Letter: Breast cancer, abortion studies

Given the toll that breast cancer exacts on women, it is both appropriate and commendable that The Advocate recently allowed so much space for discussion of this disease.

However, little was written on prevention — which is usually far less expensive to implement than treatment — other than general comments on healthy nutrition, and bilateral mastectomy for those women at high risk for the inheritable form.

There was no comment on the link between induced abortion, contraceptives and breast cancer, nor on the protective effect of a first, full-term pregnancy.

Based on a very recent international conference of obstetricians and gynecologists in Rome, Italy, and as a physician and medical scientist, I feel compelled to bring the following to the attention of your readers:

After beginning menstruation, a woman’s entire, intricate hormonal physiology and much of her innate psychology revolves around the fulfillment of her reproductive capability, as embodied in her periodic fertility until menopause.

Tinkering with this process, especially by interrupting pregnancy, or by hormonally inducing a state of false pregnancy (“the pill”), has negative consequences.

Medical estrogen is classified by the World Health Organization as a Class II carcinogen; after 5-12 years of pill use, cervical cancer rates double.

Also, in a 2009 study co-authored by Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute, “a statistically significant 40 percent increased risk [of breast cancer] for women who have abortions” was found, as was “a 320 percent increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives.”

In contrast, and hereditary factors aside, a first, full-term pregnancy confers a protective effect against later breast cancer that is lost through induced abortion (which also markedly increases the rate of premature birth).

According to 16 of 17 statistically significant studies done in Japan, abortion produced an independent risk for breast cancer, while four conducted within the past year and a half in the United States, China, Turkey and Sri Lanka, similarly concluded that “induced abortion was associated with increased breast cancer risk.”

Finally, an epidemiologic study conducted in a localized area in Britain several years ago showed such a close relationship between abortion and subsequent breast cancer that the authors were able to predict a later rise in annual breast cancer rates in the study area.

Clearly, not all women who develop breast cancer have had an abortion.

Nevertheless, in the context of “Every woman counts,” and wanting to “Stop the silence” — phrases from The Advocate’s pink breast cancer insert — while recognizing that there have been at least 53 million abortions done in the United States during the past 38-plus years, this information must be made available to help women prevent breast (and cervical) cancer!

W.A. KROTOSKI, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.

president, The Hippocratic Resource

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by DuffyShort - 27/10/2011

This is right wing clap trap....The largest, and probably the most reliable, study on this topic was done during the 1990s in Denmark, a country with very detailed medical records on all its citizens. In this study, all Danish women born between 1935 and 1978 (a total of 1.5 million women) were linked with the National Registry of Induced Abortions and with the Danish Cancer Registry. After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found that induced abortion(s) had no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. Another study by Harvard researchers in 2007. This study included more than 100,000 women who were between the ages of 29 and 46 at the start of the study in 1993. These women were followed until 2003 After adjusting for known breast cancer risk factors, the researchers found no link between either spontaneous or induced abortions and breast cancer. The California Teachers Study also reported on more than 100,000 women in 2008. There was no difference in breast cancer risk between the group who had either spontaneous or induced abortions and those who had not had an abortion.

2) Comment by arin - 11/10/2011

I do agree w/ DMJ but with a different solution. Ladies, keep your ankles together...... I feel the buckshot already

3) Comment by DMJ - 10/10/2011

The Hippocratic Resource is a well-known right wing misinformation machine. Don't listen people! The worst thing you can ever do to a child is have one before you're ready. Take the pill, and if you find yourself in trouble, do the responsible thing: take care of it!

4) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 09/10/2011

So, withdrawal then?

5) Comment by beabea - 08/10/2011

The Hippocratic Resource, the organization of which Dr. Krotoski is president, lists as its sponsors the Louisiana Family Forum, various Catholic organizations, and the Louisiana Right to Life Federation. If you look at their website (lahealthprofs4life dot org), you can see from their statement of purpose they are not a scientific organization, but rather an organization of health care providers who happen to be anti-choice and anti-contraception. When one really think about the implication of these two positions together, one realizes this organization advocates "forced birth" by seeking to deny women both the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and then also the means to terminate such a pregnancy. One could therefore reasonably conclude that this organization believes women should have no control over their reproductive lives (other than, of course, to not have sex). Dr. Krotoski (who has also testified before the Louisiana legislature in support of the recently failed "personhood" bill which sought to confer the rights of persons upon an embryo from the moment of conception) is certainly free to believe whatever he wants, but it's shameful to use professional credentials to give a false veneer of scientific credibility to what is really a political and religious agenda served by peddling fear and misinformation.

6) Comment by bayougirl - 08/10/2011

Thank you Happy Scientist. I also feel compelled to chime in here because the medical term for a miscarriage is also called an abortion, so there could be some question as to whether an abortion is elective or spontaneous in the discussion about whether or not abortions seem to have a suggestive cause for breast cancer. Dr. Krostoski also seems to happily overlook the other side of the coin of death caused by childbirth or conditions caused by a high number of births as offset by birth control. There are just as many studies that show birth control as being beneficial to reducing a woman's odds of cancer as well. Quite frankly, the assertion that a woman's reproductive choices could be the cause for her cancer is, in my opinion, absurd. It's disease discussions like this one that made AIDS a global epidemic rather than a quickly cured virus. Let's stop blaming the victims and go about finding a cure, now, shall we?

7) Comment by Happy Scientist - 08/10/2011

Dr. Krotoski, Although the purpose of your letter was not lost on me, I must protest your misuse and misrepresentation of scientific research. As a cancer researcher myself I checked your facts and take issue with your citation of Dr. Louise Benton: "Also, in a 2009 study co-authored by Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute, “a statistically significant 40 percent increased risk [of breast cancer] for women who have abortions” was found, as was “a 320 percent increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives.” I don't know who you are quoting but that paper you referenced did not find a significant association with abortion and the authors never say this either. The study was of largely white women in the Seattle area and examined a subtype of breast cancer. The modest risk they found with contraceptive use is not conclusive nor necessarily causal. The paper is actually well written and clearly admits the studies deficiencies (as all good science should). Breast cancer prevention is a laudable goal and is certainly compatible with your organizations agenda. I do not slight you in this regard. However I expect someone with your credentials to review your sources more critically and not profane good science with personal bias. Jason Walker Ph.D. Cancer Biologist