Breast Cancer Screening

By Bonnie Jenkins, Advanced Natural Medicine

There’s a war brewing, and it’s not in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s right here at home and what’s at stake is something deep in our bosom – literally. The battle is over how best to detect breast cancer.

A few weeks ago, I told you that mammograms were a more effective way to catch tumors at earlier stages of breast cancer development than any other screening test currently available. I based that statement on a study conducted last spring by an international team of researchers who found that mammograms can substantially lower the risk of dying from breast cancer.

But, according to new information that’s found its way to my desk, I was wrong. The truth is, women have several options to choose from – all potentially more accurate than mammography and definitely safer.

Weighing The Evidence

Two studies have turned the diagnostic community on its head – and those with a vested interest in mammography as the only tool for diagnosing breast cancer aren’t pleased. The reason they are in a tiff is because these two studies offer proof that, despite mainstream medicine’s mindset to the contrary, mammograms aren’t saving lives.

The first study compared 21,088 women who had mammograms to 21,095 women who did not. After nearly nine years, 63 women in the mammogram group and 66 women in the control group had died of breast cancer. The second tracked 44,925 women who had mammograms and 44,910 controls. Among this group, 120 of the screened women died of breast cancer, while 111 women in the control group died of the disease.

But, doctors still see mammography as the one – and only – option. And who could blame them. After all, conventional medicine has spent a king’s ransom on diagnostic equipment and health campaigns (or should I say public relations hype) centered around the idea that regular mammograms save lives. These two studies, however, shine an awful lot of light through the holes in this reasoning.

Fortunately for women, mammograms aren’t the only game in town when it comes to screening for breast cancer.

A Better Mousetrap

A few days ago, I received a very interesting e-mail from Dr. William Morgan, a reader who told me about one new way to diagnose early-stage breast cancer. Here’s what Dr. Morgan had to say:

“I have followed the miserable history of mammography and realize that the Scandinavian study proves statistically that this practice does not reduce breast cancer mortality rates, and I agree with many alternative medical sources who believe that mammography can actually be dangerous to women.

I wanted to let you know that there is an exciting breast cancer screening test which is light years ahead of anything else available because it can actually, in a statistically significant number of cases, be predictive as well as diagnostic. The principle, as I understand it, is this: the test developers have isolated a protein (mammastatin) which is apparently produced by the normal body to protect the breast tissue (it is tissue specific) from cancer. A simple blood test measuring the amount of the protein a woman has reveals that she either is at risk for (or perhaps has already contracted) breast cancer or that she is low risk and almost certainly does not have breast cancer. The radically superior nature of this test is that it measures risk ahead of time, as well as possibly suggesting the actual presence or absence of the disease. The test has not yet received widespread publicity, but it is available directly from the developers or through ARUP Laboratories in Salt Lake City. I believe that this test represents a major breakthrough in the early diagnosis and risk assessment for breast cancer. See what you think.”

So I decided to investigate and found that Dr. Morgan was absolutely right. And, although the MSA test is only about 85 percent accurate, it can detect your risk of developing breast cancer long before a tumor forms – giving women a fighting chance to make nutritional and lifestyle changes before the cancer takes hold.

To find out more about this new test, you can visit their website at www.bio-diagnostics.com. There you’ll not only find tons of information, you can also get information on how your doctor can order an MSA test.

While I was researching the MSA test, I also came across another blood test called the anti-malignan antibody in serum test (AMAS) that has an even better track record. This simple test detects the presence (or lack of) antibodies that are launched when the body produces a peptide called malignin. Breast cancer (along with many other types of cancer) triggers the production of malignin. When the body finds this peptide, it launches an immune response of anti-malignan antibody. AMAS can detect these antibodies.

The only problem is that, if the AMAS test comes back positive, it can’t pinpoint the exact location of the cancer, so follow-up tests are needed. But the test is amazingly accurate. Clinical studies have shown that AMAS is up to 95 percent accurate on the first reading, and up to 99 percent accurate after two readings.

The AMAS test has been available for more than 10 years. But your doctor may not have heard of it. If you’d like to get an AMAS test, ask your doctor to check out their web site at www.amascancertest.com.

Future Trends

There’s some even better news on the horizon. Scientists have found that two existing technologies can look inside the breast and get a much more accurate picture of what’s going on than they can with a traditional mammogram. The first is a non-invasive laser procedure called computed tomography laser mammography (CTLM) breast imaging system. Instead of radiation, CTLM uses laser light to give the diagnostic team a full-color 3-d image.

The exam takes about 15 minutes and there’s no compression involved. Here’s how it works: Instead of standing and having your breasts mashed and mangled between two pieces of heavy metal, you lie face down and suspends one breast through a hole in the table. Inside the console, a low-wavelength laser sweeps around the entire breast. Then the system calculates how the light is absorbed and uses the information to create an image.

The second technology, known as Computerized Thermal Imaging (CTI), uses thermal heat to capture an image. The procedure is similar to CTLA, but instead of lasers, CTI uses mirrors and a sensitive thermal camera to capture the heat emitted by the breast. Cool air is circulated around the breast, lowering the local body temperature and causing blood vessels to constrict. Malignant tissue has increased blood flow, so it constricts less than normal. That means the cancerous tissue stays "hot" and emits a strong thermal signature.

But the best news about both of these technologies is that the incidence of false positives is much lower than that of mammography – which means fewer biopsies. Millions of dollars are spent every year on biopsies, many of which find nothing wrong. Meanwhile, this invasive procedure causes women untold worry.

Both the CTLM and the CTI have another thing going for them – they are absolutely painless. So, it seems that this emerging technology offers the potential of a more accurate screening without the discomfort common to mammography. And that’s good news for women. But if you’re wondering where you can sign up for this cutting-edge technology, the answer is that you can’t – at least not yet. CTLM and CTI are both in the midst of the FDA's multi-step approval process. So while it's not yet available to the public, it should be soon. I'll keep an eye out and let you know as soon as the FDA gives these procedures the green light.

One Last Thing ...

For years, researchers have speculated that the reason Japanese women suffer from much fewer cases of breast cancer is because their diets are so high in isoflavone-rich soy. But now, a new study in the International Journal of Cancer shows that soy may not be the only dietary factor protecting Asian women.

In the study, researchers from the University of Southern California examined the consumption of green tea among 501 Asian-American women with breast cancer and 594 matched controls. What they found was that those who drank green tea on a regular basis had a significantly lower risk of breast cancer. The USC team also found that both green tea and soy intake were independently protective. In other words, the beneficial effect of green tea was seen among the women who didn’t eat much soy and the beneficial effect of soy was seen among women who rarely or never drank green tea. Just imagine the protection if you paired tea with tofu!

This Just In ...

Now here’s research I can really sink my teeth into! That’s what I thought when I came across two small studies on the health benefits of dark chocolate. It seems that dark chocolate raises antioxidant levels because it contains polyphenols – and it could help protect against heart disease. At least that’s what the study researchers say.

Both the studies found a significant spike in antioxidant levels after the test subjects ate the dark chocolate. But when the participants ate milk chocolate or drank milk with their dark chocolate, the benefits quickly disappeared. It seems that milk proteins bind with the antioxidants and prevent their absorption. Which is too bad, since I love milk chocolate.

But my chocoholic dreams were really dashed when I remembered all of the other unhealthy components in my favorite candy bar – saturated fat, sugar and food additives. So, even though these two studies managed to grab headlines as a breakthrough in research, candy still isn’t a health food.

***

References:

Miller KA. “New Light on Breast Cancer.” Scientific American. 5 August 2002.

Olson O, et al. “Cochran review on screening for breast cancer with mammography.” Lancet. 2001; 358:1340-1342.

Serafini M, et al. “Plasma antioxidants from chocolate.” Nature. 2003;424:1013.

Wu A, et al. “Green tea and risk of breast cancer in Asian Americans.” International Journal of Cancer. 2003;106:574-579.