Some women opt to remove their ovaries to prevent breast cancer recurrence. I considered it -- and then decided I would not take such an extreme measure when I wasn't all that sure I was done having children.

Now, ovary removal may not be necessary -- because a new chemical equivalent of surgery allows women to temporarily shut down their ovaries while preserving their fertility.

The shutdown of the ovaries is called chemopause, and women who choose to go this route receive monthly injections -- considered a super-hormone treatment -- of a drug that blocks the male hormone testosterone and is often used to treat prostate cancer.

Chemopause has big advantages. It doesn't require surgery. And it's not permanent. Women who want to have children can stop the treatment in order to conceive. And women who have trouble with side effects can discontinue use of the surgery-sparing drugs.

The ovary-suppressing drugs -- triptorelin, goserelin, leuprolide, and buserelin -- can be used in place of or on top of standard chemotherapy and hormone therapy and are showing promise in their ability to decrease incidences of breast cancer recurrence.

Medical professionals agree there is value in ovarian suppression. Studies show women whose periods do not return after chemotherapy -- which often causes early menopause -- have lower relapse rates than women whose periods resume. So shutting down the ovaries and stopping menstruation may not be such a bad idea -- and not such an extreme measure either.

One of the keys to finding a cure for cancer is to understand how cancer grows and spreads within the body. Angiogenesis is our body's ability to form new blood vessels. This is important and needed for the body to help heal wounds and is also a part of a woman's menstruation each month. Its function in our bodies is a positive thing most of the time.

Angiogenesis also has a role in how cancer cells grow to become tumors. Cancer cells need a blood supply to live and grow. The cancerous tumor actually develops its own blood supply by sending messages to nearby blood vessels. These vessels then have the ability to grow toward the tumor. The tumor then has its own blood vessels to thrive, survive and grow.

This was not taken seriously back in 1961 when Dr. Judith Folkman came up with the theory of angiogenesis. He felt strongly that tumors could not grow bigger than a head of a pin without blood supply. He thought that an entirely new way to treat cancer would be to block this blood vessel growth to the tumor. Decades of work has proven this theory to be correct. What changed a lot of people's minds was an experiment that was done at the end of the 1970's at Dr. Folkman's lab. Tumor cells were put into a rabbit's eye, a place in the eye where there are no blood vessels. Blood vessels did grow toward and into the eye where the cancerous cells lived.

New birth control pills and contraceptives are already on the market -- or about to be released -- that allow women the option of ending monthly menstruation for good. This option is becoming increasingly popular with women at both the beginning stage and ending stage of their reproductive life.

For women who suffer greatly each month with the physical pain and emotional upsets that can occur during periods, this might be a good option. For other women, it might be a matter of convenience and a way of improving sex life. If you are not actively attempting to get pregnant, this seems like a reasonable option in eliminating periods that do not seem to serve a practical purpose. As I understand it, the pills are far safer than the contraceptive pills of the past, with much lower doses of estrogen and progestin. However, it is still a birth control type pill, and the warnings remain the same. If you are over 35 and smoke, you are advised not to use it. If you are a cancer survivor diagnosed with cancers fueled by hormones, you are advised not to use this method of controlling monthly menstrual cycles. This pill still increases the risk of heart attack, stroke and blood clots.

On the other side of the coin -- according to research -- these birth control type pills might lower risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. But, hormones operate in the body on so many complex levels, and regulate so many other systems within the body, I do not know that scientists understand the complexities enough to tell women that halting a hormone process for an indefinite amount of time by manipulating estrogen and progestin is safe for long-term health. Especially when it comes to cancers that are hormone-driven.

Has anyone else questioned the intent of businesses hitching their product wagon to the pink campaign for breast cancer? I am not picking on this business in particular, it's just the business news press release of the day announcing another company going pink for breast cancer charity. According to vendPINK, a division of the dittie company -- in announcing the launch of its new cause-related pink vending program -- states that the vendPINK program will be supporting women in and out of the bathroom. The company goes on to state that "VendPINK vends the fun, feminine and fabulous dittie tampons that inspires and supports women during that time of the month. While out of the bathroom, vendPINK is inspiring those women fighting breast cancer." Okay. They said it -- not me.

"Our vendPINK programs reflects dittie's commitment to creating a network of women dedicated to supporting one another," said Barbara Carey, dittie and vendPINK president and founder. "Everyone has been affected by breast cancer in one way or another. We are passionate about creating this support system and do not want anyone to ever feel they have to face breast cancer alone." 20 percent of the profits from the sale of this product are going to breast cancer charity. I like all companies who donate a portion of their profits to cancer charity. But there is a small part of me that is becoming cynically exhausted by the pink. Maybe it's just me. How do you feel about the pink?