Dr. Peter Leando, the founder of Meditherm, Inc. has worked in the thermography industry for over 20 years. He shares with us the evolution of thermography and how it provides opportunities for early intervention. Women are looking for choices for protecting their breast health, so they will appreciate his candid information about what to look for in a thermography service. Thermologyonline.org provides a complete list of thermography services available in the US. Don’t miss this thermography 101 session!

Podcast: Download

Click here to visit WebTalkRadio.net and listen to the Podcast there.

Women with dense or non-fatty breast tissue may need additional breast cancer screening, a U.S. researcher says.

Dr. Roshni Rao, assistant professor of surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, said one woman’s personal battle with breast cancer was the inspiration for Henda’s Law — a Texas law named for Henda Salmeron that requires women to be informed about their breast tissue’s density and the limitations of mammography in certain cases.

Rao, Salmeron’s breast surgeon, said radiologists use a grading system to describe the density of breast tissue based on the amount of fat (non-dense) and connective (dense) tissue. Research is under way into why some women have denser breast tissue, but as women age, their breast tissue generally becomes more fatty, Rao said.

“Breast tissue that has minimal or no fat may appear white, or dense, on a mammogram. This sometimes makes it difficult to identify cancers, which also typically appear as small white spots,” Rao said in a statement. “Many factors contribute to a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Having dense breast tissue may be one of them, but your doctor considers other factors — age at which a women had her first child, family history of cancer or age at the onset of menstruation, among others — when evaluating your risk and tailoring your screening program.”

Digital mammograms may be best at finding cancer for women with dense breast tissue. Other tests, including breast magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound and breast thermography, may be helpful, but only in addition to mammograms, Rao said.

Copyright United Press International 2011

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — It took seven years of annual mammograms and a cancer diagnosis for Amy Colton to learn something her doctors had realized from the beginning: Her breast tissue is so dense that it could have masked tumors on earlier exams.

“I requested a copy of the report sent from my radiologist to my primary care physician, and every single one said, ‘Patient has extremely dense breast tissue,’” the registered labor and delivery nurse said. “I was really outraged that I didn’t know this.”

About 40 percent of women over 40 have breast tissue dense enough to mask or mimic cancers on mammograms, but many of them don’t know it. Mammogram providers in California will be required to notify those patients, and suggest that they discuss additional screenings with their doctors based on their individual risk factors, if Gov. Jerry Brown signs a bill that the Legislature passed this month. Similar laws have passed in Texas and Connecticut in the past two years but no data is available yet from either state on the effect of the legislation.

“The notice in the bill is a two-sentence notice that gets added to a letter,” said the bill’s author, Democratic state Sen. Joe Simitian of Palo Alto. “I believe these two sentences can save thousands of lives.”

Brown has not given his opinion about the bill, but many doctors oppose it. Researchers studying breast density, a relatively young field, said such requirements may end up causing undo anxiety in millions of women and lead to unnecessary and expensive ultrasound or MRI screenings.

The California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 doctors, recommended a public education campaign instead of individual notifications, and said there isn’t enough evidence to support the idea the extra money spent on additional screenings will save more lives.

Those tests could cost the state more than $1 billion, and many women wouldn’t be able to afford them, said Dr. Karen Lindfors, a professor of radiology and chief of breast imaging at the University of California, Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. She testified against the bill before a legislative committee.

“I just don’t think that at this point we have the ability to meet the kind of demand either financially or in terms of manpower that this is going to create, and we also don’t have proof that it’s going to save lives,” she said.

The women who would receive the notifications have more tissue than fat in their breasts. As women age, their breasts become more fatty. Fat appears black on a mammogram, making it easier to spot cancer, which shows up as white.

Doctors agree that high breast density is an increased risk factor for cancer, but researchers say the issue needs more study to determine whether the risk is great enough to justify a higher level of screenings for women who have it.

Pre-menopausal women are more likely to have dense tissue, regardless of whether they are at high risk for breast cancer, said Celine Vachon, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She said women who get the notifications required by the California bill could be frightened into seeking additional screenings, such as MRIs or ultrasounds, which can pick up false positives and cost thousands of dollars.

“If women want their breast density information, that’s their right,” Vachon said. “However, breast density is not yet a risk factor that’s used clinically, so what women will do with this information is not clear. We need improved density measurements as well as models that do a better job of predicting women’s risk. Everyone wants density to be this silver bullet, but to date, it’s not.”

Colton, who got the California legislation rolling by contacting Simitian’s office, said women ought to be told whether their breast density could make cancer difficult to detect.

She said she practiced self-exams monthly, had no family history of breast cancer and thought she was among the lucky cohort of women at a low risk for breast cancer. But five surgeries, six weeks of daily radiation and 15 rounds of chemotherapy later, she is angered that she went years without being told about her dense breast tissue.

“I don’t want anyone to think this is a rare story. There are countless women like me, and many with worse diagnoses,” she said.

Dr. Judy Dean, a diagnostic radiologist in Santa Barbara who specializes in breast imaging, supports the effort. She said 20 of her patients have found cancers through ultrasounds after she informed them that their dense tissue might be hiding tumors in a mammogram.

“Negative doesn’t mean negative; you could still be positive,” she said.

All radiologists agree that a mammogram — an X-ray image of the breast — is the best way for a woman to discover whether she has dense tissue, but few agree on how to proceed with that information.

Researchers have been experimenting with new breast imaging techniques that might provide the same answers as an MRI or ultrasound for women with a high risk for cancer, but with less expense. 3-D X-ray images known as “stereo mammograms” and molecular breast imaging are two techniques that are better than traditional mammograms at spotting cancers and cost much less than MRIs.

Some say a notice about the hidden risks of dense tissue should be sent to all women receiving the results of their mammogram, not just those with dense tissue. That way, everyone can be armed with the available information, said California state Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, a former breast cancer surgeon.

She said the bill would end up giving women with low breast tissue density false assurances they are not at risk for cancer.

“We’re offering something to women that doesn’t help improve their care or shed any light on the best way to assess their risk for breast cancer,” said Halderman, a Republican from Fresno. “Unfortunately, breast density is just one of those things we don’t know about yet.”

J OANN  G. E LMORE , M.D., M.P.H., M ARY  B. B ARTON , M.D., M.P.P., V ICTORIA  M. M OCERI , P H .C., S ARAH  P OLK , B.A., P HILIP  J. A RENA , M.D.,  AND  S UZANNE  W. F LETCHER , M.D.

A BSTRACT Background The cumulative risk of a false positiveresult of a breast-cancer screening test is unknown. Methods We performed a 10-year retrospective co-hort study of breast-cancer screening and diagnosticevaluations among 2400 women who were 40 to 69years old at study entry. Mammograms or clinicalbreast examinations that were interpreted as indeter-minate, aroused a suspicion of cancer, or promptedrecommendations for additional workup in women inwhom breast cancer was not diagnosed within thenext year were considered to be false positive tests. Results A total of 9762 screening mammogramsand 10,905 screening clinical breast examinationswere performed, for a median of 4 mammograms and5 clinical breast examinations per woman over the 10-year period. Of the women who were screened, 23.8percent had at least one false positive mammogram,13.4 percent had at least one false positive breast ex-amination, and 31.7 percent had at least one falsepositive result for either test. The estimated cumula-tive risk of a false positive result was 49.1 percent (95percent confidence interval, 40.3 to 64.1 percent) after10 mammograms and 22.3 percent (95 percent confi-dence interval, 19.2 to 27.5 percent) after 10 clinicalbreast examinations. The false positive tests led to870 outpatient appointments, 539 diagnostic mam-mograms, 186 ultrasound examinations, 188 biopsies,and 1 hospitalization. We estimate that among wom-en who do not have breast cancer, 18.6 percent (95percent confidence interval, 9.8 to 41.2 percent) willundergo a biopsy after 10 mammograms, and 6.2 per-cent (95 percent confidence interval, 3.7 to 11.2 per-cent) after 10 clinical breast examinations. For every$100 spent for screening, an additional $33 was spentto evaluate the false positive results.

To read the rest of the study, click here to download the PDF.

To read more and see the videos that go with this post click here.

CNN) — The use of mammograms has dipped since a medical task force made controversial recommendations that women in their 40s may not need to get breast cancer screenings every year, according to one of three small studies to be presented Monday.

The studies related to this topic will be presented at the American Roentgen Ray Society annual meeting. They do not appear in peer-reviewed journals.

The studies suggest that fewer physicians are recommending annual mammograms for women in their 40s, fewer patients in that age group are getting screened and that tumors found through routine mammography are more likely to be detected in early stages of cancer.

The studies examined the impact of the controversial guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board.

Who decides about mammograms? Inside the task force

In November 2009, the group stated that yearly mammograms should not be automatic at age 40 and that physicians should discuss their risks and benefits with their patients. It recommended routine mammography screenings every two years for women ages 50 to 74.

2010: New mammogram research

2010: Mammograms in 30s: No benefit? “The benefit in 40- to 49-year-old women is pretty small,” said Dr. Virginia Moyer, chair of the task force, about annual mammograms. “There is a real, but rather modest benefit. There are also risks, and they are greater in younger women than older women.”

Mammograms are less effective in detecting growths in younger women, whose breasts may be denser. The screening gets better with older women because breast tissues change over time.

As a result, some women experience false positives, anxiety and unnecessary biopsies because of mammograms, according to data. Roughly 15% of women in their 40s detect breast cancer through mammography.

Should I get a mammogram?

“The benefit is modest enough it needs to be an individual decision,” Moyer said about mammograms for women in their 40s.

This contradicted advice from cancer groups such as the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which told women 40 and older to get screened every year. It sparked immediate outcry from such groups and cancer survivors, who say routine mammograms for women younger than 50 can save lives.

Once-dropping U.S. breast cancer rates now stable

Suspicious growths caught in regular-screening mammograms are more likely to be in early stages and therefore more treatable, said Dr. Donna Plecha, division chief of mammography at University Hospitals at Case Medical Center in Ohio.

She reviewed records of 524 biopsies (samples of suspicious growths in breasts) from women in their 40s during 2008 to 2009 at her hospital.

Of the 359 biopsies from screening mammography patients, 15% had cancer. These cancers were more treatable because they were caught in earlier stages, Plecha said.

Although 85% of those biopsies turned out to be noncancerous, some “may show us the patient is at higher risk of breast cancer,” she said.

“I haven’t met many patients who don’t appreciate us being thorough, to trying to find the cancers at an early stage,” Plecha said. “I would still recommend screening mammograms starting at age of 40,” because cancers caught earlier would be more curable.

Breast cancer ID’d more accurately by docs who see more scans

Plecha’s findings were not surprising to Moyer. It’s obvious that annual screenings would catch cancers before they progress, she said.

The study presumes that catching earlier stages for women between the ages of 40-49 would translate into fewer breast cancer deaths.

“The data that we have suggests that 1 in a thousand will benefit from mammograms in the 40-49 age,” she said. “There are whole lots of assumptions that are not supported by the data they presented.”

The task force did not say don’t get mammograms, Moyer said.

“It might make women not want to get the test,” she said. “This is a decision that should belong to the woman with appropriate info on hand.”

In another study, Dr. Lara Hardesty, section chief of breast imaging at the University of Colorado Hospital, examined survey results from fewer than 50 internists, gynecologists, family practitioners and nurse midwives.

She found that fewer clinicians were recommending annual mammograms after the task force’s guidelines were issued.

Before the guidelines, 56% recommended yearly mammograms for women in the 40- to 49-year-old range. After the guidelines, that rate decreased to 20%, and 56% of the clinicians reported they were discussing the risks and benefits of screening with patients. That decrease, Hardesty said, “is a statistically significant difference,” but it also showed more doctors were discussing mammograms with patients.

Hardesty also found that there were 205 fewer mammograms among women in their 40s after the guidelines were issued. Among patients 50 and older, mammograms increased slightly from 4,479 patients to 4,498.

It was unclear why mammograms in the 40s decreased while older women’s mammograms increased slightly.

Hardesty offered this hypothesis: Older women are used to having annual mammograms because they’ve done it for years. Meanwhile, younger women may feel as though they don’t have to get this screening.

Although the task force concluded that the net benefit of mammography in the 40s is small, Hardesty said: “If you’re the one person we find your cancer, it’s the world to you.”

According to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, 200,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed each year in the US, making it three times more common than other gynecological cancers.

Breast cancer will claim the lives of 40,000 people this year.

What is really disturbing is the speed at which breast cancer rates have risen over the past 5 decades. In 1960, one in twenty women were diagnosed—but today, it is one in seven.

The following are some important facts about this type of cancer:

One woman in eight who lives to age 85 will develop breast cancer.
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women age 40 to 55.
Fifteen percent of all breast cancers occur in women under age 45; in this age group, breast cancers are more aggressive and have lower recovery rates.
Eighty percent of breast lumps are NON-cancerous.

Seventy percent of breast cancers are found through breast self-exams.
About 80 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of breast cancer.

Unfortunately, the current medical paradigm is relatively clueless about what causes breast cancer and how to effectively treat it. Most conventional cancer treatments actually add insult to injury by doing more harm than good—a fact that up to this point has been swept under the rug by the medical industry.

Fortunately, we’re beginning to see the initial stirrings of change, as you will see from the latest research I’ll be presenting later.

In the largest review of research into lifestyle and breast cancer, the American Institute of Cancer Research estimated that about 40 percent of U.S. breast cancer cases could be prevented if people make wiser lifestyle choices. I believe these estimates are seriously LOW, and it is more likely that 75 to 90 percent of breast cancers could be avoided by strictly applying the recommendations I will review below.

In fact, the latest paleoanthropological research shows that cancer was virtually nonexistent in humans before poor diet and pollution appeared, finally proving that cancer is a man-made disease.

My aim for this article is to provide you with a broad understanding of the factors that lead to the development of this deadly disease—as we now understand them—and what you can do preventatively to avoid becoming the next victim..If you happen to be a man, please read on since it actually does apply to you as well.

Men are NOT Immune to Breast Cancer
Breast cancer is not a disease exclusive to women. For every 100 women with breast cancer, one man will develop the disease. The National Breast Cancer Foundation estimates approximately 1,700 men will develop breast cancer and 450 will die from it each year.

The average age men are diagnosed with breast cancer is 67, versus 62 for women, meaning male cancers are often caught in a more advanced stage. If you work around petrochemicals, your risk is much higher. Men who work around gasoline and combustion products have a significantly higher risk of developing breast cancer.

Males and their doctors may be diverted from an accurate diagnosis due to enlargement of the breasts or gynecomastia, a common and benign condition, plus the fact that men are generally less vigilant about checking for breast lumps.

Types of Breast Cancer
Breast cancer is classified into two types, based on whether or not it is invasive:

Noninvasive (in situ) breast cancer: Cancer cells have not spread to adjacent areas of your breast—they have remained in their place of origin. The most common type is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which occurs in the lining of the milk ducts. Noninvasive breast cancer is sometimes called “stage 0″ cancer.
Invasive breast cancer. Cancer cells infiltrate or spread outside the membrane that lines a duct or lobule, into surrounding tissues. The cancer cells can then travel to other parts of your body. Invasive breast cancer can be stage I, II, III, or IV, depending on how advanced it is.

Breast cancer can be further classified according to what type of tissue it arises from:

Milk ducts: Ductal carcinoma is the most common type of breast cancer.
Milk-producing lobules: Lobular carcinoma originates in the lobules, where breast milk is produced.

Connective tissues (muscles, fat and blood vessels): Rarely, breast cancer can originate from these breast tissues; in this case, it’s called sarcoma
Inflammatory Breast Cancer: The Rarest and Most Aggressive Form
Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare form of breast cancer of sudden onset (weeks to months) and can easily be confused with a breast infection (mastitis). The affected breast is red, swollen, warm and tender because cancer cells have blocked the lymphatic vessels in your breast.

You might or might not have a lump.

IBC accounts for between 1 and 5 percent of all breast cancer cases in the U.S., and is more common among younger women and African American women. There have been some cases documented in men. IBC is the most aggressive form of breast cancer, and survival rates are worse than for other types of breast cancer.

You should seek medical attention immediately if you have the above symptoms—or if you are being treated for mastitis but your symptoms are not resolving as expected.

Signs and Symptoms to Watch For
The most common signs and symptoms of breast cancer include the following:

A breast lump or thickening that feels different from the surrounding tissue
Bloody discharge, or other unusual discharge, from your nipple
A change in your breast’s size or shape
Changes in the skin on your breast, such as dimpling or indentation
Redness or pitting of your breast skin—kind of like the skin of an orange
Pain or tenderness in your breast
An inverted nipple
Peeling or flaking of the nipple
Enlarged lymph nodes or swelling in your armpit
If you have any of these changes, you should consult your healthcare provider immediately. But don’t panic—remember, the majority of breast tumors are benign. Many of the above signs can indicate other issues besides cancer, and your healthcare provider can help you sort it out.

What Causes Breast Cancer?
We now know that breast inflammation is KEY to the development and progression of breast cancer. Inflammation is not the cause, but rather is a key process that sets the stage for breast cancer to occur. There are certainly many aggravating factors, from foods to chemicals in the environment to lifestyle patterns and genetics—but it is the INFLAMMATION that these things cause that starts the wheel turning.

Scientists have shown that an inflammatory process within the breast itself promotes growth of breast cancer stem cells. That’s the bad news.

The good news?

Researchers were able to inactivate this inflammation selectively, which reduced the activity of these stem cells and stopped breast cancer from forming. Although your genes are a factor in your breast cancer risk, it is not your genes that dictate your health but rather the expression of them, and that depends on what genes you “turn on and off” with your lifestyle and emotional state (epigenetic factors).

In other words, you have more power over your health than your genetics does!

Breast Cancer is Closely Tied to Estrogen Exposure
There are a number of studies that have given us clues about the factors contributing to breast cancer. But one of the most significant factors is synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT). According to a study published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of HRT. In Canada, between 2002 and 2004, HRT use dropped by 7.8 percent. During that same time, breast cancer rates also fell by 9.6 percent.

This further supports existing evidence that HRT is linked with breast cancer, which is an estrogen-related cancer. So it is no surprise that giving women potent synthetic estrogens will increase their risk.

However, there’s a twist.

After remaining stable at around five percent between 2004 and 2006, breast cancer rates then began to rise again, even though HRT use remained low. The researchers claim this is an indication that HRT simply speeds up tumor growth, as opposed to directly causing it.

It’s also important to remember that you are exposed to a large number of estrogen-like compounds daily, called xenoestrogens. Estrogen pollution is increasingly present all around you, from plastics to canned food and drinks, food additives, household cleaning products, and pesticides. And estrogen levels are rising in our waterways as a result of the runoff from factory animal farms.

Still, whether it’s a promoter or a causative factor, there’s good reason to be wary of using HRT to address natural menopause. There is no reason to subject yourself to synthetic hormones when you reach menopause—the risk is simply too great.

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and does not wreak havoc on your system, which is a much safer alternative.

There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives—birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones—have been linked to cervical and breast cancers. Another aggravating factor in breast cancer is, unfortunately, the breast cancer screening tool itself.

Are Mammograms Fueling Breast Cancer Rates?
Mammography is a great example of a stubborn head-in-the-sand approach to cancer screening. Americans are already exposed toseven times more radiation from diagnostic scans than they were in 1980. It is well known that ionizing radiation increases the cellular mutations that lead to cancer—and mammograms aim a highly focused dose directly at your breasts, thereby increasing your cancer risk!

WHY would you want to do this?

Mammograms expose your body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk. Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, and often painfully, which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, said:

“Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth.”

Others have spoken out against mammography. Dr. Samuel Epstein, a top cancer expert who has been warning people for years about the dangers of mammography, explains:

“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening…”

“The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually.”

In July 1995, an article in The Lancet about mammograms read:

“The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous.”

There is no solid evidence that mammograms save lives, in spite of the propaganda some organizations constantly parrot to the press. Mammograms are often touted as a “life-saving” form of cancer screening, responsible for reducing breast cancer death rates by 15 to 25 percent. But this reported benefit is based on outdated studies done decades ago.

In September 2010, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prestigious medical journals, published the first recentstudy in years to look at the effectiveness of mammograms, and their findings are a far cry from what most public health officials and physicians would have you believe.

Their bottom line was that mammograms might have only reduced cancer death rates by 0.4 deaths per 1,000 women—an amount so small it may as well be zero. Put another way, 2,500 women would have to be screened over 10 years for a single breast cancer death to be avoided.

So, not only are mammograms unsafe, but they are NOT saving lives as many professionals believed they were.

Past research has also demonstrated that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over a physical examination alone.

False Positives are Alarmingly Common in Mammography
Another glaring problem with mammography is its unacceptably high rate of false positives. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman’s breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. Estimates are that 17 percent of DCIS cases found through needle biopsy are misdiagnosed.

Mammograms carry a first-time false positive rate of up to 6 percent.

The problem is that early stage cancer like DCIS can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are no diagnostic standards for DCIS, and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise.

Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times:

“There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin.”

Unnecessary Mastectomies are More Common than You Might Think
False positives can lead to unnecessary emotional stress and expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, chemotherapy, and unnecessary invasive procedures including biopsies and major surgery. Women have actually undergoneunnecessary mastectomies after receiving a false positive mammogram report.

After receiving a breast cancer diagnosis, most women are afraid and even frantic to do whatever it takes, as soon as possible, to fight and remove the cancer. And usually, that involves the “slash and burn” approach. Can you imagine what it would be like to go through surgery, having one or both of your breasts removed along with receiving debilitating radiation treatments and toxic drugs, only to later be told that you never had cancer?

This scenario happens more often than you might think; you can read about several women’s terrifying ordeals with false breast cancer diagnoses here.

And there is new evidence that breast cancer might go away on its own a fair amount of the time. Yes—WITHOUT intervention. A group of researchers who track breast cancer rates found evidence to suggest that some tumors found by mammograms might naturally disappear on their own.

Mammograms will not prevent you from getting breast cancer, and the latest study shows they offer very little benefit in improving your chances of survival. Effective cancer screening methods are important, but mammography is simply NOT the answer.

But then, what is the answer?

The screening tool I recommend is breast thermography.

Thermography: Cancer’s Best Kept Secret
By measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body, thermographic screening can detect signs of breast cancer as much as 10 years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam—all without any ionizing radiation or mechanical pressure.

And thermography has NO damaging side effects.

Thermographic breast screening is able to predict the likelihood of breast cancer, before any tumors have formed, because it provides a snapshot of the early stages of angiogenesis—the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into sizeable tumors.

This is the classic use of “preventative medicine” because you can detect negative changes before you develop the disease—while you still have time to turn things around.

Annual thermograms allow you to map changes in your body’s heat patterns over time. If you would like to learn more about thermography, I invite you to download my FREE thermography report.

What About Breast Self-Exams?
Breast self-exams have long been recommended as a simple way for women to keep track of anything unusual in their breasts. Now, after studies have found that such exams do not reduce breast cancer death rates and actually increase the rate of unnecessary biopsies, many experts are recommending a more relaxed approach known as “breast awareness.”

Breast awareness is really self-explanatory. It means you should regularly check your breasts for changes, but can do so in a way that feels natural to you. In other words, you don’t have to do it on the same day each month, or using any particular pattern.

Simply be aware of what’s normal for you so you can recognize anything out of the ordinary. Although breast cancer is much less common in men, it certainly wouldn’t hurt for men to practice “breast awareness” as well.

One of the BEST Supplements for Breast Cancers
Dr. William LaValley from Austin Texas, is one of the top natural medicine cancer physicians I know and he recently shared this important information on curcumin which has the most evidence based literature for as a cancer support than any other nutrient. There are over 100 different pathways that curcumin has an effect on once it gets into the cell. Interestingly this also includes the metabolite of curcumin and its derivatives which are also anti-cancer. Curcumin appears to be safe in the treatment of all cancers.

In India where turmeric is widely used, the prevalence of four common U.S. cancers — colon, breast, prostate and lung — is 10 times lower. In fact, prostate cancer, which is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in U.S. men, is rare in India and this is attributed, in part, to the curcumin in turmeric.

Numerous studies have looked into this potential cancer-fighting link, with promising results. For instance, curcumin has been found to:

Inhibit the proliferation of tumor cells
Inhibit the transformation of cells from normal to tumor
Help your body destroy mutated cancer cells so they cannot spread throughout your body
Decrease inflammation
Enhance liver function
Inhibit the synthesis of a protein thought to be instrumental in tumor formation
Prevent the development of additional blood supply necessary for cancer cell growth
And according to researchers from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, curcumin blocks a key biological pathway needed for development of melanoma and other cancers.

The spice actually stops laboratory strains of melanoma from proliferating and pushes the cancer cells to commit suicide by shutting down nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kB), a powerful protein known to induce abnormal inflammatory response that leads to an assortment of disorders such as arthritis and cancer.

To get the full benefits that curcumin has to offer, you will want to look for a turmeric extract with at least 95% curcuminoids that contains only 100% certified organic ingredients.

The formula should be free of fillers, additives and excipients (a substance added to the supplement as a processing or stability aid), and the manufacturer should use safe production practices at all stages: planting, cultivation, selective harvesting, and then producing and packaging the final product.

Details on How to Use Curcumin
The unfortunate challenge as this time is that there are not really any very good formulations of curcumin available to use in cancer. This is because relatively high doses are required and curcumin is not absorbed that well. Typical anticancer doses are up to three grams of good bioavailable curcmin extract, three to four times daily.

One work around for this is to use the curcumin powder and make a microemulsion of it by combining a tablespoon of the powder and mixing it into 1-2 egg yolks and a teaspoon or two of melted coconut oil. Then using a high speed hand blender to emulsify the powder.

Another strategy you can use to increase absorption is to put one tablespoon of the curcumin powder into a quart of boiling water. It must be boiling when you add the powder as it will not work as well if you put it in room temperature water and heat the water and curcumin. After boiling it for ten minutes you will have created a 12% solution and you can drink this once it has cooled down. The curcumin will gradually fall out of solution over time and in about six hours it will be a 6% solution so it is best to drink the water within four hours. It does have a woody taste.

One caution to know is that you want to avoid the “yellow kitchen” syndrome. Curcumin is a very potent yellow pigment and can permanently discolor surfaces if you aren’t careful. So you can perform the mixing under the hood of your stove with the blower on to make sure no powder gets into your kitchen.

Keeping Abreast of the Research
I mentioned earlier that we are beginning to see the stirrings of change. Let me clarify what I meant by that. New scientific research on old methodologies is challenging some of the long-held notions about conventional cancer treatments, and some of this research is making it into mainstream medical journals.

Cancer screening is finally getting some long-awaited scrutiny, as it should be. And that process has found some of the conventional breast cancer treatment methods to be significantly flawed and in need of revision. It’s about time!

Here are some of the more significant recent findings related to conventional breast cancer treatment:

Needle biopsies

Needle biopsies are widely used as part of the traditional allopathic approach to diagnosing breast cancer. But they may accidentally cause malignant cells to break away from a tumor, allowing it to spread to other areas of your body.

According to a study from the John Wayne Cancer Institute, it appears that a needle biopsy may increase the spread of cancer by 50 percent compared to patients who receive excisional biopsies, also known as lumpectomies.

Lumpectomies

A 2010 study found, for certain women, a lumpectomy might not be necessary. The procedure was found to not prolong survival or prevent recurrence of breast cancer.

Lymph Node Removal

Lymph node removal might not be necessary after all. Today, the standard treatment for breast cancer patients whose cancer has spread to the sentinel lymph node is to surgically remove the other nodes as well—a procedure called axillary node dissection. (The “sentinel node” refers to the node closest to the tumor, or the lymph node that can be reached by metastasizing cancer cells first.)

However, according to this latest study, lymph node removal has virtually no impact on survival or disease recurrence, while it causes additional pain and debilitation. After five years, 82.2 percent of the women who had the axillary nodes removed were still alive and in remission, compared to 83.8 percent of the women who did not get the operation.

And, interestingly enough, the cancer recurrence was actually slightly higher in the group who had the operation, compared to those who didn’t.

Chemotherapy and Radiation

In addition to the removal of lymph nodes, current conventional treatment also typically includes chemotherapy and radiation therapy.
Chemo is a standard recommendation for women whose cancer has spread to their lymph nodes, despite its magnificent failure rate and oftentimes lethal side effects. One study concluded that as many as 18,000 of the 45,000 women each year who undergo chemo for breast cancer could safely skip it.

Similarly, six or more weeks of radiation are also part of the standard treatment for most women with breast cancer. However, according to another recent study, just ONE dose of radiation, delivered with precision to the affected site directly after her lumpectomy, had the same rate of effectiveness as the extended radiation treatment.

Breast Cancer Prevention Musts
A healthful diet, regular physical exercise, appropriate sun exposure or oral supplements to optimize your vitamin D levels, and aneffective means of managing your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer.

Regular physical activity has been shown to decrease the likelihood of developing breast cancer, as well as decreasing your chances of dying from it by 50 percent, once diagnosed.

It is also important to watch out for excessive iron levels. Elevated iron is actually quite common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals in your body and thereby increasing your risk of cancer.

The best way to monitor your iron is to have your ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If yours is elevated, you can reduce it simply by donating your blood.

The following lifestyle strategies will help you to further lower your breast cancer risk:

Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days! The vitamin D worked as well at killing cancer cells as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.

If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects.

I invite you to watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be and how to optimize them.

Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a roll in preventing breast cancer. It’s best to obtain it from vitamin A rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.

However, beware of supplementing as there’s some evidence that vitamin A can negate the benefits of vitamin D. Since appropriate vitamin D levels are crucial for your health in general, not to mention cancer prevention, this means that it’s essential to have the proper ratio of vitamin D to vitamin A in your body.

Ideally, you’ll want to provide all the vitamin A and vitamin D substrate your body needs in such a way that your body can regulate both systems naturally. This is best done by eating colorful vegetables (for vitamin A) and by exposing your skin to sun every day (for vitamin D).

Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
Improve Your Insulin Receptor Sensitivity. The best way to do this is with exercise and a diet comprised of foods appropriate for your nutritional type.
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
Drink a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful in the treatment of breast cancer. Concern must be addressed with the solubility though as it is not well absorbed. However it does show great therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
Avoid wearing underwire bras. There is a good deal of data that metal underwire bras increase your breast cancer risk.
Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
Other Research-Based “Dos and Don’ts”
The following is a list of various factors that have been scientifically found to impact breast cancer in one way or another. Many are isolated studies that offer food for thought and open up potential avenues for future research. For more information on each, simply click on the links provided.

Depression can influence breast cancer survival. Women whose depression lifts in the first year after being told they have advanced breast cancer outlive by more than two years those whose depression symptoms worsened.
SSRIs (a category of antidepressant drug) are associated with increased breast cancer risk.

CoQ10 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/coenzymeQ10/Patient appears to be another useful tool. Ubiquinol would be the preferred form as it works better than the oxidized CoQ10.
Black cohosh shows promise in fighting breast cancer by inducing apoptosis in human breast cancer cells.
Artemisinin (a compound in wormwood) has been shown to be toxic to human breast cancer cells.
A high carbohydrate diet may increase your breast cancer risk.
Foods that have a scientific basis for fighting breast cancer include kelp, spicy foods, cruciferous vegetables (especially broccoli), and evening primrose oil.
Three cups of tea daily may slash your breast cancer risk by 50 percent.
If you eat a poor diet, it can cause DNA changes that may increase your daughters’ and granddaughters’ risk of breast cancer.

When Dr. Deborah Rhodes orders a diagnostic test that involves radiation, she consults a chart in her office that lists the amount of radiation exposure from each test. She considers the patient’s total past exposure, and then carefully weighs the risks and benefits of each test and any alternative approaches she can take.

Two new studies appearing in Tuesday’s issue of the journal Radiology suggest more physicians should take this approach. One study found that certain nuclear-based breast imaging exams that involve injecting radioactive material into patients expose women to far higher doses of radiation than regular mammography, increasing their risk of cancer in vulnerable organs beyond the breast, like the kidneys, bladder or ovaries.

Over all, the United States population’s annual radiation dose from medical procedures increased sevenfold between 1980 and 2006, a second paper reports.

“I’m a radiation phobe — I’ll come right out and say this,” said Dr. Rhodes, an internist at the Mayo Clinic who is doing research to develop screening technologies that require less radiation exposure to the patient. “I’m constantly monitoring radiation doses in my patients.”

Unfortunately, she said, “this is something that isn’t well understood, not just by the public — but by physicians who order the tests.”

R. Edward Hendrick, a physicist who has studied breast imaging for almost 30 years, said he was motivated to quantify the radiation exposure from nuclear breast imaging technologies in a published paper because of similar concerns.

“I would go to the international breast meeting and the big radiology meetings, and nobody had a clue what the doses and risks were,” Dr. Hendrick said. “They’re treating all the tests as if they have the same radiation dose and risk as mammography, and the truth is they have a much, much higher risk. The point of the paper was to say that not all the breast imaging procedures have comparable risks and doses.”

Dr. Hendrick, a clinical professor of radiology at the University Colorado-Denver School of Medicine in Aurora, Colo., is a consultant to G.E. Healthcare regarding digital breast tomosynthesis, another breast imaging technique, and is on the medical advisory boards of Koning and Bracco, which make other imaging technologies.

The nuclear technologies breast-specific gamma imaging (B.S.G.I.) and positron emission mammography (P.E.M.) are meant to be used as complements or adjuncts to mammography and ultrasound, once there is concern about a cancerous lesion, and not for routine screening. These technologies are also more useful in women who have very dense breast tissue, when mammography often does not provide clear images.

But a single breast-specific gamma imaging or positron emission mammography exam exposes patients to a risk of radiation-induced cancer that is comparable to the risk from an entire lifetime of yearly mammograms starting at 40, according to Dr. Hendrick’s study.

While digital mammography has an average lifetime risk of inducing 1.3 fatal breast cancers per 100,000 women aged 40 at exposure, a single B.S.G.I. exam was estimated to involve a lifetime risk 20 to 30 times greater in women aged 40, and the lifetime risk of a single P.E.M. was 23 times greater.

Moreover, mammography only increases a woman’s risk for breast cancer while B.S.G.I. and P.E.M. increase the risk of cancer in other organs, such as the intestines, kidneys, bladder, gallbladder, uterus, ovaries and colon, the study said.

There is also a concern that use of the imaging technologies will become more widespread and casual. “B.S.G.I. and P.E.M. are great tools for problem solving, if you have a patient with an abnormal mammogram and you’re not really sure,” said Dr. Rhodes. “The problem is these tests are now being considered and even being used in some cases as screening tests, and this is not appropriate.”

“I’m not saying ‘Don’t do the test,’ I’m just saying ‘Don’t prescribe these tests willy-nilly like you would an ultrasound exam,’ ” Dr. Hendrick said.

In another paper in the same issue of Radiology, William R. Hendee, a distinguished professor of radiology, radiation oncology, biophysics and bioethics at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, called on radiologists to spearhead a campaign to reduce overuse of imaging technologies that expose patients to radiation unnecessarily and drive up health costs in the process

Suggested proposals for curbing excessive use of imaging include developing national evidence-based appropriateness criteria for imaging, educating referring physicians and the public, curbing the physician practice of self-referral and finding ways to reduce duplicate exams.

Companies that make the two nuclear-based breast imaging exams did not argue with the assessment of radiation exposure, but said the comparison with mammography — which exposes patients to very low levels of radiation, equivalent to about two months of natural background radiation — was inappropriate because the tests are used differently.

“The comparison to mammography is a bit like comparing apples to oranges,” said Doug Kieper, vice president of science and technology for Dilon Technologies Inc., which developed the B.S.G.I. technology. “This is not being used as a screening procedure for the general asymptomatic population who have no indication of disease.” He added that studies were already under way to see if the same results could be obtained using lower doses of radiation.

Guillaume Bailliard, vice president for marketing for Naviscan, which makes the P.E.M. scanner, said it should never be used as a tool for routine screening. “It is true that P.E.M. provides a higher dose than mammography,” he said, “but physicians balance the risk-to-benefit when making decisions.”

06 May 2010

Mammograms detect few breast cancers in women younger than age 40 and often lead to more tests and unwarranted anxiety because of false positives, according to a study published Monday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Reuters reports.

For the study, radiologist Bonnie Yankaskas of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and colleagues analyzed the medical records of 117,000 women ages 18 through 39 who received their first mammogram in 1995. After one year, no tumors were identified in women younger than age 25. In addition, 12.7 per 1,000 women ages 35 to 39 required additional tests after their mammograms detected a lesion, though very few had cancer, Reuters reports.

“In a theoretical population of 10,000 women aged 35 to 39 years, 1,266 women who are screened will receive further workup, with 16 cancers detected and 1,250 women receiving a false-positive result,” the study found. The study added that before a woman receives a mammogram, “[h]arms need to be considered, including radiation exposure because such exposure is more harmful in young women, the anxiety associated with false-positive findings on the initial examination, and costs associated with additional imaging.”

In an accompanying editorial, Ned Calonge of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment suggested that women younger than age 40 do not receive mammograms unless they detect a lump in their breast (Fox, Reuters, 5/3).

The age at which women should begin routine breast cancer screenings is a subject of debate among experts, the AP/Miami Herald reports (AP/Miami Herald, 5/3). In November 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued guidelines suggesting that most women should begin routine mammograms to screen for breast cancer at age 50, not age 40 as previously recommended. In setting the new guidelines, the experts weighed the benefits of early screening against the risks, including the chance that a mammogram could result in a false positive, prompting unnecessary treatments and stress (Women’s Health Policy Report, 11/17/2009).

In January, the American College of Radiology and the Society of Breast Imaging issued guidelines recommending that women with an average risk of breast cancer begin regular mammograms at age 40 and that women with an elevated risk begin screenings at age 30 (Women’s Health Policy Report, 1/5).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2010 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

****
Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

Save time! Get the latest medical news headlines for your specialist area, in a weekly newsletter e-mail. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsletters.php for details.
****