Breast-Feeding Might Cut Risk for Tough-to-Treat Breast Cancer: Study

THURSDAY, Oct. 18 (HealthDay News) -- Breast-feeding may reduce a woman's risk for a form of breast cancer that's particularly difficult to treat, a new study suggests.

The study, by researchers at Columbia University, found that breast-feeding lowered the odds for estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-negative (ER/PR-) breast cancer.

These types of tumors have cells that do not carry a protein on their surface that binds to the hormones estrogen or progesterone. This means that they cannot be treated with standard hormone-based therapies.

Since there are few modifiable factors for ER/PR-negative breast cancers, the researchers concluded that women at risk for this type of tumor should be encouraged to breast-feed.

The study is scheduled to be presented Thursday at the annual cancer prevention conference of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Anaheim, Calif.

"We found an increased risk for estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer in women who do not breast-feed, but in women who have children and breast-feed, there is no increased risk," study co-author Meghan Work, a doctoral student in the department of epidemiology at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, said in an AACR news release.

Still, one expert said the findings must be interpreted with caution.

"This was an observational study, and a causal relationship between breast-feeding and the decreased incidence of hormone-negative breast cancer is not established," stressed Dr. Alyssa Gillego, from the department of breast surgical oncology at Beth Israel Comprehensive Cancer Center, in New York City.

The study involved more than 4,000 women with breast cancer and almost 3,000 women without cancer. The researchers used data from the Breast Cancer Family Registry to examine the link between ER/PR-negative breast cancer and women's reproductive risk factors, such as the number of children they delivered and whether or not they breast-fed or took oral contraceptives.

The study found that having three or more children but not breast-feeding was linked to an increased risk ER/PR-negative breast cancer.

"Women who had children but did not breast-feed had about 1.5 times the risk for ER/PR-negative breast cancer when compared with a control population. If women breast-fed their children, there was no increased risk for ER/PR-negative cancer," Work noted. "This is particularly important as breast-feeding is a modifiable factor that can be promoted and supported through health policy."

They study also revealed that use of oral contraceptives made after 1975 was not associated with an increased risk for ER/PR-negative cancer risk.

Another specialist added, however, that there is a plausible explanation for a connection between breast-feeding and breast-cancer.

"Obviously, the breasts are meant to serve as an organ that produces milk for a newborn," explained Dr. Stephanie Bernik, chief of surgical oncology at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City. "Breasts are in an immature state until one's first pregnancy. Theoretically, if left in the immature state, breasts are not developing in the manner that nature intended. This altering of what nature intended may be the reason why women that do not breast-feed have a higher rate of cancer."

There could be other factors, she added. "The lowered risk might also be due to exposure or withdrawal of hormones as one nurses an infant," Bernik reasoned. "More study needs to be directed to finding out why nursing is protective, as this might lead to new methods of preventing breast cancer development."

Findings presented at medical meetings are typically considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

-- Mary Elizabeth Dallas Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Alyssa Gillego, M.D., department of breast surgical oncology, Beth Israel Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York City; Stephanie Bernik, M.D,, chief of surgical oncology, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City; American Association for Cancer Research, news release, Oct. 18, 2012

View the original article here

Read more »

Consistent Criteria for Sports Concussion Might Aid Diagnosis

FRIDAY, Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Standards used to diagnose concussion in college athletes are inconsistent and require clearer definitions and better tools to make the diagnosis, researchers report.

Their five-year study included 450 male and female athletes who played on football and hockey teams at three major U.S. universities: Brown University, Dartmouth College and Virginia Tech.

During the study period, concussions were diagnosed in 44 of the athletes. Four of them had two diagnosed concussions, resulting in a total of 48 diagnosed concussions. A specific impact could be linked with 31 of the concussions, but that was not the case in the other 17 concussions.

Mental cloudiness, headache and dizziness were the most commonly reported symptoms of concussion. Only one athlete with a concussion lost consciousness. An immediate diagnosis of concussion was made six times, and many athletes did not start having symptoms until several hours after their head injury.

The researchers noted that concussion diagnosis is largely based on athletes' reported symptoms, which can vary greatly and may not be the best way to determine who is at risk for future concussion-related neurological and psychiatric problems.

In addition, the way the term "concussion" is used in sports injuries may differ from how it is used in other medical circumstances, potentially hindering communication about the factors most likely to affect patient outcomes, the study authors noted in a news release from Massachusetts General Hospital.

"The term 'concussion' means different things to different people, and it's not yet clear that the signs and symptoms we now use to make a diagnosis will ultimately prove to be the most important pieces of this complicated puzzle," study leader Dr. Ann-Christine Duhaime, director of the pediatric brain trauma lab at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in the news release.

"Some patients who receive a diagnosis of concussion go on to have very few problems, and some who are not diagnosed because they have no immediate symptoms may have sustained a lot of force to the head with potentially serious consequences," she explained.

The study was published in the Oct. 2 issue of the Journal of Neurosurgery.

-- Robert Preidt Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: Massachusetts General Hospital, news release, Oct. 10, 2012

View the original article here

Read more »

Pre-Test Jitters Might Boost Scores: Study

FRIDAY, Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) -- For students with a good memory, feeling anxious before taking an exam might actually lead to a higher test score, researchers have found.

In the new study, researchers in England used computer tests to assess levels of anxiety and working memory in 96 students, aged 12 to 14. Good working memory is generally associated with better school performance.

The students were then tested on their general thinking and math skills.

The researchers found that in students with a good working memory, anxiety was associated with higher test scores. In students with a poor working memory, anxiety led to lower test results, according to the report published Oct. 12 in the British Journal of Psychology.

"The research is exciting because it enhances our knowledge of when, specifically, anxiety can have a negative impact on taking tests. The findings also suggest that there are times when a little bit of anxiety can actually motivate you to succeed," study author Matthew Owens, a researcher at the University of Cambridge, said in a news release from the British Psychological Society. Owens was at the University of Southampton when the study took place.

The findings could improve understanding of the impact that anxiety has on students, the researchers said. They estimated that between 10 percent and 40 percent of children have anxiety when taking tests, and suggested that those who are more likely to do poorly on tests could be given priority for receiving extra help in school.

While the study found an association between anxiety levels and test scores, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

-- Robert Preidt Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: British Psychological Society, news release, Oct. 11, 2012

View the original article here

Read more »