WEDNESDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) -- In the decades following World War II, both breast cancer rates and the use of synthetic chemicals soared in the United States -- and a new report contends there's a strong connection between the two.

Produced by the Breast Cancer Fund, a non-profit group whose mission is to identify environmental links to breast cancer, The State of the Evidence: 2008 concludes toxic chemicals in the environment, along with increased radiation exposure, are the main culprits in the sharp rise of breast cancer incidence.

The report cautions that "in-utero" [in the womb] and early childhood exposure to carcinogens through plasticizers, estrogen-mimicking substances and other chemicals may increase the risk of breast cancer in adult life.

"As we looked at the research comprehensively, the themes of interactions of timing and mixtures of chemical exposures and also radiation exposure as risks emerged. In bringing this broad focus to environmental causes of breast cancer, we hope to find ways to lower the future incidence of breast cancer not only for adults but, most importantly, for our children and grandchildren," said Dr. Janet Gray, an endocrinology researcher at Vassar College, who edited the report.

However, some public health experts say there's no scientific proof establishing a link between environmental contaminants and breast cancer.

Based on a review of more than 400 breast cancer studies, The State of the Evidence noted that more than 80,000 synthetic chemicals are currently used in the United States, although complete toxicological screening data are available for only 7 percent of them. Many of these substances are known to remain in the environment for many years and accumulate in body fat and breast tissue.

One group of chemicals -- phthalates, which the Breast Cancer Fund report identifies as a breast cancer risk -- was in the news last week when the U.S. Senate passed legislation strengthening the Consumer Product Safety Commission with an amendment requiring all children's toys and child-care products to be free of these hormone system disruptors. A study by Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia last year found that phthalates accelerated breast development and genetic changes in newborn female lab rats, a condition that might predispose the animals to breast cancer later in life.

Exposure to chemicals that mimic estrogens in the body, called xenoestrogens, is thought to be the reason more girls are entering puberty at younger ages, according to Jeanne Rizzo, executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund.

In addition to phthalates, the new report lists other endocrine-disrupting compounds that the study authors say have been shown to affect the risk for breast cancer in humans, or the risk of mammary cancer in animals. Those compounds, according to the report, include:

• Pesticides such as DDT, dieldrin, aldrin and heptachlor; triazine herbicides
• Bisphenol, a chemical used to make plastics, epoxy resins and dental sealants
• Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (byproducts of combustion)
• Tobacco smoke
• Dioxins
• Alkyphenols (industrial chemicals used in cleaning products)
• Metals including copper, cobalt, nickel and lead
• Parabens (anti-microbials used in personal care products)
• Food additives such as compounds given to cattle and sheep to enhance growth

The report also cites environmental factors that may exert cancer-causing effects without hormone disruption. Those factors include exposure to the petrochemical solvent benzene; organic solvents used in the computer, furniture and textile industries; polyvinyl chloride (PVC) used in a variety of appliances, food packages and medical products; 1,3-butadiene, a byproduct of petroleum refining and vehicle exhaust; ethylene oxide, used in medicine and some cosmetics; and aromatic amines, byproducts of manufacturing plastics and dyes. Both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation are also listed as suspected cancer-causing agents, the report stated.

"The conclusions of the surveyed research show us we need to look earlier and earlier at the impact of chemical exposure in utero and early life and how toxins, radiation, genetic predisposition, diet, exercise and all those things interact together to increase breast cancer risk. The results of this study compel us to look at the need for broad public health policy reform and more federally funded research," Rizzo said.

In response to the report, Tiffany Harrington, public affairs director with the American Chemistry Council, said the chemical industry is seeking to better understand the complex relationship between modern chemistry and human health.

"The chemistry industry has contributed to endocrine research by supporting applied scientific studies focused on developing the datasets needed to evaluate the reliability of endocrine screening methods," she said.

Meanwhile, environmental medicine expert Dr. Jonathan Borak, an associate clinical professor of medicine at Yale University's School of Medicine, said a host of studies have found no clear link between specific toxins and breast cancer.

"So far, I have not seen any compelling evidence of a link between any environmental contaminants and breast cancer," he said.

More information

For more on breast cancer, visit the American Cancer Society  .

WEDNESDAY, March 19 (HealthDay News) -- Quality-of-life issues should be weighed carefully when prostate cancer patients are considering the thicket of treatment options available to them, new research suggests.

Different therapies can have a very different impact on aspects of everyday living, and these outcomes need to be discussed with the doctor, the patient and his spouse or partner, concludes a study appearing in the March 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

"Every patient has to weigh their hope, fears, concerns and expectations against the risks and benefits and include their spouse in the decision-making," said Dr. Jeff Michalski, co-author of the paper and a radiation oncology professor at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. "You can't expect one size to fit all. Patients are often faced with decisions based on quality-of-life impact."

"With cancer treatment, it's not enough just to be a survivor, particularly with prostate cancer," added Dr. David Chen, attending surgeon with Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved with the study. "The majority of patients are asymptomatic [after treatment], so their quality of life becomes very important. A paper like this is important to show some of those effects in a quantified way."

Prostate cancer can be successfully treated in a number of ways, notably with a radical prostatectomy, which is surgery to remove the prostate and some surrounding tissue, or with external-beam radiation therapy, or with brachytherapy, in which radioactive "seeds" are implanted in the tumor.

"There are no randomized trials between the three modalities," Michalski noted. "No one is better than the others."

The researchers, from nine hospitals, looked at quality-of-life data on 1,201 patients and 625 spouses or partners before and after radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy or external-beam radiation.

One major finding: adding hormone therapy to brachytherapy or radiation therapy worsened various quality-of-life measures.

Other findings were less clear-cut:

• Men who received brachytherapy had long-lasting urinary irritation, bowel problems and sexual problems, along with short-term problems with general vitality and hormonal function.
• Nerve-sparing prostatectomies had fewer effects on sexual function. But urinary incontinence was often seen after the surgery.
• Treatment-related problems tended to be worse in patients who were older, obese, had large prostates or a high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) score.

Overall, black men reported lower satisfaction with overall outcomes, including those related to quality of life.

Spouses and partners were directly affected by the quality-of-life changes, the research showed, with their emotional state linked to the patient's own level of satisfaction with the treatment outcome.

"This will help people tailor discussion and decision-making," said study senior author Dr. John Wei, associate chair for clinical research at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. "We know more than is typically used in practice."

More information

There's more on prostate cancer therapies at the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

TUESDAY, March 18 (HealthDay News) -- In the year after their first treatment, head-and-neck cancer patients experience decreases in their physical quality of life but improvements in their mental health quality of life, says a U.S. study.

In background information in the study, the researchers noted that head and neck cancer treatment such as feeding tube placement, chemotherapy and radiation "tend to produce pain, disfigurement, eating problems and communication problems. Many patients become disabled, and about one-third of patients continue to smoke, and half are depressed."

This study by David L. Ronis, of the Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and the University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, and colleagues included 316 newly-diagnosed head and neck cancer patients.

The participants provided information about themselves, including smoking status, alcohol use, and depression. Their quality of life was assessed through measurements of physical and social functioning, eating and swallowing, communication, head and neck pain, and emotional well-being. The patients were re-assessed a year later to identify any changes in quality of life.

At the beginning of the study, smoking, symptoms of depression and co-occurring illness were associated with low quality of life scores. At the one-year follow-up, patients showed a decrease in physical functioning and eating quality of life measures, but also showed improvements in mental health.

Treatment measures -- particularly chemotherapy, radiation therapy and feeding tube placement -- were associated with a reduction in quality of life after one year. In addition, smoking and depression symptoms at the start of the study "remained significant predictors of several quality of life scales at one year."

The study was published in the March issue of the journal Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head & Neck Surgery.

By treating depression and emphasizing the negative effects of smoking, physicians may be able to improve head and neck cancer patients' quality of life, the study authors suggested.

Each year in the United States, more than 40,000 people are diagnosed with head and neck cancer, according to background information in the study.

More information

The National Cancer Institute has more about head and neck cancer.

MONDAY, March 17 (HealthDay News) -- Needle-delivered frying or freezing technologies can be useful weapons against both lung and kidney cancers, new research shows.

In one study conducted in France, patients with advanced lung cancer who were not candidates for surgery underwent a procedure known as radiofrequency ablation (RFA), which basically heats the tumors and kills them.

Seventy percent of the patients with lung metastases or primary non-small cell lung cancer were still alive after two years -- similar to results seen after surgery.

Furthermore, 85 percent of patients with non-small cell primary lung cancer treated with RFA had no viable tumors visible on imaging one year later, while 77 percent had no viable tumors after two years.

"It means that you can actually do a very good job of local control of lung tumors in patients who aren't fit for surgery," said Dr. Damian Dupuy, a professor of diagnostic imaging at Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University and director of tumor ablation at Rhode Island Hospital in Providence.

"The medical establishment, being very conservative, has always said if you aren't fit for surgery you just basically get chemo and radiation and most of the time [they] don't work well and you die of your tumor. But even the most unfit for surgery can have this procedure safely," Dupuy said.

The Brown researcher was not involved in the French study, but his group completed a lung cancer trial last year with similarly good results.

The new study, led by Dr. Thierry de Baere of Institute Gustave Roussy, in Villejuif, France, was to be presented Monday at the annual meeting of the Society for Interventional Radiology in Washington, D.C.

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in the United States and a full 25 percent of patients who have operable disease can't undergo surgery because of co-existing conditions, Dupuy noted.

"This is a huge advance for them," he said. "This procedure is done at almost every hospital that has an interventional radiologist, which is most. It's like a lung biopsy."

"If you have to stick a needle in to diagnose lung cancer anyway, why not do it in a single sitting?" Dupuy asked.

Most patients go home the same day, he noted. According to Dupuy, the procedure may also hold promise for pain relief in patients who are dying.

Two other studies presented at the meeting used the other end of the temperature spectrum -- cryoablation -- to successfully freeze and kill kidney cancer tumors.

"This is a minimally invasive, non-surgical cancer treatment without an incision, explained Dr. Christos S. Georgiades, lead author of one of the studies and an assistant professor of radiology and surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. "You put a probe, which is basically a needle, into the tumor, freeze the central volume of the tissue with temperatures close to negative 150 degrees centigrade. The patients don't feel the cold."

In Georgiades' study, the procedure was 95 percent effective for tumors 4 centimeters or smaller and almost 90 percent effective in tumors up to 7 centimeters in diameter after one year. This was in patients with disease that had not yet spread beyond the kidney, he noted.

"The technique has been around for a few years, but we're only now proving that it works," Georgiades said. "Patients have recovery close to that of surgery and many do not have to have surgery. Many procedures are done on an outpatient basis."

The third study, from the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, looked at tumors treated with cryoablation whose average size was 2.8 centimeters. After 1.3 years, most of the tumors still came up on imaging as dead tissue, the team found.

More information

For more on these and other procedures, visit the Society of Interventional Radiologists  .