Every so often I become a skeptic, well maybe a bit more frequently, but sometimes I am just not sure what I think of new treatment options. And here is an example.
Women with dense breasts run a higher risk of breast cancer being detected later as opposed to sooner as the density makes it more difficult to detect tumors by mammography. So in Australia, there is a new treatment for women with dense breasts. It is an implantable tablet that is placed under the skin and lasts for about four months before they need to go through it again. It has two benefits - reducing breast density and to reduce perimenopausal symptoms. You can see a video on it here and visit their website for more information here.
But its hormones - testosterone and others. Its called T+Ai.... Me I am not a big fan of hormone treatments after what happened to women who were treated with them in the 1980s and 1990s and then found it lead to higher rates of breast cancer. I know testosterone is not a breast cancer hormone per se but I feel it would be messing with my body's balance too much. And if it reduces breast density it is making a permanent change in your body which can't be undone.
It sounds good and could help women be able to detect breast cancer sooner. But is it fear mongering? OMG, you have dense breasts and that means you will get breast cancer and die because it won't be detected early no matter what you do?!!!! Maybe for high risk women with dense breasts but not for huge groups of women.
So my jury, of one, is still out on this one. I am a skeptic.
Showing posts with label cancer risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer risk. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Sunday, October 25, 2015
If you were told you were at high risk of getting cancer, what would you do?
So genomics is progressing. The newest research shows that through genomics they can account for the causes of 50% of breast cancer cases. They also state that if you are at high risk, you can lower your risk by maintaining a healthy lifestyle - good weight, not smoking etc.
"When researchers looked at the top 25% of risk scores, they found that these would account for about half of breast cancer cases in the future. Using previous models, genetic variants could account for only 35% of future cancer cases...."
"The model found that lifestyle factors, which are in a woman’s control, can generally lower the genetic risk by half. And the higher a woman’s genetic risk, the more she can reduce it with healthy behaviors. So avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking, or maintaining a healthy weight, for example, can bring a genetic risk of 30% down to around 15%, while a woman with a 4% genetic risk of developing breast cancer can reduce her risk by 2%."
So those statements beg a few questions.
So if you knew at 15 that you were going to develop breast or any other cancer at age 50, would you change your lifestyle? Or at 15 are you less concerned with cancer and more concerned with being a teenager and getting in to college?
My opinion is that at 19 at my first cancer diagnosis, I was somewhat concerned with how long I would live, accepted the fact (eventually) that I was at higher risk of another cancer, and that I was going to live my life as I wanted.
When I was at the end of my treatment - surgery and radioactive iodine - I was told to live a healthy lifestyle and not to take unnecessary risks. My thoughts were summed up as I would rather live my life as I wanted than sit around waiting for another cancer visit. I did eat relatively healthily but I also traveled a lot, drank alcohol and smoked (yes!) cigarettes.
I don't really want any predictive modelling done on me, any more than a friend of mine could get me to go see a psychic. I'm happy with my life, I wish I was healthier but I can't undo the past.
"When researchers looked at the top 25% of risk scores, they found that these would account for about half of breast cancer cases in the future. Using previous models, genetic variants could account for only 35% of future cancer cases...."
"The model found that lifestyle factors, which are in a woman’s control, can generally lower the genetic risk by half. And the higher a woman’s genetic risk, the more she can reduce it with healthy behaviors. So avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking, or maintaining a healthy weight, for example, can bring a genetic risk of 30% down to around 15%, while a woman with a 4% genetic risk of developing breast cancer can reduce her risk by 2%."
So those statements beg a few questions.
- What would you do if you were told if you were at high risk of getting breast or any other kind of cancer?
- Does the high risk seem as much of a concern if you can lower it by maintaining a healthy lifestyle?
So if you knew at 15 that you were going to develop breast or any other cancer at age 50, would you change your lifestyle? Or at 15 are you less concerned with cancer and more concerned with being a teenager and getting in to college?
My opinion is that at 19 at my first cancer diagnosis, I was somewhat concerned with how long I would live, accepted the fact (eventually) that I was at higher risk of another cancer, and that I was going to live my life as I wanted.
When I was at the end of my treatment - surgery and radioactive iodine - I was told to live a healthy lifestyle and not to take unnecessary risks. My thoughts were summed up as I would rather live my life as I wanted than sit around waiting for another cancer visit. I did eat relatively healthily but I also traveled a lot, drank alcohol and smoked (yes!) cigarettes.
I don't really want any predictive modelling done on me, any more than a friend of mine could get me to go see a psychic. I'm happy with my life, I wish I was healthier but I can't undo the past.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Stop telling us what we did wrong
So new research (because we always need new research) tells us what we did wrong as teenagers is what caused our breast cancers. Um. Thanks. Not really.
And to put it in simple terms, and I quote, this is what the succinct statement for all of the idiots who allowed us to eat cheeseburgers daily when we were 14:
"If you just go from having red meat once a day to once a week, you can eliminate most of the risk," Farvid said.
And the solution is:
Researchers recommend choosing other forms of protein like nuts, beans, poultry and fish.
And the skinny girls lose out here, they actually had a higher risk of getting breast cancer. You can read the rest of the article here.
These articles are just annoying. They tell us what we did wrong that caused our cancer. Why don't you tell us something we did right. And I was the fat kid so you still haven't answered squat for me.
And to put it in simple terms, and I quote, this is what the succinct statement for all of the idiots who allowed us to eat cheeseburgers daily when we were 14:
"If you just go from having red meat once a day to once a week, you can eliminate most of the risk," Farvid said.
And the solution is:
Researchers recommend choosing other forms of protein like nuts, beans, poultry and fish.
And the skinny girls lose out here, they actually had a higher risk of getting breast cancer. You can read the rest of the article here.
These articles are just annoying. They tell us what we did wrong that caused our cancer. Why don't you tell us something we did right. And I was the fat kid so you still haven't answered squat for me.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
How idiotic, insensitive, and just plain dumb!
I read this article and the first words pissed me off:
'“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”...'
Why is the word cure being used in conjuction with breast cancer? There is no cure! (Insert expletive here). At first I questioned his percentages and it is true that just over 200,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the US each year and just about 40,000 women will die from it. 40,000 is 20% of 200,000. I don't think the other 160,000 consider themselves cured, more like they spend their lives in watchful waiting. And a woman diagnosed with breast cancer can die of any number of other causes besides breast cancer before their disease becomes terminal.
'“What we are left with is this 20 percent where clinic-based drugs are not adequate, but we mustn’t burden the 80 percent for whom today’s standard is adequate, giving those patients unnecessary and experimental treatments,” he said.'
Really? Can you tell me which of the women with diagnosed with breast cancer are in the 20% or the 80%? We have some ways of telling but many women get breast cancer who have no know risk factors. Like me.
Here's more:
'In years past, treatment of breast cancer was limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Today, drugs are being used to rid the body of cancer cells before surgery becomes an option.
“That method has several effects. One, you can get away with lesser forms of surgery - lumpectomy vs. mastectomy. More interestingly, you can track the effectiveness of the drug by observing what is going on in the breast. Maybe in the future we will be able to track effectiveness by looking at what is happening in the blood,” Ellis said.
Very few people today die from cancer in the breast, he noted.
“The problem becomes the cancerous cells that have left the breast. They are more difficult to track. If you could chase those cells with a simple blood test, that would be real progress,” Ellis said.
The cancer cells, once they leave the breast, often find their way into other tissues and organs. Ellis describes the cancer cells as weeds that are allowed to take root.
“If you have a dose of weed killer and you pour it on a tiny little thistle or weed, it would kill it stone dead, but the same amount of weed killer doesn’t kill a fully grown thistle. It might wilt a little and then return,” he said. “That’s very similar to cancer. Once the cancer cells begin to grow and get embedded, they can be hard to get rid of.”'
I'll just go get some 'human cancer Roundup' and blast away at those weeds before they can take root. You just tell me where they will be and if I am in the 80% or the 20%.
“The problem with mammography is that it is recommended in everybody every year after the age of 40, but only 1 in 8 women get breast cancer, so you are screening a lot of women who are destined never to get breast cancer,” he said. “High-risk patients might need yearly mammograms, but low-risk people might need it every 3-4 years.”
Hmmmm.... I was not at high risk twit face!
'When asked what can be done to reduce a person’s risk of developing cancer, Ellis said the biggest key is pursuing a healthy lifestyle, which means maintaining a good Body Mass Index (BMI).
Cancer made me fat. Starting with steroids in chemo causing bloat.
“A lot of women under-appreciate the role of alcohol in breast cancer risk. That is clearly dose-related,” he said. “Women who take more than a drink or two a week are gradually increasing their breast cancer risk. The more you drink, the higher the risk, so moderate your drinking as much as possible.”
Okay. Fine. Sobriety it is. Take all the fun out of life. As long as I can still have chocolate.
Medical screening is recommended to assess a person’s risk of developing cancer.
“If you have a family history, even if it doesn’t seem very impressive and the risk is small, get yourself over to chat with a genetic counselor. Genetic counseling and genetic risk assessment are still highly underutilized by the population,” he said.
Genetic testing is covered by most insurance, according to Ellis.
I didn't have a family history. None, nada, zip. Actually one of my aunts did some research and found that the only family history of breast cancer was one of my mother's second cousins back in the 1970s. I believe that the BRCA genes are responsible for only 5-10% of all breast cancers... So what about everyone else?
“There is no discrimination these days. That’s what prevented some women from testing because they were afraid they wouldn’t be able to get medical insurance based on their results. ObamaCare ended that,” he said.'
No discrimination? WTF? Get real buddy. Unfortunately there is a fair amount of discrimination these days against people with cancer and many other reasons. Insurance companies haven't necessarily jumped on the bandwagon of paying for genetic testing. And the question of gene ownership and patenting is still up for legal debate in some parts of the world.
Go read the rest of this article here. And the man cited here is the director of the Breast Center at the Baylor College of Medicine. He clearly has not walked the walk and has no bedside manner. He does end by saying more research is needed - especially for him...
This article made me so upset. I felt he was talking down to patients and making statements that just weren't true.
'“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”...'
Why is the word cure being used in conjuction with breast cancer? There is no cure! (Insert expletive here). At first I questioned his percentages and it is true that just over 200,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the US each year and just about 40,000 women will die from it. 40,000 is 20% of 200,000. I don't think the other 160,000 consider themselves cured, more like they spend their lives in watchful waiting. And a woman diagnosed with breast cancer can die of any number of other causes besides breast cancer before their disease becomes terminal.
'“What we are left with is this 20 percent where clinic-based drugs are not adequate, but we mustn’t burden the 80 percent for whom today’s standard is adequate, giving those patients unnecessary and experimental treatments,” he said.'
Really? Can you tell me which of the women with diagnosed with breast cancer are in the 20% or the 80%? We have some ways of telling but many women get breast cancer who have no know risk factors. Like me.
Here's more:
'In years past, treatment of breast cancer was limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Today, drugs are being used to rid the body of cancer cells before surgery becomes an option.
“That method has several effects. One, you can get away with lesser forms of surgery - lumpectomy vs. mastectomy. More interestingly, you can track the effectiveness of the drug by observing what is going on in the breast. Maybe in the future we will be able to track effectiveness by looking at what is happening in the blood,” Ellis said.
Very few people today die from cancer in the breast, he noted.
“The problem becomes the cancerous cells that have left the breast. They are more difficult to track. If you could chase those cells with a simple blood test, that would be real progress,” Ellis said.
The cancer cells, once they leave the breast, often find their way into other tissues and organs. Ellis describes the cancer cells as weeds that are allowed to take root.
“If you have a dose of weed killer and you pour it on a tiny little thistle or weed, it would kill it stone dead, but the same amount of weed killer doesn’t kill a fully grown thistle. It might wilt a little and then return,” he said. “That’s very similar to cancer. Once the cancer cells begin to grow and get embedded, they can be hard to get rid of.”'
I'll just go get some 'human cancer Roundup' and blast away at those weeds before they can take root. You just tell me where they will be and if I am in the 80% or the 20%.
“The problem with mammography is that it is recommended in everybody every year after the age of 40, but only 1 in 8 women get breast cancer, so you are screening a lot of women who are destined never to get breast cancer,” he said. “High-risk patients might need yearly mammograms, but low-risk people might need it every 3-4 years.”
Hmmmm.... I was not at high risk twit face!
'When asked what can be done to reduce a person’s risk of developing cancer, Ellis said the biggest key is pursuing a healthy lifestyle, which means maintaining a good Body Mass Index (BMI).
Cancer made me fat. Starting with steroids in chemo causing bloat.
“A lot of women under-appreciate the role of alcohol in breast cancer risk. That is clearly dose-related,” he said. “Women who take more than a drink or two a week are gradually increasing their breast cancer risk. The more you drink, the higher the risk, so moderate your drinking as much as possible.”
Okay. Fine. Sobriety it is. Take all the fun out of life. As long as I can still have chocolate.
Medical screening is recommended to assess a person’s risk of developing cancer.
“If you have a family history, even if it doesn’t seem very impressive and the risk is small, get yourself over to chat with a genetic counselor. Genetic counseling and genetic risk assessment are still highly underutilized by the population,” he said.
Genetic testing is covered by most insurance, according to Ellis.
I didn't have a family history. None, nada, zip. Actually one of my aunts did some research and found that the only family history of breast cancer was one of my mother's second cousins back in the 1970s. I believe that the BRCA genes are responsible for only 5-10% of all breast cancers... So what about everyone else?
“There is no discrimination these days. That’s what prevented some women from testing because they were afraid they wouldn’t be able to get medical insurance based on their results. ObamaCare ended that,” he said.'
No discrimination? WTF? Get real buddy. Unfortunately there is a fair amount of discrimination these days against people with cancer and many other reasons. Insurance companies haven't necessarily jumped on the bandwagon of paying for genetic testing. And the question of gene ownership and patenting is still up for legal debate in some parts of the world.
Go read the rest of this article here. And the man cited here is the director of the Breast Center at the Baylor College of Medicine. He clearly has not walked the walk and has no bedside manner. He does end by saying more research is needed - especially for him...
This article made me so upset. I felt he was talking down to patients and making statements that just weren't true.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Why don't we all have cancer?
As a cancer person, do you ever have those 'why me?' conversations with yourself? Well apparently everyone should really be having the conversations with themselves of 'why not me?'
I found this video on twitter, thanks to Matthew Zachary of Stupid Cancer. Its nine minutes of worthwhile watching. The host is a fairly interesting presenter.
So what did you think? Why don't we all have cancer?
I found this video on twitter, thanks to Matthew Zachary of Stupid Cancer. Its nine minutes of worthwhile watching. The host is a fairly interesting presenter.
So what did you think? Why don't we all have cancer?
Friday, August 7, 2015
Say hello to our new pal - PALB2
PALB2, or PAL for short, is our new friend. She's a newly discovered breast cancer gene who hangs out closest to our old friend BRCA2, or B2. She also hangs with B1 but not as much. But what does PAL do? According to some new research:
"Overall, the researchers found, a PALB2 mutation carrier had a 35 percent chance of developing cancer by age 70. By comparison, women with BRCA1 mutations have a 50 to 70 percent chance of developing breast cancer by that age, and those with BRCA2 have a 40 to 60 percent chance..."
"The breast cancer risk for women younger than 40 with PALB2 mutation was eight to nine times higher than that of the general population. The risk was six to eight times higher among women ages 40 to 60 with these mutations, and five times as high among women older than 60...
"The data also indicated that women with the PALB2 mutations were slightly more likely to have “triple-negative” breast cancer — a form resistant to hormone treatment, more aggressive, and more likely to recur than other subtypes...."
A caution was added:
"“This has to be tailored to the patients, who may have other mutations and varying family risk,” she said. “With no family history, the increase they found is 35 percent. If you have two or more family members with cancer, they found a risk of 58 percent.”"
So PAL may be our friend but we don't want her to hang out with our family as well.
You can learn more about PAL here and here (NEJM) and here (Genetics Home Reference).
"Overall, the researchers found, a PALB2 mutation carrier had a 35 percent chance of developing cancer by age 70. By comparison, women with BRCA1 mutations have a 50 to 70 percent chance of developing breast cancer by that age, and those with BRCA2 have a 40 to 60 percent chance..."
"The breast cancer risk for women younger than 40 with PALB2 mutation was eight to nine times higher than that of the general population. The risk was six to eight times higher among women ages 40 to 60 with these mutations, and five times as high among women older than 60...
"The data also indicated that women with the PALB2 mutations were slightly more likely to have “triple-negative” breast cancer — a form resistant to hormone treatment, more aggressive, and more likely to recur than other subtypes...."
A caution was added:
"“This has to be tailored to the patients, who may have other mutations and varying family risk,” she said. “With no family history, the increase they found is 35 percent. If you have two or more family members with cancer, they found a risk of 58 percent.”"
So PAL may be our friend but we don't want her to hang out with our family as well.
You can learn more about PAL here and here (NEJM) and here (Genetics Home Reference).
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Blah, blah blah, blah, blah
Ooohhh.... more information on breast cancer risk!!! Hot damn baby, this must have the clues I need!!!
Nope. Not there.
Here they are:
Hereditary: not me
"Being obese, smoking, drinking alcohol, using birth control pills, lack of exercise, early menstruation, and certain benign breast diseases, have all been associated with an increased risk for breast cancer"
I'll take the fifth here. But I wasn't fat until after breast cancer. And I have always been known to get exercise and have never been a fan of the pill.
And then there is something about how estrogen metabolizes in your body and there is a new fancy test for this. The 2/16 alpha-hydroxyestrone ratio which can be measured in a urine test. And you can balance your ratio by eating more plants.
Finally:
"Having one or more risk factors for breast cancer doesn't necessarily mean you’ll develop the disease, but being aware of the risk factors may inspire you to take preventive steps. This could have a huge impact on your health."
So, nothing new here. Its just blah, blah blah, blah, blah.
Maybe I'm in a cynical mood this morning.
Nope. Not there.
Here they are:
Hereditary: not me
"Being obese, smoking, drinking alcohol, using birth control pills, lack of exercise, early menstruation, and certain benign breast diseases, have all been associated with an increased risk for breast cancer"
I'll take the fifth here. But I wasn't fat until after breast cancer. And I have always been known to get exercise and have never been a fan of the pill.
And then there is something about how estrogen metabolizes in your body and there is a new fancy test for this. The 2/16 alpha-hydroxyestrone ratio which can be measured in a urine test. And you can balance your ratio by eating more plants.
Finally:
"Having one or more risk factors for breast cancer doesn't necessarily mean you’ll develop the disease, but being aware of the risk factors may inspire you to take preventive steps. This could have a huge impact on your health."
So, nothing new here. Its just blah, blah blah, blah, blah.
Maybe I'm in a cynical mood this morning.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Red meat, too? Really?
No more steak??? Bummer. Not that we eat that much red meat but I can appreciate a really good steak and sometimes a juicy burger. But really? Living under a rock doesn't work either because of radon as someone commented here recently.
So how much do all these cancer risk factors really matter after all. We have the things we can't affect for any ailment. In the case of beast cancer, we have things we can't change like genetics, family history, child birth, aging, dense breasts, etc. Then there are the things we supposedly can change such as obesity, alcohol use, tobacco (a whole other kettle of fish, so to say in the cancer world), exercise, steak (now), breathing, BPA, blah, blah, blah... but if we have all the primary risk factors we can't change, how much can our diets and lifestyles really make a difference?
Yes we cab be healthier and make better choices for our bodies, but if the main factors can't be changed how much does it matter if we do? And the statistics can be hard to decipher.
Red meat consumption can raise a risk factor I think 13% for each serving per week. That doesn't mean that if your risk is 10% over your lifetime of getting breast cancer, it doesn't mean that a steak a week puts you at 23%, or 11.3% etc., it probably means 10.13%, if that much.
I am ready to give up on all this risk factor business now because I can't figure out where I can hide from it all either...
So how much do all these cancer risk factors really matter after all. We have the things we can't affect for any ailment. In the case of beast cancer, we have things we can't change like genetics, family history, child birth, aging, dense breasts, etc. Then there are the things we supposedly can change such as obesity, alcohol use, tobacco (a whole other kettle of fish, so to say in the cancer world), exercise, steak (now), breathing, BPA, blah, blah, blah... but if we have all the primary risk factors we can't change, how much can our diets and lifestyles really make a difference?
Yes we cab be healthier and make better choices for our bodies, but if the main factors can't be changed how much does it matter if we do? And the statistics can be hard to decipher.
Red meat consumption can raise a risk factor I think 13% for each serving per week. That doesn't mean that if your risk is 10% over your lifetime of getting breast cancer, it doesn't mean that a steak a week puts you at 23%, or 11.3% etc., it probably means 10.13%, if that much.
I am ready to give up on all this risk factor business now because I can't figure out where I can hide from it all either...
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Holy moley!
Moles can predict breast cancer risk? So can living under a rock apparently (because of the radon). But seriously it turns out that moles can predict breast cancer risk because they have the same hormonal sensitivities (is that the right word? I don't know but it makes sense to me) as breast cancer. And that is also true for stomach cancer.
The study found that women with more moles had higher levels of estrogen in their blood than women with fewer. And since estrogen fuels many breast cancers, there is a higher risk present. Sounds logical? Okay sure.
So now we can add having moles to the risks of developing breast cancer. We will just have to add this to the list of things we cannot do anything about such as genetics, having children, age, and family history. There is nothing we can do but be more at risk. How helpful. Not really.
But I will still get annual skin checks for skin cancer.
The study found that women with more moles had higher levels of estrogen in their blood than women with fewer. And since estrogen fuels many breast cancers, there is a higher risk present. Sounds logical? Okay sure.
So now we can add having moles to the risks of developing breast cancer. We will just have to add this to the list of things we cannot do anything about such as genetics, having children, age, and family history. There is nothing we can do but be more at risk. How helpful. Not really.
But I will still get annual skin checks for skin cancer.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Risk factors????
Now what the hell am I supposed to do? Look at the length of this list of risk factors for breast cancer!!!!!!!!!
These are the established risks: Being female, age, family history, genetics, personal history of breast cancer, radiation to chest/face before age 30, certain breast changes, race/ethnicity, being overweight, pregnancy history, breast feeding, menstrual history, using HRT, drinking alcohol, having dense breasts, lack of exercise, and smoking.
How the hell am I supposed to avoid them? That's it. I am moving to live under a rock!
These are the established risks: Being female, age, family history, genetics, personal history of breast cancer, radiation to chest/face before age 30, certain breast changes, race/ethnicity, being overweight, pregnancy history, breast feeding, menstrual history, using HRT, drinking alcohol, having dense breasts, lack of exercise, and smoking.
Then there are the emerging risks that they are just starting to realize their importance.... (Or but wait, there's more!): Low Vitamin D Levels, Light Exposure at Night, DES (Diethylstilbestrol) Exposure, Eating Unhealthy Food, Exposure to Chemicals in Cosmetics, Exposure to Chemicals in Food, Exposure to Chemicals for Lawns and Gardens, Exposure to Chemicals in Plastic, Exposure to Chemicals in Sunscreen, Exposure to Chemicals in Water, and/or Exposure to Chemicals When Food Is Grilled/Prepared.
How the hell am I supposed to avoid them? That's it. I am moving to live under a rock!
Monday, May 25, 2015
Taking all the fun out.
Cancer has a way of taking all the fun out of life. They cut you up, they poison you, they burn you, and through all that they make you feel like crap. You are tired, trying not to throw up, weak, have the blahs, want to sleep and more. Then you finally start to feel better after treatment and want to return to a normal life.
Then they say don't drink because it can help increase your rate of recurrence. This is along with the advice of not to get fat because that can do the same thing...
It takes all the fun out of everything - don't get fat, don't drink, but you are fine. Big raspberry to that news!!!
Then they say don't drink because it can help increase your rate of recurrence. This is along with the advice of not to get fat because that can do the same thing...
It takes all the fun out of everything - don't get fat, don't drink, but you are fine. Big raspberry to that news!!!
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
So what did I do wrong?
There is a new study out there saying that half of all breast cancers can be prevented. So what did I do wrong? That's what I feel. When I first read this I thought that its good news. But then I started thinking. What did I do wrong to get breast cancer before 50? Is it some how my fault?
I eat a good diet, I get exercise, blah, blah, blah. And there I end up with cancer. Twice. Maybe its my elementary school which is currently being turned down because its full of PCBs. Maybe because I stayed up late, smoked, and drank some. Who knows. But don't make it my fault.
I eat a good diet, I get exercise, blah, blah, blah. And there I end up with cancer. Twice. Maybe its my elementary school which is currently being turned down because its full of PCBs. Maybe because I stayed up late, smoked, and drank some. Who knows. But don't make it my fault.
But then I decided what I really don't like is the title of the article I first found: "Up To Half Of All Breast Cancers Are Preventable". That article was based on an article written in CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians where the original article is called "Priorities for the Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer" . Its all in the wording. Take the blame away from the patient please.
If you read the original article, it focuses on prevention options such as exercise, healthy weight, alcohol consumption, and more. Patients who drink alcohol, do not exercise, and/or maintain a healthy weight, have a greater risk of developing breast or other types of cancer. That's helpful.
Before breast cancer, I was thinner, exercised and I less to drink about, so go figure
If you read the original article, it focuses on prevention options such as exercise, healthy weight, alcohol consumption, and more. Patients who drink alcohol, do not exercise, and/or maintain a healthy weight, have a greater risk of developing breast or other types of cancer. That's helpful.
Before breast cancer, I was thinner, exercised and I less to drink about, so go figure
Saturday, January 31, 2015
So what did I do wrong?
There is a new study out there saying that half of all breast cancers can be prevented. So what did I do wrong? That's what I feel. When I first read this I thought that its good news. But then I started thinking. What did I do wrong to get breast cancer before 50? Is it some how my fault?
I eat a good diet, I get exercise, blah, blah, blah. And there I end up with cancer. Twice. Maybe its my elementary school which is currently being turned down because its full of PCBs. Maybe because I stayed up late, smoked, and drank some. Who knows. But don't make it my fault.
I eat a good diet, I get exercise, blah, blah, blah. And there I end up with cancer. Twice. Maybe its my elementary school which is currently being turned down because its full of PCBs. Maybe because I stayed up late, smoked, and drank some. Who knows. But don't make it my fault.
But then I decided what I really don't like is the title of the article I first found: "Up To Half Of All Breast Cancers Are Preventable". That article was based on an article written in CA, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians where the original article is called "Priorities for the Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer" . Its all in the wording. Take the blame away from the patient please.
If you read the original article, it focuses on prevention options such as exercise, healthy weight, alcohol consumption, and more. Patients who drink alcohol, do not exercise, and/or maintain a healthy weight, have a greater risk of developing breast or other types of cancer. That's helpful.
Before breast cancer, I was thinner, exercised and I less to drink about, so go figure
If you read the original article, it focuses on prevention options such as exercise, healthy weight, alcohol consumption, and more. Patients who drink alcohol, do not exercise, and/or maintain a healthy weight, have a greater risk of developing breast or other types of cancer. That's helpful.
Before breast cancer, I was thinner, exercised and I less to drink about, so go figure
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
If you were told you were at high risk of getting cancer, what would you do?
So genomics is progressing. The newest research shows that through genomics they can account for the causes of 50% of breast cancer cases. They also state that if you are at high risk, you can lower your risk by maintaining a healthy lifestyle - good weight, not smoking etc.
"When researchers looked at the top 25% of risk scores, they found that these would account for about half of breast cancer cases in the future. Using previous models, genetic variants could account for only 35% of future cancer cases...."
"The model found that lifestyle factors, which are in a woman’s control, can generally lower the genetic risk by half. And the higher a woman’s genetic risk, the more she can reduce it with healthy behaviors. So avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking, or maintaining a healthy weight, for example, can bring a genetic risk of 30% down to around 15%, while a woman with a 4% genetic risk of developing breast cancer can reduce her risk by 2%."
So those statements beg a few questions.
So if you knew at 15 that you were going to develop breast or any other cancer at age 50, would you change your lifestyle? Or at 15 are you less concerned with cancer and more concerned with being a teenager and getting in to college?
My opinion is that at 19 at my first cancer diagnosis, I was somewhat concerned with how long I would live, accepted the fact (eventually) that I was at higher risk of another cancer, and that I was going to live my life as I wanted.
When I was at the end of my treatment - surgery and radioactive iodine - I was told to live a healthy lifestyle and not to take unnecessary risks. My thoughts were summed up as I would rather live my life as I wanted than sit around waiting for another cancer visit. I did eat relatively healthily but I also traveled a lot, drank alcohol and smoked (yes!) cigarettes.
I don't really want any predictive modelling done on me, any more than a friend of mine could get me to go see a psychic. I'm happy with my life, I wish I was healthier but I can't undo the past.
"When researchers looked at the top 25% of risk scores, they found that these would account for about half of breast cancer cases in the future. Using previous models, genetic variants could account for only 35% of future cancer cases...."
"The model found that lifestyle factors, which are in a woman’s control, can generally lower the genetic risk by half. And the higher a woman’s genetic risk, the more she can reduce it with healthy behaviors. So avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol and smoking, or maintaining a healthy weight, for example, can bring a genetic risk of 30% down to around 15%, while a woman with a 4% genetic risk of developing breast cancer can reduce her risk by 2%."
So those statements beg a few questions.
- What would you do if you were told if you were at high risk of getting breast or any other kind of cancer?
- Does the high risk seem as much of a concern if you can lower it by maintaining a healthy lifestyle?
So if you knew at 15 that you were going to develop breast or any other cancer at age 50, would you change your lifestyle? Or at 15 are you less concerned with cancer and more concerned with being a teenager and getting in to college?
My opinion is that at 19 at my first cancer diagnosis, I was somewhat concerned with how long I would live, accepted the fact (eventually) that I was at higher risk of another cancer, and that I was going to live my life as I wanted.
When I was at the end of my treatment - surgery and radioactive iodine - I was told to live a healthy lifestyle and not to take unnecessary risks. My thoughts were summed up as I would rather live my life as I wanted than sit around waiting for another cancer visit. I did eat relatively healthily but I also traveled a lot, drank alcohol and smoked (yes!) cigarettes.
I don't really want any predictive modelling done on me, any more than a friend of mine could get me to go see a psychic. I'm happy with my life, I wish I was healthier but I can't undo the past.
Taking all the fun out.
Cancer has a way of taking all the fun out of life. They cut you up, they poison you, they burn you, and through all that they make you feel like crap. You are tired, trying not to throw up, weak, have the blahs, want to sleep and more. Then you finally start to feel better after treatment and want to return to a normal life.
Then they say don't drink because it can help increase your rate of recurrence. This is along with the advice of not to get fat because that can do the same thing...
It takes all the fun out of everything - don't get fat, don't drink, but you are fine. Big raspberry to that news!!!
Then they say don't drink because it can help increase your rate of recurrence. This is along with the advice of not to get fat because that can do the same thing...
It takes all the fun out of everything - don't get fat, don't drink, but you are fine. Big raspberry to that news!!!
A newsflash: Your behavior can impact the likelihood of developing cancer.
How astounding! I never would have thought. Ha ha.
This video is actually from 2009 but it still applies today. What we did 30, 40 or 50 years ago could cause cancers to show up in our bodies today. Or more precisely, may have given us a greater risk of developing cancer now.
A much newer article talks about how young women in college may not realize that their behaviors in college, smoking, drinking, lack of sleep, little exercise, could increase their risk of developing breast cancer. (Let me note that this article is one of those press releases for some medical thingymabob so its not like I read it in the Lancet. But a little common sense allows us to realize that they do make a valid point - that thousands of others have made previously but its the handiest resource I have.)
So what is our takeaway from all of this? From the point of view of someone who was diagnosed with cancer at age 19, you have two choices:
This video is actually from 2009 but it still applies today. What we did 30, 40 or 50 years ago could cause cancers to show up in our bodies today. Or more precisely, may have given us a greater risk of developing cancer now.
A much newer article talks about how young women in college may not realize that their behaviors in college, smoking, drinking, lack of sleep, little exercise, could increase their risk of developing breast cancer. (Let me note that this article is one of those press releases for some medical thingymabob so its not like I read it in the Lancet. But a little common sense allows us to realize that they do make a valid point - that thousands of others have made previously but its the handiest resource I have.)
So what is our takeaway from all of this? From the point of view of someone who was diagnosed with cancer at age 19, you have two choices:
- You can live under a rock and not have fun, eat healthy, exercise, blah, blah, blah. Basically you end up with a boring life with no adventures.
- You can take that advice and make promises to yourself to not play in traffic but to live a healthy life and have a hell of a lot of fun while you are at it.
We do need to remember while something was cool for a while, sooner or later its going to catch up to us. So we need to remember the advice that what we did in the past, will show up in our bodies later on.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Snake oil or good treatment?
Every so often I become a skeptic, well maybe a bit more frequently, but sometimes I am just not sure what I think of new treatment options. And here is an example.
Women with dense breasts run a higher risk of breast cancer being detected later as opposed to sooner as the density makes it more difficult to detect tumors by mammography. So in Australia, there is a new treatment for women with dense breasts. It is an implantable tablet that is placed under the skin and lasts for about four months before they need to go through it again. It has two benefits - reducing breast density and to reduce perimenopausal symptoms. You can see a video on it here and visit their website for more information here.
But its hormones - testosterone and others. Its called T+Ai.... Me I am not a big fan of hormone treatments after what happened to women who were treated with them in the 1980s and 1990s and then found it lead to higher rates of breast cancer. I know testosterone is not a breast cancer hormone per se but I feel it would be messing with my body's balance too much. And if it reduces breast density it is making a permanent change in your body which can't be undone.
It sounds good and could help women be able to detect breast cancer sooner. But is it fear mongering? OMG, you have dense breasts and that means you will get breast cancer and die because it won't be detected early no matter what you do?!!!! Maybe for high risk women with dense breasts but not for huge groups of women.
So my jury, of one, is still out on this one. I am a skeptic.
Women with dense breasts run a higher risk of breast cancer being detected later as opposed to sooner as the density makes it more difficult to detect tumors by mammography. So in Australia, there is a new treatment for women with dense breasts. It is an implantable tablet that is placed under the skin and lasts for about four months before they need to go through it again. It has two benefits - reducing breast density and to reduce perimenopausal symptoms. You can see a video on it here and visit their website for more information here.
But its hormones - testosterone and others. Its called T+Ai.... Me I am not a big fan of hormone treatments after what happened to women who were treated with them in the 1980s and 1990s and then found it lead to higher rates of breast cancer. I know testosterone is not a breast cancer hormone per se but I feel it would be messing with my body's balance too much. And if it reduces breast density it is making a permanent change in your body which can't be undone.
It sounds good and could help women be able to detect breast cancer sooner. But is it fear mongering? OMG, you have dense breasts and that means you will get breast cancer and die because it won't be detected early no matter what you do?!!!! Maybe for high risk women with dense breasts but not for huge groups of women.
So my jury, of one, is still out on this one. I am a skeptic.
Breathing causes cancer
I knew it would come to this. Everything has been researched to the nth degree, millions of researchers have been employed, everything has been dissected, ressected and digested. We have been told that no salt, no wine, no chocolate, lots of vegetables, lots of fruit, get exercise, no we were wrong red wine only, dark chocolate only - and only in moderation (whatever that means), not those fruits but blueberries and other things you have never heard of. We have tried to decipher diets, pyramids, and scams.
But now they tell us. Breathing causes cancer. Actually its not the actually breathing that causes caner but what we breath - air pollution - which causes cancer.
So while this is the active theory, we all need to move out to the wilderness and set up individual homes with solar power (because coal and wood smoke cause air pollution), grow our own fruits and vegetables (but only the right kinds). And grow them organically.
In the meantime, practice holding your breath so you breathe as little as possible to reduce your risk of getting cancer from air pollution. Once you turn blue, more research will be done to figure out how you can avoid inhaling more air pollution.
But now they tell us. Breathing causes cancer. Actually its not the actually breathing that causes caner but what we breath - air pollution - which causes cancer.
So while this is the active theory, we all need to move out to the wilderness and set up individual homes with solar power (because coal and wood smoke cause air pollution), grow our own fruits and vegetables (but only the right kinds). And grow them organically.
In the meantime, practice holding your breath so you breathe as little as possible to reduce your risk of getting cancer from air pollution. Once you turn blue, more research will be done to figure out how you can avoid inhaling more air pollution.
How idiotic, insensitive, and just plain dumb!
I read this article and the first words pissed me off:
'“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”...'
Why is the word cure being used in conjuction with breast cancer? There is no cure! (Insert expletive here). At first I questioned his percentages and it is true that just over 200,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the US each year and just about 40,000 women will die from it. 40,000 is 20% of 200,000. I don't think the other 160,000 consider themselves cured, more like they spend their lives in watchful waiting. And a woman diagnosed with breast cancer can die of any number of other causes besides breast cancer before their disease becomes terminal.
'“What we are left with is this 20 percent where clinic-based drugs are not adequate, but we mustn’t burden the 80 percent for whom today’s standard is adequate, giving those patients unnecessary and experimental treatments,” he said.'
Really? Can you tell me which of the women with diagnosed with breast cancer are in the 20% or the 80%? We have some ways of telling but many women get breast cancer who have no know risk factors. Like me.
Here's more:
'In years past, treatment of breast cancer was limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Today, drugs are being used to rid the body of cancer cells before surgery becomes an option.
“That method has several effects. One, you can get away with lesser forms of surgery - lumpectomy vs. mastectomy. More interestingly, you can track the effectiveness of the drug by observing what is going on in the breast. Maybe in the future we will be able to track effectiveness by looking at what is happening in the blood,” Ellis said.
Very few people today die from cancer in the breast, he noted.
“The problem becomes the cancerous cells that have left the breast. They are more difficult to track. If you could chase those cells with a simple blood test, that would be real progress,” Ellis said.
The cancer cells, once they leave the breast, often find their way into other tissues and organs. Ellis describes the cancer cells as weeds that are allowed to take root.
“If you have a dose of weed killer and you pour it on a tiny little thistle or weed, it would kill it stone dead, but the same amount of weed killer doesn’t kill a fully grown thistle. It might wilt a little and then return,” he said. “That’s very similar to cancer. Once the cancer cells begin to grow and get embedded, they can be hard to get rid of.”'
I'll just go get some 'human cancer Roundup' and blast away at those weeds before they can take root. You just tell me where they will be and if I am in the 80% or the 20%.
“The problem with mammography is that it is recommended in everybody every year after the age of 40, but only 1 in 8 women get breast cancer, so you are screening a lot of women who are destined never to get breast cancer,” he said. “High-risk patients might need yearly mammograms, but low-risk people might need it every 3-4 years.”
Hmmmm.... I was not at high risk twit face!
'When asked what can be done to reduce a person’s risk of developing cancer, Ellis said the biggest key is pursuing a healthy lifestyle, which means maintaining a good Body Mass Index (BMI).
Cancer made me fat. Starting with steroids in chemo causing bloat.
“A lot of women under-appreciate the role of alcohol in breast cancer risk. That is clearly dose-related,” he said. “Women who take more than a drink or two a week are gradually increasing their breast cancer risk. The more you drink, the higher the risk, so moderate your drinking as much as possible.”
Okay. Fine. Sobriety it is. Take all the fun out of life. As long as I can still have chocolate.
Medical screening is recommended to assess a person’s risk of developing cancer.
“If you have a family history, even if it doesn’t seem very impressive and the risk is small, get yourself over to chat with a genetic counselor. Genetic counseling and genetic risk assessment are still highly underutilized by the population,” he said.
Genetic testing is covered by most insurance, according to Ellis.
I didn't have a family history. None, nada, zip. Actually one of my aunts did some research and found that the only family history of breast cancer was one of my mother's second cousins back in the 1970s. I believe that the BRCA genes are responsible for only 5-10% of all breast cancers... So what about everyone else?
“There is no discrimination these days. That’s what prevented some women from testing because they were afraid they wouldn’t be able to get medical insurance based on their results. ObamaCare ended that,” he said.'
No discrimination? WTF? Get real buddy. Unfortunately there is a fair amount of discrimination these days against people with cancer and many other reasons. Insurance companies haven't necessarily jumped on the bandwagon of paying for genetic testing. And the question of gene ownership and patenting is still up for legal debate in some parts of the world.
Go read the rest of this article here. And the man cited here is the director of the Breast Center at the Baylor College of Medicine. He clearly has not walked the walk and has no bedside manner. He does end by saying more research is needed - especially for him...
This article made me so upset. I felt he was talking down to patients and making statements that just weren't true.
'“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”“Today, we are curing about 80 percent of all breast cancer. That is an incredible advance to 20 years ago when we were curing, at best, about 50 percent,”...'
Why is the word cure being used in conjuction with breast cancer? There is no cure! (Insert expletive here). At first I questioned his percentages and it is true that just over 200,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the US each year and just about 40,000 women will die from it. 40,000 is 20% of 200,000. I don't think the other 160,000 consider themselves cured, more like they spend their lives in watchful waiting. And a woman diagnosed with breast cancer can die of any number of other causes besides breast cancer before their disease becomes terminal.
'“What we are left with is this 20 percent where clinic-based drugs are not adequate, but we mustn’t burden the 80 percent for whom today’s standard is adequate, giving those patients unnecessary and experimental treatments,” he said.'
Really? Can you tell me which of the women with diagnosed with breast cancer are in the 20% or the 80%? We have some ways of telling but many women get breast cancer who have no know risk factors. Like me.
Here's more:
'In years past, treatment of breast cancer was limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Today, drugs are being used to rid the body of cancer cells before surgery becomes an option.
“That method has several effects. One, you can get away with lesser forms of surgery - lumpectomy vs. mastectomy. More interestingly, you can track the effectiveness of the drug by observing what is going on in the breast. Maybe in the future we will be able to track effectiveness by looking at what is happening in the blood,” Ellis said.
Very few people today die from cancer in the breast, he noted.
“The problem becomes the cancerous cells that have left the breast. They are more difficult to track. If you could chase those cells with a simple blood test, that would be real progress,” Ellis said.
The cancer cells, once they leave the breast, often find their way into other tissues and organs. Ellis describes the cancer cells as weeds that are allowed to take root.
“If you have a dose of weed killer and you pour it on a tiny little thistle or weed, it would kill it stone dead, but the same amount of weed killer doesn’t kill a fully grown thistle. It might wilt a little and then return,” he said. “That’s very similar to cancer. Once the cancer cells begin to grow and get embedded, they can be hard to get rid of.”'
I'll just go get some 'human cancer Roundup' and blast away at those weeds before they can take root. You just tell me where they will be and if I am in the 80% or the 20%.
“The problem with mammography is that it is recommended in everybody every year after the age of 40, but only 1 in 8 women get breast cancer, so you are screening a lot of women who are destined never to get breast cancer,” he said. “High-risk patients might need yearly mammograms, but low-risk people might need it every 3-4 years.”
Hmmmm.... I was not at high risk twit face!
'When asked what can be done to reduce a person’s risk of developing cancer, Ellis said the biggest key is pursuing a healthy lifestyle, which means maintaining a good Body Mass Index (BMI).
Cancer made me fat. Starting with steroids in chemo causing bloat.
“A lot of women under-appreciate the role of alcohol in breast cancer risk. That is clearly dose-related,” he said. “Women who take more than a drink or two a week are gradually increasing their breast cancer risk. The more you drink, the higher the risk, so moderate your drinking as much as possible.”
Okay. Fine. Sobriety it is. Take all the fun out of life. As long as I can still have chocolate.
Medical screening is recommended to assess a person’s risk of developing cancer.
“If you have a family history, even if it doesn’t seem very impressive and the risk is small, get yourself over to chat with a genetic counselor. Genetic counseling and genetic risk assessment are still highly underutilized by the population,” he said.
Genetic testing is covered by most insurance, according to Ellis.
I didn't have a family history. None, nada, zip. Actually one of my aunts did some research and found that the only family history of breast cancer was one of my mother's second cousins back in the 1970s. I believe that the BRCA genes are responsible for only 5-10% of all breast cancers... So what about everyone else?
“There is no discrimination these days. That’s what prevented some women from testing because they were afraid they wouldn’t be able to get medical insurance based on their results. ObamaCare ended that,” he said.'
No discrimination? WTF? Get real buddy. Unfortunately there is a fair amount of discrimination these days against people with cancer and many other reasons. Insurance companies haven't necessarily jumped on the bandwagon of paying for genetic testing. And the question of gene ownership and patenting is still up for legal debate in some parts of the world.
Go read the rest of this article here. And the man cited here is the director of the Breast Center at the Baylor College of Medicine. He clearly has not walked the walk and has no bedside manner. He does end by saying more research is needed - especially for him...
This article made me so upset. I felt he was talking down to patients and making statements that just weren't true.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Let's put it all in perspective
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)