New study stokes debate about early-stage breast cancer treatments, shines light on need for primary prevention

Facebooktwitterpinterest

BCF_NewStudyPrevention_1

 

By Breast Cancer Fund Director of Science Sharima Rasanayagam, Ph.D.

A new study, published in JAMA Oncology, found that aggressive treatments (surgery followed by radiation therapy) of ductal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS, did not lead to a reduction in death. While the study sparks questions about how DCIS should be classified and treated, it also underlines the importance of primary prevention.

DCIS is a condition where abnormal cells are found on the lining of the breast milk ducts, but have not spread outside of the ducts to surrounding tissue. It is often referred to as Stage 0 cancer. The question is whether or not the condition should be identified and treated as cancer, pre-cancer or a risk factor. Surgery and radiation may be considered over treatment if it is a risk factor.

In the study, researchers analyzed data from 100,000 women diagnosed with DCIS. One key insight that emerged from the 20-year analysis, was that aggressive treatment (radiation therapy after lumpectomy) of most DCIS does not lead to a reduction in breast cancer mortality. Worse, there may be a slight increase in mortality with radiation therapy, especially if the disease is on the left side, according to an editorial published in JAMA by Dr. Laura Esserman of UCSF. The study did find aggressive treatments to be effective for women under 40 and African American women, but for others the experts disagree on the best way forward after a DCIS diagnosis. While some medical experts, including the authors of the study, conclude that DCIS should no longer be treated with surgery and radiation, others, such as the chief breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, argue in a New York Times article, that DCIS should continue to be treated the way it is now.

In spite of the dissonance, most people can agree that investment in primary prevention of this disease needs to be part of the conversation. If, for many women, a DCIS diagnosis does not mean they have breast cancer now, but may be at increased risk for developing the disease in the future, it may be an opportunity to proactively reduce environmental risks through diet, exercise and by avoiding toxic chemicals linked to breast cancer in their homes and workplaces. There are now thousands of scientific studies affirming the link between breast cancer and toxic exposures in our everyday lives. For example Teflon in pots and pans, endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our personal care products and pesticides in our food, could be increasing our breast cancer risk. While we know that there are actions each of us can take every day to reduce these risks, we also know that individual action is not enough and the federal laws that govern toxic chemicals need to be updated to protect all of us. Only then can we begin to change the odds so that far fewer people will have to grapple with this disease.

Join us: www.breastcancerfund.org

Sharima RasanayagamAbout Sharima Rasanayagam, Ph.D., Director of Science, Breast Cancer Fund

As the director of science, Sharima oversees the Breast Cancer Fund’s science-related activities, including monitoring and interpreting emerging research, and developing and managing science-related program and policy initiatives. She also serves on the advisory committee of the California Breast Cancer Research Program, the largest state-funded breast cancer research effort.  Sharima holds a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Kent at Canterbury, U.K.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterest

2 thoughts on “New study stokes debate about early-stage breast cancer treatments, shines light on need for primary prevention

  1. As a specialist in breast imaging +30 years, I have encountered many women with breast cancer. Several of these women chose to only undergo surgical intervention and not to also receive radiation therapy treatment post lumpectomy with a diagnosis of DCIS w/o node involement.
    Within a span of 5 years the cancer “came back” in the same breast worse than the original diagnosis. These women chose not to undergo radiation therapy which would ensure the elimination of all the cancer cells.
    Many told me that they formed their opinions based on the advice offered by friends, family or reading articles glorifying the harmful effects of x-rays/radiation; calling all radiation harmful. Some women regret not getting the radiation.
    Regarding the opinions of others:
    It is infuriating to me that people put themselves in the position of authority on subjects they know nothing about. It is irresponsible and selfish. They’re very knowledgable about hear-say, that’s all.
    It really burns me up when I hear that there are still articles written by people with such ignorance advising readers to avoid ALL radiation at all costs or risk developing a cancer. These articles ARE harmful and should be avoided at all costs!

  2. Although many investors indeed have earned huge amounts of profits by flipping houses,
    it is important to note that this practice is not as simple as they tell it on TV.
    Your comprehensive marketing package will support you through most property challenges
    and listing opportunities. Some of the considerations on which a professional can advise you include
    the results of home inspections on a house you’re considering; infrastructure (city water versus well, septic system versus
    sewer, and so forth); and structural details of a given home which may either add to
    or detract from the value of the house.

Leave a Comment

Give us a sign that you're human *