Breast Cancers that Disappear Without Treatment?

Yazmin

I received this by email (Daily Health News), and found this research quite intriguing, so I really wanted to share. What caught my attention is the fact that Susan Love seems to be very much interested in this research.......

Breast Cancers That Disappear Without Treatment

Mammograms save many lives, but screening for breast cancer also produces many false positive results -- leading to unnecessary, invasive testing, not to mention untold anxiety for women and their loved ones. A recent study has identified yet another concern. In Norway, investigators found that women who underwent screening mammography were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than those who did not get screened, leading to the possibility that some breast cancers disappear spontaneously on their own without treatment. It's an intriguing finding, given how much time, cost and anxiety is associated with diagnosing breast cancer -- even more so when you consider how many women might not require aggressive treatment, including potent drugs, powerful radiation and painful, disfiguring surgery, for cancers that might disappear on their own.

I spoke with one of the country's leading breast cancer authorities, Susan Love, MD, a clinical professor of surgery at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, founder of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation (http://link.dhn.bottomlinesecrets.com/r/4AIS6F/V1X9D/M5YVU/GDLC2/5VAEF/6C/h/) and author of Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book. She called the study "extremely encouraging," noting it might someday enable researchers to identify which types of breast cancers require treatment and which can simply be monitored... but she cautions that we're not there yet. At present, women should continue to get their regularly scheduled mammograms.

MORE SCREENING = MORE POSITIVE DIAGNOSES

In the study, investigators compared the number of breast cancers detected in two groups of Norwegian women, ages 50 to 64 (over 100,000 participants), who underwent mammography screening. One group received three mammograms between 1996 and 2001 as part of a new national screening program. The other group had just a single screening in 1997.

Theoretically, these comparable groups should have the same number of cancers, says Dr. Love. Yet that did not prove to be the case. Researchers found 22% more breast cancers in the women who underwent more frequent mammograms. This raises the possibility that left untreated, these tumors might have spontaneously regressed. It's not such a far-fetched theory, given that scientists already know of at least one other cancer -- a rare childhood cancer called a neuroblastoma -- that is known to regress without treatment in as many as 7% of cases that are detected through screening.

These results were published in the November 24, 2008, issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. Though the study results raised a hubbub, Dr. Love didn't find them surprising and said she suspects the type that disappears on its own might be one called "almost normal" breast cancer because it is so non-aggressive. "It's just a hunch though," she notes -- agreeing with the researchers that further study is required.

"WATCH AND WAIT" A POSSIBLE NEW APPROACH?

Just as "watch and wait" is a treatment strategy for some prostate cancers, perhaps research will identify certain types of breast cancers that can safely be approached in the same way, says Dr. Love. Looking ahead, she notes that this and similar studies may even lead to changes in what's considered "cancer." It may be that in some people, some groups of abnormal cells may appear that will never develop into a life-threatening tumor and should not be referred to -- or more importantly treated as -- cancer.

As things now stand, though, it's impossible to predict whether a tumor will spontaneously regress, nor will that likely be possible anytime soon. For now, the American Cancer Society (http://link.dhn.bottomlinesecrets.com/r/4AIS6F/V1X9D/M5YVU/GDLC2/QNPC4/6C/h/) recommends that women get an annual mammogram beginning at age 40. Women at high risk -- those with a family history of breast cancer or who test positive for a genetic mutation in BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genes -- should also get an MRI. If you are uncertain, consult your physician to determine your risk level.

Source(s):

Susan Love, MD, clinical professor of surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California. Dr. Love is founder, president and medical director of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation (http://link.dhn.bottomlinesecrets.com/r/4AIS6F/V1X9D/M5YVU/GDLC2/5VAEF/6C/h/) and author of Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book (Da Capo).

March 5, 2009

In This Issue... Marge Couldn't Remember Her Phone Number... But Now Her Brain Is 20 Years Younger... Breast Cancers That Disappear Without Treatment -- Will "Watch & Wait" Someday Be Treatment Strategy for Some Breast Cancers? Drug-Free Treatment Reverses Even Bone-on-Bone Arthritis... B-Vitamin Could Be Key to Memory Loss, Dementia -- Brain Shrinkage & Memory Loss Could Be Due to B-12 Deficit

barbe1958

...women who underwent screening mammography were significantly more likely to get diagnosed with breast cancer than those who didn't get screened.

Um, duh, yeah. If you screen, you will catch the cancer. If you don't screen, you won't. Now how stupid is that comment? If I only get one mammogram in my life and I don't happen to have cancer at the time, does that mean I will NEVER get cancer? I don't think so. I won't gamble with those odds.

Yazmin

Um, duh, yeah. If you screen, you will catch the cancer.

barbe1958: I guess the article  is unclear, and I am sorry for that. Obviously, the topic is not at all about avoiding screening to avoid cancer (LOL, LOL, LOL) 

greenfrog

I felt the same way about Susan Love's interest in this research.

Something I find very intriguing is the fact that many cadavers are found to have undiagnosed breast cancer and yet it is not the cause of death.

 The issue of screening is a big subject in the UK at the moment. This BBC article explains why.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7910011.stm

Yazmin

greenfrog:

Thank you for this interesting article.

Europe is far ahead in the way of wondering about the real benefit of screening so aggressively. I had also heard about the research conducted by oncologists in Australia as well, who wonder how it is that so many cadavers present all kinds of tumors considered cancerous, and yet cancer is not the cause of death.

Deirdre1

And the cadavers also include MEN.. I am very interested in this myself! 

The study that Susan Love is speaking about is just one study, however doc's have been saying for years and cancer comes into and goes out of our bodies since I was a kid and that, well that was quite awhile ago!!!  This is just the first study that tends to show the possibility - but it is being looked at more closely now...

rubytuesday

Interesting article!  Thanks for posting it.  Best wishes

Anonymous

I have read this too.  I was wondering if it is in situ that they are finding, or invasive that disappears.

Interesting, but still not convincing me that mammgrams aren't necessary.  

As my tumor was non palpable, my annual mammogram saved my life in my opinion.  THANK GOD i have a cancer that can be screened.

Have a great weekend!

Yazmin

Indeed, I would also like to know which types of tumors they have been finding (that did not end up killing the person). I am still happy that this mystery is finally being tackled.

Susan Love did mention that we are probably years and years and years away from finding out which tumors are deadly, and which ones are not. Though another theory out there is that the tumors that are going to be deadly are simply going to be deadly, and those that are not, are simply not going to kill, no matter what kind of treatment is applied to either one of those two types.

Deirdre1

I believe that the actual study was done on invasive cancers..

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/21/2311

Best

Yazmin

It looks that way, indeed.

barbe1958

We will all get cancer of something, the longer we live. Our bodies break down as we get older; we are living longer and longer. It makes sense that they find cancer in cadavers. They also find heart disease too!

Remember, the cancer has been growing in our bodies a long time before we catch it... 

BFidelis

My mom died 16 years ago, 18 mos. after being diagnosed stage IV upon the discovery of bone mets.  Her breasts were "clear" (granted diagnostics weren't as good, but still.)  She was 65 and had had regular mammms.  (She was super-conscientious about this.)  Her doc told her that she probably DID have a breast tumor that sent out mets, then 'disappeared' much like a mushroom in your lawn can cause a ring a mushrooms to appear around it, then the original dies and leaves only the ring.  So here's my opinion (and ONLY opinion.)

1.  I'm sure tumors disappear on their own.  And sometimes when you drop that fine china plate of grandma's, it doesn't break.  I'm not going to leave a tumor alone anymore than I'm going to be careless with the heirlooms.

2.  The tumor can do real damage before it disappears.  Mom had lots of bone mets throughout.

3.  These studies are kind of interesting, but tell me just how any of this relates to finding a CURE, versus finding better diagnosis or treatment.  I won't apologize for impatience.  My mom wis gone at 65.  I'm 2.5 years out from dx at age 51.  I have 20- and 22- year old daughters.  we need the CURE.

Dona Nobis Pacem,

Beth

Deirdre1

Oh I'm with you Beth, more research into the CURE for cancer needs to be done!  Absolutely and that's were most people think their money is going when they buy a pink piece of donate to any cancer support mechanism..  But I agree - my Dad was dx'd with bc, had a mx and was on Tamoxifen for approx. 12 years before he had mets..  I use to think that Tamoxifen was a wonder drug until I did a bit of research myself and when they found his new cancers and because he had Stage II bc 12 years earlier they ASSUMED it was the same cancer and so treated it with chemo's for bc.. my concern is that since another biopsy was never done (after mets were discovered) perhaps it was a new cancer, and when I went further perhaps it was a cancer that was encouraged by Tamoxifen (this is before they put the 5 year limit on it).  His bs told him he would be on Tamoxifen for the rest of his life and when the 5-year rule came into play they pulled him off of it and cancer returned... I'm conerned that they don't seem to know anything more than they knew when he was dx'ed.. 

We absolutely NEED A CURE and WE NEED IT NOW.. I too have kids I worry about and I wish they had more time with my father!!!  But I also want to have as much time with them as possible AND I want their lives to be full and to be able to live it without fear of bc...

But in the meantime.. cheers!!!  Bottoms up and enjoy wine, dancing and anything that brings you joy!!!!

Triciaski

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about whether Europe and Australia are far ahead of us in a beneficial way. Think "national health care" and about the cost/benefit ratio of providing any type of screening or treatment to a large population. It's no surprise that studies of this type seem to be concentrated in countries with national health care.  

Most of us on this board benefited from screening mammograms in terms of early (or at least earlier) detection, and I certainly wouldn't want any of my friends or family to be denied the same opportunity. I agree that better, easier, and cheaper detection -- and even moreso, a cure -- are desirable, but while this is all we have, let's be grateful that screening mammograms are the standard of care for women over 40 (in the US) and that free and inexpensive mammograms are available to most women (if they know who to ask).   

Tricia

Deirdre1

Triciaski:  I'm not afraid of "National Health Care" been in it before and have an entire family with positive experience with it..  as for the comment on the mammo's well that's just it isn't it we DO have something else now and until we, the patients, insist on it being use (based on the positive studies) we won't be able to have anything new that comes along..

And my family, some in Europe, seem to have less recurrence with cancer's than here in the US.. One of my uncles actually had (HAD) lung cancer and with a small surgery he seems to be in total remission and that was about 4 years ago.. how often do you hear about men or women in the US surviving very long with lung cancer (by the way he did not have chemo)?  Their (Europes)  approach to medicine is different than ours is and it should ALL be avaliable - our good, their good it might actually help establish a cure if it were all incorporated - again just my opinion..  Best 

Lee18

I can't help but wonder if the anti screening approaches (aimed at early cancer in both men and women) aren't attempts by insurance companies to maximize their profits.  What's needed, in my opinion, is education so that we won't stampede into treatment based on panic over a positive finding, But we shouldn't put our heads in the sand and avoid the screening.  We have to believe that knowledge, intelligence, and prayer can act together to guide us -- not ignorance by avoiding screening!

Yazmin

I agree with Deirdre and everybody else: what we really need is a CURE. Unfortunately for us, Research and most oncologists are currently OBSESSED with tumor-shrinkage, which has NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with overall survival (or survival in absolute statistics).

They also seem to love using obscure expressions called surrogate end-points, which make it possible to "camouflage" the truth: all those incredibly artificial "measuring" devices that they call "disease-free survival," "progression-free survival," "recurrence-free survival." With all of these measurement "yard-sticks," the sad truth is that there is no survival benefit (and when there is one, it is measured in months, not in years). Years and years and years of survival is what we need. Not 3-4 measly months (which is what most of these treatments are currently able to do).   http://www.cancerdecisions.com/031206_page.html.

I, personally tend to listen when advocacy groups are talking: Like us, they are dealing with breast cancer. Their families are going through it with them. Just like our families are going through it with us. They are us. And groups like the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) have issued position papers clearly calling for a reduction in treatments, including mammograms, which is a known carcinogen (http://www.stopbreastcancer.org/). So is BCAction  (http://www.bcaction.org/).

It took Research over 20 years to find out that Tamoxifen actually fuels HER+ tumors. It took Research over 20 years to find out that chemotherapy does NOT work on ER+, PR+, HER- tumors.

Meanwhile, oncologists were being directed to spend all those years putting millions of women (including me) through all those treatments, thus ACTUALLY INCREASING their risk, instead of reducing it. I am just happy that they ended up acknowledging that they were wrong, at least with those 2 treatments.

My problem is: What other substances are currently out there, being TRIED on millions of women RIGHT NOW, before all those brilliant minds DISCOVER the long-term consequences?

kmccraw423

I have only had 2 mammagrams in my life before the third which did not diagnose my cancer.  You can hardly say I overdid it.  I am not one to go to the doctor unless the pain is so bad I can't stand it.  And yet, I still had breast cancer.  If I broke my arm I would certainly submit to an x-ray to confirm it.  A MRI detected my breast cancer and I am just glad the technology was available.  And Barbe1958 is correct.  Lots of dead people of lots of diseases that did not kill them - so what?

I remember reading that people with migraines all have type A personalities.  Guess what, people with type B personalities had them too.  The only difference was the type B took to their beds until it was over and type A were in doctors' offices across America demanding some sort of medicine that would allow them to work!

I don't know the answer but I plan to take advantage of every new technology out there and continue to pray for a cure.

Just my 2 cents.

anondenet

<

The use of screening mammograms has not changed the death rate from breast cancer.

Mammograming is just another place where the so-called "authorities" started recommending them before there was any evidence mammos would save lives.

Mainstream medicine is not evidence-based medicine. It is "it seemed like a good idea at the time" medicine.

We were mammo guinea pigs.

barbe1958

Of course screening mammograms has changed the death rate! It is finding the cancers earlier and finding more of them. Or consider that the rate may seem the same because more people are getting breast cancer as more people have access to the technology to find the cancer.

Don't you think something is causing the cancer other than the radiation which we get all day long and not just from x-rays. Or maybe we have the ozone layer to blame over North America that is allowing more dangerous rays to hit us. We have nuclear power plants, cell phones, TV's, microwaves. Not a single one of those caught my cancer. My mammogram did. 

anondenet

Could you provide a reference for how SCREENING mammos have improved the death rate?

barbe1958

SCREENING mammos means that women get either base-line or yearly mammograms to check their breasts. They do this to catch cancer. That's all the mammograms are for. To catch cancer. If the cancer is caught, it can be dealt with. If it isn't caught it can't be dealt with and obvious death would occur at some point or other IF the cancer was invasive.

What do you think SCREENING mammos are?

Yazmin

Barbe1958, you wrote: Don't you think something is causing the cancer other than the radiation which we get all day long and not just from x-rays.

This is absolutely, totally, completely true. There is a multitude of factors out there, causing cancer. Including companies like AstraZeneca, who have been producing both pesticides and chemotherapeutics agents, thus making billions on both ends of the problem....          (http://bcaction.org/uploads/PDF/NCIMFlyer.pdf)

However, when you say that YEARLY screening mammograms catch cancer... This is also true, indeed. However, the problem is that if they catch an early HER+, an early Triple negative, or an early ER-, PR-, HER+, therapeutics have simply not evolved to "deal" with those in the sense of CURING them. Unfortunately, it is widely recognized that those tumors tend to remain their aggressive self no matter what tremendous chemotherapy or hormonal treatment is applied.

I do not question the validity of mammograms as a diagnostic tool. But I seriously question the current protocol: automatic yearly mammograms (those have not reduced mortality, because, as mentioned above, therapeutics have not followed to cure aggressive tumors), and in the case of women already diagnosed: mammograms every 6 months for the next 5 years. I just had to turn that one down.

I do believe that catching aggressive tumors earlier with mammograms could extend life by 2-3, even 5 years (in the more aggressive instances). I say: this is not enough: Research needs to move past tumor-shrinkage and start thinking in terms of CURING. Meanwhile, I can understand why advocy groups are calling for a reduction of a diagnostic method that adds to the already numerous carcinogens all around us.

barbe1958

I see your point about the more aggressive cancers, but there are women on here in Stage IV that have a QOL they wouldn't have without treatment.

I believe in the "devil you know" rather than the devil you don't.

I do agree that a mammo every 6 months isn't practical.

There is never enough time to live and we all bitch about wanting a cure, but that is not in the near future. I chose treatment over certain death.

Deirdre1

Actually there is science that says that annual mammo's do not save lives - which is why my position on mammo's changed..  And I'm not interested in ANY devil.. if something COULD potentially harm me and there is another way to do it - I'm going for the other way even if I pay for it..  It is this attitude that mammo's save lives that perpetuates the use of an antiquated machine IMMHO..  I'm sorry barbe1958, I'm not challening you I am just stating the reasoning behind mammo's and how science is questioning it.. And as cancer patients we should be too..

Barbe1958 said:  "We all bitch about wanting a cure..."

I think that if you look at that comment again you will see how inappropriate it is.. if we don't "bitch" WHO will be challenged to find a cure.. So many of us feel that the answer is in the pink packaging that we buy - nope.  Of course the money to research is important but the buttons on congressmen and senators agenda needs to be pushed to put dollars into ALL cancer research.. and if we don't "bitch" how have we done anything to help our daughters (and sons for that matter) into the future.  I have heard people say "we can't change that" for years, and when a problem ends up in my lap I don't just make a statement that lets me off the hook I go out and challenge the logic of a particular situation.  I have "changed" many things in my lifetime, and although you refer to it as bitching I find it to be proactive challenge.  And of course I pick my battles, but this is one battle that not only effects me but my family in general.. I'll bitch yell scream, write letters to my congressmen and start congressional actions (yes that can be done and I have actually done it twice in my lifetime already), go directly to hospitals administrators who can make change at our level.. there are hundreds of places to go to produce change..  If women with bc that are in their early stages don't do this who will.. we can't ask people who are in late stages and are just hoping to pull their own lives together that's just not fair (although many of THEM take on the challenge too)..  Our (USA and Canada!) governments first duty is to protect.. I don't know about you but I don't feel protected, not from FDA, big government, scandals, drug cartells etc etc.. So I will continue to pursue a CURE NOW and continue with treatment if that is appropriate.  One more thing, if we were men would we be "bitching" or facilitating change?

It is time for change, and it's time for a cure now and it's also time for all of us to pursue the treatment that we need to continue on and understand that change is in our hands.

anondenet

SCREENING mammos are DIFFERENT than diagnostic mammos which is why I capitalized the words. It's probably a good idea to read up on the terminology and research before you attempt to correct someone who has done it for a living.

And let's not blame the environment when women in the same country who did get SCREENING mammos died from breast cancer as frequently as their fellow countrywomen who did NOT get mammos.

barbe1958

OOOOOOhhhh Deirdre, you mistook my bitching to be a bad thing. Bitching is VERY powerful. That's when men usually say "don't yell at me" and we say "I'm not yelling, I'm using my mommy voice." And by "near future" I mean this year. 2009.

I still don't understand why a mammo finding cancer is so bad? How else are we supposed to find breast cancer?

I would rather know what is making my body ill than blithely go along my merry way without doing anything to help myself until I am too sick to live.

I'm not even sure what this discussion is about anymore....

Anonymous

What it's usually about is attempting to discredit any accepted medically proven diagnosis and treatments, and attempting to show validity for any unproven tests or treatments. It's the Alternative forum, after all.

orange1

Yazmin

You wrote:

"However, when you say that YEARLY screening mammograms catch cancer... This is also true, indeed. However, the problem is that if they catch an early HER+, an early Triple negative, or an early ER-, PR-, HER+, therapeutics have simply not evolved to "deal" with those in the sense of CURING them. Unfortunately, it is widely recognized that those tumors tend to remain their aggressive self no matter what tremendous chemotherapy or hormonal treatment is applied."

My understanding was that early Her2+ and Trip Neg Cancers are more likely to be cured by chemo and that the less aggresive, highly er+/pr+ cancers are less likely to be helped by chemo (becasue they respond so well to hormonal therapy). 

Since I am thinking of adopting a child, I would like to know where I stand regarding chance for recurrence.  Can you refer me to a study or publication that discusses early aggressive cancers not being cured by chemo.

Thanks,

Jackie

Deirdre1

LB13:  I don't discredit anything that is helpful.. and for me mammo's are out the door, but I do do MRI's annually so how is that "attempting to show validity for any unproven tests or treatments:".. I just intend to "push" for the ones that work BEST be they alternative/conventiona/ complimentary.. Doesn't matter to me - what matters is that they work.  And the only reason that MRI's are not "standard of care" is because of expense, and that will change when we all insist on them.. So continue you rant about alternatives being bad for you - I really don't understand why you stay in this forum when you obviously only want to spew venom on every idea...

Barbe1958:  for you the mammo worked - that's great, but for many many other women all the mammo's did was give them a false image of health when there was something going wrong in thier bodies  - would an MRI have worked earlier  - probably, but we don't know that for sure because you went the way of mammo's.  All indications are pointing to MRI's being more complete and therefore this new technology needs to be pushed and used for women who are trying to avoid any type of radiation.. And the more they are incorporated into the protocol the earlier we will find any cancers..  For you the mammo worked for whatever reason and there are some people who have found cancer through mammo's - probably many women have found cancer through touch should we just do touch for the test or should be go to the best, most effective method of testing - MRI's have their problems (as do all tests) but they are the way of the future.. Many women will choose to just do touch because of the barbaric mess that is mammo's.. Dangerous, painful and have as many problems with "stuff" floating through them as MRI's.. it just takes better more completely trained radiologists and tech to "grow" the MRI in area of bc.  It's like saying we should continue to take sulfur for infections when we found that antibiotics took care of the bacteria better.. We (as cancer patients) should move ahead with the technology that becomes available - that doesn't mean that sulfur didn't work on some health problems.

"Bitchy" however is a whole other ball game, and I'm sorry but you can't (shouldn't) use that word to discribe a strong women.  This "bitchy" thing is what guys have done to women for years to discredit them from accomplishing anything, I don't think other women should help that cause. Best