Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / March 2007
Radiation to Left Breast? Take Care of Your Heart
|
|
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
|
|
|