Julia Bradbury praises breast cancer study
The 54-year-old, who was best known for presenting BBC One's Countryfile, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 after a year and a half of tests.
A study led by the University of Cambridge said that other scans - not just traditional mammograms - could treble the number of cancers detected in these women.
"It is like looking for a snowball in a snowstorm, so this research could not come soon enough," Bradbury said.
Bradbury said she "found a lump" when she was travelling and got it checked.
After having a mammogram, Bradbury said she was "advised there was nothing to worry about".
"I was sitting in the chair about to leave the office with my consultant," she recalled.
"He said I am going to give you another ultrasound before you leave.
"Thank goodness I had that consultant."
Bradbury said a 6cm (2.4in) lump was found during the ultrasound, and she was sent for further tests.
"When I was having the biopsy I knew in my heart there was something seriously wrong, and those were the first tears I shed.
"I then had that horrible conversation of you have got cancer."
The trial, co-ordinated from Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, tested different scanning methods on women with very dense breasts who had only been given a mammogram and had originally been told they did not have cancer.
More than 9,000 women were involved in the study.
About one in 10 women have very dense breasts and have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.
Researchers said the cancers were harder to spot as they look whiter on the X-rays, the same colour as early-stage cancers.
"I did not think there was anything untoward about having dense breasts. However, there is a slight risk of breast cancer," added Bradbury, speaking to the BBC this week.
The Department of Health and Social Care said its screening advisory body had been looking at ways to improve detection rates in women with very dense breasts for a number of years.
It said it would be reviewing the findings of this trial, but it was determined to "fight cancer on all fronts" to improve survival rates.
A new national cancer plan for England is expected to be published later this year.
"This study has show that thousands of undetected cancers could be caught," Bradbury said.
"We have to try and be our own advocates and understand our body a little bit more."
Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Call for NHS to give women with dense breasts extra cancer scans
Permanent home approved for cancer support centre
Breast cancer survivors 'at risk' of second illness
University of Cambridge
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Could your gut protect you from toxic plastics?
Could your gut protect you from the toxic impacts of forever chemicals? Forever chemicals, also known as 'PFAS,' are long-lasting, synthetic chemicals that have been used in consumer products around the world since the 1950s. They're found in waterproof clothing, non-stick pans, plastic food packaging, and firefighting foams. Exposure to the chemicals may be tied to negative health impacts, including fertility, developmental delays in children, a weakened immune system, increased cholesterol levels, and a heightened risk of some cancers. There are thousands of forever chemicals that have potentially varying effects and toxicity levels. Now, scientists say they've discovered that some bacteria found in the human gut have the ability to absorb the chemicals — and potentially protect from associated health impacts. 'We found that certain species of human gut bacteria have a remarkably high capacity to soak up PFAS from their environment at a range of concentrations, and store these in clumps inside their cells,' Dr. Kiran Patil, a member of the British University of Cambridge's MRC Toxicology Unit, explained in a statement. 'Due to aggregation of PFAS in these clumps, the bacteria themselves seem protected from the toxic effects.' Patil was the senior author of the research, which was published in the journal Nature Microbiology. To reach these conclusions, the researchers inserted several species of bacteria from the human gut into mice. The study found that nine species of the bacteria gathered the forever chemicals the rodents ate and then pooped out. When exposed to increasing levels of the chemicals, the bacteria worked even harder, consistently removing the same percentage of the toxic chemicals. Within just minutes of exposure, the bacterial species soaked up between a quarter and nearly two-thirds of the forever chemicals. The same effect has not yet been tested in humans, but the researchers said they plan to use their findings to create probiotic dietary supplements that boost the levels of these species in the gut to shield against any PFAS-related health harms. They are also looking at how they could turbo-charge the species' performance. 'The reality is that PFAS are already in the environment and in our bodies, and we need to try and mitigate their impact on our health now,' Dr. Indra Roux, a researcher at the University of Cambridge's MRC Toxicology Unit and a co-author of the study, said. Until then, the researchers say the best thing people can do to protect themselves is to avoid known risks for exposure. Although, even tap water has been contaminated: nearly half of all tap water in America. Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to weaken Biden-era standards limiting the pollution of potentially-toxic 'forever chemicals' in U.S. drinking water sources earlier this year. 'PFAS were once considered safe, but it's now clear that they're not,' added fellow researcher Dr. Anna Lindell. 'It's taken a long time for PFAS to become noticed because at low levels they're not acutely toxic. But they're like a slow poison.'
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
CISH-Targeted TILs Show Promise in GI Cancer Trial
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. I'm David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at University of Oxford. I'd like to talk a little about a phase 1 trial that has just been published in the May edition of Lancet Oncology , a beautiful paper by Emil Lou and colleagues, in which they all looked at an extraordinarily complicated regimen of gene editing and then reinfusing tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). This just shows how remarkable modern cancer medicine can be. I'd like to talk a little about the procedures involved, given the route of complexity. Initially, for patients in the phase 1 trial with metastatic advanced gastrointestinal cancer, the first step was to receive a non-myeloablative lymphocyte-depletion chemotherapy. This is cyclophosphamide and fludarabine. This is then followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The process of producing the gene-edited TILs is absolutely fascinating. The gene-editing target, the gene that we wanted to knock down, was a novel, internal immune checkpoint protein gene, CISH , which encoded a cytokine-inducible SH2 domain-containing protein. This is an internal immune checkpoint target and quite an interestingly novel one. That's the target to knock down. The process of building the therapy is completely fascinating. Autologous TILs were generated from tumor biopsy fragments from each individual patient, and samples of the TILs were then cultured with patient-derived lymphoblastic cell lines, ormonocyte-derived dendritic cells loaded with pools of synthetic 25-mer peptides containing tumor-specific mutations that were detected from whole-exome sequencing from the patient's tumor. Think about that for a second. The patients undergo biopsy. The TILs are taken off for culture — more on that later — but they were co-cultured with a source of patient-specific tumor-associated antigens, which were generated by whole-exome sequencing. Then, using 25-mer fragments of what they felt were the key tumor-specific antigens, were plumbed into the patients' own dendritic cells so that these antigens would be presented to at the time of co-culture with a patient, so in TILs. It boggles the mind. The TILs with demonstrated reactivity to the neoantigens in this co-culture experiment were selected and they were then subjected to the CRISPR gene editing in vitro. They knocked down CISH , the target that they were aiming for. Then the edited TILs underwent a rapid expansion protocol. They were cryopreserved, and then via some very sophisticated molecular quality control, infused back into the patients. Goodness gracious — I mean, it's extraordinary when you think about it. It was a phase 1 trial, so dose-escalating the number of cells. It's pretty well tolerated. As you would expect, there was some fatigue and some fever. Nobody died in the back of any of the treatment that was given in that way. In terms of effectiveness, these were patients with advanced disease who had undergone multiple previous lines of treatment. There were no severe cytokine-release syndromes, nothing of grade 3 or worse. No neurotoxicity. Six of 12 patients had stable disease by day 28. Four (33%) had stable disease ongoing at 56 days. One young adult who had microsatellite-unstable and mismatch repair-deficient MSI-high tumors — therefore they've already got an existing high neoantigen load — had a complete response. That was very pleasing. I say, again, this is an extraordinary piece of work, to think about the complexity involved in every step of that process — before the patients' own cells, the autologous cells, were manipulated and reinfused with moderately acceptable toxicity, I would say. It's a phase 1 trial, so you're not really looking for a big efficacy readout, but the one younger patient who had, if you like, a genetic predisposition to responding to immunotherapy anyway, had a complete response. I'd be really interested in what you think about it. Who knows what the cost of that would be in terms of the complexity — I keep using that word, don't I? — of every single step. Modern cancer medicine — don't you love it? Well done to the team for producing this phase 1 trial result. How generalizable it will be remains to be seen, given the multiple different steps that are required. It just shows you how, in my lifetime as a cancer doctor, four decades, remarkable progress has been. I'm very interested in any comments you'd have to make. As always, thanks for listening. For the time being, Medscapers, ahoy, and over and out.
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
3 leaders at English hospital where a nurse was convicted of murdering babies are arrested
LONDON — Three senior leaders at the English hospital where nurse Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering seven babies and trying to kill seven others were arrested on suspicion of manslaughter, police said Tuesday. The unnamed suspects being investigated for gross negligence manslaughter were arrested after a corporate manslaughter probe was expanded following Letby's 2023 convictions for the infant deaths at the Countess of Chester Hospital in northwestern England, said Detective Superintendent Paul Hughes of the Cheshire Constabulary. The three were released on bail. 'This focuses on senior leadership and their decision-making to determine whether any criminality has taken place concerning the response to the increased levels of fatalities,' Hughes said. Letby, 35, is serving multiple life sentences after being convicted of seven counts of murder and attempting to murder seven other infants between June 2015 and June 2016 while working as a neonatal nurse at the hospital. Prosecutors said she harmed babies in ways that left little trace, including injecting air into their bloodstreams, administering air or milk into their stomachs through nasogastric tubes, poisoning them with insulin and interfering with breathing tubes. Letby, who testified that she never harmed a child, has continued to proclaim her innocence and support for her has grown as legal and scientific experts have questioned the circumstantial and statistical evidence used at her trial. A panel of international medical experts disputed the evidence against her and her lawyer said she was wrongly convicted. A judge who oversaw a public inquiry seeking accountability of staff and management at the hospital is expected to publish her findings this fall. Justice Kathryn Thirlwall said at the outset of the inquiry that she would not review Letby's conviction, but take a deeper look into how failures led babies to repeatedly be harmed at the hospital. As that inquiry was underway earlier this year, an independent panel of more than a dozen medical experts issued a report that found no sign of a crime and concluded natural causes or bad medical care led to the demise of each of the newborns. 'In summary, then, ladies and gentlemen, we did not find any murders,' Dr. Shoo Lee, a retired neonatologist from Canada, said at a London news conference in February. Letby's lawyers and three former executives at the hospital unsuccessfully petitioned Thirlwall to halt the public inquiry after the medical panel released its findings. They argued that if the convictions are overturned, the inquiry might reach the wrong conclusions and waste more than 10 million pounds ($13.8 million) in taxpayer funds. Letby, who lost two bids to appeal her convictions, now has her case before the Criminal Case Review Commission, which reviews possible miscarriages of justice and could lead to one another shot at an appeal. The Crown Prosecution Service has said two juries convicted Letby and three appellate judges had rejected her arguments that the prosecution expert evidence was flawed. While the medical panel said there was no evidence Letby intentionally harmed any babies, they did find that medical workers at the hospital were not properly skilled in resuscitation and inserting breathing tubes, lacked an understanding of some basic procedures, misdiagnosed ailments and acted slowly in treating acutely ill babies.
