Estrogen Linked to Breast Cancer Recurrence
A new study published in the March issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention demonstrates that women who have a recurrence of breast cancer have almost twice as much estrogen in their blood than those without a recurrence despite treatment with anti-estrogen drugs.
The study’s findings point to the possibility that high levels of estrogen contribute to a recurrence of breast cancer in the same fashion as they contribute to the initial development of the disease. “While this makes sense, there have been only a few small studies that have looked at the link between sex hormones in the blood and cancer recurrence,” said Cheryl L. Rock, Ph.D., the lead author of the study. “This is the largest study to date and the only one to have included women taking agents such as tamoxifen to reduce estrogen’s effect on cancer growth” she added.
The study’s results suggest the need for women who have been treated for breast cancer to do as much as they can to reduce the amount of estrogen in their bodies, such as maintaining a high level of regular exercise and keeping the weight down.
Study participants were taken from a larger dietary intervention trial, Women’s Healthy Eating and Living Study (WHEL), which evaluated 3,088 women who were previously treated for early stage breast cancer, but were cancer-free when they entered the study. Participants in WHEL were randomly divided into 2 groups, one eating normal healthy diet as recommended by the FDA guidelines, and the second group following diet high in fruits, vegetables, and fiber. After a seven year follow up, both groups showed the same rate of breast cancer recurrence. Researchers therefore determined that a normal diet following FDA guidelines is adequate.
The current case-control study involved WHEL participants, 153 of whom were cancer-free and 153 with cancer recurrence. Women were matched for body size, age, ethnicity, tumor size and chemotherapy. Researchers analyzed the levels of estradiol and testosterone, both protein-bound and free.
It was determined that increased levels of estradiol, protein-bound and free-circulating, were associated with significantly higher incidence of breast cancer recurrence. It was also found that women with cancer recurrence, had more than twice the amount of estradiol as compared to those who remained cancer-free. No association was found between breast cancer recurrence and the levels of SHBG and testosterone.
The study was funded by The Walton Family Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.
Source: American Association for Cancer Research
- Given that estrogen has been associated with the development of breast cancer, how surprising is the finding that it may also be linked to the recurrence of breast cancer?
- What are some other ways of decreasing estrogen levels in the body, besides exercise and weight loss?
Loading ...
it would be interesting to see if there was any difference in general state of health between the women who followed the FDA diet vs the one high in fruits and vegetables. Cancer recurrence may be one thing and a serious one, but the general state of health is important as well.
Before I state what can be done to decrease estrogens levels in the female body let me put in the two two following quotes:
“The Fertility and Maternal Health Drugs Advisory Committee recently recommended the continued marketing of all current OC (oral contraceptives) doses on the market . . . findings suggest that: 1) there is no evidence of an increase in risk of cancer of breast . . .”
Taken from FDC Reports. Drugs and Cosmetics, 1980 Oct 27;42(43):T and G-8
Web Address: http://www.popline.org/docs/0397/802151.html
——-
“Over the past two decades, multiple analyses and studies have provided convincing evidence that using oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast cancer . . . [t]he evidence keeps mounting — separate studies published in the January 2006 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine,[2] the October 2006 edition of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention,[3] and the October 2006 edition of Mayo Clinic Proceedings [4] confirm the increased risk.
“The evidence puts contraception advocates in an awkward position of having to admit that the pill isn’t as safe as it presumed to be. Yet they cannot ignore the published evidence and maintain credibility, so they simply minimize the cancer risk by making it sound insignificant. Additionally, these advocates try to “balance” out the risk by emphasizing the fact that the pill can reduce the risk of developing endometrial and ovarian cancer.
Oral contraceptives not only pose a risk for breast cancer, but for liver and cervical cancer as well.[5] Considering the associated cancer risks, one has to wonder if it really is a good idea to “treat” the healthy state of fertility with know carcinogens.”
From ” Breast Cancer and Oral Contraception”
By Ruben Obregon
Webpage: http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Articles/Contraception-Breast-Cancer.htm
—–
So, what’s my answer? The suspension of the use of hormonal contraceptives - taken orally or otherwisew will do much to reduce the levels of estrogen in bodies of women - especially young women - and thereby reduce the incidence of breast cancer. But of course this will be blown off by most reading this as our American culture with its contraceptive mentality will not even consider this as the option that will help solve the problem. Rather than admit that the violation of the female body by the use of these artificial hormones must come to an end what I think will happen is the attempt will be made to continue to allow women to have their cake and eat it too. Vigorous efforts will be made to allow women to continue to use hormonal contraceptives while trying to reduce the levels of breast cancer causing estrogen in their bodies. But I believe they will fail. The effort will be like trying to find a way to reduce lung cancer while still allowing cigarettes to be advertised, sold and used. It makes wonder how many women will have to die from breast cancer before the light finally comes on? I guess it will take many, many deaths and the outrage of women to finally stop it.
Mike, you’ve hit the nail on the head squarely.
Women in this culture are spoiled and coddled and WANT to be able to approach sex as a contact sport - like men (supposedly) do. After all, we’ve come a long way baby, right? Oh, the price we pay for our ‘equality’ - too bad we’ve been caught up in our reflections and tossing about with upward social mobility, instead of using ‘our’ time to educate ourselves. But hey, don’t our nails look good?
No one and I mean NO ONE is really telling girls the truth, and that these pills they pop like Tic-Tac’s in their youth are going to come back on them when they’re 55 and irradiating their breasts looking for the unfortunate end result of that poison of ‘convenience’.
At 43, and not ever having taken birth control - although I’ve been pressured to by EVERY SINGLE FEMALE OB/GYN I’ve gone to since I was 17 - I can only shake my head in wonderment that so many women let themselves be victimized by this stupidity. I don’t really see myself ever having my breasts irradiated to look for a disease that I’ve not ever primed my body to get. I’m more likely to drop dead of a stroke or heart attack..
(And not to go too far aside here, how is it then, that a woman’s breasts gather more medical attention? Is it because men like to play with and look at them? Is it because beyond nursing an infant, they really serve as adornments to make men’s trousers tight? Why the obsession with our boobs and boxes when the greater part of what kills women isn’t related to our sexual organs? What gives here? Eh, but I digress..)
We live in a time when there are more casual exposures to more new man-made molecules - many of which are xenoestrogens - than ever before. No one knows for sure how these things metabolize in a body or what they do if they’re lipophilic and end up in bodyfat. What do they do when mixed with the poisons of convenience like birth control, or HRT? Looks like we’re going to find out the hard way, though.
Tie these chemicals, and the drugs together and add that to the obesity epidemic, which is the result of the McFood industry foisting refined, over-processed, de-natured ‘product’ (egregiously called ‘food’) onto the market - and we’ve got JUST the recipe for the cancer rates we’re seeing.
And now, when the science is finally catching up with reality, do the doubts about the infallibility of the ‘medical’ discoveries (that were supposed to solve problems, not exacerbate them) surface.
Truth of the matter is, healthy people don’t keep the medical industry in the black, so there really ISN’T any incentive to create optimal health in the population. They’re not really even *looking* at what works - and if they are, it’s with a view on how to best monetize a delivery ’system’ out of it that will guarantee profits. Welcome to the ugliest part of medicine that NO one in the ‘industry’ wants to wear.
I don’t hold out much hope for this issue OR these estrogenic poisons going away any time soon. American women don’t know what they want - that’s why we’ve gotten to this point. Don’t look for too much outrage - it’s been blunted into complacent indifference thanks to Prozac and Paxil.
Deb.
great post deb!
What a great post Deb. I am always looking at ways to make myself
healthier and happier. But, I do take HRT. Bioidentical, but who knows,
I recently cut the amount by more than half and look to cut it again.
I tried to go cold turkey but WOW! That didn’t work. Anyway, thanks
for your imput. It really impressed me with the consequences of
our choices. I also go for thermal scans, which doctors don’t
ever suggest, but, they do show the propensity for inflammation
which suggests further invesigation needed.
Thanks again