Let's go back to the 'why me' conversation for a minute

At some point along the denial slope of coping with your diagnosis, you sit there and ponder 'why me'? Why did I get this ailment?

We learn through this article that it can have something to do with where you  live. Look at this lovely map showing rates of breast cancer diagnosis per 100,000 women:

And which are the top states with the highest rates of breast cancer?

1. New Hampshire (141.7 incidences per 100,000 people)
2. Massachusetts (135.5)
3. Connecticut (135.2)
4. Minnesota (135.1)
5. Washington (133.9)

I feel so lucky that I  live in Massachusetts with the second highest rate. But wait, I already have it so I don't have to worry. Unless we are talkingal recurrences.

As the article's author writes:

"There's not too much in common with these states other than the fact that they're in the upper half of the country (from a geographic standpoint), which leads me to one of my key points about breast cancer: Researchers aren't exactly sure why some women get breast cancer and others don't. Don't get me wrong; doctors do have a general idea about some of the primary risk factors for breast cancer, which include age, genetics, whether or not a patient is a smoker and/or is overweight, and even whether or not hormone replacement therapy was previously used. But, the fact remains that there's no certainty in determining whether or not one woman will get breast cancer and another one won't."

But maybe we can say the Bible Belt and the Mormons drink less than the rest of the country so maybe they have a reduced risk factor which helps keep their breast cancer rates down. But its all conjecture on my part because it hasn't been figured out.

So if we go back to the original 'why me' question, all we can say is there are still no answers. Crap. It is just a crapshoot.

A trip down memory lane

Back in 1971-2, half of all cancer patients lived one year. Now, in the UK at least, half of all cancer 'sufferers' (how is that for a horrible term?) live for ten years. I would assume the rates are similar, or even better in the US. But even in digging around in the National Cancer Institute's website, I could find the data.

The actual quote is:

"The analysis showed that in 1971-2, 50% of people diagnosed with cancer died within a year. Now 50% survive for at least a decade - up from 24% in 1971-2.

But the findings, based on the outcomes for more than 7 million patients, also showed that for some cancers, survival rates were still very low.

For example, just 1% of pancreatic cancer patients and 5% of lung cancer patients can expect to survive for 10 years."

So there is good news and bad news mixed together. But it does show a huge improvement in cancer treatment and research.

The goal is to have it increase to 75% survival rate for ten years. Its not just treatment and research but also screening and earlier diagnosis which have come in to play.

So progress is good. It shows we how far we have come. But we also need to work on the vocabulary. Sufferers? Really?

A trip down memory lane

Back in 1971-2, half of all cancer patients lived one year. Now, in the UK at least, half of all cancer 'sufferers' (how is that for a horrible term?) live for ten years. I would assume the rates are similar, or even better in the US. But even in digging around in the National Cancer Institute's website, I could find the data.

The actual quote is:

"The analysis showed that in 1971-2, 50% of people diagnosed with cancer died within a year. Now 50% survive for at least a decade - up from 24% in 1971-2.

But the findings, based on the outcomes for more than 7 million patients, also showed that for some cancers, survival rates were still very low.

For example, just 1% of pancreatic cancer patients and 5% of lung cancer patients can expect to survive for 10 years."

So there is good news and bad news mixed together. But it does show a huge improvement in cancer treatment and research.

The goal is to have it increase to 75% survival rate for ten years. Its not just treatment and research but also screening and earlier diagnosis which have come in to play.

So progress is good. It shows we how far we have come. But we also need to work on the vocabulary. Sufferers? Really?

Let's go back to the 'why me' conversation for a minute

At some point along the denial slope of coping with your diagnosis, you sit there and ponder 'why me'? Why did I get this ailment?

We learn through this article that it can have something to do with where you  live. Look at this lovely map showing rates of breast cancer diagnosis per 100,000 women:

And which are the top states with the highest rates of breast cancer?

1. New Hampshire (141.7 incidences per 100,000 people)
2. Massachusetts (135.5)
3. Connecticut (135.2)
4. Minnesota (135.1)
5. Washington (133.9)

I feel so lucky that I  live in Massachusetts with the second highest rate. But wait, I already have it so I don't have to worry. Unless we are talkingal recurrences.

As the article's author writes:

"There's not too much in common with these states other than the fact that they're in the upper half of the country (from a geographic standpoint), which leads me to one of my key points about breast cancer: Researchers aren't exactly sure why some women get breast cancer and others don't. Don't get me wrong; doctors do have a general idea about some of the primary risk factors for breast cancer, which include age, genetics, whether or not a patient is a smoker and/or is overweight, and even whether or not hormone replacement therapy was previously used. But, the fact remains that there's no certainty in determining whether or not one woman will get breast cancer and another one won't."

But maybe we can say the Bible Belt and the Mormons drink less than the rest of the country so maybe they have a reduced risk factor which helps keep their breast cancer rates down. But its all conjecture on my part because it hasn't been figured out.

So if we go back to the original 'why me' question, all we can say is there are still no answers. Crap. It is just a crapshoot.