The folks at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona told me all about the merits of flax seed. They told me to sprinkle it here, sprinkle it there, sprinkle it everywhere. While at this desert destination, I did just that. I dipped into the bowls of flax scattered at all dining locations, and I topped my bagels, cereals, salads, and more with this powerful substance. As soon as I got home from this little slice of paradise, I bought my own personal container of flax. I promptly placed it in my refrigerator, have used it a few times, and just recently realized I'd forgotten why exactly it's so good for me.

I've done some research, and now I know a little more about this thing called flax -- and I remember why it must become a part of my everyday life.

Flax, also known as Common Flax or Linseed, is an annual plant that grows to 120 cm tall, with slender stems. Native to the region extending from the eastern Mediterranean to India, its leaves are green, its flowers blue, its fruit round and containing glossy brown seeds. Grown for both its seeds and its fibers, parts of this plant are used to make fabric, dye, paper, medicines, fishing nets, and soap. The seeds, like what sit in my refrigerator, come in two forms -- brown and yellow or golden. The yellow, golden variety is the one most often consumed.

Post-menopausal women: stay away from barbecued and smoked meat. Or at least increase your intake of fruit and vegetables.

Why?

Because a new study found that post-menopausal women who ate the most grilled, barbecued, and smoked red meat over a lifetime have a 47 percent higher risk of breast cancer. Those who additionally skimped on fruits and veggies had a 74 percent increase in risk.

Think about this:

Red meat makes headlines -- again -- due to new research indicating it increases a woman's chances of developing breast cancer. I've heard this before. Maybe that's because it's becoming pretty conclusive.

Findings are most significant for post-menopausal women because these are the women with the highest rates of consumption -- about one portion of red meat per day. This daily doses puts them at a 56 percent greater risk than women who eat no red meat.

Researchers at the University of Leeds followed the eating habits and health of more than 35,000 women over the past seven years to gather their data, published in the British Journal of Cancer.

According to a CBC News report, ancient druids believed mistletoe had magical properties because of the way it grows, never touching the ground and without taking nourishment from the earth. However, University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff researchers are warning there is nothing magical about the use of mistletoe extract for the treatment of cancer, and in fact, it can cause harm.

Serious side effects from the injection of mistletoe extract have been reported in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal, including a case concerning a 61-year-old woman who had a tumor-like growth develop under her skin, brought on when she self-injected herself with mistletoe extract. The researchers warn that the use of mistletoe extract has been shown to cause a severe allergic reaction, breathing difficulties, joint pain and kidney failure. Some studies have shown that mistletoe might actually lead to cancer growth.

Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine at the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth is quoted as saying, "The idea that mistletoe may help treat cancer is based on that the idea that mistletoe, like cancer, is a parasitic growth that eventually kills its host." The researchers of this published study indicated that there are over 30 mistletoe extract preparations available in Europe, and its use by cancer patients is well-known.

From another source, the National Cancer Institute's overview of mistletoe includes the following:

• Mistletoe is a plant that grows on several types of trees and has been used since ancient times to treat many ailments.
• Mistletoe extract has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to boost the immune system.
• Animal studies have suggested that mistletoe may be useful in decreasing the side effects of standard anticancer therapy.
• Many human studies using mistletoe to treat cancer have been done in Europe with unclear results, and a few clinical trials in the United States and abroad are in progress.
• Very few bad side effects have been reported from the use of mistletoe extract, though mistletoe plants and berries are poisonous to humans.
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved mistletoe as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition.
  

To read detailed information about the highlighted overview, visit the NCI's FAQ about mistletoe.

Breast cancer statistics for 2003 are in, and researchers have announced that the number of breast cancer cases dropped by an impressive seven percent, with the greatest drop occurring in women between ages 50-69 diagnosed with estrogen receptor positive (ER-positive) breast cancer.

The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers attribute this good news to the fact that in the same time frame, millions of women stopped taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) over concerns that HRT led to an increased risk for breast cancer.

If the statistics hold for upcoming years, HRT will have proven a greater causative effect leading to breast cancer than originally believed.

"Incidence of breast cancer had been increasing in the 20 or so years prior to July 2002, and this increase was over and above the known role of screening mammography," stated Donald Berry, Ph.D. "HRT had been proposed as a possible factor, although the magnitude of any HRT effect was not known. Now the possibility that the effect is much greater than originally thought all along is plausible, and that is a remarkable finding."

While the researchers best guesstimate is that HRT might be the contributing factor to the drop in ER-positive breast cancer cases for 2003, they cannot be 100 percent certain at this point. We will need to wait and see what the years 2004 and 2005 tell us about any continuing declines in breast cancer cases, and learn what other, if any, contributing factors are responsible for the decline.

Previous posts we have done regarding HRT and breast cancer:

• Hooray for HRT!?
• HRT and smoking dramatically increases breast cancer risk
• HRT increases breast cancer risks

One in five postmenopausal women with estrogen-positive breast cancer do not take the newer chemoprevention hormone therapy aromatase inhibitor drugs to prevent recurrence as prescribed, according Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals researchers who conducted a study to determine drug usage.

Aromatase inhibitors, such as Anastrozole, have been shown to be an effective means of blocking estrogen that fuels cancer for women diagnosed with estrogen-positive breast cancer, and Dana Farber's Dr. Ann Partridge warns that, "Women may be compromising their care, and ultimately their survival, if they do not take these medications as recommended."

Despite warnings, a significant number of women are choosing to discontinue use and the researchers of this survey can only speculate as to the reasons why. Some of the reasons they believe play a role in the women's decision not to comply with recommended treatment are: fear of side effects, actual experience of side effects, cost of treatment, and negative health beliefs that treatment will not help.

From a personal insight, the most common reason I know of as to why women are not taking this medication, or discontinue usage, is the fact that these drugs do not have a long history of use, and one can only guess what the possible, and presently unknown, long-term side effects will end up being. While Dr. Partridge states without a shadow of a doubt that these new aromatase inhibitor drugs are effective in breast cancer recurrence, only time itself will remedy the hesitation and non-compliance.

Some of the aromatase inhibitors include Anastrozole (Arimidex), Letrozole (Femara), Exemestane (Aromasin) and Formestane (Lentaron). To learn more about aromatase inhibitors, visit the National Cancer Institute's aromatase inhibitors digest.

Laura Berry is a 53-year-old wife and mother of three wonderful sons -- two are firefighters and one is a junior at the Air Force Academy. She also has two wonderful dauthers-in-law, the world's most precious grandson, and a husband of 34 years who is her best friend. Laura is a breast cancer survivor -- who tells me her story is rather unremarkable. I think, like me, you will disagree.

When were you diagnosed with breast cancer?

I was diagnosed on the date of my 30th wedding anniversary on August 12, 2002, following a most wonderful second honeymoon/vacation. Although it was Stage 2 (it had traveled to my lymph nodes) fortunately I had "classic" menopausal breast cancer -- hormone positive, routinely treated with mastectomy, A&C and Taxotere, then tamoxifen, no radiation required. At the same time, my 34-year-old friend with a 4-year-old daughter was dealing with a more invasive form and I felt a certain amount of guilt about that.

Breast density has something to do with breast cancer. This is not really news. It's clear there is some kind of link, some kind of relationship, some kind of risk related to breast density for both pre- and post-menopausal women. It's just not clear how exactly breast density -- how much fat tissue fills the breast compared to other tissue -- contributes to breast cancer risk. But once it is clear, medical professionals will have a whole new arsenal of power in the fight against this deadly disease.

Cancer News in Context, a regular series of podcast commentaries produced by the Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, highlights two recent studies that add weight to the fact that breast density is an important tool in breast cancer prediction and identifies two areas that with futher study might help determine why breasts that are very dense are associated with higher risks for breast cancer -- and why density may be as important a factor as age in determining risk.

Currently, mammograms are the chosen method for measuring breast density. But measurement is not required, and there are no national standards for how to measure. Once federal groups issue requirements and direction on how to classify density, women will receive more accurate assessments of their personal risk.

There is also speculation that altering breast density through hormonal therapy may lower risk. Perhaps genetics are the strongest indicator of risk, making short-term solutions ineffective, but perhaps certain interventions can override genetics, helping women protect themselves from breast cancer.

There are many issues that must be ironed out before we really understand how breast density affects breast cancer. There is no doubt that density, when added to other risk factors, will surely help improve the accuracy of prediction. It's one tool, among many, that is poised to open all sorts of doors.