Skip to content

Published on Leave a comment on Nearly 70% of Prostate Cancers Can Just Be Watched?

The issue of overdiagnosis and overtreatment has recently been in the news, especially when discussing breast cancer, prostate cancer, and thyroid cancer. Meaning too much unnecessary treatment with harms, when the best approach would have been to do nothing, as studies have suggested or actually shown. Now here is an article in Medscape suggesting that rather than be quick to operate or treat, the best approach for nearly 70% of prostate cancers may be just "watching".

The U.S. Preventive Task Force, which analyzes the value of screening tests, in May 2012 recommended AGAINST routine prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer for all age groups. According to them, studies do not show that benefits of routine screening of asymptomatic prostate cancer and the resulting treatment outweigh the harms of treatment (e.g., surgical complications including death from surgery, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, bowel dysfunction, and bladder dysfunction), or that prostate cancer treatment even reduces mortality (deaths).

They point out that: "There is convincing evidence that PSA-based screening programs result in the detection of many cases of asymptomatic prostate cancer. There is also convincing evidence that a substantial percentage of men who have asymptomatic cancer detected by PSA screening have a tumor that either will not progress or will progress so slowly that it would have remained asymptomatic for the man's lifetime. The terms "overdiagnosis" or "pseudo-disease" are used to describe both situations." (NOTE: others have argued against this recommendation)

When reading the full Medscape article, it was pointed out that in the study being discussed, one person who was offered active surveillance but declined and was treated with an immediate radical prostatectomy, still died of metastatic prostate cancer. This was an example of a case where when the disease is truly aggressive, it may have spread "like a bird" throughout the body (in Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's terms in his books Overdiagnosed and Less Medicine, More Health) from the very beginning, and may be unstoppable no matter what is done.

I have also noticed reading other prostate cancer studies that a certain percentage of prostate cancers regress from the point of diagnosis (the PSA test and biopsy). In other words, researchers are finding that cancer can have different paths: regresses, stays the same, grows slowly (and can be treated when symptoms appear), or grows very quickly and is so aggressive and unstoppable that it goes through the body "like a bird". And we don't know which will be the aggressive ones when we first find them, thus the controversies over what to do: screen or not?, and treat or not?  ...continue reading "Nearly 70% of Prostate Cancers Can Just Be Watched?"

6

Published on 6 Comments on Update on Sinusitis Treatment

[UPDATE:  I added an Oct. 2018 update to the post The One Probiotic That Treats Sinusitis, which was originally posted in January 2015.]  Updates incorporate the latest information about treatments and products with Lactobacillus sakei  (kimchi brands, the probiotic Lacto Sinus , the sausage starter culture Bactoferm F-RM-52, etc.). According to research by Abreu et al (2012), Lactobacillus sakei is a bacteria or probiotic (beneficial bacteria) that chronic sinusitis sufferers lack and which treats chronic sinusitis. Chronic sinusitis sufferers also don't have the bacteria diversity in the sinuses that healthy people have.

Many thanks to those who have written to me about their experiences with L. sakei products and sinusitis treatment.  Please keep the updates, results, and progress reports coming. If you have had success with other kimchi brands, please let me know so that I can add it to the list. And I also want to hear if other probiotics work or don't work, or if you have found other sources of Lactobacillus sakei or new ways to use L. sakei. It all adds to the knowledge base which I will continue to update.  You can Comment after posts, the Sinus Treatment Summary page, on the CONTACT page, or write me privately (see CONTACT page).

It is now over 2 1/2 years since my family (4 people) successfully treated ourselves with Lactobacillu sakei for chronic sinusitis and acute sinusitis. We feel great! With each passing year we can tell that our sinus microbial community is bettter, and levels of inflammation are down. As a consequence, we are getting fewer colds or viruses than ever. And best of all - no antibiotics taken in over 2 1/2 years! Yes, Lactobacillus sakei absolutely works as a treatment for sinusitis.

[Read the updated post: The One Probiotic That Treats Sinusitis - with Oct. 2018 update]

Published on Leave a comment on Fungi and Bacteria in Household Dust

Another article from results of the crowdsourced study in which household dust samples were sent to researchers at the University of Colorado from approximately 1200 homes across the United States. Some findings after the dust was analyzed: differences were found in the dust of households that were occupied by more males than females and vice versa, indoor fungi mainly comes from the outside and varies with the geographical location of the house, bacteria is determined by the house's inhabitants (people, pets, and insects), clothes do not prevent the spread of bacteria from our bodies, and dogs and cats had a dramatic influence on bacteria in the home. In other words: where you live determines the fungi in the house and who you live with determines the bacteria in the house. From Discovery News:

Household Dust Packed With Thousands of Microbes

Household dust is full of living organisms that are determined, in large part, by where the home is located and who is living in it, finds a new study that includes some surprising revelations. Homes with a greater ratio of male occupants, for example, were found to contain large amounts of skin and fecal-associated bacteria, while women-dominated households contained an abundance of vaginally shed bacteria that somehow wound up in dust.

He and his colleagues used DNA sequencing and high tech imaging to analyze dust samples from approximately 1,200 homes across the United States. They used volunteers to help collect the material. They discovered that indoor fungi mostly originates outside of the home, such that the geographical location of any home strongly predicts the types of fungi existing within dust.“If you want to change the types of fungi you are exposed to in your home, then it is best to move to a different home, preferably one far away,” Fierer and his team said.

Bacteria, on the other hand, were largely predicted by the home’s possible inhabitants, including humans, pets and even insects. Fierer said, “Our bodies are clearly the source for many bacteria that end up in our homes.” The researchers suspect that body size, relative abundance, and hygiene practices are why men tend to shed more Corynebacterium and Dermabacter (the skin-associated species), as well as the poop-associated Roseburia.

The vaginal-linked bacteria Lactobacillus, discovered in homes with a larger ratio of women, provides evidence that clothes do not fully contain the spread of microorganisms produced by our bodies. Members of this genus are actually thought to protect against allergies and asthma, based on earlier research, but further studies are needed to confirm how this, and other bacteria found in dust, impact human health.

Dogs and cats had such a dramatic effect on dust bacterial communities that the researchers could predict, with around 92 percent accuracy, whether or not such animals were in the home, just based on bacteria alone....So far, the news is good for dog lovers, as he pointed out that “previous work conducted by other groups has shown that living with a dog at a young age can actually reduce allergies.”

Published on

This is a nice study showing cause and effect:  6 hours of sleep or less at night lowers the body's resistance so that the person is more likely to catch a cold virus. From Science Daily:

Short sleepers are four times more likely to catch a cold

A new study led by a UC San Francisco sleep researcher supports what parents have been saying for centuries: to avoid getting sick, be sure to get enough sleep. The team, which included researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, found that people who sleep six hours a night or less are four times more likely to catch a cold when exposed to the virus, compared to those who spend more than seven hours a night in slumber land.

Scientists have long known that sleep is important for our health, with poor sleep linked to chronic illnesses, disease susceptibility and even premature death. Prather's previous studies have shown that people who sleep fewer hours are less protected against illness after receiving a vaccine. Other studies have confirmed that sleep is among the factors that regulate T-cell levels.

Researchers recruited 164 volunteers from the Pittsburgh, PA, area between 2007 and 2011. The recruits underwent two months of health screenings, interviews and questionnaires to establish baselines for factors such as stress, temperament, and alcohol and cigarette use. The researchers also measured participants' normal sleep habits a week prior to administering the cold virus, using a watch-like sensor that measured the quality of sleep throughout the night.

The researchers then sequestered volunteers in a hotel, administered the cold virus via nasal drops and monitored them for a week, collecting daily mucus samples to see if the virus had taken hold. They found that subjects who had slept less than six hours a night the week before were 4.2 times more likely to catch the cold compared to those who got more than seven hours of sleep, and those who slept less than five hours were 4.5 times more likely.

Published on

Again, more benefits of vitamin D. Think of it as the sunshine vitamin, but supplements also work, especially vitamin D3 (rather than D2). This time higher levels of vitamin D in the blood (as measured by the vitamin D biomarker, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D) are linked to lower incidence of macular degeneration among those women genetically prone to it.

Macular degeneration is thought to have both genetic (inherited) and environmental components. Currently macular degeneration is the leading cause of vision loss and affects about 2.07 million Americans (this is according to the National Eye Institute). Note that this number is very different than that given by the American Macular Degeneration Foundation in the article. From Medical Xpress:

Vitamin D may play key role in preventing macular degeneration

Vitamin D has been studied extensively in relation to bone health as well as cancer. Now, a team led by a researcher at the University at Buffalo has discovered that vitamin D may play a significant role in eye health, specifically in the possible prevention of age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, among women who are more genetically prone to developing the sight-damaging disease.

In a paper published today (Aug. 27) in JAMA Ophthalmology online, Amy Millen, associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health in UB's School of Public Health and Health Professions, and her team found that women who are deficient in vitamin D and have a specific high-risk genotype are 6.7 times more likely to develop AMD than women with sufficient vitamin D status and no high risk genotype.

Macular degeneration is characterized by the deterioration of the macula, a small part of the central retina where the eye's photoreceptors (rods and cones) are most highly concentrated. The leading cause of legal blindness, macular degeneration affects more than 10 million Americans—more than cataracts and glaucoma combined—according to the American Macular Degeneration Foundation. The disease affects a person's central vision, which is needed for common tasks such as reading and driving. The effect is similar to that of a rain drop on the center of a camera lens.

Researchers analyzed data compiled on 1,230 women ages 54 to 74 who participated in the Carotenoids in Age-related Eye Disease Study (CAREDS),..... CAREDS was conducted among participants at three of the centers: University of Wisconsin (Madison), the University of Iowa (Iowa City) and the Kaiser Center for Health Research (Portland, Oregon). Researchers were able to determine participants' vitamin D status by analyzing serum samples for a vitamin D biomarker, 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], which provided a glimpse into vitamin D intake through all sources: diet, supplements and sunlight.

Human skin can synthesize vitamin D when exposed to ultraviolet light, Millen explains. However, for many people, 15 to 30 minutes a day with 10 percent of their skin exposed might be sufficient. In winter months, when there is a lower solar angle, sun exposure may not be not sufficient to maintain blood level for people who live north of a line from about Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles. At these times and locations, dietary intake may be needed. Dietary sources of vitamin D include fortified foods such as milk and foods that naturally contain vitamin D such as fatty fish like salmon and mackerel.

"Macular degeneration has been found to be strongly associated with genetic risk," Millen says. Among many genes linked to AMD, one of the strongest is a specific genetic variant (Y402H) in the complement factor H gene, called CFH for short. This gene codes for the CFH protein that is involved in the body's immune response to destroy bacteria and viruses. Inflammation is believed to be involved in the development of macular degeneration.  "People who have early stage AMD develop drusen, lipid and protein deposits that build up in the eye. Your body sees this drusen as a foreign substance and attacks it, in part via the complement cascade response," explains Millen.

Vitamin D shows promise for protecting against because of its anti-inflammatory and antiangiogenic properties; antiangiogenic refers to slowing the growth of new blood vessels, often seen in late stages of AMD."Our message is not that achieving really high levels of vitamin D are good for the eye, but that having deficient vitamin D levels may be unhealthy for your eyes," Millen says. 

Although the odds of having AMD was higher in women who were deficient for vitamin D, with 25(OH)D levels below 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L), increasing vitamin D levels beyond 12 ng/mL did not further lower the odds of AMD to any meaningful extent, she explains.

Published on

Once again, a study finds that a supplement has no benefit - here omega-3 supplements did not slow cognitive decline in older adults. On the other hand, studies find that eating foods with omega-3 fatty acids (such as fish) has beneficial health effects. Regular consumption of fish is associated with lower rates of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), cardiovascular disease, and possibly dementia.  From Science Daily:

No benefit of omega-3 supplements for cognitive decline, study shows

While some research suggests that a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids can protect brain health, a large clinical trial by researchers at the National Institutes of Health found that omega-3 supplements did not slow cognitive decline in older persons. With 4,000 patients followed over a five-year period, the study is one of the largest and longest of its kind.

Dr. Chew leads the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS), which was designed to investigate a combination of nutritional supplements for slowing age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a major cause of vision loss among older Americans. That study established that daily high doses of certain antioxidants and minerals -- called the AREDS formulation -- can help slow the progression to advanced AMD.

A later study, called AREDS2, tested the addition of omega-3 fatty acids to the AREDS formula. But the omega-3's made no difference. Omega-3 fatty acids are made by marine algae and are concentrated in fish oils; they are believed to be responsible for the health benefits associated with regularly eating fish, such as salmon, tuna, and halibut.* Where studies have surveyed people on their dietary habits and health, they've found that regular consumption of fish is associated with lower rates of AMD, cardiovascular disease, and possibly dementia. "We've seen data that eating foods with omega-3 may have a benefit for eye, brain, and heart health," Dr. Chew explained.

Omega-3 supplements are available over the counter and often labeled as supporting brain health. A large 2011 study found that omega-3 supplements did not improve the brain health of older patients with preexisting heart disease.

With AREDS2, Dr. Chew and her team saw another opportunity to investigate the possible cognitive benefits of omega-3 supplements, she said. All participants had early or intermediate AMD. They were 72 years old on average and 58 percent were female....Participants were given cognitive function tests at the beginning of the study to establish a baseline, then at two and four years later.... The cognition scores of each subgroup decreased to a similar extent over time, indicating that no combination of nutritional supplements made a difference.

* Other omega-3 fatty acids are found in plant foods such as flaxseed, walnuts, soy products, and canola and soybean oils. Specific omega-3 fatty acids from these sources were not studied.

Published on Leave a comment on Vaccines to Battle Tick Diseases?

I recently posted on ways the number of  ticks can be reduced in a backyard. Now an article on vaccines being developed to battle tick borne diseases, especially Lyme disease. However, the bad news is that ticks now transmit 16 diseases in the US (including anaplasmosis, babesiosis, ehrlichiosis), while vaccines typically only focus on one disease at a time. Tick borne diseases are on the rise throughout the world.

We all know about Lyme disease (which is also a problem in Europe, China, and Mongolia), but in parts of Africa, the Middle East, Asia and southern Europe, ticks can spread Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever, which is fatal 40% of the time! And while some researchers are focusing on human vaccines, some are focusing on vaccines for mice. Big problem: would we really be able to give the vaccine to enough mice to make a difference? I really like the idea of a vaccine that hampers the ability of ticks to feed on humans. From Nature:

The new war on Lyme and other tick-borne diseases

Williams is testing whether vaccinating mice against Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease in the United States, can reduce the proportion of ticks that are infected. ....Borrelia burgdorferi infects an estimated 329,000 people in the United States each year, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia. And although most people who get prompt treatment recover quickly — Williams has had Lyme three times — up to one in five develops long-term and potentially life-threatening symptoms, including heart, vision or memory problems, or debilitating joint pain. ...continue reading "Vaccines to Battle Tick Diseases?"

Published on

Some recent studies looked at aspirin use and cancer and found that consistent use for a number of years (5 to 10 years) lowers the rate of a number of cancers, including colon cancer. However, the longer one takes daily aspirin - then harms start adding up, with a major one being gastrointestinal bleeding. NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are also linked to lower rates of various cancers, but harms with long-term use are cardiovascular risks (stroke and heart attack). The first article discusses that many doctors think this lower cancer rate occurs because aspirin and NSAIDs lower inflammation, and as we know, inflammation is linked to cancer.

From Science News: Aspirin reverses obesity cancer risk

Research has shown that a regular dose of aspirin reduces the long-term risk of cancer in those who are overweight in an international study of people with a family history of the disease....They found that being overweight more than doubles the risk of bowel cancer in people with Lynch Syndrome, an inherited genetic disorder which affects genes responsible for detecting and repairing damage in the DNA. Around half of these people develop cancer, mainly in the bowel and womb. However, over the course of a ten year study they found this risk could be counteracted by taking a regular dose of aspirin.

Lots of people struggle with their weight and this suggests the extra cancer risk can be cancelled by taking an aspirin.This research adds to the growing body of evidence which links an increased inflammatory process to an increased risk of cancer. Obesity increases the inflammatory response. One explanation for our findings is that the aspirin may be suppressing that inflammation which opens up new avenues of research into the cause of cancer."

When they were followed up ten years later, 55 had developed bowel cancers and those who were obese were more than twice as likely to develop this cancer -- in fact 2.75 times as likely. Following up on patients who were taking two aspirins a day revealed that their risk was the same whether they were obese or not....What is surprising is that even in people with a genetic predisposition for cancer, obesity is also a driver of the disease. 

The researchers believe the study shows that aspirin is affecting an underlying mechanism which pre-disposes someone to cancer and further study is needed in this area. Since the benefits are occurring before the very early stages of developing a tumour -- known as the adenoma carcinoma sequence -- the effect must be changing the cells which are predisposed to become cancerous in later years.

...continue reading "Aspirin and Cancer"

Published on

Heavy alcohol consumption has been linked to increased risk of several cancers (colorectum, breast, oral , pharynx, larynx, liver, and esophagus). But what about moderate or minimal drinking? The Mediterranean diet and other studies looking at longevity have long viewed a glass of wine a day as beneficial. However, this large study found that even light to moderate drinking is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in women, and there is an increased risk of alcohol related cancers only among male smokers. From Science Daily:

Light/moderate drinking linked to increased risk of some cancers in women, male smokers

Even light and moderate drinking (up to one drink a day for women and up to two drinks a day for men) is associated with an increased risk of certain alcohol related cancers in women and male smokers, suggests a large study. Overall, light to moderate drinking was associated with minimally increased risk of total cancer in both men and women.

However, among women, light to moderate drinking (up to one drink per day) was associated with an increased risk of alcohol related cancer, mainly breast cancer. Risk of alcohol related cancers was also higher among light and moderate drinking men (up to two drinks per day), but only in those who had ever smoked. No association was found in men who had never smoked.

They used data from two large US studies that tracked the health of 88,084 women and 47,881 men for up to 30 years. They assessed risk of total cancer as well as known alcohol related cancers including cancer of the the colorectum, female breast, liver, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx and esophagus.

Light to moderate drinking was defined as up to one standard drink or 15 g alcohol per day for women and up to two standard drinks or 30 g alcohol per day for men. One standard drink is roughly equivalent to a small (118 ml) glass of wine or a 355 ml bottle of beer....During the follow-up period, a total of 19,269 and 7,571 cancers were diagnosed in women and men, respectively. The researchers found that overall, light to moderate drinking was associated with a small but non-significant increased risk of total cancer in both men and women, regardless of smoking history.

Published on

  In the past few months there has been a lot of discussion about early screening tests for cancer (when there are no symptoms)  versus diagnostic tests (testing once symptoms appear), especially for prostate cancer and breast cancer. Because unfortunately screening also has harms - it is not without significant risks. So the following 2 articles discussing breast cancer are real eye openers. The first article discusses a large study that found that no matter how early the screening and no matter how tiny the cancer and extensive the treatment (e.g, mastectomy of both breasts), in a certain percentage of women the cancer will reappear in a deadly fashion and eventually kill about 3.3% even though they are treated early. The Medscape article points out that it is thought that 28% of early stage breast cancers will progress or reappear as deadly metastatic cancer (even years later) no matter the treatment.

As Dr. Welch has pointed out in his book Overdiagnosis and Less Medicine, More Health - these aggressive cancers are like "birds" - they fly away throughout the body and are deadly no matter when they are diagnosed. A certain percentage of tiny cancers regress (disappear) on their own, others just sit there doing nothing, others grow very slowly (and can be treated successfully when symptoms appear), and then there are those that are so very aggressive that they go throughout the body from the beginning (the birds). And we don't know which will be the aggressive ones when we first find them. So sad..... Meanwhile try to eat healthy foods, get enough sleep, lose weight if overweight, live a healthy lifestyle (don't smoke or drink to excess), and get plenty of exercise in hopes of cancer prevention. I also like to think that each week eating some turmeric (in foods), broccoli famiy foods, olive oil, and berries may also help. Do go read the full original articles. From NY Times:

Early-Stage Breast Condition May Not Require Cancer Treatment

As many as 60,000 American women each year are told they have a very early stage of breast cancer — Stage 0, as it is commonly known — a possible precursor to what could be a deadly tumor. And almost every one of the women has either a lumpectomy or a mastectomy, and often a double mastectomy, removing a healthy breast as well. Yet it now appears that treatment may make no difference in their outcomes. Patients with this condition had close to the same likelihood of dying of breast cancer as women in the general population, and the few who died did so despite treatment, not for lack of it, researchers reported Thursday in JAMA Oncology. 

Their conclusions were based on the most extensive collection of data ever analyzed on the condition, known as ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S.: 100,000 women followed for 20 years. The findings are likely to fan debate about whether tens of thousands of patients are undergoing unnecessary and sometimes disfiguring treatments for premalignant conditions that are unlikely to develop into life-threatening cancers.

Diagnoses of D.C.I.S., involving abnormal cells confined to the milk ducts of the breast, have soared in recent decades. They now account for as much as a quarter of cancer diagnoses made with mammography, as radiologists find smaller and smaller lesions. But the new data on outcomes raises provocative questions: Is D.C.I.S. cancer, a precursor to the disease or just a risk factor for some women? Is there any reason for most patients with the diagnosis to receive brutal therapies? If treatment does not make a difference, should women even be told they have the condition?

A majority of the 100,000 patients in the database the researchers used, from a national cancer registry, had lumpectomies, and nearly all the rest had mastectomies, the new study found. Their chance of dying of breast cancer in the two decades after treatment was 3.3 percent, no matter which procedure they had, about the same as an average woman’s chance of dying of breast cancer, said Dr. Laura J. Esserman, a breast cancer surgeon and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.

The data showed that some patients were at higher risk: those younger than 40, black women, and those whose abnormal cells had molecular markers found in advanced cancers with poorer prognoses. D.C.I.S. has long been regarded as a precursor to potentially deadly invasive cancers, analogous to colon polyps that can turn into colon cancer, said Dr. Steven A. Narod, the lead author of the paper and a researcher at Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto. The treatment strategy has been to get rid of the tiny specks of abnormal breast cells, just as doctors get rid of colon polyps when they see them in a colonoscopy.

But if that understanding of the condition had played out as expected, women who had an entire breast removed, or even both breasts as a sort of double precaution, should have been protected from invasive breast cancer. Instead, the findings showed, they had the same risk as those who had a lumpectomy. Almost no women went untreated, so it is not clear if as a group, they did worse. But some women who died of breast cancer ended up with the disease throughout their body without ever having it recur in their breast — many, in fact, had no breast because they had had a mastectomy. Those very rare fatal cases of D.C.I.S. followed by fatal breast cancer, Dr. Narod concluded, had most likely already spread at the time of detection. As for the rest, he said, they were never going to spread anyway.

Dr. Esserman said that if deadly breast cancers started out as D.C.I.S., the incidence of invasive breast cancers should have plummeted with rising detection rates. That has not happened, even though in the pre-mammography era, before about 1980, the number of women found to have D.C.I.S. was only in the hundreds. Nearly 240,000 women receive diagnoses of invasive breast cancer each year.

Those facts lead Dr. Narod to a blunt view. After a surgeon has removed the aberrant cells for the biopsy, he said, “I think the best way to treat D.C.I.S. is to do nothing." ... Others drew back from that advice.

From Medscape:  The Mystery of a Common Breast Cancer Statistic

A commonly cited breast cancer statistic — that 30% of all early-stage breast cancers will progress, despite treatment, to deadly metastatic disease — appears to have no strong contemporary evidence to back it up. Nonetheless, the statistic appears widely...."It is estimated that 20% to 30% of all breast cancer cases will become metastatic," said the MBCN in response, repeating a statistic from its own website.

The primary source for this declaration is a 2005 CME review on metastatic disease published in the Oncologist by prominent medical oncologist Joyce O'Shaughnessy, MD, from Baylor University in Houston."Despite advances in the treatment of breast cancer, approximately 30% of women initially diagnosed with earlier stages of breast cancer eventually develop recurrent advanced or metastatic disease," Dr O'Shaughnessy wrote.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the definition of early-stage breast cancer is that which has not spread beyond the breast or the axillary lymph nodes. The range includes stage I, stage IIA, stage IIB, and stage IIIA disease....According to experts, early breast cancers are known to metastasize at 20 years or beyond.

 

Dr Brawley worked with two ACS epidemiologists to examine the issue. They looked at breast-cancer-specific mortality (as identified on death certificates) in 12 health districts in the United States from 2008 to 2012. They were surprised by the finding: "28% of the women who died of breast cancer during that time period had localized disease at diagnosis," said Dr Brawley. The result was unexpected. "We all thought 30% was too high," said Dr Brawley.

(NOTE: Photo credit: Wikipedia Commons of Edouard Manet- Blond Woman With Bare Breasts.)