Health Buzz: Mastectomy May Not Improve Breast Cancer Survival

March 26, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Comment (2)
Tweet

Mastectomy May Not Improve Breast Cancer Survival

A new study suggests that certain breast cancer patients who choose mastectomy may not live longer than ones who don't, the Associated Press reports. Researchers studied 655 women who had breast cancer and also had genetic mutations that heightened their risk of the disease and found that those who had a breast removed had a 15-year survival rate only 2 percentage points higher than ones who did not (89 percent compared with 87 percent). Women who had mastectomies, however, did cut their chance of relapse in half. Six percent of women who had a breast removed relapsed, compared with 12 percent who had chemotherapy without a mastectomy, according to the AP. The findings, presented at a breast cancer conference in Barcelona, may mean that recently diagnosed women in this risk category don't need to feel they must immediately make a decision about mastectomy.

[Read Everyone Is Talking About Mammograms, But Many Women Don't Get Them and Routine Mammograms Before 50: Not Much Point.] [Dr. Bernadine Healy: The new mammogram guidelines could mean 100,000 lives lost.]

Why You May Not Need That Vitamin D Test After All

Right now, at this very moment, your vitamin D levels are probably at their lowest levels of the year, since your body can't make the nutrient from sunshine during the dark winter months. You could be facing an increased risk of heart disease, osteoporosis, dementia, diabetes, and a variety of cancers, U.S. News's Deborah Kotz writes. Scared yet?

Many people are, especially after having their levels tested and being told that they're deficient. With a spate of recent studies touting the prevalence of D deficiency—half of all Americans—and the disease-prevention benefits of having high vitamin D levels, doctors have rushed to test and treat low levels with supplements.

Some experts, though, are starting to sound alarms about the boom in testing, which has been increasing by 80 to 90 percent per year, with several million people expected to be checked in 2010, according to Mayo Clinic pathologist Ravinder Singh. He says he's concerned about the lack of standardization among testing labs after seeing results vary greatly from lab to lab using the same blood sample. The bigger problem, though, is that experts still don't agree on what an "optimal" level of vitamin D might be or whether raising levels actually prevents disease. Read more.

[Read How Much Vitamin D Should You Be Taking? and Time in the Sun: How Much Is Needed for Vitamin D?]

Baby Sling Recall Fallout: What's the Best Way to Tote an Infant?

The recall of 1 million baby slings after the deaths of three babies is a strong reminder that just because a baby product appears in mainstream stories like Target, Wal-Mart, and Burlington Coat Factory—all of which sold the recalled slings made by Infantino—doesn't mean it has been tested for safety, U.S. News contributor Nancy Shute writes.

Slings have become increasingly popular because they let moms and dads carry a baby close to them while keeping their hands free. "Baby wearing" also has been promoted by the "attachment parenting" movement, which asserts that a child who spends hours physically close to a parent will be less fussy and learn more. Some claims, such as the notion that babies carried in slings are toilet trained earlier, seem dubious at best.

But having your baby close to your heart can be cozy and convenient, Shute writes. As a result, dozens of new versions of baby slings have hit the market, including variations on the Snugli, in which babies sit upright; long pieces of cloth like the Moby Wrap, in which the baby is lashed to the parent's chest; and curved bags that resemble a giant hobo-style handbag. Read more.

[Read Buying for Baby: Advice From Consumer Reports and New Warning on Baby Slings and Safety Risks.]

Other Popular Articles From USNews.com