Breast Cancer: Looking from the Outside In

Thanks for the post, Shanlax.

I came across this CNN story at the gym yesterday. I thought that you might be interested in it...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/07/17/diet.breast.cancer.ap/

"One woman in eight who lives to age 85 will develop breast cancer during her lifetime". Breast cancer is the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 40 and 55.

Seems to me that 85 is a good innings but how many women die of cancer between 40 and 55........one in five....?

How many women live to the age of 85?

Is the cancer rate increasing or decreasing?

Engineers supply the equipment for the medical profession to work their magic they are the one's who claim to be the healers. Engineers, to my knowledge never layed any claim to having the answer to cancer maybe we should take a lesson from the Borg and simply go biomechanical, but what about civil engineers and aero engineers?

The amazing thing is that so many people don't get cancer.

Our body is such a complex system of cells reproducing /repairing/growing, it's a wonder it doesn't go 'off message' much sooner....!

A complete 'cure' is like trying to cure the laws of probability.

(Please don't interpret this comment as in anyway anti-research or trying to belittle the pain anguish that cancer causes...we've all lost people close to us.

It is merely an observation on how well our bodies do cope)

Hi 'Del the cat',

I totally agree with you regarding the complexity of the human body.

I read an article not that long ago which claimed that the 'dud' copies made of our DNA (the likely cancer forming ones) increase with age. At present other ailments/problems 'take us out' before cancer does - but if we keep on increasing our lifespan then there could come a time when, if we live long enough, everybody would die from cancer.

Sobering thought, hey?

You have put together some useful resource links on this subject shanlax. A recent article I read gave some insight into situations/reasons whereby women decide upon elective mastectomy. I accompanied somebody visiting an oncology department and was impressed by the way in which staff did such an excellent job of helping those attending at various stages of evaluation and treatment. The information you present here will certainly help those interested in the many types of scan and terminology. Providing clear factual information is an essential part of any healthcare issue.

It is hard to believe, but the present day's standard mammography (squeeze and Xray) just recently got studied for efficacy and reported on I believe in JAMA (journal of American Medical Association). The report reveals very high false negative and false positive results. No surprise, as X rays are not exactly the right tool to distinguish a harmless calcium deposit from something nasty and hyperactive. But, if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

There are two new methods that looks exactly for extraordinary activity, leaving alone the inert ones.

The first one is already available. You may have to pay for the session yourself, as it will be some time before insurances accept it routinely. The technology on which it is based is fascinating. The silicon imaging chip in your off-the-shelf digital camera is more sensitive to infrared, than to normal light. So a filter and the lens cuts off infrared. It needs filtering to separate the different colors anyhow. Reverse the arrangement: filter out light, use off-the-shelf infrared lens, and presto you have an excellent camera taking infrared pictures. Linear down to 0.1 degrees, resolves 0.01 degrees (linearity not guaranteed). Excellent screening tool, no radiation involved. Records unusual metabolic activity much smaller than a millimeter down to some depth. Since the camera is standard except filtering and lens, you can get a CD record to be taken to the followup, that they can focus on the active site (if any) only. By the way, dont wear underwire bra before, as the indentations mess up the picture. If you guys think this note is just for your loved ones, think again. Guys get into the same trouble, just few % that of the ladies.

The second one is in active research, prototype and some clinical study stage. It is an UWB (ultrawideband) radar application distinguishing tissues based on biological activity. It is used similar to ultrasound. It is run under dr. Susan Hagness at the University Wisconsin - Madison. Since the papers I read were written in 1999 and 2003 a lot of development I may have missed.