A Carcinogen in My Coffee

I feel like this is another step in the plan for Big Brother to take over our lives and regulate us to death. Seriously. Or maybe its just another way for the lawyers to get rich over stupid lawsuits.

There is a lawsuit making its way through the Los Angeles court system that wants companies who make or sell coffee to warn consumers that there is a potential carcinogen created in coffee brewing that could cause cancer. As part of Proposition 65 in 1986, California businesses need to warn customers that there could be a risk involved in consumption or use of a product. So the lawsuit claims that customers need to be warned about coffee consumption. When I first read this article, I asked 'what are they thinking?'

First of all, there are plenty of other things in this world that could cause us cancer - lets start with sunshine, drinking water, inhaling air, eating, and more.

Second, we do not need more regulation that would increase the cost of doing business.

Third, there is no proof that the chemical, Acrylamide, involved is even a carcinogen.

So as someone who has wondered, from time to time second to second, as to why I have been so lucky to get cancer twice, I really do not to waste my time trying to figure out if I drank a 'bad' cup of coffee at some point. I have plenty of other things to worry about - like where is my cell phone or what is that new pain in my back. I don't even live in California and it really just irritates me that money is being wasted on this.

Obviously the lawsuit was filed by someone who is not like me and doesn't have any dependence on their morning cup of joe.

I would seriously like to take the money wasted in this lawsuit and especially the legal fees, be put into something useful, like a cure for cancer.

New Breast Cancer Research Found A Factor that Doubles Death Risk

Isn't that a warm fuzzy feeling? Now I want to ask my oncologist if I have this factor. But first let me see if I can explain it. This is the precis:

"Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have discovered that the risk of death from breast cancer is twice as high for patients with high heterogeneity of the estrogen receptor within the same tumour as compared to patients with low heterogeneity. The study, which is published in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, also shows that the higher risk of death over a span of 25 years is independent of other known tumour markers and also holds true for Luminal A breast cancer, a subtype with a generally good prognosis."

Apparently Luminal A breast cancer is a subtype of hormone receptor positive that usually is a good thing. But if your hormone receptor status changes when you develop a metastases or even with in your first tumor (which sometimes happens). 

"Why this is the case, however, is not known, but a possible explanation is that there are tumour cells in one and the same tumour with varying degrees of expression of the estrogen receptor. This is known as intra-tumour heterogeneity."

But some recent research found that patients with high heterogeneity and Luminal A breast cancer, regardless of previous treatment, were found to have double the death risk. 

"Our study shows that patients with high intra-tumour heterogeneity of the estrogen receptor were twice as likely to die up to 25-years after their diagnoses as compared to patients with low heterogeneity," says Linda Lindström, researcher at the Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Karolinska Institutet. "And this was independent of whether or not they'd received tamoxifen and of other known tumour markers."

The researchers also discovered that the greater risk of death for patients with high intra-tumour heterogeneity also applied to patients with Luminal A breast cancer, a subtype of estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer that is considered to have a good prognosis."

So what does this all  mean to the average bear breast cancer patient? Me, I'm going to add this to the growing list of things to ask my oncologist. I don't know if I was ever tested to find out about heterogeneity or Luminal A and if I can be now. But I want to find out.

This is a classic case of new research on cancer finding more differences in the different types of cancer. As we have learned, cancer is not one disease but hundreds, or thousands of different diseases. Scientists are slowly unraveling them one step at a time. Sometimes panicking us patients, and sometimes making us feel a little bit better. But the process is way longer than I want.

More Bacon Bad News

I learned back in 2016 that bacon is not good for fibromyalgia. That was very sad. Now I have learned that bacon, or other processed meats like sausage, can increase your risk of getting breast cancer significantly.

"From an analysis of more than 260,000 women, researchers found that the risk of breast cancer increased by more than a fifth for those who consumed more than 9 grams of processed meats per day, which is the equivalent of around two sausages per week.

However, the team found no link between red meat intake and the risk of breast cancer."

Well that's good news about red meat. But I would rather have bacon than red meat most of the time. And two sausages or three pieces of bacon is all it takes to increase your risk. 

I am mostly unhappy that yes I can get cancer twice and still have to quit eating some of my favorite foods to help prevent another diagnosis. That's not fair. 

Cancer again....

Did you know that if you have cancer once you have a 3.5-36.9% chance of getting an unrelated second cancer (been there, done that). And that 70% of cancer people have a comorbid condition which requires better medical care for the rest of their life. So maybe you smoked and got one cancer, 15 years later you find you have lung cancer, eve though you quit smoking at your first diagnosis.

No I don't make this stuff up. Someone finally did a study on people who have cancer once and rates of developing a new cancer. They found out lots of interesting things:

• Many people who have cancer once do not take steps to reduce the risk of getting a new cancer.
• People who are successfully treated for early breast or lung cancer are likely to live a long time, thus increasing their risk of developing a new cancer 
• They are excluded from clinical trials which may prevent them from having access to the best potential treatment for thei new cancer

So where does this leave us? 

• Post cancer patients should continue to see specialists after a cancer.
• They should  receive  counseling on how to reduce their risk of additional cancers even more than people who have not had cancer previously. 
• Post cancer people should be included in clinical trials. 

Us cancer people need to stick together and reduce our risk of more cancer

Another 'Oops, We Forgot To Tell You This'

Another little bitty oopsie. Many women after a mastectomy for breast cancer get implants to make them more even again. Then there are the hundreds of thousands of women who seek implants to enhance their bodies. And then comes the oopsie.

There is a rare cancer which is caused by implants.

"The American Society of Plastic Surgeons says around 550,000 women last year received breast implants, but the FDA published a report this year linking a rare cancer to the implants.

So far, there have been 359 reported cases globally, including nine deaths.

The risk is low, but one in 30,000 women with implants could develop it,..."

Nice! Oops!

I am sure there are other potential side effects from breast implants but cancer isn't a fun one. Especially if you got implants after breast cancer - part of the cure caused a new cancer?

However the biggest part of the cure for the new cancer is to remove the implants. So have another surgery to fix the last surgery

Then there is a woman in Montana whose insurance company won't pay for the removal of her implants even though they caused her cancer. The company claims they are cosmetic - which they were originally - so they won't cover their removal. 

This woman, Kimra Rogers, is fighting her insurance company to cover the removal of her implants. And she is also fighting to raise awareness for this type of cancer because she was told that the implants were 100% safe.

Oops, again. 

While we might dislike the long list of potential side effects that accompany everything but this is one case where they made a tiny oops.

No Tofu for Me!

I hate tofu. I have never been a fan. And now I have reasons for not starting to eat it.

There has been a lot of discussion on whether soy is good or bad for breast cancer. Now finally, new research has exposed the answers.

• If you have always eaten a lot of soy your breast cancer risk is lower, and your recurrence rate is also lower.
• If you have not always eaten a lot of soy, your breast cancer risk is at normal levels (whatever they are but I didn't want to use the word 'worse' when talking about cancer rates).
• If you have not always eaten a lot of soy, starting to eat soy after a breast cancer diagnosis, doesn't help you and could even cause your recurrence rate to be not as good.

So, I hate tofu and will never be a fan. Now because of my medical history (one of the few good things due to it) I never have to consider eating it. Here's to a tofu free life!

Math Class is Important In Determining Your Cancer Prognosis

Who knew math class would be so important later in life? Here's the problem: You get a cancer diagnosis and your doctor starts spouting numbers at you. You survival rate is this, but if you do this treatment it could be more like this. All of us sit there in a daze looking at the numbers and blindly staring at your doctor and trying to make a decision.

If you are lucky, your doctor says 'take all these numbers with you and go home and think about it'. If you are unlucky you forgot all the math you ever took and can't decide if a 60% survival rate is better than a 40% death rate. And if you are afraid of math, skipped too many classes, or just hate numbers, you get really stuck.

However we have now medical research to the rescue as this is has become a recognized issue:

"Many of the toughest decisions faced by cancer patients involve knowing how to use numbers – calculating, evaluating treatment options and figuring odds of medication side effects.

But for patients who aren't good at math, decision science research can offer evidence-based advice on how to assess numeric information and ask the right questions to make informed choices."

So there is a bunch of research that was done and you can go read it all. In my mind, what it boils down to is this (and write everything down):

• Ask your doctors for the numbers
• Ask them to explain what they mean without using numbers - is this better or worse than average?
• Ask about the risk in real numbers, not just in comparison. If something is 0.3% and its doubled, that is still a low risk. 
• If there are too many numbers, ask your doctor to tell you what are the two best options and base your discussion and thought process on those.

Finally, take a number friendly person to go with you and explain all the numbers to you.

And stop worrying about all those missing math classes and forgotten algebra so you can help yourself determine the best treatment protocol for yourself.

A Really Good Reason For Not Eating Tofu

I have been aided in avoiding tofu by the confusion over whether eating soy contributes to breast cancer growth. I really hate tofu. My mother fed it to us as children and I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. I might eat a little bit in my hot and sour soup but I will never order a dish which is tofu based.

But now (finally) we have clarification on the soy or no soy for women with breast cancer:

The issue is eating soy products seems to give women protection from breast cancer. Asian countries where soy products are eaten regularly have much lower rates of breast cancer than the US. But the estrogen-similar stuff in soy products has been thought to contribute to breast cancer growth, especially with hormone sensitive breast cancer.

So the truth was found in some recent research using rats:

"The researchers found that rats that were given soybean isoflavones to eat throughout their lives — in particular, one type of soybean isoflavone called genistein — had improved immunity against cancer. But rats that weren't given the isoflavone until after developing breast cancer didn't have that same immune response to kill cancer cells. Instead, these rats had higher rates of cancer growth and higher rates of recurrence after their tumors were removed."

And more:

"All of the rats were then treated with tamoxifen to kill the cancer. The researchers found that the rats raised on genistein had only a 7 percent chance of breast cancer recurrence after tamoxifen treatment, but the rats that were recently given genistein had a 33 percent recurrence rate."

So if you eat soy all your life, your risk of cancer should be lower and remain lower for recurrence. But if you are diagnosed with breast cancer, don't start eating soy. 

See now I really have a good reason for not eating tofu.

Risk Vs. Worry

You get cancer, get treated, and they say 'here, go on with your life'. (That last part is so helpful! NOT.) Somewhere in the middle of all that treatment crap, they give you all the numbers about statistics - which,as the patient, we interpret wrong. If they say you have a 99% chance of living five years, all us patients put ourselves into the 1% who are not going to make it. (And we ignore the fact that the entire 99% could be hit by a bus at any time.)

Over at 'The Big C and Me', I read today's post by Renn about 'Five Years and Counting' and she included the American Cancer Society's statistic about survival rates for stage II breast cancer. Then I read this post about cancer people mis-interpreting risk and worrying too much - When Does Worry Outweigh Risk. The article starts with:

"For patients with breast cancer — even after treatment — worries about risk are common. Patients wonder, could the cancer come back? Will it spread throughout the body?"

Obviously whoever wrote this has never had breast cancer. Of course we worry, its cancer. Anyway, some research was done and they found after talking to 1000 women with breast cancer diagnoses behind them and found:

"They found 36 percent of the DCIS patients and 25 percent of the low-risk patients substantially overestimated their risk of distant recurrence.

Women who overestimated their risk were three times more likely to report worry about recurrence. They had higher distress scores and lower mental health."

This surprises them? Anyway, go read the whole thing here. They go on to talk about how patients need to understand the differences in risk - when is it low and when it is higher and the difference between local (won't kill you) and distant (the bad kind) recurrences. How patients need to talk to  their doctors more about this and learn about all this so they don't end up with 'higher distress and lower mental health'. 

(These people clearly do not have breast cancer. They don't understand us.) We had cancer and we are going to worry. We just need to learn to manage the risk 

I have had cancer twice now and I do worry about the risk. I had cancer once and my worst fears came to pass when I got it again. So now I am not supposed to worry about getting it again? How's that going to happen?

I'm going to work on worrying that risk thing again still so I don't have 'higher distress scores and lower mental health'. I have a therapist and one of my supposed diagnoses is 'post cancer depression'. When I get past the depression for the first cancer, I'll work on the depression for the second cancer. But I will work on it.

Deflation

Here's another exciting new headline: Unlikely drug may block breast cancer in high-risk women. But then as you read it, you end up feeling deflated. Why? Because you find out at the end that it will take 10 years before the results of clinical trials will be available. And that it is based on a very small research pool. 

But here goes. So a drug, denosumab (or Prolia) used to to treat osteoporosis appears to prevent growth of breast cancer in high risk (read BRCA1+) women. This could be a prevention strategy for this group of women. This sounds like fantastic news. 

"For the study, 33 samples of breast tissue with no BRCA1 mutations and 24 samples of breast tissue with the mutations were analyzed."

So its a little tiny group. I am not sure that I am too impressed with the size of this group. And that the results were published based on such a small group. 

You would think that since the drug is approved already it would be fairly quick to be available for this use but since the clinical trials will take so long to see if cancer growth is prevented it will take ten years to get through trials and then FDA approval, and then finally available. 

As the article concludes it might be a solution for future generations. I am just a little deflated as I went from high expectations to a long wait.

Family History

I do not have a family history of cancer. My father was diagnosed with lymphoma at age 85. A maternal aunt died of a blood cancer at age 78. Both my grandfather's died of cancer - one of prostate cancer and one of gall bladder cancer, in their 80s. Some of my great aunts and uncles who smoked died of cancer as well. But none were very young and they were smokers. 

The definition of family history of cancer is:

"You may have a strong family history if any of the following situations apply to you:

• More than 2 close relatives on the same side of your family have had cancer – the same side of your family means either your father’s relatives or your mother’s relatives
• The relatives have had the same type of cancer, or different cancers that can be caused by the same gene fault
• The cancers developed when the family members were young, below the age of 50
• One of your relatives has had a gene fault found by genetic tests

It is important to remember that cancer is most common in people over the age of 60 and is rarer in young people. So cancer in older people is less likely to be due to an inherited cancer gene."

Then along came me: first cancer at age 19 and second at age 45. How did that happen? Who knows. The one thing I have learned, through lots of therapy and support groups, is that I can't beat myself up about it.

(It is important to remember in life that nothing that happened can be undone, and unless you intentionally did something, do not blame yourself. You can blame your lung cancer on your chain smoking or your skin cancer on your tanning bed addiction but otherwise skip the self blame.)

But I digress. Most cancers are not from family history. Despite all the publicity about the BRCA genes, something like less than 10% of breast cancer cases are attributed to them. There is also an obscure genetic mutation called Cowden's Syndrome, which has thyroid cancer and breast cancer as symptoms. But I don't have that.

So basically I do not have a family history of cancer and some how I got the short straw. We have no idea how I ended up this (un)healthy. I don't really care how this happened and I am not going to waste any more energy on stressing about it. The unfortunate part is that I now have an increased risk of getting another cancer.

I did inherit other things from my parents. I have my father's hair - his is not yet completely gray at almost 88, and I get to gloat at my siblings and their gray hair. But I did also get my mother's rheumatoid arthritis. Damn.

American Cancer Society's 2016 Outlook

Earlier this week, the ACS released its new outlook for 2016 for cancer death rates in the US. As part of this, they provided four essential cancer charts. I found them very interesting, and hopeful. The first chart deals with cancer death rates over decades.

And the answer is they are going down. Look at the changes since 1990 or so! Look at the declines. The point is there, the death rates are lower than they were 25 years ago. Modern medical research has made a big impact on cancer deaths in case you were wondering why we spend so much is spent on it.

The next chart deals with types of cancer being diagnosed each year. I am very disappointed to see that thyroid cancer has made it into the top 5 types of cancer diagnosed for women each year.

The third chart shows us where lifestyle related cancer causes are highest. No surprise there - the deep South where obesity and poverty rates are highest also has the highest cancer rates. The healthiest people are in the West.

Finally, this is the chart that strikes the deepest chord with me. Look at how the rates of thyroid cancer have increased in recent decades.

Thyroid cancer used to be very rare. Not so much any more. More on these charts is available here.

Those pesky breast cancer screening recommendations

Can I ask who is confused over the 'revised' breast cancer screening guidelines? Or should I just ask who isn't confused? Yes, no, yes, maybe, no one, everyone? How old? Not that young, should be older. Well maybe not. Not for everyone. Wait, oh just test everyone. No only for some people, talk to your doctor. That's a lot of different answers.

And in both my cancers I was clearly not a candidate for hitting the so called criteria for any testing. So I just ignore all the comments about too young or too old. Those really should be less likely or more likely instead of age related if you ask me. But they didn't ask me.

Anyway, so the USPTF (US Preventative Task Force) released a clarification on their breast cancer screenings earlier this week. They also claim they were misunderstood. And they want to clear up confusion. Well maybe the confusion was because what they said back in 2009 concerned everyone.

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released its final recommendations for breast cancer screening Monday in an attempt to clear up some of the confusion.

The group recommends that women at average risk for breast cancer should have a mammogram every other year beginning at age 50 up to the age of 74. Women in their 40s are advised to make an individual decision in partnership with their doctors, since the likelihood of benefiting from screening is lower for women in that age group.

Though this is an update from the group’s 2009 recommendations, the guidelines remain largely unchanged and a draft was released earlier this year.

The report, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also concluded that there’s not enough evidence to determine if newer 3D mammography is a good option for routine screening, or if women with dense breasts need extra testing.

The group’s 2009 report drew controversy for questioning the usefulness of mammograms for women in their 40s. But the task force says their words were widely misunderstood."

Blah, blah, blah. So in their clarification here they state that a mammogram every other year is all that is needed starting at age 50 if you have average risk. Let me ask all my friends in their 40's with breast cancer what they think if they had waited until 50 for a mammogram.

Okay, so medically maybe there is some logic in their plan. Or maybe not. If you look at breast cancer occurrence rates (from Cancer.gov):

Age 30 . . . . . . 0.44 percent (or 1 in 227)
Age 40 . . . . . . 1.47 percent (or 1 in 68)
Age 50 . . . . . . 2.38 percent (or 1 in 42)
Age 60 . . . . . . 3.56 percent (or 1 in 28)
Age 70 . . . . . . 3.82 percent (or 1 in 26)

It sees clear that most breast cancers occur after the age 40. So I don't understand this wait until 50 business at all. Now I am even more confused.

Just because we can doesn't mean we want to

Genetic testing is all the rage now. I mean we have movie stars and news casters who are public with their cancer diagnosis and genetic test results. But not every one is not a fan of them.A recent study found that just because patients could have genetic testing, they didn't necessarily want it.

"The study found that of the 49 patient participants, all of whom have a family or personal history that puts them at-risk for development breast and other forms of cancer, more than one-third declined multiplex testing."

I am on their team. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer, I was told that for people who had both thyroid and breast cancer it was recommended that they get genetic testing for Cowden's syndrome. I basically went along with what they wanted and had the test. Then I thought about, well what the hell would I do with that information? My doctors told me if I had it, I would receive more screening than if I didn't.

Really? More screening? Is there more screening that I could have? I have had cancer twice and RA, fibromylagia, and my back. I see doctors all the time. I have had 25 appointments in the past six months plus five separate trips for blood work. These include CT scans, x-rays, eye doctor, dentist, specialists, and more. I don't think I can fit in much more into my schedule.

I am in the group of people who say just because we can do something, doesn't mean we have to or want to. For example, nowadays they microchip all our cats and dogs. So in theory we could probably microchip people. No one is every microchipping me. But I could clearly see this happening in a science fiction novel. Just because we can buy a new car every year, and some people do get a new car every couple of years, doesn't mean I see any need or want to. 
Plastic surgeons tell us that they can fix wrinkles and aging. I'm fine with the way I look. I don't want any more surgeries. Or to color my hair to hide the incoming grays. At least I have hair and I'm still here.

Genetic testing is possible and the science part of the world is all over it. But not every one wants it. They prefer to go through life with the crap shoot that comes along with it. I don't need a crystal ball in my life. It makes life more interesting to say the least.

Fish cancer

This is just icky. Fish caught with cancerous tumors on them. I would never want to eat them, swim in the water with them, or eat anything else which came out of that water. Icky poo!

'...we find young-of-year and now adult bass with sores, lesions and more recently a cancerous tumor, all of which continue to negatively impact population levels and recreational fishing," ...

"If we do not act to address the water quality issues in the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania risks losing what is left of what was once considered a world-class smallmouth bass fishery,"...'

And

'...there was no evidence that cancerous growths in fish are a health hazard to humans. But she warned that people should avoid eating "fish that have visible signs of sores and lesions."'

Eating cancerous food sounds absolutely disgusting. But to me this really is a sign of a real environmental problem. If fish are getting cancer in the water, what impact is it having on people and other animals and birds in the area? I would be greatly concerned about my own personal health if I lived nearby.

Finally Myriad Genetics has given up

Since 2013's Supreme Court ruling that Myriad Genetics and any other company cannot patent any natural occurring DNA, Myriad has been busy suing other companies over this same issue. Why? Well they do not want to give up their $9,000,000/month gravy train. Finally, this appears to be over.

Its about time.

I have no idea why they insisted on persisting their illegal monopoly but I am glad it is over.

I do hope this clears the way or more research on gene testing and to open up the field. My thoughts are that more research could lead to a better understanding on the differences in the BRCA genes and better explain why some people with the genes do get breast and ovarian cancer and some do not.

I am not educated enough on the BRCA genes to know why some people with the gene do get the cancers and some don't. I would think that if you have the gene you would get cancer and think that there must be more differentiation to explain why only some do and some don't. Do I make sense? Probably not so let me try again.

To my uneducated brain, I would think if you have a gene you would end up with whatever that trait is. For example, if you have the blue eyes gene, you have blue eyes. Right? So if you have one of the BRCA genes, why are you only at high risk of getting breast and/or ovarian cancer? Wouldn't it make sense that if you have the gene you are going to have the trait? Therefore I think that now more research can be done to show there is greater differentiation in the genes to explain why not all with the gene get cancer.

Okay, I know sometimes I am rambling and don't make sense.... But I hope that I do this time.

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.

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.

1. What would you do if you were told if you were at high risk of getting breast or any other kind of cancer?
2. Does the high risk seem as much of a concern if you can lower it by maintaining a healthy lifestyle?

Other research has talked about what you do at a younger age can impact your cancer risk later. But do teenagers really care about healthy lifestyles? The teenagers I know often eat a lot of junk food, drink soda and other sugary drinks, and are not as concerned with getting a healthy meal three times a day. Then twenty-somethings seem to switch to some healthier habits as they mature and settle down. College is a big time for alcohol consumption and other risky behaviors. In recent decades the rates of teen smoking are way down. I know these statements are generalizations and there are exceptions but I am using them to make a point.


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.

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.

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.