Hot flashes, night sweats may reduce breast cancer risk

It sounds too good to be true, but there might be a bright side to the night sweats, hot flashes and other unpleasantries associated withmenopause. A new study finds that women who experience such symptoms may be at reduced risk of several common forms of breast cancer.

Researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle surveyed 1,437 post-menopausal women, 988 of whom had been previously diagnosed with breast cancer, about perimenopausal and menopausal symptoms including hot flushes (or flashes), night sweats and insomnia, vaginal dryness, irregular or heavy menstrual bleeding, depression and anxiety.

They found that those who had such symptoms had a substantially smaller risk of developing breast cancer, and that the risk decreased as the frequency and severity of the symptoms increased. Specifically, they found 40 percent to 60 percent reduction in the risk of the two most common types of breast cancer, invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinoma, among women who had experienced those symptoms. They also found that the more severe the hot flashes, the lower the risk. And their findings held even when they accounted for other cancer risk factors such as obesity and use of hormone replacement therapies. Their work, which appears online ahead of print in the February issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, was funded by the National Cancer Institute.

The researchers suggest that hormones may be the common link, as fluctuations in levels of the hormones estrogen and progesterone are associated with reduced ovarian function leading up to and during menopause. Those hormones are also known to play roles in the development of breast cancer.

Because this is the first study to look at menopause symptoms and breast-cancer risk among post-menopausal women, the authors note, their findings need to be confirmed by other studies. As one who has endured my share of perimenopausal night sweats and hot flashes, I'd say let's get moving on those studies, please.

By Jennifer LaRue Huget  | January 27, 2011; 7:00 AM ET at Washington Post

The Truth About Salmon

Published by marie claire

Genetically modified salmon is one seriously hot topic, so we got a doc to separate the fishy facts from reality.

By Joanne Chen

PHOTO CREDIT: JAMES BAIGRIE

Genetically modified salmon is controversial. But what about those confusing descriptions — "organic," "wild," "Scottish"? David Carpenter, Ph.D., explains.

MYTH: Organic is best.

TRUTH: There's no standard for organic fish, so go with wild. Organic implies antibiotics aren't put in the water, but the salmon still get feed that has contaminants.

MYTH: Skip all farmed salmon.

TRUTH: If you can't get wild, opt for farmed Canadian, which has fewer contaminants than farmed European.

MYTH: Mercury is the issue with farmed salmon.

TRUTH: Salmon has little mercury. Dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other toxins are the culprits.

MYTH: Wild salmon has more omega-3s than farmed.

TRUTH: Farmed salmon has more. They're fed fish oil. But the toxin risks outweigh the benefits of the fatty acids.

Voice box transplant successful for California woman

A voice box transplant has restored the speech of a 52-year-old Modesto woman 11 years after she lost her ability to speak and breathe on her own, surgeons from UC Davis reported Thursday. The 18-hour operation in October was only the second time that such a transplant has been undertaken worldwide.

"This operation restored my life," Brenda Charette Jensen said in a news release issued by the medical center.

Jensen lost her voice and ability to breathe normally due to complications from another surgery. After that surgery, she used a handheld electronic device that produces an artificial voice to speak and had a tracheotomy inserted to breathe.

During the October transplant, which was two years in the planning, surgeons replaced the larynx -- or voice box -- along with the thyroid gland and trachea. More than two dozen health professionals of diverse specialties participated in the operation, which took place over two days. The organ donor was an accident victim. Jensen found, however, that her voice is that of her own, not the donor's voice. She has regained her ability to taste and smell, is learning how to swallow and hopes to be able to eat soon. She still has a tracheotomy tube but doctors plan to remove it later this year.

"I'll probably never sing in a choir or anything, but it's exciting to talk normally," she said. "And I can't wait to eat and drink and swim again."

A transplant is not a standard option for people with a missing or nonfunctioning larynx because it is a complicated and experimental procedure and because the condition is not life-threatening. In addition, the transplant recipient has to take immunosuppressant medications, which can be dangerous, for the rest of his or her life. Jensen was already taking immunosuppressant medications, however, because of a kidney-pancreas transplant in 2006. However, UC Davis doctors said they learned a great deal about the procedure from this experience and hope that future research using stem cells will lead to other options to repair injuries to the voice box and throat.

The first larynx transplant took place in 1998 at the Cleveland Clinic.

Shared from: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-larynx-transplant-20110120,0,7570171.story