Judy Foreman

Nationally Sindicated Fitness, Health, and Medicine Columnist

  • HOME
  • Books
  • BIO
  • BLOG
  • COLUMNS
  • Q&A
  • PRESS
  • CONTACT

Column Search

Column Categories

  • General Medicine
  • Women's issues
    • Breast Cancer
    • Hormone replacement
  • Cancer
  • Alternative Medicine
  • Nutrition
  • Exercise/Fitness
  • Heart Disease
  • Aging
  • Pain
  • Dental
  • Allergies
  • Mental Health
    • Depression
    • Alcohol
    • Loneliness/Loss
    • Sleep Problems
    • Anxiety

Working with the body’s rhythms

July 29, 1996 by Judy Foreman

The night belongs to asthma.

If you’re one of America’s 10 million asthmatics, you may find that your symptoms vary like, well, night and day, with the odds of an attack vastly greater in the wee hours — about 4 a.m.– than in daylight.

But if it’s heart attacks and strokes that worry you, early morning is definitely prime time. That’s when cardiovascular problems — as well as more minor troubles like allergies and rheumatoid arthritis — are most likely to strike.

And if pain is your worst enemy, you probably already know when the witching hour comes: late evening.

For years, scientists have known that nearly everything in biology seems to be imbued with its own distintive circadian — or daily — rhythms, from the lowliest bacterial colony to the deadliest of cancer cells to the most complicated human hormones that ebb and flow through our veins according to timetables laid down long ago by evolution.

They’ve found, for instance, that adrenal glands in a test tube secrete hormones at precise times of day, just as they do in the body. And that plants, stashed in closets, furl and unfurl their leaves according to deep, genetically-set rhythms.

Researchers are now making the leap from chronobiology, the study of these basic rhythms, to chronotherapy, the tailoring of drugs to the rhythms of the body and of disease.

“In the old days, doctors used to think that a `steady state’ of drugs in the system was best,” says Michael Smolensky, a physiologist at the University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health, largely because they had been indoctrinated with concept of homeostasis — the idea that the body likes to keep its internal milieu reasonably constant.

But with 24-hour monitoring of blood pressure, hormone secretion and other variables, chronobiologists have shown that homeostasis is more complicated than that. It’s now clear there is fluctuation in many body rhythms every 24 hours — and that it can pay to synchronize treatments to these rhythms.

This insight has led to a such a scramble among researchers and drug companies that doctors are struggling to keep up. According to a Gallup survey done for the American Medical Association, only one doctor in 20 really understands chronobiology.

But most said they were eager to learn, recognizing there’s more to chronotherapeutics than, say, just popping a sleeping pill or even melatonin, the popular but controversial hormone, in the evening to get a better night’s sleep.

Consider asthma, for instance, an inflammatory lung disease with a clear circadian pattern — and treatment strategy.

One reason asthma flares at night is adrenalin, a stress hormone that is also a bronchodilator, or airway opener. Adrenalin peaks in mid-afternoon, then sinks to its nadir 12 hours later, so that airway function is best in mid-afternoon and worst at 4 a.m., says Dr. Richard Martin, head of the division of pulmonary medicine at the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine in Denver.

Histamine, a natural substance that constricts airways, makes things worse. At night, when adrenalin is low, histamine soars, adding to the tendency of airways to narrow.

And then there’s cortisol, a hormone that dampens immune response and inflammation. Cortisol peaks in the early morning, but during the night, when it would help to have cortisol available to curb inflammation in the airways, levels are low.

The result is that airway function varies somewhat in everybody over a 24-hour period. In people with severe asthma, the difference can be as much as 50 percent — potentially the difference between life and death.

To combat this pattern, researchers years ago developed the first genuine chronotherapeutic drug, Uniphyl. If the drug is taken in the evening, its efficacy peaks when it’s needed most — in the middle of the night — then wanes during the day.

Other asthma remedies have also been shown to be most effective at particular times of day, including oral steroids, which seem to work best when given around 3 p.m., says Martin. But he cautions that patients should not alter the timing of these medications without talking to their doctors.

Other chronotherapeutics are fast becoming available.

Last month, Searle, the pharmaceutical arm of Monsanto — began marketing its recently-approved drug, Covera-HS, for high blood pressure and the chest pain of angina.

Doctors have long known that the odds of heart attack, angina or stroke peak in the early morning, as blood pressure soars and platelets become sticky and more likely to form clots.

One obvious solution is to get blood pressure medications into the patient’s system before he wakes up and enters this danger zone. But this can be trickier than it sounds, says Dr. William B. White, chief of hypertension and vascular disease at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington.

Taken at bedtime, some anti-hypertensive drugs may lead to a too-severe drop in blood pressure during sleep, when blood pressure is already comparatively low, and leave too little in the system to be effective in the morning, he says.

Covera-HS, a once-a-day bedtime drug, is designed to get around that problem. The pill has coatings that delay absorption for four to five hours, so that it kicks in early in the morning, says White, who has studied the drug.

Other studies show it can help to take cholesterol-lowering drugs at night, when the liver is busiest making cholesterol.

And just 10 days ago, a Charlestown company, Ergo Science, released tests of a new diabetes drug designed with chronobiology in mind.

Scientists have long known, say Ergo physiologists Anthony Cincotta and Albert Meier, that in healthy, lean animals, certain brain chemicals — notably dopamine — surge in the early morning, then taper off at night. The same pattern is believed to hold for people.

But in Type II diabetes, a condition in which the body becomes resistant to the sugar-transporting hormone insulin, the body clock seems to go haywire: Dopamine drops in the morning.

Ergo’s new drug, still unapproved, seems to fix this errant biorhythm. Taken at breakfast, it dissolves fast, providing a quick blast of a dopamine substitute just as the body needs it.

In 400 people with diabetes, the drug has improved blood levels of glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides and fatty acids.

Timing of treatment may also be important in cancer chemotherapy, says Dr. William Hrushesky, senior attending oncologist at the Samuel S. Stratton Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albany.

Hrushesky, a pioneer in the study of biorhythms in cancer treatment, says there is a distinct rhythm for cell division, for cell suicide, for the growth of new blood vessels around tumors and for the metabolism of drugs given to combat cancer.

Because of these rhythms, he says, “timing is everything” — with different drugs having different windows of effectiveness.

Adriamycin, for instance, may work best in the early morning, 5-FU (Fluorouracil) does best at night and platinum-based drugs like Cisplatin in late afternoon, he says. Pumps worn by the patient make it relatively easy, he adds, to take drugs on a schedule that’s most effective, not just convenient for doctors.

Though the timing of chemotherapy to fit biorhythms is not yet mainstream practice, Hrushesky and French researchers have evidence that survival rates can be quadrupled in ovarian cancer and doubled in advanced colon cancer if chemotherapy is timed right.

And Canadian researchers have shown that children in remission from acute lymphoblastic leukemia who take the drug 6-MP (mercaptopurine) in the evening are three times less likely to relapse than those who take it in the morning.

As with any other new field, of course, much research still needs to be done. But the field is clearly exploding, says Smolensky of Texas. Ten to 15 years ago, when chronobiologists began promoting their findings, “people would look at us as if we had stepped out of a spaceship,” he says.

Now, they’re eager to know more.

SIDEBAR:

With medication, timing is everything

While researchers are developing new drugs to take advantage of the daily rhythms of the body or to fix errant rhythms, research in chronobiology suggests you may be able to enhance the effectiveness of old ones by taking them at just the right time.

If you suffer from hot flashes, for instance, taking estrogen replacement therapy at night — when hot flashes can wake you — may make sense, says Dr. Gary Richardson, director of the neuroendocrine clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Rheumatoid arthritis, an inflammatory disease, is often worst in the morning, says Dr. Martha Barnett, a rheumatologist at Beth Israel Hospital. Though she believes morning stiffness stems from inactivity at night, others think it may be a result of circadian rhythms in hormone secretions and other factors.

Whatever the reason, taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) may help most in the evening. But be sure to take them with food, to help prevent ulcers and other stomach problems. In fact, ulcers have their own circadian rhythms, with many flare-ups occuring during the early hours of sleep.

On the other hand, osteoarthritis, which results from wear and tear on joints, is worse at night, after a day of activity, so taking medications in the morning may be most effective.

Runny noses, colds and nasal allergies are often worst in the morning, notes Michael Smolensky, a physiologist at the University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health. Thus, time-release anti-histamines taken at nighttime may help.

Aerobic exercise, while not a drug, does impact health and can also be timed for optimal effect. Studies by the US and German armies suggest that the biggest increase in endurance comes if you exercise in the afternoon and early evening, says Dr. William Hrushesky, a chronobiologist in Albany, N.Y. It’s also much easier to exercise at this time of day, he adds.

Sunlight isn’t exactly a drug, either. Though it can increase the risk of skin cancer, it is also beneficial because it suppresses the sleep hormone melatonin and helps re-set circadian rhythms so you sleep better at night, says Dr. Michael Holick, chief of endocrinology at the Boston Medical Center.

In fact, one explanation for “winter depression” is that the weaker sunlight in winter may not suppress melatonin well enough.

And there’s another reason sunlight may make you happy. In skin cells at least, sunlight boosts levels of the feel-good hormone, beta-endorphin.

Getting a Fix on the Thyroid

June 10, 1996 by Judy Foreman

Three years ago, Ruth Hertz, 66, a self-described “LOL” or little old lady, began feeling lousy.

A normally avid tennis player, she found herself dragging around the court. “The tiredness sort of seemed to come on suddenly,” she recalled last week.

In fact, Hertz, who lives in Framingham, was “more than tired. I was lethargic. I was doing a lot of sleeping,” she says, “and I was beginning to be a little depressed.”

She finally confided her growing list of symptoms to another woman in her water aerobics class who immediately — and correctly — diagnosed her problem: an underactive thyroid gland.

Thyroid troubles, especially the mild, early stages of hypothyroidism or underactive thyroid, are among the most common and easily missed of medical problems, especially for older women, whose complaints of fatigue or malaise may be dismissed as anxiety, loneliness or part of menopause.

Yet more than 6 million Americans, most of them women, suffer from hypothyroidism. Another million have the opposite problem, hyperthyroidism, in which the butterfly-shaped thyroid gland in the neck makes too much, not too little, hormone.

And while some women do encounter thyroid problems right after childbirth, many more — an estimated 10 to 20 percent — first begin having thyroid abnormalities around age 60.

But increasingly, doctors are getting better not just at diagnosing these problems, but also at avoiding what used to be a major pitfall: Overtreating hypothyroidism, which can cause osteoporosis, or bone loss.

Today, thanks to increasingly sophisticated versions of a sensitive test called TSH, doctors can adjust medications precisely, allowing virtually all patients to maintain normal thyroid function.

Researchers also have a more detailed picture of what causes most thyroid troubles in the first place. As we age, the immune system, for unclear reasons, sometimes begins to attack organs in the body, especially in women.

In hypothyroidism, immune cells mistakenly attack the thyroid gland, a process known as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

Hyperthyroidism can also be caused by an auto-immune disorder — Graves’ disease — in which proteins called antibodies attack the thyroid.

The half-ounce thyroid gland is far more important than its diminutive size would suggest. In fact, the iodine-laced hormone it makes, thyroxine, is essential — and not just in humans.

It is thyroxine that turns tadpoles into frogs, notes Dr. Reed Larsen, chief of the thyroid division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. If tadpoles’ thyroid glands are removed, they keep growing — up to a foot long — but never change into frogs.

Thyroid hormone makes kids grow, too, and is essential for normal brain development as well. A baby born with a defective thyroid will, unless treated, develop cretinism, a form of mental retardation endemic in parts of the world where iodine deficiency causes goiter, an enlargement of the thyroid.

Thyroid hormone is also essential for bone growth and for maintaining the basal metabolic rate — the speed at which the body uses sugars, fats and proteins.

With increasing age, many of us — perhaps 50 percent — develop nodules in the thyroid that doctors can feel. These usually do not interfere with thyroid function and are almost always benign, but occasionally, larger nodules may contain cancer. This is rarely fatal and can be treated by removing the affected part of the gland and treating with replacement hormones.

For most of us, however, it’s the more mundane problems that are the biggest troublemakers in later life.

If your aging immune system goes bonkers and attacks your thyroid, you may suffer fatigue, weight gain, intellectual dullness, depression, a tendency to feel cold, constipation, dry skin and other signs of an underactive thyroid. An overactive thyroid is no better — it can cause fatigue, heart failure and heart palpitations, mood swings, nervousness, weight loss, heat intolerance and other problems.

Either way, you may be miserable, though it’s worth remembering that few people die of either over- or underactive thyroid problems.

But in rare caes, hypothyroidism can cause such a sluggish metabolic rate that coma and death result. And hyperthyroidism can produce a fatal “thyroid storm,” in which the heart races and temperature soars.

But it’s usually the tiny, non-life-threatening changes in hormone function that cause most people misery. And how much hormone you produce is controlled by chemical signals sent out by the pituitary gland, which lies just underneath the brain.

If the pituitary senses that the thyroid gland is not making enough hormone, it puts out extra TSH, or thyroid stimulating hormone. If the pituitary senses the thyroid is making too much hormone, it decreases TSH to damp the system down.

In the old days, before TSH testing allowed doctors to measure miniscule changes in thyroid function, the only way doctors could assess function was by measuring blood levels of a thyroid hormone called T4. And the only rememdy they could offer was a dessicated powder made from the thyroid glands of pigs or cows, which varied greatly in strength from dose to dose.

“But now there are better ways both to test for and treat thyroid problems,” says Dr. Gilbert Daniels, co-director of Thyroid Associates at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Now, most patients’ blood is tested for TSH levels, which is “much more sensitive” than T4 testing at detecting miniscule changes in thyroid function, he says. If the test shows you have hypothyroidism, the solution is straightforward.

“Just give back thyroxine,” says Larsen of the Brigham. Nowadays, most doctors prescribe synthetic hormones such as Synthroid, which costs roughly $10 for a month’s supply, or Levoxyl and Levothroid, which cost $5 and $7 respectively.

But getting the dose right can be tricky, so doctors advise taking the hormone for 4 to 12 weeks, then having your TSH measured again. Once you’re on a medication, some doctors say you should stick with that brand, because formulations vary, though others say all the major drugs are equivalent.

“Don’t let people play musical brands with you, because one brand may not be 100 percent equivalent to another,” says Dr. Harold Rosen, an endocrinologist at Beth Israel Hospital.

And definitely don’t fool around with the dosage. If you take too much thyroid hormone, you may wind up with hyperthyroidism.

“Some people think overtreating is a neat way to lose weight,” says Rosen, and some people do feel better if they are slightly hyperthyroid.

But thyroid therapy rarely turns a chubby person into a svelte one. Even if you lose five or 10 pounds on hormones, you may gain the weight back. Overtreating with thyroid hormone can also cause dangerous thickening of the heart muscle.

And hyperthyroidism, whether it arises spontaneously or from overtreatment of hypothyroidism, can also cause osteoporosis, the bone-thinning disease that women already face at menopause from falling levels of another hormone, estrogen.

Thyroid hormone acts directly on bone, and too much can result in bone loss, says Dr. Meryl Le Boff, director of the Brigham’s skeletal health and osteoporosis program. The rate of loss can be slowed by estrogen therapy or other drugs.

For hyperthyroidism not caused by overtreatment, the best long-term solution is often radioactive iodine, says Larsen of the Brigham. Some patients panic at the idea of taking radioactive chemicals, he says, but this treatment “has been used for 50 years without any radiation-related side effects.”

For some patients, surgery to remove the thyroid gland can also help. And others benefit from drugs like propylthiouracil (PTU) or methimazole (Tapazole) that block the thyroid from making hormone.

The take-home lesson, says Larsen, is that because thyroid problems are so common and the symptoms can be so easily dismissed, patients should not be afraid to ask their doctors for a TSH test.

Ruth Hertz emphatically agrees. Taking thyroid hormone, she says, has “changed my life. It gave me much more energy. And I’m more interested in doing things.”

From Biotech to bees, new answers to MS

May 6, 1996 by Judy Foreman

Kelly Ames, a staff assistant at Harvard Business School, is only 28 years old.

But in the six years that she’s had MS, a neurological disease that causes loss of coordination, partial blindness, even paralysis, she’s tried nearly every remedy in sight.

Drugs — steroids — helped some, she says, but she hated the side effects: “I’d eat like there was no end.”

At her mother’s urging, she went to France to bathe in the holy water in Lourdes, to no avail. Finally, when she could barely walk, she joined a support group, where one woman spoke of a horrifying remedy Ames had never thought of: bee stings.

Susan Graber, a 37-year-old South Carolina woman with MS, wouldn’t go near a bee, she says, because she’s “chicken to explore something where there’s nothing proven.”

She’s put her faith in mainstream science, becoming one of 301 human guinea pigs in a study of a new drug likely to be approved soon by the US Food and Drug Administration.

For years, MS patients had few options beyond steroids to soothe acute attacks, physical therapy and drugs to manage symptoms of the disease, which in some cases progresses steadily and in others, waxes and wanes mysteriously.

But recently, the tide has been turning for the 300,000 Americans with MS, two-thirds of them women in their 20s, 30s and 40s.

Doctors now have better tools to diagnose and track the disease, like MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), for instance.

They also have a firmer grip on the mechanisms by which this debilitating, though rarely fatal, disease gets started in the first place.

A leading theory now is that multiple sclerosis starts when the immune system gears up to fight a virus. Then, mistaking tiny markers on the myelin sheath surrounding nerve fibers in the brain and spinal cord for the virus, the immune system keeps up its attack, destroying the body’s own tissue.

But most important to people fighting MS, researchers have a whole slew of new remedies in the pipeline designed to slow progression of disease and reduce flareups.

Some of these drugs, like Betaseron, approved in 1993 by the Food and Drug Administration, and AVONEX, awaiting approval now, tinker with components in the immune system, suppressing levels of natural, inflammatory substances that contribute to MS flareups and boosting levels of anti-inflammatory chemicals.

“The net effect of both these beta-interferons is to dampen down an overactive immune system,” says Dr. Howard L. Weiner, co-director of the center for neurologic diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

The drugs may work by decreasing levels of gamma interferon and boosting anti-inflammatory substances like interleukin-4 and interleukin-10, among other effects.

Other drugs, like Copaxone, which is also awaiting FDA approval, work through somewhat different means to stop immune cells from attacking the myelin sheath around nerve fibers.

Still other drugs increasingly used against MS are old standbys on the market for other uses, like cancer remedies methotrexate and cyclophosphamide. These drugs work by attacking rapidly-dividing cells, like tumor cells and immune cells that attack myelin.

And other medications, like Myloral, a kind of vaccine, use a totally different approach, taking advantage of a phenomenon called oral tolerance.

The theory here is this: When a person swallows Myloral, which is made of proteins from the myelin sheath, immune cells in the intestines become programmed to recognize the myelin.

When these cells then travel through the bloodstream to the myelin sheath in the brain and spinal cord, they secrete anti-inflammatory substances that should stop the immune attack against myelin. Curiously, notes Weiner, if these same proteins were injected instead of swallowed, the response could be just the opposite — immune cells could attack the myelin sheath.

For many people like Graber of South Carolina, these drugs offer hope for a vastly improved quality of life, despite MS.

During the 2-year AVONEX study, researchers purposely did not tell Graber or any other participants which patients were getting Avonex and which, a harmless placebo.

But Graber, who had no feeling in her legs and could barely walk when the study began, knew right away. Each time she got an injection, she had flu-like symptoms — and relief from MS.

She also “started to fail tremendously” when the test was over and she had to stop taking the drug. Now taking the drug again in a follow-up study, Graber is thrilled.

“I have done so well on this drug,” she says. She still can’t work, but she no longer needs a cane to walk.

But it’s not just mainstream drugs that have people with MS buzzing these days — it’s honeybees.

When Ames first heard of bee venom therapy, she was appalled, especially when the woman in her group who’d been stinging herself “never showed up again. . . We thought she had died.”

But Ames was curious, too, and desperate. So she bought honeybees from a local beekeeper and began stinging herself — “screaming and crying” — every other day.

Popularized in recent years by alternative medicine gurus, among them, 90-year old Vermont beekeeper Charles Mraz, author of the self-published “Health and the Honeybee,” the idea of using bee venom medicinally is probably as old as Hippocrates.

But it was not until the 1950s that scientists, chiefly in Bulgaria and Germany, began taking bee venom seriously. Later, researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research got interested, too, among them Robert Brooks, a Pennsylvania beekeeper and pharmacologist.

Bee venom contains about 40 ingredients, says Brooks, including anti-inflammatory substances, one of which may be 1,000 times stronger than indomethacin, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

And two ingredients in bee venom, and bee venom as a whole, may stimulate release of cortisol, an anti-inflammatory chemical made in the body that also damps down immune response.

But Brooks warns that “the action of bee venom is much more complicated than the simple release of cortisol,” and Dr. Christopher Kim, a pain researcher in Red Bank, N.J., agrees.

In one study of 180 patients with arthritis and similar diseases, Kim found that injections of true venom reduced pain significantly more than injections of “sham” venom. But “bee venom therapy is not pleasant,” he says, and should be used only by patients who do not respond to conventional therapy.

Bee venom can also cause fatal anaphylactic shock, though this is rare. There are 40 reported deaths a year from all stinging insects, including bees and yellow-jackets, according to the National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

To be safe, Kim tests patients first with a small dose of venom to see if they are allergic and keeps antidotes on hand.

Still, there is no scientific evidence that bee venom therapy helps in MS, says Stephen Reingold, vice president for research at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

But that could change.

Dr. Fred Lublin, acting chairman of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadephia, is now studying bee venom in mice, though he, too, stresses that the data are not yet in.

“Just the stress of being stung, as opposed to what’s in the venom,” could stimulate cortisol, he says. And “the placebo effect seems to be especially strong because of the nature of the disease,” which waxes and wanes on its own.

But try telling that to Kelly Ames or her friend Karen Davies, 32, who brings her own bees — obtainable by mail or from beekeepers — three times a week so Ames can sting her. She puts the bees on spots of the body that are also acupuncture points, thus triggering — perhaps — a double-whammy effect.

“I’ll try anything,” says Davies, who gets 120 stings a week. “I feel great,” she says. But she also takes Betaseron.

Ames, however, uses nothing but bee stings. “My eyesight came back and I stopped using a cane,” she says, as soon as she worked her way up to 13 stings every other day.

“I know it works for me. . .I don’t have MS anymore.”

SIDEBAR

What’s new for MS

These are among the new drugs recently approved, likely to be approved soon or under investigation for MS:

  • Betaseron (interferon beta-1b), an every-other-day injection made by Berlex Laboratories, was approved by the FDA in 1993.
  • AVONEX (interferon beta-1a), a weekly injection, made by Biogen, Inc., expected to be approved soon.
  • Copaxone, by Teva Pharmaceuticals, a daily injection, also awaiting FDA approval.
  • Myloral, a vaccine developed by AutoImmune Inc., now in clinical trials.
  • Linomide, by Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc., now in clinical trials.
  • Cladribine, by Ortho Biotech, Inc., also in clinical trials for MS. It is on the market for leukemia, but can be toxic.
  • Fampridine (4-aminopyridine), by Elan Pharmaceuticals, in clinical trials for management of symptoms of MS.
  • Zanaflex, by Athena Neurosciences, Inc., to treat spasticity, is awaiting FDA approval.

For more information on MS and treatments, call:

  • National Multiple Sclerosis Society, 1-800-FIGHT-MS.(1-800-344-4867); for Massachusetts residents, 617-890-4990.
  • Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, 609-488-4500 or 1-800-LEARN-MS.
  • American Apitherapy Society, 1-802-436-2708.
  • MS support group for people using or considering bee venom therapy, 617-641-3109.
  • For books on bee venom therapy, Honeybee Health Products, 1-800-603-3577.

Fine-tuning the Pap Smear with Technology

January 22, 1996 by Judy Foreman

The humble Pap test, a screening test so good that American women now die of cervical cancer at only one-fifth the rate of 50 years ago, is one of the best tools in modern medicine.

Unlike mammograms, which detect breast cancers at an early stage, Pap tests spot abnormalities in cervical cells even before they become cancer.

In fact, if all women got Pap tests regularly, the incidence of cervical cancer — still the chief cause of cancer death in developing countries — could approach zero, specialists say.

Ironically, though, just as improvements are becoming available to make the Pap smear even better — by reducing the rate of both missed cancers and false alarms — cost-conscious health planners are wondering whether we can afford the new tests and even how often women should get Pap smears.

Cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease caused in virtually all cases by any one of four common papilloma viruses, which are spread primarily by genital skin contact. The major risks are having sex before age 20, having three or more sexual partners or having a history of abnormal Pap smears or genital warts. Smoking adds significantly to the risk because tobacco smoke bathes delicate cervical tissues in tar and nicotine.

Since the 1940s, when Dr. Georges Papanicolaou developed his now-famous method of scraping cells from the cervix, spreading them on a glass slide and examining them under a microsocope, the death rate from cervical cancer has plummeted, though it now seems to be rising again slightly in younger women. This year, it is expected to hit nearly 16,000 American women and kill nearly 5,000.

But those figures only begin to tell the story of what has become a $6 billion-a-year industry. Every year, American women have 55 million Pap smears — at $7 to $15 each — and four to five million of these are abnormal.

In most cases, the abnormal tests turn out to be nothing serious, says Dr. Ellen Sheets, director of the Pap smear evaluation center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

But in order to be sure, many women are sent into what doctors call secondary triage — more testing, usually with a $150 exam called colposcopy in which doctors use a high-powered microscope to look at the cervix. This is often followed by freezing, burning or using electrical wires to removesuspect tissue, at another $500 or more per patient.

All this is worth it, of course, if a woman leaves the doctor’s office 100 percent cured, as is usually the case when cervical abnormalities consist of mere dysplasia, the presence of abnormal cells, or carcinoma in situ, a noninvasive cancer.

But it can also be too much of a good thing.

Often, women whose Pap tests are only mildly abnormal “end up with a $500 procedure for a lesion that didn’t need to be treated in the first place,” says Dr. Michael Policar, former vice president of the PlannedParenthood Federation of America and now medical director of the Solano Partnership Health Plan, an HMO in Fairfield, Calif.

The problem, gynecologists say, is that Pap tests are nowhere near as accurate as women assume — or doctors would like.

Granted, things have improved since 1988, when Congress passed a law tightening lab practices following scandals over inaccurate tests read by overworked, underpaid technicians.

But even in good labs, human eyes still miss 20 percent or more of abnormal smears and, somewhat less frequently, tend to see abnormalities where none exist.

Because of this, researchers have been scrambling to fine-tune Pap testing with add-on technology, and a number of devices are now working their way through the US Food and Drug Administration approval process.

Several months ago, the FDA approved a system called PAPNET, which uses computers to re-read normal Pap smears already examined by human technicians. It’s not clear yet whether re-reading by computer “will be more helpful than human re-reading,” says Sheets of the Brigham.

Earlier this month, the FDA also approved for cervical screening a device developed by the Trylon Corp. in California, to be marketed soon by Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. in Michigan.

Called Pap Plus Speculosocopy, the device is a tiny light that is taped to a speculum, the standard device used to examine the cervix. After a Pap smear is done, the doctor simply swabs vinegar on the cervix and shines the blue- white light on it. Abnormal cells appear white, normal cells, dark.

The extra test adds $25 and five minutes to a Pap exam, but it can cut the rate of missed abnormalities to about 5 percent, says Dr. Steven Vasilev, director of gynecologic oncology at the City of Hope Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

Vasilev, who has tested the device in hundreds of women, says “the returns are great, because you are decreasing the chance a patient will come back in two or three years” with cancer.

But many specialists are unconvinced the device will save enough lives to justify the cost. Dr. Diane Solomon, chief of the cytopathology section at the National Cancer Institute says, “I’m not convinced by the data I’ve seen so far.”

Neither is HMO medical director Policar, who says speculoscopy could be “a big deal” as a way to tell which women with abnormal Pap tests need expensive colposcopy. But as “the person who decides which tests to pay for and which not” in an HMO of 45,000 patients, he says he is not sure the test will prevent enough cases of cervical cancer to justify the extra cost.

Dr. Michele Follen Mitchell, director of colposcopy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, is also wary, though she has hopes for her own test, called fluorescence spectroscopy.

Down the line, other refinements may also help make Pap smears more accurate, including a machine to spread cells more uniformly on microscope slides and using infrared light and antibodies to spot abnormalities.

Even before such improvements become available, though, women should not hesitate to get Pap tests. Among all cancer detection tests, the standard Pap test is “probably the only true screening tool that has impacted the death rate,” says Sheets.

Even if doctors don’t know how often women should have it.

For years, the rule of thumb was a Pap test every year, and the AmericanCollege of Obstetricians and Gynecologists still recommends that for sexually active women.

If a woman doesn’t have a yearly Pap test, says Dr. Henry Klapholz, vice chairman of the obstetrics and gynecology department at Beth Israel Hospital, she may skip her annual pelvic exam, the main way of detecting ovarian cancer, as well.

But in 1988, a coalition of medical organizations changed Pap test guidelines. The guidelines say that “all women who are or have been sexually active, or who have reached age 18, should have an annual Pap smear and pelvic exam. After a woman has had three or more consecutive, satisfactory normal annual examinations, the procedure may be performed less frequently at the discretion of the woman and her doctor.”

Concerned about rising costs, “many insurers are pushing” for a three- year interval, says Sheets. In Europe, she adds, women get Pap smears every two or three years, yet have cervical cancer rates similar to those of American women, probably because they are less likely than Americans to skip scheduled exams.

“The real key,” says Cindy Pearson, program director for the National Women’s Health Network, is “to get tested regularly, at the very least every three years. This is the most preventable cancer we’ve got going

Drink up – or not?

January 8, 1996 by Judy Foreman

Studies in women are at odds on alcohol’s risks and benefits

Last May, a huge Harvard study of more than 85,000 women showed that moderate drinking — about one drink a day — lowers the overall risk of death, without apparently raising the odds of dying from breast cancer.

Six weeks later, another big study — of more than 16,000 women — came to a more sobering conclusion: Over a lifetime, even one drink a day may slightly raise breast cancer risk.

Given that women are roughly six times more likely to die of heart disease than breast cancer, and that alcohol protects against heart disease in both men and women, perhaps women shouldn’t worry about a small increase in breast cancer risk from drinking.

But many do.

Which is precisely why the new data on women and drinking is so frustrating. Taken together, the data suggest that drinking decisions for women may be even more complex than for men because risks and benefits are more closely balanced.On top of that, evidence is piling up that women’s bodies are far more vulnerable than men’s to the toxic effects of booze.

All of which suggests that before you pour the next drink, ladies, you might want to ponder the research — on both sides.

Medically, the main argument for drinking is that it protects against heart disease, the leading killer of both men and women.

Alcohol can change the balance of lipoproteins in the blood, boosting ”good” cholesterol (HDL) and lowering “bad” (LDL), notes Dr. Enoch Gordis, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

It can also reduce, at least temporarily, the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots that can block coronary arteries.

And at least some types of alcohol, notably red wine, contain anti-oxidants that may keep LDL from oxidizing. In oxidized form, LDL leads to fatty plaques that clog vessels.

Primarily because of the cardiovascular effects, the Nurses’ Health Study of 85,709 women showed that moderate drinkers (women who had between one-half and one drink a day) had a 12 percent lower risk of death from all causes than women who drank nothing and a 26 percent lower risk those who drank heavily.

A drink was defined as a 4-ounce glass of wine, a 12-ounce can or bottle of beer and a half-ounce of spirits.

But not all women benefit from moderate drinking. In fact, the Nurses’ study showed that if a woman is at low risk of heart disease to begin with, either because she is under 50 or has no coronary risk factors, moderate drinking doesn’t carry any health benefit, though it won’t hurt either.

The women who do benefit are those at higher-than-normal risk of heart disease, notes Dr. Walter Willett , one of the authors and a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Heath.

Factors that raise heart disease risk include high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, a sedentary lifestyle and having a parent who had a heart attack before age 60.

And there’s other evidence that a drink or two may do more than just keep the heart doctor away.

One study of nearly 10,000 women over 65, published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that women who drank moderately did better than nondrinkers on physical function tests, perhapsbecause alcohol was a sign that the drinkers had a more active lifestyle.

Another study, published in 1994 in the American Journal of Public Health, showed that women — and men — who drank moderately got less depressed under stress than teetotallers or heavy drinkers, again perhaps because moderate drinking was a marker for other healthful habits that offset stress.

But drinking clearly has a dark side for women, too, quite apart from the obvious — alcoholism and fetal alcohol syndrome.

At one and a half to two drinks a day, the Nurses’ study showed, the risk of dying from breast cancer — a risk that was invisible at lower levels — increases, perhaps because alcohol raises levels of the hormone estrogen, which promotes some breast cancers. At more than two and a half drinks a day, overall mortality begins to rise, too.

And the risk of breast cancer may increase with as little as one drink a day, says Matthew Longnecker, an epidemiologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences whose report on more than 16,000 women was published in June.

In contrast to the Nurses’ study, which focused on death rates, Longnecker studied the risk of getting breast cancer and found a daily drink was linked to a 40 percent increase in risk, suggesting that 5 to 10 of the 184,300 cases of breast cancer expected this year might be attributed to alcohol consumption.

“That is a stronger association than what had been found in previous studies,” he says, perhaps because he studied lifetime consumption, not recent drinking.

On the other hand, Dimitrios Trichopoulos, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, found in a smaller study of 2,400 women last year that it takes three drinks a day to increase breast cancer risk at all.

To some, like epidemiologist Lynn Rosenberg of Boston University, all this simply means that any causal link between alcohol and breast cancer is farfrom established. But she adds that since “we don’t know how to reduce the risk of breast cancer, even the hint of an increased risk may be enough to persuade some women, particularly younger women at low risk of heart disease, not to drink.”

Others, notably the Wine Institute, a California-based industry association, put a cheerier spin on ambiguous findings, especially the hint — from Longnecker’s study — that the kind of alcohol a woman drinks may affect breast cancer risk.

Longnecker acknowledges that he found wine “was not related to risk of breast cancer,” while beer and liquor were. Beer drinkers had a 25 percent increase in breast cancer risk and liquor drinkers, an 18 percent increase. If wine has an advantage, it might be because it contains so-called “phenolic compounds” that may be protective, he and his team wrote, while beer and liquor “may contain substances that have estrogenic activity.”

But he and other epidemiologists stress that other studies, including somefrom Italy and France, found an increased breast cancer risk even among wine drinkers, which means the issue is far from settled.

And there is growing evidence that women’s bodies are more vulnerable than men’s to alcohol, says Dr. Charles S. Lieber , director of the alcoholism research and treatment center at the Bronx Veterans Affairs Medical Center and professor of medicine at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

In men and women of equal size who consume equal amounts of alcohol, he says, blood levels of alcohol are higher in women, partly because women’s bodies contain less water and more fat, which means alcohol is less diluted in their blood. But women also make less of a stomach enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which helps digest alcohol.

Lieber, whose team recently cloned the gene for this enzyme, says that unlike male alcoholics, who still make some alcohol dehydrogense, female alcoholics make virtually none. And for some women, the ulcer drug Tagamet also exacerbates the problem, making alcohol dehydrogenase even less active.

Women’s livers are particularly vulnerable to alcohol, too, he adds. French studies show men must have about five drinks a day to cause cirrhosis, or heavy scarring, of the liver, while women can get cirrhosis drinking only a glass and a half to two and a half glasses of wine a day.

The bottom line, he says, is that “one drink in a woman of average size is equivalent to two drinks for a man.”

And that is precisely what the revised US government dietary guidelines, issued last week, recommend for those trying to get the health benefits but not the risks of alcohol:

No more than one drink a day for women, two for men.

At this level of consumption, says Willett, alcohol “won’t have overall harmful effects and might even help some women.”

SIDEBAR1EARLY ABUSE IS OFTEN A FACTOR IN ALCOHOLISM

Though male alcoholics outnumber female alcoholics 3 to 1, women seem to suffer medical complications from drinking at far lower levels of alcohol consumption than men. And different factors seem to predispose women to problems with alcohol.

As with men, a family history of alcoholism raises women’s risk of alcoholism, perhaps even more so than for men.

But women, to a greater degree than men, tend to start abusing alcohol during periods of transition like divorce, or when they are in relationships with heavy drinkers, says Norma Finkelstein, director of the Coalition on Addiction, Pregnancy and Parenting in Cambridge.

But perhaps the most telling factor is that many of the 4 million American women who abuse alcohol or are alcoholics were physically or sexually abused as children, says the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Depencence, Inc., in New York.

But socioeconomic factors also play a part. Alcohol use is most prevalent among white women, according to the Commonwealth Fund Commission on Women’s Health. Seventeen percent of white women report moderate to heavy drinking, compared with 11 percent of African American women, 9 percent of Latinas and 6 percent of Asian women.

Alcohol use also increases with income and education, the Commonwealth Fund found. Roughly 8 percent of women without a high school education are moderate to heavy drinkers, versus 20 percent of those with at least some college. Heavy drinking was defined in this study as having more than two drinks a day.

Some states, Massachusetts foremost among them, have made a special effort to create women-only alcohol treatment programs. Research suggests that when men and women are treated together, “the men do better and the women do worse” because women “pay attention to what men need, not what they need,” says Finkelstein.

Co-ed treatment groups can make it more difficult for women to talk about sex abuse, incest, violence and feelings of guilt and shame about raising children while drinking or having drunk alcohol during pregnancy, which can lead to fetal alcohol syndrome, adds Alan Milner, director of the Massachusetts Drug and Alcohol Hotline.

Women drinkers also face more scorn from society than men, adds Dr. Roger Weiss, clinical director of the alcohol and drug abuse program at McLean Hospital in Belmont.

Once in treatment, though, women who are both depressed and alcoholic do better than women who are not depressed, he says, though this is not true for men. Perhaps, he says, depression makes women “more ready for treatment.”

SIDEBAR2

FOR MORE INFORMATION

If you need information or help with an alcohol problem, you may call:

The Coalition on Addiction, Pregnancy and Parenting, 617-661-3991.

The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Hotline, 617-445-1500 or 1-800-327-5050. For the deaf, the TTY number is 617-354-0997.

Alcoholics Anonymous, 617-426-9444.

For Some, Pregnancy Option Remains After Breast Cancer

October 9, 1995 by Judy Foreman

It was early fall, 1993 — decision time for Ann Wheeler of Brookline.

She was 42, a self-described “late bloomer,” and she had finally resolved that with or without her boyfriend’s assistance, she was going to get pregnant by spring and have the baby she’d dreamed of for years.

Then her mother died. Two weeks later, Wheeler, a manager at a Boston work force development firm, was diagnosed with breast cancer. The minute her lumpectomy was done, doctors urged her to go on with chemotherapy and radiation.

Wheeler balked, trapped between the need to save her life and what seemed an equally compelling need: to have a baby.

It is an increasingly common dilemma, as thousands of women find themselves caught in that cruel place where the rising age of childbirth meets the age- related risk of breast cancer.

Wheeler knew the old medical party line — that the hormone surges of pregnancy might fuel her breast cancer; that it would be folly to postpone chemo until after a pregnancy; that if she had the treatment and then had a child, there was no way to know whether she’d live long enough to nurture it to maturity.

But almost more than life itself, Wheeler wanted a child, she said last week from a villa in Tuscany where she was on vacation. “I had to make sure I was able to do that.”

So she cajoled her cancer doctor and an in vitro fertilization specialist into a reluctant pact: She would delay chemo for one month, long enough to take hormone injections to stimulate her ovaries to produce extra eggs and to have the eggs harvested, inseminated and frozen.

Three days after the embryos were frozen, Wheeler began treatment, buoyed by the vision of her frozen assets — “I call them ‘the kids.’ I am planning on having these kids.”

This year, 182,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and nearly a quarter of them will, like Wheeler, get the news while still in their childbearing years.

For many, questions about future fertility, even for those who have already had a child, are among the most agonizing: Is it safe to have a baby after breast cancer? Is it possible, if chemo makes monthly periods stop? Is it smart?

The full answers are not yet in, but old dogma is crumbling in the face of new evidence that for some women, especially those whose cancers are caught very early, a subsequent pregnancy may not be nearly as dangerous as once assumed.

“The teaching five or 10 years ago was that it was not safe,” says Dr. Isaac Schiff, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Massachusetts General Hospital.

In fact, many doctors thought pregnancy was downright crazy because many breast tumors are driven by female hormones, which soar when a woman is pregnant. But “that teaching was based more on intuition than data,” observes Schiff.

The first new data came in 1991, when Dr. David N. Danforth, Jr., a National Cancer Institute surgeon, reviewed a number of studies and found that, taken together, they showed pregnancy does not make the prognosis worse if the cancer was caught early. Since recurrence is most likely right after treatment, he suggested that women wait at least two to three years after treatment before getting pregnant.

Last year, Boston researchers bolstered that view with a small study of 23 breast cancer survivors who later became pregnant, and 23 who did not.

Led by Karen Hassey Dow, now an associate professor at the University of Central Florida School of Nursing, Dr. Jay Harris, clinical director of the Joint Center for Radiation Therapy and Callista Roy, a professor of nursing at BostonCollege School of Nursing, the team matched the women by stage of cancer and found no difference in survival among the two groups.

Furthermore, for many of the women, getting pregnant after breast cancer was an “act of wellness, of life, so these were extremely meaningful events,” says Harris.

Two encouraging studies, of course, hardly clinch the case, especially given sobering data to the contrary, and many doctors, among them Dr. Jeanne Petrek, a surgeon at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, remain leery.

There is no way of knowing, for instance, how many women with breast cancer get pregnant and die — without ever being studied.

And scary evidence on the other side came in a study published last year by Dr. Vincent F. Guinee, a now-retired internist from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

After studying more than 400 women under 30 with breast cancer, Guinee says, “If a woman became pregnant within four years of her diagnosis, survival was affected deleteriously,” regardless of how advanced the cancer was upon diagnosis.

And if a woman was diagnosed with breast cancer while she was pregnant, Guinee adds, she was three times more likely to die of the disease than a woman who had never been pregnant.

But even that worst case scenario is not inevitably a death sentence, as Esterlene Jacks, a 48-year-old Dorchester flight attendant, attests.

Almost 20 years ago, Jacks gave birth to her first son. A week later, she was diagnosed with breast cancer — a clear case of concurrent cancer and pregnancy. She juggled chemo with diaper changes and thought she’d won her battle.

Three years later, her cancer came back, and she was treated again. Four years after that, she felt a lump in her abdomen. This time, though, that lump was a baby, not a tumor, and today, she and her sons, now 19 and 12, are doing fine.

Nor do doctors assume that they cannot offer chemotherapy to a pregnant woman who is diagnosed with breast cancer, says Dr. Michael Greene, director of maternal and fetal medicine at MGH.

“You sure can give her chemotherapy without hurting the baby,” he says. ”We make every effort to avoid it, but on occasion, we do do it and it is remarkably safe,” even though many chemotherapy drugs are targeted at dividing cells, and a fetus is a collection of such cells.

Chemotherapy is not given during the first trimester, when the major organs are forming. And if cancer is diagnosed late in pregnancy, the fetus is delivered by C-section as soon as feasible and the woman is then started on chemotherapy.

“But on occasions where we get caught in the second trimester, where it would be many weeks before the fetus would be safely delivered, . . .we have started chemo,” says Greene, adding he has “come to appreciate how powerful the motivation to have a child is for many women. A lot of women are willing to sacrifice everything to have a child, and it’s not my place to say that’s wrong or foolish.”

So how can you keep your options open if you have breast cancer?

The main risk is from chemotherapy, which can kill developing eggs in the ovaries, so be sure to ask how the drugs you’re getting will affect your ovaries. Some are harsher than others.

If you are in your early 20s, there’s a good chance chemotherapy won’t make you infertile, says Dr. David Rosenthal, chairman of medical affairs for the American Cancer Society, because young women still have so many eggs.

By your late 20s or 30s, however, the risk that chemotherapy will induce a premature but irreversible menopause goes up.

But even for older women, there is growing hope. Recently, doctors have been giving women birth control pills or other hormones called GnRH agonists along with chemotherapy in hopes that these hormones may prevent ovulation and help keep eggs from being damaged.

“It’s a new thing and it’s not guaranteed, but it preliminarily appears to have no downside,” says Dr. Machelle Seibel, director of reproductive medicine at Faulkner Hospital.

The bottom line, as usual, is that each woman has to assess for herself the risks — and ethics — of pregnancy after cancer.

When cancer is confined to the milk duct and has not spread to lymph nodes, there is “no real reason why that person should not get pregnant after treatment,” says Greene.

But if it has spread, or if you were diagnosed during pregnancy, doctors urge caution. Getting pregnant again may be unsafe.

And what of the ethics — and wisdom — of conceiving a child you may not live to raise?

“Any person deciding to become a parent knows they are taking a chance that they may not be around to see the child grow into adulthood,” says Cindy Pearson, program director of the National Women’s Health Network. A woman who has had breast cancer simply “makes that decision in a more extreme way.”

As Wheeler knows.

Despite simultaneous chemo and radiation, Wheeler’s cancer recurred six months after treatment. She also went into irreversible menopause, but she remains undaunted.

“I am still planning to get healthy and to have a surrogate mother have my children,” she says, though she adds, “Clearly, I am not going to go ahead with it unless I completely heal.”

But throughout her ordeal, the chance of having a child has been “the single most important thing to me, along with my family and my boyfriend. . .”

And if worse comes to worst? She has planned for that, too.

“I will donate these embryos to someone else if I am unable to have them.”

« Previous Page

Copyright © 2025 Judy Foreman