The system detected a bot like pattern. Please fill the numbers below to confirm you are not a bot.
Incident Id: 51a9db21566bc
15/03/13
By James O'Brien
A new study shows women who eat and drink high-fat dairy products are less likely to survive breast cancer.
Patients who consumed products like milk, ice cream and cheese at least once a day were found to be 64% more likely to die from any cause than those who did not. The figure was 49% when it came to death from breast cancer.
The study followed the diets of 1,500 women with breast cancer over an average of 12 years. Participants were quizzed on how much dairy they had consumed in the previous 12 months, giving details on portion sizes and fat content.
All of the patients were told they had cancer around two years before the start of the study. A total of 372 died during the follow-up period, 189 from breast cancer, while 349 women had a recurrence of the cancer.
Scientists believe cow oestrogen could be behind higher breast cancer mortality in those who consume dairy products. The findings back up previous studies which uncovered a link between oestrogen and breast cancer.
Lead researcher Candyce Kroenke, from the Kaiser Permanente research institute in the US, said: "Women consuming larger amounts of high-fat dairy had higher breast cancer mortality as well as higher all-cause mortality and higher non-breast cancer mortality."
The research, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, forms part of the Life After Cancer Epidemiology study which investigates how lifestyles affect breast cancer survival and occurrence.
Dr Susan Kutner, head of the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Regional Breast Care Task Force, has called for more emphasis on healthier diets in light of the findings.
"Women have been clamouring for this type of information. They're asking us, tell me what I should eat? With this information, we can be more specific about recommending low-fat dairy products," she said.
THURSDAY, Aug. 2 HealthDay News)--Breast Cancer Charity that brought the world the Pink Ribbon, which exaggerates benefits of Mammography by minimizing its harms, claim scientists.
Susan g. Komen organization is referred to for the Cure, as stated in the announcement, 2011 that the pointer of cancer survival five years during breast caught early 98%, while only 23% if not caught early.
"The survival Statistics posed are eye-catching and relevant. Means that the woman is crazy and irresponsible if not go to detect, "said Dr. Steve Woloshin, co-author article challenge charity. "But the statistics are misleading."
In accordance with the comment that Woloshin appears online Aug. 2 in the BMJ, in her 50s woman who refers to regular mammograms for 10 years will be the only cuts the chance of dying by a fraction of a percentage point--every 10 000 women who will not be able to screened 7 deaths.
The reason for the discrepancy?
Survival statistics, calculate how much a woman lives only after the diagnosis, the researchers explained.
If 100 women were diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 67 after feeling the tumor and all died three years later, at the age of 70, the survival rate of five years will be 0 per cent.
But if cancers were detected by Mammography, when women were 64 and they still died at the age of 70, the survival of five years will be 100 percent.
Komen also minimizes the harms that may come from over-screening in accordance with article.
For every woman whose life is saved by Mammography, between two and 10 women are overdiagnosed, which means they are told they have cancer, if not and end up going through unnecessary treatment.
Up to half of the women who are inspected annually by the Decade they receive at least one false positive, which means must undergo biopsy and breast cancer have the experience of fear of thinking, if only temporarily.
The article falls at a time when there has been a growing furor over the value of breast cancer. The U.S. preventive services Task Force now recommends that women in their 40s not get regular mammograms.
American Cancer Society recommends that all women aged 40 and over get annual mammograms.
In the end, women must obtain reliable information from their doctors or other sources about the risks and benefits of Mammography. One problem is that not all primary care doctors know the numbers right to transfer their patients, according to the latest research.
Overall, few doctors would argue that there are certain advantages to Mammography.
Dr. Stephanie Bernik, head of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, Onkologiczna, supports push for a Cancer Charity.
"As doctors, we believe that breast cancer is extremely beneficial," she said. "Screening save lives, but probably is not as dramatic as sometimes took too."
Adds Woloshin, who is Professor of medicine and community and family medicine at Dartmouth School of Medicine and Institute of the Dartmouth health policy and clinical practice: "there is some benefit, but the size is of a different order than what is implied by the advertising. Women's decisions should be good for each other. "
Komen Foundation representative defended the position of the organization.
"Everyone Agrees that Mammography is not perfect, but it is the best tool for the detection of commonly available that we have today," said Chandini Portteus, Vice President of Komen research, evaluation and scientific programmes. "My wymówienie for years the science has to improve, therefore the Komen is putting millions of dollars for tests to detect breast cancer before symptoms through biomarkers," for example, she explained.
"Komen is also financing research to accurately predict a 6,000 cancer and which are not," still Portteus. "When we invest in obtaining those responses, we believe is simply irresponsible effectively discourage women from taking steps to know what happens to their health," she noted.
"These numbers are not in question," said Portteus. "Early detection allows for early treatment, which granted women the best chance of surviving breast cancer."
Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Stephanie Bernik, M.D., Chief, surgical oncology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City, New York; Steven Woloshin, M.D., Professor of medicine and community and family medicine, Dartmouth School of Medicine and Institute of the Dartmouth health policy and clinical practice, Lebanon, Navy; Chandini Portteus, Vice-President, research, evaluation and scientific programmes, Susan g. Komen for the Cure; 2 Aug. 2012, BMJ, onlineApril 6, 2012 / Vol. 61 / No. RR–2
Good Laboratory Practices for Biochemical Genetic Testing and Newborn Screening for Inherited Metabolic Disorders
CE Available
This report provides recommendations for good laboratory practices for biochemical genetic testing and newborn screening for inherited metabolic disorders. The recommended practices address the benefits of using a quality management system approach, factors to consider before introducing new tests, establishment and verification of test performance specifications, the total laboratory testing process, confidentiality of patient information and test results, and personnel qualifications and responsibilities for laboratory testing for inherited metabolic diseases. These recommendations are intended for laboratories that perform biochemical genetic testing to improve the quality of laboratory services and for newborn screening laboratories to ensure the quality of laboratory practices for inherited metabolic disorders. These recommendations also are intended as a resource for medical and public health professionals who evaluate laboratory practices, for users of laboratory services to facilitate their collaboration with newborn screening systems and use of biochemical genetic tests, and for standard-setting organizations and professional societies in developing future laboratory quality standards and practice recommendations.
