[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FWD: Altering Risk of Breast Cancer (NewsClip) (fwd)



    Re: 3rd Annual Citizens Conference on Dioxin
    
    I am waiting for a call back from Ellen Connett.  When we last 
    spoke, the conference was to be in Baton Rouge, La.  Now I read 
    California. 
    
    Thought you all might like to see this article that showed up on 
    a Menopause list that I subscribe to.  





Carol Meeds
hippie@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 12:31:25 -0400
From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <ecofem@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: Altering Risk of Breast Cancer (NewsClip) 

   The New York Times, August 2, 1995, p. A17.


   Moving to Different Country Alters Risk of Breast Cancer

   By Natalie Angier


   It may be something in her diet, or the air and water of
   her new home, or the vigilance of her doctor, or stress or
   exhilaration or none of the above. Whatever the cause, when
   a woman moves to a new country, her risk of dying from
   breast cancer will either rise or fall to match that of
   women native to her adopted land researchers have found.

   The new study, an examination of changes in the patterns of
   breast cancer deaths among a broad array of immigrant
   groups in Australia and Canada, suggests that environmental
   factors continue to influence a woman's chances of
   contracting breast cancer throughout adulthood and that the
   effect can occur over relatively short spans of time.

   The work thus contradicts current notions that most of a
   woman's risk of breast cancer is set by puberty or early
   adulthood. It also suggests that by comparing migrant
   populations, scientists may get a handle on how women can
   modify their lives to avoid this hated malignancy.

   Most of the women in the study moved to Australia or Canada
   as adults, and yet within 30 years or less their rate of
   breast cancer deaths often was indistinguishable from that
   of local residents. For those women who migrated from a
   country where the breast tumor rate was lower than in her
   new home, the risk of the cancer rose; but for those coming
   from nations where breast cancer is even more prevalent
   than in Australia and Canada, the risk of cancer dropped.

   The new report, by Dr. Erich V. Kliewer of Australian
   National University in Canberra and Dr. Ken R. Smith of the
   University of Utah in Salt Lake City, appears today in the
   Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

   In it, the researchers compiled data on nearly 60 groups of
   immigrants from all parts of the world, calculating what
   their breast cancer mortality rate would have been in their
   homelands, what it proved to be in Australia or Canada, and
   how that compared with the prevailing rate among the
   native-born population.

   Previous studies of cancer patterns among migrants have
   focused on people moving from countries with low cancer
   rates, like Japan, to those with high cancer rates, like
   the United States, showing that as a rule the rate of
   cancer among the transplanted Japanese eventually mounted
   to Western dimensions.

   The new study takes the compelling twist of seeing whether
   the opposite is true as well, and whether moving from a
   high-risk environment can have an incidental benefit in
   lowered cancer rates. The answer in many cases appears to
   be yes.

   For example, the researchers calculated that among the
   English, the rate of breast cancer deaths in women 35 to 74
   years old -- the range of the women considered in this
   study -- is 68 per 100,000. By comparison, among
   Englishwomen who moved to Australia, the figure dropped to
   57 deaths per 100,000 women, more in keeping with the death
   rate of 50 per 100,000 for the Australian natives.

   "The importance of this study is that it reinforces our
   notion that your risk of breast cancer isn't something
   you're born with," said Dr. Noel S. Weiss, professor of
   epidemiology at the University of Washington School of
   Public Health in Seattle, "but rather something that can be
   influenced by your experiences. They show us that the rates
   are capable of going down as well as up."

   But the scientists embroidered their work with abundant
   caveats. Most important, they do not know why the cancer
   rates change from one place to another. They have no idea
   what it is about the Australian or Canadian way of life
   that either encourages or inhibits breast cancer in any
   particular group.

   Like the United States, these nations tend to have a
   relatively highfat, low-vegetable diet, though all this is
   changing as people limp toward healthier habits. By the
   same token, Australia and Canada, like the United States,
   have comparatively good health-care systems, which
   emphasize mammography and other methods of detecting breast
   cancer in its early stages, before it becomes fatal.

   The current report looks only at breast cancer deaths, not
   at overall incidence. Thus, if women moving to Australia or
   Canada end up with more vigilant medical care, their rate
   of cancer deaths may drop with no alteration in their
   habits, exposure to environmental toxins, or other risk
   factors.

   Moreover, not all migrant groups show a shift in cancer
   death rates in their assumed land. Instead, the figures
   over all indicate a marked trend toward matching those of
   their new homeland. In Australia, 83 percent of the
   immigrant groups converged in their breast cancer death
   rates over a 30-year period toward that of the natives. In
   Canada, the rates were somewhat less than that.

             "Our final conclusion is that there's a 
convergence," Dr.
   Smith said, "a tendency toward the prevailing mortality
   rate. But we tried not to make too much of any one group or
   population."

   Dr. Susan Love, director of the Revlon-U.C.L.A. Breast
   Center in Los Angeles, praised the study and said it was
   the sort of large-scale epidemiological work needed to
   disentangle environmental factors from underlying genetic
   predisposition.

   She said that women might be born with risky mutations in
   any number of genes, including such widely trumpeted
   players as the BRCA-I gene, p53, the AT gene and so forth;
   yet the environment can serve to either stimulate or quell
   such innate predispositions, she said. "Things that cause
   progression of tumors, rather than their initiation," she
   said, "may continue throughout adulthood."

   Because many of the migrant groups being studied are
   relatively genetically homogeneous, she said, they may
   allow researchers to zero in on environmental risk factors.

   Dr. Love argued that, in seeking risk factors, too much
   emphasis had been placed on fat and not enough on other
   things in the diet, like compounds in plant foods; she also
   believes that the possible impact of exercise in reducing
   risk has yet to be fully explored. Evidence also implicates
   pesticides, delayed childbearing, the use of birth control
   pills and hormone replacement therapy in the onset of
   breast cancer.

   [End]



RFC-822-headers:
Received: from pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us by EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US
 (PMDF V4.3-7 #7204) id <01HTLPBTGUQ80005R9@EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US>; Wed,
 2 Aug 1995 15:30:45 EST
Received: by pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00232; Wed,
 2 Aug 95 15:27:12 EDT
X-Envelope-to: meeds_c@wpb1.dep.state.fl.us