iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Experts: One-Third Of Breast Cancer Is Avoidable

Breast Cancer Avoidable

MARIA CHENG   03/25/10 07:12 PM ET   AP

BARCELONA, Spain — Up to a third of breast cancer cases in Western countries could be avoided if women ate less and exercised more, researchers at a conference said Thursday, renewing a sensitive debate about how lifestyle factors affect the disease.

Better treatments, early diagnosis and mammogram screenings have dramatically slowed breast cancer, but experts said the focus should now shift to changing behaviors like diet and physical activity.

"What can be achieved with screening has been achieved. We can't do much more," Carlo La Vecchia, head of epidemiology at the University of Milan, said in an interview. "It's time to move on to other things."

La Vecchia spoke Thursday at a European breast cancer conference in Barcelona. He cited figures from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which estimates that 25 to 30 percent of breast cancer cases could be avoided if women were thinner and exercised more. The agency is part of the World Health Organization.

His comments are in line with recent health advice that lifestyle changes in areas such as smoking, diet, exercise and sun exposure can play a significant role in risk for several cancers.

Dr. Michelle Holmes of Harvard University, who has studied cancer and lifestyle factors, said people might wrongly think their chances of getting cancer depend more on their genes than their lifestyle.

"The genes have been there for thousands of years, but if cancer rates are changing in a lifetime, that doesn't have much to do with genes," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. In Europe, there were about 421,000 new cases and nearly 90,000 deaths in 2008, the latest available figures. The United States last year saw more than 190,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths.

A woman's lifetime chance of getting breast cancer is about one in eight. Obese women are up to 60 percent more likely to develop any cancer than normal-weight women, according to a 2006 study by British researchers.

Many breast cancers are fueled by estrogen, a hormone produced in fat tissue. So experts suspect that the fatter a woman is, the more estrogen she's likely to produce, which could in turn fuel breast cancer. Even in slim women, experts believe exercise can help reduce the cancer risk by converting more fat into muscle.

Yet any discussion of weight and breast cancer is considered sensitive because some may misconstrue that as the medical establishment blaming women for their disease.

Tara Beaumont, a clinical nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care, a British charity, said her agency has always been careful about giving lifestyle advice. She noted that three of the major risk factors for breast cancer – gender, age and family history – are clearly beyond anyone's control.

"It is incredibly difficult to isolate specific factors. Therefore women should in no way feel that they are responsible for developing breast cancer," she said.

Yet Karen Benn, a spokeswoman for Europa Donna, a patient-focused breast cancer group, said it was impossible to ignore the increasingly stronger links between lifestyle and breast cancer.

"If we know there are healthier choices, we can't not recommend them just because people might misinterpret the advice and feel guilty," she said. "If we are going to prevent breast cancer, then this message needs to get out, particularly to younger women."

That means avoiding becoming overweight as an adult. Robert Baan, a cancer expert with the international cancer research agency, said it isn't clear if women who lose weight can lower their risk to the level of a woman who was never fat.

The American Cancer Society Web site says the connection between weight and cancer risk is complex. It says risk appears to increase for women who gain weight as adults, but not for women who have been overweight since childhood. The cancer society recommends 45 to 60 minutes of physical activity five or more days a week to reduce the risk of breast cancer.

Drinking less alcohol might also help. Experts estimate that having more than a couple of drinks a day can boost the risk of breast cancer by 4 to 10 percent.

After studies several years ago linked hormone-replacement therapy to cancer, millions of women abandoned the treatment, leading to a sharp drop in breast cancer rates. Experts said a similar reduction might be seen if women ate healthier and exercised more.

Holmes, the Harvard expert, said changing diet and nutrition is arguably easier than tackling other breast cancer risk factors.

In the 1980s and 1990s, breast cancer rates steadily increased, paralleling a rise in obesity and the use of estrogen-containing hormones after menopause.

La Vecchia said countries like Italy and France – where obesity rates have been stable for the past two decades – show that weight can be controlled at a population level.

"It's hard to lose weight, but it's not impossible," he said. "The potential benefit of preventing cancer is worth it."

___

International Agency for Research on Cancer: http://www.iarc.fr/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

BARCELONA, Spain — Up to a third of breast cancer cases in Western countries could be avoided if women ate less and exercised more, researchers at a conference said Thursday, renewing a sensitiv...
BARCELONA, Spain — Up to a third of breast cancer cases in Western countries could be avoided if women ate less and exercised more, researchers at a conference said Thursday, renewing a sensitiv...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 77
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
02:38 PM on 03/25/2010
As a PhD epidemiologist who knows a lot about disease in populations, there is critical missing information in this article.

Perhaps the most important issue for the public to know is how researchers find risk factors. They examine data from grouping individuals. In its most simple terms, one group has the risk factor the other group does not. The results they get apply to groups, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

Lots of women without "risk" factors get breast cancer. For example, I know many thin women who have had breast cancer. But the public blames the woman who is not skinny. Until the reporters understand the research, the public does not have a chance.
02:21 PM on 03/25/2010
Regarding the statement that everything that could be done to improve screening has already been done -- how incredibly ludicrous!!! Let's see -- the protocol now is that women over a certain (highly argued over) age submit themselves yearly to expensive and DANGEROUS (remember, folks, radiation CAUSES cancer) mammograms that are only available to a minority of women in this country.

How about screening that is cheap, safe, and can be done in the local drugstore?

As for the plethora of research blaming women for their own cancers (based on "personal behavior"), where is the research on the roles of environmental carcinogens, things that enrich corporate bottom lines and are personally unavoidable? This is an area that has been shamefully ignored since medical research, like politics, took a huge swerve to the right after the "election" of George Bush.

Obviously, personal behavior is an important part of the equation, but let's balance that out with a common sense look at the factors that are not within our personal control.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:53 PM on 03/25/2010
All women have to do is to not let guys with radioactive hands fondleTheirBreasts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ljilja
http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/
01:51 PM on 03/25/2010
Prevention is extremely important and we should definitely educate people on all they can do within their powers.

I was diagnosed with breast cancer at 45, and my chances of getting it at the time were less than 4%. I am not overweight, I exercise regularly, eat nutritious food, and there is no history of cancer in my family.

It's important not to start blaming people and make it seem like all the control is in their court.

http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/
01:35 PM on 03/25/2010
I've reduced my risk of breast cancer by 89% by having 3 children and nursing them for years instead of weeks or months. Yet not one word was mentioned in this article about breastfeeding reducing one's risk of breast cancer.
02:22 PM on 03/25/2010
Good point.
photo
regulargal
Protect children, not guns.
02:42 PM on 03/25/2010
This is not sure prevention. I know a woman who nursed six children and got severe breast cancer at 36.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wendy Davis
Banned!
01:30 PM on 03/25/2010
There are plenty of women who did everything right and still ended up with BC. Our food and water supply is laden with hormones administered to get the livestock and produce to the shelf as fast as possible and that is highly likely the cause. Cleaning up the mess is another story. I'd suggest trying to figure out a way to make the BC from becoming the aggressive form, which is the kind that can metastasize regardless of therapy given, even at 2 mm. What makes one tumor a lazy one and another an aggressive eating machine that infiltrates a person's body within 24 months? Answer that and in the meantime, get the hormones, steroids, antibiotics out of our food/water supply.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lightning bolt
01:28 PM on 03/25/2010
it's not that the fundraising groups are compromised by the cosmetic industry. the beauty companies are the ones concocting these multi-million dollar disinformation events for the same reason tobacco companies advertise and promote stop-smoking campaigns - so you don't bite the hand that kills ya
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meemers
01:20 PM on 03/25/2010
That is nonsense, I have known several woman (friends, acquaintances and family) who were very thin and active that discovered they had breast cancer. I think that there me be a link between contraceptives and cancer. Although billions of research dollars have proven that "the pill" doesn't cause cancer. But than again there has been no research that proves they do.
photo
lcr999
scientist
04:50 PM on 03/25/2010
Anecdotes do not disprove research. The data is based on the average of large groups. There will be skinny people who get BC, and there will be overweight people who dont. The same goes for all the other "risk" factors. There are many interlocking risk factors that contribute. The data shows that the incidence rate in normal weight women is less than in overweight group.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alahnar
A strange bedfellow indeed
09:29 AM on 03/26/2010
To piggyback on another comment: You really shouldn't universalize your particular experience. For example, It's a fact that African American men get pulled over on the road by police more often than white females, but you're not saying, "This is nonsense, I know tons of white women who get pulled over all the time." No one said white people don't get pulled over. No one said skinny, fit people don't get cancer. They just said, hey, if you're obese and you eat the "wrong" foods, your chances of cancer increase.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KUjHwk
09:50 AM on 03/26/2010
Awesome analogy
01:12 PM on 03/25/2010
I don't really understand why people claim that articles like this "blame" the cancer victim for getting cancer simply by stating that a healthy diet and exercise program may help prevent cancer. There have been several aticles similar to this one and in each one the comments are people being outraged that they are blamed for their cancer. I really do not see it this way at all. I don't think this or any other article on the topic is claiming that if you eat a healthy diet and excercise you will definitely never get cancer. Some people will, no matter what they do, and that is unfortunate. However, a healthy diet and exercise program will prevent it in some, and will increase overall good health so why argue with the claim. Everyone knows that eating healthy and getting adequate exercise and maintaining a healthy weight will prevent many illnesses including cancer, BUT it is not guaranteeing that every person who does this will never get sick. No one can guarantee you perfect health, but you can do many things that will help.
Since we are all living things made up of cells, we are all at risk for cancer so why not do everything we can to build up our bodies natural defense systems so that when and if cancer does appear in our body, we have a better chance of beating it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KUjHwk
09:49 AM on 03/26/2010
Very well said
12:57 PM on 03/25/2010
NO MENTION OF carcinogens in the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aquarius2
live laugh love
12:49 PM on 03/25/2010
As a survivor of breast cancer I say this article claiming 1/3 of all breast cancer is avoidable is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE! This &&%&^%*&^* article is going to make some victims and/or their families feel guilt on top of everything else. This article just makes me so mad.

For starters the article is European. Check the stats on the cancer rates between the USA and Europe. Europe has double the new cases and DOUBLE the death rate. I think I read somewhere that Europeans are slimmer than their fatter cousins across the sea. Right there, that should tell someone about how flawed this article is.

The other thing is (and this seems more accurate) genetics plays a huge part in breast cancer. So if an overweight woman get breast cancer and her overweight daughter gets breast cancer is it weight OR genetics.

I am all for life style changes to make all of us healthier. But this proclamation is pure BS.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dorym
01:13 PM on 03/25/2010
I agree, Aquarius2...I am also a breast cancer survivor....I see a "let's blame the patient" mentality here, for sure...and that makes me mad, too....First we women are poisoned by hormones in our food and milk, when we are young...so, we have periods at age 9!!!....then, we eat the animals who are pumped with hormones and antibiotics....then we breathe the polluted air...and drink the fluoridated water....yet it is OUR FAULT we get cancer.....I call BS on this, too....cancer comes from environmental factors 90 percent of the time (this doesn't include the BRCA 1 and 2 Genes)...and their "cure" is to poison us with chemicals...with HUGE expense financially and physically.....they "kill us to fix us"...but...they don't fix us...they just put more money into the coffers of the insurance and the big-cancer business....and we die cruel, painful deaths....BECAUSE OF THE CHEMICALS...not the disease....it is all just a smoke and mirrors approach...but...BLAMING THE WOMEN....is ridiculous, sexist, wrong, and immoral!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alahnar
A strange bedfellow indeed
09:37 AM on 03/26/2010
I see your guys' point, & I do see a blame the victim mentality in a lot of approaches to diseases lately. It's maddening and terrifyingly sexist, and could really, really go in the wrong direction. But in a lot of ways, this particular article didn't say that. It just said, "Hey, guys, if you aren't overweight and you eat the foods we think are healthy for you today, your chances of cancer decrease." Which is basically just common sense, some people just need it spelled out for them. As far as A THIRD are preventable, well that's obviously hotly debatable, and I'm sure it will be debated.

Hormones in our milk and food...oh boy! I grew up poor, my mother was on food stamps, and the only food we could afford was that poisonous CRAP. Today, I only eat organic, and when I do eat dairy, it is always from grass-fed cows, more often than not a local farm, and I shop at a co op here in Minneapolis so that I can do these things. But that is a blessing and a privilege, because not every state even has plentiful co ops and farmers markets. What I'm saying is, the hormones and poisons in our food are avoidable, as are being overweight.

I hope that helps you to be less angry at the article. :-) Peace
12:48 PM on 03/25/2010
See:
http://www.murdzplace.com/CNN.htm
12:39 PM on 03/25/2010
Didn't an HHS panel just recommend exams after 50? That will be a cost saver when Obamacare takes efffect. One of the benefits of this bill is having the government oversee our health care and police it according to those behind the bill.
12:59 PM on 03/25/2010
FACT CHECK ON AISLE TB:

A panel recommended TO the government that this change be made.

HHS Secy Sebellius said the government would NOT change its recommendations and that insurers should CONTINUE to provide coverage.

NOTHING changed.

Now back to your regularly scheduled GOP attempts to mislead, confuse and breed hatred.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dorym
01:16 PM on 03/25/2010
yeah... let's line up to pump MORE radiation into our chests!!!....then we can go fly somewhere and run laps through the total body scanner machines...for good measure....woo- woo!!! we'll ALL glow in the dark soon!...(and THEY will be making tons of money!!)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drumz
The less you know the more you believe.
12:33 PM on 03/25/2010
BULL CARP!!!

My wife exercises and eats really well. She might be 10 pounds heavier than when I met her 34 years ago and she had 2 boys too. She has never been fat.

Well she just had her 2nd mastectomy due to breast cancer last Friday, 6 days ago! The first one was 8 years ago! She is the epitome of health. Eats very little meat and mostly organic and our own produce, organic eggs we grow and the list goes on and on. She has very little body fat and is in great shape.

This study is bunk!
photo
lcr999
scientist
04:57 PM on 03/25/2010
It amazes me that people can't see the difference between averages and individuals. It says that overweight increases risk and normal weight decreases risk. It does not say that it eliminates risk. There are many risk factors and a lot of chance involved. If I say "driving 100 mph is dangerous", you exclaiming that know somebody who drives that fast and hasn't had an accident does not refute the assertion. There will be people who die sitting at traffic lights and people who live driving 100 mph. But it is irrelevant to the point.
12:02 PM on 03/25/2010
How about all the artificial hormones added to the feed to animals which we in turn digest ourselves? Since breast cancer is related to estrogen (and my Mom is a 2-time survivor whose tumors tested positive for estrogen), then shouldn't we STOP adding hormones to the foods we eat?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KUjHwk
09:53 AM on 03/26/2010
But that would reduce the profits of Big Agribusiness...who have Big lobbyists on Capitol Hill. So, good luck with that.