Published by
Stanford Medicine

Category

Women’s Health

Cancer, Stanford News, Videos, Women's Health

The squeeze: Compression during mammography important for accurate breast cancer detection

The squeeze: Compression during mammography important for accurate breast cancer detection

After nearly 30 years of reluctantly enduring the pain of mammography, I finally understand why I shouldn’t complain. In fact, I think I should embrace the pain and ask the technician to squeeze my breasts even more tightly between the shelves of the mammography machine.

It’s only a brief moment of pain, after all, but it can make the difference between a breast cancer detected and a breast cancer missed. In a recent video on the topic, Stanford Health Care’s Jafi Lipson, MD, an assistant professor of radiology, explains the very important reasons for women to step up and take the squeeze without complaint. It will only take 30 seconds of your time – and it might save your life.

Previously: Despite genetic advances, detection still key in breast cancer, NIH Director highlights Stanford research on breast cancer surgery choices and Breast cancer patients are getting more bilateral mastectomies — but not any survival benefit

Cardiovascular Medicine, Men's Health, Mental Health, Research, Women's Health

Examining how mental stress on the heart affects men and women differently

Examining how mental stress on the heart affects men and women differently

stress_womanPast research has shown that stress, anger and depression can increase a person’s risk for stroke and heart attacks. Now new findings published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology show that cardiovascular and psychological reactions to mental stress vary based on gender.

In the study (subscription required), participants with heart disease completed three mentally stressful tasks. Researchers monitored changes in their heart using echocardiography, measured blood pressure and heart rate, and took blood samples during the test and rest periods. According to a journal release:

Researchers from the Duke Heart Center found that while men had more changes in blood pressure and heart rate in response to the mental stress, more women experienced myocardial ischemia, decreased blood flow to the heart. Women also experienced increased platelet aggregation, which is the start of the formation of blood clots, more than men. The women compared with men also expressed a greater increase in negative emotions and a greater decrease in positive emotions during the mental stress tests.

“The relationship between mental stress and cardiovascular disease is well known,” said the study lead author Zainab Samad, M.D., M.H.S., assistant professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. “This study revealed that mental stress affects the cardiovascular health of men and women differently. We need to recognize this difference when evaluating and treating patients for cardiovascular disease.”

Previously: Study shows link between traffic noise, heart attack, Ask Stanford Med: Cardiologist Jennifer Tremmel responds to questions on women’s heart health and Study offers insights into how depression may harm the heart
Photo by anna gutermuth

Cancer, Genetics, Stanford News, Videos, Women's Health

Despite genetic advances, detection still key in breast cancer

Despite genetic advances, detection still key in breast cancer

Just a few years before the launch of the first national breast cancer awareness month, I found a small lump in my left breast. I still remember the cold chill that ran through me – and stayed with me until several days later when a surgeon discovered that the lump was not a tumor. His parting words have never left me: “Remember how you’ve been feeling.” He wanted to make sure I would go on to have regular mammograms.

Spreading the word about the disease and the importance of detecting it in its early stages was – and is – the point of the national awareness campaign. In the almost 30 years since that first campaign, advances in imaging technology have enabled earlier detection of breast cancer, genome sequencing has identified some of the mysteries behind the development risk, and selecting the most effective surgery and chemotherapy is more and more of an individualized choice.

Stanford has a powerful team of physicians addressing all aspects of breast cancer science and care. On Oct. 16, breast-imaging specialist Jafi Lipson, MD, assistant professor of radiology, and breast cancer surgeon Amanda Wheeler, MD, clinical assistant professor of surgery, will give a free lecture, “The Latest Advancements in Screening and Treatment for Breast Cancer,” at the Sheraton Palo Alto. And throughout the month, Stanford Health Care will post short educational videos and infographics on a variety of breast-cancer topics, including types of breast cancer, options in surgical reconstruction, and why enduring the pain of compression in mammography is worth the effort. Today, Stanford Health Care kicks off the month with a video featuring Stanford breast cancer expert Alison Kurian, MD, explaining the role that genetics play in disease development (above).

Because one in eight women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, I would urge all of us to keep in mind the reality of this disease – and to honor those we know who have survived, or not, by paying attention.

Previously: NIH Director highlights Stanford research on breast cancer surgery choicesBreast cancer patients are getting more bilateral mastectomies —  but not any survival benefitBreast cancer awareness: Beneath the pink packaging and At Stanford event, cancer advocate Susan Love talks about “a future with no breast cancer”

Immunology, Infectious Disease, Pregnancy, Research, Women's Health

Study: Pregnancy causes surprising changes in how the immune system responds to the flu

Study: Pregnancy causes surprising changes in how the immune system responds to the flu

pregnant ladyWhen pregnant women get influenza, they tend to get really sick. Flu complications such as pneumonia are more common in pregnant women than other healthy young adults, and their risk of death from flu is higher, too.

Until now, doctors have ascribed the problem to the fact that the immune system is tamped down by pregnancy, a protective mechanism that keeps the woman’s body from rejecting her fetus. But a new Stanford study, the first ever to directly examine how a pregnant woman’s immune cells respond to flu viruses, found something unexpected: Instead of responding sluggishly, immune cells from pregnant women actually over-react to the flu. From our press release about the paper, which appears today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

“We were surprised by the overall finding,” said Catherine Blish, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and the study’s senior author. “We now understand that severe influenza in pregnancy is a hyperinflammatory disease rather than a state of immunodeficiency. This means that treatment of flu in pregnancy might have more to do with modulating the immune response than worrying about viral replication.”

In the lab, Blish’s team incubated immune cells obtained from pregnant and nonpregnant women’s blood samples with different strains of flu virus, including the H1N1 flu that caused the 2009 pandemic and also a less virulent strain of seasonal influenza. The responses they observed could help explain why flu, especially pandemic H1N1 flu, causes pneumonia in many pregnant patients:

Pregnancy enhanced the immune response to H1N1 of two types of white blood cells: natural killer and T cells. Compared with the same cells from nonpregnant women, H1N1 caused pregnant women’s NK and T cells to produce more cytokines and chemokines, molecules that help attract other immune cells to the site of an infection.

“If the chemokine levels are too high, that can bring in too many immune cells,” Blish said. “That’s a bad thing in a lung where you need air space.”

Why would influenza break the rules of how the immune system works in pregnancy? Blish thinks there’s a clue in the fact that the flu produces a fourfold increase in an expectant woman’s risk of delivering her baby prematurely. “I wonder if this is an inflammatory pathway that is normally activated later in pregnancy to prepare the body for birth, but that flu happens to overlap with the pathway and aberrantly activates it too early,” she said.

The research is a good reminder that flu season is just around the corner, and it’s time to start thinking about getting a flu shot, especially if you are pregnant or planning a pregnancy.

Previously: Text message reminders shown effective in boosting flu shot rates in pregnant women, Ask Stanford Med: Answers to your questions about seasonal influenza and Flu shots for moms may help prevent babies from being born too small
Photo by Meagan

Cancer, In the News, NIH, Research, Stanford News, Women's Health

NIH Director highlights Stanford research on breast cancer surgery choices

NIH Director highlights Stanford research on breast cancer surgery choices

The director of the NIH, Francis Collins, MD, this morning weighed in on a topic that has garnered much attention lately: the type of surgery that women diagnosed with breast cancer choose. The post, found at the NIH Director’s blog, describes a recent study by Stanford researchers published earlier this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association that examined survival rates after three different types of breast cancer surgery for women diagnosed with cancer in one breast: a lumpectomy (removal of the just the affected tissue, usually followed by radiation therapy), a single mastectomy (removal of the whole affected breast), and double mastectomy (removal of the unaffected breast along with the affected one.)

In a previous post we wrote in detail about the study and the finding that the number of double mastectomies in California have increased dramatically. However, except for women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, the procedure does not appear to improve survival rates for women who undergo the surgery compared with women who choose other types of breast surgery. Collins notes:

It isn’t clear exactly what prompted this upsurge in double mastectomy, which is more expensive, risky, and prone to complications than other two surgical approaches. But [researchers] Kurian and Gomez suggest that when faced with a potentially life-threatening diagnosis of cancer in one breast—and fears about possibly developing cancer in the other—women may assume that the most aggressive surgery is the best. The researchers also said it’s also possible that new plastic surgery techniques that achieve breast symmetry through bilateral reconstruction may make double mastectomy more appealing to some women.

Despite its recent upsurge in popularity, the study found double mastectomy conferred no survival advantage over the less aggressive approach of lumpectomy followed by radiation.

Collins also points out that the slightly worse survival rates of women who undergo single mastectomies probably reflect the fact that poorer women were more likely to have this surgery and is evidence of yet another health disparity linked to economic status.

Previously: Breast cancer patients are getting more bilateral mastectomies – but not any survival benefit

Health Costs, Research, Women's Health

Menopausal symptoms tied to lost work productivity, higher health-care costs

Menopausal symptoms tied to lost work productivity, higher health-care costs

Previous studies have shown that hormone therapy, a common treatment for menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, can lead to a higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease, stroke and blood clots in some women. For that reason, many women no longer use the treatment for their symptoms.

Now, a study from Yale School of Medicine researchers has highlighted the economic consequences of this aspect of menopause, with hot flashes being tied to lost productivity at work and to increased health-care costs. Medical News Today reports on the findings (subscription required), which appear in the journal Menopause:

[The research team] used data on health insurance claims to compare over 500,000 women, half with and half without hot flashes. The team calculated the costs of health care and work loss over a 12-month period. Participants were all insured by Fortune 500 companies.

The team found that women who experienced hot flashes had 1.5 million more health care visits than women without hot flashes. Costs for the additional health care was $339,559,458. The cost of work lost was another $27,668,410 during the 12-month study period.”

“Not treating these common symptoms causes many women to drop out of the labor force at a time when their careers are on the upswing,” Philip Sarrel, MD, said in the piece, later adding that there are options for those suffering: “The symptoms can be easily treated in a variety of ways, such as with low-dose hormone patches, non-hormonal medications, and simple environmental adjustments such as cooling the workplace.”

Jen Baxter is a freelance writer and photographer. After spending eight years working for Kaiser Permanente Health plan she took a self-imposed sabbatical to travel around South East Asia and become a blogger. She enjoys writing about nutrition, meditation, and mental health, and finding personal stories that inspire people to take responsibility for their own well-being. Her website and blog can be found at www.jenbaxter.com.

Previously: Studying the link between post-menopausual hormones, cognition and moodAnxiety, poor sleep, and time can affect accuracy of women’s self-reports of menopause symptoms  and Most physicians not prescribing low-dose hormone therapy 

Cancer, Research, Stanford News, Surgery, Women's Health

Breast cancer patients are getting more bilateral mastectomies – but not any survival benefit

Breast cancer patients are getting more bilateral mastectomies - but not any survival benefit

woman looking out window2The most common cancer diagnosis you or a woman you love is likely to receive is early stage breast cancer, probably after detection by mammogram. One would think that given the regularity with which it’s diagnosed, treatment options for early stage breast cancer would be streamlined. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.  There’s a staggeringly large menu of potential surgeries and treatments from which a patient and her doctor must choose, each with their own risks and benefits. Not including all of the different hormone blocking and chemotherapies, patients must pick one of three surgeries, shown here in order of escalating invasiveness and risk of complication:

  • Breast-conserving surgery (removal of the tumor only), followed by radiation
  • Single mastectomy (removal of the entire affected breast and any affected lymph nodes)
  • Bilateral mastectomy (the above plus the the unaffected breast)

One also would assume that the medical evidence base providing the benefits to the risk/benefit equations for each surgery would be large and up-to-date. Surprisingly, it is not. The randomized trials comparing lumpectomy and single mastectomy were conducted 30 years ago, and they showed similar risks of death. There has not been (and probably will never be) a randomized trial comparing bilateral mastectomy to one of the less invasive choices for healthy women. Angelina Jolie and other women positive for the breast cancer genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) are in a different situation. For these women, clinical studies have observed a survival benefit after prophylactic mastectomy. For the 99 percent of women without mutations in these or other high-risk genes, existing trial data do not speak to current trends.

Even after accounting for [numerous factors], we found no evidence of lower mortality for women who had bilateral mastectomy in comparison to breast-conserving surgery

The complexity of choosing a breast cancer surgery – and how evidence should play into that choice – has been a hot topic in the last two months, after the publication of a large study calculating (based on predictive models) that bilateral mastectomy ultimately provides little to no improvement  in life expectancy as compared to a single mastectomy. Soon thereafter, on the New York Times’ opinion page, journalist Peggy Orenstein discussed the emotional reasons why women remove their remaining healthy breast, but firmly labeled bilateral mastectomy as  the wrong approach to breast cancer, saying, “It’s hard to imagine… that someone with a basal cell carcinoma on one ear would needlessly remove the other one ‘just in case’ or for the sake of ‘symmetry’.” Other journalists shared why they chose bilateral mastectomy knowing that it wouldn’t necessarily save their life.

To improve the evidence regarding outcomes after the three surgery types, our team at the Stanford Cancer Institute and the Cancer Prevention Institute of California used one of the largest cancer databases available: the cancer registry for the entire state of California. We tracked all 189,734 women diagnosed with stages 0-III breast cancer from 1998-2011 to learn which surgeries they were undergoing for breast cancer treatment and how long they survived afterwards.  These are all women who should have been eligible for breast conserving surgery with radiation. Our results were published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association today and have already received media attention.

We found that bilateral mastectomy for early stage breast cancer increased from 2 percent in 1988 to more than 12 percent in 2011.  The rate of increase was fastest among women younger than age 40 at diagnosis, among whom over one-third of those diagnosed in 2011 had a bilateral mastectomy. Bilateral mastectomy was more often chosen by non-Hispanic white women, those with private insurance, and those who received care at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center; while unilateral mastectomy was more often chosen by non-white women and those with public/Medicaid insurance. Even after accounting for characteristics of the women themselves, their tumor types, and their hospitals, we found no evidence of lower mortality for women who had bilateral mastectomy in comparison to breast-conserving surgery. Surprisingly, we found that women who underwent unilateral mastectomy had higher mortality than those who had the other two surgery types. We concluded that despite the growing popularity of bilateral mastectomy, it likely does not provide a better outcome than a less invasive procedure.

These data and the public response to them underscore the need for more updated and more personalized information regarding outcomes after common surgeries. Ideally, these would be accessible real-time by patients and their doctors in easily-understood formats.

Christina A. Clarke, PhD, is a Research Scientist and Scientific Communications Advisor for the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, and a member of the Stanford Cancer Institute.

Previously: At Stanford event, cancer advocate Susan Love talks about “a future with no breast cancer”, Exploring the reasons behind choosing a double mastectomy and Researchers unsure why some breast cancer patients choose double mastectomies
Photo by Alex

Mental Health, Nutrition, Obesity, Research, Women's Health

Stressed? You could be burning fewer calories

Stressed? You could be burning fewer calories

cupcakesBad news, ladies: Findings (subscription required) recently published in Biological Psychiatry show that women who consumed comfort food while feeling stressed burned fewer calories than their zen-like counterparts.

In the study, Ohio State University researchers quizzed a group of women about what was causing stress in their lives before they ate a caloric meal consisting of eggs, turkey sausage, biscuits and gravy. Scientific American reports:

Turns out that the most stressed women had higher levels of insulin. Which slows down metabolism and causes the body to store fat. And that fat, if not burned off, accumulates in the body.

The women who had reported feeling stressed or depressed in the day before eating the meal burned 104 fewer calories during the seven hours following the meal than women who felt more mellow.

If eating high-calorie comfort food to alleviate stress becomes habitual, the result could be an average weight gain of 11 pounds per year.

So next time you’re feeling overwhelmed and exhausted, you might want to reconsider reaching for a cupcake.

Previously: Learning tools for mindful eating, Mindful eating tips for the desk-bound and Want to curb junk food cravings? Get more sleep
Photo by Class V

Patient Care, Pediatrics, Pregnancy, Stanford News, Women's Health

A prenatal partnership that benefits patients, medical students

A prenatal partnership that benefits patients, medical students

prenatal partnership

Over on the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford blog, writer Julie Greicius highlights an elective program at Stanford’s medical school that fosters personal connections between prenatal patients and Stanford medical students. The course is designed to offer doctors-in-training the opportunity, early on, to be on the other side of patient care. Emily Ballenger, who’s expecting twins later this month, and medical student Sunny Kummar have partnered up through the program, with Sunny offering extra support by attending prenatal appointments, the babies’ birth, and the first few pediatric appointments.

Relationship building is fundamental to patient-centered care, and with this program the doctor-to-be has the opportunity to identify with the patient experience in his or her supportive role. Without the pressures of being in the medical provider role, the student has the opportunity to practice listening, empathy and compassion.

The value of programs such as this is that they shift the paradigm of the traditional-doctor patient relationship. The scale is tipped from being purely clinical to one focused more on listening and learning from each other. The patient, the doctor-in-training, and their future patients all stand to benefit.

Ballenger’s obstetrician is Susan Crowe, MD, who has long supported the program. “I encourage my patients to participate because it’s a win for future care of obstetric and pediatric patients,” she says in the piece. “I really believe that the patient-centered care we strive for can be better achieved if we train our physicians to really learn from and listen to our patients themselves. One of the biggest strengths of the program is that the patient perspective comes first. It sets the groundwork for that way of thinking in terms of training our medical students.”

Medical schools around the country offer similar programs, recognizing that it’s the human connection that initially draws young doctors to medicine, and Stanford has offered this program since at least 1991. The course directors are Yasser El Sayed, MD, obstetrician-in-chief at Stanford Children’s Health, and Janelle Aby, MD, clinical associate professor of pediatrics.

Jen Baxter is a freelance writer and photographer. After spending eight years working for Kaiser Permanente Health plan she took a self-imposed sabbatical to travel around South East Asia and become a blogger. She enjoys writing about nutrition, meditation, and mental health, and finding personal stories that inspire people to take responsibility for their own well-being. Her website and blog can be found at www.jenbaxter.com.

Previously: Countdown to clinics: The 5 best things about jumping into third year
Photo courtesy of Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital

Aging, Genetics, Imaging, Immunology, Mental Health, Neuroscience, Research, Women's Health

Stanford’s brightest lights reveal new insights into early underpinnings of Alzheimer’s

Stanford's brightest lights reveal new insights into early underpinnings of Alzheimer's

manAlzheimer’s disease, whose course ends inexorably in the destruction of memory and reason, is in many respects America’s most debilitating disease.  As I wrote in my article, “Rethinking Alzheimer’s,” just published in our flagship magazine Stanford Medicine:

Barring substantial progress in curing or preventing it, Alzheimer’s will affect 16 million U.S. residents by 2050, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. The group also reports that the disease is now the nation’s most expensive, costing over $200 billion a year. Recent analyses suggest it may be as great a killer as cancer or heart disease.

Alarming as this may be, it isn’t the only news about Alzheimer’s. Some of the news is good.

Serendipity and solid science are prying open the door to a new outlook on what is arguably the primary scourge of old age in the developed world. Researchers have been taking a new tack – actually, more like six or seven new tacks – resulting in surprising discoveries and potentially leading to novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

As my article noted, several Stanford investigators have taken significant steps toward unraveling the tangle of molecular and biochemical threads that underpin Alzheimer’s disease. The challenge: weaving those diverse strands into the coherent fabric we call understanding.

In a sidebar, “Sex and the Single Gene,” I described some new work showing differential effects of a well-known Alzheimer’s-predisposing gene on men versus women – and findings about the possibly divergent impacts of different estrogen-replacement  formulations on the likelihood of contracting dementia.

Coming at it from so many angles, and at such high power, is bound to score a direct hit on this menace eventually. Until then, the word is to stay active, sleep enough and see a lot of your friends.

Previously: The reefer connection: Brain’s “internal marijuana” signaling implicated in very earliest stages of Alzheimer’s pathology, The rechargeable brain: Blood plasma from young mice improves old mice’s memory and learning, Protein known for initiating immune response may set up our brains for neurodegenerative disease, Estradiol – but not Premain – prevents neurodegeneration in woman at heightened dementia risk and Having a copy of ApoE4 gene variant doubles Alzheimer’s risk for women, but not for men
Illustration by Gérard DuBois

Stanford Medicine Resources: