Hiking Ricketts Glen

One of the most beautiful spots in America is in Red Rock, Pennsylvania – the middle of nowhere, really and about  two and a half hours equidistant from New York City, Philadelphia and Harrisburg. It’s called Rickett’s Glen State Park, and it’s home to one of the most fabulous hikes I’ve ever taken, the Falls Trail.

This 7.2 mile hike through old timber forest ,

takes you alongside Kitchen Creek

as it splits and makes its 1,000 foot descent down the Allegheney Front.

Along the way, you’ll cross over wooden footbridges,

and climb and descend rock steps

that take you alongside over 20 waterfalls,

the highest of which, Ganoga Falls, is 94 feet tall.

Wear sturdy shoes and a carry a good walking stick, pack a lunch and, if it’s warm and you are brave enough to confront the chilly waters, wear a bathing suit under your hiking shorts.

Take your time – this is too pretty a hike to rush (We took about 4 and a half hours, including stops for lunch and two swims) . Please be careful, especially when walking downhill.  But don’t let the climbing dissuade you – the first, last and mid-portions are flat

and there are plenty of places to rest.

If you’re in halfway decent shape you’ll be fine, if not a bit sore the day afterwards. Well worth it, I say. We’ll be back again when the leaves change. I can’t wait to see this place in the fall.

___________________________________________________

More on Ricketts Glen from around the web

Can Eating Broccoli Prevent Breast Cancer?

It’s a question I found myself asking after reading that a diet rich in the natural plant compound phenethyl isothiocyanate (PEITC) has been shown to prevent the development of mammary tumors in mice.  PEITC is a compound found in watercress and in cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower.

The researchers found that administering PEITC for 29 weeks was linked with a 56.3% reduction in mammary carcinoma lesions greater than 2mm. “Although PEITC administration does not confer complete protection against mammary carcinogenesis, mice placed on the PEITC-supplemented diet, compared with mice placed on the control diet, clearly exhibited suppression of carcinoma progression,” the authors write. PEITC was also well-tolerated.

Although studies on PEITC in mice are quite promising, proving that PEITC works in humans is not so easy.  Dietary studies in humans are exceedingly difficult to perform, and studies of PEITC-rich foods and cancer rates have had mixed results to date. Still, we do know that people who eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables have lower rates of certain cancers, as well as less heart disease, hypertension and diabetes.

Those are enough reasons to feel good about eating your broccoli.  Here’s my new favorite recipe for eating mine.

ROASTED BROCCOLI

Although there are many wonderful roast broccoli recipes out there (see links below), the simplicity of this preparation makes this it a versatile accompaniment to almost any meal.

Prep Time: 5 minutes
Cook time: 25 minutes
Yield: 4 servings

Ingredients:
1 head broccoli
Extra virgin olive oil
Sea salt & fresh ground pepper to taste

Instructions:

Preheat the oven to 450 degrees Fahrenheit. Cut the broccoli into large florets. Cut off the end of the stalk and discard, then slice the remaining center stalk into 1/8 inch thick rounds. Spread the broccoli out in a single layer on a large baking sheet. Brush with olive oil and season with salt and pepper. Roast 15 mins or so, till just tender and the edges are nicely browned, stopping halfway through to turn the broccoli and re-brush as needed with olive oil.

___________________________________________________________________
NCI info on cruciferous vegetables and Cancer

More great broccoli recipes

Increased Breast Density Does Not Increase Breast Cancer Mortality – One More Argument Against Mandatory Breast Density Laws.

On the heels on NY State’s Breast Density Notification Law, which mandates that women with dense breasts be told they may be at increased risk for breast cancer, comes the reassuring news that having increased breast density does NOT increase the risks of dying from breast cancer.

In order to determine if higher mammographic breast density is linked to a reduced survival in breast cancer patients, Gretchen L. Gierach, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG) at the National Cancer Institute in Maryland, and colleagues looked at data from the U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and examined 9,232 women who were diagnosed with primary invasive breast carcinoma between 1996–2005 with an average follow-up of 6.6 years. The researchers studied the relationships between mammographic breast density and risk of death from breast cancer and all causes. Mammographic density was measured using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification.

The researchers found that density does not influence the risk of death once the disease has developed. They write, “It is reassuring that elevated breast density, a prevalent and strong breast cancer risk factor, was not associated with risk of breast cancer death or death from any cause in this large, prospective study.”

Studies such as these are point out that the most important factor in breast cancer survival is the behavior of the the tumor itself, and not necessarily the risk factors that led to development of cancer in the first place. The analogy I like to use is that of traffic density and accident mortality. The chance of your being in a car accident is of course increased as population and number of drivers, automobiles and passengers in them increases. But your chance of dying in an individual car accident is related more to the circumstances of that accident – the drivers involved, the speed, the road conditions that day, etc – than to the fact that the accident occurred.

One more argument against mandatory breast density notification laws

Presuming that the woman in this study had their mammograms done long before any state passed a breast density law, this study further begs the question as to what benefit these laws will have for women, especially those under age 50, most of whom have dense breasts. (See my previous post on why these laws are misguided.)

At this point, breast density laws are simply legislation based on uncertain science advocated for by women desperate to eradicate breast cancer deaths and passed by legislators who refuse to accept the uncertain state of medical science.

In my opinion, it would be better to focus our legislative efforts on funding research in to the possible environmental causes of breast cancer, and on reducing the levels of known carcinogens in our environment.

___________________________________________________

CBS News does a great job reporting on this issue

Pregnancy Belly Buttons – A TBTAM Giveaway (Winners Announced!)

The winner of this giveaway random drawing is Sarina – 

Sarina

August 28, 2012 | 3:26 pm  Edit

LOVE! I’ll where them in our monthly baby bump shots!

 Congratulations Sarina – contact me at tbtam@rcn.com so I can send you your bellybutons. 
_____________________________

Aren’t these the cutest thing?  I saw them in a stationary store in Salzburg last month and just had to buy them.  Of course, now that I’m home I’m not sure what to do with them. I could give them to a certain someone I know who is pregnant, but truth be told, I’m not sure she’d wear them.

Which got me to wondering just who might wear a pregnancy button, and under what curcumstances. To work? A party? On the street? At home?

And where would one wear it? On one’s belly? Or a lapel? Would you wear them?

Just post a comment giving us your thoughts on wearing pregnancy buttons and you’ll be automatically entered to win the buttons for yourself or to give to someone you know who is pregnant.  One entry per person. Contest ends and winner will be announced on September 3 – that’s Labor Day, of course.

New York’s Breast Density Law – TMI with TLI for Too Many Women

MOST RECENT POST ON THIS ISSUE  Dense Breasts on Mammogram. No need to be Afraid.

Once again, legislators are meddling into healthcare. This time, it’s in my own home state, where Governor Cuomo has just signed a bill requiring radiologists to notify women when their normal mammogram also shows that they have dense breasts. In such cases, the following text must be included in the lay summary mammogram report given to the patient –

“Your mammogram shows that your breast tissue is dense. Dense breast tissue is very common and is not abnormal. However, dense breast tissue can make it harder to find cancer on a mammogram and may also be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

This information about the result of your mammogram is given to you to raise your awareness. Use this information to talk to your doctor about your own risks for breast cancer. At that time, ask your doctor if more screening tests might be useful, based on your risk. A report of your results was sent to your physician.”

New York is the fifth state to pass a mandatory breast density notification law. As of this writing, Connecticut, Virginia, California and Texas have similar laws.

What is Breast Density ? 

Breast density is a subjective radiologic assessment of how well x-rays pass through the breast tissue. It is a surrogate for how much of the breast is composed of glandular tissue and how much is fat. The radiologist reading the mammogram classifies the breast composition as one of the following  –

  1. Almost entirely fat (<25% glandular)
  2. Scattered fibroglandular densities (25-50%)
  3. Heterogeneously dense breast tissue (51-75% glandular)
  4. Extremely dense (> 75% glandular)

For the purposes of the law, dense breasts are defined as those that are heterogeneously dense or extremely dense.

Mammographically dense breasts are extremely common, especially in younger women. According to a recent report of mammograms here in New York City, 74% of women in their 40s, 57% of women in their 50’s, 44% of women in their 60’s and 36% of women in their 70’s had dense breasts.

What We Know (and Don’t Know) About Breast Density

Increased breast density can be a risk factor for breast cancer . 

The mechanism is unknown, but it may be that breast density is just the end result of other factors that increase breast cell proliferation and activity – factors like genetics and postmenopausal hormone use.

How much of a risk? Well, it depends on what study you read and who you compare to whom. If you compare the two extremes of breast density in older women, those with extremely dense breasts have a three to five-fold higher cancer risk than those with mostly fatty breast. The risk is lower than that in those in the middle category of breast density and in younger women, though not well-defined.

The truth is, we really have no way to translate individual breast density into individual risk. Researchers are trying to see if breast density can be incorporated into current risks assessments such as the Gail Model, but at this point, breast density has not been shown to add much more than we already know about a woman’s risk from using these models.

Dense breasts can obscure a cancer on mammogram.  

This makes mammogram less reliable in women with dense breasts. Digital mammograms may be better at finding breast cancers in women with dense breasts who are also peri-menopausal or < age 50, but it is not known if this translates into better outcomes.

Additional testing with ultrasound and MRI can find cancers that mammograms miss in women with dense breasts. Unfortunately, breast ultrasound and MRI screening tests are less specific than mammograms – three times as many biopsies will be done, most of which will not be cancer.

We do not know if additional screening beyond mammograms saves lives.

It might seem to makes sense that it would, but there are no randomized trials to show this. For now, this additional screening is only recommended in women at highest risk for breast cancer based on other factors such as genetic, family and personal health history.

Why the Breast Density Law is Misguided

Our legislators have women’s best interests at heart, but unfortunately, when it comes to the practice of medicine, they really don’t know what they are doing. Allow me to explain…

1.Most women under age 60 have dense breasts.  

Three quarters of New York women in their 40’s, all of whom have just had a normal mammogram, will now be told that they may be at increased risk for breast cancer.

2. Breast density measurement is subjectiveDifferent radiologists may give the same mammogram different ratings. Use of computerized density measurement could alleviate inter-observer variability, but there is not yet a standardized computer rating system.

3. Breast density can vary across a woman’s menstrual cycle and over her own lifetime. The same women being scanned at a different time of month or at a later year can land into a higher or lower breast density category, and may or may not get that letter above. Recent research suggests that a single breast density reading may not be the best way to predict breast cancer risk, and that the risk may be confined to those women whose breast density does not decrease with age.

4. Sonogram and/or MRI for breast cancer screening is currently not recommended based on breast density alone. Additional screening beyond mammography is only used in women at highest risk for breast cancer  – those with cancer in a first degree relative with a high risk gene mutation, a family history suggesting one of these mutations, a Gail model or other combined lifetime breast cancer risk assessment >25% or a history of chest irradiation. Even in this group, declines in morality with the additional screening have not yet been shown, and the false positive rate of this additional testing is extremely high – only 20% of abnormals are cancer  when biopsied.

There are no recommendations to use sonogram and MRI in otherwise low risk women, and none that have shown that using it based on breast density alone saves lives.

5. Additional screening adds significant costs to breast cancer screening.  For some women, this additional cost may not be covered by insurance. While Connecticut has passed a law mandating that insurers cover additional sonograms, New York State has not.

6. The law is a medico-legal nightmare.  The legislators are creating a medical standard where there is none. That however, has never stopped the lawyers.

I would expect a lot more business for radiologists doing defensive breast ultrasounds ordered by referring docs who don’t want to get sued for a missed diagnosis by a woman with dense breasts. After the first breast density law passed in Connecticut, the use of ultrasound in that state skyrocketed.  (The American College of Radiology, by the way, urges caution on breast density legislation.)

I would also expect a lot more lawsuits for missed diagnosis aimed at the referring physicians whenever dense breasts are noted on a mammogram, even if that woman had no other risks factors for breast cancer.

7. The EMR Makes This Law Unnecessary. As EMR use expands, women will be able to read their actual radiology report online. Those who want to know their density will, and the rest will not be unnecessarily alarmed.

8. The law violates the free speech of physicians. This regulation did not originate from within the medical community or the department of health. It is a lay attempt to push screening beyond what the evidence supports at this point in time, and to set a medical standard (ultrasound for every woman with dense breasts) that does not exist.

At This Point, What Can be Done?  

Short of radiologists filing a lawsuit claiming free speech violation ? (Not a bad idea I think…)

We have 180 days before the law takes effect. In that interval, I would recommend that the New York State Health department come up with some educational materials on breast density that informs rather than frightens women. They could include information about breast cancer, mammograms in general, their limitations, benefits and harms. And tell women what to do and where to go if they feel a lump or have a breast symptom.  This additional material can be included with the report so that women actually get the information they need about breast cancer screening, rather than an unexpected scare when what they thought they had just gotten was a normal mammogram.

Hmmm, that’s actually not a bad idea…If someone wants to pass a law that Department of Health written breast cancer screening info be given out at the time of Mammography, I’d get behind it in a second.

But telling the majority of women in their 40’s who have just had a normal mammogram that they may be at increased risk for breast cancer? That’s just wrong.

BRCA Gene Mutations & Ovarian Cancer – Tumor Type More Predictive than Family History

About 15% of women with ovarian cancer are found to carry a germline mutation in the BRCA gene. That’s the gene also associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women, prostate cancers in men and gastrointestinal cancers and melanoma in both men and women.

Typically, the risks for carrying a BCRA mutation are predicted based on personal and family history of BRCA-related cancers.

Now, data from Canadian researchers suggests that, among women with ovarian cancer, the tumor type itself – not family and personal history –  is most predictive of BRCA risk.

In their study of 131 women with ovarian cancer, 25% of those with high-grade serous ovarian cancers had a BRCA mutation. In contrast, none of the women with other tumor types carried the mutant genes.  Had they instead referred these same patients for standard-of-care genetic counseling and screening, a significant  number of BRCA carriers would have gone undetected – 35% if the counselor was their doctor and 20% if they had seen a trained genetic counselor.

While their data is similar to other studies in terms of the percentage of serous cancers associate with the BRCA gene,  none to date has shown such a striking difference between tumor type and BRCA status.  In this regard, it’s important to note that the researchers used the latest scientific methods for determining tumor type, basing it not just on morphology (what a tumor looks like), but on special biochemical tests (sort of like fingerprints).

The authors are recommending routine BCRA screening in all women with high grade serous ovarian cancer, regardless of their family history.

In view of the strong association and high incidence (25%) of underlying BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women with high-grade serous ovarian (pelvic) carcinoma, genetic assessment for consideration of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline testing should be offered to all women diagnosed with this histologic subtype of ovarian cancer regardless of age or family history.

This makes sense to me.

Family history is often incomplete or erroneous. But knowing about BRCA status is important for both ovarian cancer patients and their families, who can use the information to tailor screening and preventive strategies to reduce their risk and allow for early detection and treatment of BRCA-related cancers.

____________________________________________________________________

More from TBTAM on this topic

More  information on ovarian cancer and BRCA

 

Bittman’s Speedier No-Knead Bread with Olive Oil

As much as I love Jim Leahy’s no-knead bread, the reality is that by the time I get my act together to start making it, it’s too late to get a rise by the time I need to serve the bread.

Enter Bittman’s recipe for speedier no-knead bread. With a rise time shortened from 8 hours to 4 hours, you could conceivably have it ready for lunch, which was my plan for Saturday at the cottage. Unfortunately, that would require getting up before 9 am. Too much wine with dinner Friday night nixed that idea. I decided to make the bread anyway, starting at around 10 am on Saturday, figuring we’d eat it at some point during the weekend.  As you’ll see by the recipe below, I accidentally modified it by adding some oive oil to the dough, which I think was not such a bad thing,

Now we’re eating it toasted for Sunday breakfast. Given how delicious it is, there’s no way we would have had any left for today’s breakfast if we had it for lunch yesterday.

I think it all worked out for the best, don’t you?

Mark Bittman’s Speedier No-Knead Bread with Olive Oil

I have trouble finding instant yeast, so this recipe uses active dry yeast, which I proofed before using. If you use instant yeast, as Bittman does, you’ll add it to the dry ingredients and increase the water by 1/4 cup. (The Fresh Loaf has a good post on the differences between these two types of yeast.) If you don’t want to proof your yeast, eliminate the sugar. 

I mis-interpreded Bittman’s ingredient list for “oil as needed”, and added about 2 tbsp of olive oil to my dough. (He meant to use is to oil your working surface.)  On researching what I might have done, it appears that oil strengthens the bubbles in the rise and increases the storage life of bread.  In this case, it also gave the bread a chewier texture, more like a sourdough.  I like that.  

In retrospect, I should have cut back the water by that amount, which explains why my dough seemed so loose – however, it remained easy to work with, so I don’t think I hurt anything. Next time I make it, I’m going to increase the oil to 1/4 cup, which seems to be the norm in bread recipes with oil, and cut back the water accordingly. If you try it first, let me know how it turns out. 

Yields: 1 loaf

Ingredients

  • 1 packet active dry yeast
  • ¼ cup warm water
  • A pinch of sugar
  • 3 cups bread flour (I used King Arthur’s)
  • 1 1/2 teaspoons salt
  • 2 tbsp olive oil
  • 1 1/4 cups water

Directions:

1. Dissolve the yeast in ¼ cup warm water. Add a pinch of sugar. Once the yeast starts to foam, it is ready to use.

2. Combine flour and salt in a large bowl. Add dissolved yeast, 2 tbsp olive oil and 1 1/4 cups water and stir until blended; dough will be shaggy. Cover bowl with plastic wrap and let rest about 4 hours at about 70 degrees.

3. Pull dough out of bowl – it will be shaggy, but will come away in one piece if you work gently enough. Plop in onto a lightly oiled work surface (I use a large wooden cutting board) and fold it over on itself once or twice. Cover loosely with plastic wrap and let rest 30 minutes more.

4. While the dough is resting, put a 6-8 quart heavy covered pot (I use a Le Creuset round French oven) in the oven (lid on) and heat to 450 degrees fahrenheit.

5. When the dough has rested for 30 minutes, carefully remove the now very hot pot from oven. Slide your hand under the dough and drop it into pot, seam side up. Unless the dough is crawling up the sides of the pan (in which case you can shake the pan once or twice to drop it in) don’t worry if it falls a bit off center in the pot. It will straighten out as it bakes.

6. Cover with lid, put back in the oven, and bake 30 minutes, then remove lid and bake another 15 to 30 minutes, until loaf is beautifully browned. Cool on a rack.

IVF Regulation in Turkey Lowers Multiple Birth Rates, Improves Infant Outcomes

In 2010, the Turkish Ministry of Health, in a response to rising rates of multiple births and their attendent complications, passed regulations limiting the number of embryos transferred in an IVF cycle.  In women under age 35 in the first 2 cycles, only one embryo can be transferred. In subsequent cycles and in older women, the limit is two embryos

The result in one maternity center, published in this month’s issue of Human Reproduction, was a significant decline in multiple births, NICU admissions and rates of respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis anemia and pneumonia in newborns, as well as the use of mechanical respiratory support in infants born at that institution.

Lest you worry that pregnancy rates suffered as a result, the authors point out multiple prior studies showing that the adoption of  single embryo transfer has not had an adverse impact on pregnancy rates in that country.

This is just one more study adding to the growing consensus that when it comes to fertility treatment, less can be more.

The United States lags behind Europe in adopting single embryo transfer

Single embryo transfer as first line IVF protocol in women under age 35 is increasing worldwide, although the United States is lagging behind European countries in this regard.

According to The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, only about 10% of IVF cycles in the US in 2008 were single embryo transfer, compared with 20% overall in Europe and as high as 60% in Sweden. This is despite randomized trails that show no statistical difference in pregnancy rates with single embryo vs double embryo transfer at the blastocyst stage, and a reduction in twinning from 48% to 0%.

According to ASRM, barriers to adoption of single embryo transfer in the US are both patient and provider-driven, often fueled by financial concerns on both sides.  The high cost of IVF cycles in the United States leads patients to attempt to complete their family in one cycle, a strategy that may be penny-wise but pound foolish, as the long term costs resulting from multiple gestation can be much more excessive than that of another IVF cycle.  In addition, the manner in which IVF centers are required to report their results encourages multiple embryo transfer. Finally, for single embryo transfer to be successful, IVF centers must be able to select the highest quality of embryo for transfer (not always as easy as it sounds) and have a viable program for freezing unused embryos for future cycles (not all do).

According to the CDC, the rate of twin pregnancies in the United States has risen 76% since 1980, from 1 in 53 to 1 in 31 births.  While some of the rise is explained by increasing maternal age (older moms have higher rates of spontaneous twins), the use of assisted reproductive technology accounts for two-thirds of the increase in twinning in the United States.

Although I know of no move afoot to regulate IVF in the United States the way it is in Turkey, the field is moving in the right direction. Not all centers have what it takes to lead to success with single embryo transfer, and not all patients believe they can afford the luxury of multiple IVF cycles to complete their family.  Studies have shown that when IVF cycle costs are lower, patients will choose single over multiple embryo transfer.

Who are candidates for single embryo transfer? 

Single embryo transfer works best in women under 35 who have more than one good quality embryo resulting from and IVF cycle. It’s also a great option for women undergoing donor egg pregnancy, since egg quality from the donor is expected to be high.  Older women and those with poorer quality or number of embryos will still be candidates for higher order transfers. Over time, newer technology that allows selection of the best embryos will only enhance success rates.

 

Social Media & Medicine 2012 – Slide Share

Thought I’d share my slides based on a lecture on Medicine and Social  Media that I gave last week at The Salzburg Medical Seminars.  (Click on “Share my slides” to download as powerpoint file. )

If you should view all the sides, do note that the last few slides are not really meant as slide show slides but resource lists. So please don’t get all Edward Tuftee on me…

It was wonderful to meet so many wonderful young Obstetrician-Gynecologists from all across the world in Salzburg. If any of you make a website or start Tweeting, do let me know so I can follow you. And most importantly, stay in touch – we are all connected now on this wonderful thing we call the internet!

Mammograms Decline in 40-49 year Old Age Group

Since the US Preventive Service Task Force published revised guidelines recommending individualized screening schedules rather than routine annual mammograms for low to average risk women in their 40’s, the number of mammograms being done in this age group has declined.

In the year after the guidelines were published, nearly 54,000 fewer mammograms were performed on women ages 40 to 49. That represented a 5.72 percent decrease from the previous period. The authors said that the modest reductions probably reflected some public resistance to the new recommendations, in part because of conflicting guidelines from other groups that urge more frequent routine screenings.

I’m not surprised.

The study reflects what I’ve been seeing in my own practice – women in their 40’s asking “Do I really need this test?”  and “Can I wait till I am 50?”. In most cases, after confirming that a patient is not an increased risk of having concerning symptoms or exam findings, we end up compromising on an every other year schedule. This seems to be something both they and I can feel comfortable with in light of the newness of the recommendations and the current medical legal climate in the United States.  The few who have chosen to wait till 50 tend to be those who come from Europe (where mammgrams are done later than in the US) and those with prior experience, either personal or familial, of harms from mammograms.

Hello from Salzburg

I’m here for a week for the Salzburg Seminars, meeting and teaching wonderful physician fellows from across the globe as part of the American Austrian Foundation’s Open Medicine Program. Mr TBTAM is with me, and we’re having a grand old time. Next week, it’s off to Prague and Vienna, and maybe a spa town in the mountains.

Blogging may be a bit sporadic for a bit, but I’ll return soon with pics and tales from across the Atlantic.

Social Media & Medicine Word Cloud

I’m preparing a lecture on Practicing Medicine in the Era of Social Media, and created this word cloud for use in a slide. (I used Wordle) Thought I’d share it here in case anyone else needs it for a similar use. Or any use, really.

Inspirational: Katie Noonan – Breathe In Now

’cause I only have one second, this minute today
I can’t press rewind and turn it back and call it now
And so this moment, I just have to sing out loud
And say I love I like and breathe in now
And say I love I live and breathe in now.