Mushrooms and Green Tea May Lower Breast-Cancer Risk

By Margaret Furtado

A recent study reported in the International Journal of Cancer suggests that women who eat large amounts of mushrooms and drink a lot of green tea may be at lower risk for developing breast cancer.

The research trial included more than 2,000 Chinese women, with 1,009 breast-cancer patients (aged 20-87) and an equal number of healthy women matched for age. Each woman completed a detailed dietary questionnaire citing specific foods consumed.

Do mushrooms and green tea affect breast-cancer rates?

The researchers found that the greater the mushroom consumption (both fresh and dried), the lower the breast-cancer risk. Those who ate the greatest amounts of fresh mushrooms (10 grams or more per day) were about 2/3 less likely than those who ate none at all to develop breast cancer. Subjects who ate 4 grams per day saw their breast-cancer risk fall by half.

Interestingly, the women decreased their risk even more if they also drank green tea daily. The breast-cancer risk of women who consumed both mushrooms and green tea was 11 percent, compared to 18 percent for women who didn't consume either food. The study used green tea, which is a "younger" tea but which still has caffeine.

No proof yet

While the researchers eliminated possible confounding factors, this study does not prove that mushrooms and green tea actually reduce a woman's chances of getting breast cancer.

Epidemiological studies, however, do show that in places where the Chinese people are still eating the traditional diet, breast-cancer rates are 4-to-5 times lower than those of most developed countries. (All bets are off if a Chinese woman has switched to eating a westernized diet.)

While this study has not nailed down a cause-and-effect relationship, it is the first to link high dietary consumption of mushrooms and green tea to reduced breast-cancer risk. In addition, those participants who ate at least 10 grams of mushrooms per day saw the greatest reductions in their risk.

So eat some!

Half a cup of raw mushrooms weighs roughly 35 grams, so a little more than 1/8 cup of raw mushrooms a day (about 8 or 9 grams' worth) might just help reduce your breast-cancer risk. Even an 8-ounce cup of raw mushrooms would add up to only 10 calories; therefore, a big helping of these tasty fungi might also help you feel fuller and lose weight. Adding green tea may be a good idea, too.

If you're a mushroom-lover or willing to try them, here are some tips:

• Look for mushrooms that are firm, unblemished, and free of mold or surface moisture (but not dry).
• Store pre-packed containers of mushrooms in airtight plastic bags in the fridge, so they'll hold on to their moisture and won't spoil so rapidly.
• Place loose mushrooms in a paper bag and then in your fridge.
• Squeeze some lemon or lime juice onto raw mushrooms to help them retain their color.
  
  
  from: Yahoo Health

Is Breast Cancer Incidence on the Rise?

By Lillie Shockney, R.N., M.A.S. -

Feel like you can't open a woman's magazine or watch TV without hearing something about breast cancer?

I think we hear more about breast cancer today because in 1992 it "came out of the closet," if you will. That was the year the pink ribbon was introduced to boost breast cancer awareness. People decided to buy them like crazy, and by wearing the pin, start telling others they either had breast cancer or loved someone who has it or survived it.

And with those pink ribbons came a more relaxed and comfortable attitude about breast cancer, talking about it in public and discussing it in open forums—always with the goal that by raising awareness we could save more lives (and breasts). And it's worked.

Another logical explanation of why we're hearing so much about breast cancer these days is that the incidence of breast cancer is increasing. Why?

Well, one reason why reported cases are on the rise is because there's just a lot more women today who are at risk. As of July 1, 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated there were 78.2 million people—baby boomers—born between 1946 and 1964. Since about half of those are women, it follows that the more women there are the more women will develop breast cancer. Statistics suggest that about 1 of every 1,326 women develops breast cancer.

Another reason for a rise in breast cancer cases is that more women are at risk. More women are overweight today and—since we store estogen in our body fat—we are carrying more estrogen around in our bodies. More women are letting their careers take off now too, and starting their families later. While this is is a wonderful trend, the downside is that we know a woman's risk for breast cancer increases when she delays her first pregnancy beyond age 30.

Here's another risk factor: Women are still smoking and drinking alcohol, both of which are risk factors for breast cancer. And we also suspect that certain substances in the environment increase risk, but we really don't have an understanding, yet, of what or how.

There are two positive aspects to all of this:

• The stats on surviving cancer continue to improve by about 1 percent each year and have for several years.
• Perhaps because of the media focus on breast cancer, the numbers of women getting screening mammograms and doing breast self exams is increasing, both of which help catch breast cancer at an early, treatable stage.

I look forward to the day when I'm out of a job because breast cancer has been eradicated. If that day is ever going to come, however, you need to stay informed. Read the articles in the women's magazines, get your annual mammograms, and see your doctor for annual clinical breast exams.

Physical Activity and Breast Cancer

Experts say the payoffs are substantial.
By Karen Collins, M.S., R.D., C.D.N., American Institute for Cancer Research

New research is adding more insight into the link between walking and other forms of physical activity and lower risk of breast cancer. A landmark report on diet, activity and the prevention of cancer from the American Institute for Cancer Research noted that increased physical activity probably lowers risk of postmenopausal breast cancer and potentially risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer as well. Here are some of the most commonly asked questions regarding cancer and physical activity:

Is it too late to make a difference after years of sedentary living? Research suggests that it’s never too late to start making changes to reduce your cancer risk. In one recent Japanese study, the most active women had less than half the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer than the least active women. Study participants were 40 to 69 years old at the start of the study. In another recent study from Germany, physical activity after age 50 showed an even stronger effect in reducing risk of postmenopausal breast cancer than physical activity at ages 30 to 49.

Is being active worth it if I don’t lose weight? While many people connect exercise to weight control, physical activity protects our health in many ways. Recent studies support findings that physical activity helps lower postmenopausal breast cancer risk both through assisting weight control and more directly. Though studies are not universally consistent, in both studies noted above, the link between more activity and less breast cancer was independent of weight loss.

How much activity will it take? Here’s where it gets harder to interpret because studies measure and categorize activity level in different ways. In the Japanese study mentioned above, women needed to accrue at least one hour of walking daily plus at least one hour of other exercise each week before they showed a significantly lower risk. In the German study, a 21 to 25 percent lower risk of postmenopausal breast cancer was seen in women who got the most leisure time physical activity–the equivalent of at least two hours a day of brisk walking.

Although these recent studies don’t show a clear decreased risk of breast cancer until you reach an hour or more of daily activity, other analyses reveal that even modest activity can impact risk. The AICR second expert report shows that risk of postmenopausal breast cancer drops by three percent for the equivalent of about two hours of moderate walking weekly. A previous analysis of 48 studies looking at risk of pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer showed a 12 percent drop in risk with two hours of moderate exercise weekly. And an important reminder: If you can’t find a large block of time in your week, benefits are seen when activity is broken up into 10- or 15-minute blocks of time.

Is more intense activity better? Several studies, including the Japanese study discussed here, show added protection from breast cancer when women include at least some vigorous activity like jogging, hill walking or aerobics classes each week.

We clearly need more research to resolve some of the more detailed questions about activity and breast cancer risk. But meanwhile, health experts acknowledge that the payoffs of regular physical activity are substantial. And as you begin to discover just how good it makes you feel, don’t hold back, because the more, the better (within reason).

She's Young. She's Fit. She's Got Cancer.

By Melba Newsome, Women's Health

Women's Health

Jen Singer

Occupation: Mother of two

Nome: Kinnelon, N.J.

Type of cancer: B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Age diagnosed: 40

Jen Singer wasn't concerned. OK, she was having trouble dragging herself off the Serta every morning—but with two small children, it was normal to feel fatigued, right? And those nagging aches? Well, considering that she played tennis and took spinning classes, not all that shocking. Besides, the youthful 39-year-old was still surprised when grocery-store clerks called her "ma'am." What was there to worry about?

So when the New Jersey resident started to feel sharp pain in her shoulder blade, she sucked it up. "Some people would have gone to the doctor," she says. "But I hadn't felt my best in so long—one problem or another was nagging at me."

Soon, though, she was feeling breathless and running a fever. When she finally complained of her symptoms to her primary-care doctor, in May 2007—several months after they began—he diagnosed her with pneumonia and prescribed antibiotics. But two weeks later, Jen was feverish and having trouble breathing, so she went back to the doctor. This time, he referred her to a pulmonologist. Chest X-rays turned up a suspicious mass on her lung, and a CT scan confirmed it was a 15-centimeter tumor. She had aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a fast-growing cancer of the lymphatic system (part of the body's immune system). It's most common in 67-year-old men. "I was scared," she says. "I could sense that something was wrong, but I just kept thinking, 'I'm too young for this.'"

Unfortunately, for many people her age, too young for cancer is a precarious spot to be in. Jen is a member of the disease's orphan generation—young adults left behind in the age of research and increasing survival rates. Because they and their doctors ignore signs that would scream "cancer" in someone older, they often go months without a proper diagnosis. What's worse: When some types of cancer are discovered, they tend to be the types that spread aggressively to other parts of the body, offering a slimmer chance of survival.

Although its biggest risk factor is usually age, cancer is still the top disease-related killer of young adults. According to 2007 estimates, there were more than 75,000 new cases in Americans ages 15 to 39, and the rates for some cancers are rising in that age group even as they hold steady for others.

The picture becomes bleaker when you compare survival rates. In the late 1970s, a 10-year-old diagnosed with cancer had about a 60 percent chance of seeing her 15th birthday; in the 1990s, 75 percent. Over the same period, the five-year survival rate for a 65-year-old leapt from about 45 percent to more than 65 percent. Now consider a 30-year-old: During the disco era they had a 70 percent chance of living for another five years. By the time 'N Sync ruled, that prognosis was still the same.

Clinical trials can help, but a study in the Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology found that for many cancers, there are no trials for Gen-X/Yers. Since there's a link between clinical-trial enrollment and treatment success, young women with cancer are at a disadvantage, says study author Peter Shaw, M.D., director of the adolescent and young adult oncology program at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh. "Because cancer in this group is more rare, there has been less effort to create new trials," says Brandon Hayes-Lattin, M.D., medical co-chair of the Livestrong young-adult cancer program at the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute in Portland. "Currently, only 1 to 2 percent of twentysomethings participate in trials, compared with 50 percent of children."

But researchers are trying to play catch-up. In 2006 the National Cancer Institute and the Lance Armstrong Foundation banded together to form the Livestrong Young Adult Alliance, a coalition of about 106 organizations trying to figure out why young adults' prognoses haven't improved. Scientists are studying the characteristics of the cancers most common in young adults, such as melanoma, to determine whether they respond to treatment differently in this age group than in others.

The good news: If you're a young woman, you're unlikely to get cancer. But if you do, you can avoid falling into the gap between diagnosis and effective treatment.

Tune in to your body's signals

Katherine Miller

Occupation: Med student, Des Moines University

Home: Des Moines, Iowa

Type of cancer: Stage IV colon cancer

Age diagnosed: 26

Like Jen Singer, many twenty- and thirtysomethings lead active lives—and it's easy to chalk up fatigue or odd aches and pains to triathlon training or running after a toddler. Take Katherine Miller, a first-year medical student at Des Moines University and a competitive swimmer and cross-country runner. In February 2005, Katherine called her mom complaining of abdominal pain that had been bothering her for months. The physician's assistant at her school's clinic had brushed it off as irritable bowel syndrome worsened by the stress of school. But the cramps were growing worse.

Irene Miller told Katherine to book an appointment with a specialist and hopped the next plane from her home in Florida to Des Moines. But by the time she arrived, Katherine had changed her mind about seeing a gastroenterologist. "She said, 'I'm starting to feel better, Mom,'" Irene recalls.

The reprieve was short-lived. Less than a month later, the pain returned with a vengeance, prompting her to rebook her appointment with the gastroenterologist, whom Katherine convinced to order an ultrasound after she was given yet another IBS diagnosis. Katherine got the devastating results on March 23, 2005—her 26th birthday and more than six months after her symptoms began. She had stage IV colon cancer. A 10-centimeter tumor had spread to her liver.

Within a week, she was undergoing aggressive chemotherapy at New York's Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the doctors were not encouraging. "The most they would say was that her cancer was treatable," Irene says. "I now know treatable is a lethal word." Katherine died in September 2005. "Had she gotten help earlier, she might be here today," Irene says. (Des Moines University has since launched the Katie Miller Young Adult Cancer Conference to raise awareness of the issues young-adult cancer patients face.)

Know that your doctor is not always right

Bridget Mooney

Occupation: Student, Boston University

Home: Boston

Type of cancer: Stage IV breast cancer

Age diagnosed: 21

Bridget Mooney was 21 and focused on finishing her last semester at Boston University when she felt a tiny lump in her breast. It never occurred to her that she might have cancer, so she waited for her yearly pelvic exam six weeks later at a nearby health clinic to mention it.

"I do feel something," the nurse practitioner told her during the exam. "I could send you for follow-up testing, but because you're so young, I wouldn't recommend it." Having her dismiss the lump was a relief for Bridget. Over the next three months, she rarely thought about it. But when she casually brought it up to her mother during graduation weekend, she insisted Bridget fly home to Baltimore for a second opinion.

"I thought she was being paranoid," Bridget says. "Even the ultrasound technician said, 'Don't worry. I've been doing this for 20 years and I've never seen cancer in someone your age.'" But afterward, as doctors discussed her test results in whispers, Bridget had a feeling something was wrong. When her doctor ordered a mammogram and a biopsy, she prepped herself for the worst.

It came the next day, when she was standing in line at Starbucks and her cellphone rang. Stage IV breast cancer. Three years later, she's still being treated with aggressive chemotherapy.

Jen Singer also believes that doctors would have diagnosed her sooner had she been older. "The oncologist shocked me when he said I'd probably had the tumor for about eight months before they found it," Jen says. "Lymphoma symptoms are vague—fatigue, swollen glands, and fever—so doctors tend to think, 'You're a mother. Of course you're tired.'"

Unfortunately, even young women who simply push for more testing may have to battle with their insurers to pay for it, particularly if they have no family history of cancer. For example, most insurance companies recommend annual mammograms for women over 40. Yet according to a report in the online journal Breast Cancer Research, early detection is even more critical for young women, in whom malignant breast tumors tend to be more aggressive. If your insurer refuses to cover a necessary procedure, contest the case and ask your doctor to support your claim. Most policyholders who challenge a decision will get at least partial coverage.

Guard your loins

Michele Kerher

Occupation: Physical therapist

Home: Chicago

Type of cancer: Breast Cancer

Age diagnosed: 35

Treatments like radiation and chemotherapy can throw a young woman into early menopause—a big concern among patients of childbearing age. Yet oncologists don't always mention it or discuss alternatives. When Michele Kerher's marriage ended, in the fall of 2007, the Chicago physical therapist, then 35, back-burnered plans for kids. "I figured I still had time to get remarried and start a family," she says.

But three weeks after her separation, Michele was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer that had already begun to spread to her lymph nodes. She was shocked to learn that the plan her doctor suggested (a lumpectomy and removal of some of her lymph nodes plus 12 weeks of chemo) could destroy her eggs. "My doctor didn't mention it," she says. "A friend tagged along to an appointment and asked, 'What about Michele's fertility?' It was like an afterthought to him."

So before beginning chemo, Michele started the process of storing her eggs: injecting herself with hormones to put her ovaries into overdrive for a month, then having the dozen eggs she produced extracted and frozen. (The procedure is not covered by insurance.) Her periods resumed after her chemo ended, but she doesn't know if her eggs are intact. "I'm glad I took the precaution," she says.

Michele's experience is typical. Studies show that as few as half of childbearing-age women are advised about fertility before treatment. That may change. In 2006 the American Society of Clinical Oncology published guidelines for addressing fertility options with patients. And more treatments are being developed that can KO cancer without harming your chances at pregnancy. Just 10 years ago, the typical treatment for cervical cancer was a complete hysterectomy. But a new procedure, radical trachelectomy, leaves enough of the cervix behind for women to conceive, carry a fetus, and deliver.

Find a program designed for you

Jodi Cooper

Occupation: Real estate developer

Home: Los Angeles

Type of cancer: Breast

Age diagnosed: 31

Mainstream cancer centers tend to be filled with very young patients (like Lego-loving third-graders) or very old ones (think retirement-community residents). When you're the only one with a busy social life or a preschooler at home, it can be hard to find support.

When a physical turned up a lump in Jodi Cooper's breast in 2005, her biggest hurdle was psychological. She worried about how the treatment—a lumpectomy followed by aggressive chemo and seven weeks of radiation—would affect her appearance and social life. "Losing my hair was the worst part," the 34-year-old Los Angeles resident says. "I thought, 'Who would want to date a bald woman who has cancer?'"

As one of the youngest patients at her treatment facility, Jodi also felt socially isolated. She recalls an 84-year-old in the waiting room who tried to console her by saying, "I know how you feel."

"I thought, 'You have no idea how I feel!'" Jodi says. "She was married, had adult children, and had lived a full life. I wanted to meet someone and have kids, and had just learned I might go into menopause after treatment. I felt like damaged goods."

At the time, her doctors didn't know of any support groups for young adults. But after her treatment ended, Jodi tracked down other young women with cancer and offered her support. "I sat with them during chemo sessions," she says. "I wanted them to have what I didn't: the knowledge that they were not alone." Later, a family member told her about Imerman Angels, a group geared toward young adults who are cancer fighters, survivors, and caregivers.

Finding a treatment center designed for young adults can also make a difference in your recovery. There are about 10 such facilities in the U.S., including the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, the Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Program at the Oregon Health and Science University Cancer Institute in Portland, and the Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Center at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. "Compared with older adults, people in their 20s and 30s may metabolize chemotherapy drugs faster or have a better tolerance for higher doses, which would have an impact on the course of treatment," Hayes-Lattin says. On the other hand, there's evidence that chemo may weaken the heart, making younger patients more susceptible to long-term cardio risks that someone in her 60s wouldn't live long enough to need to worry about. Doctors familiar with these risks can recommend follow-ups with a cardiologist. These centers also focus on lifestyle issues unique to young adults, including access to fertility experts and genetic counselors.

After receiving treatment in Baltimore, Bridget is back at Dana-Farber. "Being here makes me feel normal. We talk about cancer, sure, but we also talk to each other about dating and writing a résumé," she says. "It's a relief knowing everybody can relate."

Provided by Women's Health

Breast Lumps: Do I Need a Biopsy?

How to tell when a surgical biopsy is necessary.
By Dr. Rob for MSN Health & Fitness

Q: I'm a woman in my late 30s and found a lump on my breast. I had a mammogram and ultrasound, both of which came back negative. On my doctor's suggestion, I then met with a surgeon, who said it's not a cyst and wants to have a surgical biopsy done to know for sure. I'm confused. Should I get a second opinion?

A: Breast lumps are pretty common, especially in premenopausal women. Fortunately, most are benign (not cancerous) and tend to come and go during a menstrual cycle. However, finding one can be very scary, especially with the knowledge that it could be cancer. This fact makes it very important for every woman—or man, for that matter—to see a physician if any changes in the breasts or nipples, such as discharge or bleeding, is noticeable.

That being said, I want to reassure you that it sounds as if your physician has followed the proper protocol in evaluating your breast lump. However, if you have any doubts or want a second opinion, please listen to your gut: You need to be comfortable and trust your health care provider in this and all health issues.

Even though you did have some good news in that both your mammogram and ultrasound results were normal, I would recommend getting a further work-up by a breast health specialist "just in case" the lump is malignant, or cancerous. A breast health specialist is a surgeon, typically, who has done a fellowship in diseases of the breast or whose practice focuses on breast health.

During your visit the specialist will take a complete history, including the following information:

• When did the breast lump(s) appear?
• Did it go away with the ending of your menstrual cycle?
• Is it painful?
• Do you have a personal history of breast cancer?
• Does breast cancer run in your family?
• Do you smoke?
• Do you have more than one drink of alcohol per day?
• Have you had a previous breast biopsy? If so, what were the results?
• Have you ever had chest irradiation as a child or young adult for any types of cancer?
• The age you began having your menstrual cycles, as well as the age you reached menopause.

Next, the specialist will give you a thorough examination, including an evaluation of your breasts. Particular attention will focus on:

• Breast texture, size, symmetry and presence of any masses or lumps.
• The overlying skin and muscles around the breast area.
• The nipples for any inversion or discharge.
• Lymph nodes in around the armpit, as well as above the collarbone.

Even though you already had an ultrasound, the breast health specialist may repeat this test while palpating (feeling) the lump. This is done because ultrasound results are very dependent upon the technique used for the test and how the findings are interpreted.

Again, it is important to remember that most breast lumps are not cancerous. Some of the different types of breast lumps or masses include:

• Fibrocystic changes cause the breasts to feel lumpy and thickened. More than half of all women experience these changes, which may result in a dull pain or tenderness, especially with hormonal fluctuations during a menstrual cycle. Fibrocystic changes are usually harmless, but do present more of a challenge when performing a breast self-exam.
• Cysts are fluid-filled sacs that are more common in women in their perimenopausal years (ages 35-50). These can be tender to touch and often decrease in size or disappear by themselves when the menstrual period ends.
• Fibroadenomas are solid tumors that feel very firm, with a well-defined shape. These are benign and painless. While they can occur at any age, they are more common in women between 20-40 years of age.
• Injury to your breast can sometimes lead to fat necrosis. This results in scar tissue that can form a lump. It is often firm and moveable. These types of lumps often go away by themselves, but should still be checked out.
• A phyllodes tumor is a painless lump that tends to grow rapidly within the tissue of the breast. These tumors are usually benign; however, they have the potential to be cancerous.
• Calcium deposits can be anywhere in your breasts and tend to show up on mammograms. They are usually from other causes such as a previous injury, secretions from cells in the breast, prior radiation or inflammation. Most of the time they are harmless, but do have the potential to be precancerous or even cancer.
• Intraductal papilloma is a non-cancerous growth in a milk duct. This can cause a discharge, as well as a small lump near the edge of the nipple.
• Breast infection (mastitis) is more common in women who are breast-feeding. This can cause the breasts to be warm, tender and lumpy, and may be accompanied by a fever.
• Breast cancer can often be disguised as a hard, firm and painless lump. These lumps often feel different than the surrounding breast tissue and can sometimes cause changes to the skin overlying this mass.

The breast health specialist undoubtedly will want to do a breast biopsy. This involves removing a sample of the tissue and examining it to determine whether the lump is malignant or benign. The most recent guidelines state that the biopsy technique being used should be as minimally invasive as possible. Examples of these techniques include a core needle biopsy (which removes tissue from the affected area) or a stereotactic Mammotome breast biopsy, where small samples of tissue are removed using a specially designed vacuum-assisted needle that is guided to the correct location by X-rays.

In your particular case, however, the surgeon is recommending a surgical biopsy, which is more invasive than either of the techniques I mentioned. A surgical biopsy involves removing all (excisional biopsy) or part (incisional biopsy) of the breast lump and is usually done in a hospital or surgical suite setting. While I definitely agree a biopsy is needed, I would encourage you to discuss less-invasive options with your doctor before proceeding.

Although this is a very anxiety-prone time for you and your family, choosing a health care team with competence and compassion will go a long way toward relieving your stress.

Chemoprevention: Drugs that can reduce breast cancer risk

Two drugs — tamoxifen (Nolvadex) and raloxifene (Evista) — now have official Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to help protect high-risk women from getting breast cancer.

Research is under way to determine if other drugs can do the job as well as or better than tamoxifen and raloxifene. Top on the list of potential breast cancer prevention drugs is a class of medications known as the aromatase inhibitors. Ongoing studies are evaluating the preventive effects of the aromatase inhibitors versus placebo in high-risk postmenopausal women.

Aromatase inhibitors

Aromatase inhibitors reduce estrogen levels in a woman's body by preventing an enzyme called aromatase from converting other hormones to estrogen. By reducing the amount of estrogen in your body, you deprive breast cancer cells of the fuel they need to grow and thrive. Aromatase inhibitors are only effective in postmenopausal women.

Three aromatase inhibitors are currently used to treat breast cancer in postmenopausal women: anastrozole (Arimidex), exemestane (Aromasin) and letrozole (Femara).

In a study of women who had estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and received standard treatment — surgery plus radiation therapy or chemotherapy — study participants were randomly assigned to take either tamoxifen or anastrozole in an attempt to prevent a recurrence of breast cancer. Study results show anastrozole was slightly better than tamoxifen in reducing the risk of recurrence. The risk of developing a new cancer in the other breast was also lower among women who took anastrozole than in those who took tamoxifen.

These promising results have led researchers to embark on a number of studies to evaluate the effectiveness of aromatase inhibitors in preventing breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women who haven't been diagnosed with breast cancer.

Aromatase inhibitors appear to be at least as effective as and possibly better than tamoxifen, with fewer side effects. Serious adverse effects, such as blood clots and uterine cancer, are less common with aromatase inhibitors. However, aromatase inhibitors may be more likely to contribute to bone fractures and the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis.

from:mayoclinic.com