Breast Enhancement Surgery
Breast enlargement surgery, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), was the fourth most popular invasive surgical procedure among cosmetic plastic surgeries performed in 2000. In a press release dated July 12, 2001, the ASPS says that breast augmentation was performed on 212,500 women last year.
Meanwhile, millions of women have been subjected to the ill effects of these modern day vanity contraptions that were bought in good faith.
Remember!!
Silicone gel implants were banned in 1992 by FDA.
If you have (or had) a ruptured silicone breast implant, you will be denied Health Insurance Coverage.
Saline-filled implants tend to have a higher rate of leaking and deflation than silicone gel implants, which means more frequent surgery to replace them.
In a study published in the Lancet medical journal, Dr Lori Brown of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says: "There is emerging consensus that both the incidence and prevalence of breast-implant rupture are much higher than previously suspected."
21% overall increase in cancers for women with implants, compared to women of the same age in the general population.
Implant patients were three times as likely to die from lung cancer, emphysema and pneumonia as other plastic surgery patients.The study is based on medical records and death certificates of almost 8,000 women with breast implants, including silicone gel implants and saline implants, and more than 2,000 other plastic surgery patients. ( National Cancer Institute (NCI), Boston University, Abt Associates, and the Food and Drug Administration, with Dr. Louise Brinton from NCI as lead author. )
Saurce: http://www.breastactives.com/?aid=249331
Friday, July 11, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
New Hope to Prevent Breast Cancer: What Every Woman Needs to
New Hope to Prevent Breast Cancer: What Every Woman Needs to
by: David L. Kern
In March, 2005, a major nutritional breakthrough in the fight against breast cancer was announced by U.S. scientists. This new information is absolutely critical for every woman looking for a natural way to reduce breast cancer risk.
Researchers at Cornell University found that extracts from ordinary apples "effectively inhibited mammary cancer growth" in laboratory animals. The study concluded that "consumption of apples may be an effective strategy for cancer prevention."
The study, "Apples Prevent Mammary Tumors in Rats," was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
Phytochemicals from apples- known as polyphenols- have previously shown effectiveness against colon, lung, liver and stomach cancer, among others. But this is the first published study showing that apple polyphenols may be even more effective against breast cancer tumors.
Beyond Breast Cancer Prevention?
In the recent study, treatment with apple extracts prevented new tumor formation by up to 44% in animals given the highest amount.
But the most startling finding- and by far the most significant- is this: after 6 months of treatment, the number of existing tumors was reduced by 61%.
This remarkable finding indicates that adequate doses of apple polyphenols may go beyond prevention, and actually reduce existing mammary tumors.
What Can This Mean for You?
The researchers at Cornell believe that apple polyphenols may prevent breast cancer in humans. If this were the only study available, it might be too early to recommend increased doses of apple phytochemicals.
However, there are multiple studies in different types of cancer, showing that apple polyphenols are anti-proliferative, anti-mutagenic, and highly antioxidant. Consistent results have been obtained in studies on skin cancer, lung cancer, and six other types of human cancer cells.
Now, a new study from Cornell shows that apple polyphenols are also anti-metastatic- they seem to prevent cancers from spreading. This is a crucial finding for those at risk for breast cancer, as well as survivors of the disease.
Can I Just Eat More Apples?
In nearly all the available studies, the highest benefit from apple polyphenols comes with the highest intake. The Cornell scientists said the highest benefit was seen in rats eating the "human equivalent" of six apples a day.
There is no question that phytochemicals in apples are good for you. And one way to get more of them is to substantially increase the number of apples in your diet. But there's a problem...
Aside from the difficulty and expense of eating that many apples (42 apples a week), there is another important health issue- pesticides. Apples are one of the "dirtiest" foods in the U.S. when it comes to pesticides.
A Perfect Solution?
If you or someone you love is at risk for breast cancer, you need to know the answers to these three questions:
1. How many different pesticides are lurking in your apples?
2. Does washing the fruit take care of the problem? (This one may shock you.)
3. How can you get these apple phytochemicals with zero risk of pesticides?
Get the answers by clicking the link at the end of this article now... David L. Kern is a researcher and publisher of New Health & Longevity, a newsletter devoted to the latest advances in medical nutritional science. Get the full story on this new health discovery now at http://www.applepoly.com/preventbreastcancer
by: David L. Kern
In March, 2005, a major nutritional breakthrough in the fight against breast cancer was announced by U.S. scientists. This new information is absolutely critical for every woman looking for a natural way to reduce breast cancer risk.
Researchers at Cornell University found that extracts from ordinary apples "effectively inhibited mammary cancer growth" in laboratory animals. The study concluded that "consumption of apples may be an effective strategy for cancer prevention."
The study, "Apples Prevent Mammary Tumors in Rats," was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
Phytochemicals from apples- known as polyphenols- have previously shown effectiveness against colon, lung, liver and stomach cancer, among others. But this is the first published study showing that apple polyphenols may be even more effective against breast cancer tumors.
Beyond Breast Cancer Prevention?
In the recent study, treatment with apple extracts prevented new tumor formation by up to 44% in animals given the highest amount.
But the most startling finding- and by far the most significant- is this: after 6 months of treatment, the number of existing tumors was reduced by 61%.
This remarkable finding indicates that adequate doses of apple polyphenols may go beyond prevention, and actually reduce existing mammary tumors.
What Can This Mean for You?
The researchers at Cornell believe that apple polyphenols may prevent breast cancer in humans. If this were the only study available, it might be too early to recommend increased doses of apple phytochemicals.
However, there are multiple studies in different types of cancer, showing that apple polyphenols are anti-proliferative, anti-mutagenic, and highly antioxidant. Consistent results have been obtained in studies on skin cancer, lung cancer, and six other types of human cancer cells.
Now, a new study from Cornell shows that apple polyphenols are also anti-metastatic- they seem to prevent cancers from spreading. This is a crucial finding for those at risk for breast cancer, as well as survivors of the disease.
Can I Just Eat More Apples?
In nearly all the available studies, the highest benefit from apple polyphenols comes with the highest intake. The Cornell scientists said the highest benefit was seen in rats eating the "human equivalent" of six apples a day.
There is no question that phytochemicals in apples are good for you. And one way to get more of them is to substantially increase the number of apples in your diet. But there's a problem...
Aside from the difficulty and expense of eating that many apples (42 apples a week), there is another important health issue- pesticides. Apples are one of the "dirtiest" foods in the U.S. when it comes to pesticides.
A Perfect Solution?
If you or someone you love is at risk for breast cancer, you need to know the answers to these three questions:
1. How many different pesticides are lurking in your apples?
2. Does washing the fruit take care of the problem? (This one may shock you.)
3. How can you get these apple phytochemicals with zero risk of pesticides?
Get the answers by clicking the link at the end of this article now... David L. Kern is a researcher and publisher of New Health & Longevity, a newsletter devoted to the latest advances in medical nutritional science. Get the full story on this new health discovery now at http://www.applepoly.com/preventbreastcancer
Monday, May 12, 2008
Discussing Breast Cancer with Others Could Save Someone’s Li
Discussing Breast Cancer with Others Could Save Someone’s Li
by: ARA
(ARA) - Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women ages 40 to 59. This year alone, more than 200,000 women will be diagnosed with the disease. Another 40,000 will die from it. Even though early detection is critical to survival and every woman is at risk for developing the disease, new research shows the vast majority of women do not discuss this issue with each other.
According to a recent survey commissioned by WHEATABLES Crackers and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, there is a startling lack of dialogue among women about breast cancer risk and the importance of early detection. Sixty-five percent of women report they never or infrequently discuss breast cancer risk even though almost half report having a close personal experience (self, family or close friend diagnosed) with the disease. Seventy-three percent of mothers surveyed reported they never or hardly ever discuss breast cancer, breast self-exams or mammograms with their daughters or granddaughters and 67 percent of the women surveyed said the same about their mothers or stepmothers.
“These findings are astounding particularly because one in eight women are expected to develop breast cancer during their lifetime. Communication and conversation are critical to understanding the importance of early detection and adopting positive breast health practices,” said Susan Braun, president and CEO of the Komen Foundation.
In response, WHEATABLES Crackers and the Komen Foundation have launched a public education initiative to encourage women to talk about breast cancer. Called “Talk About Breast Cancer - It’s a Conversation Worth Having,” the initiative is designed to help women -- and those who love them -- get the conversation going.
Special WHEATABLES Crackers packaging carries pink Ribbons for Life and conversation starter tips, including:
* Make a monthly calendar note to call your mother, aunt, sister or daughter with a reminder to conduct a breast self-exam. * Enclose a note and a pink ribbon in birthday cards to female friends 40 years of age or older, reminding them to have a mammogram.
* Ask your doctor about breast health activities at every appointment. Don’t wait for the doctor to ask you.
* Send a care package with how-to tips to young women at college or away from home; once a woman turns 20, she should begin conducting monthly breast self-exams and have a doctor or nurse examine her breasts every three years.
* Develop a “buddy” system with friends. Ask them to remind you regularly about breast health activities and do the same for them.
* Share a cup of coffee, tea or cocoa and breast cancer facts with a friend: Breast cancer is the number one killer of women between the ages of 40 and 59; the majority of women who develop breast cancer had no family history of the disease; if breast cancer is detected early, a woman’s chances of survival improve significantly.
“Regular discussions that encourage breast health activities like monthly breast self-exams, annual clinical breast exams and mammograms can make a very real difference,” said Jenny Enochson, spokesperson for WHEATABLES Crackers. “That’s why we’re so committed to getting the conversation going.”
WHEATABLES Crackers will donate $5.00 to the Komen Foundation for every five ribbons clipped from its special packaging and sent in by customers. For more information about the campaign, log onto www.ribbonsforlife.com.
Courtesy of ARA Content
About the author:
Courtesy of ARA Content
by: ARA
(ARA) - Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women ages 40 to 59. This year alone, more than 200,000 women will be diagnosed with the disease. Another 40,000 will die from it. Even though early detection is critical to survival and every woman is at risk for developing the disease, new research shows the vast majority of women do not discuss this issue with each other.
According to a recent survey commissioned by WHEATABLES Crackers and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, there is a startling lack of dialogue among women about breast cancer risk and the importance of early detection. Sixty-five percent of women report they never or infrequently discuss breast cancer risk even though almost half report having a close personal experience (self, family or close friend diagnosed) with the disease. Seventy-three percent of mothers surveyed reported they never or hardly ever discuss breast cancer, breast self-exams or mammograms with their daughters or granddaughters and 67 percent of the women surveyed said the same about their mothers or stepmothers.
“These findings are astounding particularly because one in eight women are expected to develop breast cancer during their lifetime. Communication and conversation are critical to understanding the importance of early detection and adopting positive breast health practices,” said Susan Braun, president and CEO of the Komen Foundation.
In response, WHEATABLES Crackers and the Komen Foundation have launched a public education initiative to encourage women to talk about breast cancer. Called “Talk About Breast Cancer - It’s a Conversation Worth Having,” the initiative is designed to help women -- and those who love them -- get the conversation going.
Special WHEATABLES Crackers packaging carries pink Ribbons for Life and conversation starter tips, including:
* Make a monthly calendar note to call your mother, aunt, sister or daughter with a reminder to conduct a breast self-exam. * Enclose a note and a pink ribbon in birthday cards to female friends 40 years of age or older, reminding them to have a mammogram.
* Ask your doctor about breast health activities at every appointment. Don’t wait for the doctor to ask you.
* Send a care package with how-to tips to young women at college or away from home; once a woman turns 20, she should begin conducting monthly breast self-exams and have a doctor or nurse examine her breasts every three years.
* Develop a “buddy” system with friends. Ask them to remind you regularly about breast health activities and do the same for them.
* Share a cup of coffee, tea or cocoa and breast cancer facts with a friend: Breast cancer is the number one killer of women between the ages of 40 and 59; the majority of women who develop breast cancer had no family history of the disease; if breast cancer is detected early, a woman’s chances of survival improve significantly.
“Regular discussions that encourage breast health activities like monthly breast self-exams, annual clinical breast exams and mammograms can make a very real difference,” said Jenny Enochson, spokesperson for WHEATABLES Crackers. “That’s why we’re so committed to getting the conversation going.”
WHEATABLES Crackers will donate $5.00 to the Komen Foundation for every five ribbons clipped from its special packaging and sent in by customers. For more information about the campaign, log onto www.ribbonsforlife.com.
Courtesy of ARA Content
About the author:
Courtesy of ARA Content
Friday, March 14, 2008
Breast Self Exam
Breast Self Exam
Healthy Changes Through Life: Doing a monthly breast self exam is the best way to stay familiar with the cyclical changes in your breasts. You will get to know the territory better than your health care team, and will spot changes easily. Having an annual clinical exam helps document your breast health, so keep a regular appointment set up for that! Between puberty and menopause, your breasts will go through many changes, which are affected by hormones, diet, and exercise. Most of these changes are natural and healthy!
Teen Years (Puberty): In the teen years, with the start of your monthly cycle, your body enters the maturing process, and you gain curves and may notice skin changes (such as acne) and even hair may change color or texture. Breast tissue is developing during this time too, and may be dense and firm to begin with, especially if you are small-breasted.
Family Resemblance: At this stage, it’s not too early to know your family health history, so ask your female relatives (mother, aunts, grandmother) if they had any fibrocystic problems with their breasts, or any regular cysts. If so, it’s likely that you may experience those too. Not to worry – cysts are benign – but you want to know where they are, and if they come and go, so they can be distinguished from other features in your breasts.'
More Curves and Kids (Childbearing Years): After your body is prepared for motherhood, if you conceive and bear children, and also if you breastfeed the children, that will bring on more changes in your breasts, as well as in the rest of your body. Breasts may become larger and more tender during pregnancy, and may need more support. Don’t neglect your BSE during this time, stay familiar with the changes. Remember that pregnancy and breastfeeding will help combine to lower your risk of breast cancer.
Maturity (Menopause): Menopause also brings changes in your breasts, as your estrogen and progesterone levels drop, your breast tissue may become less firm and may drape differently than during your teen and child-bearing years. Keep up with your breast self exams in these years too, so that the normal changes are familiar to you. Less dense breast tissue will seem to have more lumps and bumps, but remember that 90% of breast lumps are benign.
Healthy Changes Through Life: Doing a monthly breast self exam is the best way to stay familiar with the cyclical changes in your breasts. You will get to know the territory better than your health care team, and will spot changes easily. Having an annual clinical exam helps document your breast health, so keep a regular appointment set up for that! Between puberty and menopause, your breasts will go through many changes, which are affected by hormones, diet, and exercise. Most of these changes are natural and healthy!
Teen Years (Puberty): In the teen years, with the start of your monthly cycle, your body enters the maturing process, and you gain curves and may notice skin changes (such as acne) and even hair may change color or texture. Breast tissue is developing during this time too, and may be dense and firm to begin with, especially if you are small-breasted.
Family Resemblance: At this stage, it’s not too early to know your family health history, so ask your female relatives (mother, aunts, grandmother) if they had any fibrocystic problems with their breasts, or any regular cysts. If so, it’s likely that you may experience those too. Not to worry – cysts are benign – but you want to know where they are, and if they come and go, so they can be distinguished from other features in your breasts.'
More Curves and Kids (Childbearing Years): After your body is prepared for motherhood, if you conceive and bear children, and also if you breastfeed the children, that will bring on more changes in your breasts, as well as in the rest of your body. Breasts may become larger and more tender during pregnancy, and may need more support. Don’t neglect your BSE during this time, stay familiar with the changes. Remember that pregnancy and breastfeeding will help combine to lower your risk of breast cancer.
Maturity (Menopause): Menopause also brings changes in your breasts, as your estrogen and progesterone levels drop, your breast tissue may become less firm and may drape differently than during your teen and child-bearing years. Keep up with your breast self exams in these years too, so that the normal changes are familiar to you. Less dense breast tissue will seem to have more lumps and bumps, but remember that 90% of breast lumps are benign.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Hormone Replacement Therapy And Breast Cancer
Hormone Replacement Therapy And Breast Cancer
by: Patricia T. Kelly, Ph. D.
You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, as long as the byline is included. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.
HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY AND BREAST CANCER: THE RISKS IN PERSPECTIVE
Janet M., a fifties-something woman, entered my office and said as she sat down, "I've read that if I take hormones I'll increase my breast cancer risk. I'm going crazy without sleep and with these mood swings, but I don't want to increase my breast cancer risk by taking hormones."
Like many women, Janet had heard that a recent study, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), definitively showed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases breast cancer risk. Janet, like most people, didn't realize that this study found no statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk to women who took HRT.
When differences are not significant, an increase in risk may well be due to other factors, not the one being studied, such as HRT use. As often happens when a medical story is reported, the emphasis was on the increase in risk, not whether the increase was likely to be due to the agent being studied or to the size of the risk.
The actual size of a risk is important in any woman's decision making process. In this case the risk was exceedingly small -- only 8 in 10,000 women a year -- which is 0.08% or eight hundredths of one percent! Janet was amazed to learn the actual size of the increase, and said, "You mean I was getting all concerned for a risk that small!"
"And," I pointed out, "even this very small difference in risk may not be due to hormone use." I explained that breast cancers take an average of eight years to reach about half an inch in size. This means that breast cancers started in the first year of the study would not be detected for eight or more years. The study followed women for only about five years, so all or most of the breast cancers found were probably present in an undetected state before the study began.
Janet asked if HRT use might have caused some breast cancers to grow more rapidly and therefore be detected sooner than eight years. This is unlikely. A number of studies find that breast cancers in women who were using HRT were not larger and were not dividing more rapidly than breast cancers in non hormone users. Since breast cancers grow more slowly in older women and the average age in this study was 63, breast cancers in this group would tend to grow more slowly and so take even longer than the eight year average to be detected.
Women in the WHI study used a particular type of hormone Prempro. The results of this study therefore do not apply to other, newer approaches in which more natural hormones are used and a woman's menstrual cycle is more closely approximated.
Janet was surprised to learn that many studies find that women who use HRT do not have an increase in breast cancer risk compared to women who don't use hormones, even when hormones are used for twenty years. Also, in another large study in which some women were assigned to take Prempro and others not, women who used Prempro had no significant increase in breast cancer risk.
As Janet left, she said, "I can see now that when I hear about a study I need to know how big a risk is and not just that it is increased. I'll also ask how long a study it was. This discussion has given me a whole different perspective."
Understand and manage your cancer risk. Visit http://www.ptkelly.com and sign up for our free teleforum.
Patricia T. Kelly, Ph.D. is a medical geneticist who specializes in providing information about cancer risk to individuals and health professionals. She is affiliated with Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco. Information about her book, Assess Your True Risk of Breast Cancer, can be found on her web site: http://www.ptkelly.com.
Dr. Kelly is a medical geneticist who has been a Diplomate of the American Board of Medical Genetics since 1982. In 1993 she became a Founding Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics. She received her Ph.D. in genetics from the University of California, Berkeley
by: Patricia T. Kelly, Ph. D.
You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, as long as the byline is included. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.
HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY AND BREAST CANCER: THE RISKS IN PERSPECTIVE
Janet M., a fifties-something woman, entered my office and said as she sat down, "I've read that if I take hormones I'll increase my breast cancer risk. I'm going crazy without sleep and with these mood swings, but I don't want to increase my breast cancer risk by taking hormones."
Like many women, Janet had heard that a recent study, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), definitively showed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases breast cancer risk. Janet, like most people, didn't realize that this study found no statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk to women who took HRT.
When differences are not significant, an increase in risk may well be due to other factors, not the one being studied, such as HRT use. As often happens when a medical story is reported, the emphasis was on the increase in risk, not whether the increase was likely to be due to the agent being studied or to the size of the risk.
The actual size of a risk is important in any woman's decision making process. In this case the risk was exceedingly small -- only 8 in 10,000 women a year -- which is 0.08% or eight hundredths of one percent! Janet was amazed to learn the actual size of the increase, and said, "You mean I was getting all concerned for a risk that small!"
"And," I pointed out, "even this very small difference in risk may not be due to hormone use." I explained that breast cancers take an average of eight years to reach about half an inch in size. This means that breast cancers started in the first year of the study would not be detected for eight or more years. The study followed women for only about five years, so all or most of the breast cancers found were probably present in an undetected state before the study began.
Janet asked if HRT use might have caused some breast cancers to grow more rapidly and therefore be detected sooner than eight years. This is unlikely. A number of studies find that breast cancers in women who were using HRT were not larger and were not dividing more rapidly than breast cancers in non hormone users. Since breast cancers grow more slowly in older women and the average age in this study was 63, breast cancers in this group would tend to grow more slowly and so take even longer than the eight year average to be detected.
Women in the WHI study used a particular type of hormone Prempro. The results of this study therefore do not apply to other, newer approaches in which more natural hormones are used and a woman's menstrual cycle is more closely approximated.
Janet was surprised to learn that many studies find that women who use HRT do not have an increase in breast cancer risk compared to women who don't use hormones, even when hormones are used for twenty years. Also, in another large study in which some women were assigned to take Prempro and others not, women who used Prempro had no significant increase in breast cancer risk.
As Janet left, she said, "I can see now that when I hear about a study I need to know how big a risk is and not just that it is increased. I'll also ask how long a study it was. This discussion has given me a whole different perspective."
Understand and manage your cancer risk. Visit http://www.ptkelly.com and sign up for our free teleforum.
Patricia T. Kelly, Ph.D. is a medical geneticist who specializes in providing information about cancer risk to individuals and health professionals. She is affiliated with Saint Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco. Information about her book, Assess Your True Risk of Breast Cancer, can be found on her web site: http://www.ptkelly.com.
Dr. Kelly is a medical geneticist who has been a Diplomate of the American Board of Medical Genetics since 1982. In 1993 she became a Founding Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics. She received her Ph.D. in genetics from the University of California, Berkeley
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Hormone Replacement Therapy
Hormone Replacement Therapy: Breast Cancer Risk In Perspecti
by: Patricia Kelly
Many women have concluded that recent study results show that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk. A closer look at this study shows that the increase in risk was far less than half a per cent a year and may not be due to hormone
Janet M., a fifties-something woman, entered my office and said as she sat down, "I've read that if I take hormones I'll increase my breast cancer risk. I'm going crazy without sleep and with these mood swings, but I don't want to increase my breast cancer risk by taking hormones."
Like many women, Janet heard that a recent study, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), definitively showed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) at menopause increases breast cancer risk. Janet, like most people who heard about this study, didn't realize that the WHI study found no statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk to women who took HRT.
When differences are not significant, an increase in risk may well be due to other factors, not the one being studied, such as HRT use. In this, as in the reporting of many studies, the emphasis was on the increase in risk, not whether it was likely to be due to the agent being studied or to its size.
In addition to statistical significance, the actual size of a risk is important in any woman's decision making process. In this case the risk was exceedingly small - only 8 in 10,000 women a year - which is 0.08% or eight hundredths of one per cent! Janet was amazed to learn the actual size of the increase, and said, "You mean I was getting all concerned for a risk that small!"
"And," I pointed out, "even this very small difference in risk may not be due to hormone use." I explained that breast cancers take an average of eight years to reach about half an inch in size. This means that breast cancers starting in the first year of the study would not be detected for eight or more years. The study followed women for only about five years, so all or most of the breast cancers found during the study were probably present in an undetected state before the study began.
Janet asked if HRT use might have caused some breast cancers to grow more rapidly and therefore be detected sooner than eight years. This is unlikely. A number of studies find that breast cancers in women who were using HRT were not larger and were not dividing more rapidly than breast cancers in non hormone users. Also, breast cancers grow more slowly in older women. The average age in this study was 63, so breast cancers in this group would tend to grow more slowly and so take even longer than the eight year average to be detected.
Women in the WHI study used a particular type of hormone called Prempro. The results of this study therefore do not apply to other, newer approaches in which more natural hormones are used and a woman's menstrual cycle is more closely approximated.
Janet was surprised to learn that in many studies women who use HRT do not have an increase in breast cancer risk compared to women who don't use hormones, even when hormones are used for twenty years. Also, in another large study in which some women were assigned to take Prempro and others not, women who used Prempro had no significant increase in breast cancer risk.
As Janet left, she said, "I can see now that when I hear about a study I need to know how big a risk is, and not just that it is increased. I'll also ask how long a study it was. This discussion has given me a whole different perspective."
To learn more about commonsense tools for assessing breast and other cancer risks, attend a free telephone conference on Wednesday, January 22nd at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, 6:00 p.m. Mountain Time, 7:00 p.m. Central Time and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. To register for this unique TeleForum or to learn more about it, send an E-mail to health@coachnet.com with "Cancer Risk TeleForum" in the subject line. Please include your name, E-mail address, and city and state in the body of the E-mail. Occupation or profession is optional, but it would be helpful to us. We will send a confirmation, including the number to call for this unique, free telephone conference.
You may also be interested in Dr. Kelly's latest book, Assess Your True Risk of Breast Cancer. To learn more about this book, which helps women to manage their breast cancer risk and make decisions about genetic testing, see Dr. Kelly's website: www.ptkelly.com.
About the Author
Patricia T. Kelly, Ph.D. is a medical geneticist who has provided Cancer Risk Assessment for over twenty years. She specializes in helping individuals and physicians make sense of the often conflicting information. Her most recent book, Assess Your True Risk of Breast Cancer, focuses on understanding and managing this risk.
by: Patricia Kelly
Many women have concluded that recent study results show that hormone replacement therapy increases breast cancer risk. A closer look at this study shows that the increase in risk was far less than half a per cent a year and may not be due to hormone
Janet M., a fifties-something woman, entered my office and said as she sat down, "I've read that if I take hormones I'll increase my breast cancer risk. I'm going crazy without sleep and with these mood swings, but I don't want to increase my breast cancer risk by taking hormones."
Like many women, Janet heard that a recent study, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), definitively showed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) at menopause increases breast cancer risk. Janet, like most people who heard about this study, didn't realize that the WHI study found no statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk to women who took HRT.
When differences are not significant, an increase in risk may well be due to other factors, not the one being studied, such as HRT use. In this, as in the reporting of many studies, the emphasis was on the increase in risk, not whether it was likely to be due to the agent being studied or to its size.
In addition to statistical significance, the actual size of a risk is important in any woman's decision making process. In this case the risk was exceedingly small - only 8 in 10,000 women a year - which is 0.08% or eight hundredths of one per cent! Janet was amazed to learn the actual size of the increase, and said, "You mean I was getting all concerned for a risk that small!"
"And," I pointed out, "even this very small difference in risk may not be due to hormone use." I explained that breast cancers take an average of eight years to reach about half an inch in size. This means that breast cancers starting in the first year of the study would not be detected for eight or more years. The study followed women for only about five years, so all or most of the breast cancers found during the study were probably present in an undetected state before the study began.
Janet asked if HRT use might have caused some breast cancers to grow more rapidly and therefore be detected sooner than eight years. This is unlikely. A number of studies find that breast cancers in women who were using HRT were not larger and were not dividing more rapidly than breast cancers in non hormone users. Also, breast cancers grow more slowly in older women. The average age in this study was 63, so breast cancers in this group would tend to grow more slowly and so take even longer than the eight year average to be detected.
Women in the WHI study used a particular type of hormone called Prempro. The results of this study therefore do not apply to other, newer approaches in which more natural hormones are used and a woman's menstrual cycle is more closely approximated.
Janet was surprised to learn that in many studies women who use HRT do not have an increase in breast cancer risk compared to women who don't use hormones, even when hormones are used for twenty years. Also, in another large study in which some women were assigned to take Prempro and others not, women who used Prempro had no significant increase in breast cancer risk.
As Janet left, she said, "I can see now that when I hear about a study I need to know how big a risk is, and not just that it is increased. I'll also ask how long a study it was. This discussion has given me a whole different perspective."
To learn more about commonsense tools for assessing breast and other cancer risks, attend a free telephone conference on Wednesday, January 22nd at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time, 6:00 p.m. Mountain Time, 7:00 p.m. Central Time and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. To register for this unique TeleForum or to learn more about it, send an E-mail to health@coachnet.com with "Cancer Risk TeleForum" in the subject line. Please include your name, E-mail address, and city and state in the body of the E-mail. Occupation or profession is optional, but it would be helpful to us. We will send a confirmation, including the number to call for this unique, free telephone conference.
You may also be interested in Dr. Kelly's latest book, Assess Your True Risk of Breast Cancer. To learn more about this book, which helps women to manage their breast cancer risk and make decisions about genetic testing, see Dr. Kelly's website: www.ptkelly.com.
About the Author
Patricia T. Kelly, Ph.D. is a medical geneticist who has provided Cancer Risk Assessment for over twenty years. She specializes in helping individuals and physicians make sense of the often conflicting information. Her most recent book, Assess Your True Risk of Breast Cancer, focuses on understanding and managing this risk.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Breast Enhancement Surgery
Breast Enhancement Surgery
Breast enlargement surgery, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), was the fourth most popular invasive surgical procedure among cosmetic plastic surgeries performed in 2000. In a press release dated July 12, 2001, the ASPS says that breast augmentation was performed on 212,500 women last year.
Meanwhile, millions of women have been subjected to the ill effects of these modern day vanity contraptions that were bought in good faith.
Remember!!
Silicone gel implants were banned in 1992 by FDA.
If you have (or had) a ruptured silicone breast implant, you will be denied Health Insurance Coverage.
Saline-filled implants tend to have a higher rate of leaking and deflation than silicone gel implants, which means more frequent surgery to replace them.
In a study published in the Lancet medical journal, Dr Lori Brown of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says: "There is emerging consensus that both the incidence and prevalence of breast-implant rupture are much higher than previously suspected."
21% overall increase in cancers for women with implants, compared to women of the same age in the general population.
Implant patients were three times as likely to die from lung cancer, emphysema and pneumonia as other plastic surgery patients.The study is based on medical records and death certificates of almost 8,000 women with breast implants, including silicone gel implants and saline implants, and more than 2,000 other plastic surgery patients. ( National Cancer Institute (NCI), Boston University, Abt Associates, and the Food and Drug Administration, with Dr. Louise Brinton from NCI as lead author. )
Saurce: http://www.breastactives.com/?aid=249331
Breast enlargement surgery, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), was the fourth most popular invasive surgical procedure among cosmetic plastic surgeries performed in 2000. In a press release dated July 12, 2001, the ASPS says that breast augmentation was performed on 212,500 women last year.
Meanwhile, millions of women have been subjected to the ill effects of these modern day vanity contraptions that were bought in good faith.
Remember!!
Silicone gel implants were banned in 1992 by FDA.
If you have (or had) a ruptured silicone breast implant, you will be denied Health Insurance Coverage.
Saline-filled implants tend to have a higher rate of leaking and deflation than silicone gel implants, which means more frequent surgery to replace them.
In a study published in the Lancet medical journal, Dr Lori Brown of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says: "There is emerging consensus that both the incidence and prevalence of breast-implant rupture are much higher than previously suspected."
21% overall increase in cancers for women with implants, compared to women of the same age in the general population.
Implant patients were three times as likely to die from lung cancer, emphysema and pneumonia as other plastic surgery patients.The study is based on medical records and death certificates of almost 8,000 women with breast implants, including silicone gel implants and saline implants, and more than 2,000 other plastic surgery patients. ( National Cancer Institute (NCI), Boston University, Abt Associates, and the Food and Drug Administration, with Dr. Louise Brinton from NCI as lead author. )
Saurce: http://www.breastactives.com/?aid=249331
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
