Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Radiation to Left Breast? Take Care of Your Heart

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ilena Rose - 14 Mar 2007 16:55 GMT
Radiation to Left Breast? Take Care of Your Heart
More Coronary Artery Disease Seen With Radiation to Left Breast
September 29, 2006 04:46:11 PM PST

http://health.yahoo.com/news/167231

Yahoo! Health: Breast Cancer News

Summary: Radiation for breast cancer may affect the heart when
treatment is given to the left breast, doctors from the University of
Pennsylvania report. Writing in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, they
say women who have radiation to the left breast are more likely to
develop coronary artery disease than those who get radiotherapy in the
right breast. Consequently, women who require left-breast radiation
should be especially vigilant about reducing their other risks for
heart disease, the researchers say.

Why it's important: The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly
213,000 women will develop breast cancer in 2006. Many of these women
will be diagnosed at an early stage and many will receive a surgical
treatment called lumpectomy, which leaves most of the breast intact.
Breast-conserving surgeries of this type must be followed by radiation
to the remaining breast tissue to reduce the chances of the cancer
coming back. Radiation treatment after breast surgery also has been
shown to help women live longer. But because the heart is on the left
side of the chest, it is vulnerable to damage when radiotherapy is
given to the left breast.

What's already known: In the past, radiation to the left breast was
often very damaging to the heart. Modern techniques have cut down the
amount of radiation that hits the heart, and recent studies have shown
that left-breast radiation can be done without damaging the heart. But
radiation can also damage the arteries that nourish the heart (the
coronary arteries) and this is thought to play a part in the
development of coronary artery disease.
  BCAM RESOURCES:

Medicines to Reduce Breast Cancer Risk
Sister Study Recruits Thousands, Probes Causes of Breast Cancer
Mammograms and Other Breast Imaging Procedures
Find Wigs, Prostheses, and Other Products


How this study was done: The University of Pennsylvania researchers
wondered if women who had radiation for left breast cancer were more
likely to develop coronary artery disease. To answer this question,
they reviewed the records of 961 women who had breast-conserving
surgery and radiation therapy between 1977 and 1994. A roughly equal
number of them had left breast cancer (484) versus right breast cancer
(477). Following treatment, these women were monitored for an average
of 12 years for any signs of cardiac problems. The Penn researchers
analyzed the follow-up information to see if there was any difference
in how these two groups fared.

What was found: The researchers found that the women treated for
cancer of the left breast had higher rates of chest pain, heart
attacks and evidence of coronary artery disease. After 20 years, about
25% of women treated for left breast cancer had developed coronary
artery disease compared with only 10% of women treated for cancer of
the right breast. The good news was that radiation to the left breast
did not cause these women to die of heart disease more often than
women with right-breast cancer. The risk of coronary artery disease
was highest in women with high blood pressure.

There were some questions the study could not answer, though. For
instance, none of the women studied had heart disease before their
cancer treatment, so the researchers can't say how radiation to the
left breast might affect women with existing heart problems. And few
of the women in this study received doxorubicin, a type of
chemotherapy that is known to damage the heart. This treatment is more
widely used today than it was during the study period. Further
research is needed to find out if radiation to the left breast worsens
any damage done by this form of chemotherapy.

The bottom line: Although reducing the risk of heart disease is
important for everyone, women who have had radiation therapy to the
left breast need to be especially cautious. The authors urge these
women to try to reduce their risk factors for coronary artery disease.
Abram Recht, MD, a radiation therapy specialist from Harvard Medical
School, drives this point home in an accompanying editorial: "I
strongly urge patients to vigorously treat their hypertension and
[high cholesterol] and for God's sake, stop smoking!"

Citation: "Late Cardiac Mortality and Morbidity in Early-Stage Breast
Cancer Patients After Breast-Conservation Treatment." Published in the
Sep. 1, 2006, Journal of Clinical Oncology (Vol.24, No. 25:
4100-4106). First author: Eleanor E. R. Harris, MD, Moffitt Cancer
Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Fla.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm
A.P. Thorsen - 15 Mar 2007 04:02 GMT
> Yahoo! Health: Breast Cancer News
>
> Summary:
....
>  women who have radiation to the left breast are more likely to
> develop coronary artery disease than those who get radiotherapy in the
> right breast. Consequently, women who require left-breast radiation
> should be especially vigilant about reducing their other risks for
> heart disease, the researchers say.

Cr*p.  I just got the test results saying my cholesterol is up, and my
triglicerides have gone through the roof over the last 3 years.  I knew I
needed to fix this, but this news sure increases the urgency level.
(Five-field radiation on the left side after mastectomy 6.5 years ago.)

Thanks, Ilena.  (Followups trimmed to ASCB).

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Mari@net.ac - 15 Mar 2007 13:24 GMT
>Cr*p.  I just got the test results saying my cholesterol is up,

Me too.  My doctor is making me take Lipitor for five months.  This is
day 21 and I haven't had any of the side effects mentioned in the
handout.  I have a blood test scheduled for the end of April.

Marilyn
Flatus Ohlfahrt - 15 Mar 2007 13:43 GMT
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:24:43 GMT,  wrote in
news:36eiv21fa7clid47rk10ll9g1lj8t2ka3k@4ax.com:

>>Cr*p.  I just got the test results saying my cholesterol is
>>up,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> effects mentioned in the handout.  I have a blood test
> scheduled for the end of April.

My wife had her surgery, followed by radiation, in '99. Last
summer she had an angiogram because of progressively more
difficulty/pain under moderate exertion. The doc who did that
procedure said it was the worst that he had seen all year.

She was kept in the heart hospital and had bypass surgery the
next morning. That was on August 1st.

It was touch-and-go for the first week, but, after her discharge
on day 10, she has had a remarkable recovery.

We went through three cardiologists before we finally found one
we trusted and who we believe to be competent. He has monitored
her blood work very closely and tweaked her meds on a monthly
basis until he had the triglycerides, blood sugar, etc., where
they needed to be.

She goes back to see him in six months. And, after that, our GP
will be in charge of monitoring things.

Bottom line: The interaction between the meds and the underlying
condition being treated is quite complex. I think it needs the
active intervention by a cardiologist, not just the family doc.

Flatus
A.P. Thorsen - 16 Mar 2007 00:39 GMT
>>Cr*p.  I just got the test results saying my cholesterol is up,
>
> Me too.  My doctor is making me take Lipitor for five months.  This is
> day 21 and I haven't had any of the side effects mentioned in the
> handout.  I have a blood test scheduled for the end of April.

I really, really don't want to take more drugs if I can avoid it.  My
Cholesterol is high, but not off the charts (235), but my triglycerides are
a whopping 361.   The latter have essentially tripled in the last 3-4 years,
without -- so far as I can see -- any significant change in my diet,
exercise, etc.   And I gather that high triglycerides are a significant risk
factor for coronary disease, especially in women.

I'd already figured that I'd finally have to face up to the weight reduction
question, but, before reading Ilena's post, had hoped that maybe I could
convince my doc not to start with drugs, if I can lose some weight. (I
already get reasonable amounts of exercise & don't eat a lot of saturated
fats).

After reading Ilena's post, I'm thinking I may have to give the drugs angle
more thought, if the doc proposes it.   Blast.  I tend to believe that the
more drugs one takes, the thinner ice one's on, in terms of the
unknowability of drug interactions.  I've already got the Arimidex &
synthetic thyroid hormone.  Dang.

I was headed back to primary care next week over this issue, even before
reading Ilena's post, so knowing about this is timely.

But this isn't alt.support.hyperlipidemia, is it?  Sorry . . . .

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Mari@net.ac - 16 Mar 2007 01:49 GMT
>>>Cr*p.  I just got the test results saying my cholesterol is up,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>already get reasonable amounts of exercise & don't eat a lot of saturated
>fats).

I gained a lot of weight during and after cancer. I felt entitled to eat
whatever I wanted because I was "sick".   I started eating sugar for the
first time in 10 years.  So I was combining my high fat/protein/salad
diet with ice cream, cookies and candy, which didn't work out too well
for me. <g>

I started going back to the high protein/salad thing around mid-January,
and have lost 10 pounds.  The sidewalks are still covered with ice and
snow but that should be gone in a couple of weeks (more snow tomorrow)
and then I'm going to walk every day. I hate going to the gym to use a
treadmill when I'm in a city with beautiful walking trails everywhere.

My brother had high chloresteral as well and got it back to normal in a
year with diet and exercise, very encouraging.

Good luck to us both.

Marilyn
A.P. Thorsen - 17 Mar 2007 15:27 GMT
<>
> I gained a lot of weight during and after cancer. I felt entitled to eat
> whatever I wanted because I was "sick".   I started eating sugar for the
> first time in 10 years.  So I was combining my high fat/protein/salad
> diet with ice cream, cookies and candy, which didn't work out too well
> for me. <g>

I can understand that impulse!  I didn't gain after cancer, but did ramp up
my eating along with my exercise, so stayed about the same rather than
losing weight.  Have gained almost 10lb just in the last couple months,
though.   Was already overweight, so can't afford that . . . .

> I started going back to the high protein/salad thing around mid-January,
> and have lost 10 pounds.

Good for you!  I hope I have similarly good results.

> My brother had high chloresteral as well and got it back to normal in a
> year with diet and exercise, very encouraging.

Indeed it is - thanks for sharing.

> Good luck to us both.

Likewise!

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Mizz Marcia Ryder - 16 Mar 2007 03:41 GMT
>"A.P. Thorsen"  wrote :
>
>> <Mari@net.ac> wrote :

>>>"A.P. Thorsen" wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> day 21 and I haven't had any of the side effects mentioned in the
>> handout.  I have a blood test scheduled for the end of April.

I was put on Vytorin about 2 years ago (1 yr before BC/ACC dx).
At that time my PCP said possibly if I lost about 20 lbs. I might not
need the meds.

> I really, really don't want to take more drugs if I can avoid it.  My
> Cholesterol is high, but not off the charts (235), but my triglycerides are a
> whopping 361.   The latter have essentially tripled in the last 3-4 years,
> without -- so far as I can see -- any significant change in my diet, exercise,
> etc.   And I gather that high triglycerides are a significant risk factor for
> coronary disease, especially in women.
I agree on the "Less is Better" when it comes to drugs.

> I'd already figured that I'd finally have to face up to the weight reduction
> question, but, before reading Ilena's post, had hoped that maybe I could
> convince my doc not to start with drugs, if I can lose some weight. (I already
> get reasonable amounts of exercise & don't eat a lot of saturated fats).
Having lost double the prerequisite weight (wa-a-ay to much the hard way),
I'm headed back for blood work tmw.

> After reading Ilena's post, I'm thinking I may have to give the drugs angle more
> thought, if the doc proposes it.   Blast.  I tend to believe that the more drugs
> one takes, the thinner ice one's on, in terms of the unknowability of drug
> interactions.  I've already got the Arimidex & synthetic thyroid hormone.  Dang.

Ann, I think you're my Northern Twin.  Those are the only things I'm
on as well!  Except I wouldn't go near a body of water with a paddle.
I much prefer being dragged by a boat on my Alfred Mendosa slalom
(hah, haven't done that in a few decades).

> I was headed back to primary care next week over this issue, even before reading
> Ilena's post, so knowing about this is timely.
>
> But this isn't alt.support.hyperlipidemia, is it?  Sorry . . . .
It's still related to all the garbage we've been through!
A.P. Thorsen - 17 Mar 2007 15:36 GMT
Hi, Marcia,

Comments interspersed later, below . . .

>>"A.P. Thorsen"  wrote :
>>><Mari@net.ac> wrote :
>>>>"A.P. Thorsen" wrote:

>>>>Cr*p.  I just got the test results saying my cholesterol is up,
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> At that time my PCP said possibly if I lost about 20 lbs. I might not
> need the meds.

I'm still hoping to avoid the drug.  But I may want to ask you about side
effects (off group?) if I end up there.

>> I'd already figured that I'd finally have to face up to the weight
>> reduction question, but, before reading Ilena's post, had hoped that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Having lost double the prerequisite weight (wa-a-ay to much the hard way),
> I'm headed back for blood work tmw.

Good on you, lady!   (though I'm sorry to hear the "hard way" part!)  I'd be
interested to know how the bloodwork comes out.

>> After reading Ilena's post, I'm thinking I may have to give the drugs
>> angle more thought, if the doc proposes it.   Blast.  I tend to believe
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I much prefer being dragged by a boat on my Alfred Mendosa slalom
> (hah, haven't done that in a few decades).

Northern Twin?   Ooooo, poor you <g>!

So, you're a water skiier?  One of my rowing team has that history, too, but
more the two-ski thing, with stunts & stuff (she was tiny when young, so was
often the top of pyramids).

I don't like anything that involves being *wet*.  *On* water good (canoe,
kayak, row),  *in* water bad (swim, ski).

Thanks for the encouraging words about the do-ability of weight loss (not
easy, but do-able, right?)

Trying to keep this slightly on-topic for the group:  I understand that
weight loss reduces BC & recurrence risk, too, not to mention lymphedema
risk, so that's a plus.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email
Bea Oo - 15 Mar 2007 15:24 GMT
>Radiation to Left Breast? Take Care of Your
> Heart More Coronary Artery Disease Seen
> With Radiation to Left Breast September 29,
> 2006 04:46:11 PM

Oh great!  More good news!  Thank you Illena for sharing but now I have
questions.

Does anyone here know if they would have done radiation to my left
breast if the  lump was in the right?  I had a lumpectomy, Chemo and
Radiation on the Right but I don't remember if they radiated the left
for "just in case".  Would they normally?

I was given something called Adriamycin (some "A" named chemical) for
Chemo with others and I had read it could cause heart damage.  I went to
see my local cardiologist to have my heart checked and he said my heart
was fine.  It seems my chest pains, in his opinion, was from anxiety or
heartburn.  

Now I am living in a new state and my records from about 3 years ago are
not available.  So.....I don't know if anything was done to the left
breast.  Maybe they do both breasts just to be cautious and maybe they
only give you what you have to have in the affected one.  I don't
remember, do any of you??

I don't need anything else to be "anxious" about.  Sure don't want to
trigger off chest pains after reading your post, Ilena.  Thanks again
for sharing.   This group isn't just about support, it's about getting
educated on bc whether we want to or not.

Bea

'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE"
Tim Jackson - 15 Mar 2007 16:04 GMT
> Does anyone here know if they would have done radiation to my left
> breast if the  lump was in the right?  I had a lumpectomy, Chemo and
> Radiation on the Right but I don't remember if they radiated the left
> for "just in case".  Would they normally?

No, radiation is normally only done to the area of surgery.  Radiating
healthy tissue "just in case" wouldn't work.

> I was given something called Adriamycin (some "A" named chemical) for
> Chemo with others and I had read it could cause heart damage.  I went to
> see my local cardiologist to have my heart checked and he said my heart
> was fine.  It seems my chest pains, in his opinion, was from anxiety or
> heartburn.  

Most chemo's have some effect on the heart, but in a healthy person it
is not anything to worry about.  It is really only of concern if you
already have a heart problem.  And that sort of damage is more likely to
manifest as loss of energy or breathlessness, not chest pain.

There are lots of common things can cause chest pain especially after
surgery, it can even be radiation related without involving the heart,
such as damage to the skin and muscles.  But it is more likely to be
surgery related or anxiety related.  For example it can be caused by
scar tissue or by nerve damage regrowing.

Tim Jackson
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.