Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 October 2021 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied
Prof Alicia Sherriff, head of the Department of Oncology at the University of the Free State (UFS), says Breast Cancer Awareness Month is important as continued awareness-making of the general population on the risks and signs of breast cancer are essential to ensure early diagnoses and improve the possibility of long-term survival.

Breast cancer among South African women is increasing and is one of the most common cancers among women in South Africa and at Universitas Academic Complex in the Free State, is only second to cervical cancer. 

Prof Alicia Sherriff, head of the Department of Oncology at the University of the Free State (UFS), says 1.8% of breast cancer diagnoses in South Africa are made in men. At Universitas Annex, they treat on average 350-400 new breast cancer patients annually. They have not seen an increase in cancer cases in the past two years; Prof Sherriff says the COVID-19 pandemic definitely had an impact on patients accessing health care and patient referrals.

It is for this reason that Breast Cancer Awareness Month is so important since continued awareness-making of the general population on the risks and signs of breast cancer are essential to ensure early diagnoses and improve the possibility of long-term survival. Early detection is of the utmost importance, since breast cancer is treatable and curable. Awareness is critically important in all age groups and communities. 

Globally, female breast cancer has now surpassed lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer incidence in 2020, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases, representing 11.7% of all cancer cases. 

This is a according to an article in the American Cancer Society which also states that breast cancer accounts for one in four cancer cases in women and is the cause of deaths for one in six patients. It is the fifth leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, with 685,000 deaths.

According to Prof Sherriff, breast cancer is the abnormal growth of breast tissue. The cause is unknown in most patients but there are some factors that increase your risk of developing breast cancer; for example familial genetic syndromes, smoking and excessive alcohol use and obesity. 

“It is important to note that a person can develop breast cancer even if there is no family history or any of the above-mentioned risk factors. The risk of developing breast cancer increases with age. That said, women as young as 18 years of age have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Self-examination is important so women can be familiar with their breasts and any change will be picked up early. When you self-examine always do it at the same time of the menstrual cycle to experience an equal impact of the hormonal cycle in the female body,” says Prof Sherriff. 

Breast cancer in young women

Less than 2% of patients diagnosed with breast cancer are younger than 34years of age, but it is important to realise that it can happen and if it does arise in the younger age group it tends to be more aggressive and related to genetic mutation.

“The young breast tends to be very dense and therefore more difficult to interpret on a mammogram. For females younger than 40-45 years or women with dense breast tissue, breast sonar is advised to evaluate the breast and sometimes an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) might be requested, but this is not standard practice. 

“Reproductive and hormonal risk factors to consider are: Early age at menarche, later age at menopause, advanced age at first birth, fewer number of children, less breastfeeding, menopausal hormone therapy, oral contraceptives. These factors all increase the duration of the female breast being exposed to higher levels of estrogen. Certain lifestyle risk factors (alcohol intake, excess body weight, physical inactivity) also increase the levels of hormonal exposure,” says Prof Sherriff. 

Breast cancer rising 

According to an article in the American Cancer Society, incidence rates of breast cancer are rising fast in transitioning countries in South America, Africa, and Asia as well as in high-income Asian countries (Japan and the Republic of Korea), where rates are historically low. 

Dramatic changes in lifestyle, sociocultural, and built environments brought about by growing economies and an increase in the proportion of women in the industrial workforce have had an impact on the prevalence of breast cancer risk factors which include the postponement of childbearing and having fewer children, greater levels of excess body weight and physical inactivity, and have resulted in a convergence toward the risk factor profile of Western countries and narrowing international gaps in breast cancer morbidity.

“Some of the most rapid increases are occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. Between the mid-1990s and mid-2010s, incidence rates increased by more than 5% a year in Malawi (Blantyre), Nigeria (Ibadan), the Seychelles, and 3% to 4% a year in South Africa (Eastern Cape) and Zimbabwe (Harare). Mortality rates in sub-Saharan regions have increased simultaneously and rank now among the world’s highest, reflecting weak health infrastructure and subsequently poor survival outcomes. 

“The five-year age-standardised relative survival in 12 sub-Saharan African countries was 66% for cases diagnosed during 2008 through 2015, sharply contrasting with 85% to 90% for cases diagnosed in high-income countries during 2010 through 2014. The country-specific estimate was as low as 12% in Uganda (Kyadondo) and 20% to 60% in South Africa (Eastern Cape), Kenya (Eldoret), and Zimbabwe (Harare),47% comparable to 55% in the US state of Connecticut and 57% in Norway during the late 1940s,48 3 decades before the introduction of mammography screening and modern therapies,” the article reads.

Low survival rates in sub-Saharan Africa are largely attributable to late-stage presentation. According to a report summarising 83 studies across 17 sub-Saharan African countries, 77% of all stage cases were stage III/IV at diagnosis. Because organised, population-based mammography screening programs may not be cost effective or feasible in low-resource settings, efforts to promote early detection through improved breast cancer awareness and clinical breast examination by skilled health providers, followed by timely and appropriate treatment, are essential components to improving survival.

Physical symptoms and treatments 

Prof Sherriff says screening (checking for disease when there are no symptoms) for breast cancer in the normal population should start at age 40-45, where possible and yearly mammogram with sonar would be preferred. If there is a strong family history with the diagnoses of breast cancer earlier screening should start five to 10 years prior to first diagnoses. Self examination is an essential component of screening. 

The physical symptoms you can experience that might be indicative of breast cancer are:
- A lump in the breast which does not have to be painful 
- Changes of the skin of the breast referring to dimpling, the colour, or texture
- Changes in the appearance of the nipple (areola)
- A clear or bloody discharge from the nipple

The treatment for breast cancer consists of a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy and hormonal therapy. The treatment is individualised based on patient and cancer factors. Some patients will need all of the above whilst others may not. It is essential that the decision on the appropriate management is made in collaboration with the patient as part of the multidisciplinary team of specialists and allied health care workers.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept