(NaturalNews) A new study shows that the increasingly popular practice of "preventive mastectomy" in non-cancerous breasts provides no benefit to the vast majority of women.
"It's important for women to understand that, except for one subset of breast cancer patients, they don't need to do this," said lead author Isabelle Bedrosian of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. "Hopefully, it'll reassure patients wondering if they should."
Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer in the United States each year, and another 200,000 cases are diagnosed. Because cancer in one breast is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence in the other breast, doctors are increasingly recommending that cancer survivors opt to have both breasts removed as a "preventive" measure. And women are opting for it in huge numbers, seeking the peace of mind that it is said to offer.
The number of preventive mastectomies in the United States increased two-and-a-half-fold between 1998 and 2003. Today, 11 percent of all women undergoing a mastectomy on a cancerous breast choose to have the non-cancerous breast removed as well. Analysts have attributed this increase to more advanced screening techniques that detect cancers smaller and earlier; popularization of genetic screening and the idea that some genes may predispose families to breast cancer; and wider public acceptance of plastic surgery combined with advances in reconstructive technology.
Yet while it has been strongly established that elective mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence, there has been no research to suggest that it actually lengthens a woman's life span.
"We have not had real data to guide us," Bedrosian said. "We can't sit down with a woman and say, 'If you do this, this is your expected benefit.' And when we don't have those data, then biases become the big drivers of decision making."
In the new study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Bedrosian and colleagues analyzed the records of 107,106 women in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. All the women had undergone a mastectomy to treat breast cancer of Stage III or lower; 8,902 had chosen to have a healthy breast removed, as well.
After controlling for other risk factors, the researchers found only a small difference in survival rates between women who had chosen to have two breasts removed and women who had chosen to have only one removed. Upon further analysis, they discovered that this benefit was only present in women under the age of 50 with estrogen receptor-negative, early-stage tumors. In this group, elective mastectomy increased the survival rate by 4.8 percent, amounting to just under five lives saved for every 100 surgeries.
Elective mastectomy provided no survival benefit to women outside this demographic.
The researchers believe that even when cancers recur, most women will not be killed by them but will instead die of other causes first. Only in women whose cancers lack estrogen receptors and who would otherwise have long lives ahead of them does recurrence appear to pose a serious threat to survival.
The most effective breast cancer drugs on the market are those that lower the body's production of estrogen, which fuels the growth of many cancers. Tumors that lack estrogen receptors do not depend on the hormone for their growth, however, meaning that women with these cancers cannot use the most effective drugs and tend to have higher mortality rates.
Breast-cancer specialist Larry Norton of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City expressed skepticism about the study's methodology and cautioned against doctors and patients giving it too much weight.
"This is an observational study, and hence it is impossible to control for confounding variables," Norton said, "and should not be used for individual clinical decisionmaking."
Norton admitted, however, that ethics make it impossible to perform a true controlled study on the question, since such an experiment might end up increasing cancer mortality in one group of participants.
Bedrosian disputed Norton's criticism, noting that the researchers used rigorous statistical analysis and controlled well for interference from other variables. She believes that the conclusions are, in fact, strong enough to help women make better-informed decisions about elective mastectomy.
"We looked at this in multiple different ways, and we got the same answer every time. And the results make good clinical sense. That adds another level of reassurance," she said. "Our hope is that when women hear the numbers, they will take a second look and decide not to go forward with a preventive mastectomy [in their healthy breast] if it won't give them a survival benefit."
Victor Vogel, national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, said the results suggest that women should wait a full year before going through with the removal of a healthy breast.
"In a younger woman with [estrogen receptor]-negative disease, an [elective} mastectomy may be considered," he said. "In the vast majority of women older than 50 with ER-positive disease, prudent waiting is probably the most appropriate."
Bedrosian said that the point of the study was not to impose "a uniform mandate" that women should never get the procedure, but that their decisions must be well informed.
"This is still a decision to be made by the patient after talking with her doctor," Bedrosian said.
"We hope this study helps women make better decisions [and] provides some reassurance that perhaps a [preventive] mastectomy is not necessary, perhaps overly aggressive and perhaps a bit too much."
Sources for this story include: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art... http://www.time.com/time/health/art....
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Few Women Truly Understand the Risks of Mammograms
(NaturalNews) One in three breast cancers detected by mammograms would never have posed a threat to the patient's life, making all the treatments that follow unnecessary, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, and published in the British Medical Journal.
"The question is no longer whether overdiagnosis occurs, but how should we react to it," said H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, author of an accompanying editorial. "It's not an imperative to be screened; in fact, it's a close call."
Overdiagnosis refers to the detection of a non-life threatening cancer. In general, breast cancers come in three types: aggressive cancers that spread before they can be detected, cancers that spread slowly enough to be detected and treated early, and cancers that spread so slowly they pose no threat. Unfortunately, mammograms are best at detecting cancers in the latter category and not in the first two, and there is no way to distinguish the cancers from each other without watching them progress.
In the new study, researchers examined breast cancer rates in parts of Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom both before and after national screening programs begin. If mammograms are actually saving lives, then there should have been an increase in the number of aggressive breast cancer cases being diagnosed. Yet while the rate of cancer diagnosis did increase, there was no increase in diagnosis of the dangerous kind.
The researchers estimated that for 2,000 women who receive mammograms regularly over a 10-year period, one life will be saved and 10 women will be needlessly treated for cancer -- including chemotherapy, radiation and even breast removal.
"For too long, we've taken a brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers -- but that's wrong," Welch said. "The best test is the one that finds the right cancers and nothing else."
Sources for this story include: bulletin.aarp.org.
"The question is no longer whether overdiagnosis occurs, but how should we react to it," said H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, author of an accompanying editorial. "It's not an imperative to be screened; in fact, it's a close call."
Overdiagnosis refers to the detection of a non-life threatening cancer. In general, breast cancers come in three types: aggressive cancers that spread before they can be detected, cancers that spread slowly enough to be detected and treated early, and cancers that spread so slowly they pose no threat. Unfortunately, mammograms are best at detecting cancers in the latter category and not in the first two, and there is no way to distinguish the cancers from each other without watching them progress.
In the new study, researchers examined breast cancer rates in parts of Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom both before and after national screening programs begin. If mammograms are actually saving lives, then there should have been an increase in the number of aggressive breast cancer cases being diagnosed. Yet while the rate of cancer diagnosis did increase, there was no increase in diagnosis of the dangerous kind.
The researchers estimated that for 2,000 women who receive mammograms regularly over a 10-year period, one life will be saved and 10 women will be needlessly treated for cancer -- including chemotherapy, radiation and even breast removal.
"For too long, we've taken a brain-dead approach that says the best test is the one that finds the most cancers -- but that's wrong," Welch said. "The best test is the one that finds the right cancers and nothing else."
Sources for this story include: bulletin.aarp.org.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Surge in infertility tourism leads to Viking babies
(NaturalNews) In vitro fertilization (IVF) has become a popular method by which women who are having trouble getting pregnant are able to use donor sperm to achieve pregnancy. In the UK, however, there is a shortage of donor sperm that is causing British women to have to travel to countries like Denmark in order to find some.
A 2005 British law change outlawed the donating of sperm anonymously. UK law also has a long-standing rule that prohibits men who donate from receiving any sort of monetary compensation. Because of these rules, and the fact that many men fear having to provide their identities with the donation because the children may eventually try to find and meet them, few British men are donating sperm these days. As a result, the waiting list to receive IVF in the UK is several years.
In 2007, Denmark changed its laws and now permits anonymous donors, which has led to a surge in foreign women coming there to receive IVF treatment. Danish donors are also compensated between $60 and $200 for their donations which has helped to facilitate a large number of casual donors. The Danish sperm bank, Cryos, is the largest sperm bank in the world and is a popular destination for "infertility tourists" seeking to have children.
Denmark is one of the few nations that allows anonymous donations as well as monetary compensation for them. For this reason, Danish clinics are flourishing with increased business. DanFert in Copenhagen more than doubled its IVF customers since 2007. Vita Nova in Copenhagen has seen a 40 percent increase in women seeking IVF from Britain alone.
Danish clinics also cater to single women who are trying to have children, a controversial scenario rejected by many other nations who aim to serve couples trying to conceive. Such liberal laws have attracted all sorts of women from around the globe who wish to bear children but are otherwise unable.
Because of the popularity of the program, Danish banks have begun opening up franchised fertility clinics in other countries that permit it, including in the US and India. In these countries, men who are looking to make some extra cash often donate to the clinic, a practice that has all but ceased in Britain due to the laws.
Many women are hoping that UK laws will once again allow for anonymous sperm donors. They believe it will help to increase supply and end the shortage that has prevented many women from receiving IVF there.
Sources for this story include: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
A 2005 British law change outlawed the donating of sperm anonymously. UK law also has a long-standing rule that prohibits men who donate from receiving any sort of monetary compensation. Because of these rules, and the fact that many men fear having to provide their identities with the donation because the children may eventually try to find and meet them, few British men are donating sperm these days. As a result, the waiting list to receive IVF in the UK is several years.
In 2007, Denmark changed its laws and now permits anonymous donors, which has led to a surge in foreign women coming there to receive IVF treatment. Danish donors are also compensated between $60 and $200 for their donations which has helped to facilitate a large number of casual donors. The Danish sperm bank, Cryos, is the largest sperm bank in the world and is a popular destination for "infertility tourists" seeking to have children.
Denmark is one of the few nations that allows anonymous donations as well as monetary compensation for them. For this reason, Danish clinics are flourishing with increased business. DanFert in Copenhagen more than doubled its IVF customers since 2007. Vita Nova in Copenhagen has seen a 40 percent increase in women seeking IVF from Britain alone.
Danish clinics also cater to single women who are trying to have children, a controversial scenario rejected by many other nations who aim to serve couples trying to conceive. Such liberal laws have attracted all sorts of women from around the globe who wish to bear children but are otherwise unable.
Because of the popularity of the program, Danish banks have begun opening up franchised fertility clinics in other countries that permit it, including in the US and India. In these countries, men who are looking to make some extra cash often donate to the clinic, a practice that has all but ceased in Britain due to the laws.
Many women are hoping that UK laws will once again allow for anonymous sperm donors. They believe it will help to increase supply and end the shortage that has prevented many women from receiving IVF there.
Sources for this story include: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
New study: a common flame retardant causes infertility
(NaturalNews) So many US women have difficulty becoming pregnant that the fertility industry has become a huge business, raking in between three and five billion dollars a year. Now a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives raises the possibility that a lot of women who can't have babies could have flame retardant chemicals to blame -- specifically, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are commonly found in an alarming number of household consumer products.
In a study involving over 200 women, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) discovered that women with higher blood concentrations of PBDEs took far longer to become pregnant than those with low amounts of the chemicals in their blood. In fact, for every ten-fold increase in blood levels of four PBDE chemicals tested, there was a 30 percent decrease in the odds a woman would conceive a child during a month.
"There have been numerous animal studies that have found a range of health effects from exposure to PBDEs, but very little research has been done in humans. This latest paper is the first to address the impact on human fertility, and the results are surprisingly strong. These findings need to be replicated, but they have important implications for regulators," the study's lead author, Kim Harley, said in a statement to the media. Harley is an adjunct assistant professor of maternal and child health and associate director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health Research at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health.
PBDEs are a class of organobromine compounds found in foam furniture, electronics, fabrics, carpets, plastics and other common household items. They were commonly added to these and other products as flame retardants after the 1970s when new fire safety standards were implemented in the US.
So how big is the problem of homes contaminated by PBDEs? Unfortunately, it appears to be huge. The chemicals are known to leach out into the environment and accumulate in human fat cells. Previous studies have suggested that 97 percent of U.S. residents have detectable levels of PBDEs in their blood and that the levels in Americans are 20 times higher than in their counterparts in Europe.
The most prevalent form of PBDEs found in the blood of women participating in the UC Berkeley study were from a specific formulation known as a pentaBDE mixture. Both this kind of PBDE and another type, octaBDE, have been banned for use in several states -- but they are still widely found in products manufactured before 2004.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally got around to addressing the danger of PBDEs at the end of 2009. Did the agency issue an urgent alarm about products containing the chemicals -- even ban them outright to protect consumers? No. Instead, the EPA quietly announced an agreement with three major manufacturers of some forms of PBDEs to phase out production by 2013. Unfortunately, this is clearly too little too late to protect countless Americans from the potential danger of these contaminants.
"Although several types of PBDEs are being phased out in the United States, our exposure to the flame retardants is likely to continue for many years," said the study's principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health at the School of Public Health. "PBDEs are present in many consumer products, and we know they leach out into our homes. In our research, we have found that low-income children in California are exposed to very high levels of PBDEs, and this has us concerned about the next generation of Californians."
What's more, the scientists pointed out in the press statement that there's reason to be concerned about additional chemical contaminants in the immediate future. True, PBDEs are being phased out from consumer products -- but they are being replaced with other potentially toxic compounds. "We know even less about the newer flame retardant chemicals that are coming out," said Dr. Harley. "We just don't have the human studies yet to show that they are safe."
For more information:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...
In a study involving over 200 women, researchers at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley) discovered that women with higher blood concentrations of PBDEs took far longer to become pregnant than those with low amounts of the chemicals in their blood. In fact, for every ten-fold increase in blood levels of four PBDE chemicals tested, there was a 30 percent decrease in the odds a woman would conceive a child during a month.
"There have been numerous animal studies that have found a range of health effects from exposure to PBDEs, but very little research has been done in humans. This latest paper is the first to address the impact on human fertility, and the results are surprisingly strong. These findings need to be replicated, but they have important implications for regulators," the study's lead author, Kim Harley, said in a statement to the media. Harley is an adjunct assistant professor of maternal and child health and associate director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health Research at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health.
PBDEs are a class of organobromine compounds found in foam furniture, electronics, fabrics, carpets, plastics and other common household items. They were commonly added to these and other products as flame retardants after the 1970s when new fire safety standards were implemented in the US.
So how big is the problem of homes contaminated by PBDEs? Unfortunately, it appears to be huge. The chemicals are known to leach out into the environment and accumulate in human fat cells. Previous studies have suggested that 97 percent of U.S. residents have detectable levels of PBDEs in their blood and that the levels in Americans are 20 times higher than in their counterparts in Europe.
The most prevalent form of PBDEs found in the blood of women participating in the UC Berkeley study were from a specific formulation known as a pentaBDE mixture. Both this kind of PBDE and another type, octaBDE, have been banned for use in several states -- but they are still widely found in products manufactured before 2004.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally got around to addressing the danger of PBDEs at the end of 2009. Did the agency issue an urgent alarm about products containing the chemicals -- even ban them outright to protect consumers? No. Instead, the EPA quietly announced an agreement with three major manufacturers of some forms of PBDEs to phase out production by 2013. Unfortunately, this is clearly too little too late to protect countless Americans from the potential danger of these contaminants.
"Although several types of PBDEs are being phased out in the United States, our exposure to the flame retardants is likely to continue for many years," said the study's principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health at the School of Public Health. "PBDEs are present in many consumer products, and we know they leach out into our homes. In our research, we have found that low-income children in California are exposed to very high levels of PBDEs, and this has us concerned about the next generation of Californians."
What's more, the scientists pointed out in the press statement that there's reason to be concerned about additional chemical contaminants in the immediate future. True, PBDEs are being phased out from consumer products -- but they are being replaced with other potentially toxic compounds. "We know even less about the newer flame retardant chemicals that are coming out," said Dr. Harley. "We just don't have the human studies yet to show that they are safe."
For more information:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Birth Drugs Impair Breastfeeding
(NaturalNews) Drugs commonly given during hospital labor may impair a woman's ability to breastfeed, according to a study conducted by researchers from Swansea University and published in the journal BJOG.
"A lot of women are not given enough information about the medications that might be given to them during childbirth, and women at low risk of bleeding may not need to take these drugs," said Rosemary Dodds of the National (British) Childbirth Trust, who was not involved in the study. "It is important that women understand the risks and can give their informed consent before they go into labor."
Researchers examined data from 45,000 births in South Wales, finding that women who were given either oxytocin (also marketed as pitocin and syntocinon) or ergometrine (also known as ergonovine) were significantly less likely to begin breastfeeding within 48 hours of birth than women who were not given the drugs.
Oxytocin and ergometrine are regularly given to women in order to reduce their risk of postpartum hemorrhaging, even when the risk is already low. Oxytocin is also used in labor in order to stimulate contractions, but this use was not examined in the current study.
Among women who had not been given either drug following the delivery of their child, 65.5 percent began breastfeeding within 48 hours. Among women who had received oxytocin, only 59.1 percent did so, while only 54.6 percent of women who received both drugs began breastfeeding within 2 days.
The researchers suggested that the anti-bleeding drugs could interfere with milk production, thus making breastfeeding more difficult and causing new mothers to give up in frustration.
The study also found that high doses of painkillers known as epidurals also reduce a woman's chance of breastfeeding. Prior studies have also found this connection.
Breastfeeding has been linked to a number of significant lifelong health benefits for both mothers and infants.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.
"A lot of women are not given enough information about the medications that might be given to them during childbirth, and women at low risk of bleeding may not need to take these drugs," said Rosemary Dodds of the National (British) Childbirth Trust, who was not involved in the study. "It is important that women understand the risks and can give their informed consent before they go into labor."
Researchers examined data from 45,000 births in South Wales, finding that women who were given either oxytocin (also marketed as pitocin and syntocinon) or ergometrine (also known as ergonovine) were significantly less likely to begin breastfeeding within 48 hours of birth than women who were not given the drugs.
Oxytocin and ergometrine are regularly given to women in order to reduce their risk of postpartum hemorrhaging, even when the risk is already low. Oxytocin is also used in labor in order to stimulate contractions, but this use was not examined in the current study.
Among women who had not been given either drug following the delivery of their child, 65.5 percent began breastfeeding within 48 hours. Among women who had received oxytocin, only 59.1 percent did so, while only 54.6 percent of women who received both drugs began breastfeeding within 2 days.
The researchers suggested that the anti-bleeding drugs could interfere with milk production, thus making breastfeeding more difficult and causing new mothers to give up in frustration.
The study also found that high doses of painkillers known as epidurals also reduce a woman's chance of breastfeeding. Prior studies have also found this connection.
Breastfeeding has been linked to a number of significant lifelong health benefits for both mothers and infants.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Toxic Burden: Women Put 515 Chemicals on Their Faces Every Day
(NaturalNews) A study published by Bionsen, a company in the United Kingdom that sells aluminum-free body products, found that the average woman applies 515 chemicals to her face a day. Makeup, perfumes, lotions, mascara, and other beauty products all contribute to the toxic brew that is causing health problems for many women.
The study revealed that the typical woman uses about 13 different beauty products a day. Most of these products contain at least 20 ingredients and additives, many of which can have a detrimental effect on the body and skin. Perfumes alone were found to contain up to 400 different ingredients.
Other products that were tested include lipstick, body lotions and mascara which contained an average of 30 ingredients each. Aside from aluminum, many of these products contain other harmful ingredients like synthetic dyes, fragrances, and parabens. When applied continually, the many beauty products that women use are exposing them to wide range of carcinogens.
The perpetual advent of new and innovative beauty products has led to a massive increase in product usage over the years. What was once a basic cleansing protocol has turned into a lifestyle of trying the latest and greatest products in an effort to maintain youthful beauty. As a result, women are exposed to more toxic carcinogens from beauty products than ever.
An Environmental Working Group (EWG) study from 2006 found that less than one percent of all cosmetic products are made from ingredients that have all undergone safety assessments. The great majority of products contain known carcinogens, reproductive toxins and various other harmful chemicals that cause serious diseases like cancer.
The EWG study found that the average person uses up to 25 personal care products per day. Among these, about 200 different chemicals will have been added to scent, preserve, synthesize and stabilize them for consumption. Many of these ingredients will end up causing hormonal disruption and immune dysfunction. In younger people, developmental problems are likely to result from excessive product use.
Makeup usage among younger girls has also increased. About 90 percent of 14-year-old girls now use makeup, according to a research study conducted by Mintel Internation Group in 2004. Sixty-three percent of girls as young as seven are now using lipstick, eyeliner, eye shadow and mascara.
As consumers are becoming more aware of many beauty product ingredients and the harm they are causing, product manufacturers are beginning to remove many of them from their formulations. Those concerned would do best to purchase only products that have minimal or no toxic ingredients. Greatly reducing one's cosmetic arsenal is the next best option.
Sources for this story include: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...
The study revealed that the typical woman uses about 13 different beauty products a day. Most of these products contain at least 20 ingredients and additives, many of which can have a detrimental effect on the body and skin. Perfumes alone were found to contain up to 400 different ingredients.
Other products that were tested include lipstick, body lotions and mascara which contained an average of 30 ingredients each. Aside from aluminum, many of these products contain other harmful ingredients like synthetic dyes, fragrances, and parabens. When applied continually, the many beauty products that women use are exposing them to wide range of carcinogens.
The perpetual advent of new and innovative beauty products has led to a massive increase in product usage over the years. What was once a basic cleansing protocol has turned into a lifestyle of trying the latest and greatest products in an effort to maintain youthful beauty. As a result, women are exposed to more toxic carcinogens from beauty products than ever.
An Environmental Working Group (EWG) study from 2006 found that less than one percent of all cosmetic products are made from ingredients that have all undergone safety assessments. The great majority of products contain known carcinogens, reproductive toxins and various other harmful chemicals that cause serious diseases like cancer.
The EWG study found that the average person uses up to 25 personal care products per day. Among these, about 200 different chemicals will have been added to scent, preserve, synthesize and stabilize them for consumption. Many of these ingredients will end up causing hormonal disruption and immune dysfunction. In younger people, developmental problems are likely to result from excessive product use.
Makeup usage among younger girls has also increased. About 90 percent of 14-year-old girls now use makeup, according to a research study conducted by Mintel Internation Group in 2004. Sixty-three percent of girls as young as seven are now using lipstick, eyeliner, eye shadow and mascara.
As consumers are becoming more aware of many beauty product ingredients and the harm they are causing, product manufacturers are beginning to remove many of them from their formulations. Those concerned would do best to purchase only products that have minimal or no toxic ingredients. Greatly reducing one's cosmetic arsenal is the next best option.
Sources for this story include: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
