“Thank you, Fran [Visco] for your kind introduction and for the honor of this award.

“During the health care debate, Fran – and many of you – were essential allies. Fran stormed Capitol Hill, testified before House committees, and demanded that health care be a right, not just a privilege. Under Fran’s leadership, the NBCC was named one of the 20 most influential organizations in health policy in the country.

“I know that the National Breast Cancer Coalition’s number one legislative priority is access to quality health care for all. And because of your advocacy, your organization, your number one legislative priority is now the law of the land.

“You know best what this means:

• Affordability for the middle class;
• Access for millions more Americans;
• Accountability for the insurance industry…..

“Health insurance reform will:

• Insure 32 million more people;
• Improve care and benefits under Medicare and extending Medicare solvency for almost a decade;
• Allow young people to stay on their parents’ health care until they are 26;
• Create a healthier America through prevention, wellness, and innovation;
• Create more than 4 million jobs;
• And save the taxpayer $1.3 trillion dollars.

“No longer can anyone be discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition, including breast cancer. And no longer is being a woman a pre-existing condition.

“Already we are seeing progress. As you know, the media has reported that certain insurance companies were particularly targeting women with breast cancer diagnoses for rescission.

“But because of your leadership, America’s largest insurers acted even sooner than the health insurance reform bill we passed required to end the shameful practice of dropping people’s coverage when they get sick.

“We’re counting on you to continue to work with us to educate the American people about what health care reform means to them.

“I know you have come to Capitol Hill to lobby for increased funding for breast cancer research. We have been working together on this issue for years. In the early years, our battle was to make sure that NIH was directing resources to breast cancer. I remember when we first broke the $100 million mark for breast cancer funding. With the help of Jack Murtha, together we created the Breast Cancer Research Program at the Defense Department, which has invested $2 billion of research since 1993.

“But that’s not enough. We can honor Jack Murtha’s legacy by continuing to fight for federal dollars. And we can make this a golden age of medical research by continuing to drive the debate, pressing for a greater investment, and by focusing on the next frontiers in medicine that hold great promise for the defeat of breast cancer.

“Thank you for your remarkable efforts to fight breast cancer. Thank you for the progress we have made on behalf of all Americans.

“We’ll never stop fighting until we eradicate this disease, and create a healthier America for all.”

via;PR Newswire

SOURCE Office of the Speaker of the House

Tamoxifen, the longtime gold standard, is more effective and longer lasting, the results show. But a newer drug _ raloxifene, sold as Evista _ is safer.

“I don’t see a clear winner,” but two good choices with different risks and benefits, said Dr. Scott Lippman, a cancer specialist at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

He is editor of Cancer Prevention Research, a journal that published long-term results from the federally funded study on Monday. They also were being presented at an American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Washington.

Tamoxifen is widely used to treat cancer once it’s diagnosed, and Evista is used to treat osteoporosis. But the drugs have not found wide acceptance so far as cancer preventives. Doctors hope the findings will spur more high-risk women to consider taking one of the drugs.

They’re not recommended for women at average risk of breast cancer. But for the millions who are at higher risk because of gene mutations, family history or other factors, they can make a dramatic difference.

“Between 27 million and 30 million women in the United States might have a high enough risk to qualify for one of these drugs,” including any woman over age 60, said Dr. Gabriel Hortobagyi, a breast cancer specialist at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.

Tamoxifen cut the chances of developing the most serious forms of breast cancer in half, the research shows, but with a higher risk of uterine cancer. Evista cut the cancer risk by 38 percent, with fewer uterine problems and other serious side effects……

“We’ve now documented that it’s far less toxic” than tamoxifen, said study leader Dr. D. Lawrence Wickerham. He is a cancer specialist at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh who has consulted for makers of both drugs.

Tamoxifen has long been used to treat and prevent breast cancer. It blunts estrogen, which fuels the growth of most tumors that occur after menopause.

Evista, sold by Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Co., more selectively blocks estrogen. It is only for use after menopause; its safety and effectiveness before then are unknown.

Generic tamoxifen costs about 30 cents a day, versus up to $3 for Evista. Both can cause hot flashes.

The study, called STAR, compared them in nearly 20,000 postmenopausal women at higher risk of breast cancer. They took one drug or the other for about five years and then stopped (longer use is not known to be safe or good).

After about seven years of follow-up, there were 310 cases of invasive breast cancer among women on Evista versus 247 in those on tamoxifen. That works out to a 24 percent higher cancer rate for Evista users.

Uterine cancer developed in 65 tamoxifen users but in only 37 women on Evista. Twice as many women on tamoxifen had abnormal uterine growths that led to hysterectomies. Blood clots and cataracts also were less common with Evista.

Evista clearly is the safer drug, said V. Craig Jordan of Georgetown University, the scientist who led development of tamoxifen. However, Evista’s breast cancer prevention benefits wane over time much more than tamoxifen’s do.

Lippman, the Texas cancer specialist, agreed.

“It may be that with raloxifene, you need to continue to take it,” he said. And even counting the additional uterine cancers that occurred with tamoxifen, its users still had 35 fewer invasive cancers overall than women on Evista.

It sets up a choice, he said. For example, women might choose tamoxifen if they are at very high risk of breast cancer and have had hysterectomies so that uterine cancer is not a concern.

Marty Smith, 55, an insurance agent in Grandville, Mich., has used both drugs. Her sister and mother had breast cancer and a grandfather had male breast cancer. She switched to Evista after two years on tamoxifen because of worries about side effects.

“I thought, if there’s something else that’s going to give me equal and possibly better breast cancer prevention with less risk, then I was going to get on it,” she said.

Via:townhall.com/news/health

Molecular biologist Alan Ashworth, Ph.D., FRS, the director of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research in London will receive the David T. Workman Memorial Award on May 17. The two-year grant of $50,000 from the Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation will support Dr. Ashworth’s work with PARP inhibitors in BRCA-mutated cancers.

“I’m both surprised and delighted that the Waxman Foundation has thought to honor me in this way,” said Dr. Ashworth. “Recognition from your peers is incredibly important and I’m thrilled.”

Dr. Ashworth helped discover the BRCA2 breast cancer gene in 1995. After realizing that BRCA-related cancers had a flawed DNA repair pathway, Dr. Ashworth and his team worked with a biotechnology company to study the use of PARP inhibitors to treat these cancers. They learned that BRCA-defective cancer cells were 1,000 times more sensitive to PARP inhibitors than cells that were normal. His lab is studying the use of PARP inhibitors to treat cancers such as endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and breast cancer, including triple-negative breast cancer, which responds poorly to normal chemotherapy…..

Speaking about Dr. Ashworth’s research in triple-negative breast cancer, Samuel Waxman, M.D., the Scientific Director of the Waxman Foundation said it represents a contribution from a scientist unraveling a genomic defect in breast cancer that has resulted in a novel treatment for women who would otherwise have a poor prognosis.

Michael Nierenberg, the Chair of the Foundation added, “The Waxman Foundation is committed to bridging the gap between lab science and the patient. We are excited to help further the important work of Dr. Ashworth and his lab.”

Recent recipients of the Workman Award include Stephen Baylin, M.D., and Peter Jones, Ph.D., in 2008 for the development of demethylating agents and epigenetic therapy for hematologic malignancies and Douglas Lowy, M.D., and John Schiller, Ph.D., in 2006 for their advance in preventing cervical cancer with the HPV vaccine.

About the Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation

The Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation is an international organization dedicated to curing and preventing cancer. The Foundation is a pioneer in cancer research, focusing on uncovering the causes of cancer and reprogramming cancer cells. We dedicate ourselves to delivering tailored, minimally toxic treatments to patients. Our mission is to eradicate cancer by bridging the gap between lab science and the patient. Through our collaborative group of world-class scientists, the Institute Without Walls, investigators share information and tools to speed the pace of cancer research. Since our inception in 1976, the Foundation has awarded more than $70 million to support the work of more than 170 researchers across three continents.

via:eurekalert.org

“We’ve found that this RNA, called HOTAIR, is a really important player in human health,” said Howard Chang, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology and a member of the Stanford Cancer Center. “When it becomes dysregulated in breast cancer, it drives the tumor cells to metastasize and worsens a woman’s prognosis.”

It does this, the researchers believe, by tinkering with the cells’ genome, laying bare regions that are normally kept bundled up and silent in adult cells and silencing others that are normally expressed. “As a result, the cells’ gene expression profiles begin to look much more like those of embryonic fibroblasts, and they acquire attributes that allow them to thrive in other parts of the body,” said Chang.

Chang is the senior author of the work, which will be published on April 15 in the journal Nature. He was named a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Early Career Scientist in March 2009. He collaborated with researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands, the Broad Institute of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Applied Biosystems Inc. to conduct the research.

Until recently, RNA was thought to exist mostly to carry protein-building instructions from the DNA in the nucleus to protein-making factories called ribosomes in the cell’s cytoplasm. However, it’s become more clear in the past few years that RNA is much more versatile. Some types can affect how genes are expressed by binding to and even modifying the structure of DNA….

Chang and his colleagues have been studying HOTAIR — named for “HOX antisense intergenic RNA” — for several years now, trying to understand why RNA molecules that aren’t translated into proteins are so prevalent and what other things they might be doing. “There’s something like 10,000 of these large intervening non-coding RNAs, or lincRNAs, in the human genome,” said Chang. “They represent a new class of genes that don’t make protein, but that affect gene expression in some mysterious way.”

In 2007, Chang and his colleagues reported that HOTAIR plays an important role in helping cells know their location in the body and what they are supposed to become. It works by activating a group of enzymes called the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2, or PRC2, involved in DNA packaging. The finding was the first to show that lincRNAs can affect the expression of distant genes on other chromosomes and gave an inkling of their global importance in the body.

In the current study, Chang and his colleagues compared levels of HOTAIR expression in normal human breast tissue (obtained from breast reduction surgeries conducted at Johns Hopkins Hospital) with that of primary breast cancer tumors and tumors that had metastasized to other parts of the body. They found that about one of every three primary tumors expressed levels of HOTAIR that were over 100-times higher than that of normal breast tissue. Metastatic tumors expressed levels of HOTAIR that were hundreds or thousands of times higher.

“In many studies, changes in gene expression in cancer cells are pretty subtle,” said Chang, “and require analyzing dozens of genes to make an accurate call. Here we saw differences of 100- to 1,000-fold.”

They then repeated the analysis with frozen samples from 132 breast cancer patients from the Netherlands Cancer Institute whose subsequent medical histories were well documented. They found that those women whose primary tumors expressed high levels of HOTAIR were approximately three times more likely than their peers to have their tumors metastasize and to die in the subsequent 15 years. The association held regardless of the woman’s tumor size, stage or hormone-receptor status.

Although the correlation between HOTAIR expression levels and a cancer’s aggressiveness could be a useful prognostic tool, the researchers still didn’t know what, if anything, HOTAIR was doing in the tumor cells. So Chang looked at breast cancer cell lines that can be grown in the laboratory. Most of these cell lines express relatively low levels of HOTAIR and grow tamely in laboratory dishes.

However, when the researchers engineered the cells to express HOTAIR levels similar to those seen in some patients’ primary tumors, the cells were able to clump together in colonies and gained the ability to migrate through an artificial barrier mimicking the biological “walls” that separate compartments within tissues — a key first step in metastasis. Conversely, blocking HOTAIR expression in a rare cell line that sported higher levels hampered its ability to accomplish the same feats.

The researchers further showed that cells lacking PRC2 expression did not respond in the same way to HOTAIR expression. Cells over-expressing HOTAIR showed altered patterns of PRC2 binding and differences in expression levels of more than 800 genes — many implicated in breast cancer progression.

To watch the cells in action, the scientists injected human breast cancer cell lines into the tail veins of laboratory mice. HOTAIR-expressing cells were uncommonly able to metastasize: About eight- to ten-times more new tumors were found in the animals’ lungs than in animals injected with cells expressing lower levels of HOTAIR.

“It’s really amazing,” said Chang. “When this RNA is expressed inappropriately, it causes metastasis and the expression of all these genes to change. In normal development, these genes are only bound by PRC2 in areas of the body where HOTAIR is expressed. So it’s as if these cells are, in a way, changing their identity.”

If so, the findings have implications that extend beyond cancer. HOTAIR comes from a region of the genome well-known for acting as a kind of positioning system during development — helping cells know where they are in the body and what they should do there. So it makes sense that changes in HOTAIR expression tweak the cells’ sense of purpose. In fact, the patterns of PRC2 binding in the HOTAIR-expressing cells resemble not those of mild-mannered breast epithelial cells but of more capricious embryonic skin cells. These cells are more developmentally flexible and may move about the body more readily.

“The effects that these lincRNAs can have in cancer progression are much more complex than we had anticipated,” said Chang. “It’s possible they could be used as biomarkers, but they may also be important in therapy.” If possible, blocking HOTAIR’s expression in tumor cells may be a valuable way to inhibit metastasis and improve a patient’s prognosis, the researchers believe.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, the Dermatology Foundation, the Susan Komen Foundation, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense.

In addition to Chang, other Stanford researchers involved in the study include post-doctoral fellows Rajnish Gupta, MD, PhD; Kevin Wang, MD, PhD; David Wong MD, PhD; and Miao-Chih Tsai, PhD; research associate Jeewon Kim, PhD; graduate student Tiffany Hung; and assistant professor Robert West, MD, PhD.

via:sciencedaily.com

“I feel like I can celebrate alot of things that I’ve seen in these last five years, that if I hadn’t had a mammogram or the early diagnosis I wouldn’t be here to see and to celebrate,” said Benedini. “I think probably one of the worst things about being diagnosed with cancer is your feeling of your loss of control, or loss of power or the feeling of helplessness, and I think there were two areas after I had my initial surgery and radiation that I felt like I could control and that was my diet and my exercise.”

The retired special education teacher has always been active, but made preventing a recurrence and being a healthy survivor her top priorities. She signed up for the first Miles for Moffitt race in 2006. The mother of two and grandmother has walked or ran every race since.

“For me, it was a way to give back. I think exercise and walking helped me during the course of my treatment because some of it was very overwhelming, some of the decisions I had to make, and if I was feeling overwhelmed, if I was outside on a beautiful day like today and walking, it gave me some quiet time to kind of organize my thoughts and think about things. So, I thought, well this is a perfect fit. I can go and I can exercise, but I can give back to Moffitt.”

She’s giving back for getting more memories with her family.

“What means the most to me is in that five years my daughter, Kate, and her husband have gotten married. I’ve gotten to see both Kate and Christine graduate from college,” Benedini said. “I’m going to be as positive as I can be because, if anything, you learn you gotta value what you have today.”

via:www.wtsp.com

They said the drug is often prescribed “off-label” to treat infertility, even though it is classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as posing a pregnancy risk.

And a study of health claims suggests policies by health insurers to only pay for the drug’s approved uses could improve both the care and safety of the women who take it.

Novartis’s Femara or letrozole is approved to treat post-menopausal women who have hormone-receptor positive breast cancers, in which a hormone is driving the cancer.

The drug, which in a class of drugs known as aromatase inhibitors, works by blocking the production of estrogen in postmenopausal women.

Femara has also been studied as a treatment for infertility, but so far there has not been enough evidence to show that it is safe and effective, according to researchers at the pharmacy benefit company Prime Therapeutics, which presented the findings at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy meeting in San Diego.

In one Canadian study in 2005, a team found nearly a three-fold increase in the risk of birth defects in a group of 150 babies born after letrozole treatment, and the company has warned doctors against using the drug to treat infertility.

Once drugs are approved by the FDA, doctors are free to prescribe them as they see fit.

Doctors that treat infertility say they use the drug in women with ovulation problems.

According to a website for the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago, when the enzyme aromatase is blocked by the drug it causes estrogen levels in young women to fall, triggering the release of follicle stimulating hormone or FSH, which causes women to ovulate.

And they said the Canadian study was too small, and its trial design has been seen as flawed.

CONTROLLING REIMBURSEMENT

The Prime Therapeutics team and one of the company’s Blue Cross and Blue Shield clients wanted to see if a program aimed at controlling reimbursement of the drug could improve patient safety and cut costs.

They reviewed about 1.5 million claims from two Blue Cross health plans between July 2008 and June 2009 to see how often letrozole is used for infertility.

They found it was common, with 29.3 percent of plan members using the drug to treat infertility. More than 95 percent of women over age 50 who took the drug did not have an FDA-approved diagnosis.

The average cost of treatment was about $174 per claim, the team told the meeting.

They said restricting reimbursement of the drug to FDA-approved indications might be a way to not only cut costs, but also reduce fetal risks if a woman taking the drug succeeds in getting pregnant.

via:news.yahoo.com

The new findings appear online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

In the study of more than 35,000 Swedish women aged 49 to 83, 25.5% said they took multivitamins. None of the women had cancer when the study began. During about 10 years of follow-up, 974 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 293 of these diagnoses occurred among the 9,017 women who reported using multivitamins.

Overall, women who reported taking multivitamins were 19% more likely to develop breast cancer than their counterparts who said they did not take daily multivitamins. These findings held after the researchers adjusted for other risk factors including family history, advancing age, body mass index, smoking status, and alcohol use.

“The potential health benefits or adverse effects associated with multivitamin use are of great public health importance [and] the observed association is of concern and merits further investigation,” conclude the researchers, who were led by Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, of the division of nutritional epidemiology at the National Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

Possible Reasons for Breast Cancer Risk

So how could something that is supposed to be so good for you actually cause breast cancer?

The study could not establish cause and effect, but it did show an association of multivitamin use and increased risk of breast cancer.

There may be some biologically plausible reasons that multivitamins can increase breast cancer risk, the researchers say. For one, folic acid, an ingredient in many multivitamins, may increase breast density, which could potentially stimulate the development of cancer.

Some studies have also linked iron and zinc to increased cancer risk, though there have also been other studies that showed no association between these ingredients and cancer risk, the researchers say.

“There may be some components within a multivitamin that could potentially increase breast cancer risk, but the problem is we don’t know which component,” says Katherine Lee, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio….

In the new study, women did not provide information on what brands of vitamins they took; they simply reported whether or not they took them. There is a chance that recall bias may have affected their ability to accurately remember whether, or how often, they took multivitamins.

The new research did show that vitamin E, C, and B-6 did not appear to be responsible for the increased breast cancer risk. Calcium also appeared to provide protection from breast cancer, the new study shows.

“If you have a normal healthy diet, you probably don’t need to take a multivitamin,” says Lee. “Have a discussion with your physician about your diet and what food or food groups you avoid, and maybe consider adding supplements that address these deficiencies over a multivitamin,” she suggests.

“I hope women don’t toss all their multivitamins yet,” she says. “We have to get at the heart of the matter.”

Designing New Studies

More studies are needed to get to the bottom of the issue, says Gilbert Ross, MD, medical director for the American Council on Science and Health, a New York City-based consumer education group.

The bottom-line?

“If you really want to take multivitamins, this study is no reason to stop,” Ross says. “Of course, on the other hand, I would advise anyone concerned that there is no good health or medical reason to take multivitamin supplements, except in rare cases of malnutrition.”

“Focus on looking at food as the source of minerals and nutrients that we need in our lives,” says Lorenzo Cohen, PhD, a professor and director of the Integrative Medicine Program at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“We know that multivitamins and supplements are useful for people who are malnourished or deficient in particular minerals or vitamins, but more is not necessarily better,” he says.  “In a society where individuals have a vitamin and minerals at appropriate levels, supplementing with a multivitamin may not decrease your risk of cancer.”

via:webmd.com

Breast cancer screening is one of the best available methods to detect breast cancer early. It is important for women to practice preventive care for good breast health. Medical professionals and health officials recommend that women obtain regular mammography screening starting at age 40, obtain annual clinical breast exams, perform monthly breast self-exams and obtain a risk assessment from a physician.

“We know there are people who don’t have insurance or have insurance plans with high deductibles. Lack of insurance should not be a barrier to good breast health,” said Tom Schryer, Pinal County Public Health director. “We’re hoping that people will take advantage of this offer so they may remain healthy.”

Women who qualify can receive free breast and diagnostic services through the Pinal County Public Health Services District. The qualifying process is easy. Simply call your local public health clinic toll-free at 1-866-960-0633 to begin the qualification process. Breast examinations are available at the following local Pinal County Public Health Clinics:

– Casa Grande, 820 E. Cottonwood Lane

– Coolidge, 119 W. Central Ave.

– Eloy, 302 E. Fifth St….

To qualify you must:

•  Be at least 40 years old or over 18 years with symptoms such lumps, unusual pain.

• Be uninsured or have a high insurance deductible.

•  Not be eligible for AHCCCS.

• Meet the following income guidelines:

In a single-person household, have a monthly income between $902.50 and $2,256.25, and a yearly income between $10,830 and $27,075. In a two-person household, have a monthly income between $1,214.17 and $3,035.42 and a yearly income between $14,570 and $36,425. In a three-person household, have a monthly income between $1,525.83 and $3,814.59 and a yearly income between $18,309 and $45,775. In a four-person household, have a monthly income between $2,149.17 and $5,372.92 and a yearly income between $25,790 and $64,475.

According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States. It is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in women. It is estimated that 192,370 new cases of invasive breast cancer were reported and approximately 40,170 deaths occurred from breast cancer in 2009.

To make an appointment, call Pinal County Public Health at 1-866-960-0633.

via:trivalleycentral.com

For years, officials have promoted breast cancer screening as the best way to spot the disease and save lives. Yet mammograms are far from perfect and come with an unwelcome side effect: Up to a third of women treated for breast cancer after being identified by the test don’t actually need the biopsies and drugs.

The mammogram issue ignited a fierce debate in the United States last year when an influential panel recommended scaling back screening programs to begin at age 50 instead of 40 — guidelines very close to those already in Europe.

Doubt has also been cast on tests for other cancers like the prostate and colon. Those tests are not commonly recommended because of the high chance of a false positive finding and exposure to radiation.

Some cancers never cause any symptoms and grow too slowly to ever affect patients, but it’s impossible to distinguish between those cancers and more deadly ones. So any identified cancer is treated, which can cause harmful side effects and be psychologically scarring.

“The over-diagnosis problem has been downplayed because people really want to believe screening works,” said Karsten Jorgensen of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, who has published several papers on the issue. “There is a lot of over-treatment happening, and it is time to re-evaluate whether the benefits really outweigh the harms.”

Yet others say doctors must work with the tests they have.

“Maybe in 20 years we will have a better test to tell us which cancers are the dangerous ones,” said Ingrid Kossler, president of the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, who chaired the session Friday on screening guidelines. “But until then, we have to use what we have and treat the cancers we find.”

Previous studies have shown breast cancer screening programs in countries including Britain, Canada, Denmark and Sweden routinely treat women unnecessarily. In those countries, and in much of Europe, women aged 50 to 70 get a mammogram every two years.

Until last year, U.S. recommendations were for women from age 40 to get a mammogram every year. But new proposals suggested women over 50 get a scan every two years — advice that was rejected by the American Cancer Society and other experts.

Jorgensen said screening has become more of a political issue than a medical one. Officials have spent so many years convincing women to get mammograms that it will be difficult to now change policies, especially with a very vocal and powerful breast cancer lobby.

“It would take a very courageous politician to go up against mammograms,” Jorgensen said….

But reducing the number of women who are being unnecessarily treated also increases the risk that women with breast cancer will be missed.

“We need more targeted screening to identify women who can really benefit from it,” said Jack Cuzick, head of epidemiology at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London. He estimated that for every death prevented, one woman was over-treated.

For breast cancer survivors like Susan Knox, executive director of Europa Donna, a European breast cancer advocacy group, the chance to save women from the disease far outweighs any potential harms.

Knox said women aged 50-70 who are screened for breast cancer have up to a 35% lower chance of dying of it than those who aren’t.

“The earlier a breast cancer is caught, the more possibility you have that with good treatment, you won’t die from this disease,” she said.

Others said women should be explicitly told about the potential harms of screening before making a decision.

“Most women who participate overestimate the chances they will benefit,” Jorgensen said. “If we were basing this decision on rationality alone, we would probably come to a different conclusion.”

via:usatoday.com

On the flex side of the muscle the blood goes out from the heart the opposite sides the flex the blood goes back to the heart. Divide your body into 6 sections, 2 arms, a head, 2 legs , and a midsection. Using the rhythm of the music

]]> http://www.mesotheliomaslawyers.net/swine-flu/breast-cancer-swine-flu/stop-breast-cancer-you.html/feed 0