Topic: Breaking Research News from sources other than breastcancer.org

Nov 20, 2017 06:45PM Lumpie wrote:

GoldenGirls posted this link elsewhere. So fascinating, I have to re-post:

Article online (Baltimore Sun): http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-cancer-trigger-20170625-story.html

Johns Hopkins researchers say they've unlocked key to cancer metastasis and how to slow it

Many researchers believe metastasis happens after the primary tumor reaches a certain size, but Jayatilaka found it was the tumor's density that determined when it would metastasize. The study was published online May 26 (2017) in the journal Nature Communications.

Nov 30, 2017 04:04PM Lumpie wrote:

Wonder if anyone else is reading these? Here's another that I found interesting to me:

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20171121/e28098C...

Dec 7, 2017 08:34AM Hopeful82014 wrote:

Hi, Lumpie. Yes - I'm following this thread with interest. I try to stay up on things and yet you're coming up with studies that rarely overlap with what I've already found, so thank you for a valuable contribution.

Dec 13, 2017 12:38PM Lumpie wrote:

New research that looks at the long-term effects of chemotherapy on breast cancer survivors finds it weakens parts of the immune system for at least 9 months after treatment.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/305566.p...

Dec 14, 2017 02:51AM claireinaz wrote:

RE: cancer and Vit C. Would like to know how they conducted the research? Was a supplement taken by mouth, or was it all in-lab using petrie dishes, etc. instead?

Dec 14, 2017 08:23AM Hopeful82014 wrote:

This study of CTCs is intriguing:

http://www.cancernetwork.com/sabcs/ctcs-can-predict-hr-positive-breast-cancer-recurrence/?GUID=D53A0013-69D7-4B59-83CC-F2AF978428FB&XGUID=&rememberme=1&ts=14122017

Dec 14, 2017 10:51AM Hopeful82014 wrote:

I agree, MTwoman. It seems at times as though there's a lot of 'churn,' a lot that's kind of sort of in the pipeline but rarely coming into play as far as treatment, risk prediction/reduction, etc. :(

Dec 15, 2017 04:52AM MTwoman wrote:

Thanks Lumpie, really smart people doing exciting research. I do hope that it moves into the stage with actual people at some point!

Dec 17, 2017 04:52PM MTwoman wrote:

that IS more promising. The largest study so far has only had 547 women, so it does need some more work. "Results suggest they someday may help reveal" is a nice way of impressing it's potential. So glad that so much research continues to show promise

Dec 22, 2017 08:39AM marijen wrote:

Hopeful, this is helpful for me. I had three years of reclast infusion, no sides, and upset that I didn’t get one this year. If only my doctor had explained. Thank you

“Similarly, another study looked at the duration of bisphosphonates not just as bone preservation agents but also as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The study showed that the duration of 2 years was just as good as 5 years. So again, that would be an important observation that should make its way to the clinic and reduce the side effects of these agents while achieving the same benefit.“.

Dec 29, 2017 12:28PM Lumpie wrote:

Inherently controversial - but interesting to contemplate from a public health perspective....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/health/breast-cancer...

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20171220/Doing-m...

Dec 29, 2017 09:19PM - edited Dec 29, 2017 09:30PM by Lumpie

MTwoman: I agree - on both counts. Plenty of sensationalizing in the press ... whether it's snow storms or mammograms! I do kind of struggle with the other ... I "get it" that, from a public health perspective, not all screening is "productive." (I also get it that if cancer is not found in time to be treated, "you're the one who's dead" as a friend so indelicately put it.) I think what irks me is that "they" too often think that the public can't or won't think through factual information (if) clearly presented and make an informed decision about what screening to pursue. I appreciate that the matter is being studied and analyzed. I appreciate the benefit of additional data. Although it is not advantageous, I even appreciate knowing that, as a young-ish woman with dense breasts, mammograms are/were not a very effective screening tool for me. (Too bad my doctors never told me this!) But I also agree that it should be my choice, in consultation with my doctor, whether I pursue this screening. And ... even though a mammogram did not find my cancer.... I think I would choose to be screened. In my experience, I know my body. It's not foolproof, but if I have a sense that screening is needed, I probably should not ignore it. I note who is being targeted for extra screening services: "executive health" program participants. Perhaps these are fools being parted from their money. Perhaps they are getting all the 'health' money can buy. Possibly both. Perhaps what should be studied is the process of making the choice. I think they would find that some people are risk averse. Others seem to be positively health averse. And then, I guess, there is everybody else.

Jan 4, 2018 12:00PM wintersocks wrote:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sausages-and-bacon-increase-breast-cancer-risk-in-older-women-study-reveals-a3730691.html

Jan 8, 2018 05:00AM muska wrote:

Heard on the news today about promising results from first human trials of personalized cancer vaccines. Here's the link to a short overview: Personalized Cancer Vaccines

Jan 25, 2018 07:07AM marijen wrote:

Hospitals Create Drug Company to Fight High Drug Prices

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/hospitals-c...