What will you do to safeguard the future from toxins?

******

As someone who is dealing with chronic cancer. As someone who, both medical communities, speculate that my cancer is due to exposure to environmental toxins of some sort, the following struck quite a chord with me. My goal, as I deal with my own health situation, is to further safeguard my children's future by educating them about the health risk of living and breathing every day. What will you do to safeguard your children's future?

 

What do detergents and fragrances have to do with breast cancer?

Posted on September 14, 2011

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetimes. Of the women who get it, one out of five will die from it.

Understandably, given these statistics, many women worry about their chances of getting breast cancer. Some women with high risk factors, such as having close relatives who have had breast cancer, go through extra screenings. Some even consider preventative removal of their breasts.
We know that more cases of breast cancer are occurring than fifty years ago. Unfortunately, a whopping 70% of these breast cancer cases are not associated with any known breast cancer risk factors. Scientists are searching for answers.

Everyday chemicals can act like hormones

Over the last decade, scientists have established that some of the chemicals women exposed to can affect their chances of getting breast cancer. For example, certain chemicals called endocrine disruptors can interact with our biology by mimicking the hormones our bodies normally produce (the technical term is the endocrine system). Some of these interactions are thought to increase the chances of getting breast cancer.

How much should we worry about endocrine disruptors? Well, exposure data indicates that we ought to be fairly concerned.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are all around us. They are used in everyday products like detergents, antibacterial soaps, plastic containers, air freshener sprays and flame-resistant furniture. We take in these chemicals through our skin, through the air we breathe, and even through chemically contaminated food.

Everyday chemicals are affecting young girls

Phthalates are a group of chemicals produced in huge amounts, exceeding 470 million pounds per year. Phthalates can be found in products made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, like shower curtains and flooring. They are also found in varnishes, paints, medical devices like IV tubing and blood bags, and more.

Certain phthalates are endocrine disruptors and have been linked to early puberty and breast development in girls. Research has shown an association between early puberty and breast cancer.

Everyday chemicals can affect our health even before we’re born

Scientists have found that it's especially problematic when a developing fetus is exposed to certain chemicals. In studies on mice, prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) led to harmful effects that persisted over a lifetime. Specifically, mice exposed to BPA while still in the womb and in the earliest stages after birth had greater sensitivity to the hormone estrogen during puberty.
The authors of this study note that changes in estrogen levels are a known, central risk factor for breast cancer and that increased sensitivity to estrogen may be of concern.

 

Everyday chemicals can make it harder to fight cancer

For women already diagnosed with breast cancer, toxic chemicals can do further damage. For example, a number of alkylphenols, chemicals found in detergents and cleaners, and BPA have been shown to stimulate faster division and growth of mammalian breast cancer cells.
BPA may also confer “chemoresistance,” which can make cancer treatments like chemotherapy and other anti-cancer drugs less effective. Scientists have found that breast cancer cells respond less well to chemotherapy treatments after having been exposed to BPA. This has serious implications for the chemotherapy treatment of breast cancer patients who have been exposed to BPA.
Unfortunately, almost everyone is regularly exposed to BPA. The Centers for Disease Control’s biomonitoring data reveals that BPA is present in more than 90% of Americans.

 

Why are all these chemicals in our bodies?

If we know these chemicals can cause us harm, why isn’t the government protecting us from them?
This year marks the 35^th anniversary of one of our most inefficient and ineffective laws: The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Enacted in 1976, this law grandfathered in 60,000 already existing chemicals without requiring any assessment of their safety. There are now over 80,000 chemicals on EPA’s chemical inventory. Unfortunately, persistent deficiencies in TSCA have resulted in EPA being able to require testing on only around 200 of them.

For the great majority of chemicals available for use, then, we are left in the dark as to how they’re being used, who’s being exposed, and what harm they might be causing—whether we're talking about breast cancer or other conditions, such as obesity, infertility and Alzheimer’s, for which evidence is also mounting that links them to chemical exposures.

 

We need a better law: the Safe Chemicals Act

This fall, Congress is likely to take up the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. This legislation would vastly improve TSCA, giving us much stronger protection against toxic chemicals. Chemical manufacturers would have to provide basic safety data on their chemicals. New chemicals would be assessed for safety before they are allowed onto the market and into the products we buy.

Unfortunately, effective chemicals policies weren’t available for the 40,000 women who died of breast cancer in the past year. But for those of us lucky enough to be free of it or fighting it, for the babies not yet born and the young girls who haven’t made it to puberty yet—we can and need to do better.
Tell your Senators now how important it is to support the Safe Chemicals Act.

 

Sources

I Colon, D Caro, C J Bourdony, and O Rosario. “Identification of phthalatePeurto Rican girls with premature breast development.” Environmental Health Perspectives. September, 2000; 108 (9): 895-900.
Labat, Vaillant, Sheridan, Pal, Wu, Simpson, Yasuda, Smyth, Martin, Lindeman and Visvader. “Control of mammary stem cell function by steroid hormone signaling.” Nature 2010.
LaPensee, Tuttle, Fox, and Ben-Jonathan. “Bisphenol A at Low Nanomolar Doses Confers Chemoresistance in Estrogen Receptor-α–Positive and –Negative Breast Cancer Cells.” Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2009. 117(2): 175–180.
White R, Jobling S, Hoard S A, Sumpter J P, Parker M G. “Environmentally Persistent Alkylphenolic Compounds Are Estrogenic.” Endocrinology Volume 135 No 1
Wadia, Vanderberg, Schaeberle, Rubin, Sonnenschein, Soto. “Perinatal Bisphenol A exposure Increases Estrogen Sensitivity of the Mammary Gland in Diverse Mouse Strains.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 17 January 2007.

Breaking Pink "Promises"

******

Carcinogens and Pinktoberfest...strange, yet profitalbe bedfellows.  ~TC

 

We’ll keep saying it: less talk, more action

Posted by caitlin on September 28, 2011 – 6:19 pm

By Karuna Jaggar, Executive Director, Breast Cancer Action

Two days after Breast Cancer Action publicly announced the findings of independent lab testing of Komen’s commissioned perfume Promise Me, we want to thank BCAction members and supporters who have sent almost 1,200 letters to Komen urging them to recall the product.

Instead of directly addressing consumer concerns about the ingredients in the perfume, Komen has responded to our action with more talk; but for all their explanations, they have yet to address any of our concerns.

Komen said they will not recall the product nor will they assure us that they will take the highest standards of precaution when it comes to women’s health. They did, however, talk:

• about the money the perfume will raise, noting a minimum of $1M to be donated by TPR Holdings;
• about the burden of responsibility for health safety resting with “intelligent consumers who make informed decisions about the use of products based on evidence;”
• about how much they care about research and prevention;
• about their intention to continue selling Promise Me.

Komen’s talk poses more questions than it answers:

• In highlighting the money raised by the perfume, is Komen suggesting that regardless of any health risks, the ends justify the means?
• How can consumers make informed decisions about Promise Me when Komen hasn’t publicly disclosed the list of ingredients on the product label?
• Is Komen really suggesting “buyer beware” by putting the burden on “intelligent consumers” to make “informed decisions”?
• How can Komen’s Medical and Scientific Affairs team conclude that it is okay to include Toluene in Promise Me when the International Fragrance Association bans its use?
• The FDA has notorious loopholes in its regulatory policies. In citing FDA guidelines as a resource on the safety of cosmetics and fragrance, is Komen unaware of the work by several national breast cancer organizations, many working in coalition with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, to close these gaping regulatory holes?
• If Komen is committed to funding research on causes and prevention of breast cancer, why do they allocate less than 4% of the $1.9 billion (yes, billion) they have raised to these areas?
• And finally, if Komen cares deeply about women’s health, about the prevention and cause of breast cancer, why won’t they commit to taking every precaution to ensure that the products they sell and endorse are safe by signing the Pledge to Prevent Pinkwashing?

Komen is asking women to trust their good intentions. In essence, Komen is asking us to look at what they say, not at what they do. To which we can only reply: Action speaks louder than pink. Komen talks a good line about “ending breast cancer” and ”funding research on prevention.” Komen has an opportunity to talk less and act more: recall Promise Me and sign the Pledge to Prevent Pinkwashing. It’s that simple.

Random Sunday Thought (9/25/2011)

******

Why can I never remember how to spell
M-E-T-A-S-T-A-T-I-C;
M-E-T-A-S-T-I-S-I-S; and
M-E-T-A-S-T-A-S-E-S and all variations thereof?
Why can I never pronounce these words without spewing spittle?
My fingers just can't type out the words comfortably.
They always hesitate on the key board while my brain stutters
...................M-E-T-E...<oops>...M-E-T-A-T...<oy>...M-E-T-A-S-T-I...<#%&!!!!!!>
The syllables trip over, around, and get stuck under my tongue.
And the letters just never look right juxtaposed together.
METS tourettes, I suppose.

Blogging vs. Journaling...Self-invasion of Privacy? Polluting the Atmosphere? Therapeutic?

******

[Boo-Bee Trap] ... I understand it is a place for you to write some of your most personal thoughts. AND as you know that by posting on the Internet anyone and everyone is privy to those thoughts. An online Blog is very different from a Journal that’s tucked under one’s mattress that the maid or one of your kids discovers. A Journal Blog is not a bad thing. What is curious, and I use that word specifically, is how each of your readers interprets the postings, what projections they use to process the information, and how they respond. As a reader, my lens is myopic, (i.e. the literal word), and the words engage my multivalent imagination to create “other stories.” I read your Blog and “I feel despair.” Why? Because I can’t ask questions, I can’t ask for clarification, I can’t hear your voice, I can’t read your body language, and for all the other things I can’t do from 3,000 miles away.

Journaling under the pillows, hidden in mattresses, holding close the pain, the revelations, the frustrations and anger -- it is not satisfying. It does not provide the cathartic detoxing needed while I maneuver how I am going to manage a chronic disease. I believe that with this particular disease, cancer, I am not alone in this need. The universe, regrettably (and not because I don't like sharing the blog-os-phere, but because it is stark evidence of the proliferation of this epidemic) is replete with others sharing this need.

Why?

For me, it is simple and selfish. The the pain, the revelations, the frustrations and anger I feel - as the one managing cancer, cannot be shouted out loud. Nor can they be tamed to sit quietly as characters on a page. My friends and loved ones cannot and should not suffer the daily dose of the cacophony of feelings and thoughts that wash over and invade me. It is too much. And, nothing I would ask those near and dear to suffer. This is not because I underestimate their strength, but because I see so much pain and worry reflected back at me, coupled with their own need to be reassured that I am okay. At times, the latter is too much responsibility. This is the simple selfish part.

Journaling is good. I have advised many persons on the benefit of doing so. Journaling is a cathartic way of expressing and sorting out our thoughts. But journaling for me at this time is stifling. It keeps the SCREAM isolated inside my own head. And honestly, I am getting a headache!

So, read if you like. Don't if you don't. Add your nuggets of wisdom as you choose. And if you would like to SCREAM along with me, add your voice to the cacophony. After all, if you SCREAM and there is no one to hear you, than how can you be sure that you really made any noise? Boo-Bee Trap blog post dated August 16, 2009.

At the same time, the sheer weight of what goes on in my soul, mind and heart on a daily basis cannot be contained in pages stuffed in a drawer. There is no relief. The blog-os-phere is the immediate spectral universe that is at my disposal. I can write, vent, scream, cry, organize, distill and guilt-free "share" (aka unburden) in the time it takes to click a mouse. (hmmm...maybe the EPA should do an environmental impact study on the toxins I am purging...but I digress)  The images chosen for each blog is a peep hole into my state of mind when I am writing - reflective of my inner lens, or just base exhibitionism.

The "payoff", if that is the correct noun, is the varied responses and perspectives of my small readership. It breaks through the isolation and allows me to look through someone else's lens - whether that lens belongs to a stranger in Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Russia, India, France, the Ukraine, or dear friend 3000 miles away.

If all of this stuff were confined within conventional privacy, at least for me, the organic and chemical toxicity that I physically strive to manage would ultimately seep into and poison my soul.

Two Years Notched

****** Two years ago today I was lying on a gurney at an outpatient surgi-center. The biopsy on my left breast was being completed. The doctor was recording his findings and observations orally while he performed the procedure.

Dense; yellowish; stringy in consistency ... [gross!]

He looks down at my face and tells me he is not optimistic about what he is seeing. He says that more tests will be done, the substance drawn will be scrutinized more closely. He shares, at my prompting, that he is fairly sure that it is cancerous.

While the nurse cleans up and bandages the biopsy site she shares, without my prompting, that in the 8 years she has been working with this particular doctor, she has never known him to be wrong.

He wasn't.

The first year P.D. [Post-Diagnosis] was a roller coaster ride. Thinking back on it all feels unreal. Other times the memories of it are surreal. At all times I feel like I have chronic jet lag.

The second year P.D. was, thankfully, mostly mundane with a few annoyances.

Going into the third year P.D., I am being overwhelmed with an urgency to "clean house"; "finish the unfinished"; "tidy up" the messes made by a family of five over the last two decades. The last time I had these strong nesting urges I was pregnant.

I am not.

And these urges are more visceral.

After the insanity of this past May. The nearly month-long healing afterwards. And the PTSD-like reactions that I am still compartmentalizing, I was finally up to having my overdue PetScan. The order for the PetScan was for "restaging of breast cancer." The results: two notable areas were identified; and one area of concern prompt further diagnostics. It appears that left lymph nodes just beyond the site of the sentinel node biopsy of two years ago, that were "notable" at the last PetScan in November, have now progressed to being of concern.

What further diagnostic steps would provide the most accurate information were debated for two days between my oncologist and the radiologist who conducted the PetScan. A blah-blah-blah guided biopsy. It took onc's patient liaison three days to find a facility that could perform this blah-blah-blah guided biopsy. Ugh...sigh...only a hospital has the capability.

After the debacle in May -- the experience of which I am finding myself unable to put into written word, I had vowed never to consciously allow myself to return to a hospital. In typical passive-aggressive fashion, I have insisted that I cannot schedule this blah-blah-blah guided biopsy until a month out.

I need to give myself time to think. What would be the purpose of another procedure? Knowledge. What would I do with the knowledge? How would I make the knowledge serve me?

Th hospital tried to schedule me for today, July 8. The irony of consciously manipulating deja vu was too much to handle. I have two years notched. Deja vu can wait.



Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out  ~Anton Chekhov

Hot Flashes Linked to Lower Breast Cancer Risk...Hmmm, Maybe

******

 

Rush Hour Thinking....The following reprinted article came from one of the institutional e-newsletters I receive. I initially read it off of my Blackberry while sitting in wall-to-wall traffic on a highway. (And no, the car was not moving, I assure you. But it sure got my mind moving in wild directions.) I know that these snip-its don't provide a reader with the whole back-story. I do plan to scrutinize the original publication. I must say, however, upon reading this I felt like I had been punched in the gut. It highlighted a conundrum for me. Specifically, the incongruity of breast cancer in pre-menopausal women.

I was not menopausal when I discovered the cancer growing within me. I have no experience with hot flashes. That said, my last cycle was three months ago. Since my bout with pneumonia in December, nothing is working properly. Is this menopause? I have no other telling symptoms. Is it amenoria? Possibly. It has happened to me before - but I was a lot younger. If this is actually "symptom-free" menopause, then the below snip-it truly may be on to something.

The other punch that this article laid on me was the paradox between estrogen levels and breast cancer. My form of cancer, invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), has been determined to be an estrogen-driven form of breast cancer. It has been hypothesized that my body does not eliminate estrogen properly. As a result, a build up of estrogen in my body became toxic / carcinogenic, and voila -- a fertile environment for cancer to grow. It would then appear, based on this theory, that my body "naturally" stores (or stored) a high level of estrogen.  The below snip-it reports that hot flashes are believed to be the result of low estrogen levels in the body. I am not experiencing anything resembling a "hot flash." It would appear, then, that my own experience may support the theory.  
 
I then took the leap to connect the dots in uncovering the "truth" about my own development of breast cancer. I started to rethink my history of multiple miscarriages. With each miscarriage it appeared that my hCG levels were not high enough to sustain the pregnancy. To my knowledge, there is no definitive evidence linking miscarriages and breast cancer. That said, there are clinical trials [See, Science Daily (Apr. 25, 2009) & Fox Chase Cancer Center] testing the use of  hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) as an anti-cancer agent. The study is based on the thought that full term pregnancies earlier in a woman's life is a potential prophylactic against the development of breast cancer later in life. Recall, estrogen are steroids. They play a large role in a woman's monthly cycle, as well as in a pregnancy.

This then brought me to further bridge the chasm and consider the potential of a causal relationship between my reproductive hx of multiple miscarriages and low hCG levels (if hCG in indeed an anti-cancer agent), my lack of menopausal symptoms (theorized to be an indicator of high estrogen levels), and the development of ILC (an estrogen driven form of breast cancer). It is amazing the tangents the mind can indulge in when stuck in rush-hour traffic. Just proves the adage...a little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

Study Suggests Hot Flashes in Menopause May Reduce Risk of 2 Types of Breast Cancer

By Brenda Goodman
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Jan. 28, 2011

A new study shows that having symptoms such as hot flashes during menopause appears to be tied to a lower risk of the most common kinds of breast cancer.

“There’s good news about hot flashes,” says Susan Love, MD, a breast cancer expert and author of Dr. Susan Love’s Menopause and Hormone Book.

Researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle interviewed more than 1,000 women with one of three kinds of breast cancer and compared them to nearly 500 randomly selected women of similar ages with no history of breast cancer.

Participants were asked whether they ever experienced menopausal symptoms, including hot flashes, sweating or night sweats, vaginal dryness, bladder problems, irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding, depression, anxiety, insomnia, or emotional distress.

With regard to hot flashes, women were asked how often they occurred, how long they typically lasted, and for how many total weeks or months they had them.

Compared to women who reported never having menopausal symptoms, those who had experienced symptoms had half the risk of invasive ductal carcinoma or invasive lobular carcinoma, two of the most common types of breast cancer.

And the more frequent or severe the hot flashes were, the lower their risk appeared to be.

Those associations remained even after researchers took into account other things that are known to influence breast cancer risk, such as the use of hormone replacement therapy, age at menopause, and body weight.

The study is published in the February issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

"This is the first study to ever look at this association,” says study researcher Christopher I. Li, MD, PhD, a breast cancer epidemiologist in the Hutchinson Center’s Public Health Sciences Division.

Li stresses, however, that his study was not designed to show cause and effect, and that the connection between menopausal symptoms and breast cancer is still largely a mystery.

“We don’t know a whole lot about all the biology that’s at work here,” he says.

In particular, scientists don’t know what causes hot flashes, only that they appear to be linked to lower levels of the hormone estrogen.

Breast cancer, in turn, has been linked to higher levels of estrogen, so it may be that hot flashes are acting as a marker for the intensity of hormonal changes in the body, Li says.

Indeed, a previous study showed that women who experienced hot flashes several times a day had 35% to 45% lower estrogen levels compared with women who did not experience hot flashes or who only experienced them infrequently.

A little whining.

******

I have not whined in awhile. Ranted, yes. Personally played my own pity violin - not in awhile. I am due.

I find that I am tired. Almost all of the time.

I have noticed that the dark blue circles under my eyes are becoming fixtures, and creeping slowly toward where the "apples" of my cheeks used to be. I am going through the concealer like its lip balm.

At times I sleep, literally, like the dead. Other times, the slightest sound, rustle, movement startles me awake.

The dreams are curiouser and curiouser.

The pains are curiouser and curiouser; and more persistent.

My body feels like its on full-tilt. I am so keenly aware of every breath, every rumble, every stab, stress, pull, pop. Yet, at the same time I am disassociated from it all.

Something new will manifest, and take hold. My husband asks: "are you concerned?"

Sometimes.

The little voice buried in my semi-conscious wonders "is this symptomatic of ...?..." "should I pull out the latest written orders for tests and just allow the poking and prodding to go on?" "Do you really want to do a fourth vaginal ultrasound and pelvic MRI, just because no one can definitively determine what that pesky little pain & mass are?"

I do pull out the orders that are in my vanity drawer (how's that for irony) look them over, and stuff them back inside. They have been in the drawer since January now.

My other little voice then loudly pronounces, "what would you do if they can figure it all out?" And the resounding response is, "probably nothing that they would find acceptable."

So, unless they can make a vaginal ultrasound fun -- and I am talking fun like they are able to get Johnny Depp to hold the wand, then NO, I don't want to go through it again for a fourth time in 10 months.

...
And, at the same time I am doing all this wild body-morphing activities (hot yoga, reiki-ish realignments, colonic therapy, infra-red saunas...elixirs and tonics). Still, I feel drained, spent and unmotivated. Interestingly, not when I am in the middle of an experience. Before, after.

It's life after cancer? It's life with cancer? It's life pushing 50?

PSA - Treatment Concerns Regarding of DCIS

******
Progress in Predicting Invasive Breast Cancer - Researchers Identify Biomarkers That May Help Decide Who Will Need Aggressive Treatment

By Charlene Laino
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Laura J. Martin

MDApril 28, 2010 -- Doctors are a step closer to being able to predict which women with noninvasive breast tumors will go on to develop invasive breast cancer -- and therefore whether or not they need more aggressive treatment.

Researchers studied nearly 1,200 women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a noninvasive and very early form of breast cancer confined to the milk ducts. They found that a combination of three tissue biomarkers was associated with a high risk of developing an invasive breast cancer with the potential to spread eight years later.

Also, DCIS that was diagnosed from a breast lump was linked to a greater risk of subsequent invasive cancer than DCIS that was diagnosed by mammography.
There's still a long way to go before the personalized approach to treatment is ready for prime time.

"But the study gets us closer to our goal of separating women with DCIS into risk groups, so as to avoid overtreatment of women with low-risk breast lesions and undertreatment of women with high-risk lesions," study researcher Karla Kerlikowske, MD, of University of California, San Francisco, tells WebMD.

The study was published online by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Get Your Personalized Breast Cancer Treatment Report

Overtreatment of DCIS
Currently, overtreatment of DCIS, which will be diagnosed in over 47,000 women this year, is the big problem, according to Kerlikowske.

"Since there's currently no way to predict which women with DCIS will go on to develop invasive cancer, almost all are offered radiation after the lump is removed [lumpectomy] or mastectomy and sometimes hormone therapy. But our results suggest as many as 44% of women with DCIS may not require any treatment other than removal of the lump and can instead rely on active surveillance, or close monitoring," Kerlikowske says.

The close monitoring offers these women a safety net, she says. "If a tumor comes back, we can always give radiation then."

Radiation therapy not only carries a risk of side effects such as nausea, vomiting, and fatigue but also precludes irradiating the same area of the breast a second time, Kerlikowske says. "So you want to save it for when it is really needed," she says.

Predicting Invasive Breast Tumors
The study involved 1,162 women aged 40 and older who were diagnosed with DCIS and treated with lumpectomy alone between 1983 and 1994.

Overall, their eight-year risks of developing a subsequent DCIS or a subsequent invasive cancer were 11.6% and 11.1%, respectively.

When the researchers looked at women whose DCIS was diagnosed by feeling a lump, the eight-year risk of subsequent invasive cancer was substantially higher than average, 17.8%.

Then they looked at different combinations of biomarkers using tissue that had been stored for 329 of the women when they were first diagnosed with DCIS. These biomarkers include estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki67 antigen, p53, p16, epidermal growth factor receptor-2, and cyclooxygenase-2.

Predicting Invasive Breast Tumors continued...
The study showed that women who express high levels of three biomarkers -- p16, cyclooxygenase-2, and Ki67 -- also had a substantially higher-than-average eight-year risk of developing invasive cancer (27.3%).

The researchers stratified all 1,162 women into four risk groups. A total of 17.3% were in the lowest-risk group, with only a 4.1% chance of developing invasive cancer at eight years; 26.8% were in the next lowest risk group, with a 6.9 chance of developing invasive cancer at eight years. If the findings are validated, it is these two groups that could forgo treatment other than lumpectomy and active surveillance, Kerlikowske says.

A total of 27.6% of the women were in the high-risk group, with a nearly 20% chance of developing invasive cancer at eight years. These are the women who need more aggressive therapy with radiation and perhaps hormone therapy, she says.

Factors associated with a higher risk of having a subsequent ductal carcinoma in situ included having no cancer cells remain within 1 millimeter of the area from which the lump was removed and different combinations of biomarkers.

Unanswered Questions
Still, many questions remain.

For starters, about half of women who developed invasive cancer in the study didn't have the three biomarkers or DCIS diagnosed from a lump, so the researchers have to figure out what other factors are at play, Kerlikowske says.

Also, the approach has not been shown to actually extend lives.

Additionally, the study involved women who had undergone lumpectomy alone, which is no longer the standard of care, says Ramona Swaby, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.

Recurrence rates are lower in women who also get radiation and if needed, hormone therapy, so it's important to see if the findings hold up in such women, she tells WebMD.

Craig Allred, MD, of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, also calls for further study in an editorial accompanying the study. Still, "if validated, the results could optimize current therapy in certain settings: [withholding] radiation from women with low-risk DCIS, for example," he writes.

Several companies have expressed interest in helping to further develop and eventually market any tissue biomarker test, which will also need FDA approval, according to Kerlikowske.

Since it utilizes the same method and can be done at the same time doctors determine a tumor's hormone-receptor status, she doubts it will cost more than a few hundred dollars.

Funding for the research was provided by the National Cancer Institute and the California Breast Cancer Research Program.

My own personal journey is with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC) - Stage III. On my journey, however, I have had many women within my circle of contacts that have been diagnosed with Stage O DCIS. Many of whom have made tough personal choices regarding how they were going to address their diagnosis. To be candid, I have been concerned by many of the choices made. But, again, it is a personal choice and one that is never easily made. Part of my sincere hope for all women who have this early diagnosis is that they make their decisions not from visceral fear, but informed knowledge. My thoughts, prayers and hopes are with the friends, colleagues, and daughters that make up the 47,000.

******
I revisited the Dodge Theatre last night. It was for an incredible night of music. Fusion as defined by Merriam Webster. The Phoenix Symphony performing the music of Queen and Led Zeppelin. Not as bizarre as it sounds. They had vocals, base and lead guitar, electric violin, and the most incredible set drummer! All supported by the richness of the symphony. I must say it was the first time I had ever seen a symphony conductor leap and jump into the air!

What was even more significant, for me personally, was that I could enjoy myself. You see, I have had a negative association with the Dodge Theatre. I had received my diagnosis of breast cancer (ILC - later to find out its Stage III) just hours before I attended a YES concert there back in July, 2009. At the time, my husband kept asking: Are you sure you want to do this? We can find someone to take the tickets! I was adamant. I wanted normalcy. I had been looking forward to this concert for months. Besides, I am singly most happy when I am at live concerts. (Which, hopefully, explains my 4 Stones concerts during their Big Bang tour that I attended in two different states. I know, the word groupie comes to mind...but that is the stuff of another TMZ moment!)

So I went.

So, it was an emotional disaster.

First mistake. The 3 double Cosmopolitans I drank in fairly short order.

Second mistake. Underestimating the emotional effect that music can have.

Look around - Got no place to stay.
God I hate this town, depending on the day.
You look me up, you look me down - Alright, OK.
While I got no life, I got no hope;
I'm falling in love.
Help me through the fight;
Help me win tonight - I'm calling.
What to do I find it hard to know;
The road I walk is not the one I chose
Lift me up and turn me over;
Lead me on into the dawn.
Take me to the highest mountain;
Tie me up, love in a storm.
Have you decided on my fortune?
Facing the future in your eyes,
With your imperial behaviour
We fight amidst the battle cries.
Open doors - They may be closed to me;
The fire's still burning in my heart...
What to do I find it hard to know;
I want to turn my life around...

Those lyrics, plus having a bladder the size of walnut, sent me into the ladies room where I had a complete emotional breakdown. The brunt of this breakdown borne by a dear friend whom I woke up two time zones away. Damn cell phones!

I have not wanted to remember this moment of vulnerability, because it was just that...a moment of vulnerability. (I do not do well flaunting my vulnerabilities.)

It was a moment of base, raw emotion -- fear / anger / hostility / desperation / despair all rolled into a maelstrom of unplugged emotion (forgive the concert pun). I did not want to remember how much I scared my poor husband, disappearing on him like that; or the horrific car ride home I had inflicted upon him.

It was all so primal that I was not ready to claim it until last night.

Interestingly, or trite...depending on your personal level of cynicism, it was a set of back-to-back songs that allowed me to make peace with myself regarding my prior indulgence. And both belonged to Queen.

There's no time for us
There's no place for us
What is this thing that builds our dreams
Yet slips away from us
Who wants to live forever?
Who wants to live forever.....?
There's no chance for us
It's all decided for us
This world has only one sweet moment
Set aside for us
Who wants to live forever?
Who wants to live forever.....?
Who dares to love forever
When love must die?
But touch my tears with your lips
Touch my world with your fingertips
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today
Who wants to live forever?
Who wants to live forever?
Forever is our today
Who waits forever anyway?

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality
Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low,
Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me

What can I say? I am a child of the '70s who has always taken refuge and found self-forgiveness in prose, lyrics and rock 'n roll.

This time when I left the Dodge Theatre I did so without needing to be supported. But enjoying the long-haired crowd, humming Stairway to Heaven (no kidding, it was the final song!) and enjoying the full moon illuminating the 65 degree night-time in the desert.

PSA: Scientists find turmeric and black pepper spices may prevent breast cancer

******
Scientists find turmeric and black pepper spices may prevent breast cancer

(NaturalNews) Seasoning food with turmeric and black pepper can do more than just spice up a meal. Researchers at the University of Michigan (U-M) Comprehensive Cancer Center have found that the compounds curcumin, which is derived from turmeric, and piperine, derived from black pepper, could play an important role in preventing and even treating breast cancer.

Previous research has already provided evidence that curcumin and piperine may be potential cancer treatments. However, the new U-M study, just published online in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, is the first to suggest exactly how these natural spice compounds could prevent cancer. The research shows curcumin and piperine target stem cells (unspecialized cells that can give rise to any type of cell in an organ). This is of major significance because cancer stem cells comprise the small number of cells inside a tumor that fuel the growth of malignancies.

Current chemotherapy agents are useless against these cells -- that's why cancer can recur and spread despite rounds of heavy duty, toxic chemo. But if cancer stem cells could be eliminated and/or their growth shut down, cancer should be controlled.

"If we can limit the number of stem cells, we can limit the number of cells with potential to form tumors," lead author Madhuri Kakarala, M.D., Ph.D., a clinical lecturer in internal medicine at the U-M Medical School and a research investigator at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, said in a statement to the media. And the new study shows curcumin and piperine work along these lines. The spice derivatives are able to do what chemo can't -- they limit the self-renewal of stem cells.
Killing cancer cells with zero toxicity to healthy cells
For the U-M study, the research team applied a solution of curcumin and piperine to cell cultures at the equivalent of about 20 times the potency of what a person would take in through diet. Then a series of tests were performed on the cells to look at markers for breast stem cells and the effect curcumin and piperine had on the levels of stem cells.

The result? Piperine enhanced the effects of curcumin and the compounds interrupted the self-renewal process that is the hallmark of stem cells which initiate cancer. More good news: the compounds had no effect on the normal process of cell development known as cell differentiation. That means the spice compounds are not toxic to normal breast tissue.

"Women at high risk of breast cancer right now can choose to take the drugs tamoxifen or raloxifene for prevention, but most women won't take these drugs because there is too much toxicity. The concept that dietary compounds can help is attractive, and curcumin and piperine appear to have very low toxicity," Dr. Kakarala stated.

In addition, tamoxifen and raloxifene are designed to target estrogen. But not all breast cancers are estrogen driven. In fact, the most aggressive and deadly forms of breast cancer that are more likely to occur in women with strong family histories of the disease or with a specific genetic susceptibility to breast cancer are typically not affected by estrogen and tend to be difficult to treat. But due to the fact curcumin and piperine limit the self-renewal of stem cells, the spice compounds could impact malignancies whether they are estrogen sensitive or not.

Dr. Kakarala and colleagues are moving forward on an initial Phase 1 clinical trial in people to determine the best tolerated dose of curcumin and piperine. The study is expected to start signing on volunteer research subjects in spring of 2010.

For more information:
http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/medi...

TCS Post Script: I first came across the potential benefits of Turmeric (aka curcumin) when reading Suzanne Somers book Knockout (btw, an easy read if you overlook the lack of literary style - and read with a sceptical eye. I am not ready to sign up for vaginal injections or coffee enemas just yet!) I was intrigued by the assertions made regarding turmeric and did a little more investigation. Ingesting is no harm no foul so I have included turmeric into my daily supplement regimen...in addition to being a little more liberal with it in my cooking. As far as pepper: fresh ground has ALWAYS been a fav spice of mine. Since I ended up on this path, I guess that staple, alone, was not enough to stave off my breast cancer.

PSA - Alcohol & Breast Cancer Recurrence

******

Alcohol Raises Risk of Breast Cancer Recurrence

Study Shows Drinking More Than 3 Drinks a Week Is Linked to Return of Cancer

By Charlene Laino / Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Dec. 10, 2009 (San Antonio) -- If you've been diagnosed with breast cancer, you may want to cut down on alcoholic beverages.

That's the suggestion of researchers who found that cancer is 34% more likely to come back in breast cancer survivors who drink more than three drinks a week, compared with those who abstain or drink less.

Drinking more than three drinks a week also raised the risk of dying from breast cancer by 51%, says Marilyn L. Kwan, PhD, a staff scientist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif.

"Women with breast cancer who are postmenopausal or overweight seem to be most susceptible to the effects of alcohol." The findings were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Previous research has linked alcohol to an increased risk of developing breast cancer, but little is known about alcohol's effect on women who have already been diagnosed with the disease.

So Kwan and colleagues followed 1,897 women who had been successfully treated for early-stage breast cancer between 1997 and 2000. About a year after diagnosis, they were asked whether they drank alcohol, how much they drank, and their drink of choice.

Over the next eight years, 349 of the women suffered a recurrence of their breast cancer, and 332 died of the disease.

"We don't think the type of alcohol mattered, but it was difficult to examine since 90% of the women in our study drank wine," Kwan says. But how much they drank did matter; women who indulged in two or more glasses of wine per day were most likely to suffer a recurrence, she says.

It makes sense that alcohol would raise both the risk of developing breast cancer and the chance that it will come back, Kwan says. "Alcohol increases levels of estrogen in the body, and breast cancer is fueled by estrogen."

Jeffrey Peppercorn, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Duke University, states that women who are diagnosed with breast cancer often want to know what they can do to lower their risk of recurrence.

"Limiting alcohol consumption is one step they can take," he says. "I tell women we're not sure that any amount of alcohol is safe ... but that it would be prudent to limit consumption except on rare, special occasions."

TC Post Script: Over the last 25 years (i.e., post undergrad studies), my alcohol consumption has been limited to the occassional Cosmo and 1.5 glasses of red wine on a Friday or Saturday night. (Yeah...PARTY ANIMAL!!!) I have also maintained a consistent body weight of 100-104 lbs (except during pregnancies). So...for me, more information on the unknown.