems that based on long term follow up of this trial, Zoladex is as effective as tamoxifen when each are given for 2 years. Researchers said:
‘IT may be that women who are unlikely to complete 5 years of tamoxifen tablets may prefer two years of goserelin injections.’
Sources:
Cancer Research UK
Cancerbackup
In a letter to The Times 23 signatories accuse the NHS Screening Programme of failing to provide women with all the facts when inviting them to routine breast cancer checks . They say that ‘none of their invitations for screening comes close to telling the truth. As a result, women are being manipulated…into attending’. The letter says that ‘there are harms associated with early detection of breast cancer by screening that are not widely acknowledged’. It notes that many breast cancers will not do any harm if left alone; but once detected, a woman may go on to a conveyor belt of unnecessary and often aggressive treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy and possibly chemotherapy.
This letter was published the day before an analysis by the Nordic Cochrane Centre of breast cancer and screening was published in the British Medical Journal. The analysis concluded that the information distributed by the NHS was one sided and misleading for those invited to take part. While it talks of the benefits of attending the programme, it does not tell them of the disadvantages i.e. the possibility of over-diagnosis, misdiagnosis, the potential harm of the treatments for cancer and the psychological trauma of being given a cancer diagnosis. They say ‘The leaflet has the authoritative title Breast Screening: The Facts suggesting that the information can be trusted…[but] it is inadequate as a basis for informed consent’. Their research showed that if 2000 women were screened regularly for 10 years, one would avoid dying from breast cancer, but 10 healthy women would be treated unnecessarily and a further 200 healthy women will have a false alarm.
The Nordic Centre study, led by Peter Gotzsche, notes that despite the fact that20% of cancers detected by screening were DCIS cases, the NHS leaflet makes no mention of this. Fewer than half of DCIS cases become invasive cases and it is often referred to as a pre cancerous condition. DCIS has been found to exist harmlessly in the breasts of about 9% of women at post mortem, but the increased use of mammography has led to vastly increased rates of DCIS being reported. One of the signatories to The Times letter, Professor Michael Baum, said that more cases should be treated like many prostate cancer cases, with a number of men allowed to live with the cancer and often dying of unrelated causes. He said ‘the number of invasive breast cancers being detected is not falling, despite the number of cases picked up by screening rising dramatically… You would expect serious cancers to drop because the early detection means the DCIS cases are not progressing. It just doesn’t add up.’ He has said that instead of screening the whole female population over the age of 50, every 3 years, women should be tested according to their level of risk.
However, the study is disputed by the NHS who report that the national screening programme detects more than 14,000 cancers annually and saves 1,400 lives. They add that 79% of cancers detected through screening are invasive. Professor Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK's chief clinician, said that any debate about the details "should not be allowed to distract anyone from the benefits of breast screening".
"Screening offers the best possible opportunity for early diagnosis of breast cancer and experts agree that this means a better chance of successful treatment," he explained.
"The information women receive at time of screening is based on careful research into the views of the women being screened. Improvements can always be made and we are contributing to a review by the Department of Health.”
19th February 2009
including surgeons, GP’s, oncologists, public health specialists and patient representatives
Done by mammography
Currently available to all women aged 50-70 every three years. It is to be extended to include women from 47-73 by 2012.
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Sources and Information:
The Times
The Sunday Times
Cancer Research UK
NHS
‘Breast Screening: the facts - or maybe not’ by Peter Gotzsche et al in the BMJ 2009;338:b86
Decline in breast cancer risk when HRT use stopped
The results of a US study, published in the New England Medical Journal, has provided further evidence that post menopausal women who take HRT (combined oestrogen plus progestin hormone therapy being the most commonly prescribed HRT in the UK) face a greater risk of breast cancer, but that when they stop taking HRT, the risk falls sharply again.
The study was part of a larger trial, started in the early 90’s, investigating post menopausal women. The HRT part of the study was stopped in 2002, when researchers found that women taking HRT had higher rates of breast cancer than those taking a placebo. This was followed by a significant drop in the number of women taking HRT, which was in turn followed by a corresponding fall in breast cancer rates. There has been much debate on whether these two facts are linked, but in this latest study, the researchers were satisfied that there was a clear link.
The study continued monitoring 15,000 women from the original study, who had all been urged to stop taking HRT in 2002 and compared this with data from women not originally involved, who had been given no specific advice on giving up. In the first group, the incidence of breast cancer was much higher in the 5 years up to 2002, but then fell rapidly, with diagnosed cases falling by 28% in a year. These women had approximately the same number of mammograms before and after 2002. This is relevant as some had argued previously that a reduction in the frequency of mammograms among women who stopped taking HRT might have contributed to the apparent fall.
Many women in the other group of women chose to stop taking the therapy and this coincided with a 43% fall in breast cancer rates between 2002 and 2003. Women in this group who continued taking HRT were at a higher risk of cancer, with the risk doubling for every 5 years of taking the HRT.
Dr Marcia Stafanik (co author and professor of medicine at Stanford University) said:
‘You start women on hormones and within five years, their risk of breast cancer is clearly elevated. You stop the hormones and within one year, their risk is essentially back to normal. It’s reasonably convincing cause-and-effect data’.
Dr Rowan Chlebowski, (chief investigator at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute and lead author of the study) advised:
‘Postmenopausal women and their physicians should consider these findings in weighing the risks and benefits of combined oestrogen plus progestin use, especially if the women plan to take the medication for more than five years’.
Professor Valerie Beral (director of Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit at Oxford University) said:
‘There has been a big drop in HRT use since 2002. Because of this about 1000 fewer UK women are developing breast cancer every year’.
However, Dr David Sturdee (president of the International Menopause Society, which represents HRT specialists) is not convinced. He said:-
‘There’s no doubt there has been a drop in breast cancer rates, which is good news, but this started before the reduction in HRT use. Breast cancer takes years to develop, so if this drop was due to stopping HRT, we wouldn’t be seeing it just yet. There’s something happening, which is worth investigating, but it’s unlikely to be HRT.
Sources and References:-
BBC News
Cancer Research News
Chlebowski RT et al. Breast Cancerafter use of estrogen plus progestrin in postmenopausal women.
N Engl J Med Feb 5; 360:573
Hormone injections improve survival in premenopausal breast cancer patients
A study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is thought to be the first to look at the long term impact of goserelin (more commonly known as Zoladex and given by injection) and its effectiveness compared to tamoxifen, an oestrogen blocking drug. Cancer Research UK scientists and their colleagues have shown that treatment with goserelin improves long term survival in premenopausal breast cancer patients.
Hormonal therapies interfere with the production or action of particular hormones in the body. Most breast cancers need supplies of the hormone oestrogen to grow. Production of oestrogen by the ovaries is stimulated by a hormone called leuteinising hormone, which is produced by the pituitary gland in the brain. Zoladex stops the production of leuteinising hormone from the pituitary gland, which leads to a reduction in oestrogen levels. The cancer cells then grow more slowly or stop growing altogether. The cancer may shrink in size.
Researchers recruited over 2700premenopausal women with breast cancer and placed them randomly in one of four treatment groups, receiving either Zoladex, tamoxifen, both drugs or neither one, for 2 years.
It was found that women who were given Zoladex experienced similar outcomes to those taking tamoxifen. 15 years after the start of treatment there were 8.5 fewer deaths per 100 and 13.9 fewer recurrences per 100 among those who were given Zoladex alone than among those taking neither drug. There was no significant benefit from taking both drugs.
It seems that based on long term follow up of this trial, Zoladex is as effective as tamoxifen when each are given for 2 years. Researchers said:
‘IT may be that women who are unlikely to complete 5 years of tamoxifen tablets may prefer two years of goserelin injections.’
Sources:
Cancer Research UK
Cancerbackup
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
