 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / September 2007New link between estrogen and breast cancer
The female sex hormone estrogen turns on a gene linked to breast cancer, according to new research by Brisbane scientists http://theanalystmagazine.com/pr/23667.htm Shows that one hand has no idea what the other is doing in breast cancer research! Why do they think so many of us are taking Arimidex? Maybe our physicians are not passing on the reports of all their patients who have estogen positive cancer. This report is YEARS too late! I bet gyns are still giving estrogen to patients and probably missed the seminar which should have been given to them years ago about the dangers of estrogen on certain women. Ok, so I know not all women are estrogen positive and can end up with other types of breast cancer but since there ARE women who can be ER+ why are they suddenly now beginning to realize this? They need to come up with a test for women to find out if they can be ER+ and if so, do not give them years of estogen pills like I was given and probably so many others. Bea 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" > Shows that one hand has no idea what the other is doing in breast cancer > research! Why do they think so many of us are taking Arimidex? Maybe [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bea It has indeed long been known that breast cancer risk is linked to estrogen levels (eg HRT, obesity and even shift work). This research is into the biological mechanism by which this happens. It is a step forward in understanding one of the causes of breast cancer, but just one of many steps needed before any new tests could be introduced to measure that risk, or drugs to lower it. Estrogen responsive cancers are entirely another kettle of fish. There are not estrogen-positive *women*, there are estrogen-positive cancers. These are cancers whose genetic material has mutated to produce multiple copies of the estrogen receptor. As normal breast cells multiply in response to estrogen, ones that over-express the receptor multiply more rapidly in response to estrogen. Similarly receptors to other growth factors (eg HER2) can be over-expressed instead or as well to promote rapid growth. There is as far as I know no connection between *estrogen-responsive* cancers and *estrogen-induced* cancers. But then no-one yet knows what induced any individual breast cancer, they only know about general risk factors across a population. Tim Jackson >There is as far as I know no connection > between *estrogen-responsive* cancers and > *estrogen-induced* cancers. But then no-one > yet knows what induced any individual breast > cancer, they only know about general risk > factors across a population. >Tim Jackson Thank you Tim. I have "no" idea what you just said (posted) but I am sure you are probably right about whatever you are talking about. Too bad you can't join some cancer research group and help them understand what they are doing. As far as I am concerned, they aren't doing it fast enough and I still think I am right about hormones being dangerous for "certain" women. Bea 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" > >There is as far as I know no connection >> between *estrogen-responsive* cancers and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bea CERTAIN hormones ... Mary >> There is as far as I know no connection >> between *estrogen-responsive* cancers and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > enough and I still think I am right about hormones being dangerous for > "certain" women. OK, lets try again with shorter words. Read it slowly. Skip the brackets the first time through. There are two separate and unrelated issues. 1) Yes, some hormones (specifically estrogen) can cause (or contribute to the cause of) breast cancer. These guys are researching into how that happens. 2) No, estrogen does not (specifically) cause ER+ cancers. Estrogen makes existing ER+ cancers grow faster. ER+ has nothing to do with this article. You can't test women who don't have cancer for being ER+, it is a property of the cancer, not of the woman. (No-one has shown that women with high estrogen are at more risk of their cancer being ER+.) The researchers are not announcing either of the links between estrogen and cancer. They are announcing the discovery of a gene involved in the way estrogen causes cancer. The ultimate result of this research might be a test which would allow women who were at high risk of a cancer being caused by estrogen to be treated (eg with Tamoxifen) *before* they got cancer. It might also lead to the invention of a new drug to lower their risk without the side effects of Arimidex or Tamoxifen. I am sure the researchers perfectly well understand what they are doing and why. However I am not sure that the reporter does. Tim >OK, lets try again with shorter words. Read it > slowly. Skip the brackets the first time through. Thank you so much, Tim. The "shorter" words did help and so did getting my glasses. I like to drink while reading. I think I understand what the other post was about now. I do love your "Education for the disfunctional " explanations. <g Have a nice day. Bea 'NO FORWARDS OR SPAM, PLEASE" > ....No, estrogen does not (specifically) cause ER+ cancers. Estrogen > makes existing ER+ cancers grow faster. ER+ has nothing to do with this > article..... --------------- Wow, this is news to me. I always assumed that if estrogen caused your cancer, it would be an ER+ cancer. This is relevant to me because I was using an estrogen cream (to alleviate "dryness") at the time I got BC. I have always wondered whether the cream triggered the cancer, and I have always figured that it *couldn't* have, because my cancer was strongly HER2+ and only *weakly* ER+. So now you're saying the *kind* of cancer has nothing to do with whether estrogen caused it? IOW, that that accursed cream probably *did* cause my cancer? Eva >> ....No, estrogen does not (specifically) cause ER+ cancers. Estrogen >> makes existing ER+ cancers grow faster. ER+ has nothing to do with this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Eva That's what I am saying, yes. As I say, I am not aware of any connection, or of any mechanism for a connection. Mutation and multiplication are very different activities. Of course the fact that I don't know doesn't mean it isn't there, but I think such a link would have shown up if it were significant. BUT we need to be a bit careful about ascribing absolute *cause*. This is a 'slot-machine' disease, and something that gave you a duck on the right hand reel didn't of itself cause you to hit the jackpot. Lets just say that the cream may have contributed, and that we don't know by how much. Tim >>> ....No, estrogen does not (specifically) cause ER+ cancers. Estrogen >>> makes existing ER+ cancers grow faster. ER+ has nothing to do with this >>> article..... >> --------------- >> Wow, this is news to me. I always assumed that if estrogen caused your >> cancer, it would be an ER+ cancer. I have just read a new study on cancer rates 1980-2006 which shows that ER+ rates have risen somewhat erratically over that time, but ER- rates have fallen more steadily. Both rates showed a drop after the HRT problem was discovered. The study looked at possible relations between to the changes in HRT over the period, but did not manage to draw any conclusion on that. They described the changes in ER- rates as "enigmatic". The main increase (in ER+) was attributed to improvements screening and detection, which tended to preferentially detect more ER+ cancers, to detect them earlier, and to "overdetect", i.e. to detect slow-growing cancers in older women, that would never have become symptomatic. In summary, with reference to this thread, the study did not show any obvious connection between HRT and ER status. Tim Jackson Reference: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(15):1152-1161 www.medscape.com/viewarticle/562043?src=mp (needs free subscription) "Eva" wrote : >> ....No, estrogen does not (specifically) cause ER+ cancers. Estrogen >> makes existing ER+ cancers grow faster. ER+ has nothing to do with this [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > IOW, that that accursed cream probably *did* cause my cancer? Eva, Except for a extremely brief try at birth control pills (like for 2 months over 30 years ago), I have never taken any form of estrogen (to my knowledge). I went through menopause without any hormone therapy since I believed the medical literature of the time (5-10 years ago) that women with a history of cysts, tumors (I'd had 2 benign) and fibrocystic breast disease (moi) were at greater risk of having BC. Still her I am having BC big time and ER+ at that. Perhaps I'm an anomaly? I think not. I just think there's not enough known about BC to predict such cause/effect. Marsha (who is not a doctor and has never played one on TV) >> Shows that one hand has no idea what the other is doing in breast cancer >> research! Why do they think so many of us are taking Arimidex? Maybe [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Tim Jackson Thanks, Tim. Mary I had an IUD inserted (for 5 years) which contained progesterone to control my heavy, irregular cycles and large 5cm fibroid! I rejected having a hysterectomy and often wondered whether this IUD contributed to my breast cancer. I often questioned this in my mind and with my doctor. I also took the pill for many years as well. Makes you wonder with the hormones and with my genes! Now on Arimidex - wish I could get away from hormone tablets!! Mary E. >>> Shows that one hand has no idea what the other is doing in breast cancer >>> research! Why do they think so many of us are taking Arimidex? Maybe [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Mary |
Reply to this Message |
 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.