ER/PR Negative - check this out!
 

Hello Amazing Group,

If you are ER/PR negative, this article is for you! Cut the fat in your diet, cut your recurrence.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingC...eeting/tb/4717

Have a great day!

Donna

Thank you for this article and update on lowfat diets and hormone negative patients. I fall into this category and will take the advice seriously in regards to a lowfat diet. This is what I love about this site....always up to date on the latest info. Thank you again for sharing this info with all of us.

Rb?
 

Is the result here actually from reduction in fat or possibly more based on a side effect of better balance of fats when fat in general is reduced in the diet...

?

A.A.

I saw the update of the data of the Wins trial at SABAC. It helps all women with BC but helps the most if both hormone receptors are negative (but if one is negative, there is also a great result). The investigators believe it relates to IGFR. Makes sense.


Its late and I just got back. Promise much more later and throughout the week.

Becky, was it statistically significant for ER+/PR+
 

I know that last time the results were updated the results for ER+/PR+ did not reach statistical significance, even though the low-fat diet appeared somewhat beneficial at first glance. The articles are very murky on the issue of significance.

Of course, a low fat diet can be good for the heart, too, (although not as good as the Mediterranean diet if recent controlled trials are believed). It would be interesting to see what the results are like for the Mediterranean, where omega-6 oils aren't so dominant.

Perhaps the data from some of the controlled studies on diet and heart attack risk that are underway will provide some more clues about low-fat and mediterranean diets and breast cancer risk.

Maybe a diet that uses relatively small amounts of the 'good oils' would be the best strategy in the absence of anything clearer?

The results for being both ER and PR positive were very, very low and the results, although better, were not statistically relevent.


When at least one of the receptors is negative, the results are relevent (in order of least beneficial to most being):

Er+PR+ - 21% reduction in recurrence
ER+PRneg - 39% reduction
ERneg PR+ - 44%
ER/PR neg - 66%

Although the exercise study was not re - reviewed (the above is the WINS trial 3 yr results. This study's results were released some time ago but now that more time has passed, the results are being updated - and the results are even better than before especially if you have at least one negative receptor).

Again - emphasised that they are investigating the IGFR role in this study. Secondly - this diet really is VERY low fat. You cannot attain these results if you consume any meat. All fats must come from a plant only based diet. This was very clear. The negative - local dieticians (especially those affliated with cancer centers) are not trained in the background of this study so they cannot help you (this was argued during the presentation questions).

The exercise study gave similar results for the hormone markers (no update during this symposium) with HR+ women not getting as much benefit as any woman who has at least one receptor being negative. This further points to IGFR interactions and how important it is to exercise and eat a low glycemic index diet (to control insulin and insulin resistance).

Cheers

This sounds like great news. My onc told me at the end of treatment the most I can do at this point is low fat diet and exercise.Just one question what does IGFR stand for?

Alice

Insulin Growth Factor Receptor