Breast cancer is a cancer of the glandular breast tissue. Breast cancer affects one in eight women during their lives. Breast cancer may be one of the oldest known forms of cancer tumors in humans. Breast cancer kills more women in the United States than any cancer except lung cancer. Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer in women and the second most common cause of cancer death in women in the U.S. While the majority of new breast cancers are diagnosed as a result of an abnormality seen on a mammogram, a lump or change in consistency of the breast tissue can also be a warning sign of the disease. Breast cancer is the most common cause of death in women between the ages of 45 and 55. Although breast cancer in women is a common form of cancer, male breast cancer does occur and accounts for about 1% of all cancer deaths in men. Breast cancer usually begins with the formation of a small, confined tumor. Some tumors are benign, meaning they do not invade other tissue; others are malignant, or cancerous. Malignant tumors have the potential to metastasize, or spread. Some risk factors, such as your age, and family history, can't be changed, whereas others, including weight, smoking and a poor diet, are under your control.

A woman's risk of breast cancer is higher mother, sister, or daughter had breast cancer. The risk can actually be lower if you have a short menstrual life, large family or first child before age 18 years. Men have a lower risk of developing breast cancer (approximately 1.08 per 100,000 men per year), but this risk appears to be rising. Other risks include being overweight, using hormone replacement therapy, taking birth control pills, drinking alcohol, not having children or having your first child after age 35 or having dense breasts. Alcohol appears to increase the risk of breast cancer, though meaningful increases are limited to higher alcohol intake levels. Breast cancer constitutes about 7.3% of all cancers. Symptoms of breast cancer may include a lump in the breast, a change in size or shape of the breast or discharge from a nipple. Most breast lumps are benign, that is, they are not cancer. Benign breast tumors are abnormal growths, but they do not spread outside of the breast and they are not life threatening.

Treatment of breast cancer include Radiation Therapy, Chemotherapy, Hormone Therapy, and Immune Therapy. Certain foods, vitamins, or minerals may interfere with cancer treatment. Drink plenty of fluids but avoid drinks during meals because they may cause a bloated feeling. Proteins: May provide protein, iron, zinc, and B vitamins. Meats, beans, nuts, and seeds provide these benefits. Some seeds, like almonds, are good sources of vitamin E. Dairy products: Milk and cheese provide calcium, protein, and vitamin B12. Grains: Breads, pasta, rice, and cereals provide carbohydrates and B vitamins. Carbohydrates are an important source of energy. Eat cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, bok choy, and brussel sprouts - which contain plant phytochemicals that lower blood estrogen levels by increasing the estrogen detoxification capacity of the liver. Try cool foods. Warm foods may worsen nausea. Do not eat or drink until vomiting is under control.

Breast Cancer Treatrment and Diet Tips

1.Eat a diet lower in fat, ideally no more than 18% of your daily caloric intake.

2. Use "good" fats -- monounsaturated and omega-3 fats - from olive oil, flax seed oil, almond oil and canola oil, as well as fats from deep-sea fish.

3. Eat cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, bok choy, and brussel sprouts.

4. Eat a diet high in fiber, with plant-based sources of protein.

5. Soy, aim for 1 to 2 servings of soy products per day.

6. Tea (black or green), aim for 3 to 5 servings per day.

7. Nitrates and nitrites, avoid cured meats when possible.

8. Carbohydrates are an important source of energy.

Cancer can be defined as a disease that is characterized by uncontrolled cell division and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue or by migration of cells to distant sites As many women as have developed breast cancer have no identifiable hazards other than their gender. When you are been diagnose to have been a breast cancer patient, the question that normally crop up is “I have no family history of breast cancer or any risk and hazard factors, where did this come from”.

Family history is just one of the risk factors for male breast cancer but to that of a woman, there are several hazards and risk factors that boost the chances of having breast cancer, which is complex; hence the need to promote awareness and take steps for prevention.

The hazards of breast cancer, which is a disease tragically known to be common among women may have overlooked the most obvious cause of all: the wearing of bras (tight bras).

The cuff link between Breast Cancer and Bras is based on personal experiences. It happens that when the breast is chronically restricted by a bra, the lymph system that surrounds it may become blocked thereby preventing the lymph from carrying out its function of removing toxins from the area, thus making cancer to be more likely.

Women who wore their bras more than 12 hours a day or so tightly as to cause red marks on their skin are much more likely to have contracted breast cancer. They're really invested in wearing bras; women identify with their breasts so much. Can they stop wearing bras if it meant saving their lives, if this is the case, one’s life matters a great deal.

Breast cancer can be said to be one of the oldest known type of cancer tumors in humans mostly in women. The oldest description of this deadly disease, though the term cancer was not used, was discovered in Egypt years ago.

The most prevalent cancer in women is breast cancer, it is also the second most common cause of death in women apart from lung cancer. Because the breast is composed of identical tissues in males and females, breast cancer also occurs in males though it is less common.

In the olden days before technology starts in earnest, there is a believe that there is no treatment for cancer. For years, many physicians in their practices, described similar cases with the same sad conclusion that there is no treatment for cancer.

The story remained the same until some doctors achieved greater understanding of the circulatory system that a link between breast cancer and the lymph nodes in the armpit can be established and be removed at the same time.

The first attempt to remove the lymph nodes, breast tissue, and underlying chest muscle was successful, which removed the fear that there is no treatment for the deadly disease called breast cancer.

Most breast pain or painful breast lump can be a case of early breast cancer. Since breast mammography started, breast cancer is most frequently discovered as an nodule that causes no symptom on a mammogram, before any symptoms are present.

The probability of breast cancer rises with age, but breast cancer tends to be more aggressive when it occurs in younger people

Diets low in fat and high in fruits and vegetables apparently have no effect on the return of breast cancer, according to a seven-year government study released earlier this month. The study is of particular importance to the 2.4 million breast cancer survivors, and to states like Texas, where over 12,000 women are expected to be diagnosed with the disease this year and over 25% of the population is going without health insurance.

Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 18th, the study focused on over 3,000 women successfully treated for early-stage breast cancer. Average age of participants was fifty-three, and ten percent died within the course of the study, mostly due to a recurrence of the disease. The cancer returned for approximately the same number of individuals in each group.

Diets assigned to 1,537 of the participants exceeded the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of five fruits and vegetables per day, and consisted of five daily vegetable servings, three fruit servings, sixteen ounces of vegetable juice, and thirty grams of fiber. A "serving" was to equal one-half cup, French fries and iceberg lettuce could not be counted, and only fifteen to twenty percent of calories could be derived from fat. Control groups were given educational literature on the importance of eating at least the RDA of fruits and vegetables.

But the study is already undergoing criticism from healthcare professionals and researchers, many of whom believe the causes of serious diseases like cancer are multi-dimensional, and that studies focusing on a few macronutrients or food groups -- with few other controls -- may be unable to yield the intended data with accuracy. Previous studies on the link between healthy diet and the prevention of breast cancer have returned mixed results at best.

Susan M. Gapstur, of the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, is one of those asking pointed questions. "Should we really have focused on dietary components like fruits, vegetables, and fat? Or should we be focusing, in addition to diet, on lifestyle factors including physical activity and weight?"

The call to approach nutritional studies differently from studies on pharmaceutical medicines is growing stronger. Steve Mister, President and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, urged colleagues during this May's symposium, The Workshop, to consider alternative methods for studying nutrition and the effects of dietary supplements. "…nutrients have beneficial effects on multiple body tissues, and interact in a dynamic fashion with other nutrients," said Jeffrey Blumberg, Ph.D., of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, and a Workshop attendee.

In other words, simply linking one nutrient -- let alone entire food groups -- with a particular outcome, without taking into account this complex interaction, may yield inaccurate or incomplete results. The government study did not control for organic, versus conventionally-grown foods, nutrient levels, source of nutrients (which have been linked with osteoporosis in studies focusing on calcium), or lifestyle factors (including physical activity, weight, calorie consumption, other food consumption, and stress). Nor did it control for environmental factors, or other variables associated with breast cancer, including obesity and exposure to certain chemicals linked with breast cancer.

Texas has a particular interest in the accuracy and proper portrayal of such studies, as breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in Texas women. An Ecological Study of the Association of Environmental Chemicals on Breast Cancer Incidence in Texas by Y.M. Coyle and colleagues, found that twelve toxicants released into the environment by industry were positively associated with breast cancer in that state. Those twelve were Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) "chemicals designated as carcinogens or had estrogenic effects associated with breast cancer risk." The release of these chemicals, furthermore, was "consistently reported to EPA TRI for multiple counties in Texas during 1988 – 2000," which included years for which the study used data.

Some of the chemicals associated with breast cancer rates were formaldehyde, methylene chloride, styrene, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, chromium, cobalt, copper, and nickel. Styrene was the "most important" chemical linked with the disease, affecting men and women of all ages, commonly used for food storage and preparation, and released from building materials, tobacco smoke, and industry.

The government study has been further criticized for not highlighting the many beneficial effects of better eating habits, including fewer incidences of other cancers, and improved overall wellbeing. One fear is that consumers, including breast cancer survivors, will read abstracts of the report and begin to believe that high intake levels of fruits and vegetables are simply unimportant.

If these fears were to come to fruition, and the study was to have a negative effect on the population's eating habits, the healthcare and health insurance industries of Texas could be devastated with higher incidences of diseases already at epidemic levels in the state, including obesity and diabetes. Even a slight increase in rural, uninsured residents seeking care in the larger cities of Dallas, Houston, and Austin, could add enough weight to functionally collapse those cities' healthcare systems.

What many don't know, but should, is that the release of such results must be analyzed within their appropriate context, not sensationalized by high-impact headlines or incomplete reports. Common sense, overall, should take hold. Fruits and vegetables have always been good for the human population -- throughout cultures, throughout technological eras. In other words, until we can alter our very DNA, keep eating those salads.

Anna /M241, is a 50-year-old female from Acheh, Indonesia. She had a lump in her right breast sometime in 2000. She refused medical treatment. Instead she went to Jakarta to seek alternative treatments. These did not help her. The breast lump grew bigger and in December 2004, it developed into a lacerated wound and bled. She went back to Acheh and enlisted the help of a medical doctor to take care of her wound. At the same time she continued with other alternative treatments. Unfortunately, this doctor had been swept away by the tsunami that struck the city not long ago.

In February 2007, Anna came to Penang to seek medical treatment. Due to the advanced stage of the disease, no radiotherapy or surgery was indicated. Anna was asked to undergo chemotherapy. She underwent four cycles of chemotherapy at a private hospital. She suffered total hair loss but no other adverse side effects. Each cycle of chemotherapy, given at three-weekly interval, costs RM 3,000. However, each trip to Penang for this treatment would come to about RM 7,000. It is indeed difficult to imagine such financial burden endured by a family who had lost their home to the tsunami. Because of this, Anna’s husband explained that they could NOT effort further chemotherapy and asked if they could turn to our therapy instead.

Anna came to see us on 5 August 2007. She appeared healthy and did not have any problem. The chemotherapy had helped her. Her lacerated wound had dried up and the tumor had shrunk significantly. The pains that she suffered earlier had subsided. She had gain weight and felt much better than before the chemotherapy.

A CT scan done on 9 May 2007, however, was most disappointing. It showed extensive metastasis to the pectoralis muscles and ribs. There were numerous well defined 4 to 25 mm nodules scattered in both lungs. The cancer had also spread to the lymph nodes. I asked Anna if the oncologist had told her the results of the scan. Her husband replied: “No. The hospital gave us the films and we went home. We did not understand what it was all about.”

I asked them: “What did you expect when you came to the hospital for chemotherapy?” Both of them replied: “I expected to be cured.”

Comment

It took me a while to regain my composure after looking at her scan. I was unsure if I should explain the results. I did not want to make her life miserable by telling her the bad news – after all, is this not the responsibility of her oncologist? I hesitated but her husband probed me to tell them the truth, which I did. The metastases in Anna’s lungs were too numerous to count. While chemotherapy had helped her with the lacerated wounds, it was obvious that the treatment did not help her lung metastases.

Chemotherapy had helped make Anna’s life better. The lump has also shrunk. If four cycles were good for her, does it mean that more chemotherapy (up to eight cycles) would be better? Indeed this is debatable – more does not necessarily mean better! While chemotherapy did not hurt Anna, it certainly hurt the pocket – I would not say “bank balance” because I am not sure if there was any bank left after the tsunami.

I pointed out to Anna that it was a mistake not to remove the lump (or her breast) when she first detected it. Surgery could have saved her all the miseries that followed. In this regard, I would advise women to have the lumps in their breasts removed if possible. I asked Anna’s husband why they still continued with the ineffective treatments after knowing that the lump had gone bigger. Why wait for so long? Common sense should tell us that if after trying an alternative therapy for a month or two and it does not work or the condition deteriorates, patients should reevaluate their strategies – move on to something that is more effective or evidence-based.

However, I also highlighted the good side of what she did. I know of numerous patients who died within two to three years after doing what their doctors told them to do -- mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Some even suffered severe pains and had bloated stomach before their death. So, undergoing medical treatment would not guarantee that everything would be fine.

Anna had breast tumor in 2000 and it is now 2007 and she is still alive and did not suffer any difficulties. She ought to be grateful for this blessing. I am reminded by what I have read. At a lecture at the American Cancer Society Conference in New Orleans on 3 July 1969, Professor Hardin Jones, University of California, Berkeley, was supposed to have said: “My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery.”

In Malaysia, like elsewhere too, doctors often blame the herbs when things go wrong. Doctors want to have the first shot at cancer using their chemotherapy or radiotherapy. And if these fail they advise patients to go home and seek “hospice help” or go for herbs. Over the past decade, CA Care is the recipients of these terminally ill and medically give-up cases. I began to have the impression that going for invasive treatments at the first sign of cancer need not be a wise move. Sometimes, patients die because of the treatment rather than the cancer. Anna took the less traveled road. She sought alternative treatments and when these failed she turned to the invasive, toxic medical intervention – perhaps dealing out her last card. It has been seven years and she is still alive. I repeat, many who took the well-trodden road barely manage to live three to four years. So, Anna’s adventure is not wrong, no matter how “foolish” doctors may think it is.

The answer is still uncertain. A team of researchers at the Institute of Cancer Research in London tracked 160,900 women for an average of 11 years. The participants were divided into two groups: Women in the study group were offered annual mammography screenings beginning at age 40, while those in the control group were offered annual screenings beginning at age 50.

Deaths resulting from breast cancer among the younger women decreased by only 17 percent, a figure considered by researchers to be not statistically significant. However, the study also found that in this group of women 23 percent had at least one false-positive result, compared with 12 percent of older women. (A false-positive result is an irregularity in the screening process that later turns out not to be breast cancer.)

Regular screening also increases the risk of radiation-induced breast cancer, a risk that many endocrinologists believe outweighs the benefit in a small percentage of women.

The researchers concluded that annual mammography screenings remain too uncertain to conclude that a net benefit accrues to women in the below 50 age-group. Another study conducted by researchers at France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, or INSERM), found that chest X-rays may actually raise the risk of breast cancer in women with the breast cancer gene mutations BRCA1 or BRCA2.

Researchers studied 1,601 European and Canadian women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations, which greatly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers. The group included 853 women with breast cancer.

The results show that the women who reported having chest X-rays were 54% more likely to have breast cancer, compared with those who reported having no chest X-rays. That outcome was more prevalent among women up to 40 years old and those who reported having had chest X-rays before age 20.

According to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's web site, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations are carried by an estimated 250,000 women in the U.S. These inherited gene mutations account for 5 to 10 percent of breast cancers diagnosed in the U.S. A woman’s odds of developing breast cancer, assuming that she lives to the age of 85, are about 13 percent if she has no BRCA2 mutation, 60 to 80 percent if a woman has a BRCA1 mutation, and 30 to 85 percent if she has a BRCA2 mutation.

It is known that radiation exposure can increase the risk of cancer. However, it should be noted that X-rays typically use low levels of radiation that are generally considered to be safe. It is also known that the younger the age at first exposure to radiation the greater the risk of breast cancer.

The timing of exposure can be as important as the dose. When exposure occurs during the time of greater cell growth of the breast, vulnerability to the cancer-causing effects of radiation is increased. Even in older women who are still having a menstrual cycle, the timing of exposure is very important. The cumulative dose as in annual mammography screenings starting below the age of 40 in a woman with the breast cancer gene mutations BRCA1 or BRCA2 significantly increases the risk.

Breast cancer takes years to develop from the first genetic event or exposure to the point when a lump is seen on a mammogram or felt during a breast exam. It is possible that the initial genetic damage may have occurred very early in life. It is difficult to pinpoint when the initiating event occurred.

Although the medical establishment takes to avoid exposing a woman who might be pregnant to X-rays, a woman should also avoid having a mammography screening towards the end of a menstrual cycle because that's the time when the breast cells are reproducing most rapidly.

Since young women and women who are genetically at high risk for breast cancer are more affected by X-ray radiation, exposure to radiation should be limited and alternatives should be used in emergencies. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which uses imaging technology different from X-rays, could be a good alternative to X-rays and mammography.

It is the responsibility of each woman to decide for herself (after research) whether she should risk developing breast cancer as a result of routine mammography screenings or risk having the complications of late-diagnosed breast cancer that could have been avoided if detected earlier by screening mammography.