LifeCare Chiropractic

The Best Chiropractic Care in Mesa, Arizona

breast cancer news

Mammography Takes a Major Hit—Again

by

This is not the first time I’ve addressed the highly emotional topic of mammography, both in general and in women from 40-49 years of age.

I found it disappointing that, despite strong evidence suggesting that screening mammography actually led to greater harm, especially in the 40-49 year age group, the groups that had financial ties to mammography pretty much ignored the data and stated that they were going to continue business as usually. This included the Komen Foundation, the American Cancer Society and numerous radiological associations in the United States.

If these groups essentially admitted that mammography had questionable value, they would be going back on everything they stood for. This groups made it their major purpose to make sure every single woman had access to and received her annual mammogram. To now turn around and say, “Ummm…we MAY have been wrong about that whole getting a mammogram thing…” would devastate these organizations and their resultant credibility.

So they all came up with their reasons why some of the most recent and well designed studies were wrong. Never once was there a discussion that the data may actually have been accurate. And, without screening mammography as “prevention,” what exactly do these groups have to offer? These groups are very weak on prevention, and saying that early detection by mammography is worthless pretty much leaves true prevention via lifestyle as the only answer.

You can see the dilemma.

For all the reasons they gave that mammography still has value, this particular study makes this position even more tenuous. Here are the details of this study:

  • The study was done on 89 835 women, aged 40-59 in Canada were randomly assigned to either annual mammography or no mammography.
  • Women aged 40-49 in the mammography arm also had annual breast exams, but those in the control group only had a single exam followed by whatever normal care they would receive.
  • All women aged 50-59 in both groups received annual physical breast examinations.

This group of women were then followed for the extended period of 25 years to see how many actually died as a result of breast cancer. Here’s what they found:

    During the initial 5 years of the study, 666 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in the mammography group and 524 in the controls.

  • In this same 5 years, 180 women in the mammography group and 171 women in the control group died of breast cancer.
  • The risk of dying of breast cancer was almost identical.
  • After the full 25 years, 3250 women in the mammography group and 3133 in the control group were diagnosed with breast cancer.
  • Overall, in 25 years, 500 in the mammography group and 505 controls died of breast cancer.

From this study, which was able to successfully address the limitations found in other studies not showing a benefit, there was no difference in those who received a mammography versus those who did not.

Ok. So it’s all equal. Let everyone make their money and keep everything running as it is. Everyone’s happy.

Everyone, that is, except for the 106 women who were over-diagnosed with breast cancers that were never going to cause any problems but were treated anyway. The proverbial “won’t you don’t know won’t hurt you.” Worse, this study only looked at invasive breast cancers (the scarier type) and NOT ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). DCIS accounts for 25% of the cancers detected by mammography. Had this study included the numbers of overdiagnosis associated with DCIS found on mammography, this 106 number would go up greatly. Just looking at the invasive breast cancer, there was an overdiagnosis for every 424 women screened. And, as mentioned, if DCIS was included, this number is likely to be much higher.

The conclusion of the authors says it all: “Our data show that annual mammography does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care in the community. The data suggest that the value of mammography screening should be reassessed.”

For a procedure that serves as the cornerstone for mainstream medicines’ “prevention” of cancer, this is a big hit. Sadly, I don’t think we will see any real changes occur in our lifetimes. There is just WAY too much money to be lost.

Breast Cancer News: Prevent Breast Cancer with This Vitamin

by

Normally, I wouldn’t bore you all with yet another “low vitamin D levels increase the risk of X disease” blog post.  However, I just had to share this one because of the strength of the association.

In general, vitamin D seems to have its greatest protection against what are called “long latency” disease.  This means that the condition, like cancer, actually develops over many years, if not decades.  So supplementation of vitamin D is not going to result in anything near an immediate benefit.  Certainly there are exceptions, like improvement of respiratory conditions such as a lowered risk of infection or improvements in the symptoms of asthma.

Cancer is consider a long-latency disease and low vitamin D levels have been linked to many types of cancers.  Some show a very strong protection and some very little.  This particular study looked at the risk of breast cancer in a population of Middle Eastern women (Saudi Arabians) who traditionally have darker skin and thus would be more susceptible to vitamin D deficiency.

Here’s what they found:

  1. Mean age was 47.8 years of age.
  2. Average body mass index was 30.0 (below 25 is ideal).
  3. Those women with breast cancer cases had lower vitamin D levels (9.4 ng/mL) than controls (15.4 ng).
  4. Those with the lowest levels of vitamin D (<10 ng/mL) had a 610% higher risk of developing breast cancer.
  5. Those in the next lowest group (≥10 to <20 ng/mL) had a 400% higher risk.

These are NOT paltry numbers.  Instead, they are serious game changers.  As usual, researchers looked at normal levels of vitamin D, not OPTIMAL levels.  Optimal levels are considered 60-100.  Makes you wonder just how much greater the risk was between women with optimal levels of vitamin D and those with the lowest levels.  The risk spread likely would have been even more dramatic.

While the nature of medical literature never speaks in absolutes, with the addition of this study to previous studies on the higher rates of many types of cancers with low vitamin D levels, I would strongly suggest that, if you donate to any “cancer cure” organizations, if information like this is not readily disseminated through the organization, that you should absolutely give your money elsewhere because that organization is NOT driven by a desire to help but rather by some other hidden agenda.