Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Ask Well: Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer

Tali Shalev, 40, getting a CT scan at a hospital near Tel Aviv last month. Ms. Shalev, whose mother developed breast cancer at 50, tested positive for a genetic mutation. During a prophylactic double mastectomy, a cancerous lesion was found, and Ms. Shalev learned that the disease had spread to her bones.Rina Castelnuovo for The New York TimesTali Shalev, 40, getting a CT scan at a hospital near Tel Aviv last month. Ms. Shalev, whose mother developed breast cancer at 50, tested positive for a genetic mutation. During a prophylactic double mastectomy, a cancerous lesion was found, and Ms. Shalev learned that the disease had spread to her bones.
Some Israeli doctors want Israel to conduct a national screening campaign to test all Jewish Israeli women of Ashkenazi descent for harmful genetic mutations that heighten the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The debate is detailed in the article, “In Israel, a Push to Screen for Cancer Gene Leaves Many Conflicted.”
Most American Jews are Ashkenazi, meaning their families originated in Eastern and Central Europe and they may be wondering if they should seek genetic testing.
Here are answers to some questions about genetic testing for the three common harmful mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
Q.
I’m an Ashkenazi Jewish woman. Should I be tested for the mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes?
A.
If you have been diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer or have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, you may want to be tested for one of the mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that are common among Ashkenazi Jews. Knowing your carrier status may help you evaluate your future risk and can be useful information for other family members. If you have cancer, the information can help shape treatment and alert you to other risks (such as a heightened risk for ovarian cancer if you have breast cancer).
While some Israeli doctors want to expand testing and make it routine, general practice in the United States has not encouraged genetic testing for individuals who are cancer-free and don’t have a family history.
But for Ashkenazi Jews, the bar for genetic testing is not as high as for the general population, said Dr. Susan M. Domchek, executive director of the Basser Research Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center.
“If you’re Jewish, we have a low threshold for testing,” Dr. Domchek said. “If you have an aunt who had breast cancer at 51 and you want testing, that’s O.K.”
Keep in mind that the odds of testing positive are fairly low — only one in 40 Ashkenazi Jews, or 2.5 percent, carry the mutation. That is higher than the rate in the general population, in which fewer than 1 percent carry these mutations, but it means you have a 97.5 percent chance of testing negative.
Remember that a family history includes relatives on both sides of the family, including your father’s side.
“People ignore the father’s side of the family, and they shouldn’t,” said Dr. Domchek. “Women will come to us and say there’s no family history, but actually the dad was Ashkenazi Jewish and the dad’s mother had breast cancer at 40 – that’s a significant family history.”
Q.
What if I don’t know much about my family history?
A.
Many Ashkenazi Jews have limited information about their family because they lost relatives in the Holocaust. Others come from small families that don’t provide a lot of clues, and families everywhere become estranged and keep secrets. One reason Israeli doctors want to do broad-based screening of Ashkenazi Jewish women is so that individuals are not dependent on family members for information.

Nevertheless, Dr. Domchek emphasized that there is still some uncertainty about what it means if a woman tests positive for a mutation and no one in her family has had cancer. Research is trying to resolve questions about what the risk is in these cases. “It’s a challenge to give an individualized risk assessment,” she said.
If you are concerned because you have limited information about your family, genetic counseling may help clarify whether you should pursue testing.
Q.
What does the test consist of? How much does it cost? Will insurance cover it?
A.
The genetic test is a blood test, often accompanied by genetic counseling. Testing for the three specific BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations common among Ashkenazi Jews generally costs between $300 and $500 for all three. Insurance coverage varies and may be more likely to pick up the cost if the individual has a clear family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Genetic testing of men is generally not covered, Dr. Domchek said.
Q.
What does a positive result mean?
A.
A woman who tests positive for a mutation will be given a range of risk for developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer during her lifetime that takes her family history into account, but assessing individual risk is a challenge, Dr. Domchek said. “If the only history is a mother who developed breast cancer at 55 and the mother has four sisters and no one else has cancer of any sort,” then the woman’s risk will be deemed lower than if several of her aunts have cancer, she explained.
While about 12 percent of women in the general population will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, 55 percent to 65 percent of women with a harmful BRCA1 mutation and around 45 percent of those with a harmful BRCA2 mutation will develop breast cancer by age 70,according to the National Cancer Institute. While about 1.4 percent of women in the general population will develop ovarian cancer, some 39 percent of carriers of a harmful BRCA1 mutation and 11 percent to 17 percent of carriers of a harmful BRCA2 mutation will develop ovarian cancer by age 70.
Q.
What factors should I weigh when considering prophylactic surgery?
A.

Choosing prophylactic surgery is a difficult and highly personal decision. Many doctors emphasize the importance of removing the ovaries, because the mutations increase the risk of ovarian cancer, which is harder than breast cancer to detect at an early stage. Israeli physicians urge women to undergo ovary removal as soon as they have had their children, preferably by the age of 40. Removing the ovaries also reduces the risk of breast cancer considerably.

The choice of whether to have a prophylactic double mastectomy is complex. Close monitoring and surveillance of the breasts with frequent magnetic resonance imaging scans and clinical breast exams is another option, doctors say. Over time, however, doctors say many women tire of the constant checkups, especially if they are called back for frequent biopsies and some eventually opt for mastectomies as a result.

Both oophorectomy and mastectomy are difficult operations that have serious side effects. Breast reconstruction often leads to infections and other complications and many women are disappointed by the look and feel of their new breasts. Removing the ovaries robs women of important hormones and plunges them into menopause overnight, leading to hot flashes, reduced sex drive and heightened risks of heart disease and bone loss. Hormone replacement treatment or other medication is often required.

Negative BRCA gene test doesn’t always mean lower breast cancer risk

Testing negative for the BRCA2 gene mutation doesn’t necessarily mean a women isn’t still at high risk for developing breast cancer.
In a new study published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, researchers from the University of Manchester in England revealed that women who come from families with BRCA2 mutations are still at a greater risk for developing breast cancer – even if they test negative for the BRCA2 gene themselves.
Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes have long been known to increase a woman’s risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer. The BRCA genes produce tumor suppressor proteins that help repair damaged DNA, so when these genes are faulty, genetic damage can accumulate in the body.
Recently, Angelina Jolie shed light on BRCA mutations in an Op-Ed written for the New York Times, in which she revealed she had undergone a double mastectomy after testing positive for a mutation in the BRCA1 gene.  She also noted that the mutation meant that her risk of developing breast cancer was 87 percent. But according to study author Dr. Gareth Evans, her risk had a much wider degree of variability.
“Your risk of developing breast cancer is only partially driven by carrying the mutation,” Evans, honorary professor of medical genetics and cancer epidemiology at the Manchester Academic Health Science Center at the University of Manchester, told Foxnews.com.  “In no way am I trivializing the risk, but one woman may have a 45 percent risk and another might have 87 percent risk – where the rest might be driven by lifestyle factors.”
Strong evidence has shown that other inheritable genetic risks factors can raise or lower a person’s risk for cancer.  According to Evans, there are approximately 77 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that women can inherit, which have been identified as contributing  to their breast cancer risk, and the wrong combination of these SNPs can greatly enhance their chance of developing disease.
“So even though you may test negative for the fault in BRCA1 and BRCA2 you may still inherit a bad combination of these other factors,” Evans said.  “So if you have a strong family history, that means you may have inherited some of this other genetic shrapnel that puts you at increased risk.”
In order to verify this, Evans and his team utilized data form the M6-Inherited Cancer in England study, which screened families of individuals with breast and/or ovarian cancer for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.  The researchers analyzed 807 BRCA families and identified 49 women who tested negative for their family-specific BRCA mutation – but still went on to develop breast cancer.
Of these 49 women – whom the researchers referred to as phenocopies – 22 tested negative from BRCA1 families and 27 tested negative from BRCA2 families.  To conduct risk analyses of the phenocopies, the researchers calculated an “observed versus expected” ratio (O/E) – which measured the ratio of observed risk for breast cancer in BRCA-negative women from BRCA families, versus the breast cancer risk for women in the general population.
While the O/E for phenocopies from BRCA1 families was not substantially higher than the general population, the O/E for phenocopies from BRCA2 families was 4.57 – equating to a more than fourfold increased risk of developing breast cancer than the general population.
“So if you’re a first degree relative in a family with a BRCA2 mutation, and you have two close relatives with breast cancer at a young age, you should still be considered at moderate to high risk for developing breast cancer,” Evans sad.  “If you come from a family that has no breast cancer history, and you test negative, you should be reassured.”
Evans said specialists should use caution when saying that women who have negative BRCA tests have the same breast cancer risk as the general population.
“Just be aware that you may still be at some increased risk of breast cancer, even if you’ve tested negative for the gene,” Evans said.

The painkillers that contain too much salt: Soluble versions of paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen put patients at 22% more risk of strokes

  • Millions of Britons could be at risk of early death due to painkillers
  • Soluble forms found to have 50 per cent more salt than the safe daily limit
  • Researchers behind the study now urging people to avoid the medication





  • Painkillers taken by millions of Britons may be causing heart attacks, strokes and early death because they contain so much salt, a major study shows.
    Patients who regularly take soluble forms of aspirin, paracetamol, ibuprofen and other common drugs are 22 per cent more at risk of stroke and seven times more prone to high blood pressure, the researchers found.
    They were also found to be 28 per cent more likely to die early.
    Recommended doses of some of the painkillers were found to contain 50 per cent more salt than the safe daily limits for adults.
    Soluble painkillers taken by million of Britons could be causing early death due to the amount of salt they contain, research shows
    Soluble painkillers taken by million of Britons could be causing early death due to the amount of salt they contain, research shows

    The researchers behind the study, carried out by University College London and the University of Dundee, are now warning patients to avoid regularly taking soluble painkillers.
    And they are urging drugs firms to print labels similar to those on food packaging on the tablets – most of which are sold over the counter – warning patients about high levels of salt.
    Millions of adults, particularly the elderly, rely on painkillers for long-term conditions such as arthritis, while supplements such as calcium are commonly taken by pregnant women and those going through the menopause.
    Many prefer taking the soluble varieties as they are easier to swallow and are thought to get to work more quickly as they have already been broken down. But the medicines contain very high levels of salt as it helps them dissolve in water and produce a fizzing effect.
     

    During the study, academics monitored patients who had been prescribed  soluble forms of paracetamol, aspirin and ibuprofen as well as supplements such as vitamin D, zinc and calcium for an average of seven years.
    They trawled 1.29million patient records obtained from GP surgeries across the UK.

    Those taking the soluble pills for any length of time were 16 per cent more likely to suffer a heart attack, stroke or die early.
    They also found that patients were 22 per cent more likely to suffer a stroke, 28 per cent more likely to die from any cause and seven times more likely to suffer high blood pressure.
    On average, patients succumbed to these problems only four years after first being prescribed the drugs.
    PARACETOMOL
    Certain painkillers were found to contain 50 per cent more salt than the safe daily limit 
    Government guidelines state that adults should eat no more than six grams of salt a day. Patients taking eight soluble paracetamol pills a day – the full daily dose – exceed this amount by 50 per cent.
    The average adult eats about eight grams of salt a day, but experts calculate that if we all reduced that by three grams there would be 30,000 fewer heart attacks and strokes a year.
    By comparison a packet of ready salted crisps contains half a gram of salt, while a packet of salt and vinegar has one gram. A bowl of cornflakes – the saltiest cereal – contains around 0.4 grams, while two slices of bread have about 0.8 grams.
    The worst culprits are ready meals, which can contain seven grams per portion, and some ready-made sandwiches, which contain between three and four grams.
    Professor Thomas Macdonald, of the University of Dundee, said: ‘We were surprised at how much salt there was in some tablets.
    Researchers behind the study are now urging people not to take the soluble forms on a regular basis
    Researchers behind the study are now urging people not to take soluble painkillers on a regular basis (library image)

    ‘All the foods we buy we can find out in intricate detail how much sodium (salt) there is but we can’t do that with medicines.’
    He added: ‘It’s an avoidable risk and it’s a cardiovascular risk which is the commonest cause of death in Britain. If you take these drugs every day it would be better for your health to take the normal versions, not the soluble ones.’
    The researchers only looked at patients prescribed the pills by their GP but they said millions of adults who buy them over the counter were also at risk.
    Dr Jacob George, also from the University of Dundee, said: ‘These drugs are also available over the counter, they can be picked up in the supermarket.
    ‘We have no control over how many millions of people are buying these drugs.
    Heart disease, which includes heart attacks and strokes, is by far the biggest killer in Britain. It claims 180,000 lives a year.
    Experts pointed out that patients taking the pills occasionally were probably not damaging their health.
    Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, said: ‘We know that too much salt is linked to a higher risk of heart attack and stroke.
    ‘It’s important to remember that this research applies to people who are taking these medicines every day – this does not mean that occasional use could damage your heart health.
    ‘To give us an idea of whether these risks translate for medicines bought over the counter, we would need to see further research focusing on non-prescription medication.’
    ‘This is an important reminder for doctors and patients to carefully consider the risks and benefits of soluble or effervescent (fizzing) medicines at the time of prescription.’
    Dr Li Wei, an expert in statistics who specialises in drugs safety at University College London’s School of Pharmacy, was also highly involved in the study.
     


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2514144/The-painkillers-contain-salt-Soluble-versions-paracetamol-aspirin-ibuprofen-patients-22-risk-strokes.html#ixzz2lrvT8Dpk 
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     

    Viagra DOESN'T improve relationships: Men who took the drug said their overall life satisfaction hadn't changed

  • Many men said their lives or relationships hadn't improved significantly after taking the drugs - despite them often being seen as a cure-all
  • Medication did generally increase the men's satisfaction and self-esteem
  • But the men they didn't report an improvement in their overall life satisfaction or their overall relationship satisfaction




  • They have long been hailed as a way to spice things up between the sheets - and boost a flagging relationship. 
    But experts have now warned that erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra aren't the cure-all many men hope they will be.
    Researchers found that many men said their lives or relationships hadn't improved significantly after taking the drugs.
    Disappointing: Many men said their lives or relationships hadn't improved significantly after taking erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra
    Disappointing: Many men said their lives or relationships hadn't improved significantly after taking erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra

    They reviewed 40 clinical trials of men with impotence to see how taking drugs for it had changed their lives, LiveScience reports.
    The medication in question was PDE5 inhibitors, which work by relaxing the blood vessels, allowing blood flow for an erection.
    Viagra is the best known one and other brands include tadalafil (brand name Cialis) and vardenafil (Levitra).
    Before taking the tablets, men in the clinical trials had said their quality of life and relationships were 'relatively good', but there were issues with sexual satisfaction.
     

    Many of these men also had depression symptoms and felt low, the website reports.
    While the medication did generally increase the men's satisfaction and self-esteem, they didn't report an improvement in their overall life satisfaction or their overall relationship satisfaction.
    Experts say the study, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, highlights the need to highlight psychological issues, and not just the mechanics.

    Dr Andrew Kramer, a urologist at the University of Maryland Medical Centre, told LiveScience: 'It's simplistic to think that fixing an erection issue would solve relationship issues. Happiness is very complicated, and erections are just one small piece of it... a lot of couples still need additional therapy.'

    HOW DOES VIAGRA WORK?

    Viagra helps by elevating the levels of the chemical that causes the tissues in the body to relax.
    The effects on erectile function were discovered accidentally - it was originally developed to improve blood supply to the heart in angina sufferers. 
    It is prescribed for patients such as Mr Aziz, who have restricted blood flow, because it's artery-widening properties mean blood can get to the muscles that need it.
    However its effect on the arteries can also have negative effects: patients who take the drug may suffer from flushed skin. It can also cause headaches and nausea.
    The research paper added that there is 'growing evidence that the negative effects of erectile dysfunction extend beyond the inability to have sex, and impact men’s emotional and psychological well-being.
    'Treatments that target both physical and psychosocial aspects of ED are likely to be the most effective treatments for men with ED,' the study said.
    Though erectile dysfunction is more common in older men - around 65 per cent of the over-60s suffer from it - around 40 per cent of men will have suffered from the problem by the age of 40.
    There are many physical causes for it, explains Dr Arun Ghosh, a GP specialising in sexual health at the Spire Liverpool Hospital.
    It can be caused by nerve damage from diabetes, or surgery for prostate cancer. 
    Another cause is reduced blood flow due to smoking, raised cholesterol levels or high blood pressure. Common medications such as anti-depressants and blood pressure tablets can also hamper performance, as can stress and even regular cycling. 
    Dr Ghosh says the problem is also closely bound up with flagging libido: ‘A lot of these men are suffering from testosterone deficiency syndrome, due to reaching their 40s and putting on weight around the stomach.
    ‘This causes testosterone levels to drop, resulting in a loss of libido and erectile function. It’s worth asking for a blood test if you hit 40 and start developing these symptoms.’
    Viagra
    Help: While Viagra can help with the mechanics, treatments that target both physical and psychological aspects of erectile dysfunction are likely to be the most effective, the study found

    As well as the problem of mechanics, there is a psychological component to erectile dysfunction. ‘If you’ve had a problem even once before, then you’re always going to be worried it will happen again,’ explains Dr Ghosh.
    ‘In fact, one of the main roles of any treatment is to give men a psychological boost. It’s vitally important to use treatment alongside some kind of sexual counselling or therapy, even if the cause is due to something physical such as diabetes.
    ‘A man’s partner will often say: “Don’t worry about it” — but even if he’s trying not to think about his performance, he will think about not thinking about it. And before you know it, performance anxiety has kicked in.
    ‘Anxiety and stress stop the pituitary gland secreting the hormones needed for sex. The body goes into “fight or flight” mode, shutting down all non-essential functions — with sex being one of them.’


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2514351/Viagra-DOESNT-improve-relationships-Men-took-drug-said-overall-life-satisfaction-hadnt-changed.html#ixzz2lrpBWhWW 
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     

    Tuesday, November 26, 2013

    Well-off mothers really are 'too posh to push': Study finds women with private health plans are TWICE as likely to have pre-planned C-section as NHS patients

  • Study published in the BMJ supports theory about middle class mums
  • Researchers examined 30,000 patients at a hospital in Ireland
  • Found that 21 per cent of private patients have a scheduled C-section compared to just 8.9 per cent of publicly funded ones




  • Mother with private healthcare plans are twice as likely to have a pre-planned c-section than those who give birth using an NHS hospital
    Mother with private healthcare plans are twice as likely to have a pre-planned c-section than those who give birth using an NHS hospital
    Well-off mothers really are 'too posh to push', according to new figures which show pregnant women who have private healthcare plans are twice as likely to have a pre-planned Caesarean section.
    A study has found that 21 per cent of private patients have a scheduled C-section compared to just 8.9 per cent of publicly funded ones.
    Researchers examined 30,000 women who gave birth at a hospital in Ireland which caters for both private and public-funded patients between 2008 and 2011. Around one in five of the women paid for their treatment themselves.
    The research, published in the journal BMJ Open, found that, overall, 34.4 per cent of privately paying mothers had a C-section, compared to 22.5 per cent of public patients.
    The 'greatest disparity' noted between the mothers was the rates of scheduled C-sections, the study found.
    For first-time mothers, 11.9 per cent of private patients had pre-planned surgery compared to just 4.6 per cent of those whose care was paid for by the public purse. 
    'We found that private patients are more likely than public patients to have an operative vaginal delivery or a Caesarean section.'
    The difference was particularly great among women who had given birth before by C-section, while private patients were also more likely to have a surgical vaginal delivery using a vacuum or forceps.
    It may be that older, better educated women are more strongly influenced by the choices obstetricians would make for themselves, or that their own preferences more closely mirror these views.
     

    The authors said: 'There are several studies reporting strong personal preferences among some obstetricians for scheduled caesarean section, and indeed many of the private patients were health professionals.'
    But they said that it was not possible to determine whether the decision to give birth via C-section was driven by the expectant mother or the doctors caring for them.
    Caesarean section carries a certain amount of risk - such as the wound becoming infected or the baby developing breathing difficulties. It also takes longer to recover than after a vaginal birth.
    The researches wrote: 'Although speculative, it seems quite likely that private patients are provided with greater choice in relation to a scheduled caesarean section. It is debatable whether this is actually in the woman’s best interest, particularly when it comes to the next birth.
    The Royal College of Midwives said the study highlights the need to avoid 'unnecessary' Caesarean sections
    The Royal College of Midwives said the study highlights the need to avoid 'unnecessary' Caesarean sections
    'What does need to be addressed is whether higher rates of scheduled caesarean sections among private patients create access issues for medically indicated caesarean sections, and whether these patients place a disproportionate burden on the service in the postoperative period.'
    The Royal College of Midwives said the study highlights the need to avoid 'unnecessary' Caesarean sections.
    Janine Stockdale, research fellow at the RCM, said: 'This is interesting research that may throw a spotlight on the high rates of Caesarean sections that we are seeing in Western Europe including the UK, a number that we would like to see falling.
    'The findings also underline the need to avoid unnecessary Caesarean sections as this is a major surgical operation, that has the potential for increased complications every time a woman has the procedure carried out.
    'The RCM therefore supports National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines which encourage women to have a thorough discussion with their obstetricians and midwives about the implications of having a Caesarean section, especially in circumstances where other options remain open to them.'


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2513640/Well-mothers-really-posh-push-study-finds.html#ixzz2lmbGUvWW 
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     

    Monday, November 25, 2013

    More than 1 in 10 kids has ADHD, survey says

    The number of U.S. children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder continues to rise but may be leveling off a bit, a new survey shows.
    More than 1 in 10 children has been diagnosed with it, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which surveyed more than 95,000 parents in 2011.
    ADHD diagnoses have been rising since at least 1997, according to CDC data. Experts think that's because more doctors are looking for ADHD, and more parents know about it.
    The condition makes it hard for kids to pay attention and control impulsive behaviors. It's often treated with drugs, behavioral therapy, or both.
    The latest survey found about 11 percent of children ages 4 through 17 had been diagnosed with ADHD. That translates to nearly 6 1/2 million children. Half of children are diagnosed by age 6, the study found.
    A 2007 survey put ADHD diagnoses at 9.5 percent of kids.
    The CDC survey asked parents if a health care provider told them their child had ADHD. It's not known how thorough the assessment was to reach that conclusion.
    ADHD diagnoses were increasing at a rate of about 6 percent a year in the mid-2000s, but slowed to 4 percent a year from 2007 to 2011. That may reflect that doctors are closer to diagnosing most of the kids with the condition, said the CDC's Susanna Visser, the study's lead author.