Breastfeeding 'cuts mother's cancer risk'

Mothers should breastfeed for six months after giving birth to cut their risk of developing breast cancer, researchers have advised.

The advice follows a World Cancer Research Fund survey that shows three out of four women are unaware of the link.

Two thirds are unaware that being breastfed also cuts a child's risk of being overweight – a major risk factor for cancer.
While just 13 per cent of men are aware it could cut a mother's risk of developing breast cancer.

The survey follows a review of almost 100 scientific studies in January by the American Institute for Cancer Research that found "convincing" evidence that breastfeeding lowered the risk of breast cancer.
It is the most common form of cancer in women, with about 45,000 cases diagnosed in Britain each year.

It is a real concern that so many women are unaware of a simple way they could help protect themselves, said Lucie Galice, from the WCRF.
"The evidence on this is convincing and this is why we recommend that – if they are able to – mothers should aim to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months and then continue with complementary feeding after that," she said.

"This means that many new mothers are making choices about whether to breastfeed without knowing it can help reduce cancer risk for them and their child."
Of the 1,998 people surveyed, 19 per cent thought breastfeeding reduced a woman's risk of breast cancer, while 25 per cent thought it reduced a child's risk of being overweight.

According to researchers, mothers who breastfeed their baby for six months after giving birth reduce their risk of developing breast cancer. The problem is that the majority of women do not know of this benefit.
The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) conducted a survey which showed that 75% of women do not know that breastfeed thing their baby helps cut their risk of breast cancer.
The numbers were even worse for men, as 87% had no idea that breastfeeding could help the mother cut the risk of developing breast cancer.
The survey also found that nearly 70% of women are unaware that breastfeeding helps their babies by lowering their risk of being overweight.
The survey was carried out following studies which has clearly shown the benefit of breastfeeding for mothers.
Breast cancer is diagnosed quite often and is one of the most common forms of cancer among women.
Education is needed to help teach mothers the benefit of breastfeeding not only for themselves, but for their babies too.

Breast-feeding isn't such a drag on breasts

Study says nursing isn't the culprit, but smoking has droopy side effect

Breast-feeding won’t make a new mom’s breasts sag, but having more babies might, a new study indicates.
"A lot of times, if a woman comes in for a breast lift or a breast augmentation, she'll say 'I want to fix what breast-feeding did to my breasts,'" said University of Kentucky plastic surgeon Brian Rinker. So he decided to study any possible connection.
Rinker and his colleagues interviewed 132 women who came in for breast lifts or augmentation between 1998 and 2006. On average, the women were 39 years old, and 93 percent had experienced at least one pregnancy. Among the mothers, 58 percent had breast-fed at least one of their children. The average duration of breast-feeding was nine months.

The researchers evaluated the womens' medical history, body mass index (BMI), pre-pregnancy bra cup size and smoking status.
The results of the study, presented this week at a conference of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, showed no difference in the degree of breast ptosis (or sagging) between women who breast-fed and those who didn't.
The main factors that did affect sagging were age, smoking status and the number of pregnancies a woman has had.
Rinker noted that the smoking connection made sense because "smoking breaks down a protein in the skin called elastin, which gives youthful skin its elastic appearance and supports the breast."
Pregnancy also "has a very strong contribution to breast ptosis (sagging)," Rinker said in an email interview. "In fact, our study showed that those negative effects increase with each pregnancy."

Rinker says this finding should alleviate the fears of new mothers over what nursing their child might do to their breasts in the long run and will encourage them to breast-feed because of the health benefits to their infant.
"Women may be reluctant to breast-feed because of this unfounded myth that doing so means the end of youthful breasts," Rinker said. "Now, expectant mothers can relax knowing breast-feeding does not sacrifice the appearance of their breasts."

3 drinks a day raises breast cancer risk

All types of alcohol — wine, beer or liquor — add equally to the risk of developing breast cancer in women, American researchers said Thursday.
"This is a hugely underestimated risk factor," said Dr. Patrick Maisonneuve, head of epidemiology at the European Institute of Oncology in Italy, who was not connected to the study.
"Women drinking wine because they think it is healthier than beer are wrong," he said. "It's about the amount of alcohol consumed, not the type."

Previous studies have shown a link between alcohol consumption and breast cancer, but there have been conflicting messages about whether different kinds of alcohol were more dangerous than others.
The researchers, led by Dr. Arthur Klatsky of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program in Oakland, Calif., revealed their findings at a meeting of the European Cancer Organization in Barcelona.
Researchers analyzed the drinking habits of 70,033 women of various races and asked them questions during health exams between 1978 and 1985. By 2004, 2,829 of these women had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Klatsky and his colleagues looked at which types of alcohol the women drank, as well as their total alcohol intake. They compared that to women who had less than one drink a day.
Researchers found no difference in the risk of developing breast cancer among women who drank wine, beer, or liquor. Compared with light drinkers — those who had less than one drink a day — women who had one or two drinks a day increased their risk of developing breast cancer by 10 percent. Women who had more than three drinks a day raised their risk by 30 percent.
"A 30 percent increased risk is not trivial," Klatsky said. "It provides more evidence for why heavy drinkers should quit or cut down."
Other factors countSome experts said that people might be confused by suggestions that drinking red wine is healthy, since some studies have suggested that it protects against heart disease.
"None of these mechanisms have anything to do with breast cancer," Klatsky said. Though it is not entirely clear how alcohol contributes to breast cancer, some experts think it raises hormone levels in the blood to levels that could potentially cause cancer.
Still, doctors said that other factors, such as genetics, obesity, and age, were more important in raising the breast cancer risk than was alcohol consumption.
More public education may be needed. "Alcohol has had a lot of good publicity. People may not realize the risk they're taking when they have a few drinks," said Tim Key, of the Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit at Oxford. Key was not involved in the study.
According to data published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2002, 4 percent of all breast cancers — about 44,000 cases a year — in the United Kingdom are due to alcohol consumption.
Only a small proportion of women are thought to be heavy drinkers. But experts now say there is enough evidence to blame alcohol for breast cancer — and to start educating the public.
"Any alcohol consumption will raise your breast cancer risk," Key said. "Women don't have to abstain from alcohol entirely, but they need to be aware of the risks they're taking when they have a few too many drinks."

Smoking not linked to aggressive breast cancer

Women who develop breast cancer are no more likely to have aggressive or advanced tumors if they are cigarette smokers than if they do not smoke, researchers said on Sunday.
Whether cigarette smoking raises a woman’s chances of ever developing breast cancer has remained a controversial question, with some research indicating a risk and other studies not.
Researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia investigated whether female smokers who got breast cancer were more likely to have a more serious form.

They analyzed data on 6,162 women with breast cancer evaluated at the facility from 1970 to 2006, and found that whether a woman smoked did not affect whether her tumor was more advanced or particularly aggressive at the time of diagnosis.
Nine percent of the breast cancer patients were smokers when they were first seen.
“For patients who developed breast cancer, there did not appear to be a difference in the cancers that they presented with based on whether or not they had ever smoked,” Dr. Matthew Abramowitz of Fox Chase Cancer Center, one of the researchers, said in a telephone interview.
“In addition, there did not appear to be a difference in the type of treatment they were offered, whether or not they were smokers,” added Abramowitz, whose findings were presented at a meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology in Los Angeles.
Abramowitz said the study did not evaluate whether smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to have complications in treatment for breast cancer or die from the disease.

“I was expecting that maybe there would be more advanced stage (tumors) in patients who were smoking,” Abramowitz said.
Abramowitz said the findings do that mean that smoking is any less hazardous than multitudes of studies have shown.
The National Cancer Institute said cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, mouth, esophagus and bladder. It said tobacco use, particularly cigarette smoking, is the most preventable cause of death in the United States.

Hypnosis Eases Pain of Breast Cancer Surgery

Other benefits: Less anesthesia, faster recovery, less cost, study finds

Instead of pills and needles, hypnosis may ease the pain of surgery -- both during and after the procedure.
According to a new study, women who received hypnosis before breast cancer surgery needed less anesthesia during the procedure, reported less pain afterward, needed less time in the operating room and had reduced costs.
"This helps women at a time when they could use help, and it has no side effects. It really only has side benefits," said Guy Montgomery, lead author of the report and associate professor in the department of oncological sciences at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.
Montgomery hopes that the study, published online in the Aug. 28 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, will promote greater use of hypnosis in medical treatments.
Side effects such as pain, nausea and fatigue -- both during and after breast cancer surgery -- are commonplace. Previous research has suggested that hypnosis, a simple and inexpensive procedure, can help ease these problems. One small clinical study indicated that hypnosis was also effective for breast cancer patients about to undergo surgery.
For the new study, 200 women set for breast cancer surgery were randomly assigned to receive either 15 minutes of hypnosis with a psychologist or assigned to a group that simply spoke with a psychologist.
During the hypnosis session, the patients received suggestions for relaxation and pleasant imagery as well as advice on how to reduce pain, nausea and fatigue. They also received instructions on how to use hypnosis on their own.
The researchers found that women in the hypnosis group required less anesthesia and sedatives than patients in the control group, and also reported less pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort and emotional upset after the surgery.
Those who received hypnosis also spent almost 11 minutes less time in surgery and had their surgical costs reduced by about $773, mainly as a result of the shorter time.
Although people think that hypnosis strips a person of control, it actually does just the opposite, said Dr. David Spiegel, author of an accompanying editorial in the journal and Willson professor and associate chairman of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine.
"This is something that empowers patients," Spiegel explained. "If you're fighting, you think you're protecting yourself, but, actually, you're losing control, because you're getting into a struggle with your own body. You can teach people to float instead of fighting. You get the body comfortable and think more clearly. The weird thing is it actually works. If thoughts can make the body worse, it follows that thoughts could actually make the body feel better."
But will hypnosis catch on with health-care providers?
"We have this in-built skepticism of what goes on in the brain and the mind, and the idea is that the only real intervention is a physical one. Yet what supposedly distinguishes us is this huge brain on top of our bodies," Spiegel said. "It seems more scientific and desirable to give drugs than it does to talk to people and have them reorganize the way they're managing their bodies."
There are other obstacles. Many doctors find it more expedient to write a prescription than learn to perform hypnosis. Also, there's no industry pushing the technique as there is with drugs, Spiegel said.
On the positive side, little investment is needed to get a hypnosis program going, Montgomery said. "A psychologist or nurse could get training in a short period of time," he said. "It's not that involved."
Dr. Darlene Miltenburg, assistant professor of surgery at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, called the new study "superb."
"Anybody who has an open mind would realize that this treatment works and is scientifically proven. It's not black magic," Miltenburg said. "It's real, and we do use it here. It's very time consuming, that's part of the problem, taking a pill is much easier. But just like many things in life, we want a quick fix rather than something that takes longer."

Yoga can give women with breast cancer a boost

Special yoga classes can significantly improve the quality of life and well being of women with breast cancer patients -- particularly those who are not taking chemotherapy -- a new study shows.
A diverse group of low-income women participated in the study, Dr. Alyson B. Moadel of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York, noted in an interview with Reuters Health. "Our patients really enjoyed the yoga classes, it was very well received by them," she said. "It really fit in with their own cultural interests."
There is mounting evidence that yoga can improve quality of life in both healthy and chronically ill people, Moadel and her team point out in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, while quality of life may be particularly affected for cancer survivors who belong to ethnic minorities and other underserved minority populations.
To investigate whether yoga could help cancer patients and survivors feel better, the researchers randomly assigned 128 women to a 12-week yoga intervention or a wait list "control" group.
Classes were offered three times a week, and participants were urged to attend at least one class a week, and also instructed to do the exercises at home with the help of an audiotape. The Hatha yoga-based exercises had been developed especially for breast cancer patients by one of the study's authors, and were done while participants were either sitting in a chair or lying down.
During the course of the study, patients in the control group showed greater declines in well being than women in the yoga group. When the researchers omitted patients undergoing chemotherapy from their analysis, they found that the women who did yoga showed improvements in quality of life; greater emotional, social and spiritual well being; and less distress.
People often feel fatigued and sick while undergoing chemo, Moadel noted, which is likely why yoga didn't appear to be helpful for study participants on chemotherapy.
Just 69% of the women in the yoga group actually attended classes, and those who did attended an average of seven during the course of the study. Study participants had many demands to cope with, from medical and health issues to taking care of family members, Moadel noted, which may explain why many didn't make the classes.
Nevertheless, the women who did attend the classes enjoyed them, she added, and the more classes they attended, the more benefit they experienced.
Hospitals and cancer centers are increasingly offering yoga programs to cancer survivors, Moadel said, and interested people should contact local facilities or advocacy groups like the American Cancer Society to find out if there are yoga programs in their area. However, she cautioned that breast cancer survivors should talk with their doctor before starting an exercise program, and should only take classes specifically designed for them.
"I would not recommend a regular yoga class at a studio that is not geared or targeted to someone with cancer, particularly if they are undergoing treatment," Moadel said, noting that breast cancer patients frequently have arm and shoulder problems that could be aggravated by some exercises.

Weight gain over adult life increases women's risk of breast cancer

PUTTING on weight throughout adulthood can increase a woman's risk of breast cancer in middle age, according to new research.
Obesity was already known to be associated with post-menopausal breast cancer.

But new findings published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, link the risk of developing the disease after the menopause with weight gain from the age of 18.
The pattern was seen in women who did not take hormone replacement therapy, which is known to increase the risk.
Scientists in the US studied data from 99,039 post-menopausal women beginning in 1996.
A total of 2,111 of the women developed breast cancer in 2000.
Women who were not overweight or obese at 18, but were by the ages of 35 and 50, had a 1.4 times increased risk of developing breast cancer.
Losing weight appeared to protect against the disease. Women who lost weight had the same risk as those whose weight remained stable.
The scientists wrote: "These findings may reinforce public health recommendations for the maintenance of a healthy weight throughout adulthood as a means of breast cancer prevention."
• A new kind of sun protection ointment made from broccoli juice can marshal the body's defences against harmful ultraviolet rays, research in the US suggests.
In early tests on six human volunteers exposed to pulses of UV radiation, the extract reduced sunburn symptoms by up to 78 per cent. Conventional sunscreens used in the same experiments were ineffective.

Breast cancer myths debunked

WITH so many rumors and controversy surrounding the causes of breast cancer these days, it is hard to determine what to believe. One thing is certain, being able to separate fact from fiction could play a major role in saving your life.
Here are some common myths surrounding breast cancer that have been circulating through emails, some sounding unbelievably realistic and around which many have sealed their fates. Dr Venslow Greaves, radiation oncologist at the Radiation Oncology Centre weighs in on what's true and what's fabricated. 1. The email: A girl whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer said her doctor told her that women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. She said the doctor said the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. The heat causes toxins from the plastic to leak into the water and they have found these toxins in breast tissue. The truth: No, not true. No study has shown that plastic bottles or drinking from a plastic bottle causes cancer of the breast.
2. The email: Antiperspirants are a leading cause of breast cancer. Antiperspirants prevent you from sweating out dangerous toxins and these become trapped in the body causing breast cancer.The truth: Not so. This is a theory that has not been subjected to randomised testing. It is a theory that has run its time.
3. The rumour: Wearing a bra to bed, or wearing bras with wires can cause breast cancer. The claim is that underwire bras can constrict the body's lymph node system, causing breast cancer.The truth: Not true. This is another theory put forward because people don't know the exact cause of breast cancer. It cannot really be proven. This has not been statistically proven.
4. The rumour: If someone in your family had breast cancer you will automatically have it too.The truth: Not necessarily. You will be more predisposed to developing the disease than people without the hereditary trait, especially if a close family member had it, say a mother, father, sister or brother. Certain genes are said to be linked to breast cancer. But it doesn't mean you MUST get it.
5. The rumour: If there is no history of breast cancer in the family you are not at risk of getting the disease.The truth: That is not true. Most breast cancers arrive in women without family members having the disease.
6. The myth: Breast cancer only occurs after menopause.The truth: Not true. As long as you reach menstrual age then you can develop breast cancer. I have seen a patient who was 16. Studies have shown that women who start the menstrual cycle at an early age and menopause at a late age are at a higher risk.
7. The myth: Mammograms prevent breast cancerThe truth: Mammograms do not prevent breast cancer, but diagnose it very early.
8. The rumour: Eating high-fat foods and dairy products boosts your risk of breast cancer.The truth: Yes. Studies have shown that your diet is very important. This was shown in respect to both breast and prostate cancer.
9. The story: If you have small breasts, you're much less likely to get breast cancerThe truth: Myth
10. The story: Getting a hard blow eg a kick or punch in the breast can cause breast cancer.The truth: Myth

MRI: Better Than Mammography for Diagnosing Breast Cancer?

In the fight against breast cancer, there's a new method of early detection that may be more accurate that the mammogram.
Mammography is currently the most common method used to detect breast cancer, but it is only effective in women older than age 40 and often is not an option for women with very dense breasts.
Throughout the month of October — National Breast Cancer Awareness month — the idea that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may some day replace the mammogram has been much talked about.
The method has been hailed by experts as more effective in detecting early breast cancer than mammography. The only problem? It's an expensive method — the test can run about $1,000 compared to $100 for a mammography — and some insurance companies won't cover the procedure.
Some recent studies, conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), found that MRI was not only more effective than mammography, but also better than ultrasound or other clinical breast exams in finding breast cancer in woman who had the screening.
A study conducted by the NCI between 1998 and 2002 found that MRIs were accurate in detecting breast cancer in 83 percent of the 54 women who participated in the study. The MRI returned a false positive in 17 percent of its diagnoses.

Still, more research is needed to support the fact that it is the better option in detecting breast cancer. Dr. Mitchell Schnall, professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania and the principal investigator for the NCI-funded group of researchers at the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) studying the benefits of MRI, believes mammograms should not be replaced by MRI.
“Mammography is the traditional way of finding breast cancer,” said Schnall. “In mammogram imaging, you can feel it.
“An MRI finds breast cancer by highlighting areas that have high blood flow which can signal possible cancer," continued Schnall. "It’s something that adds more contrast to images of blood flow."
Mammography is also better at detecting breast cancer calcifications, tiny calcium deposits within the breast tissue that appear as white spots on a mammogram, said Schnall. These calcifications are common, and most women have at least one, but tighter clusters of calcifications in irregular shapes may indicate breast cancer. Schnall said MRI may or may not pick up on calcifications.
Schnall added that women should consider having an MRI if they feel they are at risk of acquiring breast cancer. However, the extra cost of an MRI can be an impediment for some so they should only get one if they have had breast cancer in their family or feel they are in the high risk category.
“I don’t recommend doing all women, but I recommend women who are at (high) risk," he said. "Studies show that an MRI can pick up more cancer. Right now, it’s too costly to do study on the benefits on the general population, but it has proven good at detecting cancer.”
There can also be some hit or miss with mammography as well, according to one radiologist. “It is well known that mammography is not 100 percent sensitive in detecting all breast lesions,” said Dr. Michal Schneider-Kolsky, PhD, a senior lecturer at the School of Biomedical Sciences at Monash University in Victoria, British Columbia. “Miss rates vary on average by 10 to 20 percent depending on each clinic. Many clinics perform double reporting in order to reduce the miss rate. Ultrasound is the second line of investigation if there is a suspicion. Again, ultrasound can miss some lesions and patients may then be referred to MRI. At this stage, only a small number of patients will have an MRI since most clinics do not have the specific set up to perform breast MRI and because of the costs involved.”
Schnall and his colleagues will continue to focus on MRI and other screenings and their efficiency in detecting breast and other cancers — breast cancer being their largest area of research. So far, the group has 20 different trials, which are in various stages, and are tracking various aspects of imaging in detecting different cancer.
In addition to detecting cancer, they are also looking to MRI as an indicator in the effectiveness of cancer treatments. “We’re looking at MRI as a response marker in chemotherapy, so we can tell if chemotherapy is working early on, or if it is not working,” added Schnall.
Schneider-Kolsky and his colleagues are currently conducting a preliminary study of the usefulness of a targeted ultrasound after MRI in detecting breast lesions. He added that MRI can be the better option, but agrees that more research needs to be done to evaluate its effectiveness for screening the general population. Costs also need to be adjusted, so more women will not feel deterred by having an MRI if needed.
“MRI has, over the last 10 years or so, found a role in breast lesion evaluation," said Schneider-Kolsky, "specifically for preoperative planning for conserving surgery in infiltrating and in situ cancers, assessment of other lesions in the breast (same breast or other side), evaluation of lesion recurrence after lumpectomy or chemotherapy, screening in women at high risk for breast cancer, and also in the evaluation of suspicion of breast cancer when other imaging modalities (mammography/x-ray and ultrasound) were negative or equivocal.”

Studies: Breast cancer survivors reap the rewards of fitness

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association said moderate exercise could cut the risk of dying from breast cancer in half. This study showed that for women with breast cancer, moderate exercise - three to five hours of walking a week at a 3.2 to 4.7 km/h pace - could cut the risk of dying from the disease by 50%.
Two other studies are touting the benefits of physical activity for breast cancer survivors with the suggestion that exercise can improve the functioning of the immune system, improve energy levels, and make survivors feel better about their bodies.
In the first study, presented at a meeting of the US Department of Defense's Breast Cancer Research Program, researchers compared blood markers for immune system health in 28 breast cancer survivors who had been assigned to an exercise program to those of 21 survivors in a non-exercise group. The women were between the ages of 29 and 71 and had undergone chemotherapy, which can affect healthy cells in addition to the cancerous ones.
"We know that chemotherapy-induced decreases in T cells (which fight infection) can persist for many years, and data from the literature suggest that, in the period immediately following chemotherapy, the surviving T cells may be weakened as well," said lead author Dr. Andrea Mastro. "That's why we're pleased to find evidence that appropriate exercise can help a breast cancer survivor's immune system bounce back after therapy."
The exercise program, which lasted for six months, consisted of a warm-up routine, resistance training using flex bands, and an aerobic segment. For aerobic activity, participants could choose between walking, riding an exercise bike, and using a treadmill.
In addition to the boost in T cells, exercisers saw a decrease in blood concentrations of IFN-a, an inflammatory substance indicating trauma. The non-exercisers, meanwhile, saw an increase. As well, the exercisers showed improvements in such fitness markers as endurance, upper body strength, and maximal oxygen intake. They also scored higher on questionnaires measuring quality of life, social well-being and other psychological factors.
In the second study, 86 women who had completed treatment for early-stage breast cancer were assigned to either 12 weeks of exercise counseling delivered via telephone or to a control group, where they received a phone call but no counseling. After 12 weeks, the counseling group reported significantly more physical activity.
While there were no significant differences among the groups in body fat or body mass index, women in the "exercise counseling" group reported higher energy levels and a greater reduction in fatigue. They also seemed to have more improvements in mood and body esteem.

Breast cancer is Welsh women’s biggest fear

BREAST cancer is the “biggest fear for women in Wales”, according to a survey published today.
The Ipso Mori survey, carried out for Breast Cancer Campaign, found that more than two in five women in Wales (43%) of all ages
are most afraid of getting breast cancer, followed by Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (31%).
More than eight in 10 women interviewed for the survey in Wales said they recognised progress into research and treatment had been made over the past 10 years.
The campaign currently funds six breast cancer research projects in Wales, worth almost £400,000.
Most of those polled (88%) also knew that survival rates have improved compared with those for breast cancer 10 years ago.
More than half those questioned correctly identified earlier diagnosis, better surgical techniques (45%), improved methods of diagnosis (31%) and breast cancer screening (23%) as contributing to better survival rates.
In addition, continued advances in surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, as well as hormone and targeted treatments, have led to breast cancer mortality rates falling by 20% since 1989, a campaign spokeswoman said.
Pamela Goldberg, chief executive of Breast Cancer Campaign said, “Despite acknowledging that the outlook for breast cancer patients is far brighter than ever before, the fear of breast cancer is still significant among women in Wales.
“Longer survival also means patients are just as concerned about quality as well as quantity of life and the psychosocial aspects of breast cancer are becoming ever more important.
“Indeed, the 21st century woman with breast cancer is justified in feeling more positive about the future with the introduction of drugs such as herceptin and the aromatase inhibitors which are bringing real benefits for people with breast cancer.
“Genetic testing for those with a family history of breast cancer is also giving high risk women a choice about their future.
“More than 80% of people diagnosed with breast cancer today will survive for more than five years. This is the result of years of breast cancer research.
“However, there is still a long way to go.”
Breast Cancer is the most common cancer in the UK and accounts for nearly one in three of all cancers in women. Wales has the second highest cancer rates in the UK.