The reason for the experiment: They aim to try and understand how our genes and the environment affect our health.  Amongst the diseases they want to understand better, is Cancer, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Heart disease.

This experiment will be carried out for at least 10 years and the target age group is 40 – 69 years.  Although this experiment has a fair amount of criticism being thrown at it, it will surly be a worth while cause if we can find out more about the interaction and complex links between the environment, our health and our genes?

I’m all for it, but then I am one of millions of people who have been affected by some of the diseases mentioned above.

For more information about this experiment or if you are interested in participating in the experiment, go to their website www.ukbiobank.ac.uk

Give us you views.

Doreen

Myth: No one in my family has had breast cancer, so I wont get it
Truth: 90 - 95% of people diagnosed with breast cancer don’t have a history of breast cancer in the family.

Myth:  Antiperspirants cause breast cancer (this one is a biggy for me - the main reason for my search on myths and truths about breast cancer)
Truth:  To date there is no scientific or biological evidence to support this claim.  Perspiration is there solely to cool the body down and not to get rid of toxins. The breast tissue is totally separate from the sweat glands and lymph nodes under the arms and armpits.

Myth:  Breast cancer only comes in the form of a lump (this I did sincerely believe).
Truth: A lump is only one indication that cancer might be present.  The other signs to look out for are, dimpling on the surface of the skin , unusual pain, a rash, if the nipples start to invert or if there is discharge from the nipples.

Myth:  Radiation from a mammography is dangerous.
Truth:  Radiation from the equipment used is very low, so the benefits of a mammography outweighs the risks by far.

Myth:  I am a non smoker, don’t drink alcohol and exercise regularly so I wont get cancer.
Truth:  Breast cancer can affect anyone and although a healthy lifestyle is strongly recommended, it does not protect you against cancer.

Myth:  All lumps in the breast are cancerous.
Truth:  9 out of 10 lumps in the breast are not cancerous.  This does not mean you should be complacent.  Visit your doctor immediately if you find a lump.  I know I would!

by Doreen

How things have changed! Not only has technology given us quicker and more accurate diagnosis but Breast Specialists have emerged and my experience that this field attracts particularly caring and sensitive individuals. But, for the professional there has been a slight downside in that the incidence of overdiagnosis is slowly increasing.

Overdiagnosis is the finding and treatment of a growth, or tumour, that would not be expected to be fatal during the course of the persons natural life time. Better radiology, imaging and reading of results is probably at the heart of this. When such densities are seen on mammograms the radiologist has no way of telling whether these are cancerous or benign. Site, size, age, history etc may strongly indicate a non threatening growth but fear of litigitation etc means it can’t be ignored. In many cases these are best just monitored but often there is a patient insistence on surgery “just in case”. This is why a three point check is important - ie: physical exam ( palpation ), imaging and biopsy and cell testing for hormone receptors.

The good news is that all is moving forward and screening programmes, education and lifestyle advice seem to be having an effect. The scene is not as scary as it once was!

Here is a link to a risk assessment tool that you can download, install and run to use.

http://www.oncolink.org/types/article.cfm?c=3&s=5&ss=34&id=7242

Neil

Some tumours disappeared completely, while others shrunk significantly. The treatment also had a “bystander-effect”, shrinking tumours not targeted by the drug. The trial, at the Sydney Melanoma Unit and the Newcastle Melanoma Unit, involved test subjects having one or more tumours treated with a single injection of PV-10. Researchers found no evidence of systemic or serious side effects in subjects after an observation period of 12 to 24 weeks.

The results prompted the company to extend trials to another group of patients with up to 20 melanoma lesions. PV-10 is an agent that is retained in tumour tissue while leaving normal tissue unharmed, thereby killing the tumour while sparing normal tissue. The Tennessee-based company’s preclinical animal studies have shown the drugs ability to selectively remove focal tumours such as skin melanomas and breast carcinomas.

Five NZ women with recurring breast cancer were injected with the drug last year as part of phase 1 trials for PV-10’s effects on breast cancer. The women had the drug injected directly into one or more tumours, were observed for between one and three weeks, and then had the breast tissue removed for clinical assessment. Trials are continuing.

Provectus chief executive Craig Dees said the Australian data made the company optimistic about the drugs prospects in treating melanomas.

by Neil