Breast Cancer: Can THIS Lower Your Risk?

I hope you are having a great day. Here in Seattle, we are looking at sunny and a temperature of 71F (22C). While we have largely focused on wellness (including musings on the benefits of meditation and of sex), today I want to talk a bit about a recent study from researchers from the University of California, San Diego (USA). I am often asked about vitamins and cancer risk reduction, and to be frank, most studies have not shown a benefit to taking vitamins, at least with respect to cancer risk reduction; here, I am a big advocate of getting our cancer-fighting nutrients through diet.

A lower risk of breast cancer is found among older women who have greater levels of vitamin D, according to a study from the University of California, San Diego.

While the study doesn’t prove cause and effect, it’s the latest among many that find those with higher levels of vitamin D have lower risks of various diseases. It was recently published in the journal PLOS ONE, and can be found at j.mp/vitdbcancer.

Women with the highest levels of vitamin D in the blood had 20 percent of breast cancer risk as those with the lowest levels.

Researchers used data from two randomized clinical trials with a total of 3,325 participants, and another study with 1,713 participants. All participants were women 55 and older. Their blood was examined between 2002 and 2017 for the main form of vitamin D in the blood. 25(OH)D. This was correlated with any diagnosis of breast cancer.

Over the course of the studies, 77 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed. Participants with blood levels above 60 nanograms per milliliter had just 20 percent of the risk, compared to those those with less than 20 ng/ml.

But…

The official recommended level of vitamin D is set at 20 ng/ml by the National Academy of Medicine, an advisory body to the president and Congress on health issues. The issue remains hotly debated, in part because the evidence at this point is mostly associational, not causal.

“Increasing vitamin D blood levels substantially above 20 ng/ml appears to be important for the prevention of breast cancer,” co-author Sharon McDonnell, an epidemiologist and biostatistician for GrassrootsHealth, said in a statement.

Garland said the study was limited to postmenopausal breast cancer, and mainly included white women. So more research is needed on whether high vitamin D levels might protect against premenopausal breast cancer, including other ethnic groups,

To reach the recommended blood level of vitamin D, Garland said daily supplements of 4,000 to 6,000 international units are required. This can also be achieved at low latitudes, such as in Southern California, by wearing minimal clothing in the sun for 10 to 15 minutes per day.

The National Academy of Medicine recommends 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily for infants; 600 IU for those 1 to 70 years, and 800 IU for those over 70.

Other studies have examined the correlation of various diseases with exposure to sunshine, which the body uses to produce vitamin D. The studies found lower incidences of various diseases with lower latitudes, and higher levels at higher levels. When charted, this association produces a curve that’s called the “vitamin D smile.”

Not So Fast…

Now, should you run out and start taking a ton of vitamin D? We have no evidence that doing so will reduce your risk of breast cancer. Everything in moderation. For me, that means a sojourn to Hawaii in February, as we can make 5,000 IU in 10 to 15 minutes of “reasonable” sun: That means 8 to 10 in the morning, after 4 in the afternoon. No sunburns, please! I’m Dr. Michael Hunter, and I thank you for letting me ramble a bit on this sunny and glorious Seattle Tuesday!

👍 Follow me! Sign up below. Thank you.

_________________________

I received an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a medical degree from Yale, and completed a residency in radiation oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been blessed to be named a “top doctor” in Seattle Magazine, US News & World Report, Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, 425 Magazine, and WA magazine. On multiple occasions, readers of the Kirkland Advertiser have voted me the top doctor (in any field) in the region. I help individuals with cancer at Evergreen Hospital, outside Seattle. Any information provided herein is not to serve as a substitute for the good judgment of your valued health care provider. Thank you.

References

Primary source

Vitamin D and Breast Cancer

I Got Checked for Prostate Cancer. Should You?

Gonna go personal with this one: I got a blood test as a screening maneuver for the early detection of prostate cancer. Why might you, if you’re a man, consider one?

In 1995, the US Federal Drug Administration approved the use of the PSA (prostate specific antigen) blood test for the early detection of prostate. Since then, low-risk prostate cancer has increasingly managed with active surveillance, deferring treatment for many unless there is disease progression detected on follow-up. For patients with very low risk prostate cancer, treatment did not clearly provide a survival benefit, and could be associated with sexual, gastrointestinal, and urinary challenges.

By 2008, the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPTF) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on PSA screening for prostate cancer among men under age 70, and recommended against its use for those over that age. So why did I get a PSA blood test?

In a departure from earlier guidance, the USPTF concluded that there is a small mortality benefit associated with PSA testing for men aged 55 to 69 years: Randomized trials point to PSA-based screening preventing 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over 13 years per 1000 men screened. That said, here are the new, updated guidelines:

Men 55 to 59 should make an individual decision regarding whether to undergo periodic PSA testing for prostate cancer. They should speak with their clinical about the potential harms, including false positive results that require additional testing and possibly prostate biopsy; over diagnosis and over treatment; complications such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

PSA testing is not recommended for men aged 70 years and older. I would add that it may not be wise to screen those with a relatively short life expectancy. I’m Dr. Michael Hunter, and I thank you for joining me today. Click the Wellness bar above to explore more.

👍 Follow me! Sign up below. Please visit my newer blog here: Wellness! Thank you.

_________________________

I received an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a medical degree from Yale, and completed a residency in radiation oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been blessed to be named a “top doctor” in Seattle Magazine, US News & World Report, Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, 425 Magazine, and WA magazine. On multiple occasions, readers of the Kirkland Advertiser have voted me the top doctor (in any field) in the region. I help individuals with cancer at Evergreen Hospital, just outside Seattle. And now the small print: Any information provided herein is not to serve as a substitute for the good judgment of your valued health care provider. Thank you.

Breast Cancer: Omega-3 Fatty Acids for Side Effects

While I have spent the last several days blogging about mindfulness (and meditation in particular), today I want to talk about a challenging problem for many women with breast cancer. The vast majority of breast cancer feeds off the “female” hormone estrogen; that is, they tend to be hormone receptor positive (estrogen- and/or progesterone receptor positive).

For women who have completed menopause, we often offer pills that target the estrogen creation pathway, using drugs known as aromatase inhibitors. Unfortunately, about half of patients will experience associated pain in bones, joints, or muscles. This prompts many to simply quit this prognosis-improving drug. Researchers recently used a retrospective analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids to see whether it could reduce pain. Here’s what they found:

Omega-3 fatty acids significantly reduced pain among very overweight women who take aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for breast cancer.

The findings are potentially good news because, among postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors can prolong survival but are often discontinued because of often severe joint pain.

The new results come from the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Study S0927, a 24-week randomized controlled trial of omega-3 fatty acids versus placebo (inert pill) for aromatase inhibitor-related bone pain. The original results were disappointing, showing no difference in pain reduction between the treatment and placebo groups.

However, researchers suspected that heavier women were benefitting from the therapy. So, in the new study, they divided the women into two groups by weight. Among the 249 participants, 139 had a body mass (BMI) less than 30 (56%) and 110 had a BMI of 30 or higher (44%).

Joint-specific symptoms were also significantly lower at 24 weeks (compared to baseline) in the omega-3 fatty acid group  — but only in women with a BMI of 30 or more, said Shen.

The study results must be confirmed in a prospective trial in order for omega-3 fatty acids to be fully deemed beneficial. Still, seems wonderful that we may have a new tool for dealing with pain associated with aromatase inhibitor use among obese women.

👍 Follow me! And please check out the newer website here: Wellness!. Thank you!

_________________________

I received an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a medical degree from Yale, and completed a residency in radiation oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been blessed to be named a “top doctor” in Seattle Magazine, US News & World Report, Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, 425 Magazine, and WA magazine. Readers of the Kirkland Advertiser have voted me the top doctor (in any field) in the region. I help individuals with cancer at Evergreen Hospital, outside Seattle. Any information provided herein is not to serve as a substitute for the good judgment of your valued health care provider. Thank you.

Breast Cancer: Do Non-Starchy Vegetables Lower Risk?

Limited evidence suggests that non-starchy vegetables may lower the risk for estrogen-receptor (ER) negative breast cancer, a less common but more challenging to treat type of tumor. Limited evidence also links dairy, diets high in calcium and foods containing carotenoids to lowering the risk of some breast cancers. Carrots, apricots, spinach and kale are all foods high in carotenoids, a group of phytonutrients studied for their health benefits.

The Study: Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer evaluated the research worldwide on how diet, weight and exercise affect breast cancer risk in the first such review since 2010. The report analyzed 119 studies, including data on 12 million women and 260,000 cases of breast cancer.

Results: The report points to links between diet and breast cancer risk. There was some evidence — although limited — that non-starchy vegetables lowers risk for estrogen-receptor (ER) negative breast cancers, a less common but more challenging to treat type of tumor.

Limited evidence also links dairy, diets high in calcium and foods containing carotenoids to lowering risk of some breast cancers. Carrots, apricots, spinach and kale are all foods high in carotenoids, a group of phytonutrients studied for their health benefits.

These links are intriguing but more research is needed, says McTiernan. “The findings indicate that women may get some benefit from including more non-starchy vegetables with high variety, including foods that contain carotenoids,” she said. “That can also help avoid the common 1 to 2 pounds women are gaining every year, which is key for lowering cancer risk.”

Steps Women Can Take: Aside from these lifestyle risk factors, other established causes of breast cancer include being older, early menstrual period and having a family history of breast cancer.

While there are many factors that women cannot control, says Alice Bender, MS, RDN, AICR’s Head of Nutrition Programs, the good news from this report is that all women can take steps to lower their breast cancer risk.

“Wherever you are with physical activity, try to nudge it up a bit, either a little longer or a little harder. Make simple food shifts to boost protection — substitute veggies like carrots, bell peppers or green salad for chips and crackers and if you drink alcohol, stick to a single drink or less,” said Bender.

There are no guarantees when it comes to cancer, but it’s empowering to know you can do something to lower your risk.

_________________________

The small print: The material presented herein is informational only, and is not designed to provide specific guidance for an individual. Please check with a valued health care provider with any questions or concerns. As for me, I am a Harvard- , Yale- and UPenn-educated radiation oncologist, and I practice in the Seattle, WA (USA) area. I feel genuinely privileged to be able to share with you. If you enjoyed today’s offering, please consider clicking the follow button at the bottom of this page.

And, one more thing: NEW free apps for Android and iOS (Apple): In apps, search My Breast Cancer by Michael Hunter.

_________________________

Reference: S. J. Lowry, K. Kapphahn, R. Chlebowski, C. I. Li. Alcohol Use and Breast Cancer Survival among Participants in the Women’s Health Initiative. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 2016; 25 (8): 1268 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0151

Breast Cancer Local Recurrences Plummeting

This March, I had the pleasure of attending the European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona, Spain. While I would like to blog about tapas, the museums (Picasso; Miro; Catalan), the Gothic Quarter and the beach, I will focus today on more quotidian stuff. It is nice to share with you some remarkable progress in the management of early breast cancer. Here is what I heard about:

Women with small, low-grade and well-defined breast cancers that have a tumor gene (genomic) profile that is low have only a 1.4 percent risk of the cancer returning to the site of the original cancer or the nearby lymph nodes within five years, according to new results from a large randomized trial of nearly 7000 patients.

This low risk of locoregional recurrence was seen regardless of whether the women had a mastectomy (the whole breast removed) or breast conserving surgery, in which just the tumour and some surrounding tissue are removed, followed by radiotherapy of the whole breast.

Presenting the latest results from the MINDACT trial at the 11th European Breast Cancer Conference, Professor Emiel Rutgers, a surgeon at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam (The Netherlands), said the findings meant that it was possible to identify women who could safely avoid not only chemotherapy after surgery, but possibly also radiotherapy.

“These findings show that, for these selected women, breast conservation is as good as mastectomy, and the risk of relapse is so low that we should look for ways of giving them less aggressive treatment. For instance, even though radiotherapy reduces the risk of locoregional recurrence two-­ to three-­fold, can we do without it in some selected patients, such as these low risk women, and also in some women aged over 50 with small tumours, less than 2cms in diameter, who have a 1.4% risk of relapse within five years as well,” said Prof Rutgers.

Details, details

Among 6693 patients enrolled in the MINDACT trial, 5470 (82%) underwent breast conserving surgery and 1223 (18%) mastectomy. Decisions on how the women were treated were made  on the basis of the tumour characteristics (size, grade, hormonal and HER2 status, and whether or not the disease had spread to any lymph nodes). In addition, their genetic make-­up was investigated using the 70-­gene-­signature test (MammaPrint®). This analyses the activity of certain genes in early breast cancer and has been shown to accurately predict the risk of the cancer spreading (metastasising) to other parts of the body within five or ten years.

Women who were at low risk of a recurrence, based on these clinical and genomic factors, did not receive chemotherapy after surgery, while those who were at high risk, did. Women with a mixture of high and low risk factors were randomised to receive chemotherapy or not. Almost all women who had breast conserving surgery also had radiotherapy, but not all of the women who had a mastectomy.

In this latest part of the study, Prof Rutgers and his colleagues looked at the rate of locoregional recurrences five years after surgery and analysed them according to the clinical and genetic characteristics. They found that women who had breast conserving surgery had an overall 2.1% risk of recurrence by five years, but if they had a low 70-­gene signature score, the risk dropped to 1.4%, while if they had a high score the risk was 3.6%. Among women who had a mastectomy, the overall risk of recurrence was 2.5%, but this dropped to 0.7% in those with a low genetic score and went up to 4.9% in those with a high score. After full statistical analysis, tumour grade and size were the only factors significantly associated with the risk of locoregional recurrences.

Prof Rutgers said: “The importance of this MINDACT analysis is that local and regional control, in which breast cancer does not come back in the preserved breast, or in the skin after mastectomy, or in the surrounding lymph nodes, is extremely good. The odds of the cancer coming back are about 2% in five years after breast conservation and 2.5% after mastectomy. This includes relapses in the surrounding lymph nodes. This very low risk is determined by the biology of the primary cancer, such as grade, size and growth pattern, and to some extent also by age, with women over 50 years also having a lower overall risk. Among these women aged over 50, those with slow-­growing ‘lazy’ breast cancers have a 0.88% risk, and those with more aggressive ones have a 3.5% risk at five years. We should remember that some 10-­15 years ago a 10% recurrence rate at 10 years was considered the norm.

“Another important message from these findings is that well-­performed breast conserving surgery in women with good indications is as good as mastectomy. Doing a mastectomy when you could very well perform breast conservation will not add a day to the life of a breast cancer survivor. This is a wonderful trial that provides wonderful opportunities for further research.”

I’m Dr. Michael Hunter, and truth be told, immediately after the session’s close, I headed to the Gothic Quarter of Barcelona for churros to dip in rich, smooth and thick dark chocolate. Thanks for joining me today, and if you wish to follow me, please sign up below. Thank you in advance!

Oh, one more thing: Please take a look at my newer blog here: Wellness!

Abstract no: 2 (Best abstract), “Very low risk of locoregional breast cancer recurrence in the EORTC 10041/BIG 03-­04 MINDACT trial: analysis of risk factors including the 70-­gene signature”, closing plenary session, Friday, 15.05-­16.35 hrs, Picasso room.

Can Breast Radiation Therapy Cause Sarcoma?

Can radiation therapy for breast cancer cause cancer; more specifically, can it cause a soft tissue cancer known as a sarcoma? The answer is clearly yes.

Angiosarcoma

Angiosarcoma is a type of rare, rapidly proliferating, soft tissue sarcoma (STS) derived from anaplastic endothelial cells lining the blood vessel walls. They make up 4.1% of soft tissue sarcomas, which comprise 1% of all malignant tumors. Angiosarcomas are becoming recognized as a complication following radiation therapy in women receiving conservative therapy for breast cancer treatment, as well as lymphedema following axillary node dissection.

Rare (0.9 per 1,000 treated)

As the incidence of breast cancer in the western world rises, so is the incidence of radiation induced angiosarcoma of the breast (RIASB), with a cumulative 15-year incidence of 0.9/1,000 breast cancer patients receiving radiation as a means of conservative therapy, with an average age of onset of 68 years. Overall survival for post-irradiation breast sarcomas are poor, with a mean 5-year survival of 27–35%.

How it Presents

RIASB typically presents with non-specific clinical findings, such as skin thickening and discoloration, scarring, a series of little red dots, and nodularity. Under the microscope findings include a poorly defined bleeding mass, and there may be connecting blood vessel channels within the breast tissue that are lined by cancerous cells containing small and pale nuclei. Treatment generally consists of surgical resection with mastectomy, and chemotherapy to reduce the risk of recurrence.

But Radiation Has Been Recommended

For selected patients with breast cancer, the omission of radiation therapy has not only been associated by a much higher risk of local (chest wall after mastectomy, or breast after lumpectomy) and regional (lymph nodes) recurrence, but a lower survival as well (by up to 10 percent). So, on balance, the vast majority of patients who are recommended to receive radiation therapy, particularly for invasive disease, should commit to radiation therapy.

Explore my new blog more here: Wellness

_________________________

I received an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a medical degree from Yale, and completed a residency in radiation oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been blessed to be named a “top doctor” in Seattle Magazine, US News & World Report, Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, 425 Magazine, and WA magazine. Readers of the Kirkland Advertiser have voted me the top doctor (in any field) in the region. I help individuals with cancer at Evergreen Hospital, outside Seattle.

Any information provided herein is not to serve as a substitute for the good judgment of your valued health care provider.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/894976_4

How Much Cardio Do You Really Need?

Aerobic exercise, or “cardio,” might be the closest thing to a miracle drug that we have. I would humbly add that less intense exercise, such as a brisk walk 30 minutes for 5 days per week can have tremendous value, too.

A growing body of research suggests that when we commit to regular workouts that raise our heart rate and get us moving and sweating for a sustained period of time, magical things happen to our body and brain. We think more clearly, feel better overall, and protect ourselves against some of the cognitive decline that occurs with age.

“Aerobic exercise … has a unique capacity to exhilarate and relax, to provide stimulation and calm, to counter depression and dissipate stress,” the authors of an article in the Harvard Medical School blog “Mind and Mood” wrote.

But how long should you be cycling, swimming, walking, or running to reap these benefits?

Overall, research suggests that the magic happens somewhere in the window of about 30-45 minutes at minimum.

A recent research paper looked at the exercise habits of hundreds of breast cancer survivors who were experiencing symptoms like “chemo brain,” which involves memory loss and trouble focusing. The researchers found that as little as 30 minutes of an aerobic exercise like walking was linked with significantly better performance on cognitive quizzes.

Another study published in May provided some additional support for that research — it found that in adults aged 60-88, walking for 30 minutes four days a week for 12 weeks appeared to strengthen connectivity in a region of the brain where weakened connections have been linked to memory loss.

Similarly, a pilot study in people with severe depression found that just 30 minutes of treadmill walking for 10 consecutive days appeared to be “sufficient to produce a clinically relevant reduction in depression.

Other research suggests it might be better to do cardio for longer. A study in the British Medical Journal found that in adults over 50, the best results for the brain appeared to come from a routine that combined aerobic exercise with resistance training (that is, muscle-building exercises like planks and push-ups) and lasted at least 45 minutes.

Researchers still aren’t sure why this type of exercise appears to provide a boost to the brain, but some studies suggest it has to do with increased blood flow, which provides our minds with fresh energy and oxygen. One recent study in older women who displayed potential symptoms of dementia also found that aerobic exercise was linked with an increase in the size of the hippocampus, a brain area involved in learning and memory. Another reason might have to do with cardio’s ability to help reduce levels of the body’s natural stress hormones, such as adrenaline and cortisol, according to a recent study in the Journal of Physical Therapy Science.

Joe Northey, the lead author of the British study and an exercise scientist at the University of Canberra, said his research suggests that anyone in good health over age 50 should do 45 minutes to an hour of aerobic exercise “on as many days of the week as feasible.”

Explore this blog more here: Wellness

_________________________

I received an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a medical degree from Yale, and completed a residency in radiation oncology at the University of Pennsylvania. I have been blessed to be named a “top doctor” in Seattle Magazine, US News & World Report, Seattle Metropolitan Magazine, 425 Magazine, and WA magazine. Readers of the Kirkland Advertiser have voted me the top doctor (in any field) in the region. I help individuals with cancer at Evergreen Hospital, outside Seattle.

Any information provided herein is not to serve as a substitute for the good judgment of your valued health care provider.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-to-do-cardio-exercise-2017-8