breast cancer


U.S. Breast Cancer Deaths Falling Steadily — But Black Women Increasingly At Risk

Breast cancer is becoming an ever more-survivable disease, but there's bad news for African-Americans. Here a woman is screened in Los Angeles in 2010. (Damian Dovarganes/AP/File)

Breast cancer is becoming an ever more-survivable disease, but there’s bad news for African-Americans. Here a woman is screened in Los Angeles in 2010. (Damian Dovarganes/AP/File)

By Richard Knox

With all the recent controversy over how often women should get mammograms, you might not realize that breast cancer is becoming an ever more-survivable disease.

But, alas, that’s not the case among black women in this country. Historically they’ve had the highest risk of dying if they get breast cancer among any ethnic group. And now, data from the American Cancer Society show that African-Americans have nearly caught up with whites over the past three years in their risk of getting breast cancer in the first place.

Given black women’s higher risk of dying from breast cancer, that’s particularly bad news.

Breast cancer accounts for one in every three malignancies among U.S. women — it’s the most common type if you don’t count non-melanoma skin cancers, which are usually inconsequential. More than 230,000 American women will get a breast cancer diagnosis this year, and about 40,000 will die of the disease.

But over the past 26 years, the overall U.S. breast cancer death rate has dropped by more than a third, according to recent research. That’s nearly a quarter-million living women who would have died from breast cancer at rates that prevailed among their mothers’ generation.

“Whether people realize it or not, breast cancer mortality rates have been dropping since about 1990,” says Carol DeSantis of the American Cancer Society, lead author of an update on the disease published Thursday in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Part of that success is due to widespread mammograms, which can find breast cancers at an early stage, although the contribution of regular mammogram screening is unclear.

“Screening has clearly contributed to lowering mortality, but we can’t say by how much,” DeSantis says.

Better treatments are clearly a big part of this success story — more effective chemotherapy, the estrogen-blocking drug tamoxifen, and drugs targeted at the protein HER2 and other growth promoters on the surface of some women’s breast cancer cells.

Put it together with our aging society — more women reaching the most breast cancer-prone years, and fewer women dying of the disease — and the result is record numbers of breast cancer survivors.

More than 3.1 million American women with a history of breast cancer are alive today, and the great majority of them are cancer-free, DeSantis says.

The number of survivors will reach 4 million within the coming decade.

But a closer look at the numbers shows that not all women are benefiting equally. Continue reading


What You Should Know About The New Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines

The American Cancer Society has issued newly revised guidelines on mammography and breast cancer screening. Here a woman is screened in Los Angeles in 2010. (Damian Dovarganes/AP/File)

The American Cancer Society has issued newly revised guidelines on mammography and breast cancer screening. Here a woman is screened in Los Angeles in 2010. (Damian Dovarganes/AP/File)

If you follow women’s health, there’s big news today from the American Cancer Society, which just issued newly revised (and frankly head-spinning) guidelines on mammography and breast cancer screening. Why all the fuss? Because breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide; in the U.S., about 230,000 cases are expected to be diagnosed in 2015 with an estimated 40,300 deaths. And when such an influential organization changes its recommendations, it can radically shift the conversations between doctors and patients.

Here’s the crux of the news: In 2003, the ACS recommended annual mammography screening for all women starting at age 40 and continuing as long as women remain healthy. The group also recommended clinical breast exams (CBE), which is simply when your doctor examines your breasts, periodically for women in their 20s and 30s and every year for women 40 and up.

The new recommendations, published Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, change all of that, and come at a time of growing awareness about the potential downside of screening and the harms of over-diagnosis.

Here are the new guidelines from the report (my bold added):

The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer [no family history, genetic predisposition, etc.] should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation).

Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation).

Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation).

Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation).

Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation).

The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation).

Nancy Keating, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School and a primary care doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, co-wrote an editorial accompanying the new guidelines.

In an interview, Keating described the four most striking aspects of new recommendations:

1) the more conservative starting age for mammography (45 vs. 40 years), which brings the ACS recommendations closer to the guidelines from another important advisory group, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which endorse biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years;

2) the proposal for more frequent (annual) screening intervals among women aged 45 to 54 years;

3) the recommendation against routine screening CBE, a marked deviation from prior ACS guidelines and a stronger statement than that of the USPSTF, which in 2009 concluded that the evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against CBE;

4) the recommendation to stop screening among women with a life expectancy of less than 10 years.

Keating said that for some women, the new guidelines should make things easier because both the cancer society and the federal preventative task force basically line up on guidance. The big disagreement, Keating said, is over what to do for women age 45-54.

“This exemplifies the uncertainties of evidence,” Keating said. “Two really smart groups of people looked at the evidence and came up with different conclusions.”

Specifically, the cancer society included in its analysis findings from a large, observational study of mammography. That study concluded that for premenopausal (but not postmenopausal) women, annual mammograms were associated with smaller tumors.

“Smaller tumors should be better,” Keating said, “but we don’t have long-term data from that population. So we don’t know for sure if this leads to better outcomes.”

The context of all this is a greater awareness of the harms of false positive mammograms and the the real harm of over-diagnosis, which basically is when you’re diagnosed with a cancer that would never become “clinically evident” in your lifetime except for the fact that you underwent screening. This over-diagnosis, of course, can lead to the real harm of treatment for a cancer that you may never have needed to deal with. Continue reading

State-Funded Lab At Harvard Medical Aims To Reinvent Drug Discovery

Jerry Lin and Sharon Wang at the not yet one-year-old Laboratory of Systems Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School. The two are studying the effects of cancer treatment drugs on the heart. (Robin Lubbock/WBUR)

Jerry Lin and Sharon Wang at the not yet one-year-old Laboratory of Systems Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School. The two are studying the effects of cancer treatment drugs on the heart. (Robin Lubbock/WBUR)

Jerry Lin makes a few adjustments on his microscope and grins.

“Wow, it’s beating,” Lin says as a white cell floating across an inky black background begins to pulse. “That’s cool.” A few colleagues, including Lin’s lab partner, Sharon Wang, murmur approvingly.

“We want to take a real-time video to look at the pattern of how cells beat over time,” Wang says, explaining this stage of the experiment.

Once Lin and Wang understand the morphology of these heart muscle cells, they’ll test how the cells respond to various cancer treatments.

“Later on, we can look at how that frequency of beating responds to different drugs,” Wang says.

The experiment is important, says lab director Peter Sorger, because heart problems can be a side effect of a drug that stops the spread of breast cancer.

“On the one hand, it’s a marvelous magic bullet,” Sorger says. “On the other hand, it does damage on its way in. So the purpose of these studies is to understand precisely why that happens.”

Sorger and his team at the Laboratory of Systems Pharmacology are focused on cancer and on analyzing the ways cancer drugs affect the whole body. They aim to reinvent the drug development process through this systems approach, by going much deeper than would scientists supervising a typical clinical trial and by establishing a new model of collaboration. Continue reading

Practicing Restraint In A No-Empathy Zone: At The Cancer Surgeon’s Office With My Son

Cathy Corman
Guest Contributor

I carry a genetic mutation increasing my risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. My children have a 50 percent chance of inheriting the mutation. My 22-year-old son recently noticed a breast lump and asked me to join him when he met with a surgical oncologist to be evaluated.

The surgeon performed a skillful physical exam but provided neither effective risk assessment nor empathetic counsel. Afterward, I sent an email to friends briefly explaining what had gone wrong during the appointment. “We want to know how you managed not to hit him,” they asked. I did it by practicing restraint: slowly counting backwards from 10 and taking very deep breaths.

Here’s my countdown:

10. I did not correct the icy-blue-eyed surgeon with steel-grey hair and steady hands — 50? 60? — when he dissuaded my son from pursuing genetic testing. The surgeon had shaken my son’s hand, looked him in the eye, and palpated my son’s slender, muscular chest, identifying the small lump under my son’s left nipple. A positive finding of a mutation, the surgeon said, adjusting the top of his surgical scrubs, could expose my son to discrimination in the workplace and in obtaining health insurance. That is, I did not say, “The scenario you describe is illegal in this country.” As of March 23, 2010, with the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), if anyone were to attempt to discriminate against this young man in the workplace or in the process of applying for health insurance because of a positive finding for a genetic mutation (a pre-existing condition), this person would be subject to a massive lawsuit.

Cathy Corman (Courtesy)

Cathy Corman (Courtesy)

9. When this surgeon used the word “anxiety” for the eighth time to a) describe my son and myself and b) provide his vision of a course of action, I did not refer this man to Leslie Jamison’s collection of essays, “The Empathy Exams.”  “Empathy,” writes Jamison, “isn’t just remembering to say that must really be hard — it’s figuring out how to bring difficulty into the light so it can be seen at all. Empathy isn’t just listening, it’s asking the questions whose answers need to be listened to. Empathy requires inquiry as much as imagination. Empathy requires knowing you know nothing. Empathy means acknowledging a horizon of context that extends perpetually beyond what you can see…”

8.  I did not bring up this statistic: Though men make up only 1 percent of breast cancer diagnoses annually in the U.S., they may be up to 25 percent likelier than women to die from the disease, probably because of lack of awareness and late detection. Nor did I mention that generally male breast cancer presents with a detectable lump and is almost always linked to radiation exposure, unusually high levels of estrogen or a genetic mutation. Surely the surgeon knew these statistics? But my son did not. And I did not want to scare him.

7. I said nothing to this surgeon’s response to my son’s question, “But wouldn’t it be relevant to know if I carry the mutation?” His answer: No, you know you have a family history of breast cancer.

6. I said nothing when this surgeon dodged my son’s question: “If my grandfather didn’t have the mutation,” my son wanted to know, “wouldn’t he not have had breast cancer? And wouldn’t it be important for me to know if I carry the mutation, too, to assess my risk?” The surgeon’s reply: The only way you’ll know if you have cancer is to have the lump removed. The surgeon’s answer, while true, sidestepped the elephant in the room: whether my son carries a mutation elevating his risk of breast cancer.

5. When this surgeon ridiculed an actress whose name he could not remember for publicly disclosing her status as a mutation carrier and for undergoing prophylactic mastectomies, I offered him the actress’s name. Continue reading

What You Really Need To Know About Dense Breasts

From left: 1) a breast of normal density showing fat (white), fibrous tissue (pink) and glands within the rectangle, while a cancer is present (circle). This illustrates the fact that cancer can occur in breasts of any density; 2) an extremely dense benign breast without any fat, composed of pink fibrous tissue and minimal amounts of glands; 3) an extremely dense breast involved by cancer (infiltrating haphazard small glands), in contrast to Fig 2, but very similar in appearance, demonstrating the subtle similarities. (Courtesy Michael Misialek)

From left: 1) a breast of normal density showing fat (white), fibrous tissue (pink) and glands within the rectangle, while a cancer is present (circle). This illustrates the fact that cancer can occur in breasts of any density; 2) an extremely dense benign breast without any fat, composed of pink fibrous tissue and minimal amounts of glands; 3) an extremely dense breast involved by cancer (infiltrating haphazard small glands), in contrast to Fig 2, but very similar in appearance, demonstrating the subtle similarities. (Courtesy Michael Misialek)

By Michael Misialek, M.D.
Guest Contributor

Reading the pathology request on my next patient, I saw she was a 55-year-old with an abnormality on her mammogram. Upon further investigation I discovered she had dense breasts and a concerning “radiographic opacity.” The suspicion of cancer was high based on these findings and so, a breast biopsy had been recommended. As I placed the slide on my microscope and brought the tissues into focus, I immediately recognized the patterns of an invasive cancer. Unfortunately the suspicion had proven correct.

Just a few patients earlier, an almost identical history had prompted another breast biopsy. This time the results were far different, a benign finding and obviously a sense of relief for the woman. Every day these stories unfold; the never ending workup of abnormal mammogram findings. Both radiographically and microscopically, it can be challenging at times sorting out these diagnoses, particularly in the face of dense breasts.

But what, exactly, are dense breasts and why are they suddenly in the news?

Breast Tissue 101

Breast tissue is actually made up of three tissue types when viewed under the microscope. The percentage of each varies between patients. There is fat, fibrous tissue (the supporting framework) and glandular tissue (the functional component). This is what I actually see under the microscope. Cancer can occur in fatty or dense breasts. It can be toughest to assess when the background is dense.

Biopsy, considered the gold standard in diagnosis, may even prove difficult to interpret when in the background of dense breasts. Dense breasts can hide a cancer, making it more difficult to detect both by mammogram and under the microscope.

Breast density has taken a lot of heat recently. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that not all women with dense breasts and a normal mammogram warranted additional screening, as was previously thought. Understandably this report has received much attention. The authors found nearly half of all women had dense breasts. This alone should not be the sole criterion by which additional imaging tests are ordered since these women do not all go on to have a cancer. Clearly other risk factors are at play.

Confusion All Around

This is confusing for patients and doctors alike, especially when it seems as if screening guidelines are a moving target. Recently, the American College of Physicians issued new cancer screening guidelines: among these was mammograms, being recommended every two years. This too is getting a lot of press.

The American College of Radiology, American Cancer Society, Society of Breast Imaging and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend yearly mammograms beginning at age 40. Continue reading

Pathologist: What Women Need To Know About Breast Biopsy Accuracy

A breast biopsy which illustrates the grey zone of pre-cancer (Courtesy of Dr. Michael J. Misialek)

A breast biopsy which illustrates the grey zone of pre-cancer (Courtesy of Dr. Michael J. Misialek)

By Michael J. Misialek, MD

If you’re a woman who has ever had a breast biopsy, you may be asking yourself a few serious questions:

“How do I know if my breast biopsy is completely accurate?” And, “Who is the pathologist reading the biopsy, and what is their level of training?”

Many more patients are asking these and similar questions following widespread media coverage on a Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study, which casts doubt about the accuracy of interpreting these biopsies.

Let’s break the study down and ease some anxiety. Perhaps most importantly, this provides a great opportunity to learn about one of the lesser know medical specialties, pathology…which is what I do.

The JAMA study, “Diagnostic Concordance Among Pathologists Interpreting Breast Biopsy Specimens,” revealed the following key finding:

• Overall agreement between individual pathologists’ interpretations and that of an expert consensus panel was 75 percent, with the highest agreement on invasive breast cancer and lower levels of agreement for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical hyperplasia.

What this means is that the agreement between a general pathologist and an expert was excellent for breast cancer (those with the ability for metastasis), but varied significantly for early cancers and high-risk pre-cancers.

While the study’s findings may not be surprising to physicians who understand the challenges of diagnosing complex breast cases, news of the article could lead to unnecessarily heightened anxiety for patients and the public as breast cancer is a highly publicized and pervasive disease.

The study confirmed that the majority of breast pathology diagnoses, especially at either end of the spectrum (benign disease and invasive breast cancer) are accurately made by practicing pathologists regardless of practice setting. The overall rate of agreement for invasive breast cancer cases was 96 percent.

Issues with diagnostic disagreement mainly center on the borderline cases, between atypical hyperplasia, that is, pre-cancer, and DCIS, early cancer.

Why does this matter? Overdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary surgery, treatment and anxiety. Underdiagnois can lead to a delay in treatment. The bottom line is that experience matters.

Factors that contributed to greater disagreement included: a low case volume, small practice size, nonacademic practice and high breast density.

The study has many weaknesses. Chief among them was that only a single slide per case was given to each pathologist. As a practicing pathologist, this never happens. I will review multiple slides, often ordering several additional deeper sections and ancillary special stains, studying each carefully. This practice was prohibited in the study.

Additionally, the study cases were a mixture of core biopsy and excision specimens. A core biopsy is obtained using a needle, often by a radiologist, in which a small core of tissue is removed. An excision is a “lumpectomy” which is done in the operating room where a large section of breast tissue is removed. Diagnostic criteria vary between a needle core and excision. Often times it is not necessary to render an exact diagnosis on the core biopsy, but rather recognize an abnormality and recommend an excision for which additional tissue will clarify the diagnosis.

Even the experts disagreed in the study (75 percent initial agreement then 90 percent after discussion).

This illustrates the fact that pathology is both a science and art. Experts may stress slightly different criteria in their pathology training programs. The “eye of a pathologist” is a difficult measure to quantify and is dependent on multiple factors that best function in real time, not an artificial study.

Another weakness is that there is no evidence that the experts were more accurate in predicting outcomes than test subjects. Perhaps most importantly, a second opinion was not allowed in the study, even when study participants indicated uncertainty. These are in fact the very cases that would most likely have been shown around, sent out for consult and further worked up.

It is not realistic to introduce such a large caseload of breast biopsies that are heavily weighted towards atypical hyperplasia and DCIS. Since these borderline cases represent only a small fraction of breast biopsies in actual practice, diagnostic agreement in routine practice is higher than that reported in this study. No clinical information other than patient’s age was given to the study pathologists, and no imaging findings were included. In actual practice, integration of the clinical setting and imaging findings is routinely used in making a diagnosis.

The findings are not unique to pathology. All of medicine has grey zones, where controversy often exists. The study does have an important message for pathologists. As noted in the accompanying editorial, it should serve as a “call to action.” A better, more reproducible definition of atypical hyperplasia is needed.

The article highlights the need for an active quality management program in surgical pathology that includes targeted review of difficult or high risk cases. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology have been developing an evidence-based guideline expected to be released in May to provide recommendations to reduce interpretive diagnostic errors in anatomic pathology.

The CAP is proactively addressing educational opportunities through advanced breast pathology training programs designed to provide a route for pathologists to demonstrate their expertise regardless of the setting in which they practice.

Patients can take steps to help ensure their breast biopsy is read accurately:

o Inquire about the pathology laboratory that will examine your tissue sample. Is the laboratory accredited? The CAP accredits more than 7,600 laboratories worldwide and provides an online directory for patients. Continue reading

Slashing The Pink Ribbon From Beyond The Grave

We’ve written about “Pink Fatigue,” “depinkification,” “pinkwashing,” “Taking on the Pink Juggernaut.” It’s getting to the point that every pink-tinged October also brings a backlash arguing that National Breast Cancer Awareness Month has perhaps jumped the shark.

But never have I read as powerful and furious an indictment of the current breast cancer scene as a piece by longtime Los Angeles Times reporter Laurie Becklund, As I Lay Dying. She died of metastatic breast cancer on Feb. 8, a postscript notes, but I suspect her writing will live virally on for a long time. An excerpt:

Promise me, I told my friends and family, that you’ll never say that I died after “fighting a courageous battle with breast cancer.” This tired, trite line dishonors the dead and the dying by suggesting that we, the victims, are responsible for our deaths or that the fight we were in was ever fair.

Promise me you’ll never wear a pink ribbon in my name or drop a dollar into a bucket that goes to breast cancer “awareness” for “early detection for a cure,” the mantra of fund-raising juggernaut Susan G. Komen, which has propagated a distorted message about breast cancer and how to “cure” it.

I’m proof that early detection doesn’t cure cancer. I had more than 20 mammograms, and none of them caught my disease. In fact, we now have significant studies showing that routine mammogram screening, which may result in misdiagnoses, unnecessary treatment and radiation overexposure, can harm more people than it helps.

Laurie Becklund tells her own story of unexpected cancer recurrence; she describes grappling with her new identity as someone who was surely dying, and her encounters with other women in the same situation; and she expresses her outrage at how the medical establishment and the breast cancer world have failed such patients. Part of her conclusion:

The most powerful organization in the breast cancer universe, Susan G. Komen , has raised $2.5 billion over the last 20 years, much more than many corporations will ever earn. Yet Komen channels only a fraction of those funds into research or systems to help those who are already seriously sick. Most of that money continues to go to a breast cancer “awareness” campaign that is now painfully out of date. Continue reading

So Much For The Killer Bra: Study Finds No Link With Breast Cancer

(canonsnapper via Compfight)

(canonsnapper via Compfight)

If you’re a bra-wearing woman, maybe you know this feeling: You exhale with relief as you unhook your band at the end of a long day. Looking over your shoulder into the mirror, you see the slight indentation the elastic has left on your torso, and think: “Constriction like this just can’t be good.”

That intuition resonates with popular theorizing that bras can lead to breast cancer by blocking the healthy drainage of waste products from the breast area. Hence the higher breast cancer rates in developed countries.

But give me good hard data over feelings and pop theories every time. A big new study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, finds no link at all between bras and breast cancer.

The study, published in the journal “Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention,” found that whether women wear bras just a few hours a day or more than 16, whether they wear underwires or wireless, whether they have big cups or small cups, brassieres are guiltless: They just do not seem to be linked to the two most common forms of breast cancer.

The research involved hundreds of postmenopausal women: 454 with invasive ductal carcinoma, 590 with invasive lobular carcinoma, and 469 without breast cancer, who served as controls. Each woman answered questions about everything from her pregnancy history to the age at which she started wearing a bra, whether it had an underwire, cup size, band size and how many hours a day she wore it.

Bottom line: It looks like your bra won’t kill you unless someone strangles you with it. Which contradicts a 1995 book that added gallons of fuel to the theory that bras are harmful: “Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras.”

The new paper’s senior author, Dr. Christopher Li, head of the Translational Research Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, says “Dressed To Kill” provided some of the impetus for the study. Our conversation, lightly edited:

Why did you think this study was worth doing?

The whole theory about bra-wearing and breast cancer came to my attention years ago, when there was this book published called “Dressed to Kill.” The whole premise of the book was that bra-wearing is the primary culprit for breast cancer in the world. Being a breast cancer researcher, I had never heard of this theory, and people, friends of mine who had seen it, were saying, ‘What’s going on with this?’ Continue reading

My Right Breast: One Man’s Tale Of Lump And Mammogram

Journalist B.D. Colen chronicles  his own mammogram experience both in prose and in photos he took during the procedure. ((c) B. D. Colen, 2014)

Journalist B.D. Colen photographed his own mammogram during the procedure. ((c) B. D. Colen, 2014)

By B. D. Colen

It began with an itch I just had to scratch. Doesn’t every adventure begin that way?

I was lying in bed reading on a Saturday evening, and without even looking I idly scratched a spot on the right side of my chest –- at that point I had a chest, not breasts. As I did, my fingers rode over a small something, a little like a speed bump about an inch below and two inches to the left of my right nipple.

I stopped reading and started poking. And prodding. And pushing. And feeling. And manipulating. And panicking.

“That’s a lump!” I thought, and suddenly I had a right breast. With a lump in it.

I spent Sunday attending to the usual chores and pleasures, with a good deal of poking and prodding added in. There was absolutely no question that something was dwelling there, beneath my AAAA right breast. But what was it? And what was I worried about? After all, I’m a man, and men don’t…Well, yes, men do get breast cancer. In fact about one in every thousand men will develop breast cancer during their lifetimes. Granted, that’s barely worth mentioning compared to a woman’s one-in-nine chances, but it still means that the possibility was indeed real that something ugly and malignant was barely hiding beneath my skin.

The following day, I already had an appointment with my primary care physician about something else, and when we were finished I said, “So, Sam, I seem to have this lump in my right breast.”

(Photo c. B.D. Colen, 2014)

(Photo (c.) B.D. Colen, 2014)

Suddenly, my normally garrulous physician grew serious. “Let’s take a look,” he said, asking me to lie down on the examining table. He had me show him where I thought the lump was and I instantly isolated it – I’d already felt the damned thing enough times to be able to go right to it.

He felt it, felt around it, poked and prodded, and in less than a minute said, “You’re right, there’s something there.” Then, without further kidding – which I’d expect from him – and without any “Well, it’s probably nothing, but let’s be sure,” he sat down at the computer and started typing. “I’m putting in an order for a ultrasound and a mammogram,” he said. “For tomorrow.”

Mammowhat?! Mammogram? Me? But I’m a man! And at 67? Is this some really, really weird dream I’m about to wake up from? How in God’s name were they going to do a mammogram when there’s practically no mam on my chest?

But into the rabbit hole, through the door marked “Women (almost) Only” I went. Though not before Googling “male breast cancer” and convincing myself that I was going to die: Family history? Check. Average age of 68? Check. Sometimes Google is not your friend.

The nice woman down in radiology scheduled me for 10 the next morning, and told me that I shouldn’t worry. “It’s probably nothing,” she assured me. I thought, “That’s probably what you tell all the guys.”

I don’t need to tell any of you who are women what a painful, essentially degrading experience having a mammogram is. I’ve since read the jokes advising women to prepare for the procedure by placing a breast on the edge of their freezer and slamming the door on it – and that is pretty close to the reality. Continue reading

More Concern Over BPA, Link To Breast Cancer


USA Today sounds the latest warning on BPA, or bisphenol A, in a report on growing concerns that the industrial chemical and synthetic estrogen (which is still used as a lining in many canned goods as well as in plastics and other common products) may be linked to breast cancer.

The news report cites a just-released study by advocates at the Breast Cancer Foundation that focuses on the potential dangers of prenatal exposure. According to the report:

Prenatal exposure to this toxic endocrine-disrupting chemical is of even greater concern than childhood exposure.

During the prenatal period, the foundation is set for how the body’s systems develop, and animal and human studies show us that fetal exposure to BPA can set the stage for later-life diseases, including breast cancer.

To understand the mechanism at work, reporter Liz Szabo quotes Tufts biologist Dr. Ana Soto, who published a paper last month that found BPA increased the risk of mammary cancers in rats:

In two studies of rhesus monkeys published last year, other researchers found that BPA disrupted egg development, damaged chromosomes and caused changes in the mammary gland that made animals more susceptible to cancer.

Soto says it’s possible that prenatal BPA exposure makes fetuses more sensitive to estrogen, a hormone that drives the growth of most breast cancers. In that way, BPA could indirectly increase the risk of breast cancer later in life. Continue reading