A pill to prevent Breast Cancer?

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Can a Pill Prevent Breast Cancer?

By Heather Millar

Should healthy women take a pill to prevent breast cancer? Last week, a government-sponsored panel of experts said that perhaps women with a higher risk of breast cancer should … but only if their risk of blood clots and stroke is low.
The drugs in question are Tamoxifen and Raloxifene, both drugs that have been prescribed for years to women whose risk of breast cancer is higher than normal. These might be women who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation that predisposes them to breast cancer, women who have a “first degree relative” (mother, sister) who had cancer, women who’ve had pre-cancerous breast tumors. But there are several scales and systems for assessing risk. More on that later.
Both drugs work by blocking the body’s use of estrogen. This foils breast cancers that feed on estrogen like a toddler on candy, as 75 percent of breast cancers do.
After reviewing the most recent scientific literature, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—a group of epidemiologists, public health officials, and physicians charged with reviewing research and making recommendations on preventive care—published a study that says these drugs can reduce the risk of breast cancer and that doctors should recommend them to their high-risk patients.
This is baby-step trying to encourage more prescribing of these drugs to appropriate women. It adds to a 2002 recommendation saying that women should “talk with their physicians” about taking these drugs to prevent breast cancer. But women didn’t seem to listen. The phrase in the most recent pronouncement about using these drugs for “chemoprevention” is that “use is low.” So I guess the hope is that strengthening the language will get more docs and women to discuss this option for high-risk women.
With all the pink ribbon hand-wringing about breast cancer (I can be flip because I’m a breast cancer survivor), you’d think there’d be a lot of coverage of this notion of encouraging high-risk women to take a pill to prevent one of the most common cancers to afflict humanity. But there was surprisingly little media reaction, perhaps because the bombings in Boston happened two days after the study went live: There was an excellent piece in The New York Times and a couple other newspapers, a bit of coverage in a few trade journals and on women-centered websites and there it mostly ended.
I wonder whether this USPSTF panel despaired or rejoiced about the relative lack of attention. It seems that almost every time a group of USPSTF scientists makes a pronouncement, there ensues great public gnashing of teeth and comment thread flame-throwing. In the last few years, they’ve been trashed for recommending that women don’t start mammograms until 50 (rather than 40), that men don’t really need prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer, that there’s not sufficient evidence to prove that lung cancer screening works.
All cancer issues seem to be fraught, both intellectually and emotionally. Do docs buy bulletproof vests, earplugs and extra therapy sessions when they agree to serve on a USPSTF panel?
The recent Tamoxifen/Raloxifene pronouncement is a “draft recommendation.” That means it’s not final, and the public can comment until May 13. The Times comment thread ranged from outraged (“Why isn’t there a cure yet?” “Why so much breast cancer?”) to sometimes analytical (taking issue with statistics, or questioning our nation’s approach to prevention) to sometimes paranoid (“bras cause cancer” or “the docs and insurance companies just want us to take more pills so that they can get rich”—never mind that Tamoxifen is old-ish, extensively-studied and not patent-protected, there is no “Sam Walton of Tamoxifen.”). So I’m guessing the USPSTF is going to get an earful.
So exactly how did these scientists come to their conclusion? They analyzed about 20 new studies from MEDLINE and Cochrane databases from 2007 to 2012, and found several new, large placebo-controlled studies that strengthened the case for high-risk women to consider taking these medications. Women who took tamoxifen and raloxifene had a 7.5% risk of developing breast cancer over a 10-year period, compared with a 21.3% risk for women who took nothing.  Both drugs reduced the incidence of invasive breast cancer, though tamoxifen caused more problems like strokes, a small risk of endometrial (uterine) cancer and cataracts.
But there are a couple problems:

• First, even the leader of the  USPSTF panel admitted to a reporter for Blue Cross Blue Shield’s HealthDay news service [full disclosure: this is my insurance company] that “the tricky part is finding the right candidate.”  The National Cancer Institute recommends the Gail model to help doctors make a risk assessment, the original of its type. But there are others: a Breast Cancer Quiz developed by the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, a Breast Cancer Risk Calculator and Breast Cancer Prevention’s Risk Tool.  The USPSTF reviewed 13 different risk assessment models. And that’s before we even get into the more complicated matters of whether you’re at risks for strokes and so on, or whether you might be at greater risk because of your race.

• Second, these drugs have no joke side effects. Tamoxifen seems to increase the risk of uterine cancer slightly (4 cases per 1000 women) and stroke (4 cases per 1,000). Raloxifene seems to add the risk of stroke (7 cases per 1,000).

Granted, these risks are all less than 1 percent, (1 percent would equal 10 cases per 1,000). But you’re talking about taking healthy women and then adding a risk of stroke or uterine cancer to prevent an, admittedly greater, risk of breast cancer.
I understand that, mathematically, it makes sense to take something with a small risk of something bad to avoid an even greater risk of something bad. But even understanding that, I’m still not sure I’d do it. What if you were a woman who might be at high risk but were actually never going to get breast cancer at all? Would you let fear goad you into taking a drug that might result in your getting another serious cancer, i.e. uterine cancer? Or cataracts? Or a stroke?
Apparently, according to the recent report, about 70 percent of patients will take these drugs at the doses their docs recommend. But you can see why physicians are having trouble convincing the remaining 30 percent of patients.
This is what journalists call “burying the lead:” I take Tamoxifen. I have taken it for almost two years, and will take it for at least three more years, perhaps eight more. But I’ve HAD breast cancer. I am at a much, much greater risk that someone who’s never had breast cancer. I don’t need a risk assessment tool to know that. I had early stage, but very aggressive cancer. For me, the benefits outweigh the icky risks. But for someone healthy? I get that there’s evidence to recommend it. Yet still, I struggle with the notion.
I also have a daughter. She’s 12. Because of my cancer, she’d be considered “high-risk” by most standards. When she turns 35 or 40, do I want her to start taking drugs like Tamoxifen or Raloxifene if she’s healthy in other respects? I really, really struggle with that. Right now, a woman has a 12 percent risk of getting breast cancer. Taking a preventative drug might knock that down to a 10 percent risk, or 9 percent. Would that be worth it? I just don’t know.
Let me tell you about the “minor” side effects of Tamoxifen from a pool of one: me. It makes it impossible to lose weight. I mean, IMPOSSIBLE. It causes hot flashes. It gives me painful cramps in weird places like under my chin, over my ribs, in my fingers. It turns my inner privates all raisin-y, and it grinds my sex drive into the dust. That’s a drag for me, but it’s really a drag for my husband. Thank God he’s understanding and adaptable.
Would I want my daughter to take all that on to knock a couple percentage points off her risk? Obviously, it will be her decision, and yes, Raloxifene does not have such severe side effects. Still, I think I’d advise her against it at this point.
I know the USPSTF is doing the best it can with the data it has. In science, the difference of two or three percentage points is huge. In life, I think it’s less so.  I’d like to wait for better odds before I’d push all those side effects onto my daughter.
And I do wish we’d expand our idea of “prevention” beyond scans and drugs. Diet, exercise, lifestyle, and the limiting of environmental toxins and excessive stress should all be much bigger parts of the mix.
What do you think? Would take these drugs? Or not? Do you think the U.S. is getting cancer prevention right? Or not?

Posted by: Heather Millar at 9:38 am

Link to this post

Sox Pitch

Inspirational 9-Year-Old With Brain Cancer Throws Out First Pitch At Sox Game

CHICAGO (CBS) — A South Side nine-year-old threw out the first pitch at today’s White Sox game and gave inspiration to all those who saw, reports WBBM’s Nancy Harty.
Adam Sanchez was diagnosed with a rare form of brain cancer the day before Thanksgiving.
Since then, he has had two brain surgeries and some 30 sessions of cancer treatment. But his mom says he still goes to school at St. Bede’s every day and even made the honor roll.
“He is doing great. If it wasn’t for the loss of hair, you wouldn’t even know that there is anything wrong with him. From seeing him, his demeanor never changed, his attitude. He is just silly, funny little boy that he has always been,” said Adam’s mom. Brenda Valadez.
Brenda Valadez is a Chicago Police officer. Her brother, Alex, was killed in the line of duty almost four years ago.

play pause

• Inspirational 9-Year-Old With Brain Cancer Throws Out First Pitch At Sox Game
• WBBM Newsradio's Nancy Harty

Adam described the experience as “awesome” and said it felt “like a dream came true”.

Some of his classmates were able to watch Adam’s big pitch, thanks to a donor who gave tickets to many of fourth through eighth graders.
Adam’s family was able to watch the game from the comfort of Paul Konerko’s suite at the Cell, which the first baseman loaned out for Sanchez’s debut.
Adam says he keeps going thanks to God and all the prayers he has received.  

No Cancer No Breasts

Age 29, No Cancer, Removed My Breasts Anyway

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-clark/29-no-cancer-removed-my-breasts-anyway_b_3123993.html?ir=Women&utm_campaign=042313&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-women&utm_content=Title

 While most people in my life have shown unquestioning support of my choice to undergo a preventative mastectomy, some have added, "But I don't know if I could've done that if I were you." Few have displayed outward disapproval and judgment. If there is anyone reading this who sees such a decision as radical and unnecessary, I say this to you -- gently, without anger:

You did not lose a parent to cancer before knowing her. You didn't wish for the chance to have known her and comforted her during a time of boundless agony. And you did not have that wish come true, with a spin you foolishly least expected when your sister, at the age of 30, was diagnosed with breast cancer.
Or maybe you don't know that when the pink ribbon is pulled off to the side, when all the heartfelt f*ck cancer hugs have been given, what is left is a woman sitting at her bedside. One by one, she takes six ugly pills that are made out of things she doesn't know about. But she takes them because her doctor prescribed them to her and they kinda just come along with the package that says: "This is scary and inconvenient but people survive this every day. You are one of many, you will survive, and at the end you'll pin a breast cancer ribbon on your handbag."
What you certainly do not understand is that underneath the familiar, commercial top coat of cancer struggle that subsides in margaritas with girlfriends, there is another layer. Only it is not a layer. It is exactly everything you're made up of, and it silently reminds you that this is the same death that marked its X through each portion of your heart so long ago. It is terror that does not speak in cafes, or at the gym or a birthday party, but rather lives in the black-hooded breath. It is blood that pumps with its fists closed tight. It is terror your friends and family do not get to touch or soothe because you pretend it's not there, and that is how you get dressed every day.
Perhaps you have never considered that when the novelty of becoming stunningly bald, of being a representation of the fight and a representative of courage wears away, that my sister was just a girl waking up in the starkness of morning without hair next to a husband who would soon divorce her. You never considered that when you have a mastectomy after a cancer diagnosis, not only do you lose your breast tissue and breast sensation, but it's also recommend that your nipples be removed too. And you go ahead and have a couple other smaller surgeries in order to construct new ones.
Lastly, you don't know what 25 sessions of chemotherapy and 29 treatments of radiation looks like. It is not just four-day spells of unrelenting nausea and hot red, blistering skin. It is there's more cancer in your lymph nodes after your margins were clear. It's please dear god let this be it. And then god doesn't answer back, but a doctor says to you on a Tuesday that you are not able to have children. It is a change that combs through every part of yourself, and it lasts in you forever.
And then, I took a blood test. And they said there is an almost 90 percent chance that this could be me.
When I was 22, I lived with my aunt Reggie and her 16-year-old daughter while my aunt was undergoing treatment for cancer that had spread throughout her body, throughout her blood. It was cancer that started in her breasts. Within a year, she passed away after what could be seen as a lifetime of treatments and unjustifiable pain. My aunt Mary-Anne has survived two breast cancer occurrences as well as ovarian cancer. These are both my mother's sisters. My mother passed away from breast cancer when she was 36. My aunt Mary-Anne is the only sister with cancer who had the chance to take the BRCA gene test, and she tested positive. My mom's third sister, Aunt Laurie, who has never had cancer, tested negative.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 are genes that ensure stable and controlled cell growth. Testing positive refers to a mutation of these genes that is linked especially to breast and ovarian cancer. Of me and my two sisters, only my oldest sister Amanda tested negative.
Recently, I found a diary I kept in sixth grade. One page read only this: "I'm not sure what cancer is but I think I know what it feels like." Just as in too many other families, the big "C word" in ours is laden with past and heavily adorned with heartache and rage.
Finding out I was BRCA1 positive after my sister's cancer diagnosis stirred a seemingly bottomless pot of unprocessed feelings. When I was encouraged to undergo a mastectomy with reconstructive surgery, I cried. And even though I told myself I had options, the part of me -- the part like my sister's with its X's marked -- that part already knew I didn't.
For three months, I pretended there was something to consider. I pretended that losing part of my natural femininity was not a smaller matter than the probability of developing a tumor. I wondered if I was doing my potential future children a disservice by rendering myself unequipped to breastfeed. And I told myself that any negative judgments made by potential future boyfriends were actually important.
When I was 19, most of my spine was fused with two titanium rods pinned to each side as a corrective result of severe spinal curvature I developed at 11. In spite of a successful surgery, I still identified myself as disfigured, unnatural, not normal. It seemed that having my breast tissue removed would only extend the long-going discomfort I had with my body. I Googled before and after pictures of women who had reconstructive surgery, while imagined bedroom scenarios of displeased men played in my mind. For so long, I wished to be in a regular body that hadn't needed to be tampered with and longed to feel at ease in my skin. It felt like another scar would only lead me further away from that.
In time, I accepted the reality of this hereditary mutation and scheduled my surgery with the same doctors who performed my sister's. The months after I returned from the hospital were still somewhat difficult; my chest was nearly as bizarre as I had imagined it would be. But a year later, my implants have settled and softened into my body and become a part of who I am. They are a new representation of my femininity, expressive of a woman's decision to care for herself. More and more, I appreciate my breasts for their phoniness, for their silicone mindlessness.
Because it means that they are too dumb to hurt me. They are my uncomplicated, pretty friends who look great in clothes and tell me life is short anyway and the only important thing is to have a good time. I've always wanted to feel that way. And as far as men are concerned, it is so simple. All I have to do is love my new body, and in turn, the right man will do the same.
Now, this is not just something I have accepted. I recognize it as an advantage that makes me incredibly lucky. It gave me an opportunity to grieve a past and also to defy the fate of repeating it. Although the work is not done -- an oophorectomy lies in the road ahead as a precautionary measure for ovarian cancer, which statistically develops later in life -- today, I am granted the immeasurable benefit of peace, of doing everything I can to live a healthy life.
As of last month my sister, Krista, has completed her treatments, and five scans in a row have come back clear. This blog will not possibly tell you how proud I am of her, or how much I look forward to having sleepovers until we're 100 years old. Or how grateful I am to be part of a family that reminds me how miraculous of a gift this really is, of this very delicate, beautiful life. There is a sweeping lightness in our family that I have not felt before. We have triumphed. For now, we have overcome. And that is all anyone ever really has the privilege of.
Each story and each woman who faces the possibility of a preventative mastectomy is wholly different. There are unique details to regard for every individual. Don't be afraid to process what comes along with this altogether complex and not to mention expensive and annoying circumstance of being given a choice between your breasts and your overall well-being and peace of mind. Sometimes, I felt like I was placed in a fear-mongering trap of the medical industry, but the evidence in my family's history is strong enough to know that the dangers are real. Ironically, surgery seemed the best way to remove myself from the questionable world of cancer treatment while still being proactive.
If this is a decision you are making, the only advice I could ever give is to trust yourself. Listen to yourself. You'll know what choice is best for you; discover it in your own time. I can't imagine that my mine will ever be one I regret.

 

Follow Dana Clark on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kaleforyoursoul  

Dr Strangelove

Obama Approves Raising Permissible Levels of Nuclear Radiation in Drinking Water. Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket

Rollback in Nuclear Radiation Cleanup

Civilian Cancer Deaths Expected to Skyrocket Following Radiological Incidents

by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication as soon as today, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:
In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;

• In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
• Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
• Despite the years-long internal fight, this is the first public official display of these guides. This takes place as Japan grapples with these same issues in the two years following its Fukushima nuclear disaster.

“This is a public health policy only Dr. Strangelove could embrace. If this typifies the environmental leadership we can expect from Ms. McCarthy, then EPA is in for a long, dirty slog,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the EPA package lacks a cogent rationale, is largely impenetrable and hinges on a series of euphemistic “weasel words.”

“No compelling justification is offered for increasing the cancer deaths of Americans innocently exposed to corporate miscalculations several hundred-fold.”

Reportedly, the PAGs had been approved last fall but their publication was held until after the presidential election. The rationale for timing their release right before McCarthy’s confirmation hearing is unclear.

Since the PAGs guide agency decision-making and do not formally set standards or repeal statutory requirements, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and Superfund, they will go into full effect following a short public comment period. Nonetheless, the PAGs will likely determine what actions take place on the ground in the days, weeks, months and, in some cases, years following a radiological emergency.

Anastacia

Anastacia ha di nuovo il cancro

• St

Anastacia, la famosa cantante dalla voce inconfondibile, è stata colpita nuovamente dal cancro al seno. La notizia è rimbalzata su tutti i media dopo la dichiarazione postata sulla pagina ufficiale di Facebook della cantante. Una notizia sconcertante, che ha obbligato Anastacia ad annullare tutte le date del suo tour europeo e i suoi impegni dei prossimi mesi.


“Ad Anastacia purtroppo è stato diagnosticato il cancro al seno per la seconda volta dopo averlo sconfitto con successo nel 2003″: con questa breve dichiarazione la cantante annuncia ai suoi numerosi fan la malattia, che colpisce una donna su dieci e che la costringerà a stare lontano dal palco e dalla scena per alcuni mesi.
“Di conseguenza, è stata costretta a cancellare tutti i tour, spettacoli e qualsiasi viaggio da oggi fino a nuova comunicazione. Anastacia era entusiasta del prossimo tour europeo, che doveva iniziare il 6 aprile a Londra. ‘Sto male perché deludo in questo modo tutti i miei incredibili fan che erano in attesa di ‘It’s a man’s world Tour’. Mi si spezza il cuore solo al pensiero’, ha detto. Anastacia continuerà la scrittura e la registrazione del suo nuovo album, nonostante la sua diagnosi e spera di programmare un nuovo tour il più presto possibile. Ora più che mai, è determinata a mettere in pratica il suo motto ‘Non lasciare mai che il cancro rubi il ‘meglio di te!’”. Questo il resto della dichiarazione, tratta dalla pagina ufficiale del social network della cantante, con la quale si sottolinea la volontà di Anastacia di non mollare di nuovo di fronte al cancro, di volersi dedicare alla cure per ritornare ancora davanti a suoi fan.

L’artista non ha voluto nascondere le sue fragilità di fronte a questa malattia, che l’aveva già duramente provata nel 2003, e ha chiesto ai suoi fan di comprenderla e, tramite la pagina di Facebook, di continuare a sostenerla, pur rispettando la sua privacy in un momento così delicato.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Nodulo al seno: cosa fare per scoprire se è benigno o maligno

Scoprire un nodulo al seno, magari mentre si effettua un esame di autopalpazione, o per puro caso durante la doccia, è sempre uno shock per qualunque donna. Il primo timore è naturalmente quello che si tratti di un tumore maligno, infatti il carcinoma mammario è considerato uno dei grandi big killer delle donne, anche se i confortanti risultati ottenuti dalle terapie antitumorali di ultima generazione ci consentono di affrontare con più ottimismo anche una diagnosi infausta. In ogni caso, quando una donna scopre un nodulo al seno, dolente o meno, deve appurare subito se sia maligno o benigno, e per fare questo deve necessariamente affidarsi all’esperienza di un bravo specialista. Una visita senologica in molti casi è già in grado di determinare se il nodulo al seno che la paziente ha riscontrato sia pericoloso, se sia necessaria una asportazione o se possa rimanere tranquillamente in sede in quanto non di natura tumorale.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

La prevenzione del tumore al seno? Ecco il nuovo giochino su facebook

Cosa c’entra il tumore al seno con Facebook? E’ un modo per sensibilizzare le donne a l’argomento e per sollecitare un dialogo sulla prevenzione e l’approccio alla malattia. Anche un social network può essere utile in questo senso, anche se i messaggi dati sono secchi, sintetici, quasi incomprensibili, eppure però di facile diffusione. Ed è quello che da qualche anno sta accadendo nel mese di Ottobre dedicato alla prevenzione del tumore al seno. Se sulla vostra bacheca compare la scritta di un’amica che vi spiega che andrà in Messico per 11 mesi o in Francia per 20 ebbene, sappiate che si tratta del nuovo giochino di facebook al riguardo.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

La prevenzione del tumore al seno viaggia anche in treno

La salute delle donne ed in particolare la prevenzione del tumore al seno quest’anno viaggia anche in treno e nello specifico sulla Frecciarossa. L’iniziativa infatti che prende il nome di Frecciarosa non a caso, nasce da una collaborazione innovativa tra la FSI (Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane) ed alcune associazioni che si occupano della salute al femminile: IncontraDonna Onlus ed ONDa (Osservatorio nazionale sulla salute delle donne). Di cosa si tratta e come si svolgerà il tutto?

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Tumore al seno: prevenire, riconoscere e curare il cancro

Il tumore al seno spaventa molte donne, ed a ragione visto che è anche uno dei grandi big killer dell’oncologia: il più frequente nel genere femminile, colpisce una donna su 10. Ogni anno in Italia assistiamo a circa 42.000 nuove diagnosi. Si tratta di cifre in netto aumento rispetto al passato, che per fortuna però coincidono anche con la diminuzione della mortalità generale. Questo grazie alla diagnosi precoce, alla prevenzione, e a nuove terapie per la cura. La scienza sta facendo grandi passi in avanti in questo senso. Ma vediamo nel dettaglio quali sono le cause, o meglio i fattori di rischio, che possono provocare un cancro della mammella, la prevenzione, la diagnosi e le possibilità terapeutiche.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Tumore al seno per 1 donna su 10: torna il Nastro Rosa

Sono notizie da brivido quelle che arrivano in queste ore circa il tumore al seno. La sua incidenza è in aumento, siamo arrivati ormai ad una diagnosi ogni 10 donne, con 42.000 casi ogni anno. Sempre più importante e da sottolineare come il 30 % delle nuove diagnosi riguardi le donne sotto i 50 anni, quelle non considerate dagli screening del servizio sanitario nazionale, ma non per questo immuni al cancro. Eppure il tumore al seno sembra essere una cosa distante: il 50% delle italiane ne sa ben poco e la non conoscenza aumenta tanto più si va indietro negli anni, tra i 18 ed i 34. E’ questa la fotografia impietosa e seria del tumore al seno nel nostro Paese scattata da Astraricerche per conto della LILT, la Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori, che si appresta a dare il via alla nuova campagna Nastro Rosa: siamo ormai giunti ad Ottobre, il mese dedicato alla prevenzione del tumore al seno.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Tumore al seno, maggior rischio con diabete

Il rischio di sviluppare un tumore al seno, aumenta se la donna è affetta da diabete di tipo 2 ed è in menopausa. Il pericolo sale addirittura del 27%, almeno per ciò che riguarda una ricerca scientifica appena pubblicata sul British Journal of Cancer che ha analizzato a posteriori i dati riguardanti 56 mila donne in post menopausa con diagnosi di tumore al seno. Non rilevati i dati relativi alle donne in pre-menopausa o con diabete di tipo uno.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Tumore al seno: l’attività fisica riduce i rischi

Il tumore al seno è davvero un grande spauracchio per le donne, perché si tratta di un tipo di neoplasia (nella sue varie forme, più o meno aggressive), che può colpire anche in giovane età. Per fortuna cure oncologiche sempre più mirate e personalizzate stanno permettendo a molte donne ammalate di uscire vincitrici dalla lotta contro il loro tumore, ma certamente le armi migliori a nostra disposizione sono prevenzione e diagnosi precoce. Sottoporsi periodicamente a visite senologiche e screening diagnostici come la mammografia o la nuovissima tecnica che utilizza le fibre ottiche è certo buona abitudine. Così come lo è quello di imparare a seguire uno stile di vita salutare che aiuti l’organismo a non dare spazio alla formazione delle cellule cancerogene.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Tumore al seno, 17enne inventa app per la diagnosi attendibile al 99%

La diagnosi precoce è l’arma migliore a nostra disposizione per combattere il tumore al seno, grande nemico della salute femminile e, purtroppo, prima causa di morte tra le donne giovani. Sicuramente sono stati fatti passi da gigante anche a livello di cure, sempre più mirate e personalizzate, motivo per cui attualmente, in Europa, i casi di completa guarigione dal cancro della mammella sono aumentati molto. Ottime notizie, ma comunque sia tutti i medici ribadiscono l’importanza della prevenzione contro questo “big killer”, che passa necessariamente attraverso screening diagnostici ed esami senologici, a partire dall’autopalpazione.

Leggi l'articolo

Commenti (1)

Tumore al seno, le dimensioni della mammella influiscono

Un seno abbondante è più a rischio di tumore rispetto ad uno di taglia mini? La domanda non vi appaia assurda, e la riposta, che è affermativa, va comunque, e lo sottolineiamo due volte, presa con le pinze. Secondo una recente indagine scientifica tutta da confermare, tra le donne con seno prosperoso vi sarebbe una lieve maggior incidenza di casi di neoplasia alla mammella, e questo sarebbe determinato dall’influenza di quattro specifici geni collegati con il naturale accrescimento del seno, ma anche con la formazione di cellule cancerose. Nessun allarme, ci mancherebbe, anche perché si tratta del primo studio di questo genere, che andrebbe comunque confermato da ulteriori e più mirate ricerche. Ma entriamo nello specifico.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Tumore al seno, con la dieta mediterranea si combatte meglio

Il tumore al seno, considerato il big killer delle donne giovani e meno giovani, oggi fa meno paura rispetto a qualche anno fa. Le statistiche ci confortano, confermandoci che se non è proprio diminuito il numero delle donne che si ammalano di questa neoplasia, è certamente cresciuta in modo significativo la percentuale di chi sia riuscita a sconfiggere il male, riprendendosi in pieno la propria vita. Insomma, di cancro al seno si può guarire, come ben testimoniano i numeri che arrivano dalla regione Lombardia, che ci testimoniano, a fronte di un totale di 7400 diagnosi di tumore alla mammella annuali, un trend positivo in fatto di guarigioni complete.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Prurito al seno: quali sono le cause ed i rimedi da adottare

Il prurito al seno può essere un sintomo molto comune: la pelle in questa area è molto delicata e per questo suscettibile di particolari condizioni fastidiose. Il prurito al capezzolo e la voglia di grattarsi, può spesso sono difficili da tenere sotto controllo: si può presentare su una sola mammella o ambedue. Anche gli uomini possono subire prurito sui pettorali, ma di certo con meno frequenza rispetto al genere femminile, che al riguardo deve inoltre prestare una particolare attenzione: il prurito al seno può anche essere un sintomo di due particolari tipi di tumore al seno: il carcinoma mammario infiammatorio e la malattia di Paget. Attenzione però non significa ansia immotivata, le cause di questo disturbo sono numerose, essenzialmente benigne e trattabili.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Cancro al seno, mangiare tante verdure a foglia verde aiuta a prevenirlo

Il cancro al seno, “big killer” delle donne, può essere sconfitto, si può abbatterne la mortalità e proteggere la salute di questa parte del corpo femminile così bella e importante. Non è utopia, ma già realtà. La medicina sta facendo moltissimo per combattere questo specifico tumore, in tutte le sue più o meno aggressive varianti, grazie ai sempre più efficaci esami di screening diagnostico, che permettono di scoprire una neoplasia in fase iniziale, quando estirparla è più facile, e alle terapie personalizzate. Ma prima ancora, il sistema migliore per proteggerci dal cancro della mammella, è la prevenzione, che comincia con uno stile di vita salutare fin da giovani. Ad esempio, seguendo un regime alimentare bilanciato e ricco di quei cibi di cui ormai conosciamo gli effetti benefici: le verdure (specie a foglia verde).

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Il tumore al seno prima dei 40 anni: è una neoplasia diversa

Gli screening per il tumore al seno sono suggeriti dopo i 45 anni, ma sempre più spesso, si evidenziano casi diagnosticati in pazienti molto giovani, e comunque sotto i 40 anni. Le loro storie colpiscono in modo particolare perché coinvolgono donne nel pieno della vita, all’apice del successo come è accaduto a Miss Venezuela, morta a soli 29 anni a causa di questa neoplasia, tanto per fare un esempio, ad un passo dal matrimonio o alla prima gravidanza. Le statistiche confermano quella che è la nostra percezione al problema: i numeri sono in aumento e si tratta di neoplasie particolarmente aggressive e resistenti alle attuali terapie. Un nuovo studio scientifico ne avrebbe addirittura evidenziato caratteristiche biologiche uniche.

Leggi l'articolo

Scrivi un Commento

Foto dei seni su Instagram per la lotta al cancro

• 
• 
• 
• 

Foto di seni di donna. E’ nato recentemente un sito Boobstagram che ne raccoglie già migliaia e lo scopo sembra essere dei migliori. La pagina web che si apre su uno splendido primo piano di seni abbondanti e sodi cita: “Mostrare il seno sul web è buono, mostrarlo al medico è meglio”. Ovvero l’iniziativa vorrebbe essere una promozione alla lotta contro il cancro al seno. Un modo particolare per farlo, che certo finora ha ottenuto due cose: un gran successo e l’occasione di far parlare di se, che sono le basi di una vera campagna informativa. Quello che resta da vedere è se questa iniziativa porterà effettivamente qualche donna a fare una visita senologica rimandata da tempo. Ma proviamo ad entrare nei dettagli dell’iniziativa.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert, Movie Critic, Dies at 70

By Christopher John Farley

Everett

Roger Ebert.

Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic, has died at the age of 70.
His passing was reported on the Chicago Sun-Times website. The paper tweeted “It is with a heavy heart we report that legendary film critic Roger Ebert (@ebertchicago) has passed away.”

Ebert, who was born in Urbana, Ill., on June 18, 1942 and went on to write for the Chicago Sun-Times, was best known for pairing with Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune for a long-running movie review program for television. The show, which was known by a variety of titles including “Sneak Previews,” was first launched in 1975 and went through various iterations and broadcasters.
In his 2011 memoir “Life Itself,” Ebert wrote “In the early days of doing shows with Gene Siskel, part of our so-called chemistry resulted because, having successfully made my argument and feeling some relief, I felt personally under assault if Siskel disagreed. This led to tension that, oddly, helped the show.”
The Sun-Times reported that Ebert died after a long battle with cancer. In 2006, Ebert lost part of his lower jaw, and along with it the ability to speak.

But in spite of his medical problems, Ebert managed to find new life online, reviewing movies on the web, writing about film-related issues and creating an online hub for other film writers to share their views.
He continued to review movies until close to his death. He recently posted a review of the new movie “The Host” with the headline “Don’t listen to inner voices from other planets.”
In 2010, Ebert wrote an essay for this blog on how he thought the new rules governing awards for documentaries by The Motion Picture Academy had gone wrong. “At the end of the day it all comes down to somebody’s dreams and somebody else’s eyeballs,” he wrote.

On April 2, 2013, he posted a note on his blog under the headline “A Leave of Presence.” He wrote “Typically, I write over 200 reviews a year for the Sun-Times that are carried by Universal Press Syndicate in some 200 newspapers. Last year, I wrote the most of my career, including 306 movie reviews, a blog post or two a week, and assorted other articles. I must slow down now, which is why I’m taking what I like to call ‘a leave of presence.’”
Ebert went on to express his intention to build up his New Media presence on Rogerebert.com and Ebert Digital. The message concluded “So on this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I’ll see you at the movies.”